Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Yukonastan]

Yuko maybe if you had a more frank understanding and didn't seem to rush into things knowing little to nothing about a subject you could offer better criticism.

cri·tique
kriˈtēk
noun
1.
a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.
synonyms: analysis, evaluation, assessment, appraisal, appreciation, criticism, review, study, commentary, exposition, exegesis
"a critique of North American culture"
verb
verb: critique; 3rd person present: critiques; past tense: critiqued; past participle: critiqued; gerund or present participle: critiquing
1.
evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way.
"the authors critique the methods and practices used in the research"

crit·i·cism
ˈkritəˌsizəm/Submit
noun
1.
the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
"he received a lot of criticism"
synonyms: censure, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, fault-finding, attack, broadside, stricture, recrimination
2.
the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.
"alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories"
synonyms: evaluation, assessment, appraisal, analysis, judgment

I prefer to critique. Criticism strikes me as too harsh.
Also, try not to borderline flame please. Some people get upset over it.
Besides, it doesn't bother me in any way.

[Doppio Giudici]

The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million.

Both of those things are false.

There are only ten fourth generation tanks, so it's impossible for the Type-99 to get any worst in that catagory.

You should listen to Yohannes talk about his own designs. He openly admits they are wanks.

And he isn't even interested in military hardware anymore, last I heard.

In my view the best designs are those which clearly display and explain the most relevant information CONCISELY and CLEARLY with a minimum of obfuscation.

Hear, hear!

Yoh quit because he felt that NS was getting more elitest and that the oldest players were abusing their power.

I don't entirely agree with that statement but what I do know is that VMK did look at my crappy tank design a long time ago and did provide quite a lot of help.

I've heard rumors of hissy fits and I was there when he turned over his account to another player, who spoke typed nothing like him, and I watched them throw a "hissy fit" for like a good week or so.

That's all I know about him. I'm not even sure if Yoh was a him.

[Questers]

Both of those things are false.

There are only ten fourth generation tanks, so it's impossible for the Type-99 to get any worst in that catagory.

M1 series, challengers 1 and 2, leopard 1 and 2, leclerc, ariete, arjun, t80, t72, k2, k1, type 90, merkava...

[Doppio Giudici]

You named a bunch of tanks that aren't even third generation.

The generation a tank is in depends on who you talk to, but I prefer to consider the fourth one as consisting of the most powerful tank for each of the worlds great powers.

US, Britain, France, and Germany for the west

Israel, Ukraine, and Russia for the middle

China, South Korea, Japan for the east

[Questers]

You think the Type 99 is superior to the PT91 or PT91M? I dont care about your arbitrary classification system. You said its the tenth best tank in the world. Obviously it isnt.

Most of those countries arent even great powers.

[Gallia-]

where is xe?

It's called "Academi" now.

dont push your cis het transphobic compost sorcerer trash here!

ACADEMY IS A TRIGGER FOR ME!

EDUCATION IS THE DEVIL!

SAFE SPACE!

SAFE SPACE!

[Doppio Giudici]

You think the Type 99 is superior to the PT91 or PT91M? I dont care about your arbitrary classification system. You said its the tenth best tank in the world. Obviously it isnt.

Most of those countries arent even great powers.

Those are both basically T-90s which are better then T-84s and Type-99s.

[Questers]

haha

Theyre not "basically T-90s". Theyre one of several serious modifications to a T72 base.

[Doppio Giudici]

haha

Theyre not "basically T-90s". Theyre one of several serious modifications to a T72 base.

Actually they are an improved version of a T-72 monkey model, and are designed in poland if I recall correctly. It features new ERA, new electronics, and a number of other advances that are with polish parts.

They have a lot more in common with each other then anything else does.

Also I said fourth generation, not all the world.

[The Akasha Colony]

You named a bunch of tanks that aren't even third generation.

The generation a tank is in depends on who you talk to, but I prefer to consider the fourth one as consisting of the most powerful tank for each of the worlds great powers.

US, Britain, France, and Germany for the west

Israel, Ukraine, and Russia for the middle

China, South Korea, Japan for the east

This sounds like a video game classification. It has absolutely no bearing on the actual capability of these tanks. Especially since you can't even develop any criteria for their classification aside from geography.

haha

Theyre not "basically T-90s". Theyre one of several serious modifications to a T72 base.

Actually they are an improved version of a T-72 monkey model, and are designed in poland if I recall correctly. It features new ERA, new electronics, and a number of other advances that are with polish parts.

They have a lot more in common with each other then anything else does.

Also I said fourth generation, not all the world.

They're very different from the T-90. Upgrading a base T-72 doesn't automatically turn it into a T-90.

[Yukonastan]

You named a bunch of tanks that aren't even third generation.

The generation a tank is in depends on who you talk to, but I prefer to consider the fourth one as consisting of the most powerful tank for each of the worlds great powers.

US, Britain, France, and Germany for the west

Israel, Ukraine, and Russia for the middle

China, South Korea, Japan for the east

This sounds like a video game classification. It has absolutely no bearing on the actual capability of these tanks. Especially since you can't even develop any criteria for their classification aside from geography.

Actually they are an improved version of a T-72 monkey model, and are designed in poland if I recall correctly. It features new ERA, new electronics, and a number of other advances that are with polish parts.

They have a lot more in common with each other then anything else does.

Also I said fourth generation, not all the world.

They're very different from the T-90. Upgrading a base T-72 doesn't automatically turn it into a T-90.

Israel is also a Western power by political alliance, so yeah.

[Doppio Giudici]

All great powers are great powers due to alliances.

As for the list of tanks, it disregards only the Italian tank because there isn't much about it that is special. Italy is not very significant military compared to the other nations listed as well, it doesn't even have it's own nukes or a soldier fighter design.

[The Akasha Colony]

All great powers are great powers due to alliances.

As for the list of tanks, it disregards only the Italian tank because there isn't much about it that is special. Italy is not very significant military compared to the other nations listed as well, it doesn't even have it's own nukes or a soldier fighter design.

Nor does Germany, Ukraine, South Korea, or Japan. None of them design their own fighters either. And powers are certainly not "great" because of their alliances. The US could quit NATO and it would still be the world superpower. China and Russia don't get much of anything from their little impoverished spheres of interest, and both have fairly hostile relations with a number of their neighbors.

[Yukonastan]

All great powers are great powers due to alliances.

As for the list of tanks, it disregards only the Italian tank because there isn't much about it that is special. Italy is not very significant military compared to the other nations listed as well, it doesn't even have it's own nukes or a soldier fighter design.

Nor does Germany, Ukraine, South Korea, or Japan. None of them design their own fighters either. And powers are certainly not "great" because of their alliances. The US could quit NATO and it would still be the world superpower. China and Russia don't get much of anything from their little impoverished spheres of interest, and both have fairly hostile relations with a number of their neighbors.

And the US doesn't.

Well, not with its direct neighbors, maybe. But with history, and several nations, political groups recently hit by NATO cruise missile fire, et cetera, fairly hostile relations.

[Questers]

haha

Theyre not "basically T-90s". Theyre one of several serious modifications to a T72 base.

Actually they are an improved version of a T-72 monkey model, and are designed in poland if I recall correctly. It features new ERA, new electronics, and a number of other advances that are with polish parts.

They have a lot more in common with each other then anything else does.

sigh

The PT91 designers were producing T-72Ms on licence from the USSR. In the early 90s they began to design a modernisation, probably as a result of viewing Iraq's T-72Ms taken apart by the coalition.

The T-90 is a redesignation of the T-72BU which is an upgraded T-72B, a development of the T-72A; the T-72M is parallel to the T-72A. The differences begin at the T-72A which entered service in 1979.

Here's the differences between the PT-91 and the T-90 are: the engine, the fire control system, stabiliser, autoloader, the optronics, and the armour, both integral and ERA. If you talk about the PT-91M, that expands to transmission and tracks. They're the same only in the sense they derive from the same vehicle from 1979, so the layout and parameters are extremely similar. Otherwise they're totally different. Talk about the PT-91M and its an even more westernised version of the PT-91.

Also I said fourth generation, not all the world.

The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million.

[Questers]

Israel is also a Western power by political alliance, so yeah.

In what sense? Is South Korea a Western power because it's allied to the US?

It doesn't matter though. What defines a tanks generation isn't what country makes it but the development of its capabilities. I guess tank generations are not at all defined well like fighter generations, but as time has passed there are some key things that have really set apart tanks, in no real order:

The first is fire control - how digitalised is it? on how many axes is it stabilised? does it have a laser rangefinder? if so, how many?

The second is optronics - is the infrared system passive or active, does it possess hunter-killer capability?

The third is protection - essentially, composite or not.

The fourth is communications - does it have integrated battle control networks etc etc.

These three things offer advantages over their predecessors without contest. You could add an APS, but there are good reasons against doing it. There is an argument about autoloaders and ammunition sizes. Those things aren't generational, they're choices. There's no good reason not to have composite armour, or two axes stabilisation, or active infrared etc.

Whether or not the tank is made by a "great power" is irrelevant. Like, completely.

[Questers]

You can look at the Type 99 and think hey, you know, this is impressive, on paper at least. Then you remember it's 2014, and the T-80U and M1A2 came out in the mid 80s, the Type 90 in the 90s and the Challenger 2, Merkava and Leclerc in the late 90s, and suddenly it seems way less impressive. Then you remember that all the advanced electronics that make a tank more capable than another all come from basically the same sources and have been proliferated to tanks from Poland, Korea, India, Japan and so on as well as the German counterparts and their developments, and even in some Russian vehicles (thanks France ). China is the guy that won the race and is telling everyone how good it is for winning the race, except that everyone else already won and is sitting under the aircon drinking lemonade and talking about their 64 bit fire control processors.

Some of it is because China is well outside of being able to share technology with anyone good (North Korea actually now has a digitalised modern fire control system: a copy of the Chieftain's, given to them by Iran...) whereas all democracies pretty much share their technology - the Challenger uses a French sight, the Abrams uses a German gun, Israel has spread fire control systems to Poland and India etc. Some of it is because China has a shit economy and can't develop serious things on its own. Some of it is because they just don't have the experience and military tradition. Russia has been developing tanks since the 1920s. All China could do, until the late 90s, was produce knockoffs of T-62 knockoffs. They also have never fought a tank war, ever. Even India and Pakistan have more experience with tanking than China does.

I think the fact they chose to retain some technology from what they managed to get from the Russians is quite telling. In particular, their gun is a license produced 2A46M. The 2A46M is a pretty good gun, frankly, but it's strange that when even India can develop its own, modern 120-mm gun (that has excellent performance, btw), China doesn't. There are three possible reasons:
(1) They can't because there's no way to improve or make a better gun that has to feed two part ammunition from a carousel.
(2) They don't because they can't.
(3) They don't because they want to save money.

Some of it will be down to the fact they're new to the game. Britain and America have been making digital fire control computers for the better part of half a century, first with warship guns and later for tanks. This is something China didn't try to do until basically the 21st century.

To sum it up, they lack experience - in both fighting with tanks (which defines how you design a tank) and designing modern armoured fighting vehicles - and technological development (much of which comes from experience, frankly). They're not a contender in the AFV game. If the West had to fight China, and I mean had to do it as a matter of survival, it would be a lopsided victory. They wouldn't stand a chance.

[Erusuia]

UG-92M
Usuria-Garde Model 1992

Overview

Developed as a successor to the UG-73 by the Usuria design institute and produced by the state owned Garde heavy vehicles company, the UG-92 and its modernized variant the UG-92M, are the Federal Erusuian Army's primary main battle tanks. Incorporating lessons learned from the failed T-UG-80 project and the UG-73's various upgrades the UG-92M is an almost entirely new vehicle designed for the modern battlefield with an emphasis on endurance and accurate firepower. Power is supplied by a modernized version of the Gifgu-D700 diesel engine which provides 850 horsepower and is capable of starting in extremely cold environments though a cold start system known as Kirki which uses compressed air to turn over the engine. The tank is armed with an auto-loaded 125mm Ik-125-M gun capable of firing the powerful Auk-2000 gun launched anti tank missile along with a number of conventional rounds, and a coaxial PKT.

General Information

Crew: 3, Driver, Gunner, Commander
Length: 24 feet, 36.5 feet with gun forward.
Width: 13.1 feet
Height: 8.4 feet
Weight: 43.1 tons
Engine: Gifgu-D700 diesel, producing 850 horsepower
Armour: Steel and composite ranging from 15mm to 340mm, Multi-layered ERA
Armament: 1 x coaxial PKT, 1 x 125mm Ik-125-M gun, 1 x 12.7mm NSV
Range: 430 miles on internal tanks, 700 with external tanks

[Lydenburg]

Can anybody here tell me more about the Saudi Al-Yazir? Supposedly introduced in '71, looks a little like a Ratel:

[Tule]

You can look at the Type 99 and think hey, you know, this is impressive, on paper at least. Then you remember it's 2014, and the T-80U and M1A2 came out in the mid 80s, the Type 90 in the 90s and the Challenger 2, Merkava and Leclerc in the late 90s, and suddenly it seems way less impressive. Then you remember that all the advanced electronics that make a tank more capable than another all come from basically the same sources and have been proliferated to tanks from Poland, Korea, India, Japan and so on as well as the German counterparts and their developments, and even in some Russian vehicles (thanks France ). China is the guy that won the race and is telling everyone how good it is for winning the race, except that everyone else already won and is sitting under the aircon drinking lemonade and talking about their 64 bit fire control processors.

Some of it is because China is well outside of being able to share technology with anyone good (North Korea actually now has a digitalised modern fire control system: a copy of the Chieftain's, given to them by Iran...) whereas all democracies pretty much share their technology - the Challenger uses a French sight, the Abrams uses a German gun, Israel has spread fire control systems to Poland and India etc. Some of it is because China has a shit economy and can't develop serious things on its own. Some of it is because they just don't have the experience and military tradition. Russia has been developing tanks since the 1920s. All China could do, until the late 90s, was produce knockoffs of T-62 knockoffs. They also have never fought a tank war, ever. Even India and Pakistan have more experience with tanking than China does.

I think the fact they chose to retain some technology from what they managed to get from the Russians is quite telling. In particular, their gun is a license produced 2A46M. The 2A46M is a pretty good gun, frankly, but it's strange that when even India can develop its own, modern 120-mm gun (that has excellent performance, btw), China doesn't. There are three possible reasons:
(1) They can't because there's no way to improve or make a better gun that has to feed two part ammunition from a carousel.
(2) They don't because they can't.
(3) They don't because they want to save money.

Some of it will be down to the fact they're new to the game. Britain and America have been making digital fire control computers for the better part of half a century, first with warship guns and later for tanks. This is something China didn't try to do until basically the 21st century.

To sum it up, they lack experience - in both fighting with tanks (which defines how you design a tank) and designing modern armoured fighting vehicles - and technological development (much of which comes from experience, frankly). They're not a contender in the AFV game. If the West had to fight China, and I mean had to do it as a matter of survival, it would be a lopsided victory. They wouldn't stand a chance.

Well if it was a matter of life or death China would probably just send hordes of peasants with thermite charges against the incoming tanks.

If there is any country in the world that can win a war of attrition, it's China.

[Lydenburg]

Well if it was a matter of life or death China would probably just send hordes of peasants with thermite charges against the incoming tanks.

If there is any country in the world that can win a war of attrition, it's China.

The PLA can depend upon a ridiculous amount of manpower, yes.

But very little to deploy them with. They can't possibly shift troops faster than any Western military - I mean, the whole Chinese air force has less than 150 helicopters and transport aircraft apiece.

[Questers]

You can look at the Type 99 and think hey, you know, this is impressive, on paper at least. Then you remember it's 2014, and the T-80U and M1A2 came out in the mid 80s, the Type 90 in the 90s and the Challenger 2, Merkava and Leclerc in the late 90s, and suddenly it seems way less impressive. Then you remember that all the advanced electronics that make a tank more capable than another all come from basically the same sources and have been proliferated to tanks from Poland, Korea, India, Japan and so on as well as the German counterparts and their developments, and even in some Russian vehicles (thanks France ). China is the guy that won the race and is telling everyone how good it is for winning the race, except that everyone else already won and is sitting under the aircon drinking lemonade and talking about their 64 bit fire control processors.

Some of it is because China is well outside of being able to share technology with anyone good (North Korea actually now has a digitalised modern fire control system: a copy of the Chieftain's, given to them by Iran...) whereas all democracies pretty much share their technology - the Challenger uses a French sight, the Abrams uses a German gun, Israel has spread fire control systems to Poland and India etc. Some of it is because China has a shit economy and can't develop serious things on its own. Some of it is because they just don't have the experience and military tradition. Russia has been developing tanks since the 1920s. All China could do, until the late 90s, was produce knockoffs of T-62 knockoffs. They also have never fought a tank war, ever. Even India and Pakistan have more experience with tanking than China does.

I think the fact they chose to retain some technology from what they managed to get from the Russians is quite telling. In particular, their gun is a license produced 2A46M. The 2A46M is a pretty good gun, frankly, but it's strange that when even India can develop its own, modern 120-mm gun (that has excellent performance, btw), China doesn't. There are three possible reasons:
(1) They can't because there's no way to improve or make a better gun that has to feed two part ammunition from a carousel.
(2) They don't because they can't.
(3) They don't because they want to save money.

Some of it will be down to the fact they're new to the game. Britain and America have been making digital fire control computers for the better part of half a century, first with warship guns and later for tanks. This is something China didn't try to do until basically the 21st century.

To sum it up, they lack experience - in both fighting with tanks (which defines how you design a tank) and designing modern armoured fighting vehicles - and technological development (much of which comes from experience, frankly). They're not a contender in the AFV game. If the West had to fight China, and I mean had to do it as a matter of survival, it would be a lopsided victory. They wouldn't stand a chance.

Well if it was a matter of life or death China would probably just send hordes of peasants with thermite charges against the incoming tanks.

If there is any country in the world that can win a war of attrition, it's China.

China is no more capable of suicide attacks than the US.

[Oaledonia]

Eastern and Western are political terms based upon political climates and alliances.

Shame on KKKwesters for telling you any different >:C

US, Britain, France, and Germany for the west

Israel, Ukraine, and Russia for the middle

China, South Korea, Japan for the east

It doesn't work that way. Even if it did, it's wrong.

[Allanea]

Well if it was a matter of life or death China would probably just send hordes of peasants with thermite charges against the incoming tanks.

And they would get killed by the hundreds.

This has never, ever, actually worked.

[Lydenburg]

Well if it was a matter of life or death China would probably just send hordes of peasants with thermite charges against the incoming tanks.

And they would get killed by the hundreds.

This has never, ever, actually worked.

So what happened in Korea?