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

[Yukonastan]

And they would get killed by the hundreds.

This has never, ever, actually worked.

So what happened in Korea?

Not hordes of peasants. Semi-well trained infantry, from Chinese and North Korean sources.

[Bohemia Minor]

High tech boots made purely out of leather.

[Yukonastan]

BACK TO GROUND VEHICLES SINCE WE'RE OFF ON A TANGENT

I feel like sketching out an IFV chassis, but all I have so far is a :not:Puma. Since I'm playing in the mid-Seventies, that -is-a problem.

I still want the lines of the Puma, but I feel that a :not:Marder is better in terms of time scale.

How do I get a bastard child of the above two , focusing on the wild cat side, and still make it look like an early-mid Seventies IFV?

Edit: Fuck, second edit already, and I posted this a minute ago. :not:Gavin implied.

[San-Silvacian]

And they would get killed by the hundreds.

This has never, ever, actually worked.

So what happened in Korea?

It didn't work la.

[Questers]

So what happened in Korea?

It didn't work la.

San-singapore?

[Lydenburg]

So what happened in Korea?

Not hordes of peasants. Semi-well trained infantry, from Chinese and North Korean sources.

Not all of whom even had a rifle.

[Lydenburg]

It didn't work la.

San-singapore?

Alamak. Opiquek. Singlish is a real language-ahh!

[Yukonastan]

*whimper*

Can we get back to ground vehicles please?

*rolls on back submissively*

Pleeeaaaasseeee?

[Gallia-]

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.

Thankfully we have machine guns.

[Yukonastan]

SINCE YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE MASS INFANTRY DISCUSSION OVER TO THE IDT OR REALISM THREAD, WE MAY AS WELL RENAME THIS ONE.
Or we could get back to ground vehicles.

Tanque Argentino Mediano

What sort of weaknesses/strengths does it have over contemporary vehicles, being a medium tank based on an IFV chassis?

[Korva]

TAM was equal or superior to anything that Argentina's neighbors could field.

Plus it was pretty light.

[Yukonastan]

TAM was equal or superior to anything that Argentina's neighbors could field.

Plus it was pretty light.

BACK TO GROUND VEHICLES SINCE WE'RE OFF ON A TANGENT

I feel like sketching out an IFV chassis, but all I have so far is a :not:Puma. Since I'm playing in the mid-Seventies, that -is-a problem.

I still want the lines of the Puma, but I feel that a :not:Marder is better in terms of time scale.

How do I get a bastard child of the above two , focusing on the wild cat side, and still make it look like an early-mid Seventies IFV?

Edit: Fuck, second edit already, and I posted this a minute ago. :not:Gavin implied.

So, with it being the height of the :not:Cold War. and me being :not:Sweden-Finland, would it be a good concept for the above, based on my :not:NewFinnish doctrine? Of course I'd have classic heavy MBTs, but with the idea of the TAM as a gap-filler between the IFV version of the same chassis, and the MBT, based off of a bigger chassis.

With the :not:TAM being the backbone of direct-fire support against IFVs and APCs, as well as during rushes against towns, so I can keep my expensive MBTs focused on facing M60 Pattons, Leopard 1s, Chally 1s, and T-55/72.

[Gallia-]

Both Marder and Puma vary from unimpressive to abysmal in terms of utility.

[Yukonastan]

Both Marder and Puma vary from unimpressive to abysmal in terms of utility.

Please explain your reasoning.

unless it's going to be the :it's not a gavin therefore is inferior: card, since I'm drawing my own vehicle, I'm going to have gavin in there.

[House Ravensburg]

House Ravensburg

Heavy Siege Tank
- 10m long Baneblade cannon
- Shell calibre: 1m
- Range: multiple KM


Sources
Baneblade cannon: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade_Cannon#.VCTaRGBxmUk
Baneblade: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade#.VCTanGBxmUk

(thankyou thankyou)

[The United Zones of the West]

The Mammoth Tank Mk.III. Dominant tank of my nation. Similar stats as that of C&C III. Constantly being upgraded. By the way, this tank model is the basic model. It is always being modified and upgraded.

[Yukonastan]

House Ravensburg

Heavy Siege Tank
- 10m long Baneblade cannon
- Shell calibre: 1m
- Range: multiple KM

*snip*
Sources
Baneblade cannon: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade_Cannon#.VCTaRGBxmUk
Baneblade: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade#.VCTanGBxmUk

(thankyou thankyou)

Pretty sure the shell is a metre long, not a metre in calibre. At that point it's a siege mortar. For which the Demolisher cannon is better suited, from what I read.
Edit: From what I've estimated, assuming that WH40K vehicles are around 1:60 scale, with a 1/4" bore on the Baneblade cannon model, that thing's got a 15" cannon on it. 380mm diameter shells. Not 1 metre. For the rest your stats are fine.

[Questers]

The TAM has abysmal armour. It isnt safe from BMPs.

[House Ravensburg]

House Ravensburg

Heavy Siege Tank
- 10m long Baneblade cannon
- Shell calibre: 1m
- Range: multiple KM

*snip*
Sources
Baneblade cannon: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade_Cannon#.VCTaRGBxmUk
Baneblade: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Baneblade#.VCTanGBxmUk

[/i]

Pretty sure the shell is a metre long, not a metre in calibre. At that point it's a siege mortar. For which the Demolisher cannon is better suited, from what I read.
Edit: From what I've estimated, assuming that WH40K vehicles are around 1:60 scale, with a 1/4" bore on the Baneblade cannon model, that thing's got a 15" cannon on it. 380mm diameter shells. Not 1 metre. For the rest your stats are fine.

ok, thanks

[Yukonastan]

The TAM has abysmal armour. It isnt safe from BMPs.

It's got a proper gun on it, however. Unlike the BMPs, which have glorified missile launchers. Wouldn't want to get hit by either.
But is the concept of an upgunned IFV with the troop compartment redesignated for ammunition and the spare weight devoted to armor a sound one? Or am I just insane?

Remember that I will most likely fight in forests on my home soil, likely from a hulldown position.

[Gallia-]

Both Marder and Puma vary from unimpressive to abysmal in terms of utility.

Please explain your reasoning.

unless it's going to be the :it's not a gavin therefore is inferior: card, since I'm drawing my own vehicle, I'm going to have gavin in there.

M113 is unimpressive for a APC (it's very similar to BTR and other contemporaries), but is better at far more valuable and important roles than most vehicles.

Marder suffers from being Yerman and carries a miniscule dismount section. Granted, Bundeswehr dismount sections are 6 men with the 3 man APC team being considered the "machine gun", it's still silly. Fire and maneuver requires a full infantry platoon and cannot be done on section level, limiting the flexibility of the force. This doesn't make it better in high intensity combat compared to a flexible force, either.

Puma is the same but worse, since it tries to be flexible without actually achieving the flexibility.

Marder 2 was the best IFV in terms of armament and protection actually built during the Cold War, but if it'd continued you'd start seeing M2s with the same gun and comparable protection from 30mm APDS, but better anti-armour capability with newer and improved TOWs, section-level ATGW, etc.

Essentially the list goes:

Warrior > Bradley > Marder

AMX-10P occupies somewhere between Bradley and Marder, and Pbv 302 is equivalent. Bradley gets up there because it's just so stuffed to the gills with anti-armour weapons (Dragon/Javelin and TOWs) that it makes up for its inability to carry a full infantry section, and the latter is being rectified eventually.

Warrior is the best IFV because section level fire and maneuver is possible. It's also great because it takes into account very important factors for human operators, such as having a commode and a boiling vessel, and it never fell for the firing port fad that the Nazis and the USians were duped by. OTOH I guess Britain kinda made up for it with Harrier, proving that incompetence usually boils down to luck rather than foresight.

The TAM has abysmal armour. It isnt safe from BMPs.

It's got a proper gun on it, however. Unlike the BMPs, which have glorified missile launchers. Wouldn't want to get hit by either.
But is the concept of an upgunned IFV with the troop compartment redesignated for ammunition and the spare weight devoted to armor a sound one? Or am I just insane?

Remember that I will most likely fight in forests on my home soil, likely from a hulldown position.

A missile launcher/automatic cannon combination is a better weapon than a large caliber gun for an infantry carrier.

Just don't be BMP-3 and try to have your cake and eat it too.

An upgunned IFV is not a tank, it is a reconnaissance vehicle/assault gun al a Sheridan or CV90105. It does not engage armour, it loses against armour. Instead, it engages pillboxes and infantry carriers and has sufficient armament to kill opposing reconnaissance units.

Unless those reconnaissance units are American.

Then it is hit in the face by an all-arms, armour heavy, mechanised infantry brigade with organic aviation and howitzers.

Then it dies.

Everything dies to ACRs short of a Tank Army.

[Antarticaria]

In my opinion Gallia pretty well nailed it.
I prefer to do unmaned turret for situations and vehicles such as this. Now 25mm Bushmaster or 30mm Semi-auto cannon for said unmanned turret. Imagine something baring the and weight of a Stryker.

[Lydenburg]

A missile launcher/automatic cannon combination is a better weapon than a large caliber gun for an infantry carrier.

Just don't be BMP-3 and try to have your cake and eat it too.

An upgunned IFV is not a tank, it is a reconnaissance vehicle/assault gun al a Sheridan or CV90105. It does not engage armour, it loses against armour. Instead, it engages pillboxes and infantry carriers and has sufficient armament to kill opposing reconnaissance units.

Unless those reconnaissance units are American.

Then it is hit in the face by an all-arms, armour heavy, mechanised infantry brigade with organic aviation and howitzers.

Then it dies.

Everything dies to ACRs short of a Tank Army.

I don't mind giving my recon vehicles a big gun a la AMX-10RC, or even a gun-mortar. The larger shell works better than an autocannon against bunkers, static structures, and fortifications. And it still has enough teeth to defend itself against heavy armour.

[Yukonastan]

Please explain your reasoning.

unless it's going to be the :it's not a gavin therefore is inferior: card, since I'm drawing my own vehicle, I'm going to have gavin in there.

M113 is unimpressive for a APC (it's very similar to BTR and other contemporaries), but is better at far more valuable and important roles than most vehicles.

Marder suffers from being Yerman and carries a miniscule dismount section. Granted, Bundeswehr dismount sections are 6 men with the 3 man APC team being considered the "machine gun", it's still silly. Fire and maneuver requires a full infantry platoon and cannot be done on section level, limiting the flexibility of the force. This doesn't make it better in high intensity combat compared to a flexible force, either.

Puma is the same but worse, since it tries to be flexible without actually achieving the flexibility.

Marder 2 was the best IFV in terms of armament and protection actually built during the Cold War, but if it'd continued you'd start seeing M2s with the same gun and comparable protection from 30mm APDS, but better anti-armour capability with newer and improved TOWs, section-level ATGW, etc.

Essentially the list goes:

Warrior > Bradley > Marder

AMX-10P occupies somewhere between Bradley and Marder, and Pbv 302 is equivalent. Bradley gets up there because it's just so stuffed to the gills with anti-armour weapons (Dragon/Javelin and TOWs) that it makes up for its inability to carry a full infantry section, and the latter is being rectified eventually.

Warrior is the best IFV because section level fire and maneuver is possible. It's also great because it takes into account very important factors for human operators, such as having a commode and a boiling vessel, and it never fell for the firing port fad that the Nazis and the USians were duped by. OTOH I guess Britain kinda made up for it with Harrier, proving that incompetence usually boils down to luck rather than foresight.

It's got a proper gun on it, however. Unlike the BMPs, which have glorified missile launchers. Wouldn't want to get hit by either.
But is the concept of an upgunned IFV with the troop compartment redesignated for ammunition and the spare weight devoted to armor a sound one? Or am I just insane?

Remember that I will most likely fight in forests on my home soil, likely from a hulldown position.

A missile launcher/automatic cannon combination is a better weapon than a large caliber gun for an infantry carrier.

Just don't be BMP-3 and try to have your cake and eat it too.

The version I'm discussing here, aka the :not:TAM, won't carry infantry, even if the chassis has the same parent as the infantry-carrying versions. That frees up space and weight capacity that goes to ammunition and extra armor plate. Which takes the crew up to three and dismounts down to zero. Driver, commander/gunner, and loader. Instead of trying to stick seven people into the back of an IFV or ten into the APC variant, that space goes to cannon shells.

The idea is that it gives infantry heavy direct-fire support if required, for cheaper and quicker than pulling an MBT forward can do.

I also found it funny that the Warrior has either fittings for a shitter or the shitter installed in it. Should I put one in this bastard that I'm designing?

As for firing ports, not gonna happen. It's either a taxi or it's a tracked autocannon with a machine gun on the roof. It doesn't really need to have firing ports.

Thanks for all the insights, by the way.

So the chassis, to be truly great (in my eyes), needs the flexibility of the M113, the looks of the Puma, the flexibility, livability, and useability of the Warrior, the something something something Marder, and the infantry complement of... I dunno really. Am I taking this in the right direction?

In my opinion Gallia pretty well nailed it.
I prefer to do unmaned turret for situations and vehicles such as this. Now 25mm Bushmaster or 30mm Semi-auto cannon for said unmanned turret. Imagine something baring the and weight of a Stryker.

>unmanned turret
>mid-1970s

[Allanea]

And they would get killed by the hundreds.

This has never, ever, actually worked.

So what happened in Korea?

Korea had:

1. Semi-well-trained military.

2. China abandoning human wave tactics eventually.

3. A different technology level from what exists today.

In the modern day infantry, mechanized, and artillery forces have exponentially greater firepower than what was available during the Korean War. At that time, for example, bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles (such as the M1 Garand, SKS, and Mosin-Nagant) were still used by most combatants.

The problem is that massing infantry on a narrow front, (the main feature of a human wave attack) will not meaningfully improve their effectiveness in the modern day, while exposing them to the fire of weapons such as, say, fully-automatic grenade launchers, RADAR-aimed machineguns, IFV armament (arguably a 2014 IFV is better armed and protected than a T-34),

I am confident in the ability of an infantry company equipped with BMP-3s, modern small arms, and entrenched in a prepared position, to destroy literally thousands of peasants with thermite charges.

A tank battalion could murder literally divisions of such peasants. Only ammunition shortages would (perhaps) save their lives.