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

[Gallia-]

A commode is important for IFVs.

A tank makes do with a chemical urinal. CVRT and Challenger had them.

An IFV with a tank cannon is essentially CV90-105 or MGS, which is a fine idea in theory. In practice, they tend to be unstable, at least MGS is but that has to do with it being wheeled really. If it's on tracks it's fine, if it's wheeled it isn't unless you want to make it about thirty tons or so.

[Yukonastan]

A commode is important for IFVs.

A tank makes do with a chemical urinal. CVRT and Challenger had them.

An IFV with a tank cannon is essentially CV90-105 or MGS, which is a fine idea in theory. In practice, they tend to be unstable, at least MGS is but that has to do with it being wheeled really. If it's on tracks it's fine, if it's wheeled it isn't unless you want to make it about thirty tons or so.

>tracks implied

But thanks.

[Vancon]

I'm thinking of making a wheeled APC for my military which I'll be re-doing at a later point and a few ideas came too mind:

-remote-controlled turret with a periscope so that you can look around
-8 wheels (On a side note, other then looking cool, is there a reason why wheels might be better then treads?)
-Large mm cannon a la stryker since it looks cool (What are the problems with the stryker again?)
or
- Small mm cannon (30mm-40mm) with some kind of TOW or small MLRS contraption.
It would be based off of a Patria AMV akin to what South Africa uses and I would like to use it in mostly urban environments to support my troops. Any and all help would be appreciated.

[Yukonastan]

I'm thinking of making a wheeled APC for my military which I'll be re-doing at a later point and a few ideas came too mind:

-remote-controlled turret with a periscope so that you can look around
-8 wheels (On a side note, other then looking cool, is there a reason why wheels might be better then treads?)
-Large mm cannon a la stryker since it looks cool (What are the problems with the stryker again?)
or
- Small mm cannon (30mm-40mm) with some kind of TOW or small MLRS contraption.
It would be based off of a Patria AMV akin to what South Africa uses and I would like to use it in mostly urban environments to support my troops. Any and all help would be appreciated.

Wheels allow you to travel faster on-road. However, they have a higher ground pressure than tracks, which makes tracks preferable off-road.

Stryker MGS, as mentioned above, has issues with stability. Ask Galla about it.

[Afghan Rouge]

We mainly use T-55 tanks as our MBT

[Alexandreon]

(single turreted)
(double turreted)

Name: (-dunno-lal-) Light Tank
Type: light infantry support tank
Designed: 1929
Introduced: 1930

Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Powerplant: AEM KV-425 Diesel engine, liquid cooled, 117 HP at 1800 RPM
Armament: (double turret version): 2 x ::not:: wz. 1930 Polish HMG with 3,000 rounds each. (Single turret): 1 x 45 mm AT gun with 60 rounds, 1 x MG with 3,860 rounds (optionally: additional AA MG with 1,200 rounds)
Armor: rolled armor plates, welded and riveted. Front: 17 mm, engine compartment: 13,4 mm, floor: 9,5 mm, turret: 22 mm
Dimension: length: 4,560 m; width: 2,441 m; height: (double turreted): 2,190 m (single turreted): 2,230 mm
Maximum speed: 36 km/h on road, 25 km/h off-road
Fuel consumption: 84 l/100 km on road, 102 l /100 km off road
Combat mass: 9,870 kg (single turreted tank with radio)

As you can easily see, that's simple "not-Vickers-E-knock-off", does it look reasonable as a tank for tank battalions assigned to each infantry division in mid-1930s?

[Korva]

I'm thinking of making a wheeled APC for my military which I'll be re-doing at a later point and a few ideas came too mind:

-remote-controlled turret with a periscope so that you can look around
-8 wheels (On a side note, other then looking cool, is there a reason why wheels might be better then treads?)
-Large mm cannon a la stryker since it looks cool (What are the problems with the stryker again?)
or
- Small mm cannon (30mm-40mm) with some kind of TOW or small MLRS contraption.
It would be based off of a Patria AMV akin to what South Africa uses and I would like to use it in mostly urban environments to support my troops. Any and all help would be appreciated.

Wheels allow you to travel faster on-road. However, they have a higher ground pressure than tracks, which makes tracks preferable off-road.

Stryker MGS, as mentioned above, has issues with stability. Ask Galla about it.

Wheels are cheaper to maintain and less damaging to infrastructure.

They unfortunately also increase the profile of the vehicle.

[Fordorsia]

(Image) (single turreted)
(Image) (double turreted)

Name: (-dunno-lal-) Light Tank
Type: light infantry support tank
Designed: 1929
Introduced: 1930

Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Powerplant: AEM KV-425 Diesel engine, liquid cooled, 117 HP at 1800 RPM
Armament: (double turret version): 2 x ::not:: wz. 1930 Polish HMG with 3,000 rounds each. (Single turret): 1 x 45 mm AT gun with 60 rounds, 1 x MG with 3,860 rounds (optionally: additional AA MG with 1,200 rounds)
Armor: rolled armor plates, welded and riveted. Front: 17 mm, engine compartment: 13,4 mm, floor: 9,5 mm, turret: 22 mm
Dimension: length: 4,560 m; width: 2,441 m; height: (double turreted): 2,190 m (single turreted): 2,230 mm
Maximum speed: 36 km/h on road, 25 km/h off-road
Fuel consumption: 84 l/100 km on road, 102 l /100 km off road
Combat mass: 9,870 kg (single turreted tank with radio)

As you can easily see, that's simple "not-Vickers-E-knock-off", does it look reasonable as a tank for tank battalions assigned to each infantry division in mid-1930s?

Looks good, but it really needs more ground clearance.

[Alexandreon]

Looks good, but it really needs more ground clearance.

Clearance by the book is circa 380 mm, from what I remember fair enough for the period. And if that's not visible at the pic, it's because this is my first tank design, so... I hope I'll improve my skills in the future.

And there's idea and question:

By the ~1937 my nation utilized two kinds of tanks "cavalry tanks" and "infantry tanks", the former akin to BT series, the latter akin to Vickers and T-28. But I want to begin to replace them with universal medium tank by 1940, was thinking 'bout ::not::T-34 design, but I am not sure if M4 Sherman wouldn't be slightly better. Any advices?

[Korva]

Looks good, but it really needs more ground clearance.

Clearance by the book is circa 380 mm, from what I remember fair enough for the period. And if that's not visible at the pic, it's because this is my first tank design, so... I hope I'll improve my skills in the future.

And there's idea and question:

By the ~1937 my nation utilized two kinds of tanks "cavalry tanks" and "infantry tanks", the former akin to BT series, the latter akin to Vickers and T-28. But I want to begin to replace them with universal medium tank by 1940, was thinking 'bout ::not::T-34 design, but I am not sure if M4 Sherman wouldn't be slightly better. Any advices?

M4 Sherman is superior.

[Alexandreon]

M4 Sherman is superior.

I'm thinking about fitting a nice ::NOT::W-2 Diesel into it, as since 1935 all tanks in my army are equipped with Diesels. I know one thing, I don't want anything German-related, maybe apart from optics and radio. The only German tank I find really, really good was Panzer IV, since Panther was too work-consuming, resource-consuming and available in way too insignificant numbers compared to M4, T-34 or even Cromwells...

[The Soodean Imperium]

(Image) (single turreted)
(Image) (double turreted)

Name: (-dunno-lal-) Light Tank
Type: light infantry support tank
Designed: 1929
Introduced: 1930

Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Powerplant: AEM KV-425 Diesel engine, liquid cooled, 117 HP at 1800 RPM
Armament: (double turret version): 2 x ::not:: wz. 1930 Polish HMG with 3,000 rounds each. (Single turret): 1 x 45 mm AT gun with 60 rounds, 1 x MG with 3,860 rounds (optionally: additional AA MG with 1,200 rounds)
Armor: rolled armor plates, welded and riveted. Front: 17 mm, engine compartment: 13,4 mm, floor: 9,5 mm, turret: 22 mm
Dimension: length: 4,560 m; width: 2,441 m; height: (double turreted): 2,190 m (single turreted): 2,230 mm
Maximum speed: 36 km/h on road, 25 km/h off-road
Fuel consumption: 84 l/100 km on road, 102 l /100 km off road
Combat mass: 9,870 kg (single turreted tank with radio)

As you can easily see, that's simple "not-Vickers-E-knock-off", does it look reasonable as a tank for tank battalions assigned to each infantry division in mid-1930s?

Where is the turret situated on the top (single-turret) version? Is it offset to one side, or right in the center?

If it's the latter, then you may want to rethink the design of the front hull; I find it hard to believe that there's room for the driver's head between the front plate and the turret ring.

[Alexandreon]

Where is the turret situated on the top (single-turret) version? Is it offset to one side, or right in the center?

If it's the latter, then you may want to rethink the design of the front hull; I find it hard to believe that there's room for the driver's head between the front plate and the turret ring.

The turret is not in the centre of the hull, it's offset to the right.

[Lydenburg]

A commode is important for IFVs.

A tank makes do with a chemical urinal. CVRT and Challenger had them.

An IFV with a tank cannon is essentially CV90-105 or MGS, which is a fine idea in theory. In practice, they tend to be unstable, at least MGS is but that has to do with it being wheeled really. If it's on tracks it's fine, if it's wheeled it isn't unless you want to make it about thirty tons or so.

What kind of pampered softies demand a commode or a urinal in their AFV? No, it's not important. It's nice but not important.

[Alexandreon]

Name: (-lal-) Heavy Tank
Type: heavy infantry support tank
Designed: 1928
Introduced: 1931

Crew: 6 (commander, gunner, driver, loader, mechanic (also MG operator), 2nd MG operator
Powerplant: AEM KV-725 Diesel engine, liquid cooled, 520 HP power at 2,200 RPM
Armament: 1 x 77 mm gun (a field gun equivalent) with 68 rounds, 3 x MGs with 7,000 rounds (one coaxial with main gun, two in separate front turrets), optional: AA MG with 1,200 rounds
Armor: rolled armor plates, welded and riveted. Front: 27 mm, engine compartment: 19,4 mm, floor: 13,5 mm, turret: 42 mm
Dimension: length: 6,821 m; width: 2,870 m; height: 2,810 m, clearance: 0,320 m
Maximum speed: 37 km/h on road, 26,7 km/h off road
Fuel consumption: 130 l/100 km on road, 211 l/100 km off road
Combat mass: 27,890 kg

"Designed in the end of 1920s as a heavy support of the infantry divisions, (-insert-name-) is attached to infantry divisions. At least a third of Alexandreoni infantry divisions have a company of 15 steel monsters, providing necessary firepower for the advancing infantry.

Its armor is relatively weak, but arguably strong enough to be a sinister oponent in mid-1930s, also a version with upgraded, 800 HP engine and additional armor is being prepared."

Yup, a bit of knock-off of T-28, would it work in a manner described? I should remind that an infantry division has also a battalion of Vickers E knock-offs, making it quite formidable combat force (yup, bitchy to support and supply, but I have motorized all my logistic assets before the implementation of "let's have tanks in our infantry divisions" idea).

[Padnak]

We mainly use T-55 tanks as our MBT

You might want to get some T-62s as well, they're rather common in Afghanistan owing to the soviet's use and later abandonment of vast numbers of them in the country

[Kouralia]

A commode is important for IFVs.

A tank makes do with a chemical urinal. CVRT and Challenger had them.

An IFV with a tank cannon is essentially CV90-105 or MGS, which is a fine idea in theory. In practice, they tend to be unstable, at least MGS is but that has to do with it being wheeled really. If it's on tracks it's fine, if it's wheeled it isn't unless you want to make it about thirty tons or so.

What kind of pampered softies demand a commode or a urinal in their AFV? No, it's not important. It's nice but not important.

Surely it's important as it enables them to operate with full goforwardability within the 21st century, five-dimensional, quasi-intranetworked battlespace?

[Padnak]

-snip-

Personally I'd add a rear turret MG and maybe a few pistol ports to keep with the era, but other then that its great

[Alexandreon]

-snip-

Personally I'd add a rear turret MG and maybe a few pistol ports to keep with the era, but other then that its great

Hue, I'm working on my ::NOT::T-35 with 5 turrets (1 main gun, 1 AT gun, 3 HMGs), it will have rear turret for sure. And pistol ports sound nice, thanks! Or maybe, to increase lulzy cramped narrowness of the main turret, I'll add a rear MG mounting there...

[Paragania]

Just found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGGyoTro_o

Churchill tank driving with a Challenger II TES.

[Yukonastan]

Alright, statblockish statblock of statblockery. Make me feel bad by pointing out the blatant fuckups please.

Type: Infantry fighting vehicle; family chassis
Place of origin: Yukonastan

In service: 1971-Present
Used by: Yukonastan Defense Force; Yukonastan Expeditionary Force

Designer: Northern Military Industries Land Vehicle Division
Designed: April 28, 1971
Manufacturer: Northern Military Industries Land Vehicle Division
Manufactured: 750+

Weight: 32.5 t
Length: 7.2 m
Width: 3.2 m
Height: 2.9 m (base IFV variant)
Crew: 2 (Base IFV variant, driver, commander/gunner)

Armor: 20mm point blank (25mm@200m)over frontal arc, 14.5mm (20mm@200m)point blank elsewhere. Steel, aluminium, and applique over the tracks
Main Armament: 32x142mm chain gun (current)
Secondary Armament: 10.4x64mm medium machine gun
Engine: 500 kW diesel
Power/weight: 15.38 kW/t
Suspension: Torsion bar, with hydraulic shocks
Ground clearance: 0.42 m
Fuel capacity: 640 L
Operational range: 580 km
Speed: 82 km/h on road without applique, 75 km/h on road with, 50 km/h off-road

[Padnak]

Personally I'd add a rear turret MG and maybe a few pistol ports to keep with the era, but other then that its great

Hue, I'm working on my ::NOT::T-35 with 5 turrets (1 main gun, 1 AT gun, 3 HMGs), it will have rear turret for sure. And pistol ports sound nice, thanks! Or maybe, to increase lulzy cramped narrowness of the main turret, I'll add a rear MG mounting there...

Go for maximum stronk and have seven turrets, 1 main, two forward MG turrets, two rear MG turrets and one smaller turret on the top of the main turret. Make it super wide and have MG's pointing out of every available surface to increase stronk by at least 45%

[Yukonastan]

Hue, I'm working on my ::NOT::T-35 with 5 turrets (1 main gun, 1 AT gun, 3 HMGs), it will have rear turret for sure. And pistol ports sound nice, thanks! Or maybe, to increase lulzy cramped narrowness of the main turret, I'll add a rear MG mounting there...

Go for maximum stronk and have seven turrets, 1 main, two forward MG turrets, two rear MG turrets and one smaller turret on the top of the main turret. Make it super wide and have MG's pointing out of every available surface to increase stronk by at least 45%

Do I sense a wanktank?

Padnak, did you take your reasonable medication this morning? You're Dragomereing.

[Alexandreon]

Hue, I'm working on my ::NOT::T-35 with 5 turrets (1 main gun, 1 AT gun, 3 HMGs), it will have rear turret for sure. And pistol ports sound nice, thanks! Or maybe, to increase lulzy cramped narrowness of the main turret, I'll add a rear MG mounting there...

Go for maximum stronk and have seven turrets, 1 main, two forward MG turrets, two rear MG turrets and one smaller turret on the top of the main turret. Make it super wide and have MG's pointing out of every available surface to increase stronk by at least 45%

As propaganda vehicle, rolling into parade grounds twice a year... That might actually be quite Stronk idea! Let the neighbors fear our steel monsters, although their utility is null. But they are Stronk, that's true.

Do I sense a wanktank?

Padnak, did you take your reasonable medication this morning? You're Dragomereing.

Fear not, such a wank tank would have a sole purpose of being monument of our national gigantomania. It would be less than useless in a battlefield, I know.

[Padnak]

Do I sense a wanktank?

Padnak, did you take your reasonable medication this morning? You're Dragomereing.

How would it be a wanktank? Its stupid and unreasonable from a modern perspective but for a tank designed in the 20s and built in the 30s it wouldn't be all that unreasonable.