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

[Gallia-]

Britain does too. Germany has only included commodes very recently.

[Korva]

UDES 08 never saw service.

It's now just rusting away in some back lot like every other experimental vehicle.

http://pbv302.se/

[Gallia-]

>last update 2013
>"sorry for no updates guys~"

are you still sorry?

it's probably too rusty to make drive

[Padnak]

In regards to commodes, wouldn't their inclusion be dependant on space? Inside a diminutive sized vehicle like the T-72 for example I would rather just pinch it if it meant I would have a little bit of leg room, but in something as vast as an IFV or an Abrams, wouldn't its inclusion be pretty obvious?

On a side note, I'm six feet six inches tall, I cannot physically fit inside of a T-72 lol

[Gallia-]

You can't fit in any AFV really.

Tall people are probably the worst soldiers, you'd be manning a desk or something.

The optimum height for a combat soldier probably hovers around 165-170 cm.

[Korva]

You can't fit in any AFV really.

Tall people are probably the worst soldiers, you'd be manning a desk or something.

The optimum height for a combat soldier probably hovers around 165-170 cm.

No wonder the little brown people keep winning.

[Padnak]

You can't fit in any AFV really.

Tall people are probably the worst soldiers, you'd be manning a desk or something.

The optimum height for a combat soldier probably hovers around 165-170 cm.

I crammed myself inside of a T-54/55 (Don't remember what it was specifically) when I was 12 and I could barely fit

being tall is the worst

[Gallia-]

You can't fit in any AFV really.

Tall people are probably the worst soldiers, you'd be manning a desk or something.

The optimum height for a combat soldier probably hovers around 165-170 cm.

No wonder the little brown people keep winning.

Yes having open trucks is a huge benefit for Tall People.

[The Akasha Colony]

In an actual reality, lacking some kind of creature comfort doesn't make your soldier "better" or "tougher".

There seems to be a belief, common in all sorts of circles, that making people "tougher" by deliberately plunging them into discomfort, makes them harder or better men.

This isn't true.

Just like how killing hundreds a year in basic training and having a 40% washout rate due to injury makes one's military truly badass amirite.

[Padnak]

In an actual reality, lacking some kind of creature comfort doesn't make your soldier "better" or "tougher".

There seems to be a belief, common in all sorts of circles, that making people "tougher" by deliberately plunging them into discomfort, makes them harder or better men.

This isn't true.

Just like how killing hundreds a year in basic training and having a 40% washout rate due to injury makes one's military truly badass amirite.

Remove weakness

engender strength

[Kouralia]

In an actual reality, lacking some kind of creature comfort doesn't make your soldier "better" or "tougher".

There seems to be a belief, common in all sorts of circles, that making people "tougher" by deliberately plunging them into discomfort, makes them harder or better men.

This isn't true. It is especially not true when de discuss hygiene.

In terms of "softies" using commodes, of the world's top 10 militaries (by budget), both the German and the Russian military - not exactly known for a love of creature comforts - have commodes in AFVs.

tbf, there is a difference between necessary discomfort and unnecessary. The former is things like freezing your arse off at night in the winter in the Brecon Beacons in the pouring rain on stag. The latter is having to clench in a shit for a week because you wanted some more leg-room.

[Doppio Giudici]

In an actual reality, lacking some kind of creature comfort doesn't make your soldier "better" or "tougher".

There seems to be a belief, common in all sorts of circles, that making people "tougher" by deliberately plunging them into discomfort, makes them harder or better men.

This isn't true.

Just like how killing hundreds a year in basic training and having a 40% washout rate due to injury makes one's military truly badass amirite.

That's because you weed out all the weak and to an extent all of your smarter populace. How are you going to get people to do hacking and other support roles, if the people who can do them can't pass basic?

[Alexandreon]

And trying to keep myself at least partially serious, Crusader vs BT-7M anyone? Or any other "cruiser tank" or "cavalry tank" to get replaced by my "not"Shermans at the beginning of 1940s?

Retoasting. Wondering what kind of "cavalry tank", so a relatively well-armed, fast and agile, at the expense of armour tank I should consider for early-to-mid 1930s?

[Doppio Giudici]

And trying to keep myself at least partially serious, Crusader vs BT-7M anyone? Or any other "cruiser tank" or "cavalry tank" to get replaced by my "not"Shermans at the beginning of 1940s?

Retoasting. Wondering what kind of "cavalry tank", so a relatively well-armed, fast and agile, at the expense of armour tank I should consider for early-to-mid 1930s?

If I remember properly, cavalry tanks sacrificed firepower and armor for speed alone, so basically you are describing a light tank if anything.

[Alexandreon]

If I remember properly, cavalry tanks sacrificed firepower and armor for speed alone, so basically you are describing a light tank if anything.

Well, I search for something akin to BT series, speedy and relatively well-armed (Soviet 45 mm AT gun was arguably among the best of its class up to 1942 IIRC) but not necessarily well-armored. I've skimmed through notes about cruiser tanks earlier than Crusader and apparently I'll stick with a modified BT-7 for my cavalry divisions (read: tank divisions, intended to outflank enemy and get into his operational area) while infantry tanks support the advances of infantry.

[Doppio Giudici]

If I remember properly, cavalry tanks sacrificed firepower and armor for speed alone, so basically you are describing a light tank if anything.

Well, I search for something akin to BT series, speedy and relatively well-armed (Soviet 45 mm AT gun was arguably among the best of its class up to 1942 IIRC) but not necessarily well-armored. I've skimmed through notes about cruiser tanks earlier than Crusader and apparently I'll stick with a modified BT-7 for my cavalry divisions (read: tank divisions, intended to outflank enemy and get into his operational area) while infantry tanks support the advances of infantry.

So you are going to ignore the Panzer III which was argubly another good calvary tank?

[Insaeldor]

Currently the Insaeldic military uses the Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie fitted with an indigenous Spjótikastar 45x195mm Autocannon. We also use the B1 Centauro usually along side the FV 4030 Challenger.

The reason for the use of a larger caliber for the IFV stems from the terrain of Insaeldor with ether steep mountain and mountain passes to long flat land and in order to keep the range and power wished by the military the Kastar company developed the Spjótikastar Autocannon for replacement of the VBCI's 30mm standard cannon. The B1 and FV 4030 were added in the late 90's comming from a series on military modernization programs along with the Bandvagn 206 and Mowag Piranha IIIH being added to the arsenal just recently.

[Alexandreon]

So you are going to ignore the Panzer III which was argubly another good calvary tank?

Panzer III is slightly out of my "timeframe", it would be modern enough to rival with M4 Sherman which I want to have as my basic tank, both in tank battalions assigned to infantry and independent tank divisions by 1942.

[Tule]

Currently the Insaeldic military uses the Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie fitted with an indigenous Spjótikastar 45x195mm Autocannon. We also use the B1 Centauro usually along side the FV 4030 Challenger.

The reason for the use of a larger caliber for the IFV stems from the terrain of Insaeldor with ether steep mountain and mountain passes to long flat land and in order to keep the range and power wished by the military the Kastar company developed the Spjótikastar Autocannon for replacement of the VBCI's 30mm standard cannon. The B1 and FV 4030 were added in the late 90's comming from a series on military modernization programs along with the Bandvagn 206 and Mowag Piranha IIIH being added to the arsenal just recently.

If you are going for a direct Icelandic ripoff the correct term is "Spjótkastari" for "Javelin thrower" and "Spjótkast" for "Javelin throw".

[Purpelia]

I say go with the T-70. You can't quite go wrong with something that awesome.

[Alexandreon]

T-70s will be issued to reconnaissance battalions, but not as cavalry tanks, they're from 1941, and I intend to replace my tanks with something "newer" in circa 1939...

[Purpelia]

T-70s will be issued to reconnaissance battalions, but not as cavalry tanks, they're from 1941, and I intend to replace my tanks with something "newer" in circa 1939...

Cavalry tank is just a label like any other. It is not a description of functionality but of what the nation in question thought was needed in the cavalry role.

[Lemanrussland]

In an actual reality, lacking some kind of creature comfort doesn't make your soldier "better" or "tougher".

There seems to be a belief, common in all sorts of circles, that making people "tougher" by deliberately plunging them into discomfort, makes them harder or better men.

This isn't true. It is especially not true when de discuss hygiene.

In terms of "softies" using commodes, of the world's top 10 militaries (by budget), both the German and the Russian military - not exactly known for a love of creature comforts - have commodes in AFVs.

tbf, there is a difference between necessary discomfort and unnecessary. The former is things like freezing your arse off at night in the winter in the Brecon Beacons in the pouring rain on stag. The latter is having to clench in a shit for a week because you wanted some more leg-room.

Couldn't you always take a shit outside? Unless there is biological, radiological, or chemical contamination of course.

[Alexandreon]

T-70s will be issued to reconnaissance battalions, but not as cavalry tanks, they're from 1941, and I intend to replace my tanks with something "newer" in circa 1939...

Cavalry tank is just a label like any other. It is not a description of functionality but of what the nation in question thought was needed in the cavalry role.

Oh, that's absolutely true- BT in original Soviet terminology was "fast tank" but in most books is considered to be a "light tank". And I wonder if I want a ~15 t, fast and reasonably well-armed tank from 1930-1936 period, is there anything on par with BT?

[The Akasha Colony]

tbf, there is a difference between necessary discomfort and unnecessary. The former is things like freezing your arse off at night in the winter in the Brecon Beacons in the pouring rain on stag. The latter is having to clench in a shit for a week because you wanted some more leg-room.

Couldn't you always take a shit outside? Unless there is biological, radiological, or chemical contamination of course.

The point is that the vehicle can button up to operate in CBRN environments for an extended period. And because stopping to take a dump requires the entire vehicle to stop, which probably makes the whole platoon at the very least also stop since leaving one vehicle behind is a bad idea.