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

[Purpelia]

That's neat as hell. I'm considering drawin up an indigenous APC base on a modernized / updated M113, complete with notAIFVs, command posts, etc... Probably designed / introduced in the late 80s

The French beat you to it by a decade.

[Neu-Pommern]

Sorta like that but lighter, lower ground pressure, less frotal armour (14.5mm v 25mm class protection), integral dozer blade, and a few other differences.

[Lydenburg]

That's neat as hell. I'm considering drawin up an indigenous APC base on a modernized / updated M113, complete with notAIFVs, command posts, etc... Probably designed / introduced in the late 80s

The French beat you to it by a decade.

The French were also the first to put a big gun on an M113, if I'm not mistaken. Same turret as the AML-90s. They showed it at Satory in '71.

[Orussia]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

[The Kievan People]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

In my opinion they are.

[Korva]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

Yes, ramp makes it easier to load gear and casualties. Rear mounting means you are covered from enemy fire.

[Orussia]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

Yes, ramp makes it easier to load gear and casualties. Rear mounting means you are covered from enemy fire.

I meant side-hinged like the BMP-1's. They're still at the rear, but the doors are hinged to swing horizontally.

[Fordorsia]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

I suppose side-hinged doors could provide cover for disembarking, less so if they're two smaller doors instead of one larger one, but a ramp would make it quicker and easier to get in or out, so I'd go with that.

Maybe you could have two plates over the closed ramp that swing out as it opens to provide some cover?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

Ramps allow for easier cargo egress, doors have long been favored for passenger-use and somewhat despised when trying to manhandle heavy equipment through a side-swinging door (especially double-doors with a beam in the middle, or worse, a single door that is smaller than it needed to be).

On the other hand, ramps tend to be heavier and more complex, and it's kinda impossible to get in or out that way until the door is nearly completely open.

IIRC, the Japanese went "why not both" and put a door on/through their ramp for this reason.

Ultimately, the hatch you get usually is whatever the person in charge of procurement hates the least at that particular time.

[Gallia-]

Question.
Are rear ramps better than side-hinged doors for IFVs?

Probably.

I doubt they make enough of a difference to be anymore than preference.

[Gallia-]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Stridsvagn_151

It's probably done.

[Chebucto Provinces]

IIRC, the Japanese went "why not both" and put a door on/through their ramp for this reason.

You will find that most vehicles with powered rear ramps have a small door in the ramp. This is not a unique trait to the Japanese. In fact it predates any Japanese vehicle I can find using it elsewhere by decades.

[Orussia]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Stridsvagn_151

It's probably done.

Actually...
"Diagram showing the relative merits of conventional steel homogenous armour versus siliceous core armour."
should be
"Diagram showing the relative merits of siliceous core armour versus conventional steel homogenous armour."

[Gallia-]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Stridsvagn_151

It's probably done.

Actually...
"Diagram showing the relative merits of conventional steel homogenous armour versus siliceous core armour."
should be
"Diagram showing the relative merits of siliceous core armour versus conventional steel homogenous armour."

Should it?

[Orussia]

Actually...
"Diagram showing the relative merits of conventional steel homogenous armour versus siliceous core armour."
should be
"Diagram showing the relative merits of siliceous core armour versus conventional steel homogenous armour."

Should it?

With the diagram provided, yes.

[Gallia-]

Should it?

With the diagram provided, yes.

Why?

[Orussia]

With the diagram provided, yes.

Why?

Because the diagram you posted is not trying to state that RHA is superior, it's saying that the composites are better.
The language used in the caption is saying that the diagram is proclaiming the advantages of RHA over composite.

Stupid English language.

[Gallia-]

Why?

Because the diagram you posted is not trying to state that RHA is superior, it's saying that the composites are better.
The language used in the caption is saying that the diagram is proclaiming the advantages of RHA over composite.

Stupid English language.

Then why does the diagram itself not follow your grammatical rule?

The advantages of RHA are implied.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Guys, crazy crazy idea time.

In the early 1960s, taking naval Mollins gun autoloader systems and mating them with 50 caliber 6 pounder anti-tank gun. Put this into a two man turret and slap the whole thing onto an IFV.

I do not know about IFV's. But now I am tempted to put one of those on a tank. Seriously, an autoloaded 57mm from the 40's sounds like the most awesome tank weapon ever for the era.

An autoloaded 57mm from the 40's on a tank chassis is nothing crazy-new to be honest. The Soviets did it back in 1955.



As a SPAAG it suffered from the usual drawbacks of the 57mm caliber, but apparently the Vietnamese and Syrians found it to be decently effective against ground targets.

[Puzikas]

I do not know about IFV's. But now I am tempted to put one of those on a tank. Seriously, an autoloaded 57mm from the 40's sounds like the most awesome tank weapon ever for the era.

An autoloaded 57mm from the 40's on a tank chassis is nothing crazy-new to be honest. The Soviets did it back in 1955.



As a SPAAG it suffered from the usual drawbacks of the 57mm caliber, but apparently the Vietnamese and Syrians found it to be decently effective against ground targets.

<3 ZSU-57-2

[Purpelia]

An autoloaded 57mm from the 40's on a tank chassis is nothing crazy-new to be honest. The Soviets did it back in 1955.

Sure, but that's a decade and a half too late and for a different role than what I envisioned. I am talking about something like a T-34-57 packing a Zis-2 equivalent but autoloaded for short bursts of AT goodness.

[The balkens]

An autoloaded 57mm from the 40's on a tank chassis is nothing crazy-new to be honest. The Soviets did it back in 1955.



As a SPAAG it suffered from the usual drawbacks of the 57mm caliber, but apparently the Vietnamese and Syrians found it to be decently effective against ground targets.

<3 ZSU-57-2

Looks like something I would see in the "Hilariously bad design" part of a museum.

Not that I am doubting it's capabilities.

[San-Silvacian]

An autoloaded 57mm from the 40's on a tank chassis is nothing crazy-new to be honest. The Soviets did it back in 1955.

Sure, but that's a decade and a half too late and for a different role than what I envisioned. I am talking about something like a T-34-57 packing a Zis-2 equivalent but autoloaded for short bursts of AT goodness.

Sounds wholly useless.

Like most other things from the great designers of Purpelia.

[Purpelia]

Sure, but that's a decade and a half too late and for a different role than what I envisioned. I am talking about something like a T-34-57 packing a Zis-2 equivalent but autoloaded for short bursts of AT goodness.

Sounds wholly useless.

Like most other things from the great designers of Purpelia.

That actually sounds fine to me. I have this idea of it being a funky prototype that newer went anywhere but is interesting never the less. So I am looking for a list of reasons other than complicated and costly manufacturing that would make it go wrong.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Sounds wholly useless.

Like most other things from the great designers of Purpelia.

That actually sounds fine to me. I have this idea of it being a funky prototype that newer went anywhere but is interesting never the less. So I am looking for a list of reasons other than complicated and costly manufacturing that would make it go wrong.

AT Utility at range drastically decreasing; the 57mm only is really good for frontline combat use by vehicles up to 1943; after which the only logical place to see them should be infantry AT gun units, with vehicles packing bigger guns. Having a vehicle that would be obsolete rather quickly is a good reason to abandon it, although that depends on how good your people are at predicting such things.