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

[Lololia]

I modeled my armed forces using Serbian Military as starting point. Slightly beefed and upgraded respect actual Serbian army. So I use upgraded M80 BVP and M84 MBT før example.

[Yukonastan]

Is there an expert on ERA here or someone who knows a good ERA site?

ERA isn't all that hard to understand.

You shoot it, it make explosion, your tank is less damaged by exploding ERA than it would be if the shot hit non-reactive armor.

[Doppio Giudici]

ERA isn't all that hard to understand.

You shoot it, it make explosion, your tank is less damaged by exploding ERA than it would be if the shot hit non-reactive armor.

Some ERAs stop only HEAT, case in point the early Israeli ERA. Others such as the late model ERA stop Sabots as well.

[Yukonastan]

You shoot it, it make explosion, your tank is less damaged by exploding ERA than it would be if the shot hit non-reactive armor.

Some ERAs stop only HEAT, case in point the early Israeli ERA. Others such as the late model ERA stop Sabots as well.

See? You understand ERA now.

[Forzona]

(Sorry for the long one, guys, but it must be done )


R-709 "Menge-Brecher", used mainly in civilian riots that get out of hand. Its primary cannon is not powerful enough to deal damage to armor, but it will tear up a large group of people.


H-23 "Kreuzzügler", one of the key heavy tanks seen in Forzonan assaults, it is known to lead many a "tank charge" in Forzonan invasions


S-67 "Straßenkehrer", one of the ultimate urban tanks, it is heavily armored on the bottom to give it a resistance to mines, thought it is vulnerable to the back


M-44 "Fliegenklatsche", a sister-tank to the much more armored "Kreuzzügler". Its turret spins a lot quicker, allowing it to take out lighter vehicles its larger cousin can't.


S-19 "Zerstörer", one of the lightest tanks in the Forzonan army, its cannons are good for taking out AT guns that would destroy the larger tanks if left unchecked.


A-65 "Heckenschütze", a long-shooting tank that can fire from 10km away. It's power is less powerful than a Forzonan artillery battery

[San-Silvacian]

ERA isn't all that hard to understand.

You shoot it, it make explosion, your tank is less damaged by exploding ERA than it would be if the shot hit non-reactive armor.

The goal of ERA isn't to stop the projectiles though.

[Yukonastan]

(Sorry for the long one, guys, but it must be done )

(Image)
R-709 "Menge-Brecher", used mainly in civilian riots that get out of hand. Its primary cannon is not powerful enough to deal damage to armor, but it will tear up a large group of people.

(Image)
H-23 "Kreuzzügler", one of the key heavy tanks seen in Forzonan assaults, it is known to lead many a "tank charge" in Forzonan invasions

(Image)
S-67 "Straßenkehrer", one of the ultimate urban tanks, it is heavily armored on the bottom to give it a resistance to mines, thought it is vulnerable to the back

(Image)
M-44 "Fliegenklatsche", a sister-tank to the much more armored "Kreuzzügler". Its turret spins a lot quicker, allowing it to take out lighter vehicles its larger cousin can't.

(Image)
S-19 "Zerstörer", one of the lightest tanks in the Forzonan army, its cannons are good for taking out AT guns that would destroy the larger tanks if left unchecked.

(Image)
A-65 "Heckenschütze", a long-shooting tank that can fire from 10km away. It's power is less powerful than a Forzonan artillery battery

For the love of God, spoiler picspam.

San, correction. The ERA and shot cause less damage to the tank than if the shot directly hit the armor, thereby vastly reducing chance of penetration.

[San-Silvacian]

The goal of ERA is to damage/slow said incoming KEP enough to allow the armor underneath to absorb it.

With HEAT warheads it is to increase stand-off distance, making the HEAT jet less effective and allowing the armor under it to absorb it.

I think you said this, but you worded is very weirdly.

[Auroya]

(Sorry for the long one, guys, but it must be done )

(Image)
R-709 "Menge-Brecher", used mainly in civilian riots that get out of hand. Its primary cannon is not powerful enough to deal damage to armor, but it will tear up a large group of people.

(Image)
H-23 "Kreuzzügler", one of the key heavy tanks seen in Forzonan assaults, it is known to lead many a "tank charge" in Forzonan invasions

(Image)
S-67 "Straßenkehrer", one of the ultimate urban tanks, it is heavily armored on the bottom to give it a resistance to mines, thought it is vulnerable to the back

(Image)
M-44 "Fliegenklatsche", a sister-tank to the much more armored "Kreuzzügler". Its turret spins a lot quicker, allowing it to take out lighter vehicles its larger cousin can't.

(Image)
S-19 "Zerstörer", one of the lightest tanks in the Forzonan army, its cannons are good for taking out AT guns that would destroy the larger tanks if left unchecked.

(Image)
A-65 "Heckenschütze", a long-shooting tank that can fire from 10km away. It's power is less powerful than a Forzonan artillery battery

No.

[Rich and Corporations]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2 ... f-war.html <- good reading on busting the myth of the T-34

[Lydenburg]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html <- good reading on busting the myth of the T-34

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

[Rich and Corporations]

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

IFVs operate in support of infantry and combined arms formations. Tanks may not have that luxury, and when advancing, may not have support.

[San-Silvacian]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html <- good reading on busting the myth of the T-34

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

Wow Ratels are so cool 2 man turret #1

Meanwhile in the world of MBTs.

[Korva]

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html <- good reading on busting the myth of the T-34

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

1) Isn't the Ratel layout Driver - Gunner - Commander? (as in the commander doesn't have to operate the gun and command)
2) The T-34 was involved in the largest tank battles in history, the Ratel in a literal Bush War.

[Lydenburg]

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

1) Isn't the Ratel layout Driver - Gunner - Commander? (as in the commander doesn't have to operate the gun and command)
2) The T-34 was involved in the largest tank battles in history, the Ratel in a literal Bush War.

Ratel commanders identify targets, operate the radio, and load the gun. They also man one of the two MGs.

There were T-34s in Angola, too. Much like the heavier T-55s they lost to Ratels and/or Elands every time.

[Lydenburg]

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

Wow Ratels are so cool 2 man turret #1

Meanwhile in the world of MBTs.

T-34s weren't MBTs.

[San-Silvacian]

I have a feeling that the magic wheeled AFVs had a number of advantages over the tanks they fought.

[Lydenburg]

I have a feeling that the magic wheeled AFVs had a number of advantages over the tanks they fought.

Bush warfare is like that. You must into consideration such factors as vehicle height and dense vegetation, which restricts turret traverse, negates ATGMs, and limits range. Also the tech level of the armies involved (neither side had thermals, only infrared).

The Ratel was superior for the type of warfare being conducted in that particular environment at the time.

[The Kievan People]

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

There is significant evidence it is a a major issue. South African experience is only against an opponent who was already incompetent, it does not tell us much about the merits of the vehicles themselves.

The problems of the T-34-76 are well known but less remembered is that French tanks with two man turrets suffered the exact same issues. German tanks were consistently faster to find and engage targets and had better overall coordination; factors which were given significant credit by German tanks commanders for their success against the heavier armed and armoured French tanks. And unlike Angolans and Cubans, the French tankers were not bumbling incompetents.

And this is backed up again by modern workload studies.

[Arab Jamahiriyahs]

The Jamahiriyas is still of near-future dystopian technology, not to mention means of controlling citizens with Minecraft and stuff. Armoured vehicles include mainly "Wali" tanks that resemble T-80 not to mention possession of the ability to hover over the ground.....and smash enemies with no damage at all. Apocalypse tanks are also used, imported from Eurasia while light swift Quraysh tanks based on T-72s only loaded with energy weapons instead of out-of-date guns are mass-produced and are capable of shooting down aircraft.

Our destructive apocalypse tanks even if they are imported.

Troops advancing behind our tanks.

[San-Silvacian]

The Jamahiriyas is still of near-future dystopian technology, not to mention means of controlling citizens with Minecraft and stuff. Armoured vehicles include mainly "Wali" tanks that resemble T-80 not to mention possession of the ability to hover over the ground.....and smash enemies with no damage at all. Apocalypse tanks are also used, imported from Eurasia while light swift Quraysh tanks based on T-72s only loaded with energy weapons instead of out-of-date guns are mass-produced and are capable of shooting down aircraft.
(Image)
Our destructive apocalypse tanks even if they are imported.
(Image)
Troops advancing behind our tanks.

hover tanks are bad.

As are double barreled tanks

[Lydenburg]

"The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets..."

While it's preferential to have a four man crew, there is nothing which suggests that two-man turrets are altogether impotent. No reason to dismiss it as "a major issue" when in fact the commanders made do and still led tanks to victory.

Ratels have two man turrets; we're still using them today!

There is significant evidence it is a a major issue. South African experience is only against an opponent who was already incompetent, it does not tell us much about the merits of the vehicles themselves.

The problems of the T-34-76 are well known but less remembered is that French tanks with two man turrets suffered the exact same issues. German tanks were consistently faster to find and engage targets and had better overall coordination; factors which were given significant credit by German tanks commanders for their success against the heavier armed and armoured French tanks. And unlike Angolans and Cubans, the French tankers were not bumbling incompetents.

And this is backed up again by modern workload studies.

That's understandable. My point was not that two man turrets are inherently superior, rather that they are still viable options. Obviously the less each crew member is burdened with the better.

Apocalypse tanks are also used, imported from Eurasia while light swift Quraysh tanks based on T-72s only loaded with energy weapons instead of out-of-date guns are mass-produced and are capable of shooting down aircraft.

I wonder if it's even conceivable for an MBT to down an aircraft (even a low flying one) with its main armament. I mean, in my experience the elevation of most tank cannon is only just enough to pick off an MG nest on a two-storey building. At medium range. Plus, it's always harder to crank up the elevation and maintain it than it is to complete a horizontal traverse.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I wonder if it's even conceivable for an MBT to down an aircraft (even a low flying one) with its main armament. I mean, in my experience the elevation of most tank cannon is only just enough to pick off an MG nest on a two-storey building. At medium range. Plus, it's always harder to crank up the elevation and maintain it than it is to complete a horizontal traverse.

Place tank on 60% incline and 30% side-slope, you'll get plenty of elevation. About +45 degrees of elevation off to the forward quarter, iirc.

also, gun launched missiles.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I wonder if it's even conceivable for an MBT to down an aircraft (even a low flying one) with its main armament. I mean, in my experience the elevation of most tank cannon is only just enough to pick off an MG nest on a two-storey building. At medium range. Plus, it's always harder to crank up the elevation and maintain it than it is to complete a horizontal traverse.

Helicopters and really slow cessnas could be brought down with the proper munitions (i.e. proper-fused HE rounds and GL-ATGMs).

Still doesn't make them the preferred AA option. Its an emergency capability at best.

[Yukonastan]

I wonder if it's even conceivable for an MBT to down an aircraft (even a low flying one) with its main armament. I mean, in my experience the elevation of most tank cannon is only just enough to pick off an MG nest on a two-storey building. At medium range. Plus, it's always harder to crank up the elevation and maintain it than it is to complete a horizontal traverse.

Helicopters and really slow cessnas could be brought down with the proper munitions (i.e. proper-fused HE rounds and GL-ATGMs).

Still doesn't make them the preferred AA option. Its an emergency capability at best.

It's a fun Battlefield stunt, but if it were to ever happen in real life, it'd be a fluke shot.