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

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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.

Unless it's a cargo-plane on landing-approach, in which case it's feck'd even by an RPG.

[Yukonastan]

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

Unless it's a cargo-plane on landing-approach, in which case it's feck'd even by an RPG.

Or by eleventy lbs of C4 and a teammate to throw that tank to the altitude of the offending jet to loose a shot at it.


wait, you mean that teammates in vehicles don't prevent their destruction, even if the c4 is friendly?

well shit ._.

[Doppio Giudici]

So if the T-34 was so bad, it's likely that my nation would ditch it quickly after trying it.

How would my nation get back on track with the T series and eventually arrive at my beloved Oplot.

[Anemos Major]

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.

Eeeh...

You're definitely right about it not being 'preferred', but don't forget, as of 1990 the Swedish were actively pursuing a variant of the Strv 2000 proposal (alongside the import/domestic licensed production option which they eventually opted for) that packed a 40mm cannon with fuzed HE rounds for the purpose of taking down light vehicles and helicopters. As of now, aside from the GLATGMs mentioned by Hurtful Thoughts, you have ammunition like HEAT-MP-T explicitly designed with helicopters designed partly in mind, and even your regular 12.7mm RWS has the FCS and power to be able to damage them considerably.

The only problem's range - Hellfire, for example, can fire out to around 8km. When you're facing that sort of capability, and when helicopter crews are trying their damndest to maximise the range between your armoured package and their paper-thin protection, the chances of your tank being able to successfully engage the sort of helicopter that'd be trying to kill it are a bit iffy.

In a related question - since I'm in the awkward position of having to redo my SPAAG turret (phased array tracking radar don't need laterally traversing mountings...), which of the following armament options look better?
i) 2 x 35mm (ye average SPAAG loadout)
ii) 2 x 45mm (a bit heavier, modified version of my IFV cannon)
iii) 1 x 75mm (think Otomatic)

With ammunition options like AHEAD and contemporary FCS + propellant options, it feels like the first two would be able to fill the niche that Otomatic was supposed to occupy (looking at, say, Skyranger) - that is to say, reaching out accurately and powerfully to ATGM launching ranges - so is there any merit in using a larger, unwieldier single cannon for the same purpose?

[Connori Pilgrims]

Eeeh...

You're definitely right about it not being 'preferred', but don't forget, as of 1990 the Swedish were actively pursuing a variant of the Strv 2000 proposal (alongside the import/domestic licensed production option which they eventually opted for) that packed a 40mm cannon with fuzed HE rounds for the purpose of taking down light vehicles and helicopters. As of now, aside from the GLATGMs mentioned by Hurtful Thoughts, you have ammunition like HEAT-MP-T explicitly designed with helicopters designed partly in mind, and even your regular 12.7mm RWS has the FCS and power to be able to damage them considerably.

The only problem's range - Hellfire, for example, can fire out to around 8km. When you're facing that sort of capability, and when helicopter crews are trying their damndest to maximise the range between your armoured package and their paper-thin protection, the chances of your tank being able to successfully engage the sort of helicopter that'd be trying to kill it are a bit iffy.

In a related question - since I'm in the awkward position of having to redo my SPAAG turret (phased array tracking radar don't need laterally traversing mountings...), which of the following armament options look better?
i) 2 x 35mm (ye average SPAAG loadout)
ii) 2 x 45mm (a bit heavier, modified version of my IFV cannon)
iii) 1 x 75mm (think Otomatic)

With ammunition options like AHEAD and contemporary FCS + propellant options, it feels like the first two would be able to fill the niche that Otomatic was supposed to occupy (looking at, say, Skyranger) - that is to say, reaching out accurately and powerfully to ATGM launching ranges - so is there any merit in using a larger, unwieldier single cannon for the same purpose?

I don't technically disagree with what's been said; we're all aware of these various tools available to the tank to fight off them whirlybirds. Its precisely the range issue that makes them "not preferred" as I said it - at least in the context of dealing with *NS* chopers hurling lots of long-range ATGMs

If your not-Otomatic has access to DART or other similar guided rounds then it could prove the better option for reaching out at the ranges you want it to.

[Anemos Major]

I don't technically disagree with what's been said; we're all aware of these various tools available to the tank to fight off them whirlybirds. Its precisely the range issue that makes them "not preferred" as I said it - at least in the context of dealing with *NS* chopers hurling lots of long-range ATGMs

If your not-Otomatic has access to DART or other similar guided rounds then it could prove the better option for reaching out at the ranges you want it to.

There's this whole discussion going on in the Realism thread where I'm outlining exactly why even dedicated modern AA has trouble with ATGM hurling whirlybirds.

From that discussion, I think it's going to be a 75 + DART combination, yep. DART isn't a range solution, but it's a necessary balance for the reduction in RoF/weight of fire and ammunition capacity that's an inevitable result of moving from 30-40 to ~75mm.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

I don't technically disagree with what's been said; we're all aware of these various tools available to the tank to fight off them whirlybirds. Its precisely the range issue that makes them "not preferred" as I said it - at least in the context of dealing with *NS* chopers hurling lots of long-range ATGMs

If your not-Otomatic has access to DART or other similar guided rounds then it could prove the better option for reaching out at the ranges you want it to.

There's this whole discussion going on in the Realism thread where I'm outlining exactly why even dedicated modern AA has trouble with ATGM hurling whirlybirds.

From that discussion, I think it's going to be a 75 + DART combination, yep. DART isn't a range solution, but it's a necessary balance for the reduction in RoF/weight of fire and ammunition capacity that's an inevitable result of moving from 30-40 to ~75mm.

I think I had adopted 76mm/62s in that vein as my standardized air defense vehicle, based on my APC and IFV chassis. Also because I figured it would be funny to use them as impromptu artillery one day, and having a redundancy capability like that seems like it would be something my nation would like, even if it wouldn't be all that practical. There is a 30mm armed one too though, I don't exactly remember what the distribution was between the two. I think that it was supposed to involve a minority of 30mm armed ones protecting the 76mms as well as functioning in their own anti-air roles. Both have anti-air missiles as well.

After reading the military realism thread it looks like I cam to the opposite conclusion of some of the posters who thought that the 75mm would protect air defense assets while the 45mm protected forward assets, while in my case my 76mm protects forward assets and the 30mm protects rear assets.

Also, is 47mm a viable caliber as an anti-aircraft gun instead of 40mm or 57mm? There are 40mm, 45mm (although only a few obsolete Soviet models) and 57mm, and even a few 50mm abortive German anti-aircraft gun calibers, but nobody ever seems to have experimented with a 47mm anti-aircraft caliber past the 1920s. Is it the case that it has the disadvantages of the 40mm without its advantage and none of the advantages of the 57mm? Or just that there wasn't enough of a difference to justify developing it when the nations with the caliber (France, UK, Japan) could build 37mm/40mm anti-aircraft guns if they wanted heavier AA? I have an urge to go hipster and make 47mm my standard caliber in such regards to be different. And also because it increasingly sounds like 30mm isn't as efficient of a caliber for the anti-aircraft needs of the forces of the ground.

[Ardavia]

tiny-scale model of a tank

the tracks turned out fairly shitty IMO, but what do you think of the general shape?

[Korva]

tiny-scale model of a tank

the tracks turned out fairly shitty IMO, but what do you think of the general shape?

(Image)

You did a good job for such a small scale but I would change the exhaust, right now it looks like a car's tailpipe.


All Maltakyan drivers are midgets

[Doppio Giudici]

What happens if the turret turns?

[Yukonastan]

What happens if the turret turns?

I follow you not. Clarify please?

[Doppio Giudici]

What happens if the turret turns?

I follow you not. Clarify please?

The chairs looked bolted into the ground and I don't see how that whole bit would turn with the turret?

[Korva]

I follow you not. Clarify please?

The chairs looked bolted into the ground and I don't see how that whole bit would turn with the turret?

They're mounted to the bottom of the turret basket.

[Doppio Giudici]

The chairs looked bolted into the ground and I don't see how that whole bit would turn with the turret?

They're mounted to the bottom of the turret basket.

Could you give us an image of the turret facing backwards so I can be sure? Please?

[Yukonastan]

hahaa

And now a constructive post please.

[Auroya]

hahaa

This is a good introduction to the thread, isn't it?

[Doppio Giudici]

hahaa

And now a constructive post please.

Other posts are spam posts for the most part......

[Lydenburg]

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.

I remember reading about a Cuban tank company attempting this during Op Reindeer, 1978. They were supposed to be reinforcements for the garrison at Cassinga, but arrived too late - the raid was already over and our paratroops were being picked up by Alouette IIIs. But an overloaded, slow-moving, Alouette still made a tempting target, so the T-34/85s loaded up HE and started shooting.

Of course they all missed.

[San-Silvacian]

tiny-scale model of a tank

the tracks turned out fairly shitty IMO, but what do you think of the general shape?

(Image)

You did a good job for such a small scale but I would change the exhaust, right now it looks like a car's tailpipe.


All Maltakyan drivers are midgets

>soviet vehicle
>crew not sitting on 50 rounds of ammo

wurst tanq

[Purpelia]

>soviet vehicle
>crew not sitting on 50 rounds of ammo

wurst tanq

I tend to agree. He seems to have 50 rounds less than a regular tank would.

[Novorden]

In a related question - since I'm in the awkward position of having to redo my SPAAG turret (phased array tracking radar don't need laterally traversing mountings...), which of the following armament options look better?
i) 2 x 35mm (ye average SPAAG loadout)
ii) 2 x 45mm (a bit heavier, modified version of my IFV cannon)
iii) 1 x 75mm (think Otomatic)

With ammunition options like AHEAD and contemporary FCS + propellant options, it feels like the first two would be able to fill the niche that Otomatic was supposed to occupy (looking at, say, Skyranger) - that is to say, reaching out accurately and powerfully to ATGM launching ranges - so is there any merit in using a larger, unwieldier single cannon for the same purpose?

and load it with DART and VULCANO for the glory!

Unrelated, found this GIF that people may apperciate

[Korva]

You did a good job for such a small scale but I would change the exhaust, right now it looks like a car's tailpipe.

(Image)
All Maltakyan drivers are midgets

>soviet vehicle
>crew not sitting on 50 rounds of ammo

wurst tanq

Maltakyan engineers compensated for this by installing a massive spring under the turret basket.

I tend to agree. He seems to have 50 rounds less than a regular tank would.

There is plenty of ammo stored to the right of the driver.

[Novorden]

[WIP]

Working on my old MBT (top) so it's not so insanely big

-Turret has been shortened and its height reduced, hull has been modified and shortened, new suspension.

[The Akasha Colony]

[WIP]
(Image)
Working on my old MBT (top) so it's not so insanely big

-Turret has been shortened and its height reduced, hull has been modified and shortened, new suspension.

Nice as always, although indeed the first one looks rather... long.

[Korva]

Does anyone have that image that breaks down which parts of the tank are most likely to be hit?