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

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

A little bit off-topic, but there's a fairly important debate going on concerning the position of RPers on this site - I know most of us here are avid designers as part of a broader RPing presence, so it's probably something that's worth keeping up with and possibly contributing to.

Carry on as usual. MA11 variants coming up at some point (will update list duly).

People keep trying to invade my region but then get bored and leave. It shows you how active and exciting we are.

[Anemos Major]

People keep trying to invade my region but then get bored and leave. It shows you how active and exciting we are.

Come now, we're pretty thrilling.

Repost of all Anemonian APCs/IFVs at the moment.

[Yukonastan]

People keep trying to invade my region but then get bored and leave. It shows you how active and exciting we are.

Come now, we're pretty thrilling.

Repost of all Anemonian APCs/IFVs at the moment.

No mortar carriers? No smoke generator carriers? No command vehicles or ambulances? No SPAAGs? No SPSAMs? No AEROMAV(T) or AEROWMAV?
Naw, just kidding. But you've got a great platform now, so why stop here?

[Yukonastan]

People keep trying to invade my region but then get bored and leave. It shows you how active and exciting we are.

Come now, we're pretty thrilling.

Repost of all Anemonian APCs/IFVs at the moment.

No mortar carriers? No smoke generator carriers? No command vehicles or ambulances? No SPAAGs? No SPSAMs? No AEROMAV(T) or AEROWMAV?
Naw, just kidding. But you've got a great platform now, so why stop here?
Edit: I SEE BOXERS

[Imperializt Russia]

*I am 90% sure this goes here.

What are the problems with hovertanks? These rebel guys use hovertanks as their main AFV's due to them being inexpensive, easy to train a crew in and maintain, with some heavier tread tanks. The hovertanks are basically light tanks, with lighter armament and such then the rebels treaded tanks.

Put tracks on 'em. Tracks don't break down and don't burn fuel just sitting there.

They actually do. Quite a lot, really.

Tracked tanks do both of the latter.

Uh, a tracked vehicle doesn't use energy to levitate. Also, what if your levitation unit breaks down? That's a bit harder to fix than a track.

If tracks break, the vehicle is immobilized BUT the impact of a hover tank that suddenly stops hovering on one side immobilizes that hovertank more thoroughly.

The Abrams burns gallons an hour with engine idling.

[Yukonastan]

Put tracks on 'em. Tracks don't break down and don't burn fuel just sitting there.

They actually do. Quite a lot, really.

Uh, a tracked vehicle doesn't use energy to levitate. Also, what if your levitation unit breaks down? That's a bit harder to fix than a track.

If tracks break, the vehicle is immobilized BUT the impact of a hover tank that suddenly stops hovering on one side immobilizes that hovertank more thoroughly.

The Abrams burns gallons an hour with engine idling.

Tracks still don't burn fuel when just sitting there, for example when the tank is shut down for whatever reason.

The Abrams is also one of a small handful of tanks with gas turbines, and is backed by the US. Now imagine you have a hovertank, with a large number of fans or ground jets. Imagine what that burns. Gallons per minute.

[Premislyd]

They actually do. Quite a lot, really.
The Abrams burns gallons an hour with engine idling.

Tracks still don't burn fuel when just sitting there, for example when the tank is shut down for whatever reason.

The Abrams is also one of a small handful of tanks with gas turbines, and is backed by the US. Now imagine you have a hovertank, with a large number of fans or ground jets. Imagine what that burns. Gallons per minute.

I don't think a hovertank would burn fuel if it was shut down for whatever reason either.

[Stahn]

Edit: I SEE BOXERS
(Image)

Indeed.

He seems to be going Dutch style. The wheeled version is a lot like the Boxer while the tracked version as a concept seems to have a lot in common with the Combat Vehicle 90.

[Imperializt Russia]

They actually do. Quite a lot, really.
The Abrams burns gallons an hour with engine idling.

Tracks still don't burn fuel when just sitting there, for example when the tank is shut down for whatever reason.

The Abrams is also one of a small handful of tanks with gas turbines, and is backed by the US. Now imagine you have a hovertank, with a large number of fans or ground jets. Imagine what that burns. Gallons per minute.

How does being backed by the US reduce fuel consumption or the likelihood of track failure?

Hovertanks wouldn't burn fuel if off either.
But then neither would be ready to fight, removing the point of the consideration.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

Tracks still don't burn fuel when just sitting there, for example when the tank is shut down for whatever reason.

The Abrams is also one of a small handful of tanks with gas turbines, and is backed by the US. Now imagine you have a hovertank, with a large number of fans or ground jets. Imagine what that burns. Gallons per minute.

How does being backed by the US reduce fuel consumption or the likelihood of track failure?

Hovertanks wouldn't burn fuel if off either.
But then neither would be ready to fight, removing the point of the consideration.

Wouldn't the difference be that the US has a massive and highly sophisticated network of logistics that can keep their troops in the field well supplied with fuel, while rebels wouldn't? Not to mention that if the US military is running out of fuel somewhere that means things are all over anyway, while for the rebels it would be a more pressing concern to deal with. As well as hover-tanks being presumably rather more complex which had been mentioned earlier. And even if they're widespread in the universe then they'd probably still be complex to repair out in the field away from the established infrastructure of civilization.

[Imperializt Russia]

Besides, hovertanks exist. They're called attack helicopters.

[Allanea]

Besides, hovertanks exist. They're called attack helicopters.

There are also hovercraft, to be fair.

[Imperializt Russia]

Besides, hovertanks exist. They're called attack helicopters.

There are also hovercraft, to be fair.

Severely reduced capability to "hovertanks" though, isn't it?

Although strictly speaking, given how hovertanks are used in popular culture, a more apt analogy would be ground-attack jets.

[Allanea]

There were, also, mind you, Soviet experiments revolving a light hovercraft with a PT-76 turret.

[Kouralia]

It's the 4th of July. I just got sent this image as part of some light-hearted 'look, we beat you!'



I know it's not an M1, but unless I'm mistaken... it's a Chieftain, right?

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe so.

[Crookfur]

Yup. IIRC thats from a show where a apir of preseners tried a different thing each epsiode and in that one they went tank driving in some ALL AMERICAN TANKS! i.e. an abbot and a cheiftan...

not a dig at Americans (happy 4th of July!!!) just the uselessness of whom ever writes the scripts for anything involving tanks on TV (or indeed any "military" documentary).

[Paragania]

It's the 4th of July. I just got sent this image as part of some light-hearted 'look, we beat you!'

(Image)

I know it's not an M1, but unless I'm mistaken... it's a Chieftain, right?

Is that Arnold and his tank?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4lnVx2BAYk

[Imperializt Russia]

It's the 4th of July. I just got sent this image as part of some light-hearted 'look, we beat you!'

(Image)

I know it's not an M1, but unless I'm mistaken... it's a Chieftain, right?

The great irony is, not only is it hilariously misidentified, it's a British tank crushing an American car.

[Vetok]

It's the 4th of July. I just got sent this image as part of some light-hearted 'look, we beat you!'

(Image)

I know it's not an M1, but unless I'm mistaken... it's a Chieftain, right?

The great irony is, not only is it hilariously misidentified, it's a British tank crushing an American car.

Britain stronk.

[Anemos Major]

Come now, we're pretty thrilling.

Repost of all Anemonian APCs/IFVs at the moment.

No mortar carriers? No smoke generator carriers? No command vehicles or ambulances? No SPAAGs? No SPSAMs? No AEROMAV(T) or AEROWMAV?
Naw, just kidding. But you've got a great platform now, so why stop here?

Oh, you think I'm done?

I refer you to my MA9A2 - I'm far from done.

[Antarticaria]

It's the 4th of July. I just got sent this image as part of some light-hearted 'look, we beat you!'

(Image)

I know it's not an M1, but unless I'm mistaken... it's a Chieftain, right?

The great irony is, not only is it hilariously misidentified, it's a British tank crushing an American car.

Its a trash compacting deal we established with Britain, they get to actually use their tanks for something and we get to get rid of POS cars.

(None of this I wrote was fact besides the POS car in the picture)

[Fordorsia]

So my M41 Troubadour was developed in, you guessed it, 1941. Would it really serve any purpose going into the 21st century with it's new engine, transmission, ERA and 130mm gun?
It's one of my favorite vehicles of mine, so I would love it to have a purpose for as long as possible.

[Korva]

So my M41 Troubadour was developed in, you guessed it, 1941. Would it really serve any purpose going into the 21st century with it's new engine, transmission, ERA and 130mm gun?
It's one of my favorite vehicles of mine, so I would love it to have a purpose for as long as possible.

What are its current (1941) stats? I don't really see it being useful as a TD, not when you can mount ATGM's on trucks and kill things just as well. For infantry support you are probably better off using turreted vehicles, and as an artillery piece it is antiquated.

If you want to keep an assault gun in your inventory maybe develop something like the M56.

[Fordorsia]

So my M41 Troubadour was developed in, you guessed it, 1941. Would it really serve any purpose going into the 21st century with it's new engine, transmission, ERA and 130mm gun?
It's one of my favorite vehicles of mine, so I would love it to have a purpose for as long as possible.

What are its current (1941) stats? I don't really see it being useful as a TD, not when you can mount ATGM's on trucks and kill things just as well. For infantry support you are probably better off using turreted vehicles, and as an artillery piece it is antiquated.

If you want to keep an assault gun in your inventory maybe develop something like the M56.

M41A1 Troubadour

Protection: 20-100mm

Armament:
110mm AT Gun
Pintle-mounted M20 LCSW

Crew: 5 (Commander, Driver, Gunner, Loader/Radio Operator, Loader)

I don't have anything else other than backstory and shit. I don't know about vehicles enough to have detailed specs.

And this thing is turreted. It's essentially just a Sturer Emil with a turret.