Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

I recall the Maus being completely unable to cross most bridges. If you had a 100+ ton tank you would have to make it amphibious from the start like the Maus. Also good luck trying to drive on most roads. And have even more fun trying to tow the thing when it inevitably gets stuck in a ditch. And you're tank is also only air-mobile through the use of super-heavy airlifters like the C-5 or An-124.

[Fordorsia]

Actual maximum loads of bridges are much higher than what is on signs and stuff, like with elevators.

Typically the safety margin is 3-4x. However this does not mean that you can just drive that much weight over them indefinitely. Wear is certainly going to be a much greater issue.

Thousands of tonnes go over busy bridges every hour. A full loaded semi can weigh nearly 40 tonnes, and they go over decades old bridges no problem. Bridges are maintained, you see.

[Purpelia]

Typically the safety margin is 3-4x. However this does not mean that you can just drive that much weight over them indefinitely. Wear is certainly going to be a much greater issue.

Thousands of tonnes go over busy bridges every hour. A full loaded semi can weigh nearly 40 tonnes, and they go over decades old bridges no problem. Bridges are maintained, you see.

That's not how loading works. If a bridge is rated for say 150 Mg of load that does not refer to the total load you can put on it but rather the maximum load you can have covering it back to back. So not 1x150 but a like of vehicles 150 each back to back from one end to the other.

[Immoren]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

I recall the Maus being completely unable to cross most bridges. If you had a 100+ ton tank you would have to make it amphibious from the start like the Maus. Also good luck trying to drive on most roads. And have even more fun trying to tow the thing when it inevitably gets stuck in a ditch. And you're tank is also only air-mobile through the use of super-heavy airlifters like the C-5 or An-124.

Clearly at this point your tank flies on contragrav field.

[Gallia-]

I recall the Maus being completely unable to cross most bridges. If you had a 100+ ton tank you would have to make it amphibious from the start like the Maus. Also good luck trying to drive on most roads. And have even more fun trying to tow the thing when it inevitably gets stuck in a ditch. And you're tank is also only air-mobile through the use of super-heavy airlifters like the C-5 or An-124.

Clearly at this point your tank flies on contragrav field.

Word.

30,000 short ton landship.

General Motors get on it.

[Allanea]

Guys may I posit a counterpoint?

Modern tanks are bigger and heavier than 1940s tanks. A Merkava Mk IV is probably around 80 tons. An M1A2 SEP is 63 tons.

The medium tanks of WW2 were about half that weight.

So why wouldn't a 2100 tank be, say, 100 tons?

All bridges and roads would have to be twice as strong by then. Also the tank would need a track area twice as big so it doesn't sink into mud or sand. With developments in crew automation, armor technology, and active protection systems future tanks will likely get lighter, not heavier.

Most bridges and roads today are much stronger than roads in 1943. Hell there are 150-ton capacity pontoon bridges today, which the Wehrmacht did not have.

In 2100? You're going to have better bridges.

[Gallia-]

2100 tanks will probably still be Abrams tbh.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Most bridges and roads today are much stronger than roads in 1943. Hell there are 150-ton capacity pontoon bridges today, which the Wehrmacht did not have.

In 2100? You're going to have better bridges.

Sure, but that doesn't solve all the other issues.

[Gallia-]

The main problem is your tank can't fit inside a UH-60: the future of 3D air-mech maneuver.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The main problem is your tank can't fit inside a UH-60: the future of 3D air-mech maneuver.

No, the problem is you can't send your 100+ ton tank to the moon in a saturn V to fight the space nazis.

[Allanea]

Twin-turret MTLB? Twin-turret MTLB.

[Purpelia]

Twin-turret MTLB? Twin-turret MTLB.

I like that one. Not sure about its utility but it's cool as hell.

[Volkite Hegemony]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

I recall the Maus being completely unable to cross most bridges. If you had a 100+ ton tank you would have to make it amphibious from the start like the Maus. Also good luck trying to drive on most roads. And have even more fun trying to tow the thing when it inevitably gets stuck in a ditch. And you're tank is also only air-mobile through the use of super-heavy airlifters like the C-5 or An-124.

Most German infrastructure during WW2 was old as shit and the Maus 188 tons, almost twice what is being asked. It isn't half as big an issue as you make it out to be. For foreign countries that might have shitty infrastructure that is what bridge layers and the army corps of engineers are for.

[Theodosiya]

What you guys think about Theodosiya's MBT given 2 Browning .50 Cal as pintle mount each for loader and commander? Aside from a RWS capable to mount a .50, a 40mm AGL, and 4 Stinger MANPADS at once.

[Imperializt Russia]

Does the loader need a .50 gun if the Commander has one?
Does the MBT need four surface to air missiles? It is a tank, after all.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I had some ideas on riot control vehicles.

Now I don't want to use any dedicated purpose-built vehicle, so this is what I can work with:

Humvee
BRV-O
FMTV/FMTV Armored Cab

Sisu Pasi*

For the first three I could have a module composed of a self-sealing water tank (assuming that works with water), shielded by riot-level protection (say, plastic, that would work against blunt and bladed weapons etc. but not bulletproof). This should work decent since the tank is not a vital component and bulletproofing would add too much weight and cost. Even if penetrated, the tank shouldn't leak that much due due to self-sealing. Alternatively, 1 or 2 extra tanks containing riot control agents or skunk could be added. A heavy duty (as in vandalproof) monitor gun as you see on some fire appliances and many riot control vehicles would sit on top. The module would also house an electrical pump. It would be connected to the vehicle's electrical installation and be controlled from inside the vehicle.

This module would be slapped on the back of the truck (chassis cab). Different sizes could be made (humvee 2 door, humvee 4 door, brv-o 2 door, brv-o 4 door, different kinds of fmtv, etc - whatever is deemed useful). If there is still room for a turret/gunshield, this could do without the machinegun and mount an LRAD instead and allow the gunner to fire e.g. 40mm LL or pepperball or whatever.

My variant of the Sisu Pasi could be used for the more hardcore stuff, and this is what I had in mind: secure a large tank inside with a pump, and replace the turret w/a monitor gun.

Allegedly all these vehicles would feature a universal front/back attachment hardpoint/system, to which you could mount either one of these

(Image)

where the sections are moved hydraulically to form a large moving wall, or a hydraulic V-shaped ram/plow to crush through barricades.

Any glaring issues with the above?

[Theodosiya]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

[Imperializt Russia]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

"Better" for what? What will this second .50 gun be used for that won't be achieved with a single .50? The loader cannot perform his duty of loading the gun while operating it.

The tank will be drawn into operating as an air defence piece if equipped with SAM system. This will prevent it from operating as a tank and it cannot perform its duty.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

No. The two fulfill very different roles. The M240 is more useful for anti-personnel use.

Having 3 .50 cal HMGs wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

"Better" for what? What will this second .50 gun be used for that won't be achieved with a single .50? The loader cannot perform his duty of loading the gun while operating it.

The tank will be drawn into operating as an air defence piece if equipped with SAM system. This will prevent it from operating as a tank and it cannot perform its duty.

I don't see why fitting a MANPAD or two to a tank or other AFV would do that.

[EsToVnIa]

two turret mounted 20mm autocannons would be better than 4 MANPADS

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

btw, to give you an image of how large a 40mm AGL + .50BMG HMG RWS is, this is a pretty realistic representation. Stack 2 MANPADs on each side and now you essentially have another turret stacked on top of your tank's turret which is just as large at least as far as width is concerned.

[The Kievan People]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

The tanks themselves don't need that responsibility.

[Immoren]

2 fifty is better than a fifty and a M240. And limited aa defense are better than none.

You've machine gun(s) for "limited aa defense"

[Allanea]

What you guys think about Theodosiya's MBT given 2 Browning .50 Cal as pintle mount each for loader and commander? Aside from a RWS capable to mount a .50, a 40mm AGL, and 4 Stinger MANPADS at once.

Where would you fit a Stinger MANPAD?

How would it be aimed?

Do you know how a Stinger is operated?