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

[Crookfur]

Apparently they order specific numbers of them, and they have to be the right number, so instead of just getting a generic 100-box of bolts or whatever, some poor bastard has to count them and bag them.

I went to a specialty modeling store to buy an odd number of I believe it was model train couplers or something. The vendor split the package, counted out what I needed (rather than selling me 500), and put the combined total into one bag. Not one bag per coupler, but one bag of couplers. Amazing, isn't it? How much the Usian Navy can learn from modeling store proprietors?

Still doesn't beat some of the insanity you can encoutner from Big computer manaufacturuers.

I remember once my college innocently sent a cusotmer about 30 CMOS batteries only to be confused when said, now very angry, customer phoend the next day to ask why we had delivered him a massive pallet.

turned out each CMOs battery had to go out in a A4 sized carboard box and for every five of those had to go into a "pizza box" and they all ahd to go intoa box that was now big enough to require a pallet for safe shipping...

Similar things have also happened with pallets for 20 sheets of paper (license docs) etc etc

[Imperializt Russia]

Here's your problem: SPAAGs don't do hull down. That's not what they are designed to do, and not how they operate.
Therefore, being half exposed when hull down is irrelevant, because it should not be hull down to begin with.

The purpose of hull-down or even turret-down dug in tanks is to follow the principle of "be not seen, be not shot, be not killed". If I have SPAAGs deployed with tanks in a relatively dense and tight line (ie my SPAAGs are close to, or just behind, the front), and they can't be parked hull-down, so they're not seen by enemy tanks, guess what's going to get knocked out by hostile tanks?

That's right. My SPAAGs. And guess what happens next: Hostile helicopters will make quick work of my tanks.

Since my SPAAGs have their primary search radar on a half-pantograph mast, and since said SPAAGs have a low profile turret, I can expose only my search radar while I'm holding the line from hostile attack helicopters, and only expose myself when I'm actually tossing lead explosive and tungsten into the sky. Plus they look far less distinctive when viewed from the air.

Alternatively, let's assume that for some reason I need to put a whole lot of holes in that village right there. Maybe it's full of enemy fighters with rocket launchers. Maybe the walls can't be pierced fast enough by conventional autocannon fire and I need to stick something bigger in there.

My SPAAGs, due to their low profile, present smaller frontal targets while cutting said hypothetical village in half on a horizontal plane.

Now, I do realize that there are merits to having SPAAGs like the Gepard, chief of which is the self-contained-ness of the turret, but SPAAGs like the Shilka, or back when it was still in service, the Vulcan Air Defense System, do fine with low-profile turrets, while being almost equally self-contained.

I'm about 80% sure this is not how SPAAGs are used to support armour in mechanised warfare.

[The Kievan People]

Ideally air defenses are positioned between the aircraft and the defended site along the likely approach or escape routes. Failing that they should be positioned where they have the best chance of obtaining a line of sight to passing aircraft in general. The best position will rarely, if ever, be on top of the thing you are protecting.

High noon shootouts are very unfavorable for AA and should be avoided. AA achieves the best results when it takes aircraft by surprise. If an aircraft sets out to destroy a target it will as a rule be attempting to minimize its exposure to the target while approaching and the pilots will already have their full attention on the target area during the attack, so they are very unlikely to be caught off guard by return fire.

[Yukonastan]

Ideally air defenses are positioned between the aircraft and the defended site along the likely approach or escape routes. Failing that they should be positioned where they have the best chance of obtaining a line of sight to passing aircraft in general. The best position will rarely, if ever, be on top of the thing you are protecting.

High noon shootouts are very unfavorable for AA and should be avoided. AA achieves the best results when it takes aircraft by surprise. If an aircraft sets out to destroy a target it will as a rule be attempting to minimize its exposure to the target while approaching and the pilots will already have their full attention on the target area during the attack, so they are very unlikely to be caught off guard by return fire.

The SPAAGs have to protect the tanks and IFVs which form the front line. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) enemy presence ahead of the front line precludes my SPAAGs from moving up beyond it, and as such have to compromise by being near the tanks they're supposed to be protecting.

[Savoria]

Assuming I understand this thread correctly (Apologies if I didn't), that is someplace to ask for help on armor design. Anyways I'm trying to design a super heavy tank, silly as they are, though I am trying to be at least remotely serious with the tank in question. I'm planning on using it in some wargames me and some friends are doing (we're using WWII tech) and was curious if I could get some suggestions on how to improve the tanks design. Image (link, size limit) in spoiler, along with my reasoning for some of its traits.

http://s17.postimg.org/u0mpv14lb/140mm_Super_Heavy_B.png
Reason for 140mm: I'm dealing with a number of other heavy tanks, I'm needing a combination of power and penetration. I went for 140mm as a compromised between a 128mm and 152mm Gun. The reload isn't quite as severe as a 152mm but I'm able to pack far more firepower then a 128mm. It does suffer though, only having +10/-2 Elevation/Depression respectively.
Reason for Coaxial 50mm: its used for lighter targets at times, its primary role is as a "sighting" gun however, helping the gunner adjust his fire without relying on the main gun.
Rear Turret: The turret was placed at the rear to shorten the tank and leave less of the barrel hanging over the front for an assault profile, it also means there's more "Tank" in front of the turret crew.
Skirt Armor: This is just spaced armor, thick spaced armor possibly but just spaced armor.
Commander/2nd Loader auto cannons: This was to provide better Anti-infantry capabilities. Given I only have a coaxial MG.
Outside of these, I do know a few things that might be problematic, namely the ground clearance, the commanders copula and the VASTLY underpowered engine.(I doubt it can even get to top speed).
I'd love if I could adjust this for use at night, however I'm not sure if that's even possible given the time frame (we're around 1943-1944 equipment wise).
Oh, and as silly as it is, my tank crews are required to be short (Don't ask)

[Husseinarti]

Ideally air defenses are positioned between the aircraft and the defended site along the likely approach or escape routes. Failing that they should be positioned where they have the best chance of obtaining a line of sight to passing aircraft in general. The best position will rarely, if ever, be on top of the thing you are protecting.

High noon shootouts are very unfavorable for AA and should be avoided. AA achieves the best results when it takes aircraft by surprise. If an aircraft sets out to destroy a target it will as a rule be attempting to minimize its exposure to the target while approaching and the pilots will already have their full attention on the target area during the attack, so they are very unlikely to be caught off guard by return fire.

The SPAAGs have to protect the tanks and IFVs which form the front line. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) enemy presence ahead of the front line precludes my SPAAGs from moving up beyond it, and as such have to compromise by being near the tanks they're supposed to be protecting.

They shouldn't be near the front line to the point they are sitting next to tanks.

[Rich and Corporations]

If I have SPAAGs deployed with tanks in a relatively dense and tight line (ie my SPAAGs are close to, or just behind, the front)

Don't do that.

Ideally air defenses are positioned between the aircraft and the defended site along the likely approach or escape routes. Failing that they should be positioned where they have the best chance of obtaining a line of sight to passing aircraft in general. The best position will rarely, if ever, be on top of the thing you are protecting.

High noon shootouts are very unfavorable for AA and should be avoided. AA achieves the best results when it takes aircraft by surprise. If an aircraft sets out to destroy a target it will as a rule be attempting to minimize its exposure to the target while approaching and the pilots will already have their full attention on the target area during the attack, so they are very unlikely to be caught off guard by return fire.

The SPAAGs have to protect the tanks and IFVs which form the front line. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) enemy presence ahead of the front line precludes my SPAAGs from moving up beyond it, and as such have to compromise by being near the tanks they're supposed to be protecting.

if you spend an extra half million dollars on the remote weapons system, you could have a pretty quick and automated anti-aircraft gun system firing time fused HE rounds.

[The Kievan People]

The SPAAGs have to protect the tanks and IFVs which form the front line. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) enemy presence ahead of the front line precludes my SPAAGs from moving up beyond it, and as such have to compromise by being near the tanks they're supposed to be protecting.

1. You can always put them off to one side. Or on a little hillock. Or something. Think enfilading fire. Think over watch. Offsetting the AA from the defended position makes it easier to prevent aircraft from approaching that position, because it becomes possible to see things which are obstructed from the defended position.
2. Attack helicopters do not generally approach a defensive position from the front. If they do they are likely to be attacking from the limits of their range, which is longer than AAA range.
3. The front line is not an absolute boundary. Putting small units forward of the main line of defense to provide advance warning and harass incoming enemies is called screening.

SPAAGs frankly are not well suited for defense at the FLOT. They are big, expensive, vulnerable to enemy fire and are out ranged by most aircraft weapons. Attack helicopters, which can pop up and attack from the outer limits of AAA range and beyond, have very little to fear from them in a high noon shoot out. They are much more effective defending in depth where they can sit and wait for unwitting aircraft to fly into their horrible rape radius. But as you said that is a luxury you don't have at the FLOT.

But that is why god invented MANPADs, which are flexible enough to deployed anywhere. And anti-helicopter mines.

[Gallia-]

What advantages does an anti-helicopter minefield have over a pair of men with a MANPADS?

Besides the requirement for little to no manning, the inability to move or cover a significant radius of action makes it seem v. limited in capability, even more so than anti-tank mines since aviation isn't quite as limited by natural terrain as tanks or whatever, but then we can also say that manually emplaced mines are also obsolete to an extent I suppose. If something Helkir could be thrown out of a howitzer shell and still be capable I'd say it has utility, but aside from that it doesn't seem particularly useful unless you have a very well defined area to ambush tactical aviation like in the Cenepa War.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Everybody seems to think SPAAGs are some wonder weapon - two medium-caliber autocannons firing at high rates might seem to be able to make short work of most light-armored vehicles and less, but are they really something to write home about? People even say that they could disable an MBT, or at least damage it to the point that it won't be doing any killing. Autocannons seem to be standard fare on most IFVs(Bradley, Warrior, BTR, etc.) but they aren't generally made for killing other AFVs - I don't see anything below a 105mm doing more than scratching the paint of a T-90 or M1A2.

[Gallia-]

A 2" gun will damage optronics and other fire control equipment, effectively making the tank worthless.

Penetrations aren't the only way to kill armour.

[Radicchio]

Can anyone tell me what this is on the back of this Volvo N10 Truck?

[Korva]

Can anyone tell me what this is on the back of this Volvo N10 Truck?
(Image)

looks like FV107 Scimitar

[Radicchio]

Can anyone tell me what this is on the back of this Volvo N10 Truck?
(Image)

looks like FV107 Scimitar

Are they any good?

[Husseinarti]

looks like FV107 Scimitar

Are they any good?

no

[Gallia-]

looks like FV107 Scimitar

Are they any good?

Yes, if it's the newest ones.

[Radicchio]

So, right now i have a handfull of Merkava MK-IV Tanks in my inventory that i purchased from another nation, I have quite a few Olifant (Challenger upgrades) that i also purchased from another nation, and I have a butt ton of American "Ontos" vehicles laying around that i would like to keep in service.
These are the only "Tanks" that i operate (if you can call the ontos a tank.) I am wondering if i should consider buying more Olifants or looking into a lighter vehicle like that Scimitar?

[Korva]

So, right now i have a handfull of Merkava MK-IV Tanks in my inventory that i purchased from another nation, I have quite a few Olifant (Challenger upgrades) that i also purchased from another nation, and I have a butt ton of American "Ontos" vehicles laying around that i would like to keep in service.
These are the only "Tanks" that i operate (if you can call the ontos a tank.) I am wondering if i should consider buying more Olifants or looking into a lighter vehicle like that Scimitar?

They fill different roles though.

The Scimitar is more a recon vehicle, you can't really substitute it for MBTs.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Ideally air defenses are positioned between the aircraft and the defended site along the likely approach or escape routes. Failing that they should be positioned where they have the best chance of obtaining a line of sight to passing aircraft in general. The best position will rarely, if ever, be on top of the thing you are protecting.

High noon shootouts are very unfavorable for AA and should be avoided. AA achieves the best results when it takes aircraft by surprise. If an aircraft sets out to destroy a target it will as a rule be attempting to minimize its exposure to the target while approaching and the pilots will already have their full attention on the target area during the attack, so they are very unlikely to be caught off guard by return fire.

The SPAAGs have to protect the tanks and IFVs which form the front line. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) enemy presence ahead of the front line precludes my SPAAGs from moving up beyond it, and as such have to compromise by being near the tanks they're supposed to be protecting.

Kyiv is doing a great job explaining it, but I will interject again.

If your SPAAG is so close to enemy tanks that enemy tanks can shoot them, you are doing it wrong. Very wrong. They are there to support your tank formations, but not that close. Here is how your air defense for combat forces in a nutshell.

Your front line (Say tank or mechanized unit) are protected by a multi-layered bubble.

Your closest bubble to your forces are their own weapons: coaxial machine guns, auto cannons, remote weapon systems, rifles, etc. This is your last resort, weapons of opportunity, and are relatively ineffective. Better then nothing, but not by much.

Your first real bubble then is still organic to tactical level formations: MANPADS. There is a reason MANPADS have proliferated faster then the machine gun did at the turn of the last century, a huge reason. Sprinkle MANPADS around your units and they will keep enemy aircraft from being too brave, and thus keep them at a standoff from your main forces. This is the only real air defense you should ever have with immediate front line forces.

Your next bubble are what I like to call "roving opportunists", these are the SPAAGs. They have two, absolutely amazing qualities that people tend to overlook: They are mobile, and they are practically artillery proof. They may have a shorter range then MANPADS, but they are just as mobile as the front line units, and unlike MANPADS are protected from shelling. What this means is the enemy can "suppress" an area known to have air defenses before their aviation assets fly through to provide a non-frontal (flank) strike on your front line. The MANPADS teams may be kept suppressed, they may even be killed, but the armoured SPAAG is going to live through anything but dedicated anti-armour strikes or direct hits, and be able to start firing even while it is in the midst of being shelled.

This makes SPAAGs versatile. They can act as mobile stop-gaps, they can act offensively in known enemy air-activity areas, they can act as CIWS for valuable assets, they can act as surprise pickets. They can do a ton of stuff, but should not be right on the front lines.

The last bubble should be your longer range SAMS, I won't go into them in detail, their role seems much more understood here.

[Rich and Corporations]

There is appropriate moments for SPAAGs. Like urban city fighting without fear of tanks.

Everybody seems to think SPAAGs are some wonder weapon - two medium-caliber autocannons firing at high rates might seem to be able to make short work of most light-armored vehicles and less, but are they really something to write home about? People even say that they could disable an MBT, or at least damage it to the point that it won't be doing any killing. Autocannons seem to be standard fare on most IFVs(Bradley, Warrior, BTR, etc.) but they aren't generally made for killing other AFVs - I don't see anything below a 105mm doing more than scratching the paint of a T-90 or M1A2.

M2 Bradleys killed Iraqi tanks from the side.

According to Wikipedia, the current Japanese MBT (Type 10 I think? Can't be bothered) has side armor protection only up to 40mm cannon.

In any case, a hundred autocannon rounds will damage optics, degrade ceramics (by cracking), destroy ERA, and possibly crack the steel armor as well.

[New Korongo]

Speaking of the CVR(T) series, I have been wondering what will replace it in Korongolese service. I originally decided upon a specialised series of small tracked vehicles that would essentially be a modern reinterpretation of the CVR(T), but I am now considering using my nation's infantry fighting vehicle for the base of the design instead. A series of support vehicles based on the IFV would be larger, which creates more options and is beneficial for certain roles. For example, I would be able to include a removable 120 mm mortar in an IFV-derived mortar carrier instead of a smaller turret-mounted 81 mm mortar I would be forced to use in the smaller specialised series. It would also reduce logistical complexity as there would be commonality between my infantry fighting vehicle and the support vehicles it fights alongside. However, I feel that a smaller specialised series of vehicles also has its advantages. The reconnaissance variant of the series would have a smaller profile than an IFV-derived equivalent and the passenger capacity of the armoured personnel carrier variant (4) would be ideal for something like an ATGM or a MANPADS team. A smaller specialised series could also be transported in larger numbers using a smaller number of transport aircraft or amphibious assault ships and could be air dropped in meaningful numbers to support paratroopers. The smaller vehicles could also be amphibious and would be light enough to be transported over short distances by helicopter. The United Kingdom seems to be moving away from smaller support vehicles with their Scout SV, though it's not derived from Warrior which indicates to me that the logistical advantages of an IFV-derived vehicle would be negligible so long as the Korongolese Army can keep its units consistently supplied. I don't know if I should reverse my decision and create a line of support vehicles based on my IFV or continue to use a smaller series of tracked support vehicles.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Speaking of the CVR(T) series, I have been wondering what will replace it in Korongolese service. I originally decided upon a specialised series of small tracked vehicles that would essentially be a modern reinterpretation of the CVR(T), but I am now considering using my nation's infantry fighting vehicle for the base of the design instead. A series of support vehicles based on the IFV would be larger, which creates more options and is beneficial for certain roles. For example, I would be able to include a removable 120 mm mortar in an IFV-derived mortar carrier instead of a smaller turret-mounted 81 mm mortar I would be forced to use in the smaller specialised series. It would also reduce logistical complexity as there would be commonality between my infantry fighting vehicle and the support vehicles it fights alongside. However, I feel that a smaller specialised series of vehicles also has its advantages. The reconnaissance variant of the series would have a smaller profile than an IFV-derived equivalent and the passenger capacity of the armoured personnel carrier variant (4) would be ideal for something like an ATGM or a MANPADS team. A smaller specialised series could also be transported in larger numbers using a smaller number of transport aircraft or amphibious assault ships and could be air dropped in meaningful numbers to support paratroopers. The smaller vehicles could also be amphibious and would be light enough to be transported over short distances by helicopter. The United Kingdom seems to be moving away from smaller support vehicles with their Scout SV, though it's not derived from Warrior which indicates to me that the logistical advantages of an IFV-derived vehicle would be negligible so long as the Korongolese Army can keep its units consistently supplied. I don't know if I should reverse my decision and create a line of support vehicles based on my IFV or continue to use a smaller series of tracked support vehicles.

what exactly do you mean when you say "IFV"?

RN only has 3 main tracked vehicles: the Wiesel 2, the ACV (which is an upgraded M113) and an IFV like the CV9040 or Puma.

The ACV comes in 2 weight variants, the ACV-19 15-20T and the ACV-30 20-30T. These are my most common tracked vehicles and serve as the base for anything tracked that isn't the Wiesel, IFV or MBT.

[New Visegrad]

Assuming I understand this thread correctly (Apologies if I didn't), that is someplace to ask for help on armor design. Anyways I'm trying to design a super heavy tank, silly as they are, though I am trying to be at least remotely serious with the tank in question. I'm planning on using it in some wargames me and some friends are doing (we're using WWII tech) and was curious if I could get some suggestions on how to improve the tanks design. Image (link, size limit) in spoiler, along with my reasoning for some of its traits.

http://s17.postimg.org/u0mpv14lb/140mm_Super_Heavy_B.png
Reason for 140mm: I'm dealing with a number of other heavy tanks, I'm needing a combination of power and penetration. I went for 140mm as a compromised between a 128mm and 152mm Gun. The reload isn't quite as severe as a 152mm but I'm able to pack far more firepower then a 128mm. It does suffer though, only having +10/-2 Elevation/Depression respectively.
Reason for Coaxial 50mm: its used for lighter targets at times, its primary role is as a "sighting" gun however, helping the gunner adjust his fire without relying on the main gun.
Rear Turret: The turret was placed at the rear to shorten the tank and leave less of the barrel hanging over the front for an assault profile, it also means there's more "Tank" in front of the turret crew.
Skirt Armor: This is just spaced armor, thick spaced armor possibly but just spaced armor.
Commander/2nd Loader auto cannons: This was to provide better Anti-infantry capabilities. Given I only have a coaxial MG.
Outside of these, I do know a few things that might be problematic, namely the ground clearance, the commanders copula and the VASTLY underpowered engine.(I doubt it can even get to top speed).
I'd love if I could adjust this for use at night, however I'm not sure if that's even possible given the time frame (we're around 1943-1944 equipment wise).
Oh, and as silly as it is, my tank crews are required to be short (Don't ask)

You'll want wider tracks if you plan to drive it offroad.

[Laywenrania]

Assuming I understand this thread correctly (Apologies if I didn't), that is someplace to ask for help on armor design. Anyways I'm trying to design a super heavy tank, silly as they are, though I am trying to be at least remotely serious with the tank in question. I'm planning on using it in some wargames me and some friends are doing (we're using WWII tech) and was curious if I could get some suggestions on how to improve the tanks design. Image (link, size limit) in spoiler, along with my reasoning for some of its traits.

http://s17.postimg.org/u0mpv14lb/140mm_Super_Heavy_B.png
Reason for 140mm: I'm dealing with a number of other heavy tanks, I'm needing a combination of power and penetration. I went for 140mm as a compromised between a 128mm and 152mm Gun. The reload isn't quite as severe as a 152mm but I'm able to pack far more firepower then a 128mm. It does suffer though, only having +10/-2 Elevation/Depression respectively.
Reason for Coaxial 50mm: its used for lighter targets at times, its primary role is as a "sighting" gun however, helping the gunner adjust his fire without relying on the main gun.
Rear Turret: The turret was placed at the rear to shorten the tank and leave less of the barrel hanging over the front for an assault profile, it also means there's more "Tank" in front of the turret crew.
Skirt Armor: This is just spaced armor, thick spaced armor possibly but just spaced armor.
Commander/2nd Loader auto cannons: This was to provide better Anti-infantry capabilities. Given I only have a coaxial MG.
Outside of these, I do know a few things that might be problematic, namely the ground clearance, the commanders copula and the VASTLY underpowered engine.(I doubt it can even get to top speed).
I'd love if I could adjust this for use at night, however I'm not sure if that's even possible given the time frame (we're around 1943-1944 equipment wise).
Oh, and as silly as it is, my tank crews are required to be short (Don't ask)

Looks even less useful then the Maus So as your enemy I would probably hope you built this thing, vasting many resource you could put in something useful.

From a technical point of view: Doesn't looks like the 25mm Autocannons have any elevation/depression and are practically useless in that mount.
And that engine can't really move you in any useful speed and you probably will suffer a lot of breakdowns.

[Questers]

Why replace FV 107? It's tiny, it's fast - really fast - and if you give it thermals and a good comms suite, what's the problem? Ok, give it a better gun, it's still fundamentally a pro vehicle. It can be delivered by Chinook lol.