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

[Gallia-]

Bushmaster > RARDEN.

[New Korongo]

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.

In terms of size and weight, the Korongolese Army's tracked infantry fighting vehicle is roughly identical to the CV90. I have had a look at the ACV series and I suppose I could develop a miniaturised version of the IFV to serve as a base for my nation’s CVR(T) replacement. However, I think the smaller derivative would have to differ from the larger vehicle in more ways than just length to be effective. A smaller profile would certainly be advantageous for the reconnaissance variant and a shortened armoured personnel carrier for just four passengers with the same width and height dimensions of the IFV would probably be top-heavy. Admittedly, I have begun to question the need for a four-passenger APC. The tracks, road-wheels, suspension, and a number of other components could remain the same or be modified to suit the minaturised IFV variants. There would be more commonality between the large and small IFV variants than an entirely separate series of CVR(T)-like vehicles and the IFV, though it would not be at the same level as IFV-sized vehicles that fulfill the roles of the CVR(T) series. This begs the question: Is a smaller series of vehicles really needed? As I said before, a smaller vehicle has certain mobility advantages on a tactical and strategic level. Also, a smaller vehicle does have an advantage in certain roles. However, the British Army does not seem to believe that these factors are noteworthy since they are adopting the IFV-sized Scout SV series. Furthermore, the US Army does not seem to have an issue with a larger reconnaissance vehicle as it abandoned development of the XM-800 and adopted the M3 Bradley.

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.

Most CVR(T) series vehicles in Korongolese service were acquired around the beginning of the 1980s. They could be modified and upgraded in the same way that the British Army's Scimitars have been, but they will become increasingly worn and maintenance costs will continue to grow if they are used heavily. Furthermore, Korongolese CVR(T) vehicles will continue to serve in reserve 'Provincial Guard' units, replacing even older vehicles, long after they are withdrawn from front line service. Licensed production of the CVR(T) series could be initiated in New Korongo, allowing for the relegation of older examples to Provincial Guard units where they will not be used as often. However, this would reverse a trend towards domestic designs which I am trying to create in my armed force's inventory and would leave the Korongolese Army with a vehicle design that will be quite outdated by the time it is finally replaced.

[Gallia-]

Replace CVRT with CV9056.

[Questers]

Why replace it? Just build it again. This time you can put better powerpack, possibly hydrogas suspension, CTA gun, etc.

Scimitar's main advantage is its weight and size. It's fucking TINY. Few modern designs match that with a tracked chassis and a useful weapon capacity. It can fit modern optics and comms, necessary for a recon track. They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck. They can go pretty much anywhere, and at speed, and all that's a result of their weight. It even has good operational range for its size. You won't find a modern design to replace it, unless you design it yourself, because of fundamental changes in philosophy.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

The 76mm M32 gun, firing APFSDS ammunition, will reliably penetrate most eastern tanks from the sides or rear at most combat ranges.

Frontal arc is king.

[Elan Valleys]

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.

In terms of size and weight, the Korongolese Army's tracked infantry fighting vehicle is roughly identical to the CV90. I have had a look at the ACV series and I suppose I could develop a miniaturised version of the IFV to serve as a base for my nation’s CVR(T) replacement. However, I think the smaller derivative would have to differ from the larger vehicle in more ways than just length to be effective. A smaller profile would certainly be advantageous for the reconnaissance variant and a shortened armoured personnel carrier for just four passengers with the same width and height dimensions of the IFV would probably be top-heavy. Admittedly, I have begun to question the need for a four-passenger APC. The tracks, road-wheels, suspension, and a number of other components could remain the same or be modified to suit the minaturised IFV variants. There would be more commonality between the large and small IFV variants than an entirely separate series of CVR(T)-like vehicles and the IFV, though it would not be at the same level as IFV-sized vehicles that fulfill the roles of the CVR(T) series. This begs the question: Is a smaller series of vehicles really needed? As I said before, a smaller vehicle has certain mobility advantages on a tactical and strategic level. Also, a smaller vehicle does have an advantage in certain roles. However, the British Army does not seem to believe that these factors are noteworthy since they are adopting the IFV-sized Scout SV series. Furthermore, the US Army does not seem to have an issue with a larger reconnaissance vehicle as it abandoned development of the XM-800 and adopted the M3 Bradley.

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.

Most CVR(T) series vehicles in Korongolese service were acquired around the beginning of the 1980s. They could be modified and upgraded in the same way that the British Army's Scimitars have been, but they will become increasingly worn and maintenance costs will continue to grow if they are used heavily. Furthermore, Korongolese CVR(T) vehicles will continue to serve in reserve 'Provincial Guard' units, replacing even older vehicles, long after they are withdrawn from front line service. Licensed production of the CVR(T) series could be initiated in New Korongo, allowing for the relegation of older examples to Provincial Guard units where they will not be used as often. However, this would reverse a trend towards domestic designs which I am trying to create in my armed force's inventory and would leave the Korongolese Army with a vehicle design that will be quite outdated by the time it is finally replaced.

If the UK replace CVR(T) with a FRES vehicle it'll be to save money and because the UK has to keep cap badges at the expense of common sense so invents new roles for units like driving in Jackals as 'light cavalry' not because there is a flaw with the CVR(T) concept.

[Husseinarti]

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.

Oh god not another one of these types.

[Rich and Corporations]

They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck.

to quote the NSD

make everything bigger

[Padnak]

Why replace it? Just build it again. This time you can put better powerpack, possibly hydrogas suspension, CTA gun, etc.

Scimitar's main advantage is its weight and size. It's fucking TINY. Few modern designs match that with a tracked chassis and a useful weapon capacity. It can fit modern optics and comms, necessary for a recon track. They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck. They can go pretty much anywhere, and at speed, and all that's a result of their weight. It even has good operational range for its size. You won't find a modern design to replace it, unless you design it yourself, because of fundamental changes in philosophy.

Maybe built it again but give it amphibious capabilities too...

[Mizrad]

Why replace it? Just build it again. This time you can put better powerpack, possibly hydrogas suspension, CTA gun, etc.

Scimitar's main advantage is its weight and size. It's fucking TINY. Few modern designs match that with a tracked chassis and a useful weapon capacity. It can fit modern optics and comms, necessary for a recon track. They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck. They can go pretty much anywhere, and at speed, and all that's a result of their weight. It even has good operational range for its size. You won't find a modern design to replace it, unless you design it yourself, because of fundamental changes in philosophy.

Maybe built it again but give it amphibious capabilities too...

I smell NS' new recon AFV in the making....

[Gallia-]

Why replace it? Just build it again. This time you can put better powerpack, possibly hydrogas suspension, CTA gun, etc.

Scimitar's main advantage is its weight and size. It's fucking TINY. Few modern designs match that with a tracked chassis and a useful weapon capacity. It can fit modern optics and comms, necessary for a recon track. They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck. They can go pretty much anywhere, and at speed, and all that's a result of their weight. It even has good operational range for its size. You won't find a modern design to replace it, unless you design it yourself, because of fundamental changes in philosophy.

(Image)
(Image)

I think it's more a recognition/admission that a scout vehicle without organic dismounts is inferior to one with them. Weight considerations aside, there's not a huge difference between 10 tonnes and 30 tonnes in terms of infrastructure you can traverse in the first place. An M3 CFV would have done as well as FV107 in Falklands. Sure, you can't be airlifted by helicopter, but that's never been especially important historically anyway.

re: upgrades: You can do all that stuff of course, but it's still a +40 year old chassis which is the issue. At the point where you're replacing the suspension and powerpack to something more modern to withstand the recoil forces of a more powerful gun like 40mm CTA or a Super Cockerill, you might as well be making a new AFV with a superficial resemblance to FV101. It wouldn't be very good for a modern scout vehicle, but it's perfectly fine for airborne troops though, possibly even preferential, to something like Wiesel 2. I think that's the only modern niche FV101 can fill, since the only place where ounces matter is in airlift.

Good thing CVRT was (allegedly) designed to be airdropped!

As a reconnaissance vehicle though, the light tank/scout vehicle has been superseded by the IFV/APC, given the emphasis on RIF and counter-reconnaissance endemic to modern scout troops. FV101 might find a place in an assault gun role with the 76mm or 90mm but as a necessary component of the scout formation I don't think it's required. A tank would be a better assault gun anyway, and would still provide sufficient questioning and hesitancy on the enemy's side that they won't just roll over your paltry cavalrymen with mechanized infantry, mostly out of the fear that it might be a tank division or something instead.

Basically, CVRT is good enough, but just using an IFV and an MBT together is better for the reconnaissance role because it provides more firepower, more protection, better growth, and logistics commonality. The former are important for the counter-recon battle, where you might be fighting similar classes of vehicle (MBT and CFV/IFV) or dedicated reconnaissance (BRDM/FV101) and find yourself either parity or better. The latter are important for the future of the vehicle, it keeps costs down when doing overhauls like the suggested and provides for parts in the future by sharing parts chains. The commonality is really the most important bit, because it ultimately means that you aren't needing to train soldiers to drive three or four types of tracked vehicles, supply six different types of bogie, and three separate track links to supply a tank division. Instead you cut it down to the bare essentials by sharing a common chassis and making full use of economy of scale.

Observe M109A7, M270, M2/M3/M4/M6/M7 Bradley, etc. etc.

Possibly just as important, it doesn't "give the game away" so to speak during economy of force operations, so that whatever division your cavalry regiment might be attacking to keep it fixed doesn't just decide to roll over your troops once they realize it's not actually another division attacking them.

If we're talking about airlift, ignore the above, use CVRT. Forever. It's better than Wiesel and Bren Gun Carrier.

tl;dr: If you just want a straight up reconnaissance vehicle, look elsewhere. CVRT was designed for contingency operations and strategic mobility.

Why replace it? Just build it again. This time you can put better powerpack, possibly hydrogas suspension, CTA gun, etc.

Scimitar's main advantage is its weight and size. It's fucking TINY. Few modern designs match that with a tracked chassis and a useful weapon capacity. It can fit modern optics and comms, necessary for a recon track. They can be lifted by helicopter, they can be brought around by truck. They can go pretty much anywhere, and at speed, and all that's a result of their weight. It even has good operational range for its size. You won't find a modern design to replace it, unless you design it yourself, because of fundamental changes in philosophy.

Maybe built it again but give it amphibious capabilities too...

Or you could just use an AVLB.

[Ragnarum]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

[The Kievan People]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

188 tonnes.

[Immoren]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

[Gallia-]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... bridge.jpg

Freedom never sleeps.

[Ragnarum]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

[Immoren]

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... bridge.jpg

Freedom never sleeps.

Quiet laddie.

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

Really isn't.

[Ragnarum]

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

Really isn't.

That's a start then, I suppose.

[Gallia-]

The weight limit of an IFV or any armoured vehicle is more complex than a single number.

You might as well ask "how many apples do I need"?

[Immoren]

The weight limit of an IFV or any armoured vehicle is more complex than a single number.

You might as well ask "how many apples do I need"?

I need 5+2i apples.

[Husseinarti]

When it can't cross an average bridge W/o aid of combat pioneer battalion.

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

Marder 2 was 43 tonnes.

[Gallia-]

The weight limit of an IFV or any armoured vehicle is more complex than a single number.

You might as well ask "how many apples do I need"?

I need 5+2i apples.

Sorry, I ate it.

[Rich and Corporations]

Talking of IFV's, how heavy is too heavy? For an IFV I mean.

The K21 has pontoons.

In anycase, I'm a believer in modular skirt armor that you can replace with foam.

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

Marder 2 was 43 tonnes.

Puma is 43 tonnes fully loaded as well.

[Immoren]

I need 5+2i apples.

Sorry, I ate it.

Even that 2i apples?
How delusional of you.

[Crookfur]

Sooo, can a T-72 do that?

Put it a bit more bluntly, I have an idea for an IFV that weighs 44 tonnes because I'm insane. I'm wondering if that is a terrible idea or not so much.

Marder 2 was 43 tonnes.

Warrior is currently sitting at 42 tonnes


Anyway if you want to know how The UK ended up with FRES and SCOUT SV there is a nice long tle here:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/06/s ... roduction/

It does have some very nice british AFV pron in it and the 90s warrior stuff is pretty darned cool.