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

[Doppio Giudici]

Is there a site with rough estimates of protection per tank?

[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.

(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As a reconnaissance vehicle though, the light tank/scout vehicle has been superseded by the IFV/APC, given the emphasis on RIF and counter-reconnaissance endemic to modern scout troops.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.

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

Or you could just use an AVLB.

Well let's hold up here. Nobody said anything about getting rid of dismounts (incidentally the FV 101 TC is meant to be a dismount!). You just don't put them in the FV 101, you put them in the FV 103, because that's what it was designed for. And together they only weigh 15 tons anyway. It's a doctrinal belief in separating dismounts and the vehicles because you believe they'll be in different situations anyway. Of course the UK has moved away from that IRL because it's reducing mass and because yea, you're right, the chassis is 40 years old, although - who cares? So is Abrams, basically. So are M2 and M3, basically. So is M113. I think Scout SV is a nifty vehicle but I have serious forthcomngs about a scout vehicle that weighs 40 tons.

I agree that recon forces need to have tankus, although historically IRL only the US has been able to do that. They should also have helicopters too. Though remember ACR is recon for a Corps and Formation Recce Regiment is recon for a Brigade. What you're doing is comparing an ACR to an FRR made up of CVR(T) chassis. It's not the same thing and it's not for the same purpose, either. An FRR is to find and fix enemy formations, an ACR is designed to fight a scouting & delaying mission.

ofc I made a British ACR.
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Armoured_Reconna ... uesters%29

Scout SV is pretty sxc tho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 157765.jpg

Sorta makes a man want to join up.

[Questers]

Is there a site with rough estimates of protection per tank?

Yes. It's mostly tanknet compilations. I forgot what it is called so I will try to find it.

Edit: It has ceased to exist u can always use the steel beasts wiki as a reliable figure for wargaming.

[Rich and Corporations]

Is there a site with rough estimates of protection per tank?

Yes. It's mostly tanknet compilations. I forgot what it is called so I will try to find it.

Edit: It has ceased to exist u can always use the steel beasts wiki as a reliable figure for wargaming.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131115015 ... rotect.htm
The internet archive is a great resource, run by donations.

So is M113.

2015-1960=55 years. Besides, the Bradley and the M1 are both thirty years old roughly.

[Questers]

I think Gallas point was that it was old, not that it was exactly 40 years and not a day older. I shouldn't have to explain basic conversational concepts to you over the MGV. This is why you're insufferable.

As for the Bradley, the chassis is much older than the design.

[Korva]

Is there a site with rough estimates of protection per tank?

Yes. It's mostly tanknet compilations. I forgot what it is called so I will try to find it.

Edit: It has ceased to exist u can always use the steel beasts wiki as a reliable figure for wargaming.

You can always cut out the middleman and just check various tanknet threads (especially for tanks not in SB).

[Dostanuot Loj]

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.

The real question is: How do you want it to go about being an IFV?

This may sound stupid, but it is crucial to the problem.

[Gallia-]

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.



Or you could just use an AVLB.

Well let's hold up here. Nobody said anything about getting rid of dismounts (incidentally the FV 101 TC is meant to be a dismount!). You just don't put them in the FV 101, you put them in the FV 103, because that's what it was designed for. And together they only weigh 15 tons anyway. It's a doctrinal belief in separating dismounts and the vehicles because you believe they'll be in different situations anyway. Of course the UK has moved away from that IRL because it's reducing mass and because yea, you're right, the chassis is 40 years old, although - who cares? So is Abrams, basically. So are M2 and M3, basically. So is M113. I think Scout SV is a nifty vehicle but I have serious forthcomngs about a scout vehicle that weighs 40 tons.

I agree that recon forces need to have tankus, although historically IRL only the US has been able to do that. They should also have helicopters too. Though remember ACR is recon for a Corps and Formation Recce Regiment is recon for a Brigade. What you're doing is comparing an ACR to an FRR made up of CVR(T) chassis. It's not the same thing and it's not for the same purpose, either. An FRR is to find and fix enemy formations, an ACR is designed to fight a scouting & delaying mission.

ofc I made a British ACR.
http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Armoured_Reconna ... uesters%29

Scout SV is pretty sxc tho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 157765.jpg

Sorta makes a man want to join up.

Having two separate vehicles when one will do the job is silly tbh.

CVRT was probably first and foremost an airborne vehicle with reconnaissance as a tack on for armoured units. East of Suez etc.

US Army Armored Cavalry Squadrons had tanks, gunships, and mortars as well as ACR.

Anyway, yes, Abrams/Bradley/M113 are all old. That's why the US Army has been trying for the past twenty-odd years to get them replaced with something better tbh. Armored Systems Modernization/Ground Combat Vehicle/Future Fighting Vehicle, etc. abortions are all recognitions of the age of the equipment.

The US military is just ahead of the curve when it comes to replacing things because it generally has the money to spend tbh.

[Korva]

wrt the ammo storage issue for converted T-72's, would it be possible to fit a more compact engine then use the space saved to house the extra ammo? I was thinking something along the lines of the Achzarit conversion, but instead of making enough room for a dismount to crouch through, just enough to store ten or so rounds.

and on the topic of Israel, here is a Mobile Wheeled Deathtruck Oppression Palace:

[New Vihenia]

can i haz cluster bomb containing multiple guided munitions :3 ?

No it's not SADARM or DPICM.. but basically a full fledged guided munitions that can seek, receive midcourse and maneuver/glide by itself to target.

Application is for precision strike at multiple target, with much smaller collateral damage, than say.. DIME.

[Yukonastan]

can i haz cluster bomb containing multiple guided munitions :3 ?

No it's not SADARM or DPICM.. but basically a full fledged guided munitions that can seek, receive midcourse and maneuver/glide by itself to target.

Application is for precision strike at multiple target, with much smaller collateral damage, than say.. DIME.

ASSUMING that your submunitions are in fact miniature guided antitank missiles, yes. Up to 12 in a dispenser.

[New Vihenia]

ASSUMING that your submunitions are in fact miniature guided antitank missiles, yes. Up to 12 in a dispenser.

Digging old childhood drawings of mine :3 and found that i drew basically a paveway that contain smaller guided munitions :3

Anyway.. i think putting it into artillery shell can be done too

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You guys got me thinking.

I should probably replace my Wiesel 2's with CVR Ts.

The main point behind Wiesel 1 was that you could stack 2 in a CH-53 and 3 in a C-130. Too bad that it's too small to do much with it.

I don't think 2 Wiesel 2's will fit in a CH-53.

[Elan Valleys]

I have serious forthcomngs about a scout vehicle that weighs 40 tons.

That's ok, because this is theArmy 2020 Light Cavalry

They should also have helicopters too.

I came up with the idea of mixed recce squadrons. Looking back that's a bit small to mix those vehicles but if you scaled it up to a regiment (Heli, CVR(T) and mounted Squadrons rather than troops) it could work quite well I think.

[Elan Valleys]

Could you replace the RARDEN in a CVR(T) with a M242 Bushmaster?

[The Kievan People]

can i haz cluster bomb containing multiple guided munitions :3 ?

No it's not SADARM or DPICM.. but basically a full fledged guided munitions that can seek, receive midcourse and maneuver/glide by itself to target.

Application is for precision strike at multiple target, with much smaller collateral damage, than say.. DIME.

u r welcome.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011gunmissile ... Vanuga.pdf

[Questers]

Could you replace the RARDEN in a CVR(T) with a M242 Bushmaster?

It might be too heavy.

However, you can put it on Warrior. Kuwait did it

[Elan Valleys]

Could you replace the RARDEN in a CVR(T) with a M242 Bushmaster?

It might be too heavy.

However, you can put it on Warrior. Kuwait did it

It's 20kg heavier but about the same length. It was the recoil length I was worried about.

[Questers]

It might be too heavy.

However, you can put it on Warrior. Kuwait did it

It's 20kg heavier but about the same length. It was the recoil length I was worried about.

how about sabre LOL

[The Kievan People]

I bet you could stick a 40mm CTA turret on the CVRT.

[Questers]

Yeah I'm p sure you can.

[Crookfur]

It might be too heavy.

However, you can put it on Warrior. Kuwait did it

It's 20kg heavier but about the same length. It was the recoil length I was worried about.

It will require a new turret but it's doable. IIRC there was a stormer version with bushy turret and dismounts as well as the option for warrior.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Well I think this changes the airborne APC design I'd been fiddling with over the last few days. CVR(T)-style common chassis for airborne troops, Y/Y?

[Elan Valleys]

It's 20kg heavier but about the same length. It was the recoil length I was worried about.

It will require a new turret but it's doable. IIRC there was a stormer version with bushy turret and dismounts as well as the option for warrior.

Perfect. RARDEN is apparently very accurate but three round clips?

[Crookfur]

It will require a new turret but it's doable. IIRC there was a stormer version with bushy turret and dismounts as well as the option for warrior.

Perfect. RARDEN is apparently very accurate but three round clips?

For udnerstanding RARDEN the best bet is not to think of it as a cannon but a bloody big 1930s self loading rifle Yeah the clips and everything are to make it small and able to be operated in a very cramped space.