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

[Purpelia]

Well, the vehicles are only good if the nation fielding them can supply sufficiently. I'm a little unsure as to your first point, sorry.

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design. How is that not obvious?
I can design the worlds most perfect bridge and than build it in a desert with no rivers. This makes it the worlds most perfectly designed money waster. Does that mean my bridge design it self is defective?

Or to put it in modern terms. User error does not reflect badly on the design of the product it self only on the user.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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?

Yes. Many yes.

but is cvr(t) internally air transportable in helicopters?

[Questers]

Well, the vehicles are only good if the nation fielding them can supply sufficiently. I'm a little unsure as to your first point, sorry.

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design. How is that not obvious?
I can design the worlds most perfect bridge and than build it in a desert with no rivers. This makes it the worlds most perfectly designed money waster. Does that mean my bridge design it self is defective?

Or to put it in modern terms. User error does not reflect badly on the design of the product it self only on the user.

Don't blame the Russians because the Iraqis declined to fight.

Or: blame the Russians because the Iraqis didnt want to fight in their tanks?

[Purpelia]

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design. How is that not obvious?
I can design the worlds most perfect bridge and than build it in a desert with no rivers. This makes it the worlds most perfectly designed money waster. Does that mean my bridge design it self is defective?

Or to put it in modern terms. User error does not reflect badly on the design of the product it self only on the user.

Don't blame the Russians because the Iraqis declined to fight.

Pretty much. Or to put it in its most basic form. Don't blame the controller.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Well, the vehicles are only good if the nation fielding them can supply sufficiently. I'm a little unsure as to your first point, sorry.

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design. How is that not obvious?
I can design the worlds most perfect bridge and than build it in a desert with no rivers. This makes it the worlds most perfectly designed money waster. Does that mean my bridge design it self is defective?

Or to put it in modern terms. User error does not reflect badly on the design of the product it self only on the user.

Well, from a design standpoint, the Sherman was designed to be highly reliable and easily repaired. The designers knew that wherever it got sent, it would be at least one massive ocean away from the war factories, so it had to be very reliable. Operationally, it was highly reliable, thanks to the US's unmatched logistics and it having been designed to be just that.

[Questers]

That's basically it. Am I wrong anywhere?

Well for a start, you cite crew training and supply/maintenance ability as something in favor of the tank. This of course is an inherently flawed view to take as said factors are in no way inherent to the vehicle

This is wrong though.

What's easier to learn how to use, a fork or a computer?

The Tiger had exceptionally complex parts and the Sherman did not. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Training in using a simpler mechanism is quicker and easier than a more complex mechanism.

[Purpelia]

Well, from a design standpoint, the Sherman was designed to be highly reliable and easily repaired. The designers knew that wherever it got sent, it would be at least one massive ocean away from the war factories, so it had to be very reliable. Operationally, it was highly reliable, thanks to the US's unmatched logistics and it having been designed to be just that.

No vehicle is ever designed differently though. At least no sane vehicle. Yes you have idiotisms such as the Ferdinand. But for the most part all vehicles are meant to be as reliable as they can get. You can't claim that one vehicle was more reliable than another unless you test them under equivalent conditions.

This is wrong though.

What's easier to learn how to use, a fork or a computer?

It is equally difficult to use a computer to eat as it is to use a fork to compute. Comparing the two outside of their design roles is thus likely to lead to faulty results.

The Tiger had exceptionally complex parts and the Sherman did not. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Training in using a simpler mechanism is quicker and easier than a more complex mechanism.

The Tiger did not in fact have exceptionally complex parts for what it was designed to do in the first place. That being a heavy breakthrough tank spearheading the assaults of a well equipped and supplied mechanized force. It had exceptionally complex parts for what it ended up being used as, that being an oversized MBT for a very ill supplied semi-mechanized force. But that's user error, not design error. To say othervise would imply that you honestly believe the design team should have anticipated their factories and supply lines being bombed to hell and designed for it. Or that they should have gone against common knowledge and the at the time obvious notion that Russia would fall over as easily as it did in the last war. But if they had done that they would have come up with a horse drawn field gun instead.

---

Special note. I draw the line at the point a certain artist started meddling with the design though. Anything beyond that is not representative or a result of proper engineering practice.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Well, from a design standpoint, the Sherman was designed to be highly reliable and easily repaired. The designers knew that wherever it got sent, it would be at least one massive ocean away from the war factories, so it had to be very reliable. Operationally, it was highly reliable, thanks to the US's unmatched logistics and it having been designed to be just that.

No vehicle is ever designed differently though.

You lost me. Erm.... different countries have vastly different design schemes. German vehicles in WWII were generally always rushed, with much of the troubleshooting happening on the job. American vehicles had the luxury of having a slower and less harried design process.

The Tiger did not in fact have exceptionally complex parts for what it was designed to do in the first place. That being a heavy breakthrough tank spearheading the assaults of a well equipped and supplied mechanized force. It had exceptionally complex parts for what it ended up being used as, that being an oversized MBT for a very ill supplied semi-mechanized force. But that's user error, not design error. To say othervise would imply that you honestly believe the design team should have anticipated their factories and supply lines being bombed to hell and designed for it. Or that they should have gone against common knowledge and the at the time obvious notion that Russia would fall over as easily as it did in the last war. But if they had done that they would have come up with a horse drawn field gun instead.

Here's what I'm seeing:
Tiger was designed to be a breakthrough tank. Ended up being used in mobile fire brigades. User error.

It's not user error. There are countless cases of vehicles(or just plain anything) being used to do something it was not originally designed to do. The F-15, for example, was designed as a fighter, and ended up being used as that and much more. It might be user error to use a Tiger as a scout, but the Tiger was a capable design, and if that meant blunting an enemy advance, that was something it was good at. It wasn't a good antiaircraft vehicle, so it wasn't ever pressed into that role. Germany might have wanted something that could open up holes for lighter tanks to exploit, but they needed a good defensive tank, and the Tiger was good at that as well.

[Questers]

It is equally difficult to use a computer to eat as it is to use a fork to compute. Comparing the two outside of their design roles is thus likely to lead to faulty results.

Poor interpretation of the analogy.

A vehicle design can enhance or degrade training and maintenance and supply by making those tasks more difficult, ceteris paribus. One of the advantages of the T-72 is it is very easy to maintain and supply, and to train with. It was designed that way, and that is an advantage it receives from design.

The Tiger had exceptionally complex parts and the Sherman did not. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Training in using a simpler mechanism is quicker and easier than a more complex mechanism.
The Tiger did not in fact have exceptionally complex parts for what it was designed to do in the first place. That being a heavy breakthrough tank spearheading the assaults of a well equipped and supplied mechanized force. It had exceptionally complex parts for what it ended up being used as, that being an oversized MBT for a very ill supplied semi-mechanized force. But that's user error, not design error. To say othervise would imply that you honestly believe the design team should have anticipated their factories and supply lines being bombed to hell and designed for it. Or that they should have gone against common knowledge and the at the time obvious notion that Russia would fall over as easily as it did in the last war. But if they had done that they would have come up with a horse drawn field gun instead.

Your problem is that you take engineering and design to be something abstract, performed in a sterile environment not connected to the reason for the design. That might be true in some aspects of design work, but it is almost never true for military engineering.

[Questers]

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design.

Take this for example. There are weapons that have performed poorly in certain types of terrain. The M16 comes to mind - it was fine in the testing grounds but the A1 design functioned poorly in the paddy fields of Vietnam. If you are designing something for an operational requirement, a truly excellent design takes into account how something will be used, not just how you design it.

[Purpelia]

You lost me. Erm.... different countries have vastly different design schemes. German vehicles in WWII were generally always rushed, with much of the troubleshooting happening on the job. American vehicles had the luxury of having a slower and less harried design process.

And yet no designer in the history of human kind deliberately went out of his way do to the job badly. Not even German designs were designed as unreliable. The troubleshooting you talk about is a matter of adapting to the ever changing requirements of the front, not to fixing the suspension or making sure the engine does not blow up.

Here's what I'm seeing:
Tiger was designed to be a breakthrough tank. Ended up being used in mobile fire brigades. User error.

Exactly.

It's not user error. There are countless cases of vehicles(or just plain anything) being used to do something it was not originally designed to do. The F-15, for example, was designed as a fighter, and ended up being used as that and much more.

Well that's all fine and well for the F-15. But you can not seriously say with a strait face that this is something the designers should have anticipated and designed for or that it would be their failing if the F-15 did not perform well in roles it was not designed to do.

It might be user error to use a Tiger as a scout, but the Tiger was a capable design, and if that meant blunting an enemy advance, that was something it was good at. It wasn't a good antiaircraft vehicle, so it wasn't ever pressed into that role. Germany might have wanted something that could open up holes for lighter tanks to exploit, but they needed a good defensive tank, and the Tiger was good at that as well.

I think that we have strayed way off the topic of our original discussion. And that's reliability.

Take this for example. There are weapons that have performed poorly in certain types of terrain. The M16 comes to mind - it was fine in the testing grounds but the A1 design functioned poorly in the paddy fields of Vietnam. If you are designing something for an operational requirement, a truly excellent design takes into account how something will be used, not just how you design it.

Within reasonable limits. There was no reasonable way for German tank designers could predict or design for the utter devastation of their spare parts industry or the inability to get what spares and fuel there are to the front lines. This is not a thing you can design for unless you are breeding horses.

A vehicle design can enhance or degrade training and maintenance and supply by making those tasks more difficult, ceteris paribus. One of the advantages of the T-72 is it is very easy to maintain and supply, and to train with. It was designed that way, and that is an advantage it receives from design.

Be that as it may, I doubt even a T-72 could keep a better service record under the conditions Germany saw during WW2.

---

The M16 someone here just mentioned is another great example of this way of thinking The rifle it self is perfectly good. But once you issue overpowered ammo and tell your troops not to maintain them it starts failing. And there is nothing that a designer can do about that short of politely suggesting the troops throw their bullets at the enemy by hand if it does.

[Spirit of Hope]

You are mixing operational performance with design performance. When judging a vehicle design you must focus on how it performs by design.

Take this for example. There are weapons that have performed poorly in certain types of terrain. The M16 comes to mind - it was fine in the testing grounds but the A1 design functioned poorly in the paddy fields of Vietnam. If you are designing something for an operational requirement, a truly excellent design takes into account how something will be used, not just how you design it.

I think you just made Purps point for him. There is no way the designer could have anticipated the use the M16 got in Vietnam. Not because of the jungle but because of what the troops were told, specifically that the weapon did not need maintenance. Without maintenance the M16 did badly, beause no one can desgin a weapon that doesn't need maintenance, with maintenance the weapon was fine because it was not being used improperly.

[Questers]

We were bombing the Nazi war industries long before the Tiger was designed. In their typical German hubris, the designers of these weapons assumed that all that needed to be done was for the Aryan supermen to drive to the enemy and blow them away. They assumed, in designing a weapon that required excessive strategic support, that their strategic situation would remain favourable for the remainder of the war. This was, to steal a phrase from a totally different context, a fatal conceit. Interestingly, this type of thinking was rampant in both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and nearly impossible to find in other countries, even when they were winning. Unlike the Soviets, the Nazis or their Japanese counterparts had never been taught a lesson by a democracy until it was too late.

Another example is F-4 Phantom. He was designed without gun. Designer didn't foresee that weapon might not be used in the limited umbrella of contexts he had conceived. This fatal conceit caused the deaths of American servicemen.

Regarding M16, it was not unforeseeable problem: one because USA was already IN Vietnam and two because of the speed the problem was rectified. Americans had to die before their planners realised their weapons weren't working because the designers "hadn't thought of that."

With T-72, not if you put it in WWII, obviously, because it had some electronics. But T-72s are running and fighting today, in the worst conditions in the world. The T-72 was actually designed to be able to carry on no matter what, and be easily serviceable, unlike the Tiger. If they can do nothing else then the Russians can make (non-electronic) equipment that works. Because they, of all people, know that your plans do not always work out like you think they will.

[Korva]

evaluating things in a vacuum is a metaphysical circle jerk

The original statement was that it was the best tank of the war, which means all evaluation should take place in context of the Second World War. This is what Quester is doing. Purp is applying weird programmer logic to an actual real world problem.

[Questers]

The number of Centurions Israel was able to return to service during the 1973 Golan Front probably saved them. IDF fitters repaired tanks like mad and in many places reservists who had no tanks, only crew, were able to plug gaps facing battalion level Syrian attacks. Designers of Centurion, who did not overcomplicate the tank, could never have imagined this scenario. Israel didn't exist when the vehicle was drawn up. But they knew from long history that simplicity is a virtue. They never assumed - our crews will always win, our armour will always hold, etc. There was no fatal conceit. It perhaps saved Israel.

Foresight is a thing, and we can have it.

[The Akasha Colony]

Take this for example. There are weapons that have performed poorly in certain types of terrain. The M16 comes to mind - it was fine in the testing grounds but the A1 design functioned poorly in the paddy fields of Vietnam. If you are designing something for an operational requirement, a truly excellent design takes into account how something will be used, not just how you design it.

I think you just made Purps point for him. There is no way the designer could have anticipated the use the M16 got in Vietnam. Not because of the jungle but because of what the troops were told, specifically that the weapon did not need maintenance. Without maintenance the M16 did badly, beause no one can desgin a weapon that doesn't need maintenance, with maintenance the weapon was fine because it was not being used improperly.

But that was never a factor for Germany. Many of the problems with the Tiger could have, and should have been foreseen. In fact, the British did foresee them, which is why they chose not to use the Tiger's gearbox which they invented because it was too heavy, expensive, and complicated for the majority of their tanks (only the Churchill used it). And at the same time the Germans were designing the Tiger, they were busy trying to destroy the RAF and the British aircraft factories from the air, so why would they somehow expect the British would never retaliate?

Even if they somehow expected that their factories would remain utterly untouchable, much of the design was an unnecessary waste of limited manpower. Which should have been readily apparent. No nation in WWII was so wealthy as to be able to piss away resources without care. Not even the United States, safe and wealthy as it was. The Tiger's design placed unnecessary burdens on crew training and logistics to provide the necessary parts. Such that any disruption only exacerbated ongoing issues. It isn't that the Germans never told their crews that they needed to maintain their tank, it's that the design actively made this difficult compared to its contemporaries.

The Germans did what they could to train their Tiger crews as well as they could, but they never accounted for the possibility that things might not go as expected. Even though the reason they had to rush the Tiger and Panther into service was because things were not going as expected in the East. They built vehicles that were burdensome on the logistics system in a war in which they were actively bombing enemy factories and were themselves being bombed. The Germans got the human factors largely right in terms of crew training and maintenance, but had to invest more time and effort than needed, and certainly more than their opponents did.

[Spirit of Hope]

The M16 is still a bad example, it wasn't a design issue but a user error. Specifically the user not keeping up maintenance. If you can design a weapon that needs no maintenance you would be rich but that is impossible, everything needs some level of maintenance and the early M16s in Vietnam got none. Troops were told maintenance was not needed and no maintenance kits were given to the troops. The fix was easy because it was giving the troops the maintenance kits and telling them how to use it.

The only fatal conceit there was assuming the weapon would continue to get maintenance, which isn't a fatal conceit in my mind because every weapon needs maintenance.

The F-4 is a better example, the designers assumed the plane would be able to rely upon its missiles much more than was the case. The need for guns however came about because of a change in the rules of engagement that badly limited the use of missiles.

I think you just made Purps point for him. There is no way the designer could have anticipated the use the M16 got in Vietnam. Not because of the jungle but because of what the troops were told, specifically that the weapon did not need maintenance. Without maintenance the M16 did badly, beause no one can desgin a weapon that doesn't need maintenance, with maintenance the weapon was fine because it was not being used improperly.

But that was never a factor for Germany. Many of the problems with the Tiger could have, and should have been foreseen. In fact, the British did foresee them, which is why they chose not to use the Tiger's gearbox which they invented because it was too heavy, expensive, and complicated for the majority of their tanks (only the Churchill used it). And at the same time the Germans were designing the Tiger, they were busy trying to destroy the RAF and the British aircraft factories from the air, so why would they somehow expect the British would never retaliate?

Even if they somehow expected that their factories would remain utterly untouchable, much of the design was an unnecessary waste of limited manpower. Which should have been readily apparent. No nation in WWII was so wealthy as to be able to piss away resources without care. Not even the United States, safe and wealthy as it was. The Tiger's design placed unnecessary burdens on crew training and logistics to provide the necessary parts. Such that any disruption only exacerbated ongoing issues. It isn't that the Germans never told their crews that they needed to maintain their tank, it's that the design actively made this difficult compared to its contemporaries.

The Germans did what they could to train their Tiger crews as well as they could, but they never accounted for the possibility that things might not go as expected. Even though the reason they had to rush the Tiger and Panther into service was because things were not going as expected in the East. They built vehicles that were burdensome on the logistics system in a war in which they were actively bombing enemy factories and were themselves being bombed. The Germans got the human factors largely right in terms of crew training and maintenance, but had to invest more time and effort than needed, and certainly more than their opponents did.

Good point. I just don't like the comparison to the M16, and I think the comparison to the F-4 is flawed as well.

[Radicchio]

Do we have any idea what the weapon on top is?

[Dostanuot Loj]

(Image)
Do we have any idea what the weapon on top is?

TOW.

[Husseinarti]

Also, What in the Blue Fuck is this?!
(Image)

It's just a VBL with a TOW launcher.

Nothing new.

[Radicchio]

Also, What in the Blue Fuck is this?!
(Image)

It's just a VBL with a TOW launcher.

Nothing new.

Well i had never seen it before and i think its pretty awesome looking.

[Purpelia]

We were bombing the Nazi war industries long before the Tiger was designed. In their typical German hubris, the designers of these weapons assumed that all that needed to be done was for the Aryan supermen to drive to the enemy and blow them away. They assumed, in designing a weapon that required excessive strategic support, that their strategic situation would remain favourable for the remainder of the war. This was, to steal a phrase from a totally different context, a fatal conceit. Interestingly, this type of thinking was rampant in both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and nearly impossible to find in other countries, even when they were winning. Unlike the Soviets, the Nazis or their Japanese counterparts had never been taught a lesson by a democracy until it was too late.

And what per tell is your alternative? Should the designers have miraculously predicted that their army would be crushed a year later and end up fighting a long retreat all the way to Berlin? You are applying far too much hindsight to your logic. Remember, the average weapon designer had no idea of the actual facts of the front. All they knew was that as far as things went they seemed to be wining. And it's not like the German army could have predicted things either.
Furthermore, whilst the Tiger was released into service in 1942 the design process began as far back as 1937. What were they to do? Drop the whole thing and go "Well, we have this tank that's ready to go to battle and all. But we think that you lot in the army are going to start loosing so we want to reconsider the whole thing and start from scratch. That' ok with you?" The vehicle was designed for the situation they had. Not the situation they could in no way predict.

Regarding M16, it was not unforeseeable problem: one because USA was already IN Vietnam and two because of the speed the problem was rectified. Americans had to die before their planners realised their weapons weren't working because the designers "hadn't thought of that."

Thing is, the weapons were working perfectly. It's user error that lead to them not being cleaned at all and getting the wrong kind of ammo. The rifle it self was perfectly fine before users messed it up.

With T-72, not if you put it in WWII, obviously, because it had some electronics. But T-72s are running and fighting today, in the worst conditions in the world. The T-72 was actually designed to be able to carry on no matter what, and be easily serviceable, unlike the Tiger. If they can do nothing else then the Russians can make (non-electronic) equipment that works. Because they, of all people, know that your plans do not always work out like you think they will.

And you miss my point spectacularly. It's not about what spare parts can be manufactured by traveling through bloody time. It's about not being able to get any spares to the front because someone destroyed all your factories. A T-72 would not run if it was supported by a country that is equally bombed out and lacking the ability to support a tank as Germany was in 43 and beyond.

I'll reply to the rest later.

[Radicchio]

Alright, this is something i have been putting off for a while, my field artillery towables and vehicles.
Take a look, tell me what i am missing.

M102-105mm Towed Artillery


M102-EVO 105mm self propelled howitzer mounted on a Volvo N-10 Truck


HMMWV mounted Elbit SPEAR 120mm Mobile Mortar System


155 mm/L52 gun howitzer Towed Artillery


Archer-L52 Self propelled howitzer

[The Soodean Imperium]

Alright, this is something i have been putting off for a while, my field artillery towables and vehicles.
Take a look, tell me what i am missing.

(Image)
M102-105mm Towed Artillery

(Image)
M102-EVO 105mm self propelled howitzer mounted on a Volvo N-10 Truck

(Image)
HMMWV mounted Elbit SPEAR 120mm Mobile Mortar System

(Image)
155 mm/L52 gun howitzer Towed Artillery

(Image)
Archer-L52 Self propelled howitzer

Is that a beach umbrella made out of camo netting?

[Radicchio]

Alright, this is something i have been putting off for a while, my field artillery towables and vehicles.
Take a look, tell me what i am missing.

(Image)
M102-105mm Towed Artillery

(Image)
M102-EVO 105mm self propelled howitzer mounted on a Volvo N-10 Truck

(Image)
HMMWV mounted Elbit SPEAR 120mm Mobile Mortar System

(Image)
155 mm/L52 gun howitzer Towed Artillery

(Image)
Archer-L52 Self propelled howitzer

Is that a beach umbrella made out of camo netting?

It may be, its the only pic i could find of that particular gun mounted as towed artillery.