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

[Imperializt Russia]

The M102 EVO is a solution that works very well for South Korea. They have a lot of 105mm guns, relatively short sight lines for a country (and lots of terrain to shoot over) and decent mechanisation.
You'd want an armoured, covered vehicle for useful self-propelled fire and you can then afford to bring guns heavier than 105mm pieces. Even the Archer might be insufficient in some circumstances, and an actually armoured platform more useful.

[Radicchio]

The M102 EVO is a solution that works very well for South Korea. They have a lot of 105mm guns, relatively short sight lines for a country (and lots of terrain to shoot over) and decent mechanisation.
You'd want an armoured, covered vehicle for useful self-propelled fire and you can then afford to bring guns heavier than 105mm pieces. Even the Archer might be insufficient in some circumstances, and an actually armoured platform more useful.

I chose the EVO and Archer because of similar terrain issues. Thing of my nation like fighting in a a dozen Hawaiis with plenty of coastal roads to rapid transport over.
Did you think that i had chosen these systems out of the hundreds in the world without considering terrain?

[Korva]

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?

You have a problem with tactical beach umbrellas?

[Gallia-]

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

1) Because that isn't how you judge actual, engineered systems. In fact, that's the opposite of how you judge anything engineered, since paper statistics are rarely able to be expressed in single digits.

An automobile might be designed to go 70 mph on average on a straightaway, you're not going to design it do just that. You're going to take into account the fact that the user might try to climb hills, might have four or five hundred pounds or more in the back (children, sports equipment, groceries, et cetera) weighing the suspension, whatever. Automobiles by design tend to have overpowered engines and overly strong suspensions because of these reasons and others, it's the reason I can pull 60 mph uphill or 110 mph on a straightaway, etc. An example of the ambiguity of using paper stats.

If you design something accomplish a goal and only a goal, that isn't good engineering. Good engineering takes into account tolerances, safety margins, improper use of equipment, ease of use, whatever. It's far more difficult than programming a piece of software, even if certain parts of it are the same, because you have to predict how whatever you're engineering will be used in a real world environment by the average person and how it will respond to that. Software programming is generally done on a basis of "good enough" and most programmers are "bad" at it. Rarely is a successful tank or aeroplane "good enough", rather it's often overbuilt to deal with the stress of its intended job. The main reason for this is because my life is more valuable than your time.

Military equipment is designed much the same way, for example we can look at a tank. You're generally going to have protection requirements (the armour will stop x caliber at y range z % of the time across n degrees of whatever arc), weight requirements (the vehicle will not exceed MLC 60 at combat weight and MLC 55 dry), automotive such as speed (the tank will have a maximum off road speed of 30 kph) and of course there will be other requirements (the vehicle shall be motive, able to cross both bridges and broken terrain, etc.) such as maintenance (the tank will have a 30% decrease in man hours of maintenance per day compared to the current tank) or whatever.

The requirements will rarely be so specific as to state "this tank will be capable of holding 1,500 liters of diesel for the 1,600 HP (at 2100 rpm) turbine engine and go 355 kilometers on a road at a sustained 70 kph with a minimum of 200 hours before part replacement is necessary" or whatever, that is what you learn by doing background research and reading reports published by the armed forces. Nor do requirements usually state that "this tank should be capable of attacking, defending, reconnaissance, and exploitation" not because those are unforeseen roles, but because those are so obvious to the use of the tank that they don't need stating.

Operational performance isn't something that is done through user error, it's something considered and engineered for specifically based on a set of requirements. The performance of a tank is actually quite indicative of its design, or less often, its construction.

2) Yes. The bridge did not meet the requirements of the user who commissioned it. Good job.

[The Kievan People]

I chose the EVO and Archer because of similar terrain issues. Thing of my nation like fighting in a a dozen Hawaiis with plenty of coastal roads to rapid transport over.
Did you think that i had chosen these systems out of the hundreds in the world without considering terrain?

EVO is fine.

M102 is not.

[The Kievan People]

The M102 EVO is a solution that works very well for South Korea. They have a lot of 105mm guns, relatively short sight lines for a country (and lots of terrain to shoot over) and decent mechanisation.

It's an M102 on a truck.

You are overthinking it.

[Novorden]

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

I had a quick look and i believe that the CVR(t) does have a big enough turret ring to house the warriors 40mm cta turret.


Also did someone say modern CVR(t)?

[Gallia-]

The M102 EVO is a solution that works very well for South Korea. They have a lot of 105mm guns, relatively short sight lines for a country (and lots of terrain to shoot over) and decent mechanisation.

The actual reason is that it cuts the size of the fire section in half tbh. Cheaper than paying wages probably.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I chose the EVO and Archer because of similar terrain issues. Thing of my nation like fighting in a a dozen Hawaiis with plenty of coastal roads to rapid transport over.
Did you think that i had chosen these systems out of the hundreds in the world without considering terrain?

EVO is fine.

M102 is not.

Here is how it's done:

1: Be given a bunch of M102s and ammo for free by another country trying to get rid of them.
2: Mount some or all on trucks.
3: ???
4: Profit.

[Radicchio]

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

I had a quick look and i believe that the CVR(t) does have a big enough turret ring to house the warriors 40mm cta turret.


Also did someone say modern CVR(t)?

[Terricon]

I was considering standardization for my Motorized Infantry. For an APC, I was considering the BTR-80. And for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, I was going to use the BMP-2.

[Radicchio]

I just got an offer that i am considering...
I have said before that i am operating the Olifant (Centurion) and I am looking to add some more tanks to my armed forces (I have 36 Merkava MK IVs and 66 Olifants.) So i was speaking to the fellow who RPs Israel in our region and he offered to sell me 94 Sho't (Centurion) tanks for $250k each... I overpayed for the Merkavas that i bought from this nation so i am a little leary of the price of these outdated tanks.

Is this too much money to spend on old tanks?
is it a good deal?
should i even bother buying these old tanks?

[Laywenrania]

I just got an offer that i am considering...
I have said before that i am operating the Olifant (Centurion) and I am looking to add some more tanks to my armed forces (I have 36 Merkava MK IVs and 66 Olifants.) So i was speaking to the fellow who RPs Israel in our region and he offered to sell me 94 Sho't (Centurion) tanks for $250k each... I overpayed for the Merkavas that i bought from this nation so i am a little leary of the price of these outdated tanks.

Is this too much money to spend on old tanks?
is it a good deal?
should i even bother buying these old tanks?

Depends in which condition they are and which Centurion.

[Crookfur]

A quick look at some surplus prices and it seems that really good condition cents that run and have everything working go for about $30,000 to $50,000.

$250,000 each is probably a bit steep unless he is offering them with a full factory refurbishment, a bucket loads of spares and lots of other stuff

[Radicchio]

A quick look at some surplus prices and it seems that really good condition cents that run and have everything working go for about $30,000 to $50,000.

$250,000 each is probably a bit steep unless he is offering them with a full factory refurbishment, a bucket loads of spares and lots of other stuff

Thanks, i will try to chizel him down a bit.

[Husseinarti]

EVO is fine.

M102 is not.

Here is how it's done:

1: Be given a bunch of M102s and ammo for free by another country trying to get rid of them.
2: Mount some or all on trucks.
3: ???
4: Profit.

Buy M119s
Use regular 105mm ammo
Use M102s for reserve formations
???
Profit

[Padnak]

A quick look at some surplus prices and it seems that really good condition cents that run and have everything working go for about $30,000 to $50,000.

$250,000 each is probably a bit steep unless he is offering them with a full factory refurbishment, a bucket loads of spares and lots of other stuff

Thanks, i will try to chizel him down a bit.

I'd lowball him and go for the scrap price of the vehicles + 10% the scrap value

[Vancon]

The future is now

[The Soodean Imperium]

And here's that Eastern-Bloc CVR(T)/BMD Common Airborne Chassis concept I was talking about. I've got a lot of variants so far, but are there any more that I should add? I don't want anything excessively small-niche, but I intend for this to fill all tracked-vehicle roles in my Airborne Brigades.



fakeEDIT: probably needs an armored recovery vehicle. I'll add that when I revise the image with any other suggestions.

The future is now

*Padnak intensifies*

[Vancon]

And here's that Eastern-Bloc CVR(T)/BMD Common Airborne Chassis concept I was talking about. I've got a lot of variants so far, but are there any more that I should add? I don't want anything excessively small-niche, but I intend for this to fill all tracked-vehicle roles in my Airborne Brigades.

(Image)

fakeEDIT: probably needs an armored recovery vehicle. I'll add that when I revise the image with any other suggestions.

The future is now

*Padnak intensifies*

Ha!

[Korva]

And here's that Eastern-Bloc CVR(T)/BMD Common Airborne Chassis concept I was talking about. I've got a lot of variants so far, but are there any more that I should add? I don't want anything excessively small-niche, but I intend for this to fill all tracked-vehicle roles in my Airborne Brigades.

(Image)

fakeEDIT: probably needs an armored recovery vehicle. I'll add that when I revise the image with any other suggestions.

The future is now

*Padnak intensifies*

ARV and Engineer variant

also, padnak already maxed out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRDJMPJqS8

[Padnak]

The future is now

>Remove golden path

[New Oyashima]

I dare you to find a cuter tanku.
(Image)

I could :3

[Dictatorship Of South Eaka]

What do you guys think of my nations MBT?



Current Stats:
47.5 tonnes (46.7 long tons; 52.4 short tons)

Length:
9.63 m (31 ft 7 in)

Width:
3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)

Height:
2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)

Crew
3



Armor:
Steel-composite-reactive blend
Thickness: 1000-1200mm with ERA: 1500-2000

Main armament
150 mm smoothbore gun with ATGM capability


Secondary armament
20mm PKE cannon, 12.7mm KORD Coaxial HMG

Engine
V-120 20-cyl. diesel

2000 horsepower for V-120 20-cyl. diesel engine

Power/weight
60 hp/tonne for V-120 20-cyl. diesel engine

Suspension
Torsion bar

Operational
range
700–1100 km

Speed
80–85 km/h

[Lamoni]

What do you guys think of my nations MBT?

(Image)

The line-art looks okay, but there is nothing else to go on.