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.

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?

I know you're something of a regular, but do remember what thread you're in

Is that a beach umbrella made out of camo netting?

You have a problem with tactical beach umbrellas?

Yes.

It's a parasol.

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.

I did cover that with "lot of 105mm guns".

Or is there something specifically to do with the M102 gun? I'm aware it's something of a vintage.

What do you guys think of my nations MBT?

(Image)

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

Well, it is massively overpowered and arguably overgunned. 20-cylinder diesel putting out two thousand horsepower in a 47 tonnes tank?

[Laywenrania]

What do you guys think of my nations MBT?

(Image)

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

You may be a bit too low on weight with your armour (depending on your side armour values etc) and gun values, besides the points already made. With a rough tanksharp simulation I reach over 70tons^^

I would drop the Top Speed to 70-ish km/h, you increase your track life that way.

And 2000hp/47,5 ton are not 60hp/ton but 42.

[Imperializt Russia]

42 is still pretty OP.

[Laywenrania]

Indeed, I would suggest to drop it under 30 hp/t. Which might come just because you have to increase your weight to actually achieve that protection and mount that gun.

[Questers]

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.

Except foresight is a real thing that real designers have applied to things. In some respects, the Germans responded magnificently to circumstances - the StuG was a good example of that. The Tiger is not. The StuG was produced out of circumstance, with attention to reality - that Germany could not produce an infinite quantity of spare parts or of tanks, and it was really one of the best weapons the Germans used in the war, and probably one of the best weapons of the war for that reason.

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.

Assuming a perfect user is something no complex system does, ever. If you think that everything used and designed assumes an error-free user, you don't live in the same world as everyone else, sorry, or have not used a mobile telephone or television.

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.

You mean like Chechnya, Syria or Iraq?

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

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.

The fact remains that the Tiger performed very well in the heavy tank battalions it ended up being used in. Is that user error?

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.

It's user error to actually use the weapon? Because merely using a firearm will dirty it and make it need cleaning. It worked perfectly fine in the laboratory settings it was designed in, but it was design error(and the fault of those who distributed it) that it was not issued with cleaning equipment and instructions.

The same thing happens when you get the latest and greatest X piece of technology, and it works terribly. It was likely designed in Silicon Valley, where geeks are surrounded by geeks, all living in perfect Wi-Fi. It's design fault when they don't take into account that the users might be not have the perfect conditions for it to work - not user error.

[Immoren]

Majicks to protect the crew and passengers

[New Vihenia]

Say.. what might be the consequences of lengthening the barrel of a tank gun. So far the pros would be increased muzzle velocity, more accuracy (less dispersion) And the cons as far as i see is Increased weight, burdening the hydraulics to raise them and somewhat a restriction on turret rotation (Say..Kelly's Heroes anyone ?)

But i wonder if there's any other detrimental effect i'm not aware of. Might also incorporate it into my Gun calculator.

thinking about lengthening the barrel of my tank gun. It's 138mm gun from previously 49.7 Caliber with total length of tube of 7.7 m. The new caliber would be 52 or 55 Cal With total tube length of some 8-9 m.

[Laywenrania]

biggest factor imho would be problem with obstacles, as p.e. rotation in cities, in dense environment as forests... hedgerows (normandy ftw^^)

[Elan Valleys]

Say.. what might be the consequences of lengthening the barrel of a tank gun. So far the pros would be increased muzzle velocity, more accuracy (less dispersion) And the cons as far as i see is Increased weight, burdening the hydraulics to raise them and somewhat a restriction on turret rotation (Say..Kelly's Heroes anyone ?)

But i wonder if there's any other detrimental effect i'm not aware of. Might also incorporate it into my Gun calculator.

thinking about lengthening the barrel of my tank gun. It's 138mm gun from previously 49.7 Caliber with total length of tube of 7.7 m. The new caliber would be 52 or 55 Cal With total tube length of some 8-9 m.

That was just a piece of piping rather than an actual barrel extension.

[Imperializt Russia]

Say.. what might be the consequences of lengthening the barrel of a tank gun. So far the pros would be increased muzzle velocity, more accuracy (less dispersion) And the cons as far as i see is Increased weight, burdening the hydraulics to raise them and somewhat a restriction on turret rotation (Say..Kelly's Heroes anyone ?)

But i wonder if there's any other detrimental effect i'm not aware of. Might also incorporate it into my Gun calculator.

thinking about lengthening the barrel of my tank gun. It's 138mm gun from previously 49.7 Caliber with total length of tube of 7.7 m. The new caliber would be 52 or 55 Cal With total tube length of some 8-9 m.

Rheinmetall supposedly saw no real benefits over the L/55 when testing an L/60 120mm gun.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Posting my latest MGV inventory:

• Wheeled
  
  • Land Rover Wolf / Mercedes Benz G Class (presumably something that is essentially the landy but w/o the shit reliability that I hear they are renowned for)
  • Some JLTV: LTV or BRV-O, still undecided
  • FMTV
    
    • Caiman MTV (MRAP) 6x6 (as I don't see the utility of a 4x4 given the JLTV)
  • LVS(R)
  • HET (could someone please remind me why this is needed given LVS(R) ? )
• Tracked
  
  • Airborne tracked platform - currently torn between Wiesel 2 and CVR(T) - CVR(T) obviously offers extra space and capability but the main selling point of the Wiesel (at least as far as the Wiesel 1 was concerned) was IMO internal air transportability - 2 Wiesel 1s could be carried in a CH-53. I don't know if that would have been possible space or weight wise with Wiesel 2s ; that being said, I currently only use something like the CH-53E/K as lower payload variants would be redundant given the rest of my inventory. ICly I could have a new built helicopter based around the CH-53E/K with a large enough hull for 2 Wiesel 2s, but I think 2 (or perhaps even 1?) CVR(T)s would be pushing it. Please help me out here.
  • General purpose tracked platform - ACV 19: 15-20T weight class general purpose tracked AFV platform. This is what my basic APCs and misc. tracked vehicles in the aforementioned weight range would be based upon.
  • Utility/specialist vehicle tracked platform - ACV 30: 20-30T weight class vehicles such as air defense, 105mm fire support, etc.
  • IFV - currently torn between CV90 and Puma

As you can see, Sparky has left me permanently damaged.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Say.. what might be the consequences of lengthening the barrel of a tank gun. So far the pros would be increased muzzle velocity, more accuracy (less dispersion) And the cons as far as i see is Increased weight, burdening the hydraulics to raise them and somewhat a restriction on turret rotation (Say..Kelly's Heroes anyone ?)

But i wonder if there's any other detrimental effect i'm not aware of. Might also incorporate it into my Gun calculator.

thinking about lengthening the barrel of my tank gun. It's 138mm gun from previously 49.7 Caliber with total length of tube of 7.7 m. The new caliber would be 52 or 55 Cal With total tube length of some 8-9 m.

I think at a certain point you just aren't getting any more real benefits for increased barrel length. The 120mm L/55 is just OP against most tanks it is likely to face, and anyway you can get away with shittier tanks if you have good commanders. The German tanks at the beginning of WWII(Pz I and II) were training tanks, many not even armed with a proper cannon, but they did the job great with good commanders.

Plus, many rounds(HEAT, to a certain degree HESH, and GLATGM) don't require extremely high muzzle velocity.

You might be interested in this. There were theories about increasing the muzzle velocity of the Panther's 7.5cm gun by greatly increasing the barrel length, but a. it wasn't really feasible(not a big enough turret mostly) and it wasn't needed(the Panther's gun was a very powerful one). T26E1-1 Super Pershing also had a more powerful and longer gun(although had two-piece ammunition), which apparently was more feasible then the Panther's L/100, although in this case it just wasn't needed, as the war was drawing to a close.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Plox gif advise for last poast

[The Kievan People]

Plox gif advise for last poast

Stop.

There has been literally one other post since you made it and this is literally shitposting.

[Questers]

MRAP are for pussies.

Remove wheeled death truck.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

MRAP are for pussies.

Remove wheeled death truck.

thats actually mainly for swat

[Spirit of Hope]

MRAP are for pussies.

Remove wheeled death truck.

thats actually mainly for swat

Why does SWAT need MRAP's? There designed to deal with mines and IED's, something SWAT isn't really going to be dealing with.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

thats actually mainly for swat

Why does SWAT need MRAP's? There designed to deal with mines and IED's, something SWAT isn't really going to be dealing with.

I think you're mixing up the MRAP with a plain old armored car or truck. MRAPs are designed against a very specific threat - IEDs and ambushes. SWAT armored cars are made mostly just bullet-resistant.

[Spirit of Hope]

Why does SWAT need MRAP's? There designed to deal with mines and IED's, something SWAT isn't really going to be dealing with.

I think you're mixing up the MRAP with a plain old armored car or truck. MRAPs are designed against a very specific threat - IEDs and ambushes. SWAT armored cars are made mostly just bullet-resistant.

That is what I just said, that MRAP's are designed around the idea of IED's and mines, something SWAT isn't going to deal with.

[Padnak]

you say what like you don't conduct extensive internal security operations with the possibilities of ied attacks...



Armored utility trucks <3

[Gallia-]

MRAP are for pussies.

Remove wheeled death truck.

How do you conduct rapid operational level exploitation without wheeled death trucks?

[Padnak]

MRAP are for pussies.

Remove wheeled death truck.

How do you conduct rapid operational level exploitation without wheeled death trucks?

IFVs with good suspension?

[Spirit of Hope]

you say what like you don't conduct extensive internal security operations with the possibilities of ied attacks...

(Image)

Armored utility trucks <3

If you are carrying out internal security operations with the possibility of IED's you are no longer talking about SWAT team operations.

[Padnak]

you say what like you don't conduct extensive internal security operations with the possibilities of ied attacks...

(Image)

Armored utility trucks <3

If you are carrying out internal security operations with the possibility of IED's you are no longer talking about SWAT team operations.

You say that like you're not sending out heavily armed swat teams into rough neighborhoods to drag people away at night