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

[Ganjia]

Guys, why worry about "open bolt" stuff when you could just get a Toyota Hilux with a mounted MG?

[Ragutsa]

Guys, why worry about "open bolt" stuff when you could just get a Toyota Hilux with a mounted MG?

Because if you see anything that is not a person you will not be able to penetrate it

[Ganjia]

But if nobody had tanks, and only Toyota Hiluxs you wouldn't need to.

[Ragutsa]

But if nobody had tanks, and only Toyota Hiluxs you wouldn't need to.

Quick information, Tanks arent the only thing with protection

[Korva]

Guys, why worry about "open bolt" stuff when you could just get a Toyota Hilux with a mounted MG?

Because if you see anything that is not a person you will not be able to penetrate it

.50 cal will penetrate most APCs

[Ragutsa]

Because if you see anything that is not a person you will not be able to penetrate it

.50 cal will penetrate most APCs

Those are for weak

[Ganjia]

But if nobody had tanks, and only Toyota Hiluxs you wouldn't need to.

Quick information, Tanks arent the only thing with protection

Oh. Well if we only had Toyota Hiluxs we still wouldn't need to worry. Toyotas are not hella armored.

[Ragutsa]

Quick information, Tanks arent the only thing with protection

Oh. Well if we only had Toyota Hiluxs we still wouldn't need to worry. Toyotas are not hella armored.

That would mean instant victory to the guy who decided to make the first tank

[Gallia-]

Oh. Well if we only had Toyota Hiluxs we still wouldn't need to worry. Toyotas are not hella armored.

That would mean instant victory to the guy who decided to make the first tank

Just ask Qaddafi about his stunning victory!

[Purpelia]

Just how much hull penetration would I have from a turret designed to have as little as possible? Like, say I wanted to make a BMP-3 turret but with no hull penetration (different autoloader). Assuming I want 0 degrees elevation just how much would be the bare minimum for it to penetrate into the hull?

Zero if you want to drop the 100mm gun-launcher and move on to smaller and better things.

Otherwise you're looking at about the same penetration to accommodate the gunner and TC, but if you have an autoloader like Expeditionary Tank's turret you can make the ring smaller.

Why would I accommodate a gunner? The entire point of such turrets is that they are remote controlled. The crew is nowhere near the thing.
My entire idea is to take a BMP-3 turret and give it a proper bustle autoloader whilst making it unmanned. Thus my crew is all in the hull away from it and I do NOT have someone sitting around surrounded on all sides by ammo.

Just how much hull penetration would I have from a turret designed to have as little as possible? Like, say I wanted to make a BMP-3 turret but with no hull penetration (different autoloader). Assuming I want 0 degrees elevation just how much would be the bare minimum for it to penetrate into the hull?

Don't know if you remember it being posted from a few days ago, but the Armada Compendium on turrets document includes a design for an IFV turret that claims no hull penetration. It featured a 25 or 30mm autocannon I think? Can't remember the manufacturer.

But it can't possibly actually be no penetration. I mean, there has to be at least something to allow the motors to be fitted and the thing to stay on and not just slide off.

[Imperializt Russia]

I did brand it as witchcraft.
I also only looked at the pretty picture and the tagline, not bothering to read its article.

[Gallia-]

Zero if you want to drop the 100mm gun-launcher and move on to smaller and better things.

Otherwise you're looking at about the same penetration to accommodate the gunner and TC, but if you have an autoloader like Expeditionary Tank's turret you can make the ring smaller.

Why would I accommodate a gunner? The entire point of such turrets is that they are remote controlled. The crew is nowhere near the thing.
My entire idea is to take a BMP-3 turret and give it a proper bustle autoloader whilst making it unmanned. Thus my crew is all in the hull away from it and I do NOT have someone sitting around surrounded on all sides by ammo.

I'm not sure what sort of penetration this would have because I'm not aware of any unmanned turrets which feature large caliber guns with bustle loaders. Generally they use the space which would be occupied by crewmen for more ammunition for the main gun or a reduced turret ring size, since this is more efficient. The rare IFV with an unmanned turret is generally armed with a automatic cannon in the 20-60mm range, as this is more efficient than giving it a silly 100mm potato gun.

[Purpelia]

I'm not sure what sort of penetration this would have because I'm not aware of any unmanned turrets which feature large caliber guns with bustle loaders. Generally they use the space which would be occupied by crewmen for more ammunition for the main gun or a reduced turret ring size, since this is more efficient. The rare IFV with an unmanned turret is generally armed with a automatic cannon in the 20-60mm range, as this is more efficient than giving it a silly 100mm potato gun.

The 100mm is important because it can launch ATGM's and deliver proper HE. In fact I am contemplating just a 10cm + MG setup with no autocanon on the side.

This said, can you direct me toward the largest unmanned turret that uses a bustle autoloader that you know off? You mentioned 60mm, that seems like a good place to start.

[Gallia-]

I'm not sure what sort of penetration this would have because I'm not aware of any unmanned turrets which feature large caliber guns with bustle loaders. Generally they use the space which would be occupied by crewmen for more ammunition for the main gun or a reduced turret ring size, since this is more efficient. The rare IFV with an unmanned turret is generally armed with a automatic cannon in the 20-60mm range, as this is more efficient than giving it a silly 100mm potato gun.

The 100mm is important because it can launch ATGM's and deliver proper HE. In fact I am contemplating just a 10cm + MG setup with no autocanon on the side.

100mm is an absolutely puny ATGW caliber just give the section recoilless rifles and the IFV 152mm ATGW.

Volume of fire is more important than "proper HE" for that matter, especially when an IFV is involved. The amount of stowed kills between an M2 Bradley and a BMP-3 is rather significant. Rarely will an IFV need to use a large bore HE round, and rarely will any target which requires that be particularly vulnerable to 100mm (tanks, pillboxes) versus 120mm or something from a tank operating alongside the IFV.

BMP-3 is just a dumb design sorry. Give it the 152mm gun from MBT-70, you'll have a larger caliber and more range.

[Purpelia]

100mm is an absolutely puny ATGW caliber just give the section recoilless rifles and the IFV 152mm ATGW.

It's decent enough if you don't target the thickest armor. Since this is a modern IFV I want to give it a top attack fire and forget missile based on the Spike. The smallest of the Spike family is just 75mm in diameter so I should be able to fit the seeker and stuff in a 10cm package. And 10cm should be quite enough to get through the roof of any tank.

Volume of fire is more important than "proper HE" for that matter, especially when an IFV is involved. The amount of stowed kills between an M2 Bradley and a BMP-3 is rather significant. Rarely will an IFV need to use a large bore HE round, and rarely will any target which requires that be particularly vulnerable to 100mm (tanks, pillboxes) versus 120mm or something from a tank operating alongside the IFV.

Why are you assuming I will always have tanks along side my IFV's? Tanks are expensive and I can't well have thousands of them. Certainly not enough to support infantry all of the time. My mechanized infantry formations will greatly outnumber my tank units. Furthermore, my infantry often have to make amphibious maneuvers which again preclude the use of any non floating vehicles such as tanks. The whole point of this setup is thus to give the average infantry unit something that will make up for when they don't have a tank on speed dial.

[Gallia-]

100mm is an absolutely puny ATGW caliber just give the section recoilless rifles and the IFV 152mm ATGW.

It's decent enough if you don't target the thickest armor. Since this is a modern IFV I want to give it a top attack fire and forget missile based on the Spike. The smallest of the Spike family is just 75mm in diameter so I should be able to fit the seeker and stuff in a 10cm package. And 10cm should be quite enough to get through the roof of any tank.

Volume of fire is more important than "proper HE" for that matter, especially when an IFV is involved. The amount of stowed kills between an M2 Bradley and a BMP-3 is rather significant. Rarely will an IFV need to use a large bore HE round, and rarely will any target which requires that be particularly vulnerable to 100mm (tanks, pillboxes) versus 120mm or something from a tank operating alongside the IFV.

Why are you assuming I will always have tanks along side my IFV's? Tanks are expensive and I can't well have thousands of them. Certainly not enough to support infantry all of the time. My mechanized infantry formations will greatly outnumber my tank units. Furthermore, my infantry often have to make amphibious maneuvers which again preclude the use of any non floating vehicles such as tanks. The whole point of this setup is thus to give the average infantry unit something that will make up for when they don't have a tank on speed dial.

1) It's not actually decent at all. A better gun would be 76mm if you must insist on a cannon.

Spike wouldn't really work in a gun for rather obvious reasons.

2) Sorry, I assumed your officers and budgetmakers are competent enough to know that infantry need tanks in all situations. The USSR realized this, OMG/Unified Corps weren't just masses of BTRs and BMPs, they traveled as fast as their tank battalions could move and bridges constructed, and this was the reason that amphibious capability has declined significantly in Western armies aside from protection reasons

[Purpelia]

1) It's not actually decent at all. A better gun would be 76mm if you must insist on a cannon.

I actually did contemplate 75mm's. But I figured that I really could not fit a proper ATGM into it.

Spike wouldn't really work in a gun for rather obvious reasons.

Why not? I mean obviously the missile it self would be different. But a spike derived seeker and guidance combo should work, just as long as I make sure to build the rest of the missile to spec for something that is launched out of a gun.

2) Sorry, I assumed your officers and budgetmakers are competent enough to know that infantry need tanks in all situations. The USSR realized this, OMG/Unified Corps weren't just masses of BTRs and BMPs, they traveled as fast as their tank battalions could move and bridges constructed, and this was the reason that amphibious capability has declined significantly in Western armies aside from protection reasons

How many tanks does a modern western army have? And how many infantry units? Show me one army, aside from the Soviets and Chinese that can actually field a tank unit for each infantry unit.

[Ganjia]

Oh. Well if we only had Toyota Hiluxs we still wouldn't need to worry. Toyotas are not hella armored.

That would mean instant victory to the guy who decided to make the first tank

Nothing can defeat the Toyota Hilux when it is in the right hands.

[Gallia-]

1) It's not actually decent at all. A better gun would be 76mm if you must insist on a cannon.

I actually did contemplate 75mm's. But I figured that I really could not fit a proper ATGM into it.

Spike wouldn't really work in a gun for rather obvious reasons.

Why not? I mean obviously the missile it self would be different. But a spike derived seeker and guidance combo should work, just as long as I make sure to build the rest of the missile to spec for something that is launched out of a gun.

2) Sorry, I assumed your officers and budgetmakers are competent enough to know that infantry need tanks in all situations. The USSR realized this, OMG/Unified Corps weren't just masses of BTRs and BMPs, they traveled as fast as their tank battalions could move and bridges constructed, and this was the reason that amphibious capability has declined significantly in Western armies aside from protection reasons

How many tanks does a modern western army have? And how many infantry units? Show me one army, aside from the Soviets and Chinese that can actually field a tank unit for each infantry unit.

1) Are you incapable of engineering rectangles or something?



2) Spike's "seeker" requires it to be fired out of a tube, not a closed breech cannon, because the operator needs to control the missile in flight with a fiber optic cable. More importantly, the missile would be unable to see anything clearly until it has cleared the bore, so it won't be able to hit anything.

There is a reason gun launched missiles use weird guidance methods like RF links or infrared. This is the same reason why an external or box launcher on the side of the IFV's turret is a superior system to a gun launched missile.

3) What is a "unit"? Which "Western army"?

Germany in the 1980s had more tanks than it had IFVs, because it had more tank divisions than mechanized infantry divisions (something like 2:1). The US Army could field about 1:1. That's not important though, tanks are rarely necessary in 1:1 ratios and numbers alone are a useless metric. Instead you have 1:3 ratios or 1:4, depending on the number of subunits and resulting divisibility.

[Purpelia]

1) Are you incapable of engineering rectangles or something?

(Image)

I do not like using launchers that can't be internally reloaded. If a soldier has to get out of the vehicle to reload the launcher than the vehicle becomes useless under conditions where he can't do that. Such as those involving enemy fire, NBC contamination etc.

2) Spike's "seeker" requires it to be fired out of a tube, not a closed breech cannon, because the operator needs to control the missile in flight with a fiber optic cable.

Ideally I'd want this to be a fire and forget missile. So it would require no user input at all after firing. I guess I should be looking at the Javelin instead. But ultimately my goal is something that you fire and than switch to the next tank in line and be confident it will hit the enemy on his roof.

More importantly, the missile would be unable to see anything clearly until it has cleared the bore, so it won't be able to hit anything.

How is this not an issue with gun launched missiles?

There is a reason gun launched missiles use weird guidance methods like RF links or infrared.

What's wrong with those?

This is the same reason why an external or box launcher on the side of the IFV's turret is a superior system to a gun launched missile.

It really isn't. You can't reload it without retreating from the fight. It is easily damaged and disabled by enemy attacks that would not even scratch your armor. It can get flooded if you dive into water etc.

Germany in the 1980s had more tanks than it had IFVs, because it had more tank divisions than mechanized infantry divisions (something like 2:1). The US Army could field about 1:1. That's not important though, tanks are rarely necessary in 1:1 ratios and numbers alone are a useless metric. Instead you have 1:3 ratios or 1:4, depending on the number of subunits and resulting divisibility.

If an average infantry platoon can not expect to have a tank around to aid it, than it needs some way to make up for that. And with me working on a new modern tank that's going to be uber expensive an overarmed IFV seems like a good alternative.

[The Kievan People]

Why are you assuming I will always have tanks along side my IFV's? Tanks are expensive and I can't well have thousands of them. Certainly not enough to support infantry all of the time. My mechanized infantry formations will greatly outnumber my tank units. Furthermore, my infantry often have to make amphibious maneuvers which again preclude the use of any non floating vehicles such as tanks. The whole point of this setup is thus to give the average infantry unit something that will make up for when they don't have a tank on speed dial.

Very few armies have more IFVs than tanks. The USSR never did. IFVs are expensive. In fact, they cost nearly as much as tanks.

APCs are cheaper. But only if they forgo the weapons and sensors that make tanks and IFVs expensive.

You can give your IFV tank-like capabilities. But then it will have a tank-like price tag.

[Purpelia]

Very few armies have more IFVs than tanks. The USSR never did. IFVs are expensive. In fact, they cost nearly as much as tanks.

APCs are cheaper. But only if they forgo the weapons and sensors that make tanks and IFVs expensive.

You can give your IFV tank-like capabilities. But then it will have a tank-like price tag.

As much as modern tanks yes. But my army is going to be adopting some sort of next generation nightmare with an unmanned turret and all sorts of funky sensors and electrical doodats in the next 10-15 years. And that one is going to cost a fortune. So an IFV with lesser sensory and other capabilities but with enough firepower to supplant the need for tanks in situations where you only need that big gun seems like a good idea. Even if this thing costs as much as a modern tank it still comes out as cheaper than the projected future tank my army will get.

[The Kievan People]

As much as modern tanks yes. But my army is going to be adopting some sort of next generation nightmare with an unmanned turret and all sorts of funky sensors and electrical doodats in the next 10-15 years. And that one is going to cost a fortune. So an IFV with lesser sensory and other capabilities but with enough firepower to supplant the need for tanks in situations where you only need that big gun seems like a good idea. Even if this thing costs as much as a modern tank it still comes out as cheaper than the projected future tank my army will get.

Not even surprised.

[Purpelia]

As much as modern tanks yes. But my army is going to be adopting some sort of next generation nightmare with an unmanned turret and all sorts of funky sensors and electrical doodats in the next 10-15 years. And that one is going to cost a fortune. So an IFV with lesser sensory and other capabilities but with enough firepower to supplant the need for tanks in situations where you only need that big gun seems like a good idea. Even if this thing costs as much as a modern tank it still comes out as cheaper than the projected future tank my army will get.

Not even surprised.

By the fact I am doing research for what my army will be using in the next 20 years or so? (Well adopt in the next 20 years or so, most of it is a long time off yet)
It's interesting.

Although to be fair, most of this stuff was supposed to enter service with my army as part of the year 2000 project. That and the model 2000 rifle (entering service in 2010) and radio set (2014) and other equipment (20+++++ something in the future, don't ask us! We are working on it.)

[Backatri]

I Imagine my nations Armoured Car to be a heavily modernized T17 Staghound, What modifications would be made? (NBC, larger gun, new chassis, and the like)