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

[The Kievan People]

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)

A new vehicle would be a good start.

[Gallia-]

1) The vehicle will be contaminated when the infantry dismount anyway, so who cares? Anyway, you should have hatches on top of the vehicle to facilitate mounted assaults and rapid exit regardless. Reloading an ATGW launcher on the turret is less dangerous than either of these things in those circumstances, and it wouldn't be done in conditions where you wouldn't dismount such as being shot at.

2) You aren't getting that in a gun, sorry. There's a reason that fire and forget ATGW don't have five meter long launch tubes in front of the seekers and need foam covers to protect the missile.

3) I don't know what this means. It is an issue with gun-launched missiles, which is why every gun launched missile is CLOS instead of fire and forget. The seeker is shrouded in a tiny tube with no ability to capture light, so it's blind. Fire and forget ATGW using infrared or EO seekers like Javelin or AGM-65 have them exposed prior to launch/use so the missile can see the target.

4) They are readily detectable and avoidable. As a rule, tanks do not like being lased and will probably protest this. RF guidance is easily jammed and confused.

5) I don't know if you understand how "a fight" goes, but generally there is a period before the fight where soldiers are mounted and vehicles are resupplied. You don't dismount while being shot at unless you are in an ambush, and you don't reload a TOW launcher in combat unless you want to get shot. That's why you have two TOWs with TBAT-II.

It is true that the box launcher is easily vulnerable to attacks, but it is not so much that it is useless. It is tougher than, say, a Malyutka on a BMP-1 or a tube launcher on a Warrior because it is protected by steel. It can resist things like mud and water rather well compared to either of these exposed weapons.

IFVs, again as a rule, do not generally ford river crossings. They use bridges or ferries or construct their own bridge. In the very rare event that you need to immerse your vehicle in water, a tank cannon will be just as vulnerable to "flood" as the TOW box or 25mm on a Bradley.

Being disabled by an attack is a reasonable concern, but the TOW is not the primary weapon of the Bradley so that is relatively unimportant. Merely having the ability to fight armour is a tremendous benefit to the mechanized infantry's ability to attack and defend against heavy formations.

6) The "average" infantry battalion is support by a tank company. This means each platoon can expect to have at least one tank around by number, but platoons are rarely so far separated from each other that they can't provide mutual supporting fires.

tl;dr Your case to support the 100mm gun is tenuous except based on the idea that a 100mm HE-FRAG is preferable to a 30mm HEI burst, which may be true in certain scenarios, but your arguments to support the gun-launcher aspect are technically infeasible. You can have a SACLOS missile fired from the gun and suffer the problem of cycle time or you can reasonably mount an external launcher to use fire and forget ATGW. Another alternative is stowing ATGW in the vehicle itself, like Bradley does.

If you intend your mechanized infantry to attack armour without tank support, perhaps you should just use M2 Bradley instead of BMP-3. The former is a superior design in terms of anti-armour capability per section and has an internal layout just as ridiculous. Alternatively, you could invest in tanks instead of a fairly worthless IFV and fill the gap with MT-LB or something.

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.)

Perhaps you should adopt the true post-Soviet procurement policy: Buy 20 units of everything to display at the annual victory parade in Purple Square and repaint the serial numbers to make it seem like you have more than you actually do.

[Padnak]

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

Just ask Qaddafi about his stunning victory!

[Purpelia]

1) The vehicle will be contaminated when the infantry dismount anyway, so who cares? Anyway, you should have hatches on top of the vehicle to facilitate mounted assaults and rapid exit regardless. Reloading an ATGW launcher on the turret is less dangerous than either of these things in those circumstances, and it wouldn't be done in conditions where you wouldn't dismount such as being shot at.

And with a gun launcher you can just fire without worries. No need for anyone on the inside to reload. And you can reload whilst being shot at.

2) You aren't getting that in a gun, sorry. There's a reason that fire and forget ATGW don't have five meter long launch tubes in front of the seekers and need foam covers to protect the missile.

Foam covers? What are those for?

3) I don't know what this means. It is an issue with gun-launched missiles, which is why every gun launched missile is CLOS instead of fire and forget. The seeker is shrouded in a tiny tube with no ability to capture light, so it's blind. Fire and forget ATGW using infrared or EO seekers like Javelin or AGM-65 have them exposed prior to launch/use so the missile can see the target.

Can't you just have the missile fly off blind and than acquire a lock once it's in the air?

4) They are readily detectable and avoidable. As a rule, tanks do not like being lased and will probably protest this. RF guidance is easily jammed and confused.

I see.

5) I don't know if you understand how "a fight" goes, but generally there is a period before the fight where soldiers are mounted and vehicles are resupplied. You don't dismount while being shot at unless you are in an ambush, and you don't reload a TOW launcher in combat unless you want to get shot. That's why you have two TOWs with TBAT-II.

What happens if the enemy has 3 tanks? Or an APS? Or your missile misses?

It is true that the box launcher is easily vulnerable to attacks, but it is not so much that it is useless. It is tougher than, say, a Malyutka on a BMP-1 or a tube launcher on a Warrior because it is protected by steel. It can resist things like mud and water rather well compared to either of these exposed weapons.

What about MG fire? Or shrapnel?

IFVs, again as a rule, do not generally ford river crossings. They use bridges or ferries or construct their own bridge. In the very rare event that you need to immerse your vehicle in water, a tank cannon will be just as vulnerable to "flood" as the TOW box or 25mm on a Bradley.

There are plenty of amphibious IFV's out there. Certainly all of those that have not fallen for the "armored so much it might as well be a tank" fad.

Being disabled by an attack is a reasonable concern, but the TOW is not the primary weapon of the Bradley so that is relatively unimportant. Merely having the ability to fight armour is a tremendous benefit to the mechanized infantry's ability to attack and defend against heavy formations.

Honestly one worry I have is that it might well become a primary weapon. IFV's these days are so armored they might as well be tanks from a targeting perspective. If an AC can't cut through them than we will see a lot more missiles being used to counter threats that used to be relegated to ACs.

6) The "average" infantry battalion is support by a tank company. This means each platoon can expect to have at least one tank around by number, but platoons are rarely so far separated from each other that they can't provide mutual supporting fires.

That sounds like a huge amount of tanks.

tl;dr Your case to support the 100mm gun is tenuous except based on the idea that a 100mm HE-FRAG is preferable to a 30mm HEI burst, which may be true in certain scenarios, but your arguments to support the gun-launcher aspect are technically infeasible. You can have a SACLOS missile fired from the gun and suffer the problem of cycle time or you can reasonably mount an external launcher to use fire and forget ATGW. Another alternative is stowing ATGW in the vehicle itself, like Bradley does.

Random question. What about a reloadable missile launcher of some sort? Basically, some sort of ATGM launcher that has an autoloader but no actual long barrel? Or hell, just one that goes down into the hull for safe reloading? That should eliminate all the issues you mentioned.

That way I could mount a lighter 78mm or so AC on the turret to get more ammo as well. This said, I am shy of going under that bore simply because I feel future IFV's will get heavier and heavier.

If you intend your mechanized infantry to attack armour without tank support, perhaps you should just use M2 Bradley instead of BMP-3. The former is a superior design in terms of anti-armour capability per section and has an internal layout just as ridiculous. Alternatively, you could invest in tanks instead of a fairly worthless IFV and fill the gap with MT-LB or something.

I actually do use light IFV's in my tank formations. Infantry organic to tank units is simply issued the equivalent of a modern BMP-1. Light autocanon, light armor, decent space inside and no thrills.

But I also intend to make use of large mechanized infantry formations that really don't have many tanks at all. Like for example a mechanized infantry division that has an organic brigade of tanks, but no tanks in the individual brigades or battalions of infantry.

Perhaps you should adopt the true post-Soviet procurement policy: Buy 20 units of everything to display at the annual victory parade in Purple Square and repaint the serial numbers to make it seem like you have more than you actually do.

You think I don't? I take it you have not seen my next generation stealth fighter. Although to be fair, my army simply has a tendency to set unrealistic demands when it comes to timelines. But it is up to date with the rest of the world. It's just that it always tries to be one step ahead, sets a tall deadline and promptly breaks it, refusing to admit they can't be faster and smarter than the rest of the world.

[Gallia-]

1) The vehicle will be contaminated when the infantry dismount anyway, so who cares? Anyway, you should have hatches on top of the vehicle to facilitate mounted assaults and rapid exit regardless. Reloading an ATGW launcher on the turret is less dangerous than either of these things in those circumstances, and it wouldn't be done in conditions where you wouldn't dismount such as being shot at.

And with a gun launcher you can just fire without worries. No need for anyone on the inside to reload. And you can reload whilst being shot at.

2) You aren't getting that in a gun, sorry. There's a reason that fire and forget ATGW don't have five meter long launch tubes in front of the seekers and need foam covers to protect the missile.

Foam covers? What are those for?

3) I don't know what this means. It is an issue with gun-launched missiles, which is why every gun launched missile is CLOS instead of fire and forget. The seeker is shrouded in a tiny tube with no ability to capture light, so it's blind. Fire and forget ATGW using infrared or EO seekers like Javelin or AGM-65 have them exposed prior to launch/use so the missile can see the target.

Can't you just have the missile fly off blind and than acquire a lock once it's in the air?

4) They are readily detectable and avoidable. As a rule, tanks do not like being lased and will probably protest this. RF guidance is easily jammed and confused.

I see.

5) I don't know if you understand how "a fight" goes, but generally there is a period before the fight where soldiers are mounted and vehicles are resupplied. You don't dismount while being shot at unless you are in an ambush, and you don't reload a TOW launcher in combat unless you want to get shot. That's why you have two TOWs with TBAT-II.

What happens if the enemy has 3 tanks? Or an APS? Or your missile misses?

It is true that the box launcher is easily vulnerable to attacks, but it is not so much that it is useless. It is tougher than, say, a Malyutka on a BMP-1 or a tube launcher on a Warrior because it is protected by steel. It can resist things like mud and water rather well compared to either of these exposed weapons.

What about MG fire? Or shrapnel?

IFVs, again as a rule, do not generally ford river crossings. They use bridges or ferries or construct their own bridge. In the very rare event that you need to immerse your vehicle in water, a tank cannon will be just as vulnerable to "flood" as the TOW box or 25mm on a Bradley.

There are plenty of amphibious IFV's out there. Certainly all of those that have not fallen for the "armored so much it might as well be a tank" fad.

Being disabled by an attack is a reasonable concern, but the TOW is not the primary weapon of the Bradley so that is relatively unimportant. Merely having the ability to fight armour is a tremendous benefit to the mechanized infantry's ability to attack and defend against heavy formations.

Honestly one worry I have is that it might well become a primary weapon. IFV's these days are so armored they might as well be tanks from a targeting perspective. If an AC can't cut through them than we will see a lot more missiles being used to counter threats that used to be relegated to ACs.

6) The "average" infantry battalion is support by a tank company. This means each platoon can expect to have at least one tank around by number, but platoons are rarely so far separated from each other that they can't provide mutual supporting fires.

That sounds like a huge amount of tanks.

tl;dr Your case to support the 100mm gun is tenuous except based on the idea that a 100mm HE-FRAG is preferable to a 30mm HEI burst, which may be true in certain scenarios, but your arguments to support the gun-launcher aspect are technically infeasible. You can have a SACLOS missile fired from the gun and suffer the problem of cycle time or you can reasonably mount an external launcher to use fire and forget ATGW. Another alternative is stowing ATGW in the vehicle itself, like Bradley does.

Random question. What about a reloadable missile launcher of some sort? Basically, some sort of ATGM launcher that has an autoloader but no actual long barrel? Or hell, just one that goes down into the hull for safe reloading? That should eliminate all the issues you mentioned.

If you intend your mechanized infantry to attack armour without tank support, perhaps you should just use M2 Bradley instead of BMP-3. The former is a superior design in terms of anti-armour capability per section and has an internal layout just as ridiculous. Alternatively, you could invest in tanks instead of a fairly worthless IFV and fill the gap with MT-LB or something.

I actually do use light IFV's in my tank formations. Infantry organic to tank units is simply issued the equivalent of a modern BMP-1. Light autocanon, light armor, decent space inside and no thrills.

But I also intend to make use of large mechanized infantry formations that really don't have many tanks at all. Like for example a mechanized infantry division that has an organic brigade of tanks, but no tanks in the individual brigades or battalions of infantry.

Perhaps you should adopt the true post-Soviet procurement policy: Buy 20 units of everything to display at the annual victory parade in Purple Square and repaint the serial numbers to make it seem like you have more than you actually do.

You think I don't? I take it you have not seen my next generation stealth fighter. Although to be fair, my army simply has a tendency to set unrealistic demands when it comes to timelines. But it is up to date with the rest of the world. It's just that it always tries to be one step ahead, sets a tall deadline and promptly breaks it, refusing to admit they can't be faster and smarter than the rest of the world.

1) You can do the same with a chain gun and store more ammunition anyway, which means more kills are theoretically possible if you survive long enough to expend all your ammunition (fat chance).

2) Mostly to keep dirt out but also to protect the seeker head from being scratched. It slightly juts out of the tube to provide a good FOV for the target acquisition.

3) No not really.

4) APS can be countered by radar jammers in the missiles (which is CAPS), missing is countered by not being a spastic and keeping the target in sight, multiple tanks is an expectation regardless and this is why infantry formations have overlapping fires. It's really simple actually, you're just overthinking it.

5) Unimportant. Killing the TOW does nothing serious to the immediate fighting power of an IFV like Bradley.

6) There aren't. The trend for more armour is very important, as history shows that armoured fighting vehicles only grow in size between "generations", usually. Regardless, IFVs like Puma are not protected against high performance weapons like Bushmaster or 40mm CTA, which can penetrate =>100mm of RHA with typical armour piercing ammunition. BMP-3 is an especially egregious example, having significant increased armament and no improvement in protection over its predecessor (nor, arguably, the armament).

7) It's not. It's actually an average number of tanks, or less than average probably. I don't know the prevalence of armoured formations to mechanized formations really.

Except the fiber optic wire. Just give it a VLS or something instead of infantry.

9) Yes this is generally how it is done. The only formations which mix tanks at company level are the former US reconnaissance/armored cavalry formations as far as I'm aware. This requires tanks constituting about 30-40% of the AFVs of the division.

10) Then why aren't you detailing to us what the actual composition of your rifle sections are for a change? I'm betting they use MT-LBs or BTRs, which are better than BMP-3.

[Purpelia]

1) You can do the same with a chain gun and store more ammunition anyway, which means more kills are theoretically possible if you survive long enough to expend all your ammunition (fat chance).

Can you please split quotes properly? It is very difficult for me to follow what you are responding to any more.

And no, a chaingun can't work because it can't engage the same targets.

2) Mostly to keep dirt out but also to protect the seeker head from being scratched. It slightly juts out of the tube to provide a good FOV for the target acquisition.

I see.

3) No not really.

Oh.

4) APS can be countered by radar jammers in the missiles (which is CAPS), missing is countered by not being a spastic and keeping the target in sight, multiple tanks is an expectation regardless and this is why infantry formations have overlapping fires. It's really simple actually, you're just overthinking it.

I am just worried I'll be outnumbered and outgunned. It's what happens when I RP a proper military budget that ain't North Korea grade.

5) Unimportant. Killing the TOW does nothing serious to the immediate fighting power of an IFV like Bradley.

Other than making it unable to fight tanks. Which is like 50% of the purpose of an IFV.

6) There aren't. The trend for more armour is very important, as history shows that armoured fighting vehicles only grow in size between "generations", usually. Regardless, IFVs like Puma are not protected against high performance weapons like Bushmaster or 40mm CTA, which can penetrate =>100mm of RHA with typical armour piercing ammunition. BMP-3 is an especially egregious example, having significant increased armament and no improvement in protection over its predecessor (nor, arguably, the armament).

Thing is I just don't buy into the whole massively armored IFV thing. I do not feel that an IFV needs all that protection. On the other hand I do have to contend with a rather unique geographical situation of a country where canal shipping makes up for over 50% of the total freight cargo. And which has a rather underdeveloped highway network to boot.

7) It's not. It's actually an average number of tanks, or less than average probably. I don't know the prevalence of armoured formations to mechanized formations really.

Me neither. It is something I should look into though. Info seems to be scarce though.

8) Except the fiber optic wire. Just give it a VLS or something instead of infantry.

Does that not defeat the purpose? If I have to attach an extra vehicle to the unit than it might as well be something like the AMX-10. And I want to avoid doing that.

9) Yes this is generally how it is done. The only formations which mix tanks at company level are the former US reconnaissance/armored cavalry formations as far as I'm aware. This requires tanks constituting about 30-40% of the AFVs of the division.

I do not think we are on the same page. Basically, this is how I think a mechanized infantry division (old style should look):

Infantry Division = 1 x Tank Brigade + 3 x Infantry Brigade
---
Tank Brigade = 1 x Infantry Battalion + 3 x Tank Battalion
Infantry Brigade = 3 x Infantry Battalion + 1 x Tank Battalion
---
Tank Battalion = 1 x Infantry Company + 3 x Tank Company
Infantry Battalion = 3 x Infantry Company + 1 x Tank Company
---
Infantry Company = 3 x Infantry Platoon
Tank Company = 1 x Infantry Platoon + 3 x Tank Platoon
---
Infantry Platoon = just infantry
Tank Platoon = just tanks

That's my concept at least. Where as a "new style" division would look like this:

Infantry Division = 1 x Tank Brigade + 3 x Infantry Brigade
---
Tank Brigade = 1 x Infantry Battalion + 3 x Tank Battalion
Infantry Brigade = 3 x Infantry Battalion
---
Tank Battalion = 1 x Infantry Company + 3 x Tank Company
Infantry Battalion = 3 x Infantry Company
---
Infantry Company = 3 x Infantry Platoon
Tank Company = 1 x Infantry Platoon+ 3 x Tank Platoon
---
Infantry Platoon = just infantry
Tank Platoon = just tanks

I just ran some quick back of the envelope style math. So it's not ideal but it should give a rough image. An old style infantry division should have ~400 + tanks. A new style division would have ~150 tanks.

10) Then why aren't you detailing to us what the actual composition of your rifle sections are for a change? I'm betting they use MT-LBs or BTRs, which are better than BMP-3.

Well I plan to use two types of rifle squads depending on the unit they are attached to. Those units attached to tanks as supporting infantry (see above) would get light IFV's where as those operating independently would get heavy IFV's. So it would look something like this:

Infantry Division = 1 x Tank Brigade + 3 x Infantry Brigade (heavy)
---
Tank Brigade = 1 x Infantry Battalion (light) + 3 x Tank Battalion
Infantry Brigade (heavy) = 3 x Infantry Battalion (heavy)
---
Tank Battalion = 1 x Infantry Company (light) + 3 x Tank Company
Infantry Battalion (light / heavy) = 3 x Infantry Company (light / heavy)
---
Infantry Company (light / heavy) = 3 x Infantry Platoon (light / heavy)
Tank Company = 1 x Infantry Platoon (light) + 3 x Tank Platoon
---
Infantry Platoon (light) = BMP-1
Infantry Platoon (heavy) = BMP-3
Tank Platoon = just tanks

[The Kievan People]

Thing is I just don't buy into the whole massively armored IFV thing. I do not feel that an IFV needs all that protection. On the other hand I do have to contend with a rather unique geographical situation of a country where canal shipping makes up for over 50% of the total freight cargo. And which has a rather underdeveloped highway network to boot.

Sucks to be you.

Canals proved to be the most easily crippled part of the German transportation network. The attacks on bridges, which were not even aimed at the canals, disabled it almost completely. It was taken out be collateral damage.

[Gallia-]

5) Traditional IFVs are actually just intended to fight their opposite number because any IFV will be operating close enough to tanks that it doesn't matter. Americans just wanted to make sure their sabots were being used against "proper" tanks like T-72 and T-80, not T-62.

Bradley is more like 150% of an IFV.

6) IFVs have very little protection. They are generally safe from 14.5mm or 20mm rounds and small arms all around. Depending on the particular IFV (M2 Bradley is very large), this can weigh anywhere from 25-30 tons or so. You're not getting around this without compromising the very purpose for which the IFV exists.

10) Why do you need an unmanned turret if you already have BMP-3s? Just use BMP-2s or something to replace both of those, it's better.

[Rich and Corporations]

RT is a Russian-funded welfare program for unemployed/unemployable western journalists and the crackpots who can't even get a column in the Guardian.

Guardian fifth columnists?

6) IFVs have very little protection. They are generally safe from 14.5mm or 20mm rounds and small arms all around. Depending on the particular IFV (M2 Bradley is very large), this can weigh anywhere from 25-30 tons or so. You're not getting around this without compromising the very purpose for which the IFV exists.

The Puma apparently has greater protection over the Bradley.

[The Akasha Colony]

Yeah, but in a story involving something that like this, which the Russian government knows everything about, you'd think they'd at least tell RT, "these are not the same vehicle."

The one they showed in their article looks cooler though, which is good clickbait. It makes the vehicle seem more fearsome than it actually is, since plenty of people click on websites like that, while relatively few will be eagerly awaiting the Victory Day parade to catch a close glimpse and then jumping on defense sites to look for the latest analysis. They don't have to win over the experts, they just have to win over the common masses.

Thing is I just don't buy into the whole massively armored IFV thing. I do not feel that an IFV needs all that protection. On the other hand I do have to contend with a rather unique geographical situation of a country where canal shipping makes up for over 50% of the total freight cargo. And which has a rather underdeveloped highway network to boot.

What use is an infantry carrier that can't adequately protect its infantry?

[Rich and Corporations]

What use is an infantry carrier that can't adequately protect its infantry?

What use is an army that cannot fuel itself?

[Padnak]

the Padnaki military owns its own oil company

#AheadOfTheCurve

[Rich and Corporations]

the Padnaki military owns its own oil company

#AheadOfTheCurve

interestingly, Venezuela has fuel shortages

perhaps...

oil is not flammable?

[Iltica]

What program are you guys making these illustrations with? I've been trying to do some in CAD but I can't figure out how to convert them to JPEGs.

Make screenshots. (Ctrl+PrtScrn)

Then open an aplication like Photoshop or Paint.net and paste into a new image. Cut out the part you want and save it as a jpeg.

Thanks that'll help alot but I was also wondering what program is used to make illustrations like Pharthan's recent submission? https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=327895&start=4000 I don't have any picture editing software or money and CAD's good for designing but not so great for presentation.

[Bratislavskaya]

Make screenshots. (Ctrl+PrtScrn)

Then open an aplication like Photoshop or Paint.net and paste into a new image. Cut out the part you want and save it as a jpeg.

Thanks that'll help alot but I was also wondering what program is used to make illustrations like Pharthan's recent submission? https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=327895&start=4000 I don't have any picture editing software or money and CAD's good for designing but not so great for presentation.

Use Paint.Net, it's free and pretty good.

[Purpelia]

Sucks to be you.

Canals proved to be the most easily crippled part of the German transportation network. The attacks on bridges, which were not even aimed at the canals, disabled it almost completely. It was taken out be collateral damage.

You say this as if there is a huge network of bridges and roads across these things.

6) IFVs have very little protection. They are generally safe from 14.5mm or 20mm rounds and small arms all around. Depending on the particular IFV (M2 Bradley is very large), this can weigh anywhere from 25-30 tons or so. You're not getting around this without compromising the very purpose for which the IFV exists.

There is no need to have protection against anything more than 20mm rounds or something. And there are IFV's out there that do that under 30 tons. You don't need to protect against 30mm or stuff.

10) Why do you need an unmanned turret if you already have BMP-3s? Just use BMP-2s or something to replace both of those, it's better.

[/quote]
I don't have either. I was using the two to provide a quick and dirty example for the kind of vehicle I am thinking about. I don't actually use either.

[Elan Valleys]

Sucks to be you.

Canals proved to be the most easily crippled part of the German transportation network. The attacks on bridges, which were not even aimed at the canals, disabled it almost completely. It was taken out be collateral damage.

You say this as if there is a huge network of bridges and roads across these things.

A single dumb bomb can put a canal out of commission for a long time. A vaguely organised campaign will blow enough holes that even when you can repair it you've lost thousands of hours of transport capability.

A hit on a canal tunnel will put it out of action for the duration of a modern war.

[Elan Valleys]

I've been thinking.

I see Elan Valleys as a small country surrounded by large neighbours both in size and population, so I'd likely be outnumbered massively in any conflict and can't trade a huge amount of space for time.

Would it therefore be a good idea to base the MBT I'm working on on the Merkava?

[Kolintha]

Would it be a bad idea to put a gun-mortar in an IFV turret? I feel it would probably be pretty good for supporting infantry and South Africa did something similar to this I believe, though then again, the worst their vehicles ever really have to contend with is '40s and '50s Soviet equipment.

[Imperializt Russia]

Gun-mortar carriers would be a nice vehicle to support IFVs, rather than being IFV armament themselves.

[Kolintha]

Gun-mortar carriers would be a nice vehicle to support IFVs, rather than being IFV armament themselves.

Hmm...noted. Wouldn't the vehicle then just become a run-of-the-mill mortar carrier?

[Auroya]

Mortars are useful.

iirc it's perfectly possible to build things such as top-attack guided anti-vehicle mortar-launched munitions and similar things.

[Protestant England and Germany]

Which would be the better choice for an IFV? The Spahpanzer Luchs or the Spahpanzer Puma. The Luchs has a 20mm cannon and the Puma has a 30mm, the Luchs is faster than the Puma, but the Puma preforms better off road. The Puma is equipped with the Spike LR anti-tank rocket and the Puma is not.

Which would be the better pick for my army?

[Elan Valleys]

The Luchs doesn't carry any infantry. It's a specialised recce vehicle not an IFV.

[Opplandia]

Which would be the better choice for an IFV? The Spahpanzer Luchs or the Spahpanzer Puma. The Luchs has a 20mm cannon and the Puma has a 30mm, the Luchs is faster than the Puma, but the Puma preforms better off road. The Puma is equipped with the Spike LR anti-tank rocket and the Puma is not.

Which would be the better pick for my army?

ahem, the designation of the Luchs already answers your question: 'Spähpanzer' -> 'reconn-tank'. obvious result: Puma wins.