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

[New Visegrad]

so here's an initial layout of my IFV
at the moment the main things I'm concerned about are the proportions of the missile launcher box, and whether the autocannon should feed from inside the main hull or from a drum mounted on the turret itself.
I'm also a little worried that the hull might be too deep, but that's fairly easy to fix at this stage if it is a problem.

[New Vihenia]

They would need new APS munitions and small self guided munitions like that have never really been produced in Russia.

Does it really need to be guided ? If inbound threat is APFSDS then yes.. it might need guidance because turret is too slow to cope.

Afganit or whatever it's called should be adequate for conflicts in Russia's near abroad, but the design isn't future proofed at all. Even there though the lack of rear-hemisphere coverage is very questionable in an unconventional/hybrid context.

It's basically an APS designed for the requirements of the 1980s... in 2015.

On the bright side it is still more capable than the US Army's APS which exists only in the land of powerpoint.

Well there's sayings in Russia "Best is the enemy of Good enough".

[New Visegrad]

I should probably start coming up with a name for this

[Malay Raya]

(Image)
I should probably start coming up with a name for this

It's just my opinion, but I think the missile launcher thingy should be on the other side to make the other part of turret visible.

[Gallia-]

TBF it resembles Obj 477 somewhat, and the layout is similar I think. The turret is smaller but that's because it's not an insane big gun I guess.

The only problem is it doesn't have a front mounted engine, so the hull looks very boring and pedestrian instead of Super Sloped Future. Because it is boring and pedestrian.

The real future tank is soon to be here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... model1.jpg

and that's been around since 1980-1990 eh ?

The model is likely newer than half the systems in Armata.

[New Visegrad]

(Image)
I should probably start coming up with a name for this

It's just my opinion, but I think the missile launcher thingy should be on the other side to make the other part of turret visible.

but it has launchers on both sides

[Malay Raya]

It's just my opinion, but I think the missile launcher thingy should be on the other side to make the other part of turret visible.

but it has launchers on both sides

Oh, I thought it was just 1 sided like the one i'm designing. Well okay then. nevermind. Other than that it sure does look that its going to be great.

[Yukonastan]

(Image)
I should probably start coming up with a name for this

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

[Husseinarti]

(Image)
I should probably start coming up with a name for this

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

Those are ATGMs.

Jesus fucking Christ it isn't hard to see.

[Malay Raya]

(Image)
I should probably start coming up with a name for this

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

Eh, I would guess those are TOW missile launchers or something similar.

[Allanea]

For those so inclined, I translated an article about tank battalion tactics for you.

[Gallia-]

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

Those are ATGMs.

Jesus fucking Christ it isn't hard to see.

Even then he's still wrong.

[New Visegrad]

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

Those are ATGMs.

Jesus fucking Christ it isn't hard to see.

They are indeed ATGM boxes, though I plan to also have an anti-structure munition compatible with the same launchers and firecon systems.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

My current options for carrying troops are pretty much the following:

• Humvee
• Truck (FMTV)
• JLTV something
• 10-man MRAP (Caiman - FMTV based)
• Wiesel 2 something
• FNSS ACV-19
• CV90

Now, I have a number of questions:

1. Should I consider including a wheeled APC/IFV?
2. If yes, I kind of want to have a large troop capacity. I was considering the VAB, and then the Patria Pasi or possibly an 8x8. What are the pros and cons of 4x4 vs 6x6 vs 8x8 and which do you recommend given that the primary requirements are relatively low weight and large troop capacity (and if possible low cost and simplicity). Again, the main requirement is being able to carry lots of troops. Armament and armor are of lesser concern.

The Sisu Pasi with its 18-man troop capacity and amphibious capability sounds pretty good, it's also plenty light as I understand. The 6 wheels should offer superior mobility compared to the VAB. One area of concern however is the armor:

The 200 series looks a little different from older variants due to increased armour. It lacks amphibious capabilities but can wade through water that is up to 1.5 m deep. The improved armour protects the passengers against up to 14.5 mm small arms fire. It is also equipped with modern optical aids like periscopes and night vision. The armor upgrade was initiated after the realisation that the previous armor was inadequate, even modern armor-piercing 7.62 mm ammunition could pierce the older XA-180 and XA-185 models in certain areas. The XA-202 was originally developed for Communications and Command. The XA-203 was made as a temporary replacement for XA-185, and is intended to be replaced by Patria AMVs in Finnish service.

Maybe I should consider an 8x8 like a modern Skot or smth? I basically want a vehicle that is a)wheeled b) (hopefully well) under 20T, c) has a troop capacity of 15+ and d) decent armor (at least capable of stopping 7.62 AP or a little more than that) . Bonus points for being amphibious.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

so here's an initial layout of my IFV
at the moment the main things I'm concerned about are the proportions of the missile launcher box, and whether the autocannon should feed from inside the main hull or from a drum mounted on the turret itself.
I'm also a little worried that the hull might be too deep, but that's fairly easy to fix at this stage if it is a problem.

1. You should obviously base the missile launcher box around the missile(s) it's supposed to fire. Then take into consideration additional electronics, whether or not the box is armored, whether or not it fires hot or cold launch missiles and so on. Try not to overdo the number of missiles.

2. I would personally have the RWS intrude as little as possible in the hull, so I'd place the ammo boxes outside of the hull on top of the roof/mounted on the RWS, but with a system where you can reload from under armor (this is a feature on a number of RWSs but I can't remember any particular one right now) . If the boxes are too heavy you could have something like a semi-automatic system with a powered pulley something or robotic arm to help along.

[GermanyDeutschland]

My Nation has this tank CUZ WHY NOT

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CApb4CnF2Qk/maxresdefault.jpg


P.S. It has assloads of S.A.M.s so (most) air attacks would be futile

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

My Nation has this tank CUZ WHY NOT

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CApb4CnF2Qk/maxresdefault.jpg


P.S. It has assloads of S.A.M.s so (most) air attacks would be futile

Prepare Uranus.

[Yukonastan]

Rule number one of tankus: If you don't play artillery you don't play artillery. Why have artillery rocket cells on the thing, then?

Those are ATGMs.

Jesus fucking Christ it isn't hard to see.

Yes, as they are TOO DAMN BIG.

[New Visegrad]

Those are ATGMs.

Jesus fucking Christ it isn't hard to see.

Yes, as they are TOO DAMN BIG.

Seems like it might have been better to just straight-up say that, especially since "do the missile box proportions look right" was one of the questions in the initial post at the top of the page.

[Gallia-]

How big is the missile?

[New Visegrad]

How big is the missile?

I dunno, TOW-size probably. It's a fairly standard modern ATGM.

[Gallia-]

How big is the missile?

I dunno, TOW-size probably. It's a fairly standard modern ATGM.

I actually meant you should just draw the missile first in whatever scale you're using.

[New Visegrad]

I didn't really want to fuck around drawing an exact missile so I used a rectangle of the appropriate size, which gave me this. I took the opportunity to detail the launcher side a bit as well.

edit: current full image

[Dostanuot Loj]

My Nation has this tank CUZ WHY NOT

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CApb4CnF2Qk/maxresdefault.jpg


P.S. It has assloads of S.A.M.s so (most) air attacks would be futile

I've got a simple flyswatter for that/

[Gallia-]

I didn't really want to fuck around drawing an exact missile so I used a rectangle of the appropriate size, which gave me this. I took the opportunity to detail the launcher side a bit as well.

edit: current full image

Image not found.

Without knowing the scale, I can't really comment on the size. It's probably fine, especially since the turret looks like nothing more than a bundle of wires and a cannon.