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

[Questers]

(assuming what has been said about it's armament is true)

What has been said about its armament?

[New Visegrad]

What has been said about its armament?

It fires armour piercing butts that can defeat 1500mm of ERA.

[Freihafen]

What has been said about its armament?

There are Russian claims that the Armata's 2A82 gun has 17% more muzzle energy than the 120mm L/55.

[Greater United American Republics]

Hello Citizens!

I'm curious about just what kind of equipment I could get away with using on a modified M41 Walker Bulldog for "Civil Security" reasons, a somewhat cantankerous Australian Gentleman I know suggested taking the Sherridan's M81E1 Rifled 152mm cannon as it's primary armament, but just without the Sheridan's utterly silly aluminum armor. Any ideas on just how many Browning M2HB's I could get away with attaching to pintlemounts (preferabbly twin-linked if possible) for properly "suppressing" crowds of irate Populists.

By any chance, would it be possible to manufacture both genuine-article Canister-shot and if possible, some rather high yield gas canisters of the toxic variety (Those dastardly marxists won't impose toxin-driven lung failure themselves) for said aforementioned 152mm cannon?

Not to-mention, Spaced Armor of some form; that and ERA, how much of it could I get away with using on such a vehicle-turned armored Civil Security Platform?

[New Vihenia]

Doesn't seem like a good place to put it. Seems to me like a stub could get jammed between the bustle and the chassis roof (maybe not, though.)

I think the T-72 stub ejector was the cutest ever. The tank did a poop when it ejected :3

Seems so.. So someone eventually take time to photograph that large gap at side of the turret. and there's a door there. Probably yes that's the stub ejection door.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4522/15 ... 9c_XXL.jpg

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Hello Citizens!

I'm curious about just what kind of equipment I could get away with using on a modified M41 Walker Bulldog for "Civil Security" reasons, a somewhat cantankerous Australian Gentleman I know suggested taking the Sherridan's M81E1 Rifled 152mm cannon as it's primary armament, but just without the Sheridan's utterly silly aluminum armor. Any ideas on just how many Browning M2HB's I could get away with attaching to pintlemounts (preferabbly twin-linked if possible) for properly "suppressing" crowds of irate Populists.

By any chance, would it be possible to manufacture both genuine-article Canister-shot and if possible, some rather high yield gas canisters of the toxic variety (Those dastardly marxists won't impose toxin-driven lung failure themselves) for said aforementioned 152mm cannon?

Not to-mention, Spaced Armor of some form; that and ERA, how much of it could I get away with using on such a vehicle-turned armored Civil Security Platform?

The 152mm on the Sheridan and M60A2 was atrocious; it never performed nearly as well as the L7 gun. Western tank designers have not made many forays into GLATGMs, and the 152mm was one of them, and also the reason we've never tried much afterwards. I don't know much about why, but if Wiki is at all reliable then it just had so many problems than more common guns(90mm, 105mm, 120mm) didn't.

As far as machine guns, a single .50 cal is probably overkill. The .50BMG round is extremely powerful and a single round from it is almost certain to go through two, three, maybe four people in a crowd; a dual mount will literally shred anything in front of it. While that sounds awesome, it will also suck up ammunition twice as fast, and considering the .50BMG is a very large bullet, you won't be able to hold many rounds. A 7.62mm machine gun will work fine for crowd control.

I'm not sure about modern tank-fired gas rounds, but I don't think they are common. The speed that tank guns fire at mean the shot would probably bury itself in the dirt before it has the chance to spread gas around, plus gas is very unreliable and dependent on certain conditions(i.e. weather being a big one).

[New Visegrad]

I'm not sure about modern tank-fired gas rounds, but I don't think they are common. The speed that tank guns fire at mean the shot would probably bury itself in the dirt before it has the chance to spread gas around, plus gas is very unreliable and dependent on certain conditions(i.e. weather being a big one).

Modern tank rounds are high-velocity because of the propellant, not the gun (though improved gun construction allows higher-power propellant). A gas round would presumably have a significantly reduced propellant load to bring it down to a useful velocity.

[Dostanuot Loj]

All this talk of Armata has got me thinking.

So I've been working on something special.

stryker does that

I know.
Mine one-ups MGS.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'm not sure about modern tank-fired gas rounds, but I don't think they are common. The speed that tank guns fire at mean the shot would probably bury itself in the dirt before it has the chance to spread gas around, plus gas is very unreliable and dependent on certain conditions(i.e. weather being a big one).

Modern tank rounds are high-velocity because of the propellant, not the gun (though improved gun construction allows higher-power propellant). A gas round would presumably have a significantly reduced propellant load to bring it down to a useful velocity.

"Gas" rounds are certainly possible; smoke rounds were used around the time of WWII.

Whether they're desirable is an entirely different question. Especially when you're just clearing away crowds of protesters. In "crowd control" roles, tanks can typically get away with the sheer intimidation value of being a tank, and since your average joe on the street can't tell a Sherman from a Sheridan there's no need to design a dedicated "crowd control" tank as opposed to using those in service or reserve.

Multiple HMGs and a 152mm canister-firing gun are decidedly overkill, and firing either into crowds on a regular basis will tend to undercut your regime's popularity. Water cannon and tear-gas-canister-launchers are adequate or even superior for the job you're looking at, and can be mounted on armored cars or carried by dismounted police. If you need spaced armor, ERA, chemical weapons, and a high-powered main gun then you're not looking at "civil security" - you're looking at "civil war."

[Greater United American Republics]

Multiple HMGs and a 152mm canister-firing gun are decidedly overkill, and firing either into crowds on a regular basis will tend to undercut your regime's popularity. Water cannon and tear-gas-canister-launchers are adequate or even superior for the job you're looking at, and can be mounted on armored cars or carried by dismounted police. If you need spaced armor, ERA, chemical weapons, and a high-powered main gun then you're not looking at "civil security" - you're looking at "civil war."

Yes, you get it, you absolutely and most genuinely get it. Bloody Populists, Syndicalists & Marxists; they won't exterminate themselves you see!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What's your take on the SKOT / OT-64 and variants?

[Dostanuot Loj]

What's your take on the SKOT / OT-64 and variants?

Wheeled Death Trucks are all pretty much the same.

Here's your short checklist:
- Payload
- Road Range
- MRAP?
- Maintenence
- Protects against splinters/rifle fire?

That's all you need.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What's your take on the SKOT / OT-64 and variants?

Wheeled Death Trucks are all pretty much the same.

Here's your short checklist:
- Payload
- Road Range
- MRAP?
- Maintenence
- Protects against splinters/rifle fire?

That's all you need.

I don't quite see how that answers my question.

I basically want something to complement my not-ACV-19 line of mainline APCs. Something under 15T, wheeled, amphibious and as versatile and spacious as possible. It would be nice to have 10 seated troops and enough space for a nice big central ringmount.

The Pasi seems nice but the troops are seated very close to the sides (the seats are essentially pads on top of the wheelarch so to speak) - this gives a nice wide area in the troop compartment but the troops have to bend forward to sit because of the (albeit modestly) angled sides. Also, any gear must be put on the floor which is obviously bad. There is quite a bit of space right behind the commander's seat to the right of the engine (which is situated behind the driver) that could be used for storage but I doubt you could put 8-10 bags and all the extra gear in there.

The VAB has a better arrangement in a sense because there exist actual seats/benches mounted to the floor. This gives smaller legroom but frees up the space on top of the wheelarches for gear. IDK if the interior remains the same for the 6x6 VAB?

The Fuchs seems very cramped without offering too much storage apparently and is also plenty heavy.

The SKOT/OT-64 seems nice, does anyone have real seated troop capacity?

EDIT: Right now I'm leaning towards a modestly stretched Pasi, enough to seat 5 on each side (currently it's 4 with pad-"seats"), with the space to the right of the engine reserved for gear. From what I've seen it should be spacious enough to allow a gunner to operate the center ringmount with everyone seated with no problems.

[Edward Richtofen]

We've recently started working on mechs but the main ground vehicle remains the T-10 dropship.
After improving our VTOL bulk planes we've had struggles getting more equipment per transport so we developed the T-7 armed troop transport using the same chassis as our mobile artillery we found that by deploying them intelligently we could keep them light and fast. The issue being with lightly armoured transports is that they are made of glass and tend to be destroyed by small arms fire. Through the use of small anti-infantry turrets and pretty much any defense system we could get our hands we've limited the damage that small arms fire can do whilst also providing somewhat of a defense albeit not much against anti-armour weaponry.

The T-10 Dropship came after 2 really horrid designs at making an airdropable troop transport from our bulk aircraft. Sealed interior, retractable turret, more streamlined body, and one shot exterior thrusters to safely reduce speed and land the transport which then engages the wheels and . With the natural progressions to the T-10 it fulfills it's main purpose of getting a lot of troops to the battlefield quickly.

As expected any sort of heavy fire will cause critical damage and likely destroy the transport. Hopefully in the near future heavy mechs will give us more armoured flexibility

[The Kievan People]

What has been said about its armament?

Gun is ~15% more powerful than the L55. APFSDS is much larger.

[Auroya]

The Russians are coming.

*nods*

[Husseinarti]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

I honestly don't see why wheeled would be cheaper than tracked. Tracked is much much simpler for what its worth the way I see it.

Sparky was boasting something along the lines of the Canadian LAV (or was it US Stryker? whatever) actually ranging from costing as much as the old M113s to operate to as much as 4 times as more, but then again, it's Sparky.

Even if it's more expensive you're paying for significantly better tactical mobility.

Could someone remind me what operational mobility and operational mean in general? I think I get strategic and tactical.

[Husseinarti]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

I honestly don't see why wheeled would be cheaper than tracked. Tracked is much much simpler for what its worth the way I see it.

Sparky was boasting something along the lines of the Canadian LAV (or was it US Stryker? whatever) actually ranging from costing as much as the old M113s to operate to as much as 4 times as more, but then again, it's Sparky.

Even if it's more expensive you're paying for significantly better tactical mobility.

Could someone remind me what operational mobility and operational mean in general? I think I get strategic and tactical.

I just want to see if I can replace a bunch of my VABs with tracked APCs for lulz

[Dostanuot Loj]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

Most of the US Army in the cold war was truck borne not tracked. The only difference these days is some of those trucks can withstand shelling.

[The Kievan People]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

It is.

Tracks have a much shorter life than wheels, especially when used on roads. Because friction. They also burn more fuel on road because the rolling resistance is higher. Tracks also cost more than tires. There are also the roadwheels, idlers and sprocket which all wear out eventually. They can also be very hard on road surfaces.

Which is generally why they don't move long distances under their own power in peacetime. Which, once again, costs money.

In area's where paved roads are rare or non-existent (Siberia, Northern Canada etc) however they can actually be more economical.

[Rich and Corporations]

Is the cost of using tracked vehicles more than using wheeled vehicles?

iirc the US Army was an all mechanized, tracked force for much of the Cold War.

It is.

Tracks have a much shorter life than wheels, especially when used on roads. Because friction. They also burn more fuel on road because the rolling resistance is higher. Tracks also cost more than tires. There are also the roadwheels, idlers and sprocket which all wear out eventually. They can also be very hard on road surfaces.

Which is generally why they don't move long distances under their own power in peacetime. Which, once again, costs money.

In area's where paved roads are rare or non-existent (Siberia, Northern Canada etc) however they can actually be more economical.

yes, tracks wear out faster on roads, but move slower on soil.... so.

regardless, built up areas are a death trap for offensive forces.

edit: and use railroads, always use railroads

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Multiple HMGs and a 152mm canister-firing gun are decidedly overkill, and firing either into crowds on a regular basis will tend to undercut your regime's popularity. Water cannon and tear-gas-canister-launchers are adequate or even superior for the job you're looking at, and can be mounted on armored cars or carried by dismounted police. If you need spaced armor, ERA, chemical weapons, and a high-powered main gun then you're not looking at "civil security" - you're looking at "civil war."

Yes, you get it, you absolutely and most genuinely get it. Bloody Populists, Syndicalists & Marxists; they won't exterminate themselves you see!

If you want to kill them so badly that you don't care about throwing around the term 'civil war', then don't bother with gas - HE will do the job fine.
Also, add-on stuff like slat armor, cage armor, ERA, etc. tends to weigh the vehicle down a lot. The normal armor of any tank will almost certainly be enough to protect against whatever some random protestors can scrounge up - Molotovs, home rifles/pistols, makeshift IEDs, etc.

One quick question for the rest of you. Tanks in urban situations are highly vulnerable, we all know that, but are flame tanks a viable counterpoint to that rule? I was just reading about the Patton flame tank in Vietnam - one 'tube' of flame was enough to burn down an entire city block, at least by Vietnam city block standards. Properly supported by infantry, it stands to reason a flame tank could very quickly clear a building - at least on the lower floors - of enemy soldiers, if not burn the building down entirely. Are they viable today, just not used because burned bodies makes for shitty publicity?

[Padnak]

Flame tanks have the added vulnerability of carrying large amounts of highly flammable fuel for their flamethrowers and due to the extreme heat generated by flame thrower type incendiary weapons would likely make it hard for infantry to operate in close proximity

other then that I don't really see any problems with the idea

[Greater United American Republics]

If you want to kill them so badly that you don't care about throwing around the term 'civil war', then don't bother with gas - HE will do the job fine.
Also, add-on stuff like slat armor, cage armor, ERA, etc. tends to weigh the vehicle down a lot. The normal armor of any tank will almost certainly be enough to protect against whatever some random protestors can scrounge up - Molotovs, home rifles/pistols, makeshift IEDs, etc.

One quick question for the rest of you. Tanks in urban situations are highly vulnerable, we all know that, but are flame tanks a viable counterpoint to that rule? I was just reading about the Patton flame tank in Vietnam - one 'tube' of flame was enough to burn down an entire city block, at least by Vietnam city block standards. Properly supported by infantry, it stands to reason a flame tank could very quickly clear a building - at least on the lower floors - of enemy soldiers, if not burn the building down entirely. Are they viable today, just not used because burned bodies makes for shitty publicity?

Well, I want to use things like, Mustard, Tabun, Phosgene or otherwise (In good fashion & succinct Post-Western-Front order, "Puke Gas & Phosgene" in rapid succession) upon scurrilously disloyal and Uncouth dissenter's that have been driven to rebel against their Consul a timely demise in an appropriate manner. If it worked against Jerry, it shall work against my potentially well armed and equally styubborn ne'er do-wells.

As for the liberal application of Incendiary equipment during Urban Combat Operations; I find the Wehrmacht's Tar/Jellied Petroleum mix to be a perfectly suitable Flamethrower mixture. Of course, adding in phosphorous or if you somehow find a way to feasibly pull it off without utterly wrecking your units; Chlorine Trifluoride could work quite well (If you can solve the technological riddle that pursuing efficient & combat capable containment provides).