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

[Stahn]

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?

Old school flamethrowers have been replaced by missles with thermobaric warheads.

[Doppio Giudici]

Is Blazer fundimentally cheaper then K-5?

K-5 ERA and new barrel on Cheftian? Y/N

[The Soodean Imperium]

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.

If all you want is to deliver gas - tear or otherwise - at short distances and onto an unarmed target, firing it out of a tank gun is unnecessary. All you need is a pressurized air tube and a canister to launch out of it. Regular armored vans can carry these, even dismounted officers can carry these.

Now, let's stop for a moment and consider what happens when the wind changes and blows that big cloud of WWI-grade toxic gas over into the cheery residential neighborhood two blocks down from where the protesters are standing. Allanea translated an interesting document on this a few months back, but suffice to say there's a long list of reasons why small-scale chemical weapons in cities are a bad idea.

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).

Again: if it's reached the point that you're burning down entire city blocks and dumping chemical weapons, you've moved from "civil security" into "civil war." The kind of civil war that's tearing apart Syria right now. If your government wasn't generally detested before, it'll be generally detested now, and the "opposition" will stop massing in public squares and start resorting to more serious measures. Which, yes, would then give you a legitimate reason to gas and firebomb indiscriminately, but even a despotic government would prefer to keep tension latent than to constantly struggle for control over a ruined country. Assad was much better off in 2010 than he is now.

If you want to be an edgy, oppressive regime with no tolerance for accused Communists, history can supply plenty of ready-made examples.

[Free-Alaska]

I need snow tanks, ground vehicles designed to operate on snow pack and tundra efficiently.
Not just tanks either, APCs, transport vehicles, etc.

Basically i am needing to build a whole "polar military"

Suggestions?

[Tule]

I need snow tanks, ground vehicles designed to operate on snow pack and tundra efficiently.
Not just tanks either, APCs, transport vehicles, etc.

Basically i am needing to build a whole "polar military"

Suggestions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M29_Weasel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_C303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmobile

[The Kievan People]

I need snow tanks, ground vehicles designed to operate on snow pack and tundra efficiently.
Not just tanks either, APCs, transport vehicles, etc.

Basically i am needing to build a whole "polar military"

Suggestions?

Tanks work pretty good.

[Free-Alaska]

I need snow tanks, ground vehicles designed to operate on snow pack and tundra efficiently.
Not just tanks either, APCs, transport vehicles, etc.

Basically i am needing to build a whole "polar military"

Suggestions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M29_Weasel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_C303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmobile

Great list, thanks.
I think that maybe the skis and snowmobiles were a little facetious though

[Tule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M29_Weasel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_C303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmobile

Great list, thanks.
I think that maybe the skis and snowmobiles were a little facetious though

I was dead serious about the skis and snowmobiles.

[Greater United American Republics]

If you want to be an edgy, oppressive regime with no tolerance for accused Communists, history can supply plenty of ready-made examples.

I have no intention of being "Edgy" as you put it; but these Orwellian regimes don't just create themselves overnight! Though I must ask, why do you seem so driven to try and dissuade me from running this mighty republic as I so choose?


And in all seriousness, the comment I provided in regard to incendiary munitions was in regard to Herr Panzer Abieltung 502's inquiry toward's applying flametanks in urban combat scenarions. I was merely offering an alternative or two in regard to fuels used.

[Free-Alaska]

Great list, thanks.
I think that maybe the skis and snowmobiles were a little facetious though

I was dead serious about the skis and snowmobiles.

FACEPALM

[Padnak]

If you want to be an edgy, oppressive regime with no tolerance for accused Communists, history can supply plenty of ready-made examples.

I have no intention of being "Edgy" as you put it; but these Orwellian regimes don't just create themselves overnight! Though I must ask, why do you seem so driven to try and dissuade me from running this mighty republic as I so choose?


And in all seriousness, the comment I provided in regard to incendiary munitions was in regard to Herr Panzer Abieltung 502's inquiry toward's applying flametanks in urban combat scenarions. I was merely offering an alternative or two in regard to fuels used.

If you really want to be an edgy Orwellian regime, you have to shake things up a bit and make it a bit more interesting. I recommend military run human trafficking rings as a good place to start...

[Immoren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M29_Weasel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandvagn_206
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_C303
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmobile

Great list, thanks.
I think that maybe the skis and snowmobiles were a little facetious though

Hoe else are infantry expected to fight in polar conditions dismounted, if they don't haveskis?

[Greater United American Republics]

I have no intention of being "Edgy" as you put it; but these Orwellian regimes don't just create themselves overnight! Though I must ask, why do you seem so driven to try and dissuade me from running this mighty republic as I so choose?


And in all seriousness, the comment I provided in regard to incendiary munitions was in regard to Herr Panzer Abieltung 502's inquiry toward's applying flametanks in urban combat scenarions. I was merely offering an alternative or two in regard to fuels used.

If you really want to be an edgy Orwellian regime, you have to shake things up a bit and make it a bit more interesting. I recommend military run human trafficking rings as a good place to start...

Good Sir, what, do you think "Civil Labor Auxillaries" are? I'll give you a hint, it does involve forced re-distribution of "Lessors" to various facilities through-out the country for "National Works of Infrastructure & Defensive Improvement".

[Iltica]

Sorry to keep prodding but I'm really stuck here. My whole turret design hinges on whether the RDF/LT's 76mm burstfire system could actually kill modern MBTs, but I can't find much about it's efficacy. Does anyone know whether this sort of weapon would really work?

It wouldn't.

It was never intended to kill tanks anyway. It was supposed to kill bunkers and other things that aren't really well armoured. It was really a modern assault gun, like Expeditionary Tank/Sheridan/AGS/Stryker.

I'm pretty sure it was intended to engage tanks at least in a support role, there's not a lot of material but I keep finding articles...
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=655
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html
...that say the AAI company claimed that a 5 round burst hitting the same area could penetrate "all existing Soviet armor" But they may have been lying. either way it certainly shows an intent to be used against tanks, if not a capability. I Just don't know whether to believe them. Maybe if advances in the last 30 years gave it a higher rate of fire or muzzle velocity?

[Vitaphone Racing]

o.o

what's the difference between a rail bridge and a road bridge?

Typically rail bridges are constructed out of steel beams in a Truss configuration

Trusses haven't been typical since 1970.

which means that when one is hit by bombs or explosives they rarely get turned into rubble that settles on the bottom of the canal like stone or cement bridges. Rail bridge's are much more likely to stay in large pieces that stick up though the water or in some way prevent boats from passing, while not being easily cleared like with stone and cement rubble

Uh, no. Concrete and stone don't just shatter. Particularly not reinforced concrete; the stuff with the steel in it.

[Rich and Corporations]

...that say the AAI company claimed that a 5 round burst hitting the same area could penetrate "all existing Soviet armor" But they may have been lying. either way it certainly shows an intent to be used against tanks, if not a capability. I Just don't know whether to believe them. Maybe if advances in the last 30 years gave it a higher rate of fire or muzzle velocity?

all existing body armor, can be penetrated if you shoot the .22 NATO round five times in the same area

good luck doing that

personally, I think it's best to IFV guns to be capable of flank penetration of enemy tanks, as well as the ability for long range artillery to fire missiles that can be guided by forward observers.

[New Visegrad]

...that say the AAI company claimed that a 5 round burst hitting the same area could penetrate "all existing Soviet armor" But they may have been lying. either way it certainly shows an intent to be used against tanks, if not a capability. I Just don't know whether to believe them. Maybe if advances in the last 30 years gave it a higher rate of fire or muzzle velocity?

all existing body armor, can be penetrated if you shoot the .22 NATO round five times in the same area

good luck doing that

personally, I think it's best to IFV guns to be capable of flank penetration of enemy tanks, as well as the ability for long range artillery to fire missiles that can be guided by forward observers.

A rapid-fire burst may not be able to penetrate, but it would probably be effective at fucking with ERA to assist heavier munitions, and suppressing the target, either in terms of obscuring their vision with smoke/debris or just scaring the shit out of them.

[Imperializt Russia]

Five rapid strikes on the same area of plate, in very close proximity (a few centimetres dispersion) will almost certainly cause that plate to weaken substantially if not fail outright.

[The Akasha Colony]

It wouldn't.

It was never intended to kill tanks anyway. It was supposed to kill bunkers and other things that aren't really well armoured. It was really a modern assault gun, like Expeditionary Tank/Sheridan/AGS/Stryker.

I'm pretty sure it was intended to engage tanks at least in a support role, there's not a lot of material but I keep finding articles...
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=655
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html
...that say the AAI company claimed that a 5 round burst hitting the same area could penetrate "all existing Soviet armor" But they may have been lying. either way it certainly shows an intent to be used against tanks, if not a capability. I Just don't know whether to believe them. Maybe if advances in the last 30 years gave it a higher rate of fire or muzzle velocity?

It's marketing. When marketing a weapons system to the government, you claim every capability the platform has even marginal use in. And hope they don't actually try to test how likely you are to get five rounds into the same spot on a moving target vehicle from your own moving vehicle while the enemy vehicle is actively trying to kill you.

Or hope that they do test it, and that they pay for that testing. Because if it's tested in anything resembling real conditions, that means you've already won the lucrative development contract.

[Organized States]

What's the most likely designation for the Turretless Bradley should it be adopted? Would it inherit the M2/M3 name or the seriously confusing Stryker-like designations?

[Purpelia]

What's the most likely designation for the Turretless Bradley should it be adopted? Would it inherit the M2/M3 name or the seriously confusing Stryker-like designations?

M113 Gavin II

[Gawdzendia]

What's the most likely designation for the Turretless Bradley should it be adopted? Would it inherit the M2/M3 name or the seriously confusing Stryker-like designations?

M113 Gavin II

[Radicchio]

I have got quite a few Centurion chassis laying around these days, what is the most modern upgrade level i can bring them upto OTHER than the Olifant?

[Elan Valleys]

I have got quite a few Centurion chassis laying around these days, what is the most modern upgrade level i can bring them upto OTHER than the Olifant?

STRV 105

[Purpelia]

Take M113. Attach T-14 turret. Win!