Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[Korva]

Had to resize the image

You can have the image link to the full size.

Code: Select all

[url=https://s31.postimg.org/ittzbb3ex/MODEL_1962_DONE.png][img]https://s32.postimg.org/sfgpcr2hx/MODEL_1962_DONE_resized.png[/img][/url]

[Purpelia]

Why is the turret so far back into the hull?

[Omarios]

Why is the turret so far back into the hull?

If this is directed to me, then what do you mean exactly?

[Purpelia]

Why is the turret so far back into the hull?

If this is directed to me, then what do you mean exactly?

I mean that when you start measuring from the front of the hull, where the slope ends to the front of the turret there is enough room there to hold a picnic.

Compare to this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ematic.png

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

And this is a concept for an infantry support vehicle, basically a T-55 but again upgraded and only designed to support urban operations and other conflicts where it won't face any other Main Battle Tanks.

No offence but why do people keep thinking this is a remotely realistic expectation?

Plenty of modern battles have utilized tanks as fire support against enemies which do not possess any. Counter-insurgencies of the mid 2000s are a good example of this. So, I think there is still a place for this concept.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't expect to face tanks, why are you keeping around sub-standard tanks that will not be used against other tanks?
Why not deploy your normal tanks?

[Purpelia]

Functionally it is perfectly plausible. But I have to question the economic viability. Simply put a T-55 is great and all that but those things are going to be old enough to have served in battle under the fathers to the fathers of your soldiers. Parts will have worn down, rusted and just generally been used to oblivion. And even if there was no limit to how many times you can patch a hull unless you have the production lines mothballed somewhere spare parts are going to be harder and harder to come by as time goes by.

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

If you don't expect to face tanks, why are you keeping around sub-standard tanks that will not be used against other tanks?
Why not deploy your normal tanks?

The idea was that financially it was cheaper to maintain a series of older vehicles to fulfill most of the mission requirements, then to shell out a lot more money to procure man more M79A1s, which are far more expensive and completely re-fitted.

Although as we have this discussion I question whether this platform is even suitable. Perhaps I may look into some other tracked vehicle that did not originate as a tank.

[Purpelia]

Just use your current tank, the last non current tank you used, your IFV or really anything you still have production set up for.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't expect to face tanks, why are you keeping around sub-standard tanks that will not be used against other tanks?
Why not deploy your normal tanks?

The idea was that financially it was cheaper to maintain a series of older vehicles to fulfill most of the mission requirements, then to shell out a lot more money to procure man more M79A1s, which are far more expensive and completely re-fitted.

Although as we have this discussion I question whether this platform is even suitable. Perhaps I may look into some other tracked vehicle that did not originate as a tank.

This only makes sense if you happen to have a stockpile of older tanks already lying around. Even then, older tanks don't make a lot of sense for this. The BTMP is built off the T-72, and is intended to support T-72s and T-90s, also built off the T-72.

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

Certainly we did have a large stockpile of Soviet vehicles, but I suppose the T-55 is a bit ancient for this role.

Still, most of my equipment is based currently on late 1990s / mid 2000s western designs, but none are particularly suited towards counter insurgency / Urban operations.

I am thinking of developing a prototype vehicle based upon the Namer APC, but with better firepower which will be specifically designed to engage in urban operations.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No offence but why do people keep thinking this is a remotely realistic expectation?

Plenty of modern battles have utilized tanks as fire support against enemies which do not possess any. Counter-insurgencies of the mid 2000s are a good example of this. So, I think there is still a place for this concept.

Even the 2003 Iraqi army had plenty of tanks to screw with NATO operations... besides, a mobile machine gun bunker with a high velocity gun that's frontally resilient against most infantry portable LAW's you'll face in an insurgency e.g. early RPG-7 variants > a mobile machine gun bunker that isn't protected against them at all.

[Gallia-]

If you don't expect to face tanks, why are you keeping around sub-standard tanks that will not be used against other tanks?
Why not deploy your normal tanks?

The idea was that financially it was cheaper to maintain a series of older vehicles to fulfill most of the mission requirements, then to shell out a lot more money to procure man more M79A1s, which are far more expensive and completely re-fitted.

Although as we have this discussion I question whether this platform is even suitable. Perhaps I may look into some other tracked vehicle that did not originate as a tank.

you should use m4 shermans they would be even cheaper because theyre older

[The Akasha Colony]

If you don't expect to face tanks, why are you keeping around sub-standard tanks that will not be used against other tanks?
Why not deploy your normal tanks?

The idea was that financially it was cheaper to maintain a series of older vehicles to fulfill most of the mission requirements, then to shell out a lot more money to procure man more M79A1s, which are far more expensive and completely re-fitted.

Although as we have this discussion I question whether this platform is even suitable. Perhaps I may look into some other tracked vehicle that did not originate as a tank.

If your infantry are riding around in modern fighting vehicles I would wonder whether the T-55 could even keep up with them without a serious overhaul to the drivetrain and running gear. And that won't be inexpensive.

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

The idea was that financially it was cheaper to maintain a series of older vehicles to fulfill most of the mission requirements, then to shell out a lot more money to procure man more M79A1s, which are far more expensive and completely re-fitted.

Although as we have this discussion I question whether this platform is even suitable. Perhaps I may look into some other tracked vehicle that did not originate as a tank.

If your infantry are riding around in modern fighting vehicles I would wonder whether the T-55 could even keep up with them without a serious overhaul to the drivetrain and running gear. And that won't be inexpensive.

The vehicle is certainly fast enough, but service support for the vehicle is the most challenging part. As the M79A1 uses a western powerpack and transmission, it requires the same tools and diagnostic equipment as the Kodiak IFV fleet. The M56 uses the original powerpack which requires completely different spare parts and tools to fix in the field.

[Zrhajan]

WRT tank design, is it still valid to create a vehicle with very little armor but extreme speed and maneuverability in this day and age, following the legacy of Hellcats and Christie?

[The Akasha Colony]

WRT tank design, is it still valid to create a vehicle with very little armor but extreme speed and maneuverability in this day and age, following the legacy of Hellcats and Christie?

Not if it is supposed to fill the role of an actual main battle tank.

There are uses for lighter vehicles with powerful guns, like Stryker MGS, Sprut-SD, and such, but the primary advantage to such vehicles is not their tactical speed or maneuverability, which is not much better than a modern MBT, but instead their strategic mobility thanks to their lower weight, which allows them to be transported more easily by air or even para-dropped to support parachute infantry in the field.

But in terms of actually serving in the role of a real main battle tank intended to fight other tanks in the field, a heavier vehicle like the M1 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2, etc. will be superior thanks to its much superior protection while having comparable mobility to a light tank (thanks to a commensurately more powerful engine). This is why the replacements for early Cold War light and fast tanks like Leopard 1 and AMX-30 are much heavier vehicles like Leopard 2 and Leclerc.

[Ardavia]

WRT tank design, is it still valid to create a vehicle with very little armor but extreme speed and maneuverability in this day and age, following the legacy of Hellcats and Christie?

Not really.

It just means your vehicle ends up vulnerable to basically everything that shoots at it because it has no armour, and really high speeds are both hazardous (I've heard anecdotes telling of loaders being tossed out of tanks braking at lower speeds than I imagine this fast tank you're proposing would go) and hard-wearing on the mechanical components.

[Omarios]

If this is directed to me, then what do you mean exactly?

I mean that when you start measuring from the front of the hull, where the slope ends to the front of the turret there is enough room there to hold a picnic.

Compare to this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ematic.png

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Purpelia]

I mean that when you start measuring from the front of the hull, where the slope ends to the front of the turret there is enough room there to hold a picnic.

Compare to this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ematic.png

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A short tank is a happy tank because a short tank is:
- harder to hit
- lighter, and thus better armored for the same weight
- lighter and thus faster
- turns more easily
- less likely to get stuck EVERYWHERE

A long tank is a sad tank.

[Omarios]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A short tank is a happy tank because a short tank is:
- harder to hit
- lighter, and thus better armored for the same weight
- lighter and thus faster
- turns more easily
- less likely to get stuck EVERYWHERE

A long tank is a sad tank.

But this tonk is stronk!

[Purpelia]

A short tank is a happy tank because a short tank is:
- harder to hit
- lighter, and thus better armored for the same weight
- lighter and thus faster
- turns more easily
- less likely to get stuck EVERYWHERE

A long tank is a sad tank.

But this tonk is stronk!

I offered the truth. You can take it or not. That choice is yours.

[Omarios]

But this tonk is stronk!

I offered the truth. You can take it or not. That choice is yours.

You do realise that I was being sarcastic.

[United States of PA]

I offered the truth. You can take it or not. That choice is yours.

You do realise that I was being sarcastic.

Communism does not recognize sarcasm.

[Purpelia]

It does not translate well over the internet. Especially once you add a language barrier.