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

[Bashriyya]

I've read through his masturbatory self-insert fiction book Victoria.

Lind literally thinks that T-34s are more reliable and generally better than T-72s because it's an older design, that live-fire adversarial exercises with no safety precautions beyond telling the troops to offset their aim(!) are the best way to train, and that logistics, planning, and any kind of staff work is a waste of time only practiced by dilettantes and power-point commandos trying to put on airs of competence. Those are all sentiments expressed more or less verbatim by his self-insert main character in Victoria, btw.

Oh, and he unironically thinks that cottage industry is more productive than industrial mass production. Because reasons.

He's a nutcase on the same level as Sparky, only he has an obsession with outdated tech of all sorts instead of the M113 in specific.

what if they are in fact the same nutcase

how deep does this go

You guys are using strawman arguments against William Lind based on one book, you clearly have not read his other works for the military or his work on 4GW.

But besides that I liked Victoria.

[Allanea]

what if they are in fact the same nutcase

how deep does this go

You guys are using strawman arguments against William Lind based on one book, you clearly have not read his other works for the military or his work on 4GW.

But besides that I liked Victoria.

Happily I've read his lecture on 4GW.

It's nonsense.

I can only assume that he's one of these people who had a brilliant idea once and tried to ride it their entire career even as old age gradually got the better of him.

But I think we should continue this in another thread.

[Ardavia]

what if they are in fact the same nutcase

how deep does this go

You guys are using strawman arguments against William Lind based on one book, you clearly have not read his other works for the military or his work on 4GW.

But besides that I liked Victoria.

I didn't know it was a strawman to quote from a book written by Lind that is openly built on Lind's ideas about warfare. I can drag up quotes of the specific sections where his self-insert protagonist argues the above from the book, if you want?

---

Also, 4GW is nothing new, nor is it original. 4GW is essentially "store brand" Irregular Warfare. All it does is point out that there are these things called mass media/Internet/cellphones, etc, and that Irregular forces could/should leverage them to attrit heavier forces advantages.

Military Professionals Everywhere: "No shit?".

[Peoples Republic of Dahomey]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

[Allanea]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

Sell them for scrap.

There's very little point.

[Purpelia]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

Dig them in around the courtyard of your presidential palace and use them as stationary bunkers to fend the peasants away should they try anything.

[Peoples Republic of Dahomey]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

Dig them in around the courtyard of your presidential palace and use them as stationary bunkers to fend the peasants away should they try anything.

tbpf this might actually be the best way to make use of them

[Husseinarti]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

try to sell them to a few american dudes for big bucks.

Then buy something like ERC-90s or T-55s.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

reply has moved

Side note: AMX-13 vs M50 Ontos. Ontos wins.

[Cordis]

Cordisian tanks are closer to early WWII-era tanks than the modern MBTs that I've been seeing a lot. I'll post pics when I have the time.

Light Mark VI "Badger"

Weight: 7.5 tonnes
Dimensions: 4.8 metres long, 2.4 metres wide, 2.1 metres tall
Crew: 3
Armour: 5-15mm
Armament: 1x 7.7cm 24-calibre gun, 1x 7.65mm machine gun
Engine: 6-cylinder petrol, 80HP
P/W Ratio: ≈10.6667HP per tonne
Speed:

Paved - 31km/h
Gravel - 22km/h
Off-road - 16km/h
Suspension: leaf quarter-elliptic springs

The main light tank in Cordisian service, the Mark VI is surprisingly well-armed for such a small vehicle, packing a 7.7cm gun more fitting for a medium tank. It is intended to provide infantry support when attacking fortified positions. The Mark VI chassis is used for a variety of other vehicles, including tank destroyers, assault guns, and SPAAs.

Medium Mark II "Mastiff"

Weight: 23 tonnes
Dimensions: 5.6 metres long, 3 metres wide, 2.3 metres tall
Crew: 5
Armour: 17-40
Armament: 1x 7.7cm 44-calibre gun, 1x 7.65mm machine gun
Engine: 12-cylinder petrol, 250HP
P/W Ratio: ≈10.8HP per tonne
Speed:

Paved - 40km/h
Gravel - 32km/h
Off-road - 20km/h
Suspension: Torsion bar

Cordis's primary medium tank. The Mastiff is intended to be used against other tanks, and as such is equipped with a much longer, higher-velocity gun. The Mastiff is also a versatile chassis, used as the basis for a huge amount of other vehicles.

Heavy Mark V "Wolfhound"

Weight: 45 tonnes
Dimensions: 6.8 metres long, 3.3 metres wide, 2.7 metres tall
Crew: 5
Armour: 70-90mm
Armament: 1x 9cm 46-calibre gun, 1x 7.65mm machine gun
Engine: 12-cylinder diesel, 600HP
P/W Ratio: ≈13.3333HP per tonne
Speed:

Paved - 35km/h
Gravel - 20km/h
Off-road - 14km/h
Suspension: Torsion bar

An absolute beast of a tank, the Wolfhound serves as the standard heavy tank of the Cordisian National Army. It is intended to be a general-purpose tank, taking out fortifications, other tanks, anything you want it to. A variant of the Wolfhound comes equipped with a massive 15cm howitzer, a similar concept to the notorious real-life KV-2.

[Austrenia]

I'm trying to play a nation which has been forced by economics and politics to buy mostly older, if not antique equipment. My main MBT is the Chieftain, albeit the later upgrades.

My reserve armored units use the Centurion, again later versions. While still usable, the Centurion is old, and I was wondering if I should compensate for this by making tank platoons larger, or just including more platoons in each company? Say four or five, as opposed to three?

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm trying to play a nation which has been forced by economics and politics to buy mostly older, if not antique equipment. My main MBT is the Chieftain, albeit the later upgrades.

My reserve armored units use the Centurion, again later versions. While still usable, the Centurion is old, and I was wondering if I should compensate for this by making tank platoons larger, or just including more platoons in each company? Say four or five, as opposed to three?

Operating more tanks isn't cheaper than buying new tanks, given the expense of operating tanks in general.

In any event, neither option is preferable and instead you would probably try to field more divisions or brigades (whatever your operational unit of maneuver is), while keeping your platoons and companies the same size. Making your platoons or companies larger will make them unwieldy while not actually contributing anything to overcome your disadvantage in modernity and vehicle quality. However, adding more operational maneuver units will give you more operational flexibility and the potential to simply outmaneuver the enemy at this level.

[Laritaia]

I'm trying to play a nation which has been forced by economics and politics to buy mostly older, if not antique equipment. My main MBT is the Chieftain, albeit the later upgrades.

My reserve armored units use the Centurion, again later versions. While still usable, the Centurion is old, and I was wondering if I should compensate for this by making tank platoons larger, or just including more platoons in each company? Say four or five, as opposed to three?

having four vehicles per troop is common practice in the British army, it allows you to effectively break the troop up into two fire teams of two tanks apiece.

you should really move this to the new thread.

[Husseinarti]

Could someone supplement Leopard 1s with like, upgraded T-72s in the 1980s?

I'm more or less a Slavic thing, and I bought and produced a bunch of Leopard 1s in the late 1960s early 1970s, in like, the mid-1980s could I go buy and produce some T-72s and M-84s?

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

Could someone supplement Leopard 1s with like, upgraded T-72s in the 1980s?

I'm more or less a Slavic thing, and I bought and produced a bunch of Leopard 1s in the late 1960s early 1970s, in like, the mid-1980s could I go buy and produce some T-72s and M-84s?

This thread is dead hombre. Here is the new one

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

re-post from Mil Realism Thread:

A number of militaries utilize(d) CUCVs and LSSVs, which are very close to what you're describing. In terms of utilizing them for frontline combat, they'd be far less effective than a purpose built combat vehicle, but that has yet to stop irregulars from using technicals.

I know about the CUCV and LSSV.

However these kits' purpose would be more to be employed on technicals (whether used by irregulars or states) , meaning a more front-line role than CUCV/LSSV which if I'm not mistaken were more utility/logistics-minded vehicles.

Civilian trucks always seem to find their ways in rebels' hands (let alone actual government militaries) so the idea would be to offer them a force multiplier in a sense by upgrading existing pick-up truck that they already have (friendly rebels and nations) , so that instead of using the trucks in stock configuration or bothering with DIY mods. I gather that even basic frag protection would be a significant improvement. For example, instead of armoring trucks with whatever metal plates they can scrap up and mount/weld in a makeshift manner, which would probably weigh down the trucks considerably thus affecting mobility, friendly rebels are supplied with peel-and-stick armor and/or flexible armor sheets/blankets for interior/exterior mounting, of different protection levels, potentially allowing for stock or semi-stock appearance if required and keeping weight down. Kits can for example provide just spall, fragmentation and spall, and frag/spall/ballistic protection.

As far as I can gather flexible armor seems to be limited to a level 3A NIJ rating. I wonder how much fragmentation protection this will offer me?

Also, how much protection could I get out of peel and stick armor? I believe at one time .50 BMG kits were in testing by the US military but nothing came out of it? Tbh I would be happy with small arms fire protection like say assault rifle rounds and perhaps even "battle rifle" rounds.

Also, what is the best compromise between cost and lightweight for protecting windows? Ballistic glass tends to be heavy and expensive, maybe provide them with solid/flexible armor with slots or flaps for vision? I think a periscope/camera could potentially work lol

And, spray-applied spall protection seems to be a thing now - would it be practical to pack this into aerosol cans for simple application?