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

[Purpelia]

Well it's diesel so it's less likely to ignite and as mentioned may even provide some level of armour, plus the fact that's it's behind +100mm of armour (LOS) at 45 degrees making it resistant to the tigers 88mm APCBC round at around 500m.

All that being true. I do not see it as being very conducive to crew morale. Like if I was a tanker in that thing, especially one sitting in the front, my legs leaning on that big metal tank, my mind focused on the liquid sloshing inside, just waiting for a shell to burst in so it can spray out and set me on fire. There is no force in this world or the next that would make me fill that thing up.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Fuels tanks as armour don't really work until you can include self-sealing tanks. This was possible, but too expensive, in WW2, and thus not worth it to be honest.

The other thing you need to consider is weight balance. If you're putting it under the glacias, you're putting a huge heavy thing where all the heavy stuff already is. You run the risk of overloading your suspension badly. And as the tank drains, this changes the drive characteristics over rough terrain of the vehicle. This is why WW2 AFV fuel tanks tend to be placed in more neutral balance points, or spread across the vehicle in ways that would allow better balance.

[Purpelia]

And if anything tankers would do stupid things like fill it up with drinking water (easy access from the cabin after all) or sand and concrete (for extra armor. Does not work but it does in their minds.) etc.

[Husseinarti]

And if anything tankers would do stupid things like fill it up with drinking water (easy access from the cabin after all) or sand and concrete (for extra armor. Does not work but it does in their minds.) etc.

If you have any kind of training in your army, then stuff like this doesn't happen.

Have your NCOs shut down this kind of stuff, Sergeants live for it.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Well it's diesel so it's less likely to ignite and as mentioned may even provide some level of armour, plus the fact that's it's behind +100mm of armour (LOS) at 45 degrees making it resistant to the tigers 88mm APCBC round at around 500m.

All that being true. I do not see it as being very conducive to crew morale. Like if I was a tanker in that thing, especially one sitting in the front, my legs leaning on that big metal tank, my mind focused on the liquid sloshing inside, just waiting for a shell to burst in so it can spray out and set me on fire. There is no force in this world or the next that would make me fill that thing up.

Granted, though, on the tank destroyer in question - and in a lot of WWII and postwar tanks - the front section is also packed full of live ammunition, which is probably the bigger threat.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

As I asked of the lad who 3D modelled a series of heavy, medium tanks and tank destroyers - why have a casemate tank that carries precisely the same gun as the turreted vehicle?
The primary advantage of the casemate design is that you are not restricted on gun size by the turret ring diameter, because you've dispensed with it.

The obvious example being, again, the SU-85 being upgunned to the 100mm gun series once the T-34 got a turret ring that could take the 85mm gun series.

They are also cheaper and easier to produce than a turreted vehicle.

That was the primary reason for casemate designs.

Take the Pz. 38(t) design, for example; even at the outbreak of WWII, it was only 'pretty good'. Nothing like how widely feared and respected the T-34 was, at least by those who had to face it in action.

However, the Axis had lots of 38(t) hulls laying around. Tear off the turret, slap a much bigger gun on it, and you have a tank destroyer that might not have much armor but, hell, it's gun is very respectable. Same with the StuG series. IMO, the SU and ISU series was more of an answer to the Tiger(and perhaps also the Panther); the 100mm gun certainly could kill a Tiger I at range, but few tanks could mount it in a turret at 1942.

[Husseinarti]

They are also cheaper and easier to produce than a turreted vehicle.

That was the primary reason for casemate designs.

Take the Pz. 38(t) design, for example; even at the outbreak of WWII, it was only 'pretty good'. Nothing like how widely feared and respected the T-34 was, at least by those who had to face it in action.

However, the Axis had lots of 38(t) hulls laying around. Tear off the turret, slap a much bigger gun on it, and you have a tank destroyer that might not have much armor but, hell, it's gun is very respectable. Same with the StuG series. IMO, the SU and ISU series was more of an answer to the Tiger(and perhaps also the Panther); the 100mm gun certainly could kill a Tiger I at range, but few tanks could mount it in a turret at 1942.

Yeah forgetting the fact that the LT.38 in 1940 was better than the comparable Panzer III model at that time, it was a great tank at the start of WW2, but it was quickly eclipsed because then suddenly 50,000 T-34s were produced.

[Gallia-]

They are also cheaper and easier to produce than a turreted vehicle.

That was the primary reason for casemate designs.

Take the Pz. 38(t) design, for example; even at the outbreak of WWII, it was only 'pretty good'. Nothing like how widely feared and respected the T-34 was, at least by those who had to face it in action.

However, the Axis had lots of 38(t) hulls laying around. Tear off the turret, slap a much bigger gun on it, and you have a tank destroyer that might not have much armor but, hell, it's gun is very respectable. Same with the StuG series. IMO, the SU and ISU series was more of an answer to the Tiger(and perhaps also the Panther); the 100mm gun certainly could kill a Tiger I at range, but few tanks could mount it in a turret at 1942.

Do you have documentation to support your opinion?

[Laritaia]

They are also cheaper and easier to produce than a turreted vehicle.

That was the primary reason for casemate designs.

Take the Pz. 38(t) design, for example; even at the outbreak of WWII, it was only 'pretty good'. Nothing like how widely feared and respected the T-34 was, at least by those who had to face it in action.

However, the Axis had lots of 38(t) hulls laying around. Tear off the turret, slap a much bigger gun on it, and you have a tank destroyer that might not have much armor but, hell, it's gun is very respectable. Same with the StuG series. IMO, the SU and ISU series was more of an answer to the Tiger(and perhaps also the Panther); the 100mm gun certainly could kill a Tiger I at range, but few tanks could mount it in a turret at 1942.

Jagdpanzer 38 was indeed based on the 38(t) but was not a conversion of existing hulls. And was better then the Pak38 only in as much as it was self-propelled.

[North Atlantropa]

Having a base platform of the M1A2 how would it be best modified to suit defensive and offensive operations in the South Atlantic which is where my nation and my main enemy is located.

[Korva]

Having a base platform of the M1A2 how would it be best modified to suit defensive and offensive operations in the South Atlantic which is where my nation and my main enemy is located.

paint it green

[EsToVnIa]

and give it a 140mm gun

[MacFee]

And a 12.7 HMG

[The Akasha Colony]

Having a base platform of the M1A2 how would it be best modified to suit defensive and offensive operations in the South Atlantic which is where my nation and my main enemy is located.

Put it on a boat.

[North Atlantropa]

What about engines or sights to operate in sandy coastal areas?

[The Akasha Colony]

What about engines or sights to operate in sandy coastal areas?

It works fine in those environments. Iraq was plenty sandy, and the USMC has had no problems with them.

[Purpelia]

And if anything tankers would do stupid things like fill it up with drinking water (easy access from the cabin after all) or sand and concrete (for extra armor. Does not work but it does in their minds.) etc.

If you have any kind of training in your army, then stuff like this doesn't happen.

Have your NCOs shut down this kind of stuff, Sergeants live for it.

It happens more often than you think. Morale is some times more important than physical performance. I can't find the quote right now but I remember reading an article a while back (I think it was on the hatch but I can't guarantee) that spoke about how during WW2 in western Europe american crews were wrongly convinced that the armor of the M4 sucked and thus started tying cement bags and what ever else they could to their vehicles. Initially they were forbidden from doing so for a number of good reasons up until someone realized that it was actually better to let them keep doing it because this token useless gesture actually made the crews much more confident in the vehicle they had to fight in. I'll see if I can dig up the text.

[Korva]

If you have any kind of training in your army, then stuff like this doesn't happen.

Have your NCOs shut down this kind of stuff, Sergeants live for it.

It happens more often than you think. Morale is some times more important than physical performance. I can't find the quote right now but I remember reading an article a while back (I think it was on the hatch but I can't guarantee) that spoke about how during WW2 in western Europe american crews were wrongly convinced that the armor of the M4 sucked and thus started tying cement bags and what ever else they could to their vehicles. Initially they were forbidden from doing so for a number of good reasons up until someone realized that it was actually better to let them keep doing it because this token useless gesture actually made the crews much more confident in the vehicle they had to fight in. I'll see if I can dig up the text.

thats like the opposite of what happened

[Purpelia]

thats like the opposite of what happened

I could be remembering wrong than. It's been ages since I read it and I can't find the article now. I really need to reorganize my bookmarks.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

That was the primary reason for casemate designs.

Take the Pz. 38(t) design, for example; even at the outbreak of WWII, it was only 'pretty good'. Nothing like how widely feared and respected the T-34 was, at least by those who had to face it in action.

However, the Axis had lots of 38(t) hulls laying around. Tear off the turret, slap a much bigger gun on it, and you have a tank destroyer that might not have much armor but, hell, it's gun is very respectable. Same with the StuG series. IMO, the SU and ISU series was more of an answer to the Tiger(and perhaps also the Panther); the 100mm gun certainly could kill a Tiger I at range, but few tanks could mount it in a turret at 1942.

Do you have documentation to support your opinion?

After reading over documentation, I would like to make an addendum: The role of the StuG was originally an assault gun, one which it did very well, so the line is a bit blurry whether you consider the StuG to be a tank destroyer or an assault gun in the role it ended up being most used at. Regardless of terminology, it was a very effective AFV.

As for the Marder series:

During the winter 1941-42 and early 1942, the en masse apparition of the T-34 and KV-1 threw the German OKH into disarray. It was decided, among other things, to bolster the anti-tank capacity of the Panzer Divisions by any means necessary and on a short notice. One of these developments was the Marder (“Marten”) series. These were tank hunter SPGs using the standard 75 mm (2.95 in) Pak 40 or captured 76.2 mm (3 in) Soviet anti-tank gun. First, an attempt was made on captured French Lorraine 37L chassis (Marder I), and later on the Panzer II basis. This gave rise to the Sd.Kfz.132 Marder II. Alkett and Wegmann would produce 201 vehicles based on the Ausf.D & E (removed from service due to the unsuccessful Christie suspension), which were tall (2.60 m/8.5 ft high) and offered little protection for their crews. This led to a redesign of the Marder II, now based on the regular Ausf.F chassis.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/SdKfz-131_Marder_II.php
In other words, Germany desperately needed something which could at least kill T-34s and KVs at normal combat range, and something they could have large numbers of quickly. The Marder was borne out of the same necessity as the Sherman Firefly. It was a stopgap until the Tiger and Panther designs could be put into production, and the Pz IV could be upgunned.

Jagdpanzer 38 was indeed based on the 38(t) but was not a conversion of existing hulls. And was better then the Pak38 only in as much as it was self-propelled.

Okay, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was a bit more of a radical redesign of the Pz 38(t), but it's still got the same parent. The Axis just needed to get as much mileage out of the overall 38(t) design as possible. Also, it mounted roughly same gun as the PaK 40, KwK 40, etc, not the PaK 38.

[Malkorian Empire]

So I'm attempting to design my own MBT, and I'm currently stuck on what type of suspension to use. My country is relatively close to the equator, which has caused me to look very carefully at what type of suspension to use. I'm currently leaning towards Hydropneumatic, but each have their pros and cons. Torsion seems to be the cheapest and easiest to fix, while hydropneumatic has had problems with filters in dry areas. A helical spring seems like another interesting approach like the Merkava, also utilizing the suspension as additional armour for the crew.

[The Akasha Colony]

So I'm attempting to design my own MBT, and I'm currently stuck on what type of suspension to use. My country is relatively close to the equator, which has caused me to look very carefully at what type of suspension to use. I'm currently leaning towards Hydropneumatic, but each have their pros and cons. Torsion seems to be the cheapest and easiest to fix, while hydropneumatic has had problems with filters in dry areas. A helical spring seems like another interesting approach like the Merkava, also utilizing the suspension as additional armour for the crew.

Torsion bar is actually one of the hardest to fix, because the bars run inside the hull. Which means any broken bars will require a bit of welding and inspection to ensure no bits of metal are stuck inside the hull. Hydropneumatic is entirely external, so all of the parts can be readily accessed.

Honestly, hydropneumatic is the best. The increased cost and maintenance requirements are quite slim compared to the benefits in ride quality and internal volume. If it's a very modern tank that isn't descended from an older design, it'll probably be hydropneumatic.

[Theodosiya]

Opinion about this medium ww2 era tank pls.So, the hull have frontal 65mm sloped at 45 degree,side armor of 45mm sloped at 60 degree and rear 35mm sloped at 75 degree. 75mm HV main gun, MG 34 coax,hull MG 34,M2 Browning commander cupola, MG 42 loader cupola. Turret is 70/50/40,sloped, both of the hull and turret are welded.Diesel engine, vvs suspension.Track is 1/4 wider than T-34. Has wet ammo storage.

[Malkorian Empire]

So I'm attempting to design my own MBT, and I'm currently stuck on what type of suspension to use. My country is relatively close to the equator, which has caused me to look very carefully at what type of suspension to use. I'm currently leaning towards Hydropneumatic, but each have their pros and cons. Torsion seems to be the cheapest and easiest to fix, while hydropneumatic has had problems with filters in dry areas. A helical spring seems like another interesting approach like the Merkava, also utilizing the suspension as additional armour for the crew.

Torsion bar is actually one of the hardest to fix, because the bars run inside the hull. Which means any broken bars will require a bit of welding and inspection to ensure no bits of metal are stuck inside the hull. Hydropneumatic is entirely external, so all of the parts can be readily accessed.

Honestly, hydropneumatic is the best. The increased cost and maintenance requirements are quite slim compared to the benefits in ride quality and internal volume. If it's a very modern tank that isn't descended from an older design, it'll probably be hydropneumatic.

Thank you, I've looked all over the internet and everything is incredibly vague when it talks about suspensions in general.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Torsion bar is actually one of the hardest to fix, because the bars run inside the hull. Which means any broken bars will require a bit of welding and inspection to ensure no bits of metal are stuck inside the hull. Hydropneumatic is entirely external, so all of the parts can be readily accessed.

Honestly, hydropneumatic is the best. The increased cost and maintenance requirements are quite slim compared to the benefits in ride quality and internal volume. If it's a very modern tank that isn't descended from an older design, it'll probably be hydropneumatic.

Thank you, I've looked all over the internet and everything is incredibly vague when it talks about suspensions in general.

There's a bit wrong here.
Things on the internet arn't very vague, there's just a lot of nuances.

Torsion bars are the easiest to make, easiest to install/fix/replace, and the easiest to upgrade. You break a torsion bar? Unscrew it from the other end and pull it out. Slide a new one in and screw it back into the anchor.

Unless you have money, or are not too poor and only use them infrequently, hydropneumatic are not really worth it. Going to make a world-class, top-tier MBT? Go for it with hydropneumatic. Going to make something Brazil/India/etc tier? Buy from someone else or stick with torsion bar.