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

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How do these stats look for an MBT? Does it have it too much armour move effectivley

Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 70 t
Length (gun forward) 9 m
Hull length 8 m
Width 3.63 m
Height 2.70 m
Armament
Main gun 130-mm smoothbore ETG94
Machine guns 1 x 14.5-mm
Elevation range +30 -20
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 40 rounds
Machine guns 2500 x 14.5-mm rounds
Mobility
Engine Eldslandeti Diesel engine
Engine power 1200 hp
Maximum road speed 45 km/h
Range 560 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 68%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step ~ 1 m
Trench ~ 2.7 m
Fording 1.4 m

Armour Values(RHAe)
Turret Front: 1800mm vs KE and 2000mm vs HEAT
Turret Sides: 1300mm vs KE and 1400mm vs HEAT
Turret Rear: 200mm vs KE and 400mm vs HEAT
Hull Front: 1800mm vs KE and 2000mm vs HEAT
Hull Sides: 900mm vs KE and 1000mm vs HEAT
Hull Rear: 200mm vs KE and 300mm vs HEAT
Hull Roof: 110mm vs KE and 300 vs HEAT
Hull Underside: 300(HEAT only, KE unknown)

You have one tank machine gun that's inferior to all other GPMG coax'es modern MBT's uses in terms of volume of fire, you don't even have enough rounds for it. You have 20 stored kills in a tank that's at best slightly less mobile than the T95 heavy tank, thanks to its physically meter thick armour plates 270 degrees around it. Thank you for making the ultimate doom turtle. You lack some 200 tons of mass btw.

[Husseinarti]

the best tank machine gun is going to be a besa MG with a fortress barrel so it can be the machine gun that will pierce the heavens.

[New American Republic of Texas]

Texan Armored Fighting Bus: (We have 150,000 of them)
*Picture of decomissioned TAFB

Texan Armored Fighting Insurgent: (We have 70,000 of them)
*Picture of original TAFI in testing

Texan Armored Fighting Jeep: (We have 110,000 of these)

M1A2 Abrams tank: (We have 11,500 of these)

M1A3 Abrams tank: (We have 17,400 of these)

EDP (Ear Drum Penetrator): (We have 35,000 of these)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM

Texan Armored Medivehicle: (We have 55,000 of these)

Texan Armored Shipment/Supply Vehicle: (We have 18,500 of these)

Soldier Transport Vehicle or STV: (270,000 of these)

[Eldslandet]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

[North Arkana]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

Considering how hush hush the effectiveness per given thickness of the various forms of Chobham there are, I doubt anyone here can really say without disclosing anything they aren't supposed to.

[Immoren]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

[Gallan Systems]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

Chobham isn't ceramic and no.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

As everybody else said nobody really knows. But from leaked footage it could be established that if you want 2 meter RHAe you're gonna need 2 meters of armour as a general rule of thumb.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Composite armor has a much higher mass efficiency than RHA against KE and CE but its thickness efficiency against KE is roughly comparable (or even somewhat less) to RHA. Penetration depth at high velocity is modeled with the Lanz-Odermatt equation with pentration depth being positively correlated with the square of the ratio of perpetrator and target density and negatively correlated with the exponential (e^) of the hardness of the target, with several other factors including peentraor length/diamter ratio and impact velocity also playing a role in the equation. Composite armor is harder but less dense, resulting in roughly comparable thickness efficiency to RHA. The original "chobham" type armors apparently may have used alumina ceramic tiles and had fairly poor performance against KE munitions, being optimized more for defeating shaped charges (the brittleness of ceramics providing a very effective defeat mechanism). Newer armors apparently favor silicon carbide which is much stronger and harder than alumina, making it more resistant to KE munitions.

Anyways this is simplifying things and assuming the armor is isotropic (which it is not) but the overall point stands: If you want x meters of RHAe KE protection you're going to need about x meters of armor.

[The Akasha Colony]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

No. While it is possible to develop armor against CE weapons that is much more efficient from a thickness efficiency than RH steel, this in practice has not been borne out by experiences with armor against KE weapons.

While RHAe itself is a very imperfect measurement and can only be very roughly estimated, figures for modern tanks indicate that thickness efficiencies of roughly 1:1 vs. KE and 1:2 vs. CE are to be expected. The frontal turret armor of a current-model M1A2 Abrams is just under a meter in thickness and by many estimates has roughly the same performance against KEPs, and roughly double the performance against HEAT. The benefit of special armor in this case is that it is much lighter than an equivalent meter-thick slab of steel would have been. You could do maybe marginally better using NS-grade ultra-modern materials fresh out of the lab that haven't been introduced to active service yet IRL, but not to the degree you could suddenly get 1:3.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Could I get the equivalent of 1800mm of RH steel from 560mm of Chobham equivalent ceramic armour?

No. While it is possible to develop armor against CE weapons that is much more efficient from a thickness efficiency than RH steel, this in practice has not been borne out by experiences with armor against KE weapons.

While RHAe itself is a very imperfect measurement and can only be very roughly estimated, figures for modern tanks indicate that thickness efficiencies of roughly 1:1 vs. KE and 1:2 vs. CE are to be expected. The frontal turret armor of a current-model M1A2 Abrams is just under a meter in thickness and by many estimates has roughly the same performance against KEPs, and roughly double the performance against HEAT. The benefit of special armor in this case is that it is much lighter than an equivalent meter-thick slab of steel would have been. You could do maybe marginally better using NS-grade ultra-modern materials fresh out of the lab that haven't been introduced to active service yet IRL, but not to the degree you could suddenly get 1:3.

Even with " NS-grade ultra-modern materials" the improvement is going to be in mass efficiency (which is determined in part by the strength/weight ration of the material), not thickness efficiency. If you want maximum thickness efficiency (and don't care about weight) you want maximum density and hardness and your best options would probably be either some kind of martensitic steel (extremely hard, decently dense) or some depleted uranium alloy (very hard, extremely dense).

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No. While it is possible to develop armor against CE weapons that is much more efficient from a thickness efficiency than RH steel, this in practice has not been borne out by experiences with armor against KE weapons.

While RHAe itself is a very imperfect measurement and can only be very roughly estimated, figures for modern tanks indicate that thickness efficiencies of roughly 1:1 vs. KE and 1:2 vs. CE are to be expected. The frontal turret armor of a current-model M1A2 Abrams is just under a meter in thickness and by many estimates has roughly the same performance against KEPs, and roughly double the performance against HEAT. The benefit of special armor in this case is that it is much lighter than an equivalent meter-thick slab of steel would have been. You could do maybe marginally better using NS-grade ultra-modern materials fresh out of the lab that haven't been introduced to active service yet IRL, but not to the degree you could suddenly get 1:3.

Even with " NS-grade ultra-modern materials" the improvement is going to be in mass efficiency (which is determined in part by the strength/weight ration of the material), not thickness efficiency. If you want maximum thickness efficiency (and don't care about weight) you want maximum density and hardness and your best options would probably be either some kind of martensitic steel (extremely hard, decently dense) or some depleted uranium alloy (very hard, extremely dense).

Cake the entire tank in iridium-osmium alloy. :v

[Rich and Corporations]

No. While it is possible to develop armor against CE weapons that is much more efficient from a thickness efficiency than RH steel, this in practice has not been borne out by experiences with armor against KE weapons.

While RHAe itself is a very imperfect measurement and can only be very roughly estimated, figures for modern tanks indicate that thickness efficiencies of roughly 1:1 vs. KE and 1:2 vs. CE are to be expected. The frontal turret armor of a current-model M1A2 Abrams is just under a meter in thickness and by many estimates has roughly the same performance against KEPs, and roughly double the performance against HEAT. The benefit of special armor in this case is that it is much lighter than an equivalent meter-thick slab of steel would have been. You could do maybe marginally better using NS-grade ultra-modern materials fresh out of the lab that haven't been introduced to active service yet IRL, but not to the degree you could suddenly get 1:3.

Even with " NS-grade ultra-modern materials" the improvement is going to be in mass efficiency (which is determined in part by the strength/weight ration of the material), not thickness efficiency. If you want maximum thickness efficiency (and don't care about weight) you want maximum density and hardness and your best options would probably be either some kind of martensitic steel (extremely hard, decently dense) or some depleted uranium alloy (very hard, extremely dense).

ultra hard is ultra brittle, i shoot tank using 76mm APHE and it falls to pieces

[Gallan Systems]

Even with " NS-grade ultra-modern materials" the improvement is going to be in mass efficiency (which is determined in part by the strength/weight ration of the material), not thickness efficiency. If you want maximum thickness efficiency (and don't care about weight) you want maximum density and hardness and your best options would probably be either some kind of martensitic steel (extremely hard, decently dense) or some depleted uranium alloy (very hard, extremely dense).

Cake the entire tank in iridium-osmium alloy. :v

settle down david drake

[Korva]

[Omarios]

Just modernized it.

How it used to look:

[Fordorsia]

Military model of my big climate hating car y/n? If so, what does it need and how would it be used? Some kind of staff car maybe?

[Imperializt Russia]

The positioning of the cabin is certainly... interesting.
Is it based off anything in particular?

[Fordorsia]

The positioning of the cabin is certainly... interesting.
Is it based off anything in particular?

It was a Bentley Mulsanne originally.

And yeah I like cars with the driver way at that back. Means more engine at the front

[Crookfur]

Military model of my big climate hating car y/n? If so, what does it need and how would it be used? Some kind of staff car maybe?

(Image)

Not big enough, go watch the magic Christian for a hint of what a real Fordorsian should be like.

[Fordorsia]

Military model of my big climate hating car y/n? If so, what does it need and how would it be used? Some kind of staff car maybe?

(Image)

Not big enough, go watch the magic Christian for a hint of what a real Fordorsian should be like.

Google imaged it. All I see are women and mustachioed guys

[Crookfur]

Not big enough, go watch the magic Christian for a hint of what a real Fordorsian should be like.

Google imaged it. All I see are women and mustachioed guys

You tuba get of the bit in question:

https://youtu.be/hO9pMt0RDxQ

The film is actually worth a watch if you can cope with proto python black comedy.

[Fordorsia]

I have no idea what I just watched but I want that landship

[Autonomous Unified Territories]

stuff]

I love the look of the proportions, but I think the cabin is too close to the rear seats. Because the rear wheel arches would almost be right behind the seat, it would mean you could only recline a few degrees. In the 2 door version this wouldn't be a problem, but the VIP / Staff Car Version would be quite uncomfortable to drive in.

Also, how exactly is the seating arranged in the 3 axle version? Because of the wheel arches there wouldn't be too much room in the last row.

[Fordorsia]

stuff]

I love the look of the proportions, but I think the cabin is too close to the rear seats. Because the rear wheel arches would almost be right behind the seat, it would mean you could only recline a few degrees. In the 2 door version this wouldn't be a problem, but the VIP / Staff Car Version would be quite uncomfortable to drive in.

Also, how exactly is the seating arranged in the 3 axle version? Because of the wheel arches there wouldn't be too much room in the last row.

Good point about the arches. Though regarding the pimp limo, I figured it would be a narrower section between the arches. Plus I already made it so that the front passenger seats are reversed, so there's lots more room. I don't even think seats in limos can even be reclined anyway. It's just one big solid seat right the way around.