Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

Between the Abrams and the Challengers, which is better, without counting the gun? (Rifled 120mm sucks) Especially the turret and hull shape, also armor.

The current Abrams models are better than the current Challenger 2. A lot of this is due to the fact that Challenger 2 is still fundamentally based on the original Chieftain, which is ten years older than Abrams. And the US Army has invested more in updating the Abrams more frequently than Challenger. Lots of interim kits have been tacked on to Challenger but the British Army has shied away from any serious improvements or overhauls once the specter of cost appeared.

The commander in the Challenger 2 still lacks an independent thermal sight (which Abrams received in the M1A2 upgrade) and the gunner's thermal sight is located above the gun, which is not a very good position. The gunner's day sight is however located on the turret roof, so it's not even connected with the thermal sight. In particular, the US Army has continued to upgrade the Abrams electronics upgrades even while money for more comprehensive overhauls has remained scarce. Although it's worth noting that the US Army had already decided to add a CITV to the Abrams well before Challenger 2 entered service without one (over a decade before, in fact).

The Challenger's engine is also rather underpowered and its better suspension only partially compensates for this drawback.

Turret armor configuration is a mixed bag because the Abrams and Challenger turrets are designed for different purposes, based on their ammunition storage. Abrams has a very large turret and a very well protected bustle but this comes at the expense of significantly greater size and weight. This is necessary because the entire ready load of ammunition is stored in the turret bustle. Challenger has similar armor thickness at the front and on the sides of the crew compartment but thinner armor around the bustle because only a portion of the rounds are stored there. This saves size and weight, which can be invested in protection elsewhere or simply removed from the vehicle entirely, lightening it. These differences in arrangement are intentional.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Abrams also has a functional coax and Chally 2 has an unusually weak lower glacis iirc

[Laritaia]

Abrams also has a functional coax and Chally 2 has an unusually weak lower glacis iirc

The Chally 2's coax is technically superior, the issues with it are actually the fault of the vehicles electrical and sighting systems.
And the lower glacis armour is not as much of an issue as people make it out to be, in actual tank on tank combat the lower glacis will be obscured from enemy fire 9 times out of 10.

The CR2's major deficiencies are the general obsolescence of many of it's systems rather then the arrangement of it's armour.

[Austrasien]

Generally the Challenger 2 has two major issues:

• Until now there has been virtually no investment in it since it entered service and most of its systems are obsolete to varying degrees. Though the Abrams has not yet been comprehensively modernized it has received far more investment in new sensors, communication systems, armour, ammunition and so forth.
• It traces its heritage directly to the Chieftain and inherited a lot of design features from the Chieftain which are now archaic. The design of the glacis and lower front hull, the gun, the engine, the ammunition storage are all related to the fact it is in many ways an ultra-Chieftain.

The British Army was seriously considering replacing it early because it is an essentially obsolete vehicles but because of lack of funds has had to settle for a modernization of the most obsolete components like the FCS. It cannot really be compared to newer Abrams or Leopards as both have been receiving continuous incremental upgrades - most of what is now intended for the Challenger is from the Leopard 2. In a different world where the British Army has not decided heavy vehicles were obsolete and privatization was the future of the British defense industry it might have evolved into a more capable alongside its peers.

But it didn't and there is no longer the knowledge or ability in the UK to improve it even if funding was forthcoming, which it is not. Britain has checked out of tank R&D permanently.

[Laritaia]

Generally the Challenger 2 has two major issues:

• Until now there has been virtually no investment in it since it entered service and most of its systems are obsolete to varying degrees. Though the Abrams has not yet been comprehensively modernized it has received far more investment in new sensors, communication systems, armour, ammunition and so forth.
• It traces its heritage directly to the Chieftain and inherited a lot of design features from the Chieftain which are now archaic. The design of the glacis and lower front hull, the gun, the engine, the ammunition storage are all related to the fact it is in many ways an ultra-Chieftain.

The British Army was seriously considering replacing it early because it is an essentially obsolete vehicles but because of lack of funds has had to settle for a modernization of the most obsolete components like the FCS. It cannot really be compared to newer Abrams or Leopards as both have been receiving continuous incremental upgrades - most of what is now intended for the Challenger is from the Leopard 2. In a different world where the British Army has not decided heavy vehicles were obsolete and privatization was the future of the British defense industry it might have evolved into a more capable alongside its peers.

But it didn't and there is no longer the knowledge or ability in the UK to improve it even if funding was forthcoming, which it is not. Britain has checked out of tank R&D permanently.

well it did evolve like it's cousins, the CR2E was significant more capable vehicle.

downside is no one bought it so BAE scraped the entire project into the bin.

[Austrenia]

I've already had a couple of decent answers, but from the previous thread...

---

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 two answers I have seen to date seem to agree that larger platoons or companies would not be a good idea, and that I should instead just have more brigade or regimental elements.

[Cordis]

*reposts this here*

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.

[Allanea]

[The Wyoming Peoples Front]

What in the name of Randy Papp is that?

[Allanea]

Prototype AA gun, 35mm.

[Bereia]

Prototype AA gun, 35mm.

Looks like an M113 chassis, which is hardly a surprise. Any details on the gun system, apart from that it's a 35mm?

[Purpelia]

Well there is two of them.

[Celibrae]

What would Challenger 3 look like?

[Laritaia]

What would Challenger 3 look like?

nothing, an empty space in the tank lot

it's more or less accepted at this point that Challenger 2 is the last British MBT.

The MoD has already started spin doctoring the Ajax scout vehicle as a "medium" "tank"

[Purpelia]

Well to be fair it's not like you'll ever need a proper army again anyway. Anyone with enough of a military to invade your island probably has nukes, or at least has enough of a brain to fear them, making the whole idea moot.

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

Well to be fair it's not like you'll ever need a proper army again anyway. Anyone with enough of a military to invade your island probably has nukes, or at least has enough of a brain to fear them, making the whole idea moot.

Yeah but Farage might kickstart the Empire again.

Course not like Africa has modern MBTs anyway.

[Bereia]

Course not like Africa has modern MBTs anyway.

Egypt has, but they are foreign designs.

If memory serves the British MoD is accepting bidders for a contract to upgrade Challenger 2 in various ways to enable it to remain viable for a while longer, though I have yet to identify supporting information for that claim. I'll keep looking. Frankly, if they intend to become an MBT-free military post-Challengers, that's going to be a shock to me.

[Allanea]

Prototype AA gun, 35mm.

Looks like an M113 chassis, which is hardly a surprise. Any details on the gun system, apart from that it's a 35mm?

Not an M113 chassis at all.

It's an indigenous vehicle called an ACV-30.

[Bereia]

Not an M113 chassis at all.

It's an indigenous vehicle called an ACV-30.

Cool. Overall it looks like an interesting idea. I'd be interested to learn more.

[Celibrae]

Prototype AA gun, 35mm.

Looks like an M113 chassis, which is hardly a surprise. Any details on the gun system, apart from that it's a 35mm?

Yes.

What would Challenger 3 look like?

nothing, an empty space in the tank lot

it's more or less accepted at this point that Challenger 2 is the last British MBT.

The MoD has already started spin doctoring the Ajax scout vehicle as a "medium" "tank"

Interesting.

[Laritaia]

Course not like Africa has modern MBTs anyway.

Egypt has, but they are foreign designs.

If memory serves the British MoD is accepting bidders for a contract to upgrade Challenger 2 in various ways to enable it to remain viable for a while longer, though I have yet to identify supporting information for that claim. I'll keep looking. Frankly, if they intend to become an MBT-free military post-Challengers, that's going to be a shock to me.

They don't have the money to upgrade the tanks to any meaningful degree so the LEP is focusing on replacing components that no longer have a viable spares supply.
Any increase in capability over the base line is going to be purely incidental.

ie they will get a CITV but that's basically only because no one makes a purely optical and infrared commanders sight anymore.

And it's not so much that they intend to become an MBT free military after Challenger 2 bows out as it is that they don't have the funds to obtain a replacement MBT so they will spin some lie about MBTs being obsolete in Modern Information Warfare Battlespaces (tm) and that Ajax is powerful enough to destroy any tank on the planet.

it's about politicians saving face, not what the army actually needs.

[Theodosiya]

What's the optimum frontal shape of hull and turret for a tank meant to be used in mostly maneuver warfare?

[Imperializt Russia]

The Russian Universal Turret was brought up recently.

The development of my T-108 tank was, in its early life, two-part. It started as a turret that was to be fitted to T-72/80/90 tank chassis, with its hull developed later. But The T-108 is meant to be relatively westernised, and the complete tank will be larger than late-era Soviet tanks.
Especially with the T-108 being able to adopt a 152mm high-velocity gun later in its service life, I feel this may not be possible.

What limitations might the Soviet hulls impose on such a turret? The T-108 utilised Meggitt-style all-in-bustle loading, so carousel space would actually be saved.
The T-108, realistically, requires actually designing, these days.

[Imperializt Russia]

What's the optimum frontal shape of hull and turret for a tank meant to be used in mostly maneuver warfare?

There really isn't one. Here is the shape of the T-90 turret.

Front is facing upward. Not the heavily angled design of the rear of the turret - this is to satisfy protection over the frontal 60 degree arc. A tank that is thirty degrees either side of the turret front will struggle to strike the turret, as its rear makes a 30 degree angle - effectively hiding half the turret.

This isn't really possible in typical western turrets, which utilise the bustle for ammunition and/or equipment stowage. The T-108 could not make use of this feature, and nor could the Universal Turret, which also features a bustle.

[Laritaia]

What's the optimum frontal shape of hull and turret for a tank meant to be used in mostly maneuver warfare?

Shockingly there isn't an optimum tank design, everything is a trade off.