Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Is there any sort of rule of thumb for how far from the action truck borne troops should dismount? Obviously in some instances there won't be much of a choice, but in instances when you can choose how far out should troops be dismounted?

Kinda der question I know

Usually you can drive right up to a position safely up unil a few hours before you expect to make contact, long enough to give a briefing and make preparations for the assault from a dismounted bivvy, and whatever distance of marching plus however far you expect things to shoot at you.

So if you're ferrying troops into an ambush-position as your forces are getting steamtrolled, probably better than 50 miles away. But more typically less than two dozen klicks out.

Use of smokescreens can pretty much allow trucks to be used up to point-blank.

... Pay no atttention to that stack of anti-tank landmines I have strapped to the front of my logi trucks.

[Gallia-]

Is there any sort of rule of thumb for how far from the action truck borne troops should dismount? Obviously in some instances there won't be much of a choice, but in instances when you can choose how far out should troops be dismounted?

Kinda der question I know

They should dismount exactly in the Main Battle Area, preferably exactly where you intend to fight, but you can off by a couple hundred meters.

Is there any sort of rule of thumb for how far from the action truck borne troops should dismount? Obviously in some instances there won't be much of a choice, but in instances when you can choose how far out should troops be dismounted?

Kinda der question I know

Usually a few hours before you expect to make contact, long enough to give a briefing and make preparations for the assault from a dismounted bivvy, and whatever distance of marching plus however far you expect things to shoot at you.

So if you're ferrying troops into an ambush-position as your forces are getting steamtrolled, probably better than 50 miles away. But more typically less than two dozen klicks out.

>marching

If you want them to arrive in like three days, yeah go ahead and dismount 20 km away. They'll literally be driving up to the front line and getting out of their trucks in real life, and then the trucks will come back later with mines and razor wire and trip flares. Sometimes shovels and combat engineers if you're lucky.

A day or two later the enemy arrives and runs into a wall of light infantry he proceeds to obliterate mercilessly with motor troops and tanks.

:NTC:

[Taihei Tengoku]

attack position or assault position?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Is there any sort of rule of thumb for how far from the action truck borne troops should dismount? Obviously in some instances there won't be much of a choice, but in instances when you can choose how far out should troops be dismounted?

Kinda der question I know

They should dismount exactly in the Main Battle Area, preferably exactly where you intend to fight, but you can off by a couple hundred meters.

Usually a few hours before you expect to make contact, long enough to give a briefing and make preparations for the assault from a dismounted bivvy, and whatever distance of marching plus however far you expect things to shoot at you.

So if you're ferrying troops into an ambush-position as your forces are getting steamtrolled, probably better than 50 miles away. But more typically less than two dozen klicks out.

>marching

If you want them to arrive in like three days, yeah go ahead and dismount 20 km away. They'll literally be driving up to the front line and getting out of their trucks in real life, and then the trucks will come back later with mines and razor wire and trip flares. Sometimes shovels and combat engineers if you're lucky.

A day or two later the enemy arrives and runs into a wall of light infantry he proceeds to obliterate mercilessly with motor troops and tanks.

:NTC:

I was under the presumption they were driving-up to establish a blocking-position in a defense-in-depth situation. Not so much spending the day marching as laying mines and digging earthenworks as the enemy comes to them.

If doing some sort of raid, yeah... stay in the truck until you've breached their lines. May need to encourage soldiers with extra vodka.

Or some hybrid variation therof. If you can find cover/concealment that leads in close, all the better. But dismounting in full view of an enemy tank company in the Iraqi desert is not recommended.

[Iltica]

will sandblasting rusty hull have detrimental effect on armor thickness :3 ?

After the 100,000,000,000th time, maybe.
Surface rust is more atmosphere than metal. And usually protects the underlying metal from real rust through pretty well. Which is why heavy equipment is usually left covered in it, it's cheaper than paint and just as good.

I've been trying to emulate the way more modern turrets (LeClerc, K2, Altay, Falcon turret to an extreme, and some armored car I forget the name of) have a tall hump in the center to accommodate the gun but the rest is lower. This seems like a great way to reduce weight but how much of a problem is it to only be able to see to one side from the commander's cupola?
The gunner usually has one as well it seems, but it seems inefficient to split the duty of looking right and left between crew members.

This is the price paid for low profile crew positions. The gunner's "bump" is just the armoured housing for the sight, otherwise he is just as low. If anything it's the commander who has a higher roof. And that's the only way to solve the split issue without just giving some taller periscopes.

There has been some playing with digital feeds between periscopes (K2 I think), not sure if it's made it into service. But this essentially makes some periscopes also cameras and feeds them to the TC's position with screens. Taller periscopes would be cheaper and less problematic.

Honestly, Leclerc's TC position has pretty good all round vision all things considered.

Best TC periscope vision around, bar none, is AMX-30 though.

Well I can get it to 2.39 meters/7'10" tall without doing this but possibly parts of it below 2.3 meters/7'6" ish if below the tunnel. The tall periscopes might work if kinda goody looking but it would still have rearward visibility problems. Is the height reduction worth it you think? If not, the roof needs to slant downward more sharply forward of the cupola to maintain the size of the front armor. I was under the impression that anything more than 6-8^o from horizontal would make it a vulnerable surface to frontal hits.

[Fordorsia]

teh future of turrets

[Laritaia]

teh future of turrets

all it's missing is somewhere to actually carry the ammo

[Fordorsia]

teh future of turrets

all it's missing is somewhere to actually carry the ammo

40mm in the drum at the back, .50 in the right side of the turret. I might swap things around though so that the belt wouldn't have to come up under the M2.

Done

[Hurtful Thoughts]

all it's missing is somewhere to actually carry the ammo

40mm in the drum at the back, .50 in the right side of the turret. I might swap things around though so that the belt wouldn't have to come up under the M2.

Done

Personally, I'd put the 40mm in a central cleft-mount and toss the .50 cal on piggyback-style. Have the autocannon be rear-fed and forward-ejecting and maybe scale it up to something standard like 57mm, then tune the RoF up to something respectable to sacrifice the barrel to the dakka-gods.

Then I'd use the other side to mount 2 more rocket-tubes.

Hmmm... we could even mount the MG's ammo behind the gun for a super-narrow profile turret...

Bonus points if we can pintle-mount a quad-barrel heavy grenade-launcher on top.

[Fordorsia]

I'll probably just make another one, probably in that configuration just with more gunz

But what do you mean by a cleft mount? Like this?



Editino
So very tired. I'm fully aware of twin tank guns being shit. But how about twin MG and autocannons meant solely for ground use. Pls list pros and cons in time for me waking up from coma.

[European Social States]

Ok for the main MBT I plan to be using I was thinking about using something similar to the STRV 2000 140/40. So a 140mm with 30 rounds and 10* of depression and 20* of elevation, and a 40mm autocannon with 200 HEAT rounds as well as a two 7.62 one co-axial and one for the commander. I plan having a crew of three and using an autoloader.
Protection wise I was thinking of giving it protection similar to this http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000_hotbild-web.jpg
Engine-wise I have no idea what type of engine is best so yeah.
Thoughts so far?

[Laritaia]

Ok for the main MBT I plan to be using I was thinking about using something similar to the STRV 2000 140/40. So a 140mm with 30 rounds and 10* of depression and 20* of elevation, and a 40mm autocannon with 200 HEAT rounds as well as a two 7.62 one co-axial and one for the commander. I plan having a crew of three and using an autoloader.
Protection wise I was thinking of giving it protection similar to this http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000_hotbild-web.jpg
Engine-wise I have no idea what type of engine is best so yeah.
Thoughts so far?

40mm HEAT is not going to be amazingly useful

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Ok for the main MBT I plan to be using I was thinking about using something similar to the STRV 2000 140/40. So a 140mm with 30 rounds and 10* of depression and 20* of elevation, and a 40mm autocannon with 200 HEAT rounds as well as a two 7.62 one co-axial and one for the commander. I plan having a crew of three and using an autoloader.
Protection wise I was thinking of giving it protection similar to this http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000_hotbild-web.jpg
Engine-wise I have no idea what type of engine is best so yeah.
Thoughts so far?

40 mm HEAT is a bloody firecracker and anything you want to fire a 40 mm against is going to be dead anyway when you put a 140 mm HEAT through its front. Delete the 40 mm Bofors for more 140 mm rounds.
AMAP'd against the latest threats of the late 90's and Europowerpack. Good to go.

[Gallia-]

>autocannon coax
>light fighters
>articulated tanks
>abba
>mitch murder

sweden never left the 1970s ;_;

[Fordorsia]

pls I gots to know

I'm fully aware of twin tank guns being shit. But how about twin MG and autocannons meant solely for ground use.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

pls I gots to know

I'm fully aware of twin tank guns being shit. But how about twin MG and autocannons meant solely for ground use.

.

[Gallia-]

pls I gots to know

.

at first i thought it was a smoltext ;_;

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

The Panzer I is cutest tankette.

[Fordorsia]

pls I gots to know

.

Well yeah I know they were used, but I'm curious about any supposed advantages, and how they stack up against what is a larger number of disadvantages.

[Korva]

cuter tanku

[Allanea]

Dual guns are necessary in situations where you want to have a volume of fire - primarily, that is to say, in AA applications.

[Fordorsia]

Dual guns are necessary in situations where you want to have a volume of fire - primarily, that is to say, in AA applications.

Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

[The Akasha Colony]

40 mm HEAT is a bloody firecracker and anything you want to fire a 40 mm against is going to be dead anyway when you put a 140 mm HEAT through its front. Delete the 40 mm Bofors for more 140 mm rounds.
AMAP'd against the latest threats of the late 90's and Europowerpack. Good to go.

Strv 2000 was not supposed to carry any HEAT for the 140 mm gun, only APFSDS. The 140 mm gun was supposed to be for everything else, although it wouldn't have relied on HEAT ammo. The space freed by the removal of the 40 mm gun can't be converted to ammunition storage without significant rearrangement of the entire tank's configuration though since this space is not anywhere near where it would be needed to carry 140 mm rounds.

Ok for the main MBT I plan to be using I was thinking about using something similar to the STRV 2000 140/40. So a 140mm with 30 rounds and 10* of depression and 20* of elevation, and a 40mm autocannon with 200 HEAT rounds as well as a two 7.62 one co-axial and one for the commander. I plan having a crew of three and using an autoloader.
Protection wise I was thinking of giving it protection similar to this http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000_hotbild-web.jpg
Engine-wise I have no idea what type of engine is best so yeah.
Thoughts so far?

A diesel of some sort, which type depends when this tank is expected to enter service. If it entered service around when Strv 2000 was expected to enter service (~2000), the EuroPowerPack would be a good candidate, with the MTU 883 engine. Alternatively, the very compact French SACM V8X-1500 hyperbar engine used in the Leclerc is an option, but it has higher fuel consumption. The US LV100-5 turbine engine developed for the Crusader and Abrams is also available. The most likely solution IRL would have been the EuroPowerPack.

There's little use in HEAT ammunition in the 40 mm caliber. The 40 mm gun in the Strv 2000 probably would have relied on a mix of HE and APFSDS, and nowadays on smart-fuzed multi-target HE instead of the old point-detonating HE. HE for very soft targets and infantry, APFSDS for AFVs up to tank class (and possibly even tanks if engaged from the side), 140 mm APFSDS for tanks.

[Autonomous Eastern Ukraine]

Dual guns are necessary in situations where you want to have a volume of fire - primarily, that is to say, in AA applications.

Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

Tankettes weren't the most expertly designed things. They went with the more dakka approach.

[Gallia-]

Dual guns are necessary in situations where you want to have a volume of fire - primarily, that is to say, in AA applications.

Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

More bullets.