Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

And i think the Australians briefly had a turret for their M113s that had a .50cal with a coaxial M1919, but that was dumb so they ditched it.

How is it dumb? Wouldn't the M2 be used as a lighter alternative to an autocannon that is still good against APCs and stuff, while the higher ammo count of the M1919 made it still good against infantry?

It's the same problem with "muh autocannon coaxial." Except worse, because 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm are even closer to each other in capability than 120 mm and 25 mm or 140 mm and 40 mm. So there's even less distinction between them.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

And i think the Australians briefly had a turret for their M113s that had a .50cal with a coaxial M1919, but that was dumb so they ditched it.

Briefly? Wasn’t it more like Vietnam to at least the 2000s.

You might be thinking of the M113 ACAV, who's designers were at least smart enough to separate the turrets for the M2 and .30 cals so they could engage multiple targets at once.

Also, how much leeway do vehicle crews have to put extra/different guns on their vehicles? If someone was able to scrounge a Mk. 19 in place of the .50 for an M113, would some officer or NCO go ballistic? I remember reading about 'the most heavily armed tank in Vietnam', an M48 or M60 with about five or six extra weapons, but iirc an officer made the crew take off a lot of the extra guns.

[Fordorsia]

Briefly? Wasn’t it more like Vietnam to at least the 2000s.

You might be thinking of the M113 ACAV, who's designers were at least smart enough to separate the turrets for the M2 and .30 cals so they could engage multiple targets at once.

Also, how much leeway do vehicle crews have to put extra/different guns on their vehicles? If someone was able to scrounge a Mk. 19 in place of the .50 for an M113, would some officer or NCO go ballistic? I remember reading about 'the most heavily armed tank in Vietnam', an M48 or M60 with about five or six extra weapons, but iirc an officer made the crew take off a lot of the extra guns.

I remember that. No idea why I can't find any information or any pictures now though.

iirc correctly it was a few M60s and a minigun they salvaged from a heli that "no longer needed it" or something to that effect. I think the thing I read only mentioned them being ordered to remove the minigun.

[Theodosiya]

Whatever MBT i used + combo 40MM auto grenade launcher and .50 in rcws yes or no? Since there are that kind of RCWS.

[New Korongo]

i'm hazy on the details, but i was under the impression that they ditched the M1919 and just never replaced it with another gpmg, before finally getting new turrets on the stretched M113s.

I believe the T50 in Australian service was originally fitted with two M1919s, but this configuration was quickly superseded by the more familiar M2/M1919 combination. As far as I can tell, this configuration was retained until the decision was made to fit Australian M113s with a single M2 in a new turret under LAND 106. If you look at images of Australian M113s serving in East Timor in the early 2000s, you can see that many of them are fitted with both an M2 and an M1919. However, M113s serving in East Timor during the latter half of the decade appear to have had their M1919s removed. In a way, you are correct. Australia did ditch the M1919. It just took a while.

[Laritaia]

Whatever MBT i used + combo 40MM auto grenade launcher and .50 in rcws yes or no? Since there are that kind of RCWS.

the only one that comes to mind is the STW RWS

and it's massive

[Theodosiya]

Whatever MBT i used + combo 40MM auto grenade launcher and .50 in rcws yes or no? Since there are that kind of RCWS.

the only one that comes to mind is the STW RWS

and it's massive

How bout the elsel livet?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

How is it dumb? Wouldn't the M2 be used as a lighter alternative to an autocannon that is still good against APCs and stuff, while the higher ammo count of the M1919 made it still good against infantry?

It's the same problem with "muh autocannon coaxial." Except worse, because 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm are even closer to each other in capability than 120 mm and 25 mm or 140 mm and 40 mm. So there's even less distinction between them.

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?
(Image)


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.

Cleft turret pretty much literally means "Turret with a notch in the roof to let the breach of the main-gun protrude when in maximum defilade"

For bustle-autoloaders, this usually includes tha ammo-rack and some sort of housing.

In the era of fears of contaminated battlefields, there was oftentimes a trapdoor roof that be pushed out of the way when the gun fired.

Probably one of the few production-tanks to do this was the T-92. Similarily, the idea of imcorporating this on an upgunned (35mm and later 50mm) Bradley was tested but found... wanting in the event of a nuclear war with the soviet union.

[Rhodesialund]

Something something question about AMX-56 Leclerc and how good is it.

[Laritaia]

Something something question about AMX-56 Leclerc and how good is it.

Meh, it's ok

[Dostanuot Loj]

The only one coming to mind is AMX Leclerc.

There is also the AAV and Commando Security vehicle which has a 40mm GMG and a coaxial .50cal

And i think the Australians briefly had a turret for their M113s that had a .50cal with a coaxial M1919, but that was dumb so they ditched it.

The Cadillac 1m turret has been fitied on a lot of vehicles, often with a 12.7/7.62 combo. Sometimes with a 40mm GMG in place of one or the other. Once or twice with breach loading 60mm mortars.

People in this thread act like one of the most common modern light AFV turrets doesn't exist.

[New Chilokver]

Whatever MBT i used + combo 40MM auto grenade launcher and .50 in rcws yes or no? Since there are that kind of RCWS.

the only one that comes to mind is the STW RWS

and it's massive

STW RWS?

[European Social States]

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

Unless you're doing something weird like separate charges with two human loaders, an autoloader is basically mandatory to handle 140mm tank ammunition.

[Fordorsia]

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

A 140mm shell won't be twice the weight of a current 120mm shell.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

An autoloader is basically a requirement for this shell weight.

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

A 140mm shell won't be twice the weight of a current 120mm shell.

The 140 mm rounds that were actually tested were.

[Austrasien]

Also, how much leeway do vehicle crews have to put extra/different guns on their vehicles? If someone was able to scrounge a Mk. 19 in place of the .50 for an M113, would some officer or NCO go ballistic? I remember reading about 'the most heavily armed tank in Vietnam', an M48 or M60 with about five or six extra weapons, but iirc an officer made the crew take off a lot of the extra guns.

Depends on the situation. A different officer or even the same officer in a different situation might have given that crew a pat on the back for originality.

When everyone is confident in the tanks though there is probably going to be a "don't fix what isn't broken" attitude though among most officers and crews. When confidence is lacking there will probably be more leeway, the vehicles we tend to see the most field modifications on in conflicts tend to be the ones with the worst combat characteristics.

[Gallia-]

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

A 140mm shell won't be twice the weight of a current 120mm shell.

140mm be like:

[Gallia-]

There is also the AAV and Commando Security vehicle which has a 40mm GMG and a coaxial .50cal

And i think the Australians briefly had a turret for their M113s that had a .50cal with a coaxial M1919, but that was dumb so they ditched it.

The Cadillac 1m turret has been fitied on a lot of vehicles, often with a 12.7/7.62 combo. Sometimes with a 40mm GMG in place of one or the other. Once or twice with breach loading 60mm mortars.

People in this thread act like one of the most common modern light AFV turrets doesn't exist.

TBF we're talking about a 12.7mm in the place of a 7.62mm coaxial, not using the 12.7mm as the main armament like a Commando or LVTP7.

Ok so the 40mm coaxial is a dumb idea, so should I make the turret slightly larger and have a human loader or would sticking with an autoloader be better considering the weight of a 140mm shell is something like 40kg?

You can have a 40mm if you want, it's not super dumb it's just redundant. Plenty of people IRL have slightly overlapping armaments on tanks and such. The French and Russians come to mind. AMX-30 had a 20mm coaxial and BMP-3 has a 30mm. The Swedes had T140/40, but that was only ever a piece of balsa wood.

An automatic loader is preferential if only because it's more reliable and reduces the protected volume. If you want, you can try to retain a human loader in a Leopard 2 or sth with a 140mm, but that didn't work IRL for reasons I'm not totally aware of. I think it was just too much money at the wrong time.

[Fordorsia]

Also, how much leeway do vehicle crews have to put extra/different guns on their vehicles? If someone was able to scrounge a Mk. 19 in place of the .50 for an M113, would some officer or NCO go ballistic? I remember reading about 'the most heavily armed tank in Vietnam', an M48 or M60 with about five or six extra weapons, but iirc an officer made the crew take off a lot of the extra guns.

Depends on the situation. A different officer or even the same officer in a different situation might have given that crew a pat on the back for originality.

No officer is going to not shit all over a tank crew that decided taking machine guns from people who need them and putting them all over the outside of their tank was a good idea. There's no situation in which it isn't terrible.

And that's literally what they did if I remember rightly. They didn't for example give it an extra coax, or make the commander's MG a dual MG or anything, which might have been acceptable. They simply put them on pintles and shit all over the tank like it was WWI.

No idea why I can't find the picture. You other niggas gotta help.

[Gallia-]

Depends on the situation. A different officer or even the same officer in a different situation might have given that crew a pat on the back for originality.

No officer is going to not shit all over a tank crew that decided taking machine guns from people who need them and putting them all over the outside of their tank was a good idea.

"People who need them" is relative.

[Korva]

https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress. ... reaper.jpg

[Fordorsia]

oh lordy der it is

[Imperializt Russia]

A tank's main gun is used for shooting at anything. A target is a target, and you want it destroyed.

True but it seems kinda wasteful firing one of the thirty shots at a say two guys hiding behind a wall when you can fire a burst of 40mm HE or APFSDS. As for helicopters I know that SPAAG should be dealing with helicopters but having a 40mm to shoot at them would be better than a 140mm right? I mean especially if you broke through Soviet lines and you're getting counter-attacked by Mi-24 Hinds and the SPAAGs are being overrun but then again I'm not an expert.

A 140mm dual-purpose HEAT round would be extremely lethal for helicopters. Note that the M830A1, and possibly the M830 before it, are intended for use against helicopters among other targets.

A 40mm cannon would be overkill. The ammunition to be particularly useful (ie, high velocity) would be very large. A mid-sized 25mm or 30mm gun (20 and 23mm guns have been placed on tanks that were, however briefly, in service) would be far more appropriate.

Guys behind a wall would be dealt with by HMG fire. If not killed or incapacitated, certainly forced to take cover.

[Austrasien]

I know what you are talking about.

But units acquiring extra guns they should not have is hardly unusual. Sticking that many on one tank is dumb, but most improvisations are dumb.