Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Mozria]

Fuck tracks.

Seconded.

[Fordorsia]

Can you afford to lose entire platoons at a time to coastal artillery? If the answer is yes, then do I have the product for you!

[Celibrae]

Speaking of which, what do you all think of the EFV spec for carrying 17 soldiers?

[The Akasha Colony]

Two turret location proposals for this HIFV built using lots of recycled components from my tank.

Top design would be an unmanned turret with the commander and gunner sitting forward of the turret below the cupola, and the turret sitting above the crew compartment (and sealed).

Bottom design would have a two-man turret (ring diameter would increase) with better visibility but at the cost of exposing the gunner and commander to more enemy fire.

Between the two I prefer the visual balance of the bottom design, as it's more like a "classic" IFV with a center-mounted turret. But the survivability is better with the top design.

Also not sure how to make it clear that the sides are sloped inward like Namer, mostly because there aren't many vertical surfaces to provide contrast.

[Fordorsia]

Well shit I guess the size limit got increased



So like I said, seems like there'd room in the back for like 30 doods, and has nice big paddling tracks. MG could be replaced a 60mm, or I guess it would be possible to modify that area of hull with a larger turret and gun at the expense of passenger space. Maybe it could even be driven on the sea floor with some modifications, who knows.

Hide yo coasts

[Mozria]

Akasha, do you have any wise words for me on my hull design?

[Fordorsia]

Why give it a direct vision port?

[The Akasha Colony]

Akasha, do you have any wise words for me on my hull design?

Nothing in particular that's big.

I guess the front idlers look pretty far forward, making it very difficult to protect them from enemy fire. The tracks protrude ahead of the hull and the idlers are located between the upper and lower hull, whereas from what I've seen in most tanks they're located a little further down in the lower hull, leaving the upper hull a completely uninterrupted surface (which is better for protection).

And I suppose I'm wondering why the upper front hull has two separate angles rather than being a single, flat continuous plate from the front edge of the hull up to the turret ring. A single plate (if possible) would be easier to manufacture and provide more consistent protection.

And are you adding sponsons?

[Gallia-]

Bottom is cutest.

Not speaking from experience or anything.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

(Image)

Two turret location proposals for this HIFV built using lots of recycled components from my tank.

Top design would be an unmanned turret with the commander and gunner sitting forward of the turret below the cupola, and the turret sitting above the crew compartment (and sealed).

Bottom design would have a two-man turret (ring diameter would increase) with better visibility but at the cost of exposing the gunner and commander to more enemy fire.

Between the two I prefer the visual balance of the bottom design, as it's more like a "classic" IFV with a center-mounted turret. But the survivability is better with the top design.

Also not sure how to make it clear that the sides are sloped inward like Namer, mostly because there aren't many vertical surfaces to provide contrast.

the bottom design (with an appropriate turret) could also offer a lot more gun depression than the top design

[Korva]

why are his ifvs hiding?

more firing ports

more cross country speed

dismount in moscow

[Mozria]

Why give it a direct vision port?

It does not have a direct vision port.

Akasha, do you have any wise words for me on my hull design?

Nothing in particular that's big.

I guess the front idlers look pretty far forward, making it very difficult to protect them from enemy fire. The tracks protrude ahead of the hull and the idlers are located between the upper and lower hull, whereas from what I've seen in most tanks they're located a little further down in the lower hull, leaving the upper hull a completely uninterrupted surface (which is better for protection).

And I suppose I'm wondering why the upper front hull has two separate angles rather than being a single, flat continuous plate from the front edge of the hull up to the turret ring. A single plate (if possible) would be easier to manufacture and provide more consistent protection.

And are you adding sponsons?

As far as I can tell, the idlers are no more exposed than those of, for example, the Challenger 2-- In fact, less so. I do not understand the issue with this, as well, because I was under the impression that having the idler so far forwards allowed the vehicle's hull to clear obstacles much more easily than if it was positioned further to the rear.

The upper hull profile is the way it is due to needs to make the hull itself the proper dimensions to accomodate the driver and his equipment without taking up too much volume or shifting the glacis profile to require too much weight. If i had gone with a continuous plate of the angle that the upper of the two is oriented at, I would have had to create a much larger frontal armor surface at a lower angle and simultaneously increased the armor weight significantly. I would have added almost a third of a cubic meter of armor. Assuming that the composite armor is something like 80% the density per unit volume of steel (I don't remember the numbers for Chobham with DU inserts), that would have been two and a third tonnes of armor.

What do you mean by "sponsons?" Side skirts?

If so, yes. The overhang of the idlers with be a bit T-series like, but the side skirts will be very Western.

[Austrasien]

Between the two I prefer the visual balance of the bottom design, as it's more like a "classic" IFV with a center-mounted turret. But the survivability is better with the top design.

Also not sure how to make it clear that the sides are sloped inward like Namer, mostly because there aren't many vertical surfaces to provide contrast.

The top bottom one looks remarkable like Rheinmetall's Lynx.

Between the better gun depression and aesthetics I would lean towards the second, but it really depends on how much protection is going to be lost.

[Mozria]

This is what the hull would look like with the glacis altered to have a monolithic top plate.



For reference, the horizontal armor thickness between the very top tip of the glacis to the front of the driver's compartment is almost 950 mm. The thickness perpendicular to the armor face is 320-340 mm.

Perhaps the inside dimensions could be changed, but the driver's compartment was as close to "perfect" as I could get it, before.

[The Akasha Colony]

As far as I can tell, the idlers are no more exposed than those of, for example, the Challenger 2-- In fact, less so. I do not understand the issue with this, as well, because I was under the impression that having the idler so far forwards allowed the vehicle's hull to clear obstacles much more easily than if it was positioned further to the rear.

I'm not so sure Challenger 2 is the best example to use, given the age of its hull (it's still just a modernized Chieftain design, so it's early 1960s) and the fact that the British found out their lower front hull was less protected than perhaps it should have been.

Obstacle clearing capability is not so adversely affected as to make a more rearward placement problematic, especially when properly designed. Notice here on the Abrams how far back the idler is from the actual forward edge of the hull. The slope of the lower front hull means that even without being mounted at the very forward edge of the hull, the tracks still have full exposure to the ground and obstacles up to the height of the sprocket. Meanwhile, the slope also means the idlers and the driver are better protected than with a thin semi-vertical space with cut-outs for the idlers (which would create ballistic holes in the tank's protection). You can see here the slope of the lower front hull and how it accommodates the idlers before returning to a finer slope.

The upper hull profile is the way it is due to needs to make the hull itself the proper dimensions to accomodate the driver and his equipment without taking up too much volume or shifting the glacis profile to require too much weight. If i had gone with a continuous plate of the angle that the upper of the two is oriented at, I would have had to create a much larger frontal armor surface at a lower angle and simultaneously increased the armor weight significantly. I would have added almost a third of a cubic meter of armor. Assuming that the composite armor is something like 80% the density per unit volume of steel (I don't remember the numbers for Chobham with DU inserts), that would have been two and a third tonnes of armor.

I'm not entirely sure what the trouble is given that practically every other nation (that isn't using a 50-year-old hull like the UK) has made a flat upper hull work. Even the Merkava 4 has a flat face despite cramming a front-mounted engine and the driver in there.

What do you mean by "sponsons?" Side skirts?

If so, yes. The overhang of the idlers with be a bit T-series like, but the side skirts will be very Western.

Sponsons are the part of the hull that overhang the tracks. You can see here how the hull expands above the tracks to fill the full width of the vehicle's footprint. The part that's above the tracks is called the sponsons. Yes, it's of a WWII Sherman but modern tanks have them too, it's what the side skirts are usually attached to. They're generally used for storage and can also be used to enable turret rings slightly larger than the the actual hull width between tracks, if necessary.

Bottom is cutest.

Not speaking from experience or anything.

the bottom design (with an appropriate turret) could also offer a lot more gun depression than the top design

The top bottom one looks remarkable like Rheinmetall's Lynx.

Between the better gun depression and aesthetics I would lean towards the second, but it really depends on how much protection is going to be lost.

I'm leaning toward the bottom one fairly strongly. As it stands, a remote turret would have kept the commander and gunner under the protection of the IFV's tank-grade armor, and kept their heads down and out of harm's way. Putting them in the turret as the turret is drawn now means increasing their height and putting them in what is essentially just a standard IFV turret, with protection against autocannons and small arms. Unless I redesign the turret with heavier armor.

The resemblance to Lynx is partially intentional, in that the turret is a blatant copy of the Lance turret, but also partly unfortunate because the sides are supposed to be sloped inward like Namer, but I just haven't been able to figure out how to accurately convey that.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Any issues with going with a FMTV armored cab w/ an armored container basically in the back for troop&etc. transport? (Taking into account I already have the regular FMTVs as standard inventory) The idea would be mainly that the very frontline forces would be served with JLTV type vehicles with integral inbuilt protection and going the route I've explained above would probably be cheaper than even going with a Caiman (although it and the FMTV have considerable parts commonality) whilst still possibly being relatively adequate for more rear echelon duties or alternatively front line duty in environments that are considered lower risk.

They'd pretty much also form the logical step-up from barebones trucks as organic transports for forces like COIN, light infantry, paramilitaries/national guards-type forces or other truck-borne infantry.

[Mozria]

Does this look better? I pushed out the upper glacis by fifty millimeters after unifying the slopes, and then added some preliminary sponsons without the mud guards.

Also, I shortened the rear of the hull by some 250 mm so that it wouldn't jut out so far beyond the tracks. Now, the bit of track below the drive sprocket is beyond the lowest portion of that area.



I believe it has a bit of a Namer feel. Am I doing something wrong with the sponson design?

[The Akasha Colony]

Does this look better? I pushed out the upper glacis by fifty millimeters after unifying the slopes, and then added some preliminary sponsons without the mud guards.

Also, I shortened the rear of the hull by some 250 mm so that it wouldn't jut out so far beyond the tracks. Now, the bit of track below the drive sprocket is beyond the lowest portion of that area.

(Image)

I believe it has a bit of a Namer feel. Am I doing something wrong with the sponson design?

Looks better.

Sponsons seem fine; if you end up needing more space you could make them flat-sided rather than sloped but this may not be necessary, it again depends if you need the extra volume.

[Fordorsia]

My own tracks : D



What should the vehicle be? I was thinking of using my new 105mm

[Theodosiya]

My own tracks : D

(Image)

What should the vehicle be? I was thinking of using my new 105mm

AMX-105 like light tank or arty.

[Fordorsia]

ew french

Too late making it a casemate TD

Edit for WIP
It actually looks like a real AFV :0

Finished I guess. Suuuper happy with it : )


I like to think it would be 100mm all over the front, and like 40-50mm everywhere else.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Lol, the binoculars means the tank itself can see

[Fordorsia]

tank

:I

[Anemos Major]

Tagging in with a new SPAAG. Expect a Tor-alike soon.

[The Akasha Colony]

([url=http://orig09.deviantart.net/1e1a/f/2017/054/2/e/ma11_mav_t__shorads_g__coloured__by_sixthcircle-db05ukk.png]Image)[/url]

Tagging in with a new SPAAG. Expect a Tor-alike soon.

Very nice, as usual. I see you've kept the large-caliber gun you were talking about last time.