Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Gallan Systems]

M6: Masochists only.

Play a good faction like USA or England instead of Grrmans.

they balanced the British side out by making all of it's tanks pre centurion terribad

They are bunkers.

Armoured like a continent.
Speed of one too.

[Fordorsia]

solid shot lmao

[Laritaia]

M6: Masochists only.

they balanced the British side out by making all of it's tanks pre centurion terribad

They are bunkers.

Armoured like a continent.
Speed of one too.

Papier-mâché bunkers

[Gallan Systems]

No that's M6.

[Fordorsia]

Guns are my armour

[Laritaia]

No that's M6.

i have never bounced a shot off a british tank that wasn't the churchill

[Gallan Systems]

Guns are my armour

M6 is a Coke can dildo without lube TBH.

Jumbo is doing the same dildo backwards.

No that's M6.

i have never bounced a shot off a british tank that wasn't the churchill

Idk mb they changed the armour penetration mechanics since I last played.

Or maybe you're fighting full upgraded tanks/ammos?

[Theodosiya]

Russian bias? T-34-85 and IS-1 get rekt by Tiger II P/H
German Bias? Panther D and Tiger H1 get rekt by T-34-85 and IS-2
American Bias? Shermans blow up.
British Bias? Churchill blow up thanks to Panzer IV F2 and T-34-76
Japan bias? Blown up by everyone.

[Fordorsia]

Guns are my armour

M6 is a Coke can dildo without lube TBH.

Why I like it :>

[Austrasien]

Been thinking about swapping out my clown shoe 700mm wide tracks with something closer to 580mm (ie T-72 sized) and just making the hull longer. Is it worse to be impractically wide or impractically long you think?

If there is a larger equally exported size that could help too. The 635mm tracks on the leopard 2 would work better but I doubt any country that has fielded Leopard 2s would be interested in another 3rd gen MBT. Or is backwards part compatibility not really that useful? (The tracks it would come with are not actually from another tank, they would just fit the same allowing you to substitute if necessary)

Track width does not indicate interchangeability.

Tracks are designed for weight classes basically. The sprockets of heavier vehicles tend to exert more force on the tracks (even when engine power is similar) and they need to be stronger/heavier to compensate. Among other things this is why band tracks do not exist for vehicles larger than about 30-40 tonnes. Fitting the tracks from a heavier tank onto a lighter one, even if they fit, adds completely superfluous weight. Unsprung weight too, which compromises the suspension.

It would be something like trying to use tires from a semi truck on a pickup. Nothing good would come out of it.

And the T-72/T-64/T-80 uses single pin tracks so any notion of compatibility is a moot point. This is an older track design that is now basically obsolete for heavy AFVs. It could not accept the more modern double pin tracks.

[Fordorsia]

Is my tracks ok

Impractically long vehicles that exceed the rough 2:1 length:width ratio for track length have much greater problems with throwing and breaking tracks while turning than shorter tanks.

What's that ratio exactly? Is it the length of the contact area of both or one tracks, and the width of one or both tracks?

Either way the contact area on each of my tracks is 3.92m x 71cm. Not sure if that's any good. Not that mine is at all long, but the tracks and tank are pretty wide.

[Laritaia]

Been thinking about swapping out my clown shoe 700mm wide tracks with something closer to 580mm (ie T-72 sized) and just making the hull longer. Is it worse to be impractically wide or impractically long you think?

If there is a larger equally exported size that could help too. The 635mm tracks on the leopard 2 would work better but I doubt any country that has fielded Leopard 2s would be interested in another 3rd gen MBT. Or is backwards part compatibility not really that useful? (The tracks it would come with are not actually from another tank, they would just fit the same allowing you to substitute if necessary)

Track width does not indicate interchangeability.

Tracks are designed for weight classes basically. The sprockets of heavier vehicles tend to exert more force on the tracks (even when engine power is similar) and they need to be stronger/heavier to compensate. Among other things this is why band tracks do not exist for vehicles larger than about 30-40 tonnes. Fitting the tracks from a heavier tank onto a lighter one, even if they fit, adds completely superfluous weight. Unsprung weight too, which compromises the suspension.

It would be something like trying to use tires from a semi truck on a pickup. Nothing good would come out of it.

And the T-72/T-64/T-80 uses single pin tracks so any notion of compatibility is a moot point. This is an older track design that is now basically obsolete for heavy AFVs. It could not accept the more modern double pin tracks.

double pin is not necessarily more "modern" then single pin, the Easy Eight Shermans had Double Pin track.

[Austrasien]

More precisely the use of single pin tracks is basically unknown on new AFV designs. Though they were common on even large tanks in the 60s they are no longer even found on newer light AFVs.

[Questers]

You can bounce with Caernarvon. It's possible. But that's 6.7 BR - and even a Panther A's 75mm can OHK you from the front if he has the time to aim.

The BR's 3.7-5.7 are basically unplayable as British as Gaijin nerfed the solid shot for basically no reason. You have to choose between APDS which does almost 0 damage but high-pen, and the APCBC which is low pen but does some interior damage. The only way to play is to try to flank and get people in the engine and just keep shooting them there until they run out of fire extinguishers.

M6: Masochists only.

they balanced the British side out by making all of it's tanks pre centurion terribad

They are bunkers.

Armoured like a continent.
Speed of one too.

It's more the opposite. Cromwell, Comet, Firefly, the SPGs and even the heavies after Churchill are pretty fast, but have virtually no armour and are OHK by almost everything.

[Gallan Systems]

Isn't it split into infantry and cruiser lines though?

Cruisers are just American tanks and infantry is bunker HQ?

When did this change?

[Questers]

Isn't it split into infantry and cruiser lines though?

Cruisers are just American tanks and infantry is bunker HQ?

When did this change?

Yes it is, but only at the lower tiers. Cruisers are Cromwell->Sherman->Comet and Infantry is basically Matilda-Churchill, at which point the line splits into postwar MBTs (FV4204, Centurion) and heavy tanks (Carn, Conqueror)

[Laritaia]

the other major issue is that Brit tanks don't reverse, if you are in a situation where you need to reverse to avoid being killed, you've already lost

[Fordorsia]

the other major issue is that Brit tanks don't reverse, if you are in a situation where you need to reverse to avoid being killed, you've already lost

What even is the Panther

[The Akasha Colony]

Impractically long vehicles that exceed the rough 2:1 length:width ratio for track length have much greater problems with throwing and breaking tracks while turning than shorter tanks.

What's that ratio exactly? Is it the length of the contact area of both or one tracks, and the width of one or both tracks?

Either way the contact area on each of my tracks is 3.92m x 71cm. Not sure if that's any good. Not that mine is at all long, but the tracks and tank are pretty wide.

The total contact length of the tracks relative to the width between the midpoint of both tracks. Which is to say, a line between the middle point width-wise of the right track to the middle point width-wise of the left track. It's more a matter of hull dimensions than anything else but as track dimensions are directly influenced by the hull (and vice versa), it's relevant to them.

So if your tank were something like 3.8 meters in width and the tracks were 640 mm in width each, this width would be something like 3.0-3.2 meters, so the contact length should not exceed ~6.0-6.5 meters. Which is plenty of room for a modern MBT with a hull length of ~7-8 meters.

[Fordorsia]

What's that ratio exactly? Is it the length of the contact area of both or one tracks, and the width of one or both tracks?

Either way the contact area on each of my tracks is 3.92m x 71cm. Not sure if that's any good. Not that mine is at all long, but the tracks and tank are pretty wide.

The total contact length of the tracks relative to the width between the midpoint of both tracks. Which is to say, a line between the middle point width-wise of the right track to the middle point width-wise of the left track. It's more a matter of hull dimensions than anything else but as track dimensions are directly influenced by the hull (and vice versa), it's relevant to them.

So if your tank were something like 3.8 meters in width and the tracks were 640 mm in width each, this width would be something like 3.0-3.2 meters, so the contact length should not exceed ~6.0-6.5 meters. Which is plenty of room for a modern MBT with a hull length of ~7-8 meters.

My brain is really struggling today :I

The width of the mid point between my tracks is 3m, and the contact length is 3.92m. That means mine are fine because the contact length doesn't exceed 6m?

[The Akasha Colony]

My brain is really struggling today :I

The width of the mid point between my tracks is 3m, and the contact length is 3.92m. That means mine are fine because the contact length doesn't exceed 6m?

Yeah.

The vast majority of tanks with anything resembling regular proportions will be fine. It's only fairly extreme examples like Churchill that get anywhere near this number because this is usually either known by the engineers or caught in testing. Ground contact length is usually several meters shorter than hull length so you'd need something like a 10 meter hull to start encountering problems, presuming the width remains unchanged.

Which I suppose is why it might appear in NS designs that try to radically depart from the norm. It's not nearly so common in these threads though, but you might find one or two in GE&T.

[Fordorsia]

woo

So then weight. Based on the armour and armament specs I made, would it be fine to assume my tank weighs in excess of 60 tons? 55 maybe? Just looking for a general weight range because fuck getting the weight of each plate.

Height: 2.95m
Height (excluding pintle MG): 2.6m
Length: 7.4m
Length (excluding gun): 6.85m
Width: 3.77m

Crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Machine Gunner

Turret Armour:
Turret Face: 100mm
Mantlet: 100mm
Side: 100mm
Rear: 100mm
Main Roof: 20mm
Forward Roof: 40mm
Cupola: 50mm + 100mm front

Hull Armour:
Vertical Front Plate: 100mm
Upper Glacis: 50mm
Lower Glacis: 50mm
Transmission Housing: 100mm
Side: 80mm
Rear 80mm
Roof: 20mm
Floor: 20mm

Armament:
76mm Gun
Coaxial 40mm Gun
Coaxial 8.5mm MG
Hull Mounted 8.5mm MG
Pintle Mounted 15mm MG

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

woo

So then weight. Based on the armour and armament specs I made, would it be fine to assume my tank weighs in excess of 60 tons? 55 maybe? Just looking for a general weight range because fuck getting the weight of each plate.

Height: 2.95m
Height (excluding pintle MG): 2.6m
Length: 7.4m
Length (excluding gun): 6.85m
Width: 3.77m

Crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Machine Gunner

Turret Armour:
Turret Face: 100mm
Mantlet: 100mm
Side: 100mm
Rear: 100mm
Main Roof: 20mm
Forward Roof: 40mm
Cupola: 50mm + 100mm front

Hull Armour:
Vertical Front Plate: 100mm
Upper Glacis: 50mm
Lower Glacis: 50mm
Transmission Housing: 100mm
Side: 80mm
Rear 80mm
Roof: 20mm
Floor: 20mm

Armament:
76mm Gun
Coaxial 40mm Gun
Coaxial 8.5mm MG
Hull Mounted 8.5mm MG
Pintle Mounted 15mm MG

Looks weaksauce lmao

[Fordorsia]

It's clearly the best are you blind

[Fordorsia]

Making an 8.5mm NotMG 15 hull mount for some reason with a bigger, 120 round saddle drum and aimed with periscopes. Might do something with it since it's sexier and its fire rate is much coolerer than the NotM1919.

It's a ball turret at an angle so these specs are for perfectly vertical/horizontal movement. 7 degrees depression, theoretical 42 degrees elevation, 15 degrees traverse either side. I think that's pretty good. The field of fire could be wider if the magazine was standard size but after watching people fire the MG 15, the ammo goes pretty fast.

The plate it's in is 100mm at 18 degrees making it 110mm effective, the ball is 230mm, the rings holding the ball in are 40mm, and the plate on the barrel for stopping MG fire from damaging and potentially jamming the ball is 20mm.