Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Gallia-]

Jaguar is dope.

Shame about the 105mm.

[Theodosiya]

So...that means bulk of troops are light motorized, air assault and paratroopers, then?

Light motorized because motorized means wheeled IFV. Also, what use APC is when there's IFV?

[Spirit of Hope]

So...that means bulk of troops are light motorized, air assault and paratroopers, then?

Light motorized because motorized means wheeled IFV. Also, what use APC is when there's IFV?

Money. A full IFV generally costs a lot more than an APC, while providing marginal increases in protecting and firepower. While the IFV is often worth it, most can't afford to have an IFV everywhere

[Austrasien]

RE: The flavour of modern aka post-2003 war.

• There is very little permanent movement of the frontlines. Implicitly or explicitly raiding - attacks without the intent of permanently seizing ground - has returned as a major form of combat. While conventional attacks resemble what was called bite-and-hold in WW1 more than anything.
• Casualty rates have remained fairly low mostly because massed infantry attacks have been all but abandoned.
• There is extensive use of ambiguity - little green men, insurgents, turncoats etc - which has made the battlefield rather fuzzy.
• Light infantry, airborne, airmobile and special forces have progressively been merging into a more or less unified form of combat which is characterized by small teams operating on long leashes backed by significant ISR/air/fire support. Quite often these teams are mobile on light trucks or similar vehicles, though they are not tied to any particular mode of transport.
• Offensive actions are typically conducted by tank-mech infantry teams but are generally small scale (battalion or below) with limited objectives and extensive intelligence/fire/electronic/engineering support. Since physical obstacles including mines/IEDs, in particular, have taken on special importance the last is particularly important.
• Provided the ATGMs are not overmatched by the opponent's tanks defensive positions cannot be rolled over in most cases and must be reduced methodically (see above). ATGMs and snipers have emerged as major impediments to the free movement of ground forces at the tactical level.

[Theodosiya]

So...that means bulk of troops are light motorized, air assault and paratroopers, then?

Light motorized because motorized means wheeled IFV. Also, what use APC is when there's IFV?

Money. A full IFV generally costs a lot more than an APC, while providing marginal increases in protecting and firepower. While the IFV is often worth it, most can't afford to have an IFV everywhere

What ratio should it be, then? 3 to 1 (APC or IFV)

RE: The flavour of modern aka post-2003 war.

• There is very little permanent movement of the frontlines. Implicitly or explicitly raiding - attacks without the intent of permanently seizing ground - has returned as a major form of combat. While conventional attacks resemble what was called bite-and-hold in WW1 more than anything.
• Casualty rates have remained fairly low mostly because massed infantry attacks have been all but abandoned.
• There is extensive use of ambiguity - little green men, insurgents, turncoats etc - which has made the battlefield rather fuzzy.
• Light infantry, airborne, airmobile and special forces have progressively been merging into a more or less unified form of combat which is characterized by small teams operating on long leashes backed by significant ISR/air/fire support. Quite often these teams are mobile on light trucks or similar vehicles, though they are not tied to any particular mode of transport.
• Offensive actions are typically conducted by tank-mech infantry teams but are generally small scale (battalion or below) with limited objectives and extensive intelligence/fire/electronic/engineering support. Since physical obstacles including mines/IEDs, in particular, have taken on special importance the last is particularly important.
• Provided the ATGMs are not overmatched by the opponent's tanks defensive positions cannot be rolled over in most cases and must be reduced methodically (see above). ATGMs and snipers have emerged as major impediments to the free movement of ground forces at the tactical level.

Let's talk about it in MilReal...

[Spirit of Hope]

Money. A full IFV generally costs a lot more than an APC, while providing marginal increases in protecting and firepower. While the IFV is often worth it, most can't afford to have an IFV everywhere

What ratio should it be, then? 3 to 1 (APC or IFV)

It's going to depend on what you can afford, and what you are likely to be fighting. If you aren't fighting an enemy with advanced armor or anti armor weapons you won't need the full capabilities of an IFV and could use less of them. If you expect your enemies to have lots of armor and anti armor weapons you are going to want more IFVs.

[The Akasha Colony]

So...that means bulk of troops are light motorized, air assault and paratroopers, then?

Light motorized because motorized means wheeled IFV. Also, what use APC is when there's IFV?

I think you're getting too hung up on the idea of fixed ratios between types, and on the fixed and immutable nature of different unit types in the first place.

There's no particular reason why units have to be so firmly segregated between motorized, mechanized, and armored, particularly between the latter two as many if most militaries don't make that distinction anymore, if they indeed ever did.

You functionally have two types of infantry formations: light infantry that are expected to be carried to the periphery of the battlefield by some kind of carrier (truck, helicopter, etc.) but otherwise do most of their fighting on foot, and heavier infantry that are expected to fight alongside their carriers (IFV, HIFV, etc.) in an integrated team (usually with other heavy weapons platforms like tanks). Everything else is comparatively minor and barely moves the needle in terms of employment. Mechanized infantry might ride slightly better protected carriers than motorized infantry, but this doesn't fundamentally change their expected employment in the same way that the difference between light infantry and motorized infantry changes their modus operandi.

[Danternoust]

RE: The flavour of modern aka post-2003 war.

• There is very little permanent movement of the frontlines. Implicitly or explicitly raiding - attacks without the intent of permanently seizing ground - has returned as a major form of combat. While conventional attacks resemble what was called bite-and-hold in WW1 more than anything.
• Casualty rates have remained fairly low mostly because massed infantry attacks have been all but abandoned.
• There is extensive use of ambiguity - little green men, insurgents, turncoats etc - which has made the battlefield rather fuzzy.
• Light infantry, airborne, airmobile and special forces have progressively been merging into a more or less unified form of combat which is characterized by small teams operating on long leashes backed by significant ISR/air/fire support. Quite often these teams are mobile on light trucks or similar vehicles, though they are not tied to any particular mode of transport.
• Offensive actions are typically conducted by tank-mech infantry teams but are generally small scale (battalion or below) with limited objectives and extensive intelligence/fire/electronic/engineering support. Since physical obstacles including mines/IEDs, in particular, have taken on special importance the last is particularly important.
• Provided the ATGMs are not overmatched by the opponent's tanks defensive positions cannot be rolled over in most cases and must be reduced methodically (see above). ATGMs and snipers have emerged as major impediments to the free movement of ground forces at the tactical level.

In 2300 AD, the Rich and Corporations military consists of three people.

The first one writes jokes so funny it can kill you. He is humorless.

The second one writes forum posts so trollish and viral it will bring a nation to it's knees as people make arguments over it.

The third one is an award winning economist. People listen to him.

[Sevvania]

Working on distinguishing between early war and late war variations of Sevvania's WWII-era medium tank. One of the improvements I want to make is the shift from a radial engine to an in-line engine (with the better space efficiency allowing for a more streamlined hull). I don't know engine stuff though, so I've been consulting the Sherman's Wikipedia article. Some used a Ford V8, others used like a 30-cylinder multi-bank. I'm trying to figure out why this was, and which approach would be most appropriate in regards to what I've got here. Any insight?

[Gallia-]

Detroit power.

graceful and lithe DD 8V92 in its natural habitat

[Theodosiya]

Thinking about the T-55 again...
No, don't worry, not as crazy as last one. This time, conversion to 105mm, to serve as FSV in National Guard and Militia Mechanized Infantry. Or just give 105mm turret to BMP-1 and BMP-2? This FSV will be the 4th company in Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Mainly used to support infantry first and foremost. Unlike the upgraded T-84 of the NG or T-64 of the Militias. Not much of such formation anyway. Militias mainly (but not mostly) have light motor infantry, most of national guard are motorized infantry.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thinking about the T-55 again...
No, don't worry, not as crazy as last one. This time, conversion to 105mm, to serve as FSV in National Guard and Militia Mechanized Infantry. Or just give 105mm turret to BMP-1 and BMP-2? This FSV will be the 4th company in Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Mainly used to support infantry first and foremost. Unlike the upgraded T-84 of the NG or T-64 of the Militias. Not much of such formation anyway. Militias mainly (but not mostly) have light motor infantry, most of national guard are motorized infantry.

Stick a MiG-15 engine on it and go fight fires instead.

[Theodosiya]

Oh well. How about giving 105mm gun to BMP-1 and BMP-2?

[Gallia-]

Thinking about the T-55 again...
No, don't worry, not as crazy as last one. This time, conversion to 105mm, to serve as FSV in National Guard and Militia Mechanized Infantry. Or just give 105mm turret to BMP-1 and BMP-2? This FSV will be the 4th company in Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Mainly used to support infantry first and foremost. Unlike the upgraded T-84 of the NG or T-64 of the Militias. Not much of such formation anyway. Militias mainly (but not mostly) have light motor infantry, most of national guard are motorized infantry.

Stick a MiG-15 engine on it and go fight fires instead.

Too woke.

Dumbla uses M765s and M60-esque hulls as converted firefighting vehicles for rural forestry troops. It also has multiple rocket launchers that dispense retardant, and does water bombing with old things like AH-1s, S-2s, and OV-10s. And new things like DC-10s and A-7s. When the atomic firestorms eat the wood and white lead paint suburbs the forestry bureau's wildland firefighters will be there with their combined arms firefighting army to extinguish it.

Oh well. How about giving 105mm gun to BMP-1 and BMP-2?

Waste of effort.

Especially for BMP-1.

[Theodosiya]

Then I go back to original plan of upgrading the T-55
As FSV they're not really meant to face MBT. And the 105mm means it could share ammo with Army FSV, which is based on KF-41 and Boxer. For the motorized, think BTR 60/70/80 with 105mm gun. For the light motor infantry , PT-76 upgraded with 105mm gun. Or make towed.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Then I go back to original plan of upgrading the T-55
As FSV they're not really meant to face MBT. And the 105mm means it could share ammo with Army FSV, which is based on KF-41 and Boxer. For the motorized, think BTR 60/70/80 with 105mm gun. For the light motor infantry , PT-76 upgraded with 105mm gun. Or make towed.

T-55 w/ L7 already exists. It's called Type 79. PT-76/BTR-80 cannot take the L7 without breaking down.

[Gallia-]

Then I go back to original plan of upgrading the T-55
As FSV they're not really meant to face MBT. And the 105mm means it could share ammo with Army FSV, which is based on KF-41 and Boxer. For the motorized, think BTR 60/70/80 with 105mm gun. For the light motor infantry , PT-76 upgraded with 105mm gun. Or make towed.

Buy new tanks.

If you can't buy new tanks, get rid of the old ones and fix your broke ass economy until you can afford new ones.

That said if "Theodisiya" is "Ukraine + stuff" it should have T-80s and T-72s and can focus on making itself new tanks.

[Theodosiya]

Then I go back to original plan of upgrading the T-55
As FSV they're not really meant to face MBT. And the 105mm means it could share ammo with Army FSV, which is based on KF-41 and Boxer. For the motorized, think BTR 60/70/80 with 105mm gun. For the light motor infantry , PT-76 upgraded with 105mm gun. Or make towed.

Buy new tanks.

If you can't buy new tanks, get rid of the old ones and fix your broke ass economy until you can afford new ones.

That said if "Theodisiya" is "Ukraine + stuff" it should have T-80s and T-72s and can focus on making itself new tanks.

Well, did have T-64 and T-84. And Leopard 2A7M+. This old stuff is intended for 5th and 6th line unit. Ideally and eventually they will get Leopard, Boxers and Lynx. But by that point, Army will already use whatever comes up 20 years from now. Or maybe 30.

[Austrasien]

Thinking about the T-55 again...
No, don't worry, not as crazy as last one. This time, conversion to 105mm, to serve as FSV in National Guard and Militia Mechanized Infantry. Or just give 105mm turret to BMP-1 and BMP-2? This FSV will be the 4th company in Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Mainly used to support infantry first and foremost. Unlike the upgraded T-84 of the NG or T-64 of the Militias. Not much of such formation anyway. Militias mainly (but not mostly) have light motor infantry, most of national guard are motorized infantry.

"Fire support vehicles" are generally unnecessary. ATGMs, recoilless rifles, RPGs and heavy machine guns are are all excellent choices for infantry to destroy bunkers, walls and similar targets.

[New Vihenia]

This is "Fire Support Vehicle"

So i think i finally should make a Howitzer.





Customary caliber of 158mm-55 Cal. I actually want an Al-Fao but i guess i could settle for something smaller.

The Howitzer is basically a Koalitsiya or XM-2001. Fully unmanned turret, all crew in hull. armaments are 7.62 RWS and that big gun.
The munition options include nuclear shell. Yield is about 1.63 Kt for 59 Kg shell weight. Range should be somewhere around 20-40 km. 20-30 with regular and basebleed shell, 40 is with Rocket assisted.

[Danternoust]

In 2300 AD, the Rich and Corporations military consists of three people.

The first one writes jokes so funny it can kill you. He is humorless.

The second one writes forum posts so trollish and viral it will bring a nation to it's knees as people make arguments over it.

The third one is an award winning economist. People listen to him.

To quote this again in light of:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-w ... ke-in-2029

“We don’t need to be buying more tanks, airplanes and submarines,” McFate said. “What we need to do is find ways of blunting strategic malign information.”

Reality is a strange parody of itself.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How about this: A hovertank with a plasma railgun?

[Purpelia]

How about this: A hovertank with a plasma railgun?

Needs more stompy robits.

[Taihei Tengoku]

In 2300 AD, the Rich and Corporations military consists of three people.

The first one writes jokes so funny it can kill you. He is humorless.

The second one writes forum posts so trollish and viral it will bring a nation to it's knees as people make arguments over it.

The third one is an award winning economist. People listen to him.

To quote this again in light of:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-is-w ... ke-in-2029

“We don’t need to be buying more tanks, airplanes and submarines,” McFate said. “What we need to do is find ways of blunting strategic malign information.”

Reality is a strange parody of itself.

How about them (inter)netfires

[New Vihenia]

Let's hunt some tenks.