Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Laritaia]

it had a 105 plus 7.62mm coax, .50cal TCs weapon and firing ports

That's less guns than the Bradley, even the 25mm Bradley, by far.

...

i can't say i understand

and at this point i no longer want to

[Fordorsia]

finished

Heavy Breakthrough Tank Mk V "Cougar-F"
(Image)

I like it.

Is the MG not on a rotating cupola mount? And why is the barrel and spare wheel not camo'd?

[Laritaia]

finished

Heavy Breakthrough Tank Mk V "Cougar-F"
(Image)

I like it.

Is the MG not on a rotating cupola mount? And why is the barrel and spare wheel not camo'd?

No

and it''s because they're replacement parts made under wartime conditions, they're only painted in the anti- oxide primer from the factory.

[Fordorsia]

I like it.

Is the MG not on a rotating cupola mount? And why is the barrel and spare wheel not camo'd?

No

and it''s because they're replacement parts made under wartime conditions, they're only painted in the anti- oxide primer from the factory.

lol ur poor

[Austrasien]

It would be too big.

Vickers Mk11 wouldn't have enough guns for what I'm doing anyway. Galla will either recycle MBT-70's 6" dick or replace it with a lower pressure lower velocity 152mm gun-mortar and be absolutely insane with all these mortars.

Have you forsaken our lord and saviour Simpkin?

Every vehicle a high velocity AT gun.

[Laritaia]

No

and it''s because they're replacement parts made under wartime conditions, they're only painted in the anti- oxide primer from the factory.

lol ur poor

yes because delaying the delivery of spares just so you can paint them in a colour that won't match the field applied camo schemes used by the tankers anyway is absolutely critical.

[Gallia-]

That's less guns than the Bradley, even the 25mm Bradley, by far.

...

i can't say i understand

You probably never could. Let me try:

Vickers Mk 11 is a 105mm gun with a couple dismounts in it. Its most notable features are that it has a 7.62mm coaxial and a 105mm gun. It's no different than a Stryker MGS, besides being worse in every conceivable way and notion.

You say it has "more guns" than a 152mm Bradley? An IFV with a 152mm gun would likely have the same number of guns, quite literally, as said armored car. Bradley with the 25mm has literally more armaments than it, since it has two TOW missiles, the 25mm cannon, a 7.62mm coaxial, a .50 caliber RWS, and six firing ports. That's ten guns. Vickers Mk 11 has one 105mm gun, one 7.62mm coaxial, one .50 caliber machine gun, and four firing ports. At worst, it's three short. It lacks two firing ports and the TOWs. At best it's only near equivalent since the hypothetical IFV might trade the 25mm and TOW for a 152mm gun-launcher.

Since this is Galla's IFV we're talking about, it's actually multiple short since Galla's IFV has two additional firing ports over the IRL Bradley.

Mk 11 was a shitty attempt to make a stupid "do-all" vehicle that could pretend to be a tank and a carrier and assault gun, all in one, in the name of austerity and colonial warfare. BMP-3 was a highly dedicated infantry carrier. They're totally incomparable. In fact they're complete opposites, since BMP-3 was only intended to consolidate the existing infantry fighting vehicles into a single chassis. Vickers Mk 11 was intended to replace the recce carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, and the tank, among other things.

and at this point i no longer want to

It's simple: You just don't know what BMP-3 actually does. BMP-3 has shitty guns and a terrible layout and poor protection that makes it a bad vehicle IRL. That's about the extent of it, since the basic idea BMP-3 is perfectly sound. I'm literally copying Soviet bronegruppe in Afghanistan with a LV gun/launcher and akan carriers operating together. It worked fine IRL.

The closest equivalent that I can think of to the bad 100mm gun-launcher of BMP-3 is the 152mm gun-launcher of MBT-70, but MBT-70's gun was substantially more accurate and higher velocity than BMP-3's, which kind of negates the whole gun-mortar thing that BMP-3 is supposed to do in absence of actual mortars.

The only redundancy here is the meme team fire support vehicles I guess, but I suspect that the low velocities of the 152mm and the high velocities of the 105mm might be able to cover different things if I can make the 152mm a high angle gun-mortar.

It would be too big.

Vickers Mk11 wouldn't have enough guns for what I'm doing anyway. Galla will either recycle MBT-70's 6" dick or replace it with a lower pressure lower velocity 152mm gun-mortar and be absolutely insane with all these mortars.

Have you forsaken our lord and saviour Simpkin?

Every vehicle a high velocity AT gun.

No, I entirely intend to give the 152mm carriers APFSDS.

Specifically: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... ephoto.png

I'm just necessarily opposed to transitioning to a ten or less dismounts vehicle for Galla's infantry.

[Laritaia]

-snip-

ugh


i said i didn't want to know

just...




...

[Gallia-]

idt you could know even if you wanted to

youre too hyperfocused on the superficial aspects

[Laritaia]

idt you could know even if you wanted to

youre too hyperfocused on the superficial aspects

...

[Austrasien]

Firing ports aren't real weapons. They are weapon simulacra, designed to realistically simulate the effects of gunfire and demoralize enemy infantry without actually hurting them.

[Padnak]

Firing ports aren't real weapons. They are weapon simulacra, designed to realistically simulate the effects of gunfire and demoralize enemy infantry without actually hurting them.

Isn't the general conciseness that they're pretty much useless and need not be included on vehicles, or was that just a trend for a while there a few years ago?

[Laritaia]

Firing ports aren't real weapons. They are weapon simulacra, designed to realistically simulate the effects of gunfire and demoralize enemy infantry without actually hurting them.

Isn't the general conciseness that they're pretty much useless and need not be included on vehicles, or was that just a trend for a while there a few years ago?

yes

however i'm quite certain that simpkin or someone equally spergy says otherwise

[Fordorsia]

The only case i can see them being useful is if your doctrine has your infantry stay inside the APC while moving through urban areas, which they shouldn't.


Made a tiny machine gun turret

[Padnak]

The only case i can see them being useful is if your doctrine has your infantry stay inside the APC while moving through urban areas, which they shouldn't.


Made a tiny machine gun turret

There is a better way comrade

[Fordorsia]

The Armoured Horde

[Hurtful Thoughts]

The Armoured Horde

Renult FT actually looks better.

[Fordorsia]

The Armoured Horde

Renult FT actually looks better.

FT ain't shit

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

i prefer "tactical entry sized"

kimchi modernized lvtp-5 when

1. take amphibious cargo vehicle with AA turret
2. remove AA turret
3. raise roof, add benches
4. add some kind of turret, probably
5. ??????
6. profit

lol why does it have like 999999 wheels

[Fordorsia]

1. take amphibious cargo vehicle with AA turret
2. remove AA turret
3. raise roof, add benches
4. add some kind of turret, probably
5. ??????
6. profit

lol why does it have like 999999 wheels

So it can be longer without the wheels being bigger

[The Soodean Imperium]

(Image)

1. take amphibious cargo vehicle with AA turret
2. remove AA turret
3. raise roof, add benches
4. add some kind of turret, probably
5. ??????
6. profit

lol why does it have like 999999 wheels

because longtruck is looooong

[Fordorsia]

But does the manual tell you to avoid steering unless absolutely necessary, just like the Ferdinand?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Now suppose I were going to have multiple forms of IFV in a single platoon. Not like two different carriers, but the same carrier with different turrets and armaments. I guess think of something like BMP-1 and BMP-2 being mixed together. One is the cannon and the other is a automatic, but it's 152mm and 40-50mm instead of 100mm and 30mm.

Maybe use the M81 for your IFV's 152mm gun?

Anyway, I played with this idea years ago (Like, back when I still actively RPed on jolt years ago).I don't remember where I got it from anymore, probably the same way you're deriving it (BMP-3 and Afgan combined use), but whatever. The only thing I ever had as a problem was people picking out the differing vehicles and firing on them. But I mixed them at platoon level. Eventually I played with a BMP-3-alike to reduce individual vehicles being targeted, then moved to a single medium caliber gun.

The last year I've been playing with mixing again. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that issue.

On Vickers Mark 11: It was designed to be a colonial vehicle, for fighting in shitholes in Africa, Asia, and the ME where your enemy has 40+ year old gear, terrible training, and major morale and infighting issues. It was an attempt to mechanize the British Army of the mid-late 1800s! And it was perfect for that role.

Too bad that role went away a a major thing over a century ago.

[Purpelia]

Now suppose I were going to have multiple forms of IFV in a single platoon. Not like two different carriers, but the same carrier with different turrets and armaments. I guess think of something like BMP-1 and BMP-2 being mixed together. One is the cannon and the other is a automatic, but it's 152mm and 40-50mm instead of 100mm and 30mm.

I also thought long and hard and than longer and harder on this one. My solution was basically to have a regular IFV for the squads and a 4th that's basically a BMP-3 to support the platoon. Eventually though I realized that it's better to just screw it and mix tanks and infantry more organically.

[Gallia-]

Firing ports aren't real weapons. They are weapon simulacra, designed to realistically simulate the effects of gunfire and demoralize enemy infantry without actually hurting them.

You're just not making the bullets big enough:

Isn't the general conciseness that they're pretty much useless and need not be included on vehicles, or was that just a trend for a while there a few years ago?

yes

however i'm quite certain that simpkin or someone equally spergy says otherwise

Simpkin was writing to us from the heady days of 198X when Firing Ports Were Cool.