Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

The easiest way to imagine it is to look at a bicycle.

So a pair off teeth on the sprocket get free due to the track flexing, and the rest of the teeth pull it off? Wouldn't guards around the sprocket easily prevent the track moving sideways?

Track retaining rings have been tried in the past but they are not an ideal solution.

The early-model M1 Abrams actually had a problem with mud buildup in the sprocket forcing the tracks off the sprocket and causing detracking. This was partly because the sprocket design was not as effective in shedding mud as was hoped and because the rear skirt armor panel covered the sprocket, making it harder for mud to escape. The immediate fix was to remove the last armor panel and to add a track retaining ring, but this was not a perfect solution because while it reduced the occurrences of detracking, when it did occur it was usually worse because the track could tear the whole sprocket off with it. Slipping a track is a minor issue that can be fixed by the crew, but a broken sprocket is a much more intensive repair that requires a recovery vehicle and welding torches.

It was eventually fixed with a new rear armor panel that includes a cut-out for the sprocket, improved track tension, and new tracks (although the new tracks were mostly to fix the track life issue) and the retaining ring was removed. Training was also improved to help crews acclimate to the Abrams and its handling compared to the older M60. Although from what I've heard it's still pretty common practice to leave the rear skirt panels off the tank because the mud can still build up back there.

It also depends on drive type. Front-drive tanks tend to shed tracks more often than rear-drive tanks because of the way their tracks are tensioned. In a front-drive tank, the slackest track is between the sprocket and the first drive wheel, which is not desirable. In a rear-drive tank, the slackest track is the return run to the idler.

Width of the tracks or width of the vehicle? Because I can go get all that info

And what's the best ratio?

Ground contact length compared to the width between the centerpoint of each track. The actual vehicle's length isn't hugely relevant, it's just the track lengths themselves. The contact length should not be more than twice the width; if your tracks are 3.5 meters apart in width, the vehicle should not have a contact length greater than 7 meters.

Unless you've got some trolltastically proportioned tank, this shouldn't be a big problem.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Which version of the Leopard would be accurate for 1975, then? From my readings Leopard 1A4 was introduced in 1974, but everybody seems to be telling me Leopard 1A2 is more accurate for 1975.

Depends on a lot.
A4 deliver started in 1974, with completion in 1979 or 1980, and it was never exported. They would be in service with combat units starting around 1978 at the earliest.
5th batch production, which included A2 and A3, ran between 1972 and 1974, with the shift happening late 1973. If you're Germany these are the newest tanks actually in service in 1975. These are also the vehicles you can get for export in the mid-late 1970s for service by 1980-1982. For 1975 A2 is going to be the most advanced in service in numbers, but A3 is hot on its tails and by the end of 1975 it's probably changed.
In 1975 the most numerous Leopard 1 in service anywhere in the world was the 1A1.

Is the Leopard 1A1A1 available in any useful quantity at this time?

[Fordorsia]

So a pair off teeth on the sprocket get free due to the track flexing, and the rest of the teeth pull it off? Wouldn't guards around the sprocket easily prevent the track moving sideways?

Track retaining rings have been tried in the past but they are not an ideal solution.

The early-model M1 Abrams actually had a problem with mud buildup in the sprocket forcing the tracks off the sprocket and causing detracking. This was partly because the sprocket design was not as effective in shedding mud as was hoped and because the rear skirt armor panel covered the sprocket, making it harder for mud to escape. The immediate fix was to remove the last armor panel and to add a track retaining ring, but this was not a perfect solution because while it reduced the occurrences of detracking, when it did occur it was usually worse because the track could tear the whole sprocket off with it. Slipping a track is a minor issue that can be fixed by the crew, but a broken sprocket is a much more intensive repair that requires a recovery vehicle and welding torches.

It was eventually fixed with a new rear armor panel that includes a cut-out for the sprocket, improved track tension, and new tracks (although the new tracks were mostly to fix the track life issue) and the retaining ring was removed. Training was also improved to help crews acclimate to the Abrams and its handling compared to the older M60. Although from what I've heard it's still pretty common practice to leave the rear skirt panels off the tank because the mud can still build up back there.

It also depends on drive type. Front-drive tanks tend to shed tracks more often than rear-drive tanks because of the way their tracks are tensioned. In a front-drive tank, the slackest track is between the sprocket and the first drive wheel, which is not desirable. In a rear-drive tank, the slackest track is the return run to the idler.

Width of the tracks or width of the vehicle? Because I can go get all that info

And what's the best ratio?

Ground contact length compared to the width between the centerpoint of each track. The actual vehicle's length isn't hugely relevant, it's just the track lengths themselves. The contact length should not be more than twice the width; if your tracks are 3.5 meters apart in width, the vehicle should not have a contact length greater than 7 meters.

Unless you've got some trolltastically proportioned tank, this shouldn't be a big problem.

Thanks for infos

[Dostanuot Loj]

Depends on a lot.
A4 deliver started in 1974, with completion in 1979 or 1980, and it was never exported. They would be in service with combat units starting around 1978 at the earliest.
5th batch production, which included A2 and A3, ran between 1972 and 1974, with the shift happening late 1973. If you're Germany these are the newest tanks actually in service in 1975. These are also the vehicles you can get for export in the mid-late 1970s for service by 1980-1982. For 1975 A2 is going to be the most advanced in service in numbers, but A3 is hot on its tails and by the end of 1975 it's probably changed.
In 1975 the most numerous Leopard 1 in service anywhere in the world was the 1A1.

Is the Leopard 1A1A1 available in any useful quantity at this time?

1A1A1? No, conversion would have only started in 1974.

1975 can be a bad year, there is so much in the pipeline that you know is coming, but what you have available is crap. Germany at this point is sitting on about 4000 Leopard 1s, and another 1000 or so M48s as their tank force, with M47s still floating around in the backwaters.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

What is the M48 useful for in 1975? The -A5 variant was accepted for service in 1975 so I assume I'd still be stuck with -A3 models or earlier, so they wouldn't be a great weapon to take against a first-rate tank force. M47s probably would be best used for training.

[Dostanuot Loj]

What is the M48 useful for in 1975? The -A5 variant was accepted for service in 1975 so I assume I'd still be stuck with -A3 models or earlier, so they wouldn't be a great weapon to take against a first-rate tank force. M47s probably would be best used for training.

And here you hit the crux of the issue people forget. If we go by hype of what was available anywhere, nobody had first rate tank forces in 1975. About this time:
- Germany and the US start upgrading M48s (The bulk of their respective tank forces) to 105mm from 90mm.
- The most advanced US tank in inventory is M60A1.
- Most advanced German tank is Leopard 1A1.
- In the USSR, less than 500 T-72s exist, let alone are in service.
- T-64A is the most advanced tank in Soviet service, with about a thousand of them in service.
- Bulk of Soviet forces are T-62 and T-55.
- Best tank in service in the UK is Mk.3 Chieftain, Centurions still bulk of force.
- France only recently stopped using M-47, and now uses AMX-30 and AMX-13s.

So, what's a first rate tank in 1975? The US 90mm is still well into service with those that used it, 105mm has proliferated by 20 pounder is also still in service. The Soviets have the best bang for their buck with 115mm being so prolific, but 100mm is still around in numbers and 125mm has started to peek in. Likewise the Brits are well into 120mm rifled.

But everyone knows whats coming down the pipeline. 125mm is here in the USSR, and the MBT-70 fiasco already showed that 120mm is coming for the West.

Also, fun side note: During the 6 day war, the biggest gun on an Israeli tank were on the Shermans, they had the 105mm. All Israeli Centurions and Pattons had the 20 pounder and 90mm respectively at this point.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Would it then be simply easier for me if I roll back five years to make the period 1970? I want to include Vietnam-type air cavalry at some point while maintaining a tank force suitable to take on an equal sized power to West Germany.

[Gallia-]

Board games taught me the only way to win in the 1970s with air cavalry is to immediately escalate to all out nuclear combat and deep raids.

[Fordorsia]

The dumbness knows no bounds

[Purpelia]

I don't think that thing will be able to cross trenches. Like, none at all. The front overhang is just going to make it dip and dig into a trench the moment it gets any air. Not that this would be completely out of place for WW1 what with the French and German designs. Just useless even if era appropriate. Other than that I would advise adding some sort of grenade and splinter proof outer shell AKA sloped roof. This is the war of plunging artillery, shrapnel and machine gun fire after all.

[Fordorsia]

I don't think that thing will be able to cross trenches. Like, none at all. The front overhang is just going to make it dip and dig into a trench the moment it gets any air. Not that this would be completely out of place for WW1 what with the French and German designs. Just useless even if era appropriate. Other than that I would advise adding some sort of grenade and splinter proof outer shell AKA sloped roof. This is the war of plunging artillery, shrapnel and machine gun fire after all.

lmao you think a roof would stop artillery. We'll have less of that silliness please

It would be fine crossing a trench (if there's space to do so), as the bottom of the hull doesn't extend past the tracks. It's not like the Saint-Chamond.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Would it then be simply easier for me if I roll back five years to make the period 1970? I want to include Vietnam-type air cavalry at some point while maintaining a tank force suitable to take on an equal sized power to West Germany.

Board games taught me the only way to win in the 1970s with air cavalry is to immediately escalate to all out nuclear combat and deep raids.

This.
Aircav is great if you're not fighting parity, or anywhere near parity. Like the VC.

Germany is like the largest European tank force, you basically want to be the US.

[Questers]

The question is what is an M48 not useful for in 1975?

Weapons systems are usually approaching parity (in either direction) with a conventionally equal enemy. The challenge against a parity enemy is in co-ordinating the maneouvre forces, moving from march order into battle order at the right place at the right time, and achieving proper balance of concentration and dispersion in the process.

When the battle unfolds it comes down to balancing luck against the above mentioned things.

[Sevvania]

lmao you think a roof would stop artillery. We'll have less of that silliness please

Shrapnel tho

Also grenades

[Fordorsia]

lmao you think a roof would stop artillery. We'll have less of that silliness please

Shrapnel tho

Also grenades

A roof won't stop shrapnel because shrapnel won't hit the roof unless it explodes early.

And already added a roof anyway. Not a sloped one, because I don't want grenades falling off the roof onto the hull where my MG and 60mm gunners are, when it can explode harmlessly out of the way on the roof.

shazoom

[Hurtful Thoughts]

The dumbness knows no bounds

In other news: Ford hates turrets.

[Fordorsia]

The pintle mount is the future

[Purpelia]

lmao you think a roof would stop artillery. We'll have less of that silliness please

A properly designed roof will stop artillery fragments which were a most widely used munition type during the war. It will also stop the debris of a near miss by a lot of stuff (which in the period is far, far more likely than a direct hit) from falling into the tank and harming your crew. Finally it will also keep those enemy snipers mascaraing as trees or hiding in what ever passes for buildings as well as plunging machine gun fire all of which is a real factor.

A roof won't stop shrapnel because shrapnel won't hit the roof unless it explodes early.

You do realize that timed airbursting shrapnel rounds were a thing back in WW1? And that they were for a long time the more common alternative to HE.

And already added a roof anyway. Not a sloped one, because I don't want grenades falling off the roof onto the hull where my MG and 60mm gunners are, when it can explode harmlessly out of the way on the roof.

Statements like that are grounds to redesign the vehicle from the ground up.

It would be fine crossing a trench (if there's space to do so), as the bottom of the hull doesn't extend past the tracks. It's not like the Saint-Chamond.

That is not how it looks like at the front.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

I'm thinking that I'll establish my pretend West Germany as a very reputable arms dealing nation. Would it make sense to establish tank factories that, in addition to making new Leopards, could be used by other nations to modernize their tanks? And if so, are the requirements to modernize tanks pretty easy to have in a nation with an already-established tank industry, or would I have to focus on modernizing only the tanks that those factories are building(e.g. more Leopards)? I want to be able to take in anything, T-55s to Chieftains, and ship them out with better stuff.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The most important part of being a tank factory is being a big open warehouse. AMX-30s were built in a WW1 ammunition factory for example.

The most important part about building tanks is all that engineering stuff, from major to minor, and all the parts. You will essentially need to set up a whole industry for every tank type you want to make. It's far easier to take an existing vehicle and update it.

[Ardavia]

6 dismounts, a 30x180mm autocannon with 246 rounds of ammunition (82 rounds usable, once it's empty the crew need to manually restock the rack), and a three-man crew (gunner, commander, driver)

no tracks yet because I'm lazy, same for other external features



autoloader basically works like this:



the top row is the ready rack, and once it's empty the crew need to restock it from the lower two rows. the bunch of shells that rotate represent one shell moving from the rack to the loading position. Shells come in two natures, and it normally feeds an alternating 1:1 mix of APFSDS and HEI (because modelling something that can switch between two separate feeds was too much effort for me)

[Mozria]

I have drafted a hull design for an MBT, and I am wondering if it appears to be properly proportioned.

Here are some specific dimensions:

Hull Width: 2.5 m
Hull Length: ~7.84 m
Hull Height (Top-Bottom) 1.35 m

Track Width: 600 mm

Overall Width: 3.8 m
Overall Length: ~7.93 m
Overall Height: 1.8 m

Turret Ring Diameter: 2 m
Turret Ring Placement: Center is 4.05 m from rear of hull and ~3.79 m from front of hull, meaning that it is effectively centered. Only a seven percent forward placement.

Distance From Frontal Glacis to Foremost Track Aspect: 9.3 cm to front and 12.3 cm on angular aspect

[Fordorsia]

I have drafted a hull design for an MBT, and I am wondering if it appears to be properly proportioned.

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Here are some specific dimensions:

Hull Width: 2.5 m
Hull Length: ~7.84 m
Hull Height (Top-Bottom) 1.35 m

Track Width: 600 mm

Overall Width: 3.8 m
Overall Length: ~7.93 m
Overall Height: 1.8 m

Turret Ring Diameter: 2 m
Turret Ring Placement: Center is 4.05 m from rear of hull and ~3.79 m from front of hull, meaning that it is effectively centered. Only a seven percent forward placement.

Distance From Frontal Glacis to Foremost Track Aspect: 9.3 cm to front and 12.3 cm on angular aspect

(Image)

Teach me knowledge of track making

[Mozria]

Teach me knowledge of track making

I think you're being sarcastic, but in case you can't tell I didn't make proper tracks. TBH I don't and can't be bothered to because of all of the duplication and alignment that would be necessary as well as the inevitable fact that the links wouldn't meet up perfectly in the end after all of the wrapping.

[Fordorsia]

Teach me knowledge of track making

I think you're being sarcastic, but in case you can't tell I didn't make proper tracks. TBH I don't and can't be bothered to because of all of the duplication and alignment that would be necessary as well as the inevitable fact that the links wouldn't meet up perfectly in the end after all of the wrapping.

I was being real, I assumed you were gonna make complete tracks. RIP dreams.

The whole uneven problem is why I barely ever made new sets of tracks even in flash. Fuck tracks.