Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Gallia-]

A tank's chassis will have growth room from two levels of protection, so the higher starting point means it's easier to armour against threats until you hit a wall of mass. Materials science helps alleviate the mass penalties but it can't stop the overloading of a suspension.

At this juncture, there is no real way to armour a tank to be reasonably protected against the COIN distribution of hits while retaining protection against a conventional distribution of hits, using traditional protection methods. Active protection doesn't really work. Tanks still need to be protected against attack passively because this is the most space and mass efficient method of protection. The number of interceptors required to protect a tank against the quantity and sophistication of threats afforded by conventional armour is obviously prohibitive. When starting from nil, it is likely impossible. You may be damaged by surviving fragments of a defeated projectile alone.

It is the same mistake FCS made: Armouring against the bare minimum threat (small arms in the case of Stryker (if that) or heavy machine guns/light cannons for FCS) and expecting interceptors to pick up the slack.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that just because your turret is less well armored you are going to now go and spend all that spare mass on adding more armor on the hull everywhere.

As opposed to what?

A 50t tank with armour concentrated in a crew capsule in the hull will be objectively better protected than a 50t tank with armour concentrated on the turret frontal arc and the hull driver compartment.

[Austrasien]

It is worth considering if the vulnerability is actually significantly different.

If you spray a conventional turret head on with autocannon ammunition, what is the damage most likely to be inflicted? Damage or jamming of the main gun and race ring, destruction of optics and aerials.

If you spray a low profile unmanned pod head on with autocannon ammunition what damage will most likely occur? The very same.

The total vulnerable area head on is probably not significantly different between the two head on. The armoured surfaces of a turret mostly correspond with the non-existent surfaces of a gun pod. The biggest loss of protection is likely from the sides where the vulnerable area of a gunpod is probably significantly higher than the armoured sides of a turret.

[Laritaia]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that just because your turret is less well armored you are going to now go and spend all that spare mass on adding more armor on the hull everywhere.

As opposed to what?

A 50t tank with armour concentrated in a crew capsule in the hull will be objectively better protected than a 50t tank with armour concentrated on the turret frontal arc and the hull driver compartment.

but muh medium weight force

[Purpelia]

As opposed to what?

A 50t tank with armour concentrated in a crew capsule in the hull will be objectively better protected than a 50t tank with armour concentrated on the turret frontal arc and the hull driver compartment.

Which still leaves quite enough room for growth into a 60 ton tank that also has armor on the turret where needed. That's my point really.

[Gallia-]

It is worth considering if the vulnerability is actually significantly different.

If you spray a conventional turret head on with autocannon ammunition, what is the damage most likely to be inflicted? Damage or jamming of the main gun and race ring, destruction of optics and aerials.

If you spray a low profile unmanned pod head on with autocannon ammunition what damage will most likely occur? The very same.

The total vulnerable area head on is probably not significantly different between the two head on. The armoured surfaces of a turret mostly correspond with the non-existent surfaces of a gun pod. The biggest loss of protection is likely from the sides where the vulnerable area of a gunpod is probably significantly higher than the armoured sides of a turret.

Isn't the side on protection relevant for a COIN hit distribution? Although I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually is, I just remember the "tentative hit distribution thing" putting equivalent Ph on all aspects of the tank or w/e. The US Army seems worried enough about it that it dislikes the MGS's gunpod.

[Purpelia]

Isn't the side on protection relevant for a COIN hit distribution?

Isn't COIN usually done by the client state puppet governments you sold your last generation tanks to so you could replace them with the new fancy unmanned gun pod tanks anyway?

[Austrasien]

Isn't the side on protection relevant for a COIN hit distribution? Although I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually is, I just remember the "tentative hit distribution thing" putting equivalent Ph on all aspects of the tank or w/e. The US Army seems worried enough about it that it dislikes the MGS's gunpod.

This is probably true of smaller shaped charge weapons and EFPs that are used to ambush passing vehicles at close range. But autocannons are typically mounted on vehicles which cannot choose their angle of engagement so easily and are typically used at much longer range. And as range increases the obliquity of attacks should generally tend to decrease.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Isn't the side on protection relevant for a COIN hit distribution? Although I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually is, I just remember the "tentative hit distribution thing" putting equivalent Ph on all aspects of the tank or w/e. The US Army seems worried enough about it that it dislikes the MGS's gunpod.

This is probably true of smaller shaped charge weapons and EFPs that are used to ambush passing vehicles at close range. But autocannons are typically mounted on vehicles which cannot choose their angle of engagement so easily and are typically used at much longer range. And as range increases the obliquity of attacks should generally tend to decrease.

Part of the issue with MGS gunpod in US service is that when firing off centreline, or simply slewing or approaching off angle, the turret becomes significantly larger in area as a target. This is of course self evident, but the lack of side protection for vital instruments does tend to make the US Army weary of it.

This is largely mitigated by the way the MGS is used, and has been shown in practice to either be worse, or not as bad, as expected depending on who is interpreting the data. The result seems to be, from the US at least, fine for it's use on the MGS, not fine for tanks.

Canada, when looking at the MGS to replace the Leopards, did not see this as an issue as engagements were to be frontal anyways, since it was a "tank". Tactical maneuvering would have essentially been identical to how the Cougars were used in training. Which is fine and all, except tanks are better at it.

[Gallia-]

Isn't the side on protection relevant for a COIN hit distribution? Although I'm not sure anyone knows what that actually is, I just remember the "tentative hit distribution thing" putting equivalent Ph on all aspects of the tank or w/e. The US Army seems worried enough about it that it dislikes the MGS's gunpod.

This is probably true of smaller shaped charge weapons and EFPs that are used to ambush passing vehicles at close range. But autocannons are typically mounted on vehicles which cannot choose their angle of engagement so easily and are typically used at much longer range. And as range increases the obliquity of attacks should generally tend to decrease.

This is true.

I suppose I was speaking more in terms of real life, since unless the PLA invades Siberia, the T-14 will be used in the future Chechnyas and Fallujahs more than likely [as with MGS]. I'm not sure how well protected T-14 is (nor do I think anyone outside the Russian MoD?), but I doubt it's very resilient just looking at the thing. It seems to be protected against rocks and mud but not bullets or hollow charges.

This is fine if you intend to fight WWIII but not so much if you want to fight another Chechnya I guess.

This is probably true of smaller shaped charge weapons and EFPs that are used to ambush passing vehicles at close range. But autocannons are typically mounted on vehicles which cannot choose their angle of engagement so easily and are typically used at much longer range. And as range increases the obliquity of attacks should generally tend to decrease.

Part of the issue with MGS gunpod in US service is that when firing off centreline, or simply slewing or approaching off angle, the turret becomes significantly larger in area as a target. This is of course self evident, but the lack of side protection for vital instruments does tend to make the US Army weary of it.

This is largely mitigated by the way the MGS is used, and has been shown in practice to either be worse, or not as bad, as expected depending on who is interpreting the data. The result seems to be, from the US at least, fine for it's use on the MGS, not fine for tanks.

Canada, when looking at the MGS to replace the Leopards, did not see this as an issue as engagements were to be frontal anyways, since it was a "tank". Tactical maneuvering would have essentially been identical to how the Cougars were used in training. Which is fine and all, except tanks are better at it.

Stug life lives.

[Purpelia]

This is true.

I suppose I was speaking more in terms of real life, since unless the PLA invades Siberia, the T-14 will be used in the future Chechnyas and Fallujahs more than likely [as with MGS]. I'm not sure how well protected T-14 is (nor do I think anyone outside the Russian MoD?), but I doubt it's very resilient just looking at the thing. It seems to be protected against rocks and mud but not bullets or hollow charges.

I would expect that the Russians would be using their old tanks and stuff like the BMPT for those situations more than anything.

Either way to be perfectly honest the current situation reminds me a lot of the 1920s and 30s. Back when it was seriously reasonable to have a "battle tank" and a "colonial tank". In a world with larger budgets would such a thing be reasonable today? It might be. Food for thought.

[Gallia-]

This is true.

I suppose I was speaking more in terms of real life, since unless the PLA invades Siberia, the T-14 will be used in the future Chechnyas and Fallujahs more than likely [as with MGS]. I'm not sure how well protected T-14 is (nor do I think anyone outside the Russian MoD?), but I doubt it's very resilient just looking at the thing. It seems to be protected against rocks and mud but not bullets or hollow charges.

I would expect that the Russians would be using their old tanks and stuff like the BMPT for those situations more than anything.

That's great but that's not going to help the T-14 when he's being shot at by an RPG in an ambush.

Which is the point. It seems that gunpods were super-optimal when we were going to fight WW2 again, but who_knows what the future looks like now. More Fallujahs and Hues and less Pusans or Aachens probably.

[Purpelia]

That's great but that's not going to help the T-14 when he's being shot at by an RPG in an ambush.

Which is the point. It seems that gunpods were super-optimal when we were going to fight WW2 again, but who_knows what the future looks like now. More Fallujahs and Hues and less Pusans or Aachens probably.

Maybe and maybe not. I mean, realistically we can't even know when the next big one is going to be. And for small ones it really is not a matter of equipment as much as of will. You could defeat ISIS with WW2 technology if you were willing to do what it takes (read, bomb them to the stone age) and yet the strongest army on earth could not defeat a much weaker insurgency in afganistan for decades due to a lack of will.

[Gallia-]

The British [Raj] beat the Afghans just fine.

[Fordorsia]

is this good

[Chinevion]

SO far so gud?
Weight: 30,3 tonnes
Dimensions: 6.5 m x 3. m x 2.50 m
Armour: Hull 30/25/10mm Turret 25/25/25mm + ERA
Engine: multifuel 850 hp, top speed 85 km/h+
Armermant: CAW-L33-90mm rifled autoloader, CAW-hmg-113 30.cal coaxile, CAW-HMG-117 15.7mm remote turret.

[Fordorsia]

(Image)
SO far so gud?
Weight: 30,3 tonnes
Dimensions: 6.5 m x 3. m x 2.50 m
Armour: Hull 30/25/10mm Turret 25/25/25mm + ERA
Engine: multifuel 850 hp, top speed 85 km/h+
Armermant: CAW-L33-90mm rifled autoloader, CAW-hmg-113 30.cal coaxile, CAW-HMG-117 15.7mm remote turret.

Put the road wheels lower so that the tank has ground clearance.

[Chinevion]

(Image)
SO far so gud?
Weight: 30,3 tonnes
Dimensions: 6.5 m x 3. m x 2.50 m
Armour: Hull 30/25/10mm Turret 25/25/25mm + ERA
Engine: multifuel 850 hp, top speed 85 km/h+
Armermant: CAW-L33-90mm rifled autoloader, CAW-hmg-113 30.cal coaxile, CAW-HMG-117 15.7mm remote turret.

Put the road wheels lower so that the tank has ground clearance.

ok, How is the rest of the tank looking

[Chinevion]

is this good

(Image)

question. Where does the machine gunner for the turrets on top of the rear turrets sit? on the shoulder of the gunner?

[Fordorsia]

is this good

(Image)

question. Where does the machine gunner for the turrets on top of the rear turrets sit? on the shoulder of the gunner?

Same person. Just stand up to use the MG

[Chinevion]

question. Where does the machine gunner for the turrets on top of the rear turrets sit? on the shoulder of the gunner?

Same person. Just stand up to use the MG

that seems, inefficinet, why not have mg in same compartment?

[Fordorsia]

Same person. Just stand up to use the MG

that seems, inefficinet, why not have mg in same compartment?

>Landship
>Efficiency

No room for them to be coaxial

[Chinevion]

that seems, inefficinet, why not have mg in same compartment?

>Landship
>Efficiency

No room for them to be coaxial

>At gun one shoting it through the sides, detonating ammo killing the massive crew

[Fordorsia]

>Landship
>Efficiency

No room for them to be coaxial

>At gun one shoting it through the sides, detonating ammo killing the massive crew

Vast majority of AT guns in the late 30s won't penetrate any part of the tank (minimum 60mm thick except the roof and floor) beyond 100m, and won't penetrate the front plate, front of the turrets, or the sides of the barbette (75mm thick) at any range.

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

>At gun one shoting it through the sides, detonating ammo killing the massive crew

Vast majority of AT guns in the late 30s won't penetrate any part of the tank (minimum 60mm thick except the roof and floor) beyond 100m, and won't penetrate the front plate, front of the turrets, or the sides of the barbette (75mm thick) at any range.

And? The Matildas were invulnerable to almost everything except 88s and 105mm field guns, yet their combat service was decidedly less than stellar.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

is this good

(Image)

Congratulations you made a shittier O-I.