NationStates

even then
quad bikes exist

Should the next MGV thread be titled NO HORSES?

Allanea wrote:Should the next MGV thread be titled NO HORSES?

i think it's implied, and if you labeled it No Horses they would just bring up Camels again.


Should be [No Mammals]

Crew : 3
Weight : 58 tonnes, up to 70 with add-on armor.
Length : 7,8m, 10+ with gun.
Width : 4m
Height : 3,2m

Armament :
Main gun : 120mm L/55 Rh gun. Upgradeable to 130mm Rh gun. Use autoloader.
Machine Gun :
-Coaxial 7.62mm MG3.
-RCWS : M2 Browning .50 cal. Or Elsel LIVET w .50 and Mk 47 Striker or HK GMG.
Optional 2nd RCWS : Look at the coaxial. Or the first RCWS

Engine : MTU 890 V-12 diesel
Transmission : HSWL 295 TM
Roadwheels : 7 pair steel-aluminium rubber-tyred roadwheels. Could use Leopard 2 roadwheels, though.
Suspension : Hydropneumatic.
Armor : Composite DU-Rubber-Steel-Ceramic-Titanium-Aluminium, with spaces and perforation plates, ERA and APS(Soft and Hard). Effectiveness unknown, claimed to be able to withstand M289A3 and 3BM46.

As said, slightly enlarged, Abrams based turret with add-on and inserts, while hull would resemble Leopard 2. Sights, Imagers, etc still needed.

What were the reasons for the US Special Forces to go into Iraq on horseback prior to the invasion in '03? If I had to guess I'd say they wanted to leave a low footprint(or hoofprint) and horses are a good deal stealthier than desert patrol vehicles.

Edit: @theodosia: why are you so dead-set on having three different gun options for your tank? Just pick one. It's easier for everyone involved, trust me.

Allanea wrote:Basically once automobiles are generally available and used in industry, horses fail and suck compared to them in every single possible way.

Yet there are still situations in which an automobile cannot go where a horse can.

As to your dino-cavalry?

Laritaia wrote:

Allanea wrote:Should the next MGV thread be titled NO HORSES?

i think it's implied, and if you labeled it No Horses they would just bring up Camels again.


Should be [No Mammals]

So Ostrich cavalry is OK then?

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:What were the reasons for the US Special Forces to go into Iraq on horseback prior to the invasion in '03? If I had to guess I'd say they wanted to leave a low footprint(or hoofprint) and horses are a good deal stealthier than desert patrol vehicles.

Unless you know something I don't, the most high-profile use of special forces cavalry in recent years is not Iraq, but Afghanistan, where parts of the country are not accessible to motor vehicles. here's the most recent article I could find.

Allanea wrote:

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:What were the reasons for the US Special Forces to go into Iraq on horseback prior to the invasion in '03? If I had to guess I'd say they wanted to leave a low footprint(or hoofprint) and horses are a good deal stealthier than desert patrol vehicles.

Unless you know something I don't, the most high-profile use of special forces cavalry in recent years is not Iraq, but Afghanistan, where parts of the country are not accessible to motor vehicles. here's the most recent article I could find.

Ah, yes, you're right, I was misremembering. So the only reason is that no wheeled vehicles could have gotten through that terrain?

So, any thermals and stuff recommended? Also, need APS, both soft and hard kill.

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:What were the reasons for the US Special Forces to go into Iraq on horseback prior to the invasion in '03? If I had to guess I'd say they wanted to leave a low footprint(or hoofprint) and horses are a good deal stealthier than desert patrol vehicles.

Edit: @theodosia: why are you so dead-set on having three different gun options for your tank? Just pick one. It's easier for everyone involved, trust me.

I haven't heard of them using horses in Iraq. They were using a great deal of wheeled vehicles.

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:

Allanea wrote:
Unless you know something I don't, the most high-profile use of special forces cavalry in recent years is not Iraq, but Afghanistan, where parts of the country are not accessible to motor vehicles. here's the most recent article I could find.

Ah, yes, you're right, I was misremembering. So the only reason is that no wheeled vehicles could have gotten through that terrain?

This is the main reason, at least.

It's worth remembering that the horse actually has a greater logistic footprint, relative to its capacity, than any truck in current use.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

HMS Vanguard wrote:If I answer this question without rereading every previous post in detail, I can tell I am going to get lawyered on any tiny inconsistency while the substantive points are left to fall by the wayside. So my substantive answer is, "re-read my posts more carefully". I give the additional non-binding answer, that tanks are now sufficiently unimportant and easy to produce, that they will be produced only by countries with a large enough demand to make this a viable economic proposition, and that many countries will see insufficient use for tanks to justify producing or perhaps even importing them. I certainly haven't claimed Germany (or any major country) can't produce tanks - that's close to the opposite of my position.

I don't lawyer over minor details when your main arguments tell well enough what you are saying.
You have literally just called a cop-out to get out of a discussion you jumped into unprepared.

A statement of mine you quoted in your very first post in this thread:

All the big NATO countries have the option to build in-house but most will take a third option: not replace their tanks.

and from my first post on this thread:

If a new tank design were radically different to the old ones for some reason, it isn't likely going to come from Germany, which operates about the same number of tanks as the UK (232 vs 227), both being too small to justify the costs. Either it would be bought in from the US, or we spin the big wheel with another pan-Euro megaproject. My guess is that the British MoD will ultimately decide to retire tanks without replacement. The Germans will probably buy American, assuming they haven't remilitarised by that time. But I rather suspect both countries are more likely to fight insurgencies on their own territory than conventional land wars with Russia in the next 50 years.

My position has not changed, rather you have not understood it. As I said, lawyering.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add another paragraph asking why you think any new tank will be radically different from the past?

I do not think that! I specifically expressed scepticism that this was possible!

Theodosiya wrote:So, any thermals and stuff recommended? Also, need APS, both soft and hard kill.

Maybe take a look at IBD Deisenroth's AMAP add-armour palette, it offers an APS under the name AMAP-ADS. As you are planning to use Leopard hulls it woulda be suitable to take stuff from a company that developed their wares based upon it.

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Ah, yes, you're right, I was misremembering. So the only reason is that no wheeled vehicles could have gotten through that terrain?

They were fighting alongside local rebels on horseback and no vehicles were available.

Every man a cuirassier

Allanea wrote:

(Image)

Robots and reptiles only.

There's a mammal riding that poor bird.

Really happy with how this is turning out. The gunner controls the turret remotely and the commander has his own spinny camera on the turret and I think that's all I'm going to have for tacticool electronics because mainly I have no interest in them, but is there anything else I could add to it?

Fordorsia wrote:Really happy with how this is turning out. The gunner controls the turret remotely and the commander has his own spinny camera on the turret and I think that's all I'm going to have for tacticool electronics because mainly I have no interest in them, but is there anything else I could add to it?

what about a Mortar placed in one of those rear hatches? good for 'crowd dispersal' or other stuff like that.

Opplandia wrote:

Fordorsia wrote:Really happy with how this is turning out. The gunner controls the turret remotely and the commander has his own spinny camera on the turret and I think that's all I'm going to have for tacticool electronics because mainly I have no interest in them, but is there anything else I could add to it?

what about a Mortar placed in one of those rear hatches? good for 'crowd dispersal' or other stuff like that.

Those rear hatches are where the passengers go

But say you had a mortar instead.

Pretty big mortar

Actually what about a support variant that has a low profile heavy mortar turret on top, with enough room to keep a few seats for passengers?

Fordorsia wrote:

Opplandia wrote:
what about a Mortar placed in one of those rear hatches? good for 'crowd dispersal' or other stuff like that.

Those rear hatches are where the passengers go

you got at least 2 pretty big tophatches in the rear area and 1 smaller. Id say you could very well install a mortar in one of em.

Fordorsia wrote:Pretty big mortar

But what if it weren't.