Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Laritaia]

because the world isn't ready for 2,000mm of RHAe penetration

Ripperoni in Pepperoni

the real problem is that cutting edge modern tanks just aren't very interesting

i did one awhile ago and i got accused of not using enough dimondillium matrix carbon nano tubes

[Dostanuot Loj]

Ripperoni in Pepperoni

the real problem is that cutting edge modern tanks just aren't very interesting

i did one awhile ago and i got accused of not using enough dimondillium matrix carbon nano tubes

It's true. Early cold war is where it's at.

[Chinevion]

(Image)
Did a test coloring began tracks and added a telescopic camera for over the horizon or over a hill (hull down) shooting

Any chance you could give the hull and turret a different color scheme? Maybe in camo or the sort? All black looks kinda lame tbh.

Its a test coloring ATM to get a idea of what it will look like.

Why am I getting the idea that it looks like it could tip over from the size of the barrel?

because the world isn't ready for 2,000mm of RHAe penetration

The Russians are trying to, but they only claim one measly meter of armor.
Side note any reason to use torsion bars over hydropunamic

[Laritaia]

the real problem is that cutting edge modern tanks just aren't very interesting

i did one awhile ago and i got accused of not using enough dimondillium matrix carbon nano tubes

It's true. Early cold war is where it's at.

Active IR master race

[Ardavia]

did someone say

active IR

[Gallia-]

Spergs is it possible that, assuming the magnetically guided ATGM threat is taken~ super serious~ in the late '40s, some people might experiment with degaussing tanks to reduce their magnetic signature? Would degaussing have an appreciable effect on a tank's magnetic signature, but that's a bit irrelevant since all I really need to know is would some dudes as sperglord as the USSR consider degaussing tanks in the first place?

Deep lore reasons.

[Laritaia]

Spergs is it possible that, assuming the magnetically guided ATGM threat is taken~ super serious~ in the late '40s, some people might experiment with degaussing tanks to reduce their magnetic signature? Would degaussing have an appreciable effect on a tank's magnetic signature, but that's a bit irrelevant since all I really need to know is would some dudes as sperglord as the USSR consider degaussing tanks in the first place?

Deep lore reasons.

i dunno about the 40s but the export version of the Challenger 2 had degaussing coils, though i think that was more to protect it against magnetic anti tank mines

[Chinevion]

(Image)

did someone say

active IR

Words cant describe, i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

Anyway, Is it overkill to have a 12.7 hmg mounted in the same mount as the 40X50 agl, sometimes, colateral is a concern when firing airburst granades. I'm thinking of haveing a 12.7 next to the agl. But I also am pretty sure that's a stupid idea, and if I'm concerned about it i should just go with a 15.7 and play it safe. What are your thoughts.

[Fordorsia]

i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

wut

[Chinevion]

i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

wut

Look at warthunder vehicle models

[Fordorsia]

wut

Look at warthunder vehicle models

k

[Ardavia]

(Image)

did someone say

active IR

Words cant describe, i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

thanks for the compliment i guess

but tbh no, i'm not even close to that level really

[Fordorsia]

Words cant describe, i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

thanks for the compliment i guess

but tbh no, i'm not even close to that level really

I'm on that level tho

[Gallia-]

Spergs is it possible that, assuming the magnetically guided ATGM threat is taken~ super serious~ in the late '40s, some people might experiment with degaussing tanks to reduce their magnetic signature? Would degaussing have an appreciable effect on a tank's magnetic signature, but that's a bit irrelevant since all I really need to know is would some dudes as sperglord as the USSR consider degaussing tanks in the first place?

Deep lore reasons.

i dunno about the 40s but the export version of the Challenger 2 had degaussing coils, though i think that was more to protect it against magnetic anti tank mines

Magnetic guided ATGW were looked at in the '40s and Simpkin mentions they were abandoned quickly for obvious reasons. I'm not sure how relevant it would be against the magnetically triggered mine threat. since you'd be literally on top of the things. I was just wondering how ridiculous it would be to have an at least experimental depot-level degaussing set mounted on 5-ton trucks or something in the early 50s, or even up to late 60s until Galla fields an electromagnetic mine-plow like EMT-7, where degaussing is "officially" discontinued unless there are other reasons to retain it.

Deep lore/conspiracy theories/David Icke says it's so bird brained Gallans descended from various reptiles like Pigeon, with their natural geomagnetic sense of direction, wouldn't be confused by tank's natural magnetic signature, so the degaussing truck is used to "cleanse" the magnetic field so it doesn't interfere with the natural compass. Or something like that.

Jury is still out on whether it actually causes them consternation or if they can mitigate it by looking at a map and using an artificial compass. Thus, the map/compass is the Dramamine of Pigeon Army.

Besides that I'm also genuinely curious if degaussing would have any effect on magnetically triggered AT mines.

[Chinevion]

Words cant describe, i think you might be better then the warthunder molders.

thanks for the compliment i guess

but tbh no, i'm not even close to that level really

I think your close, anyway. Keep up the good work.

[Rhodesialund]

I'm on that level tho

[Fordorsia]

Don't be jelly

[Chinevion]

just started the writeup for it, Any criticisms?

Write up:
Overveiw:
The G.I.F’s first domestically produced tank, the G1-Raksha was designed in conjunction by CAW and Dala. Work was started on the design of what would become the Raksha in 2034, after the senate approved a 600 million IFY budget for the design and production of a prototype and subsequently a production of a new mbt to replace the aging Leo 2a7E’s imported from the German federation. The requirements for the new tank were as follows: a 152mm smoothbore main gun, a weight under 68 tones and hard kill protection systems.
Survivability:
A new composite armor was developed for the Raksha by Dala in the Nakai armor labs. Nakai armor was tested against a 120m L44 firing M829A2 from three ranges, 1,000m, 500m and 10m. The Nakai armor survived the M829A2 from 1,000m and 500m, however the M829A2 successfully penetrated at 10m. When tested against a Kornet gen 2 anti tank missile, (The Kornet gen 2 anti tank missile was at the time, one of if not the most feared anti tank missiles in the world.) the Nakai armor was penetrated successfully. To combat tandem warheads, an additional 400 million IFY to develop a more effective DERA system to be integrated into the tank. The system developed by Dala, can track and destroy up to 4 targets simultaneously.for additional protection, ERA can be added to the hull to improve survivability, however no additional ERA can be added to the turret as it would block the DERA system. The base of the hull is constructed out of depleted uranium composite. All this allows the Effective frontal armor to be comparable to 982 mm RHA with era, 787.4mm RHA without ERA.
Engine:
The Raksha 1 use a powerful DCG MB 320 SC-501 Liquid cooled v12 twin turbo diesel engine. The engine operates at 2,000 psi and produces 1,979 horsepower and 1,603kW at 3,100 RPM. Located in the rear of the tank, the massive engine allows the Raksha to move at speeds of up to 75km/h. The Raksha has a fuel capacity of 1,300 litres and an operational range of 530 km.
Main Gun:
The Raksha uses the CAW produced C835 Mark 2 152mm smoothbore cannon. The massive cannon uses a innovative autoloading system that allows for shell types to be changed after every shot and fired at an impressive 9.52 rounds per minute. The C835 has access to a wide range of shells, however, four shells are most often used. The shells are as follows: 1. C812 Ajagar: The C812 Ajagar MPAT. The C812 MPAT shell is the base for many different warheads including the W31 LAHAT tandem warhead; the shell uses laser guidance and 8 fins that allow the C812-W31 shell to make precision strikes on vehicles that a APFSDS is likely to over penetrate but is protected by ERA (APCs, IFV,),W7 CAIM; the W7 CAIM or Cluster Anti Infantry shell is a devastating anti personnel shell uses the airburst designator system incorporated into to Raksha to detonate at a set position behind cover and deploys cluster munitions to decimate large groups of enemy infantry. 2. W12E4 APFSDS shell. The W12E4 APFSDS is a high velocity shell that uses a 2 cm wide 80 cm long depleted uranium long rod penetrator. The muzzle velocity of the W12EF is so high, around 2,100m/s, that a warning is given to infantry to stay away from a 54 degree cone from the gun as the shockwave produced is capable of killing or permanently damaging soldiers even with ear protection. The shell is capable of penetrating 1.2 meters of armor. A benefit for using depleted uranium shells is depleted uranium is pyrophoric. This means upon penetrating an enemy AFV, the fragments that split off the LRP burst into flames, turning the interior of the target into a flurry of death as flaming shrapnel ricochets around shredding crew and possible igniting shell or fuel. The large gun has one downside however. The turret larger than most other tanks, and a large portion of the turret is taken up by shells stored in blowout compartments in the rear of the turret. This is a drawback because to move shells up from the rear of the turret, a blast door has to be opened and new shells slid forward.
Secondary weaponry:
In addition to the monsterous C835 Mark 2, the Raksha utilizes the decimating AGl-32 Lau Dhaara RWS system. The LD (as operators have shortened it) Fires a 40x50mm airburst grenade to great effect against infantry and very lightly armored vehicles. With a fire rate of 253 rounds per minute and a effective range of out to 2,234m and a maximum range of 3,834m against infantry and 1,234 m against helicopters and light armored vehicles. the LD RWS uses a belt feed system and a computerized view/range finder to provide pinpoint accuracy and detonate rounds with precision.

[Austrasien]

1. Tone down the superlatives. Devastating, decimating, massive etc. Compared to many NS write ups yours isn't that bad. But it doesn't help the quality of the writeup at all.

2. There is no need for a "warning" when APFSDS is being fired. Muzzle velocity does not correspond with the intensity of the muzzle blast. There is nothing exceptional about a 152mm that would require a special safety procedure. The basic principle of staying away from the muzzle of a cannon applies to all large caliber weapons. With no muzzle brake the danger zone for a 152mm tank gun would actually be smaller than a common 6 inch howitzer.

3. IMO LAHAT is a name of a specific projectile, it should not be used as a genericism. Though there is nothing wrong with having this kind of projectile its proposed usage against IFVs and APCs doesn't make much sense. It costs about ten times as much as an APFSDS, which is already the most expensive conventional round. A 152mm HE shell, which you lack, would be the best choice for engaging lighter vehicles.

4. You can be forgiven for not knowing this because it is a very widespread misconception but DUs incendiary effects are extremely mild, even unnoticeable. There are a number of well documented instances of friendly fire from the first Gulf War where DU penetrators penetrated US vehicles. Though many of the penetrations started secondary fires these were always traceable to damage to the fuel/ammunition/electrical systems. The purported pyrophoric firestorms never occurred and in many instances crewmen survived a penetrator passing through their compartment - casualties were caused by direct hits, hits from fragments produced by the penetrator and the secondary fires.

5. There is a documented instance of a Kornet failing to penetrate an Israeli-modernized M60 operated by the Turkish army. It would be odd if your tank, which is heavier and newer, would be unable to stop something like this. Shaped charges as a rule are easier to protect against than APFSDS.

6. A 2cm wide, 80cm long APFSDS would have a length/diameter ratio close to 40. This is too much. Length should not exceed 30 times the diameter. Beyond this the rod becomes too fragile and tends to bend in flight and breakup when penetrating realistic armour.

7. RWS ranges are arbitrary and over-specific. The normal effective range against a point target for an MG or AGL is 1.5km.

8. Modern tank armour it should be stressed is not structural either. It is not a part of the body and does not support loads. It is something attached to the tanks structure, which is steel (or possibly aluminum or titanium if you feel very, very silly). The base of the hull will be constructed from steel. Depleted Uranium is known to be used in the Abrams armour but there is no reliable information on how it is used or in what form.

9. Again it is not surprising you do not know this but RHA equivalent numbers should be avoided. The best way to specify protection is in terms of what it can stop, like: "120mm APFSDS @ 500 meters" or whatever is applicable to your tank. The numbers you used are also much too precise. The reason is that modern tanks protection has nothing to do with RHA and the depth a round can penetrate into RHA does not translate directly into what tanks it can penetrate. If modern tank armour was like steel, but better, the optimal penetrator would be a shaped charge. But modern tank armour is far more resistant to shaped charges than APFSDS despite the fact the most powerful shaped charges can penetrate nearly twice as much steel (and other monolithic armour) as the best APFSDS.

[Laritaia]

tbf RHA equivalent can be kinda useful(if somewhat abstract) metric so long as you list what this value is against

for example

500mm RHAe vs KE and 1000mm RHAe vs CE

[Chinevion]

1. Tone down the superlatives. Devastating, decimating, massive etc. Compared to many NS write ups yours isn't that bad. But it doesn't help the quality of the writeup at all.

2. There is no need for a "warning" when APFSDS is being fired. Muzzle velocity does not correspond with the intensity of the muzzle blast. There is nothing exceptional about a 152mm that would require a special safety procedure. The basic principle of staying away from the muzzle of a cannon applies to all large caliber weapons. With no muzzle brake the danger zone for a 152mm tank gun would actually be smaller than a common 6 inch howitzer.

3. IMO LAHAT is a name of a specific projectile, it should not be used as a genericism. Though there is nothing wrong with having this kind of projectile its proposed usage against IFVs and APCs doesn't make much sense. It costs about ten times as much as an APFSDS, which is already the most expensive conventional round. A 152mm HE shell, which you lack, would be the best choice for engaging lighter vehicles.

4. You can be forgiven for not knowing this because it is a very widespread misconception but DUs incendiary effects are extremely mild, even unnoticeable. There are a number of well documented instances of friendly fire from the first Gulf War where DU penetrators penetrated US vehicles. Though many of the penetrations started secondary fires these were always traceable to damage to the fuel/ammunition/electrical systems. The purported pyrophoric firestorms never occurred and in many instances crewmen survived a penetrator passing through their compartment - casualties were caused by direct hits, hits from fragments produced by the penetrator and the secondary fires.

5. There is a documented instance of a Kornet failing to penetrate an Israeli-modernized M60 operated by the Turkish army. It would be odd if your tank, which is heavier and newer, would be unable to stop something like this. Shaped charges as a rule are easier to protect against than APFSDS.

6. A 2cm wide, 80cm long APFSDS would have a length/diameter ratio close to 40. This is too much. Length should not exceed 30 times the diameter. Beyond this the rod becomes too fragile and tends to bend in flight and breakup when penetrating realistic armour.

7. RWS ranges are arbitrary and over-specific. The normal effective range against a point target for an MG or AGL is 1.5km.

8. Modern tank armour it should be stressed is not structural either. It is not a part of the body and does not support loads. It is something attached to the tanks structure, which is steel (or possibly aluminum or titanium if you feel very, very silly). The base of the hull will be constructed from steel. Depleted Uranium is known to be used in the Abrams armour but there is no reliable information on how it is used or in what form.

9. Again it is not surprising you do not know this but RHA equivalent numbers should be avoided. The best way to specify protection is in terms of what it can stop, like: "120mm APFSDS @ 500 meters" or whatever is applicable to your tank. The numbers you used are also much too precise. The reason is that modern tanks protection has nothing to do with RHA and the depth a round can penetrate into RHA does not translate directly into what tanks it can penetrate. If modern tank armour was like steel, but better, the optimal penetrator would be a shaped charge. But modern tank armour is far more resistant to shaped charges than APFSDS despite the fact the most powerful shaped charges can penetrate nearly twice as much steel (and other monolithic armour) as the best APFSDS.

1. Yeah, i was writing that write up during lunch and Am defiantly going to re write it.
2. I did not mean they are warned first, they are trained not to. And besides, I red something on wiki about the shockwave produced by the round.
3. I was going to add a he shell for the multipurpose body next, I can only work on this stuff in between classes or once i get my studying done
4. Ok understood
5. I believe I mentioned it as a kornet 2 a fictional atgm from the time period, I was trying to balance the tank by having the test that deleted the armor included.
6. Got it understood, should I go for a shorter LRP anyway for a higher volocity?
7. I took the xm-307 stats and upgraded them slightly, will droop them.
8. I know that, I was under the assumption that the Abrams hull was a depleted uranium composit, ill ad clarification that the hull is steel with crew compartments reinforced with DUC.
9. I have seen the RHAe comparison made commonly, will rework.

Thanks for all of your help.

tbf RHA equivalent can be kinda useful(if somewhat abstract) metric so long as you list what this value is against

for example

500mm RHAe vs KE and 1000mm RHAe vs CE

Ke is kinetic energy, what's CE?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Chemical energy, i.e. explosives

[Chinevion]

Ok fixed it all.

[The Akasha Colony]

8. I know that, I was under the assumption that the Abrams hull was a depleted uranium composit, ill ad clarification that the hull is steel with crew compartments reinforced with DUC.

The hull is not "reinforced" with anything. The hull is the load-bearing structure on which everything else, from the gun to the suspension to the armor, is attached. It carries their weight. The armor does not support this load-carrying ability and this is intentional in order to allow damaged armor modules to be rapidly removed and replaced. So the fighting compartment would not be "reinforced with DUC."

"Depleted uranium composite" is a bit of a misnomer and isn't particularly useful since it isn't actually known how DU is incorporated in tank armor.

[Taihei Tengoku]

It's a hetzerized "Chi-Ha" with a Pak 43

Type 2611 Tank Destroyer Ha-I
Weight: 21,050kg
Length: 5.50m
Width: 2.35m
Height: 2.20m
Crew: 3 (Driver-gunner, loader, commander)

Main gun: 8cm Type 2590 (32 rounds)
Secondary armament: 6.5mm Type 88 machine gun (Vickers VGO), 2000 rounds
Armor: maximum 6cm front, 2.5cm sides

Engine: Daihatsu VD12A 22-liter V12 air-cooled diesel, 240hp
Transmission: Daihatsu 5+2(+1) double differential transmission
Suspension: Bell crank
Range: 210km
Top speed: 33km/h

The Type 2611 Ha-I is a modification of the Type 2597 Chi-Ro medium tank into an assault gun armed with the Gallan Bofors m/29 80mm anti-aircraft gun. The Type 97 and 97 Kai were both reliable tanks and easily matched the primitive armored vehicles (or lack thereof) in the Pearl Sea. However, the late 1940s saw the beginnings of decolonization and the widespread reduction in size of Alisnan armies, who sold their military surplus at bargain rates to their ex-colonies. The Questarians in particular sold off their massive stocks of the A51 Hayes to Taihei rivals in Ruccola and Guurdalai. With a powerful radial engine, up to 10cm of frontal armor and a 75mm or high-velocity 76mm rifle, they were wholly superior to the Chi-Ro's meager 3cm frontal armor and 47mm gun. Work on what would later become the Type 56 proceeded at speed but projections yielded a far more expensive armored vehicle than any made by Taihei Tengoku. The Chi-Ro would need to pose a credible challenge to Alisnan export models in the interim.

The Chi-Ro was innovative for its time (1937)--it introduced air-cooled engines and the double-differential transmission. It was the first tank in the world to use a yoke rather than tiller bars and the first tank capable of the pivot steer. Engineers mated the smooth and precise steering of the Type 97 with the Bofors anti-aircraft gun, which Alisnan experience showed to be just as capable against tanks as against planes. The turret and bow machine gun of the Type 97 were replaced with a large casemate for the Type 90 cannon mounted on the port side of the hull. The gun had elevation controls for +15/-7 degrees elevation but no horizontal deflection. The new tank destroyer, the Ha-I, would aim by turning its hull to face the enemy.

The lack of a traverse gear allowed the gun to be securely fixed to the hull and allowed the driver and gunner to combine into one position. The removal of the fourth crewmember and the fixed recoil path of the gun freed up space for the loader to work in the rear of the combat compartment, which gave the compact Ha-I a surprisingly high rate of fire of around nine rounds per minute. The commander stood between the driver and the loader, and could operate the roof-mounted 6.5mm machine gun from within the hull using pantographs and a Bowden cable.

Armor protection on the Ha-I was rationalized with the replacement of the upper hull with a simpler, welded superstructure. Maximum armor thickness is 6cm of rolled steel on the upper front plate, thinning out to 2.5cm on the sides. The conversion to the Ha-I uprated the suspension bogeys to handle the extra weight of the gun and armor, and replaced the 170hp diesel engine with a newer 240hp diesel.