Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Laritaia]

It's more like a T-80U with a T-72 powerpack and suspension.

it doesn't have the T-80s auto loader

[Austrasien]

Well the intention of the 105mm Gun Carrier wasn't AT as much as something to blow stuff up and lob HE shells downrange to help Airborne overcome lightly fortified positions like MG nests or to break into a defended airfield, and then give it some HEAT-FS or APFSDS rounds incase some tanks rocked up. Although giving an ATGM carrier some thermobaric missiles would have a similar effect.

Replace the passengers with more ammo.

105mm guns generally cannot take out a tank from the the front so their worth as an AT weapon is fairly limited. For everything else they don't provide any value added over a smaller, lighter, lower velocity gun. Like this one.

[Imperializt Russia]

Mechanised troops would dismount from an IFV 500m from an objective or enemy position. Trucks, probably much more.

[European Social States]

Ok what about just giving it say a 105mm howitzer?

[Imperializt Russia]

Ok what about just giving it say a 105mm howitzer?

Not necessarily howitzer, but a low-velocity or medium-velocity 105mm gun would be relatively compact and lightweight, and so would its ammunition. The lower velocity will be no issue in engaging infantry or fixed positions or stationary light vehicles.
This vehicle should have fitted; or carry for the use of dismounted infantry; ATGM launchers to deal with heavy armour.

[Austrasien]

A howitzer is OK but then you need to fiddle with multiple charge increments. The full charge for a 105mm shell is actually larger than what you need, which is not horrible, but it's taking up space and contributing needlessly to barrel wear.

The BMP-3's cannon just happens to be the only direct fire HE lobbing gun around these days. There is no reason you could not make a NATOfied equivalent based on 105mm ammunition though.

[Imperializt Russia]

90mm Cockerills?

[European Social States]

Ok what about just giving it say a 105mm howitzer?

Not necessarily howitzer, but a low-velocity or medium-velocity 105mm gun would be relatively compact and lightweight, and so would its ammunition. The lower velocity will be no issue in engaging infantry or fixed positions or stationary light vehicles.
This vehicle should have fitted; or carry for the use of dismounted infantry; ATGM launchers to deal with heavy armour.

Ok so a medium-velocity gun and maybe I'll give it a barrel launcher ATGM like the Bastion or would it be better to some racks on the back so it can carry some Heavier ATGMs

[Padnak]

Mechanised troops would dismount from an IFV 500m from an objective or enemy position. Trucks, probably much more.

Very best, I kinda assumed something around that distance

[Imperializt Russia]

Not necessarily howitzer, but a low-velocity or medium-velocity 105mm gun would be relatively compact and lightweight, and so would its ammunition. The lower velocity will be no issue in engaging infantry or fixed positions or stationary light vehicles.
This vehicle should have fitted; or carry for the use of dismounted infantry; ATGM launchers to deal with heavy armour.

Ok so a medium-velocity gun and maybe I'll give it a barrel launcher ATGM like the Bastion or would it be better to some racks on the back so it can carry some Heavier ATGMs

The inherent problem with gun-launchers is that it limits the size of the warhead. Bastion is greatly limited because it has to fit in a 100mm gun barrel; the 125mm GLATGMs are limited by not only having to fit in a 125mm gun, but also having to fit in a 125mm gun's two-part autoloader system.

Obviously, external launchers have no such restrictions.

[Austrasien]

90mm Cockerills?

It's HE shell is rather wimpy. But it works in a pinch.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ok so a medium-velocity gun and maybe I'll give it a barrel launcher ATGM like the Bastion or would it be better to some racks on the back so it can carry some Heavier ATGMs

Give it a box launcher or something.

Or because it's supposed to presumably be fairly light, you might even just make due storing something like Javelin inside for infantry to use dismounted.

inb4 yet another debate about where Javelin should go in a unit's organization.

[Padnak]

Ok so a medium-velocity gun and maybe I'll give it a barrel launcher ATGM like the Bastion or would it be better to some racks on the back so it can carry some Heavier ATGMs

Give it a box launcher or something.

Or because it's supposed to presumably be fairly light, you might even just make due storing something like Javelin inside for infantry to use dismounted.

inb4 yet another debate about where Javelin should go in a unit's organization.

Could you hypothetically mount the javelin in such a way that it could be firing from inside the vehicle/ or removed and made man portable?

[Rhodesialund]

Whenever someone considers a Leopard 2 to be the best tank of all, or even comparable to the Abrams or other contemporaries.

[Sediczja]

hot meme XDDD

[The Akasha Colony]

Give it a box launcher or something.

Or because it's supposed to presumably be fairly light, you might even just make due storing something like Javelin inside for infantry to use dismounted.

inb4 yet another debate about where Javelin should go in a unit's organization.

Could you hypothetically mount the javelin in such a way that it could be firing from inside the vehicle/ or removed and made man portable?

There have been proposals for vehicle-mounted Javelin launchers, but these are usually fixed to the vehicle because they substitute the infantry-portable CLU with the vehicle's existing optics or something and just attach the launch cylinder to an RWS or other rotating mount. They're not designed to be taken off the RWS and carried around by the infantry, which would be a rather complicated process anyway.

But you could theoretically just stash an infantry CLU inside and have both the infantry and vehicle-mounted launchers use the same pool of missiles.

[Padnak]

But you could theoretically just stash an infantry CLU inside and have both the infantry and vehicle-mounted launchers use the same pool of missiles.

That's what I was thinking

Is the javelin really as god tier as people say it is? Not trying to start a moshpit just curious

[Purpelia]

inb4 yet another debate about where Javelin should go in a unit's organization.

For the record I have no complaints about having a Javelin mounted on the vehicle and being dismountable if needed (or sharing ammo as others said). I just don't think that there should necessarily be a pair of guys in each squad specifically dedicated to it on a permanent basis.

[Gallia-]

But you could theoretically just stash an infantry CLU inside and have both the infantry and vehicle-mounted launchers use the same pool of missiles.

That's what I was thinking

Is the javelin really as god tier as people say it is? Not trying to start a moshpit just curious

Yeah it owns.

[Austrasien]

That's what I was thinking

Is the javelin really as god tier as people say it is? Not trying to start a moshpit just curious

It does everything it is advertised to do. No tank can resist it without some kind of APS. It makes infantry shit bricks because it can lock onto a man many kilometers away and there is no escape once it is on its way.

The only real downsides are the high cost of each missile, the lack of a lock-on-after-launch option, the relatively long acquisition time and comparatively short life of the non-reusable thermal battery. Operators need to be relatively skilled to get the most out of it and not waste missiles by activating them when there is no good opportunity to lock onto a target before the battery dies.

[Korva]

Whenever someone considers a Leopard 2 to be the best tank of all, or even comparable to the Abrams or other contemporaries.


(Image)

yeah gimme an ariete or t-72 anyday

gaypard 2 lmao

[Austrasien]

Let the one king rule

[Rhodesialund]

(Image)

Let the one king rule

Filthy Abrams and Challenger 1s BTFO

[Ardavia]

(Image)

Let the one king rule

Filthy Abrams and Challenger 1s BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-j7Vjfgo5c

[The Akasha Colony]

But you could theoretically just stash an infantry CLU inside and have both the infantry and vehicle-mounted launchers use the same pool of missiles.

That's what I was thinking

Is the javelin really as god tier as people say it is? Not trying to start a moshpit just curious

It's the only infantry-portable missile in its class that can do everything that it does.

That sounds a bit like a tautology but it's rather significant, as no other missile currently in service gives the same range, fire-and-forget capability, and lethality as Javelin in the same weight class. Other missiles in the same general weight class like Metis-M and MILAN use SACLOS guidance requiring the operator to guide the missile to its target, while missiles with similar capabilities like Spike-LR are significantly heavier and bulkier. The Japanese LMAT comes close but has a shorter range (although it is lighter). Granted, these are all much older than Javelin (except for LMAT) but that just indicates the gap in technology between Javelin and its competitors.

There are other missiles in development right now that would match Javelin (at least they are claimed to have similar specs), such as the Chinese HJ-12 and European MMP, but these aren't in service yet. In contrast, Javelin is not only in wide service with over a dozen nations but has been used in combat with good results.

The Javelin CLU alone is a useful tool for infantry sections as it is commonly used as a standalone thermal observation device, although this obviously drains the battery. It's a more capable, larger-format sensor than the thermal sights normally issued to individual soldiers, which are also still not universal. This is actually one of the reasons why it is more useful deployed at the squad level rather than being carefully husbanded in a weapons platoon or weapons company or some such.