Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Manticoran Empire]

The 70 ton Abrams can't cross most bridges. That severely limits mobility while they wait for an AVLB or, if the gap is too large for AVLB, a bridge company with CBTs and a bridge.

But, if the middle weight platform isn't worth it, fuck it.

M60A3 uparmoured to the equivalent of an Abrams A2 in just a very few restricted angles will be as heavy, if not heavier than the M1A2 solely because how bloody ginormous the Pershing/Patton hull + turret is.

Such has been stated several times already.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

M60A3 uparmoured to the equivalent of an Abrams A2 in just a very few restricted angles will be as heavy, if not heavier than the M1A2 solely because how bloody ginormous the Pershing/Patton hull + turret is.

Such has been stated several times already.

Yes, and this goes back to "you cannot fit special armour to a WWII design, it was never designed for it and will be crippled by the additional weight yet still not produce a tank the equivalent of a modern main battle tank of the 21st century."
I mean, I hope nobody is harbouring delusions that an Olifant will be able to fight an Armata or even T-80U on an equal basis.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Such has been stated several times already.

Yes, and this goes back to "you cannot fit special armour to a WWII design, it was never designed for it and will be crippled by the additional weight yet still not produce a tank the equivalent of a modern main battle tank of the 21st century."
I mean, I hope nobody is harbouring delusions that an Olifant will be able to fight an Armata or even T-80U on an equal basis.

Well, if you take the idea of the Olifant and modernize the design then maybe.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yes, and this goes back to "you cannot fit special armour to a WWII design, it was never designed for it and will be crippled by the additional weight yet still not produce a tank the equivalent of a modern main battle tank of the 21st century."
I mean, I hope nobody is harbouring delusions that an Olifant will be able to fight an Armata or even T-80U on an equal basis.

Well, if you take the idea of the Olifant and modernize the design then maybe.

You cannot. Olifant and Magach 7C are just about the limits of what you can do with a WWII design. You're better off using your leftover Pattons to carry Spike-NLOS.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, if you take the idea of the Olifant and modernize the design then maybe.

There are fundamental differences and improvements in design between tanks from the 1940s and tanks from the 1970s-present. That's why entirely new tanks were developed in the first place.

If you "modernized" it by smelting it down to steel slag and re-casting and re-rolling it with a completely new design, sure. But then it's not the same tank anymore anyway.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I mean, SANDF is probs still content with their Olifants because they probably never have to fight things like ZTZ-96's or T-80U's or T-72B's.

[New Antonalia]

I mean, SANDF is probs still content with their Olifants because they probably never has to fight things like ZTZ-96's or T-80U's or T-72B's.

Yeah, the worst they'll have to fight are outdated T-55s and Type-79s from Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

[Dostanuot Loj]

It's all about fire control these days, and a good gun. Pliant with the best Western fire control, signs, gun, and ammo (and trained, experianced crew) would do just as well as any modern tank with those features in the initial (most important) part of a tank on tank engagement. So the argument that Olifant can't be upgraded or such is dumb. Where it lacks capability is in staying power (armour) which is not as important for fighting tanks as it is for everything else tanks do besides fighting tanks.

The real problem is that these big ticket items are so much of the cost of a new tank that the few dollars you save using an old tank is absurdly minimal. Better to use a fresh chassis.

[Purpelia]

The 70 ton Abrams can't cross most bridges. That severely limits mobility while they wait for an AVLB or, if the gap is too large for AVLB, a bridge company with CBTs and a bridge.

But, if the middle weight platform isn't worth it, fuck it.

Medium weight tanks make a lot of sense if you have bad infrastructure, as you say. But bad in this context does not mean what you think it does. It's not about your average road or bridge in a civilized 1st or 2nd world country. Those can take a 70 ton tank just fine. It's about having to fight in the wastelands of Siberia against the Chinese hordes.

So if you have a situation compatible to the whole Russia/China thing than yes, it makes sense to have a medium vehicle. If you don't go for a heavy one.

[Gallia-]

Such has been stated several times already.

Yes, and this goes back to "you cannot fit special armour to a WWII design, it was never designed for it and will be crippled by the additional weight yet still not produce a tank the equivalent of a modern main battle tank of the 21st century."
I mean, I hope nobody is harbouring delusions that an Olifant will be able to fight an Armata or even T-80U on an equal basis.

Leaving aside that M60 literally was designed for Special Armor from the start. M60 was essentially a T95E8 given the T95E7's turret with the T254E2 105mm rifled gun. Contrary to what the Internet (and Hunnicutt, confusingly) says, it wasn't "L7" anymore than M256 is Rh120. It was an entirely different gun with screw threads that could accept L7 tubes, because the Americans liked the offset bore evacuator of the L7 so much they stole/licenced its production from the UK.

Anyway the T-54 could kill any WW2 tank irl. The M60 was immune to D-10T's APBC round from "point blank" range across the frontal arc, unlike the M103 heavy tank which could be penetrated at a range of about a mile. With Special Armor it would be immune to HEAT rounds as well, but the T95's Special Armor is something that never quite survived the transition to M60. Neither did the experimental X-engine or OPTAR.

I mean, SANDF is probs still content with their Olifants because they probably never have to fight things like ZTZ-96's

Why would they fight the tanks of their colonial masters? They're probably content with their Olifants because they have a hunter-killer FLIR and all the other modern gubbins of a fire control system, much like Taiwan has done with CM-11 Brave Tiger, except South Africa was able to produce those fire control systems domestically. And Olifant has a better fire control system in one aspect than CM-11.

I mean, SANDF is probs still content with their Olifants because they probably never has to fight things like ZTZ-96's or T-80U's or T-72B's.

Yeah, the worst they'll have to fight are

M1A2 SEPv3s and the United States Army.

But they will have laser helicopters from the Japanese Chinese so they will probably still win against the plague addled and enfeebled American troops.

Yes, and this goes back to "you cannot fit special armour to a WWII design, it was never designed for it and will be crippled by the additional weight yet still not produce a tank the equivalent of a modern main battle tank of the 21st century."
I mean, I hope nobody is harbouring delusions that an Olifant will be able to fight an Armata or even T-80U on an equal basis.

Well, if you take the idea of the Olifant and modernize the design then maybe.

You'd just weld an applique to the turret and give it a 120mm gun like M60T.

Everything else Olifant already has.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

stingray cutest tanku :> only 20 tonnes

[New Antonalia]

Yeah, the worst they'll have to fight are

M1A2 SEPv3s and the United States Army.

But they will have laser helicopters from the Japanese Chinese so they will probably still win against the plague addled and enfeebled American troops.

Source?

[Gallia-]

stingray cutest tanku :> only 20 tonnes

Don't lewd Stingray.

M1A2 SEPv3s and the United States Army.

But they will have laser helicopters from the Japanese Chinese so they will probably still win against the plague addled and enfeebled American troops.

Source?

It's common sense.

[United Earthlings]

Need some help to see if I should fully embrace this crazy idea I had or go with the more saner approach.

I'm working on this IFV design and as a secondary armament I'm currently torn between adapting a version of the BK27 27-mm cannon and the tried and true 30-mm cannon used on my previous IFV.

Since, most western and NS designed IFVs are now immune to 30-mm rounds at least frontal adapting the intermediate 27-mm round seems like no great loss as far as penetration is concerned {pending my nation develops a APFSDS-T for the 27-mm} by being located middle of the road in performance between the 25-mm Bushmaster and the various 30-mm cannons in service.

Worst you could say is I did it for the lulz.

[Purpelia]

Go with 40mm CTA. It's basically a 40mm caseless telescoped round that fits inside a 30x173mm sized package. Not as fantastic as some of the larger options but it beats 30mm and its what I use.

[United Earthlings]

If the 40-mm was to be the primary armament of the new IFV I'm working on that would make perfect sense, but 40-mm as a secondary armament doesn't make much sense as for the jobs I envision it would be doing to be overkill.

While my design is not similar except for the twin turret armament arrangement I'm going for, would the BMP-3 having a 40-mm in place of the 30-mm really add any advantages without offsetting the disadvantages?

[Purpelia]

If the 40-mm was to be the primary armament of the new IFV I'm working on that would make perfect sense, but 40-mm as a secondary armament doesn't make much sense as for the jobs I envision it would be doing to be overkill.

While my design is not similar except for the twin turret armament arrangement I'm going for, would the BMP-3 having a 40-mm in place of the 30-mm really add any advantages without offsetting the disadvantages?

It is my understanding that 40mm CTA is essentially a 40mm weapon designed to be the size of a 30mm one. Well, 30x173 which is the OTAN 30mm but you get the idea.
See here: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WLIP.htm

So basically I don't see why not go for it. Of course, you'll have to engineer a different loading system but so what?

[Reorganized Soviet Union]

Reminds me, is the 30 mm on the T-95's coaxial any better than using an MG? Only other tanks I've seen using coaxial cannons are the AMXs (which are sexy but that's besides the point).

[The Akasha Colony]

Reminds me, is the 30 mm on the T-95's coaxial any better than using an MG? Only other tanks I've seen using coaxial cannons are the AMXs (which are sexy but that's besides the point).

It was a response to the specific challenges of having such a large caliber gun, which is to say, the commensurate reduction in stowed rounds for the same volume.

The idea is that by adding a 30 mm coaxial, light and medium vehicles could be engaged with the autocannon, conserving the more scarce main cannon rounds for heavy targets like enemy tanks and heavy IFVs. Swedish proposals for a replacement for the Strv 103 (before they settled on Leopard 2) using a 140 mm gun used a 40 mm coaxial for the same reason (it also had a regular GPMG as an additional coaxial weapon). This was not much of a problem on regular 120 mm and 125 mm-armed tanks because they carried enough rounds for their main cannons that a shortage was not really an issue.

There have been other proposals to use autocannon coaxials for tanks (the early XM1 requirements that eventually resulted in Abrams required a Bushmaster coaxial) but experience has generally shown that crews will tend to keep using the main cannon for everything that's not light suppression work, for which a machine gun is sufficient. Autocannons tend to overlap too much in role with both the main cannon and a machine gun secondary, and they take up lots of space. However, it was believed that the switch to even larger tank gun calibers might open up a niche for an autocannon coaxial because the ammunition shortage for the gun would become more acute. This was obviously never tested in practice though because none of these tanks ever entered service.

[Gallan Systems]

Actual war tuk tuk.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I've got a question: Was there a possibility that the MBT-70 would work?

[The Akasha Colony]

I've got a question: Was there a possibility that the MBT-70 would work?

Define "work."

Mechanically, it functioned. There were teething problems, some bigger than others, but every complex weapons program has them. MBT-70 had lots of unnecessary bells and whistles (as well as some actually useful improvements, like hydropneumatic suspension) and ironing out the problems in all of these components simultaneously was one of the big issues.

The real issue is that it ended up being very expensive and changes were made to the design requirements that would have required a completely new vehicle configuration. The Germans were already dissatisfied with the program and working on their own alternatives under the table (since the joint development agreement technically forbade both the US and West Germany from trying to develop new tanks on the side) so the program was cancelled. The US tried to salvage the program with XM803 but it turned out to be just as complex and expensive so it got cancelled again and was in turn replaced by the XM1 program, which despite cost controls eventually resulted in a tank that wasn't much cheaper than the "too expensive" MBT-70 and XM803.

One of MBT-70's biggest problems in hindsight is that it came just a bit too early for a series of revolutions in armor, armament, and electronics that Abrams was able to benefit from. MBT-70 predated the introduction of special armor, laser rangefinders, and HV smoothbore guns. Abrams got two of these from the start and got the third fairly quickly. It is possible MBT-70 could have gotten them, but it probably would have ended up looking more like the T-64/72 series and would have ended up toward the lighter end of the protection scale.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I've got a question: Was there a possibility that the MBT-70 would work?

Define "work."

Mechanically, it functioned. There were teething problems, some bigger than others, but every complex weapons program has them. MBT-70 had lots of unnecessary bells and whistles (as well as some actually useful improvements, like hydropneumatic suspension) and ironing out the problems in all of these components simultaneously was one of the big issues.

The real issue is that it ended up being very expensive and changes were made to the design requirements that would have required a completely new vehicle configuration. The Germans were already dissatisfied with the program and working on their own alternatives under the table (since the joint development agreement technically forbade both the US and West Germany from trying to develop new tanks on the side) so the program was cancelled. The US tried to salvage the program with XM803 but it turned out to be just as complex and expensive so it got cancelled again and was in turn replaced by the XM1 program, which despite cost controls eventually resulted in a tank that wasn't much cheaper than the "too expensive" MBT-70 and XM803.

One of MBT-70's biggest problems in hindsight is that it came just a bit too early for a series of revolutions in armor, armament, and electronics that Abrams was able to benefit from. MBT-70 predated the introduction of special armor, laser rangefinders, and HV smoothbore guns. Abrams got two of these from the start and got the third fairly quickly. It is possible MBT-70 could have gotten them, but it probably would have ended up looking more like the T-64/72 series and would have ended up toward the lighter end of the protection scale.

OK.

[Chinevion]

I've got a question: Was there a possibility that the MBT-70 would work?

Provided you changed a lot of stuff,
Take for example the Raksha 2 mbt
The Raksha 2 mbt is my take on a mbt 70 design. But with some very big differences.
1. Get rid of the 152, and replace it with a 120 or 135, in my case I chose a 135.
2. Move driver to the hull.
3. Replace RHA with composite.
4. Make the turret less rounded.

With that done, the mbt functions. For me anyway

[Taihei Tengoku]

I've got a question: Was there a possibility that the MBT-70 would work?

Provided you changed a lot of stuff,
Take for example the Raksha 2 mbt
The Raksha 2 mbt is my take on a mbt 70 design. But with some very big differences.
1. Get rid of the 152, and replace it with a 120 or 135, in my case I chose a 135.
2. Move driver to the hull.
3. Replace RHA with composite.
4. Make the turret less rounded.

With that done, the mbt functions. For me anyway

i.e. you made it not an MBT-70. Still a really good lineart tho