NationStates

I feel like the turret should have a different design if it’s only stopping 30mm. It looks a lot like an Abrams.

Is this a good design for a tank?

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

North Arkana wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

Well I'm considering making this my nation's main battle tank set up.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

North Arkana wrote:It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

Well I'm considering making this my nation's main battle tank set up.

You don't need to fit out every tank for obstacle clearance, and you don't need to have a TUSK style kit fitted all the time. Especially if you're trying not constantly lose bits and pieces.

North Arkana wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

Track width mine plow is only "obstacle clearance" if you're only obstacles are shallow buried antk-tank mines.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

No it's trash.

North Arkana wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

It's not "like" or the "style" of an Abrams. It's literally a SEP Abrams with a full TUSK kit and the mine clearing blade.

I'm not even sure what he is supposed to be asking TBH.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

North Arkana wrote:It's... An obstacle clearance, and TUSK style kit fitted Abrams. It's already a good design. What are you actually asking about?

Track width mine plow is only "obstacle clearance" if you're only obstacles are shallow buried antk-tank mines.

Between the M908 and the AMP, you already have not inconsequential level of obstacle clearance abilities present just be shooting things with the right ammunition.

North Arkana wrote:Between the M908 and the AMP, you already have inconsequential level of obstacle clearance abilities

FTFY.

An actual anti-armor obstacle is a large crater, steep cliff, or some sort of abatis or other I-beam obstacle.

Which cannot be defeated by something designed to blow up concrete pillboxes and knock holes in walls.

North Arkana wrote:

Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Track width mine plow is only "obstacle clearance" if you're only obstacles are shallow buried antk-tank mines.

Between the M908 and the AMP, you already have not inconsequential level of obstacle clearance abilities present just be shooting things with the right ammunition.

Not obstacle clearance.

You need a proper dozer.


Creating rubble is not the same thing.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

North Arkana wrote:Between the M908 and the AMP, you already have not inconsequential level of obstacle clearance abilities present just be shooting things with the right ammunition.

Not obstacle clearance.

You need a proper dozer.


Creating rubble is not the same thing.

M908 HE-OR-T seems to have some merit to it though.

You tell it's authentic because of the cheesy Army PowerPoint presentation.

Looks like a good way to throw a track without clearing the rubble?

Obstacle reduction is not obstacle clearance.

Failed at Tier 1 combat engineering.

An obstacle reduced, is still an obstacle.

So I'm looking for a vehicle for a gendarmerie of sorts, although maybe it's more similar to Brazilian military police units like BOPE. They'd be intended to patrol and pacify hostile areas in the event of uncontrollable crime, an insurgency, or an uprising against the government, and also potentially be employed as SWAT teams. Ideally, their vehicle should be able to carry at least 8 men and have the possibility of being armed with a machine gun or automatic grenade launcher (or maybe even an autocannon if that wouldn't be too excessive), as well as being resistant to mine and IED threats. Since I'm not really concerned about them maintaining the appearance of a civilian police force, should I just go full out and give them a wheeled APC of sorts or stick with something more in line with an MRAP?

Dayganistan wrote:So I'm looking for a vehicle for a gendarmerie of sorts, although maybe it's more similar to Brazilian military police units like BOPE. They'd be intended to patrol and pacify hostile areas in the event of uncontrollable crime, an insurgency, or an uprising against the government, and also potentially be employed as SWAT teams. Ideally, their vehicle should be able to carry at least 8 men and have the possibility of being armed with a machine gun or automatic grenade launcher (or maybe even an autocannon if that wouldn't be too excessive), as well as being resistant to mine and IED threats. Since I'm not really concerned about them maintaining the appearance of a civilian police force, should I just go full out and give them a wheeled APC of sorts or stick with something more in line with an MRAP?

OK, so your specifications are:

1) must carry 8 passengers
2) must be capable of being armed with anything up to an autocannon as needed
3) must be mine and IED resistant

That last requirement means you absolutely need an MRAP. Most wheeled APCs in service today were not built to withstand IED explosions.

Plenty of MRAPs carry turrets and autocannon. RG-34, Lazar, etc.

Dayganistan wrote:So I'm looking for a vehicle for a gendarmerie of sorts, although maybe it's more similar to Brazilian military police units like BOPE. They'd be intended to patrol and pacify hostile areas in the event of uncontrollable crime, an insurgency, or an uprising against the government, and also potentially be employed as SWAT teams. Ideally, their vehicle should be able to carry at least 8 men and have the possibility of being armed with a machine gun or automatic grenade launcher (or maybe even an autocannon if that wouldn't be too excessive), as well as being resistant to mine and IED threats. Since I'm not really concerned about them maintaining the appearance of a civilian police force, should I just go full out and give them a wheeled APC of sorts or stick with something more in line with an MRAP?

You need a koevoet man

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

As others have mentioned, it's just an Abrams with TUSK II and mine plow.

You wouldn't necessarily want to make all of that kit standard since the mine plow adds a lot of weight and makes the vehicle larger. You only need a handful of vehicles to clear a path, and you would need even fewer if you had dedicated breaching vehicles like Grizzly or M1 ABV in sufficient quantities. The gun shields for the commander and loader just make the tank really tall so they're not great if you're trying to use cover. Which is why newer M1 variants just give the commander an RWS instead (which is also tall, but can fold down to reduce the tank's profile).

The rest of the gear is largely superfluous. The extra M2 doesn't really hurt, but it's mostly an anti-sniper gun and as far as I've seen, most M1s with TUSK installed don't even bother mounting it. AFAIK, ARAT is mostly anti-HEAT and so is of limited use against APFSDS (which was not a problem since insurgents don't usually carry man-portable M68s or M256s). It also makes the tank heavier, of course.

The track retaining ring though should be removed because it is no longer necessary and by at least some accounts, actively detrimental to the vehicle now because it can make detracking incidents worse.

Once you've done all that, you're left with just an M1A2 SEP Abrams. The TUSK modifications that were more generally useful outside of urban combat were either already rolled out or rolled into the SEP v3 program to be made standard, and the ones geared more exclusively toward urban combat were removed.

North Arkana wrote:M908 HE-OR-T seems to have some merit to it though.

You tell it's authentic because of the cheesy Army PowerPoint presentation.

(Image)
(Image)

M908 can reduce obstacles but not clear them. That's why it's called an "obstacle reduction" round, not an "obstacle clearance" round. The pile or resulting rubble still needs to be pushed aside or it will remain a mobility obstacle. That's why vehicles like M728 still had dozer blades even though they carried dedicated HE throwers for obstacle reduction.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:(Image)

Is this a good design for a tank?

As others have mentioned, it's just an Abrams with TUSK II and mine plow.

You wouldn't necessarily want to make all of that kit standard since the mine plow adds a lot of weight and makes the vehicle larger. You only need a handful of vehicles to clear a path, and you would need even fewer if you had dedicated breaching vehicles like Grizzly or M1 ABV in sufficient quantities. The gun shields for the commander and loader just make the tank really tall so they're not great if you're trying to use cover. Which is why newer M1 variants just give the commander an RWS instead (which is also tall, but can fold down to reduce the tank's profile).

The rest of the gear is largely superfluous. The extra M2 doesn't really hurt, but it's mostly an anti-sniper gun and as far as I've seen, most M1s with TUSK installed don't even bother mounting it. AFAIK, ARAT is mostly anti-HEAT and so is of limited use against APFSDS (which was not a problem since insurgents don't usually carry man-portable M68s or M256s). It also makes the tank heavier, of course.

The track retaining ring though should be removed because it is no longer necessary and by at least some accounts, actively detrimental to the vehicle now because it can make detracking incidents worse.

Once you've done all that, you're left with just an M1A2 SEP Abrams. The TUSK modifications that were more generally useful outside of urban combat were either already rolled out or rolled into the SEP v3 program to be made standard, and the ones geared more exclusively toward urban combat were removed.

I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow but all 4 tanks in the platoon will have two M2s in RWS operated by the commander and loader (my nation's M1A3 has an autoloader but we kept the fourth crewmember) and a third M2 over the main gun to be operated by the gunner if needed.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow

this is the normal procedure yes

Laritaia wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow

this is the normal procedure yes

I'm a 91B. I'm no tanker so I don't know what the procedures for tank units are. I fix trucks.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow but all 4 tanks in the platoon will have two M2s in RWS operated by the commander and loader (my nation's M1A3 has an autoloader but we kept the fourth crewmember) and a third M2 over the main gun to be operated by the gunner if needed.

That's an unnecessary number of M2s.

Under what circumstances do you ever expect your crews will need to fire 3 HMGs simultaneously?

The Akasha Colony wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow but all 4 tanks in the platoon will have two M2s in RWS operated by the commander and loader (my nation's M1A3 has an autoloader but we kept the fourth crewmember) and a third M2 over the main gun to be operated by the gunner if needed.

That's an unnecessary number of M2s.

Under what circumstances do you ever expect your crews will need to fire 3 HMGs simultaneously?

Quick someone post the Vietnam war M60 with 10 M2s and an above barrel minigun.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:I was thinking that one tank in the platoon (most likely platoon leader's tank) will carry the mine plow but all 4 tanks in the platoon will have two M2s in RWS operated by the commander and loader (my nation's M1A3 has an autoloader but we kept the fourth crewmember) and a third M2 over the main gun to be operated by the gunner if needed.

That's an unnecessary number of M2s.

Under what circumstances do you ever expect your crews will need to fire 3 HMGs simultaneously?

When I'm at war with North Korea or China and the tanks are being swarmed by infantry armed with grenades.

Manpower is too valuable in the red dwarf stage of human civilization to swarm over tanks.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:When I'm at war with North Korea or China and the tanks are being swarmed by infantry armed with grenades.

What? This isn't 1950. Not even the North Koreans would do that.

And even if it were, for that role the switch to M2s does nothing since the higher rate of fire and much larger total ammunition load from a medium machine gun would be more useful than the additional penetration of a heavy machine gun. A GPMG would also need to be reloaded less often than an HMG, which is a dangerous process since it can't be done under armor. Which means the gunner definitely doesn't need an extra gun because he's already got a coaxial M240.

The extra M2 in TUSK is there for very specific uses, namely it allows the gunner to take advantage of his optics suite and stabilizer to engage targets beyond the range of his coaxial weapon but without using the main cannon, which usually creates collateral damage risks in an urban peacekeeping environment. But now that the commander gets an RWS in SEP v3 it isn't necessary for this purpose because the commander now gets an optics suite and can engage targets at range while still under armor.