Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Austrasien]

So i heard BMP-3 turret was not optimum for what it have, i wonder why ? Does it because it tried to pack everything (100mm gun, 30mm autocannon and 7.62mm machinegun) that actually have deleterious effect on each other or some other factor ?

The 100 mm gun, especially as originally implemented with WWII vintage shells that had very poor fragmentation characteristics by modern standards, isn't an optimal anti-infantry weapon. Its performance was improved with the development of a low-angle proximity fuse (allows for consistent airbursts but not at a consistent range) and a new high-fragmentation shell, but it is still behind more modern western air-bursting shells with precision time fuses, optimized combined natural/pre-formed fragmentation, and hard penetrating noses/delayed impact fuses.

And the 100 mm ATGM simply isn't very useful. It is no more threatening than a RPG-7V, which the popular AMAP armor kits side skirts can defeat. Hypothetically something like LAHAT would be a good match but Russia has yet to produce an ATGM of this type. Or a laser guided shell with a diameter less than 120/122 mm. It is obviously incompatible with Kornet which is going to be Russia's go-to for the foreseeable future.

[Theodosiya]

Any comment on my Tank/Cavalry TO?

[Purpelia]

Any comment on my Tank/Cavalry TO?

The light cavalry elements are too small for my tastes.

[Austrasien]

Here, I think I'll do the cavalry/armored cavalry formation of Theodosiya.

1 Tank Troop = 3 MBT + 1 HIFV (Namer)
1 Tank Squadron = 2x Tank Troop + 1 Armored Infantry Platoon (In HIFV instead of APC/IFV)+ 1 120mm Mortar platoon + 1 Air Defense platoon (2 Gepards + 2 Stingers)
1 Tank Battalion = 2x Tank Squadron + 1 Armored Infantry Company +1 Reconnaissance Platoon (2 MBT + 2 FSV) + 1x Mortar battery (4x 120mm in CV90/BMP-3 chassis) + 1x Howitzer battery (4x Panzerhaubitze 2000/M109L52) + 1x SHORAD Platoon (4 Gepard + 4 Stinger) + 1x Scout-Sniper Squad + 1x Medical Platoon +
1x Forward Support Company
1 Cavalry Brigade = 2x Tank Battalion + 1 Armored Infantry Battalion + 1x Engineer Battalion + 1x Cavalry Squadron + 1x SP-Artillery Battalion + 1x SP-MERAD Battalion (NASAMS) + 1x Support Battalion

Could you clean up the formatting?

[Greater Kazar]

Here, I think I'll do the cavalry/armored cavalry formation of Theodosiya.

1 Tank Troop = 3 MBT + 1 HIFV (Namer)
1 Tank Squadron = 2x Tank Troop + 1 Armored Infantry Platoon (In HIFV instead of APC/IFV)+ 1 120mm Mortar platoon + 1 Air Defense platoon (2 Gepards + 2 Stingers)
1 Tank Battalion = 2x Tank Squadron + 1 Armored Infantry Company +1 Reconnaissance Platoon (2 MBT + 2 FSV) + 1x Mortar battery (4x 120mm in CV90/BMP-3 chassis) + 1x Howitzer battery (4x Panzerhaubitze 2000/M109L52) + 1x SHORAD Platoon (4 Gepard + 4 Stinger) + 1x Scout-Sniper Squad + 1x Medical Platoon +
1x Forward Support Company
1 Cavalry Brigade = 2x Tank Battalion + 1 Armored Infantry Battalion + 1x Engineer Battalion + 1x Cavalry Squadron + 1x SP-Artillery Battalion + 1x SP-MERAD Battalion (NASAMS) + 1x Support Battalion

1. Not a big fan of combined arms platoons (Tank troop & Recon platoon).
2. That's a lot of ADA for a battalion, consider consolidating and reducing.
3. Not very many tanks (12-16) for a tank battalion.
4. No need to both mortars and howitzers in at battalion level.
5. Lot of infantry for a cavalry unit. and not very much recce.

[Purpelia]

For reference my Heavy Cavalry Regiment looks something like this:
(note in Purpelian cavalry terms Troop = platoon, Section = Company and Squadron = Battalion)


Heavy Cavalry Squadron

• Command Troop
• Heavy Dragoon Section (company)
  

  • Command Troop
  • Support Troop (mortars and ATGM's)
  • Observation Troop (1 x IFV + Drones)
  • Dragoon Troop (mech infantry platoon) x 2
  • Cuirassier Troop (tank platoon) x 2
    
  • Various non fighting support and supply units
• Light Cavalry Section

  • Light cavalry troop (proper name pending) (light tanks or scout IFV's)
  • Observation Section (Platoon sized unit that further breaks down into general inteligence, SIGINT, COMINT, Drones etc.)
  • Atomic, Biological and Chemical recon troop (just a couple vehicles)
• Field Artillery Battery (AMOS carriers)
• Rocket Artillery Battery (Basically think 2K22's but built around an ADATS launcher. That should give you a general idea.)
• Various non fighting support and supply units

Heavy Cavalry Regiment

• Heavy Cavalry Squadron x 4
• Command Troop
• Various non fighting support and supply units
• Field Artillery Battery (155mm SPG's)
• Rocket Artillery Battery (Basically what you think of when you think of a rocket artillery)
• Siege Artillery Regiment (Stuff like the 2S4)
• Light cavalry Squadron (a more extensive recon unit)

And that's a rough image.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

When it comes to the employment of tanks in support of small infantry units, are tanks better employed as an overwatch to sit a kilometer or more behind the lines and snipe targets from far off, and when should they be used as cavalry to race around and break through defenses at close range? I'd imagine tanks are best employed in the attack rather than a far-off artillery piece, but the now common use of effective antitank weapons makes it hard for tanks to survive when attacking infantry.

[Taihei Tengoku]

METT-TC dependent. Ground it in your judgement of the enemy's composition/disposition/strength and most likely course of action. Integrate them within your scheme of maneuver by setting the proper conditions and sequencing events in order to achieve your commander's intent

[The Akasha Colony]

When it comes to the employment of tanks in support of small infantry units, are tanks better employed as an overwatch to sit a kilometer or more behind the lines and snipe targets from far off, and when should they be used as cavalry to race around and break through defenses at close range?

This is not a binary choice. Tanks themselves tend to operate in fire-and-maneuver sections, with one section providing overwatch while another advances. They will operate as needed; this flexibility is one of the key elements of a tank's utility.

I'd imagine tanks are best employed in the attack rather than a far-off artillery piece, but the now common use of effective antitank weapons makes it hard for tanks to survive when attacking infantry.

What "effective" antitank weapons?

Actual effective anti-tank weapons are exceedingly rare. RPG-7 is not an effective antitank weapon. Even RPG-29 isn't really an effective antitank weapon. "Effective" antitank weapons basically start with SMAW/NLAW and range up to Javelin and Spike. Of these, one is being retired (if it hasn't already been), the second is used by only a handful of countries, and the last two cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit. There are a few other large antitank missiles that may still be effective but these are basically vehicle weapons and not really relevant for an infantry force.

As has been pointed out in this thread previously, the cost of effective anti-tank weapons has increased significantly more than the cost of tanks themselves. The stories from Iraq or Syria about tanks being taken down left and right by piddly RPG-7s are greatly exaggerated.

Beyond that, tanks still possess very important attributes in the attack even if their armor isn't totally invulnerable: they provide significant firepower, mobility, and shock value. Even if a defending infantry force happens to have effective ATGMs in their arsenal, a force not sufficiently well-trained, disciplined, and experienced may very well flee at the sight of a coordinated armored assault. This could possibly even happen to a Western force lacking any experience dealing with armored assaults.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

This is not a binary choice. Tanks themselves tend to operate in fire-and-maneuver sections, with one section providing overwatch while another advances. They will operate as needed; this flexibility is one of the key elements of a tank's utility.

Do tanks often operate individually supporting small infantry units?

What "effective" antitank weapons?

Actual effective anti-tank weapons are exceedingly rare. RPG-7 is not an effective antitank weapon. Even RPG-29 isn't really an effective antitank weapon. "Effective" antitank weapons basically start with SMAW/NLAW and range up to Javelin and Spike. Of these, one is being retired (if it hasn't already been), the second is used by only a handful of countries, and the last two cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit. There are a few other large antitank missiles that may still be effective but these are basically vehicle weapons and not really relevant for an infantry force.

As has been pointed out in this thread previously, the cost of effective anti-tank weapons has increased significantly more than the cost of tanks themselves. The stories from Iraq or Syria about tanks being taken down left and right by piddly RPG-7s are greatly exaggerated.

Beyond that, tanks still possess very important attributes in the attack even if their armor isn't totally invulnerable: they provide significant firepower, mobility, and shock value. Even if a defending infantry force happens to have effective ATGMs in their arsenal, a force not sufficiently well-trained, disciplined, and experienced may very well flee at the sight of a coordinated armored assault. This could possibly even happen to a Western force lacking any experience dealing with armored assaults.

Wrt the RPG-7, has the development of newer and better ammunition like the PG-7VR made it more viable? Or are most unguided AT launchers just not reliable against armor?

[Taihei Tengoku]

The RPG-7, while still the king of infantry guns, cannot throw a heavier bomb as far as it can throw a lighter one.

[The Akasha Colony]

Do tanks often operate individually supporting small infantry units?

No, because tank crews themselves are generally not trained to operate alone. They're trained to operate in sections at least, if not full platoons. This depends on the size of the platoon; a 3-tank platoon will operate as a single unit. A 4-tank platoon will usually operate in paired sections.

Wrt the RPG-7, has the development of newer and better ammunition like the PG-7VR made it more viable? Or are most unguided AT launchers just not reliable against armor?

No. The problem is that modern armor is extremely good at defeating HEAT charges. Modern applique kits like AMAP can provide near-immunity to any man-portable HEAT weapon and even many vehicle-borne HEAT charges (within its protected area, of course). SMAW, NLAW, Spike, and Javelin get around this by being top-attack weapons and by having very fat charges. RPG-7's largest charges top out at 105 mm, the same as RPG-29. All of the weapons I just mentioned have charges larger than 120 mm, some of them very substantially so.

The other part is simple accuracy. Even a weapon that stands a good chance of penetrating is not effective if it cannot hit the target. SMAW and NLAW had basic guidance to account for target motion, while Spike and Javelin have full imaging infrared seekers. This means these weapons can actually engage targets at reasonable ranges, rather than being limited to a few dozen meters.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Wrt the RPG-7, has the development of newer and better ammunition like the PG-7VR made it more viable? Or are most unguided AT launchers just not reliable against armor?

No. The problem is that modern armor is extremely good at defeating HEAT charges. Modern applique kits like AMAP can provide near-immunity to any man-portable HEAT weapon and even many vehicle-borne HEAT charges (within its protected area, of course). SMAW, NLAW, Spike, and Javelin get around this by being top-attack weapons and by having very fat charges. RPG-7's largest charges top out at 105 mm, the same as RPG-29. All of the weapons I just mentioned have charges larger than 120 mm, some of them very substantially so.

The other part is simple accuracy. Even a weapon that stands a good chance of penetrating is not effective if it cannot hit the target. SMAW and NLAW had basic guidance to account for target motion, while Spike and Javelin have full imaging infrared seekers. This means these weapons can actually engage targets at reasonable ranges, rather than being limited to a few dozen meters.

How true does this hold for late Cold War technology? There are probably thousands of upgraded T-72s running around and will be doing so for decades; could a T-72 B-series shrug off hits from your run of the mill RPGs and AT-4s?

[The Akasha Colony]

How true does this hold for late Cold War technology? There are probably thousands of upgraded T-72s running around and will be doing so for decades; could a T-72 B-series shrug off hits from your run of the mill RPGs and AT-4s?

The peak effectiveness of HEAT warheads against tanks was roughly the 1970s. After the 1970s, the widespread proliferation of special armor and ERA made these weapons less and less effective against modern tanks. But they have stuck around because only a minority of hard targets on the battlefield are tanks (and only a minority of these tanks worldwide are modern tanks), and HE-throwers are still useful general purpose weapons. HEAT charges are very good at penetrating solid steel, but the development of mass-effective ways of defeating HEAT charges made this increasingly irrelevant.

A T-72B could probably defeat an RPG-7 from any angle in which it is protected by the standard add-on kits and ERA. Which is most of the frontal arc.

It should probably be noted that antitank missiles have never really been the scourge that their boosters claimed they would be. While the Israelis encountered some difficulty against Sagger teams in the opening stages of the Yom Kippur War, by the end of the war (which lasted less than 3 weeks!) they had become quite adept at defeating ATGM ambushes.

[Rich and Corporations]

This is not a binary choice. Tanks themselves tend to operate in fire-and-maneuver sections, with one section providing overwatch while another advances. They will operate as needed; this flexibility is one of the key elements of a tank's utility.

There was something wrong on the nationstates forums... I sensed it.
To answer the original question, this depends on terrain (overwatch is useless between hills, or dense areas like forests or urban areas).

No, because tank crews themselves are generally not trained to operate alone. They're trained to operate in sections at least, if not full platoons. This depends on the size of the platoon; a 3-tank platoon will operate as a single unit. A 4-tank platoon will usually operate in paired sections.

Be more specific, cite sources.
https://books.google.com/books?id=p_5LA ... nk&f=false

the widespread proliferation of special armor

spaced armor or NERA

It should probably be noted that antitank missiles have never really been the scourge that their boosters claimed they would be. While the Israelis encountered some difficulty against Sagger teams in the opening stages of the Yom Kippur War, by the end of the war (which lasted less than 3 weeks!) they had become quite adept at defeating ATGM ambushes.

The more expensive the weapon, the more effective it is against impoverished nations.

[Greater Kazar]

Has this thread moved?

[Taihei Tengoku]

no just nobody posts anymore

come 2 diskord

[Greater Allidron]

where is this discord you speak of.

[Rhinocera]

no just nobody posts anymore

come 2 diskord

Don't do it, don't succumb to the darkside. Keep with the forum, resist the temptation.

[Anemos Major]

Going to bring this thread back from the dead by posting this absolutely horrific thing: BAE's 'Black Night' proposal for a half-arsed Ajax compliant Challenger 2 upgrade.

[The Akasha Colony]

Going to bring this thread back from the dead by posting this absolutely horrific thing: BAE's 'Black Night' proposal for a half-arsed Ajax compliant Challenger 2 upgrade.

(Image)

BAE: Like, what if we tacked a few bits and pieces of decent electronics on ye olde Challenger 2 and didn't fix anything else? And took off all the applique armor?

MOD: What a radical notion! Sold!

[The Manticoran Empire]

Going to bring this thread back from the dead by posting this absolutely horrific thing: BAE's 'Black Night' proposal for a half-arsed Ajax compliant Challenger 2 upgrade.

(Image)

I mean, I guess it looks cute.

[Hrstrovokia]

What's the opinion on the Chinese Type 99 MBT? Is it better than a T-90?

[The Akasha Colony]

What's the opinion on the Chinese Type 99 MBT? Is it better than a T-90?

Which variants? T-90A? T-90M? T-90MS?

Type 99? Type 99A2?

There's a lot of variation within types.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Going to bring this thread back from the dead by posting this absolutely horrific thing: BAE's 'Black Night' proposal for a half-arsed Ajax compliant Challenger 2 upgrade.

(Image)

Although the CITV and APS is noteworthy, the TOGS is still a drag. And they didn't fix what may well be the biggest problem of the Challenger 2 (more than the electronics, and the shitty engine), which is the L30 120mm rifle and the really out-of-date selection of ammunition.

Then again, even Rheinmetall's competitor proposal hasn't actually said it would upgrade the gun either because of the dreaded "it's too expensive" excuse...