Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Hrstrovokia]

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.

Type 99A2 to T-90AM.

T-90AM is the last MBT version right?

[The Akasha Colony]

Type 99A2 to T-90AM.

T-90AM is the last MBT version right?

T-90AM isn't really a thing so far as I can tell, it's just a speculative name given to a possible design the Russian Army might adopt if they rolled all the upgrades from the export T-90MS into their existing T-90As. T-90MS is the most modern "combat ready" design that I am aware of. Practically all of the modifications to the speculated T-90AM are just taken from those already present in the T-90MS. The Russians are planning to roll out some T-90 upgrades since Armata (unsurprisingly) turned out to be really expensive.

Comparing such similar vehicles is always a troublesome thing, though.

Type 99 is undoubtedly the newer design, and has a much more powerful engine which results in a better power to weight ratio even accounting for its greater mass. The greater mass likely means better protection, although there have been some indications that China's turret armor arrangement may be suboptimal. Early Type 99s (and other Chinese tank models) suffered from poorly designed turrets which left them very vulnerable to fire from outside the forward 30 degree arc, whereas Soviet (and Western) tanks are generally designed to resist fire from the frontal 60 degree arc. But there are a ton of unknowns since the Type 99 has never been in combat.

Otherwise, there's just too many unknowns. How well does Chinese ERA perform compared to Russian ERA? For that matter, how well does Relikt perform compared to Kontakt-5? How well does Chinese ammunition measure up to Russian ammunition? How good are the Chinese electronics compared to the Russian electronics?

On paper, they both tick the same boxes in terms of capabilities, but without quantitative data or battle records, there isn't much that can really be said. China has less experience in tank design, development, and operation than Russia, but is rapidly overtaking it in the electronics sector.

[Anemos Major]

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...

It's effectively the most spectacle they can wring out of the least buck, with nothing to address the critical bang issues inherent in the tank. If they do invest in a Challenger 2 overhaul, it'll effectively be a tacit admission that the British are willing to let their tank force rust a little longer where they spend elsewhere (presumably on innumerable horrific FRES offshoots).

New vehicles - wheeled death traps for the death trap god! Many aspects of the statblock, especially the automotive bits, are WiP - your understanding is greatly appreciated.

---

Type: Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2017 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major, Daemyrtian Republican Army

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment
Designed: 2011 - 2016
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2017 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 16.6t (base combat weight), 18.7t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.8m (hull), 7.1m (gun forward)
Width: 2.8m
Height: 1.8m (top of hull), 2.6m (commander's hatch)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 45x290mm CTA M.38C L/66 automatic cannon (180 rounds, 40x290mm CTA APFSDS-T/GPSHE-T mix)
Secondary armament:
- 7.7x54mm MG3R1 machine-gun (co-axial, 1000 rounds, 7.7x54mm Ball/Tracer mix)
- 15x105mm CTA MG/H14 heavy machine-gun (RWS mounted, 300 rounds, Ball/Tracer, APHEI/Tracer or APDS/Tracer mix)
- Arteyr-M BLOS ATGM (4 tubes, can be mounted on either side of turret, replaceable with other compatible munitions)

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.360EL 11L VG-turbo 4-stroke V6 multifuel diesel, 480hp (750hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 25.7hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1050/P Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tanks and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 75kph (off-road)


The vehicle is also license produced by Consitutional Republic of Daemyrs as the M17 Light Support Vehicle.

Description

The MA12 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle is a variant of the MA12 family of 6x6 fighting vehicles, intended to provide light role Anemonian forces with a potent, mobile, and networked platform capable of rapid deployment alongside high readiness forces. The ~18t design fully exploits a range of innovative technology to maximise its utility in the field, utilising the powerful 45mm M.38 CTA autocannon alongisde a modular support weapon adaptor on a platform driven by a hybrid electro-mechanical transmission and in-hub drive units and protected by modular armour and soft/hard-kill arrays tailored to mission requirements.

Development of the vehicle commenced in 2011 in response to a memorandum by the Army Technical Directorate opining in favour of the development and production of a new family of lighter weight AFVs to better meet the Crown Army's existing capability gap. Replacing the planned introduction of the MA9A3 family of 8x8s, the vehicle was explicitly designed with a remit to develop and integrate future technological architectures; leaving development in 2016, it entered production in early 2017 as the MA12.

The MA12 CRV initially entered service with the Parachute Forces of the Crown Army; it has since been deployed with a wide range of other light role forces on high readiness taskings. As the lead vehicle of the MA12 program, it was the first to enter widespread service prior to the adoption of the other vehicles of its family, which continues to undergo further development and product improvement under the aegis of the Crown Army's integrated materiel procurement program.

History

DEVELOPMENT

During the course of the year 2008, the Crown Army undertook a thorough re-evaluation of Project Fiensietyr, its ongoing ground vehicle procurement program, at the urging of the Office of Technological Development following the problematic assessment of the previous year that the materiel to be procured under the program would be barely sufficient to meet the Army's extant needs, let alone its future requirements. The re-evaluation led to a number of significant developments, namely the re-introduction of the MA11 tracked modular armoured vehicle program, and the amendment of the MA9A2 wheeled modular armoured vehicle program to the more ambitious MA9A3 standard. Under the aegis of 'Fiensietyr 2', this new program intended to put these successor vehicles into production from as early as 2012 onwards.

However, the simultaneous resumption of the MA11 program and the decision to uprate the MA9A3 family created a dilemma within the Army's procurement plan that only emerged over the following years. The higher weight envelope of the MA9A3 family compared to its predecessor created a greater overlap between it and the MA11 then in development. Concurrently, this shift to a higher weight envelope decreased the deployability of the new family of vehicles, thus exposing the existence of a significant gap within the Army's light role force, whose rapid deployment capability now came with a sharply reduced armoured component.

The prioritisation of the MA11 program had led to the emergence of severe delays in the MA9A3 development cycle. In response, the senior command of the Office of Technological Development circulated a memorandum within Army staff circles in early 2011 that laid bare these issues, calling for the cancellation of the MA9A3 program and calling for the reconsideration of the role played by wheeled AFVs within the Crown Army, arguing that the appropriate course of action would be to pursue the development of a more suitable vehicle in a lighter weight range. This would address the overlap between the two families of vehicles, and once again provide the Army's light role forces with a credible rapid deployment capability in line with existing doctrine.

The MA9 program marked the first concrete success of Project Fiensietyr in the form of the already widely employed MA9A2, and accordingly enjoyed significant support in political and military circles alike. Nonetheless, the merits of the OTD's argument that the reorganisation of Project Fiensietyr had created a significant capability overlap was well received by the General Staff, and over the following months a compromise agreement was formulated between the Staff, the OTD, and those parties involved in the MA9 series' development. The replacement of the MA9A3 with a more suitable family of vehicles would be authorised. However, it would be given an extended development window, so as to incorporate the explicit remit to utilise the vehicle as an opportunity to develop the future vehicular architectures of the Crown Army. The decision to employ the new platform as a stepping stone towards future systems development gave it a credence in planning circles that the MA9 family lacked, and led to the general acceptance of the proposal when put before the relevant policymakers.

The formal development of the new vehicle commenced in 2011 under the auspices of the Fierei Bureau of the OTD, whose expertise in coordinating complex ground systems development processes had been amply proven in their successful management of the MA11 program. From early in the program, the focus was placed on retaining commonality with the armaments used in the MA11 program as far as possible while focusing the majority of the research and development on areas such as drivetrain and vehicle electronic/network architecture. The possibility of converting the vehicle to a series hybrid powertrain was explored from an early date; however, the reliance on direct-drive magnetic motors ensured that sufficient performance could not be achieved in the early stages of the program, which was quickly divided into separate high and low risk options to allay the possibility that a high risk technology vehicle would be unable to enter production as required.

Prototyping continued over the course of the following years, during which the broad concept of the 'MA12' family of armoured vehicles came to fruition. A series of 6x6s in the 15-20t weight range, the vehicles would be minimised to a minimum of flexible and deployable platforms, capable of providing light role Anemonian forces with a full range of capabilities with a minimal logistical chain. The vehicles would fall into two primary configurations;


Various prototypes of the MA12 were produced as proofs of concept and testbeds for its innovative technical architecture.

[The Salven Islands]

My third attempt at doing a dieselpunk-y nation on this site, after I lost interest in the last bunch, will also use its own set of armoured fighting vehicles. As such, have a WIP of one of them:

Still using my divisive cartoony "EXTRA THICC lines" aesthetic from back when I was Auverland because reasons. I may change it to something less cramped if enough people ask for it.

[The Salven Islands]

Update (more like complete rework):

[The Manticoran Empire]

Despite no one actually using this, I'm going to come here and ask about the 130mm Rheinmetall gun that is being developed. How likely is it to be adopted by NATO countries and those that use Rheinmetall weapons?

[Anemos Major]

Despite no one actually using this, I'm going to come here and ask about the 130mm Rheinmetall gun that is being developed. How likely is it to be adopted by NATO countries and those that use Rheinmetall weapons?

Debate is ongoing between the French and the Germans as to what exactly will arm the future tank that they're trying to develop cooperatively (lol) - Rheinmetall obviously like their 130, France has pulled a 140 out of storage for related testing purposes. At a guess, it'd probably come down to what they end up adopting (if the cooperative development projects lasts long enough to get to that point).

[Danternoust]

Despite no one actually using this, I'm going to come here and ask about the 130mm Rheinmetall gun that is being developed. How likely is it to be adopted by NATO countries and those that use Rheinmetall weapons?

Debate is ongoing between the French and the Germans as to what exactly will arm the future tank that they're trying to develop cooperatively (lol) - Rheinmetall obviously like their 130, France has pulled a 140 out of storage for related testing purposes. At a guess, it'd probably come down to what they end up adopting (if the cooperative development projects lasts long enough to get to that point).

ETC seems like the only technology that seems viable, add 100 kg of equipment versus another tonne of gunsteel.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Despite no one actually using this, I'm going to come here and ask about the 130mm Rheinmetall gun that is being developed. How likely is it to be adopted by NATO countries and those that use Rheinmetall weapons?

Debate is ongoing between the French and the Germans as to what exactly will arm the future tank that they're trying to develop cooperatively (lol) - Rheinmetall obviously like their 130, France has pulled a 140 out of storage for related testing purposes. At a guess, it'd probably come down to what they end up adopting (if the cooperative development projects lasts long enough to get to that point).

Hm.

ETC seems like the only technology that seems viable, add 100 kg of equipment versus another tonne of gunsteel.

ETC will eventually be viable but there are still issues that must be ironed out before it will replace current propellant ignition systems.

[Danternoust]

ETC will eventually be viable but there are still issues that must be ironed out before it will replace current propellant ignition systems.

It seems like a high durability sparkplug.

[The Manticoran Empire]

ETC will eventually be viable but there are still issues that must be ironed out before it will replace current propellant ignition systems.

It seems like a high durability sparkplug.

I agree but it has teething problems. Not the best source but meh.

Better source.

Another document about ETC.

[Danternoust]

20 years out of date?
But more seriously, bigger, larger, isn't feasible unless the gun is fixed mount.
So, it's not implausible that capacitors have improved enough to do it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

20 years out of date?
But more seriously, bigger, larger, isn't feasible unless the gun is fixed mount.
So, it's not implausible that capacitors have improved enough to do it.

Not implausible but probably heavily classified.

[Danternoust]

Not implausible but probably heavily classified.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p012452.pdf
Not really, they managed to fit a 105mm one onto a tank, but only with enough energy to improve accuracy and range.
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/tanks/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf

Although one might accomplish the same thing with a gun breech pre-warmer so?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Not implausible but probably heavily classified.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p012452.pdf
Not really, they managed to fit a 105mm one onto a tank, but only with enough energy to improve accuracy and range.
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/tanks/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf

Although one might accomplish the same thing with a gun breech pre-warmer so?

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

First of all, just because they tested a 105mm ETC cannon on a tank in the late 1990s DOES NOT mean that the technology is now mature and can begin to replace current tank weapons.

Secondly, assuming that the technology for the gun is mature enough to begin mounting, power generation is not mature enough to meet the estimated requirements. To accomodate an ETC weapon, you would have to develop a new armored vehicle around it, which could take several years. It is unlikely we will see any ETC armed vehicle until the late 2020s to early 2030s.

[Danternoust]

To accomodate an ETC weapon, you would have to develop a new armored vehicle around it, which could take several years.

Not really. Just increase the size of the turret APU, and use capacitors.

[The Akasha Colony]

Despite no one actually using this, I'm going to come here and ask about the 130mm Rheinmetall gun that is being developed. How likely is it to be adopted by NATO countries and those that use Rheinmetall weapons?

It's the only game in town, really. Only the Germans have the political and economic determination (and industrial base) to see it through and the French will have a relatively hard time selling their old 140 mm now that the 130 mm by most accounts has similar performance and is an all around newer design. But they have to pretend they have a chance since national pride demands it.

Not like it matters since the "next generation" of NATO tanks will basically be whatever the Germans (with or without French participation) make. They're the only major European power still in the tank game. So standardization isn't much of a problem when there isn't much to standardize.

ETC will eventually be viable but there are still issues that must be ironed out before it will replace current propellant ignition systems.

ETC hasn't been viable for the last 20 years and there are no looming breakthroughs that seem likely to suddenly make it viable. Certainly not within the timeframe needed to be considered for adoption in the next round of NATO tanks, which will be in the next five years.

The other problem is that larger conventional guns as it turns out aren't that much of a problem to integrate. The various tests with 140 mm guns toward the end of the Cold War demonstrated that they worked more or less fine; they'd need new turrets due to ammo handling restrictions but they would not need any radical changes to the general design.

[The Manticoran Empire]

To accomodate an ETC weapon, you would have to develop a new armored vehicle around it, which could take several years.

Not really. Just increase the size of the turret APU, and use capacitors.

First of all, the Abrams tank at least doesn't HAVE a turret APU. The Auxiliary Power Unit is used to reduce fuel consumption while idling. You would have to find space in the turret to mount a turret specific APU and that will reduce your ammunition load. Further, to accommodate the other power requirements will require entirely redesigning the turret, sacrificing either ammunition or crew comfort. It will be simpler to just design a new vehicle around the gun instead of trying retrofit the gun into an existing vehicle.

[Danternoust]

Will the British upgrade to a 140mm rifled gun?

The various tests with 140 mm guns toward the end of the Cold War demonstrated that they worked more or less fine; they'd need new turrets due to ammo handling restrictions but they would not need any radical changes to the general design.

Need stronger turret motors, reinforce the race ring, deal with how everyone within fifty meters will go deaf.

retrofit the gun into an existing vehicle.

Okay.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Will the British upgrade to a 140mm rifled gun?

No. They are actually planning to replace the Challenger's rifled gun with a smoothbore gun.

The various tests with 140 mm guns toward the end of the Cold War demonstrated that they worked more or less fine; they'd need new turrets due to ammo handling restrictions but they would not need any radical changes to the general design.

Need stronger turret motors, reinforce the race ring, deal with how everyone within fifty meters will go deaf.

If you are within 50 meters of a tank main gun, you are probably already deaf because of the engine.

retrofit the gun into an existing vehicle.

Okay.

[/quote]
Stop taking my statements out of context. Retrofitting the gun into an existing vehicle will be harder than just building a new vehicle. A perfect example is the Sherman Firefly.

[The Akasha Colony]

First of all, the Abrams tank at least doesn't HAVE a turret APU. The Auxiliary Power Unit is used to reduce fuel consumption while idling. You would have to find space in the turret to mount a turret specific APU and that will reduce your ammunition load. Further, to accommodate the other power requirements will require entirely redesigning the turret, sacrificing either ammunition or crew comfort. It will be simpler to just design a new vehicle around the gun instead of trying retrofit the gun into an existing vehicle.

Abrams actually had a turret APU for a while in the bustle rack. The newer M1A2 SEP variants finally introduced an under-armor APU located in the hull, but the space for the APU in the bustle rack was reallocated to an external cooling system for the electronics. The bustle mounting was always suboptimal and even resulted in the loss of a tank to machine gun fire in Iraq when the hits created a leak of oil from the APU which seeped into the main engine compartment and ignited, disabling the engine.

[Danternoust]

For tank transporter, should I go with a self-propelled trailer powered by plugging into an electric drive vehicle?

It seems like only 700 hp is needed to tow the Abrams, for urban use, I guess high powered engines aren't needed. Maybe as an upgrade option, a downrated more fuel efficient engine could be used.

This should double fuel range. Mounting a turbo-electric tank onto an electric drive self-propelled trailer should give it 1000 km of range.

Using methanol to save logistics costs would reduce the range to 500 km though, which is okay, although it would be offset by mounting a 1000 liter fuel tank onto the trailer.

[The Manticoran Empire]

For tank transporter, should I go with a self-propelled trailer powered by plugging into an electric drive vehicle?

It seems like only 700 hp is needed to tow the Abrams, for urban use, I guess high powered engines aren't needed. Maybe as an upgrade option, a downrated more fuel efficient engine could be used.

This should double fuel range. Mounting a turbo-electric tank onto an electric drive self-propelled trailer should give it 1000 km of range.

Using methanol to save logistics costs would reduce the range to 500 km though, which is okay, although it would be offset by mounting a 1000 liter fuel tank onto the trailer.

You could but electric vehicles are still fairly short ranged. Right now the M1070 has a range of between 523 and 724 kilometers with their current 500 and 700 horsepower engines (depending on variant). The longest range electric vehicle is the Tesla Model S 100D with a range of 539 kilometers. In order to get that 1,000 kilometer range, you would have to almost double the fuel efficiency of a 1070A1 and maybe 25% increase in fuel efficiency for the M1070A0. The way electric cars are today, it is simply more economical to just use diesel.

[Danternoust]

maybe 25% increase in fuel efficiency for the M1070A0.

What is the fuel capacity of a M1070A0? I'm using the Abram's fuel capacity with a smaller fuel efficient engine.

[The Manticoran Empire]

maybe 25% increase in fuel efficiency for the M1070A0.

What is the fuel capacity of a M1070A0? I'm using the Abram's fuel capacity with a smaller fuel efficient engine.

947 liters. The Abrams has twice the fuel capacity of the M1070 with significantly less range so already your seeing improvement by just going with the M1070 and its M1000 trailer than by driving an Abrams onto a self-driving trailer and hoping the tank has enough fuel to get where you are going.

Also, downrating an engine is a pretty bad idea, especially for a tank.