Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Pentaga Giudici]

Is developing an upgrade package comparable to the T-72-120 worth it? Or would it be cheaper to buy Leo2A4s and the like

Depends on where you get the parts from, who does the upgrades, and if the Leos are used.

[Licana]

Why is that "Dare to Compare" up?

pierre sprey is the hero we deserve

[Gallia-]

ATGW can be hundreds of pounds and several meters long and still be incapable of killing modern tanks.

: (

What about the Leopards being killed by ATGMs scuttling aviation bombs propaganda spindoctors?

ftfy

[Korva]

Is developing an upgrade package comparable to the T-72-120 worth it? Or would it be cheaper to buy Leo2A4s and the like

Well, it might preserve some domestic tankbuilding knowledge.

It also looks neato.

[Fordorsia]

: (

What about the Leopards being killed by ATGMs scuttling aviation bombs propaganda spindoctors?

ftfy

Are you saying Stanley Kubrick filmed the Leo props in a film studio? :0

[Laritaia]

ftfy

Are you saying Stanley Kubrick filmed the Leo props in a film studio? :0

no just like his previous project for the government, it was filmed on location.

[Pentaga Giudici]

Why is that "Dare to Compare" up?

pierre sprey is the hero we deserve

I really hate how I can't tell when people are joking.

That article is so assbackwards.

[Gallia-]

It's from a presentation actually. It's one slide.

[EsToVnIa]

Is developing an upgrade package comparable to the T-72-120 worth it? Or would it be cheaper to buy Leo2A4s and the like

Well, it might preserve some domestic tankbuilding knowledge.

It also looks neato.

Looking neato is why I'm leaning towards it.

Estovnia isn't a leading world power or anything similar to that so I don't think domestic tank knowledge is that really needed or am I just not realising how important preserving things like that are?

[Fordorsia]

Gerbil tank coming to your town

Twin 40mm cannons, four 120mm ATMG launchers that can't be reloaded from inside, and an M2.
Driver, Commander, Gunner.
6.7m long, 3.2m high (2.2m excluding turret), 3.5m wide.
Protected against 12.7mm all round, and against 14.5mm from the front because of the slope maybe?

Only need to give it minor utility stuff, unless anyone has suggestions for changes?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

repost from Mil Realism thread:

Would it make sense to manufacture truck militarization/"technical" kits?

They would be intended to improve civilian and/or military trucks for military/security duties and have the following purposes:

-domestic use with military/security forces
-export to allies for use with military/security forces
-export to friendly rebel factions

The kits would consist of any of the following (with more basic or extensive kits) :

-general protection in the form of wire mesh screens for windows, headlights, taillights ; run-flat tires ; bed rollcage ; bullbar
-weaponization in the form of rollcage-mounted ringmount, roof-mounted pintle mount, roof hatches
-utility/off-road features in the form of improved suspension kits, snorkel, light bar, bed folding bench seats
-spall and/or frag and/or ballistic protection in the form of rollcage-mounted ballistic blankets, sheets of flexible armor mounted on the interior of the vehicle

The point would be to improve utility, mobility, protection, firepower, etc.

The main idea would be for them to allow easy installation in the field, perhaps even just by those who operate the vehicles themselves without the need of additional technical staff.

You could have kits for various truck models and/or universal kits that would fit most common "technicals" (IRL this would be Hilux/Toyota Land Cruiser) . In any case some parts will be common among them.

A number of militaries utilize(d) CUCVs and LSSVs, which are very close to what you're describing. In terms of utilizing them for frontline combat, they'd be far less effective than a purpose built combat vehicle, but that has yet to stop irregulars from using technicals.

I know about the CUCV and LSSV.

However these kits' purpose would be more to be employed on technicals (whether used by irregulars or states) , meaning a more front-line role than CUCV/LSSV which if I'm not mistaken were more utility/logistics-minded vehicles.

Civilian trucks always seem to find their ways in rebels' hands (let alone actual government militaries) so the idea would be to offer them a force multiplier in a sense by upgrading existing pick-up truck that they already have (friendly rebels and nations) , so that instead of using the trucks in stock configuration or bothering with DIY mods. I gather that even basic frag protection would be a significant improvement. For example, instead of armoring trucks with whatever metal plates they can scrap up and mount/weld in a makeshift manner, which would probably weigh down the trucks considerably thus affecting mobility, friendly rebels are supplied with peel-and-stick armor and/or flexible armor sheets/blankets for interior/exterior mounting, of different protection levels, potentially allowing for stock or semi-stock appearance if required and keeping weight down. Kits can for example provide just spall, fragmentation and spall, and frag/spall/ballistic protection.

As far as I can gather flexible armor seems to be limited to a level 3A NIJ rating. I wonder how much fragmentation protection this will offer me?

Also, how much protection could I get out of peel and stick armor? I believe at one time .50 BMG kits were in testing by the US military but nothing came out of it? Tbh I would be happy with small arms fire protection like say assault rifle rounds and perhaps even "battle rifle" rounds.

Also, what is the best compromise between cost and lightweight for protecting windows? Ballistic glass tends to be heavy and expensive, maybe provide them with solid/flexible armor with slots or flaps for vision? I think a periscope/camera could potentially work lol

And, spray-applied spall protection seems to be a thing now - would it be practical to pack this into aerosol cans for simple application?

[Iltica]

The

Gerbil tank coming to your town

Twin 40mm cannons, four 120mm ATMG launchers that can't be reloaded from inside, and an M2.
Driver, Commander, Gunner.
6.7m long, 3.2m high (2.2m excluding turret), 3.5m wide.
Protected against 12.7mm all round, and against 14.5mm from the front because of the slope maybe?

Only need to give it minor utility stuff, unless anyone has suggestions for changes?

drive sprocket is in the rear implying a rear transmission but the long nose suggest a front engine. This is possible but seems needlessly overcomplicated. You still need some exhaust and radiator vents etc too.
If the engine is actually in the rear it might have some weight distribution problems. You could put ammo or fuel in the nose but I don't know how much that would affect it.
I also think the machine gun is redundant if you already have another automatic weapon on the same trunnion, that's kinda like having an SMG mounted under the barrel of an assault rifle. It could be useful if it aimed independently though. Hull mount maybe?

[Fordorsia]

The

Gerbil tank coming to your town

Twin 40mm cannons, four 120mm ATMG launchers that can't be reloaded from inside, and an M2.
Driver, Commander, Gunner.
6.7m long, 3.2m high (2.2m excluding turret), 3.5m wide.
Protected against 12.7mm all round, and against 14.5mm from the front because of the slope maybe?

Only need to give it minor utility stuff, unless anyone has suggestions for changes?

drive sprocket is in the rear implying a rear transmission but the long nose suggest a front engine. This is possible but seems needlessly overcomplicated. You still need some exhaust and radiator vents etc too.
If the engine is actually in the rear it might have some weight distribution problems. You could put ammo or fuel in the nose but I don't know how much that would affect it.
I also think the machine gun is redundant if you already have another automatic weapon on the same trunnion, that's kinda like having an SMG mounted under the barrel of an assault rifle. It could be useful if it aimed independently though. Hull mount maybe?

Engine is indeed at the front. I don't see the problem with it, plenty of vehicles have have separated engine and transmissions.

It's not like the cannons would be used against everything, and it's not like they have a huge amount of ammo either. The .50 would be for mopping up infantry, or a backup if the cannons are out and good barrier penetration would still be useful while withdrawing.

[The Akasha Colony]

Engine is indeed at the front. I don't see the problem with it, plenty of vehicles have have separated engine and transmissions.

It wastes a lot of space and adds to the weight of the vehicle given that it now needs a long driveshaft from the front to the rear. There's a good reason it's basically gone extinct in tracked AFVs since the end of WWII.

[Fordorsia]

Engine is indeed at the front. I don't see the problem with it, plenty of vehicles have have separated engine and transmissions.

It wastes a lot of space and adds to the weight of the vehicle given that it now needs a long driveshaft from the front to the rear. There's a good reason it's basically gone extinct in tracked AFVs since the end of WWII.

How much weight would it add?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Engine is indeed at the front. I don't see the problem with it, plenty of vehicles have have separated engine and transmissions.

Well for starters it would explain the unusually high profile for a lightly armored tracked vehicle.

Is there a troop compartment under the remote turret? It seems to be the only justification for that height, size, and configuration, as well as for the insistence that all ammunition be stored externally. But the fact that you're calling it a "tank" rather than an "IFV" suggests it's supposed to be some kind of light tank. Or at least a BMPT without the armor, in other words, without the main advantage a BMPT has over a conventional IFV.

It's not like the cannons would be used against everything, and it's not like they have a huge amount of ammo either.

All the more reason to have one instead of two.

BMPT's turret, which this seems to be heavily based on, uses two guns because one has an HE feed and one has an AP feed. You could argue that yours has the same motivation; but considering that it has a lot of internal space, doesn't carry much autocannon ammunition, and is trying to minimize weight, yet also mounts a larger and heavier autocannon, this may not be a worthwhile sacrifice.

The .50 would be for mopping up infantry,

In which case a ~7.62mm weapon would offer more ammunition, less weight, and a higher rate of fire.

or a backup if the cannons are out and good barrier penetration would still be useful while withdrawing.

If both autocannons are disabled, continuing to fight so you can punch holes in that brick wall should not be your leading priority.

The HMG is also directly on top of the autocannons and uses the same elevation and traverse mechanism, so I don't see how it offers much in terms of redundancy; any hit that disables one is likely to disable the other.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The

Gerbil tank coming to your town

Twin 40mm cannons, four 120mm ATMG launchers that can't be reloaded from inside, and an M2.
Driver, Commander, Gunner.
6.7m long, 3.2m high (2.2m excluding turret), 3.5m wide.
Protected against 12.7mm all round, and against 14.5mm from the front because of the slope maybe?

Only need to give it minor utility stuff, unless anyone has suggestions for changes?

drive sprocket is in the rear implying a rear transmission but the long nose suggest a front engine. This is possible but seems needlessly overcomplicated. You still need some exhaust and radiator vents etc too.
If the engine is actually in the rear it might have some weight distribution problems. You could put ammo or fuel in the nose but I don't know how much that would affect it.
I also think the machine gun is redundant if you already have another automatic weapon on the same trunnion, that's kinda like having an SMG mounted under the barrel of an assault rifle. It could be useful if it aimed independently though. Hull mount maybe?

this. if you had maybe a 20mm autocannon or something, a coax AGL might have made sense but not with 40mm ACs I think.

or if you still want an extra coax MG, use something chambered in 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO or your nation's equivalent of that. It would allow for a secondary suppressive fire capability that could be more efficient at that and maybe allow you to kill some infantry and/or light vehicles who don't warrant 40mm AC rounds (although note that in some situations this won't hold true ; if you can kill with 1-2 40mm rounds it's not necessarily more efficient than dozens or hundreds of 7.62 / 5.56)

Also a smaller caliber MG might be preferable in situations where you want to limit collateral damage whether in the form of humans or property.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Engine is indeed at the front. I don't see the problem with it, plenty of vehicles have have separated engine and transmissions.

Well for starters it would explain the unusually high profile for a lightly armored tracked vehicle.

Is there a troop compartment under the remote turret? It seems to be the only justification for that height, size, and configuration, as well as for the insistence that all ammunition be stored externally. But the fact that you're calling it a "tank" rather than an "IFV" suggests it's supposed to be some kind of light tank. Or at least a BMPT without the armor, in other words, without the main advantage a BMPT has over a conventional IFV.

It's not like the cannons would be used against everything, and it's not like they have a huge amount of ammo either.

All the more reason to have one instead of two.

BMPT's turret, which this seems to be heavily based on, uses two guns because one has an HE feed and one has an AP feed. You could argue that yours has the same motivation; but considering that it has a lot of internal space, doesn't carry much autocannon ammunition, and is trying to minimize weight, yet also mounts a larger and heavier autocannon, this may not be a worthwhile sacrifice.

You don't even need two ACs for HE and AP feed. Many modern ACs and some HMGs even I think, have dual feeding capability where you'll have two ammo belts on the weapon at the same time and select one with a switch. with electrical/remote operation, assuming a fast and reliable enough switch mechanism, you could probably even fire one HE after one AP in quick succession (simulating having two separate ACs) or whatever sequence you would like.

obviously 2 ACs has the added benefit that if one craps out for whatever reason or overheats or something you still have the other , temporarily till the other cools down or its malfunction gets resolved, or until the vehicle leaves the battle and gets repaired

Gerbil tank coming to your town

Twin 40mm cannons, four 120mm ATMG launchers that can't be reloaded from inside, and an M2.
Driver, Commander, Gunner.
6.7m long, 3.2m high (2.2m excluding turret), 3.5m wide.
Protected against 12.7mm all round, and against 14.5mm from the front because of the slope maybe?

you seem to have a lower glacis or whatever thats called that is completely flat and that's probably exactly where you engine and/or (depending on your layout) front of the transmission would be (or if not exactly there, still in line with them but more to the back)

[Fordorsia]

All good points. About the height and internal space though. The hull roof is only 2m high. It was lower originally but I figured it would be too uncomfortable, especially for the gunner who has his future computerz

And the room under the turret. Well originally the transmission was under there, along with extra ammunition for both the 40mm and M2, as well as four extra missiles, just in case they were forced to reload them. No passengers in there, just the three crew. But with the transmission gone now it can just have even more ammo.

Also I had no idea about the BMPT. I didn't really base it on anything, I just laid it out how I thought it would work.
Why would the BMPT have each guns using just one kind of ammo? My intention was to have alternating belts, but with the belts offset so that with each shot one gun fired HE and the other fired AP. I figured that would be better if one gun was knocked out or jammed, or if you wanted to use one gun and save the ammo for the other.

[Iltica]

Should've mentioned this earlier but in the interest of fairness, the BMPT does have a 7.62mm machine gun in addition to 2 30mm autocannons though I'll be damned if I could tell you where it is..

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Should've mentioned this earlier but in the interest of fairness, the BMPT does have a 7.62mm machine gun in addition to 2 30mm autocannons though I'll be damned if I could tell you where it is..

If I'm not mistaken it's in a gun port-style/cupola/casemate-style mount on the hull


edit: aaand i'm wrong, wikipedia says its coaxial

[Korva]

Should've mentioned this earlier but in the interest of fairness, the BMPT does have a 7.62mm machine gun in addition to 2 30mm autocannons though I'll be damned if I could tell you where it is..

Above the autocannons.

[Fordorsia]

Should've mentioned this earlier but in the interest of fairness, the BMPT does have a 7.62mm machine gun in addition to 2 30mm autocannons though I'll be damned if I could tell you where it is..

It's the barrel above and between the cannons, with the muzzle cover. Sauce

[Fordorsia]

Fixed some stuff and things

[Laritaia]

the Drum system still doesn't work.

tbh a drum is not really a suitable ammo storage method for this weapon mount, you would be better of with a regular box magazine with a belt.