Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Crookfur]

Could its feed system not be persuaded to wrap around the turret perimeter?

No

it uses push through feeding, if you set it up to feed from the left and mounted the gun alongside the maingun of a tank the spent cartridges would have nowhere to go.

Well you could mount it sideways so it feeds from the top.

I'm sure british engineering could totally acheive that without introducing some hilarious reliability issues...

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Would the design of the Tiger I's infamous 88mm gun be conducive to canister shot?

Where's the need? The Tiger already has the coax, and the bow gunner, and the potential for a commander's cupola-mounted MG. The HE rounds on the 88 were very powerful. The Tiger I fought almost exclusively in the wide open plains of Russia and Eastern Europe where it could kill at long range.

[Laritaia]

No

it uses push through feeding, if you set it up to feed from the left and mounted the gun alongside the maingun of a tank the spent cartridges would have nowhere to go.

Well you could mount it sideways so it feeds from the top.

I'm sure british engineering could totally acheive that without introducing some hilarious reliability issues...

go and google pictures of the CTA 40 and it's ammunition feed system

it's readily apparent why this idea won't work

[Imperializt Russia]

Well you could mount it sideways so it feeds from the top.

I'm sure british engineering could totally acheive that without introducing some hilarious reliability issues...

go and google pictures of the CTA 40 and it's ammunition feed system

it's readily apparent why this idea won't work

I've fixed it. An ammunition stowage bin is sat on the floor of the turret basket. It feeds rounds to a piston-driven rammer also mounted to the floor of the turret basket.

The rammer rams the shells upwards into the gun breech, pushing the spent cartridge out of an ejection port in the top of the mantlet.
This does however require occupying the space a loader would have, thus necessitating the tank be automatically loaded.

Or we could have a funky cleft turret arrangement with both turret crew on the right of the gun, as is normal, and the CTA gun is mounted externally on a mount slaved to the main gun's axis. Fed normally, with ammunition stowage inside the turret, ejecting directly out the tank.

[Laritaia]

go and google pictures of the CTA 40 and it's ammunition feed system

it's readily apparent why this idea won't work

I've fixed it. An ammunition stowage bin is sat on the floor of the turret basket. It feeds rounds to a piston-driven rammer also mounted to the floor of the turret basket.

The rammer rams the shells upwards into the gun breech, pushing the spent cartridge out of an ejection port in the top of the mantlet.

this doesn't take into account the gun elevating and depressing relative to the position of the loading mechanism.

the CTA gun works as it does because with the push through trunnion design the feed position never moves relative to the turret. With the gun rotated on its side the fed position now moves forwards and backwards when the gun elevates and depresses.

[Fordorsia]

Removed a 40mm, added four ATGMs. Come at me enemies.

So it's for recon but it would work just fine for infantry support, right?

[Iltica]

Idk what makes a good or bad infantry support vehicle in modern times but this much firepower seems overkill for either role and will attract lots of attention. If I had to guess what it was for knowing nothing about it, I would think it was some sort of strange hybrid of a tank destroyer and an SPAA with no radar. Long story short, this does not closely resemble any real vehicle except the BMPT but has much less armor. Best guess it would excel and falter at the same tasks as that, apart from the reduced survivability and higher profile.

[Fordorsia]

Idk what makes a good or bad infantry support vehicle in modern times but this much firepower seems overkill for either role and will attract lots of attention. If I had to guess what it was for knowing nothing about it, I would think it was some sort of strange hybrid of a tank destroyer and an SPAA with no radar. Long story short, this does not closely resemble any real vehicle except the BMPT but has much less armor. Best guess it would excel and falter at the same tasks as that, apart from the reduced survivability and higher profile.

Not SPAA, besides being able to hit low flying helicopters.

And the BMPT has a higher profile, as well at being much longer and like the same width.

[Cordis]

Light Mark VI "Badger"

Weight: 7.5 tonnes
Dimensions: 4.8 metres long, 2.4 metres wide, 2.1 metres tall
Crew: 3
Armour: 5-15mm
Armament: 1x 7.7cm 24-calibre gun, 1x 7.65mm machine gun
Engine: 6-cylinder petrol, 80HP
P/W Ratio: ≈10.6667HP per tonne
Speed:

Paved - 31km/h
Gravel - 22km/h
Off-road - 16km/h
Suspension: leaf quarter-elliptic springs

The main light tank in Cordisian service, the Mark VI is surprisingly well-armed for such a small vehicle, packing a 7.7cm gun more fitting for a medium tank. It is intended to provide infantry support when attacking fortified positions. The Mark VI chassis is used for a variety of other vehicles, including tank destroyers, assault guns, and SPAAs.

So, here's the Badger and the tank destroyer variant.

[Western Pacific Territories]

I-I-Is that a J-Jagdpanther?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Light Mark VI "Badger"

Weight: 7.5 tonnes
Dimensions: 4.8 metres long, 2.4 metres wide, 2.1 metres tall
Crew: 3
Armour: 5-15mm
Armament: 1x 7.7cm 24-calibre gun, 1x 7.65mm machine gun
Engine: 6-cylinder petrol, 80HP
P/W Ratio: ≈10.6667HP per tonne
Speed:

Paved - 31km/h
Gravel - 22km/h
Off-road - 16km/h
Suspension: leaf quarter-elliptic springs

The main light tank in Cordisian service, the Mark VI is surprisingly well-armed for such a small vehicle, packing a 7.7cm gun more fitting for a medium tank. It is intended to provide infantry support when attacking fortified positions. The Mark VI chassis is used for a variety of other vehicles, including tank destroyers, assault guns, and SPAAs.

So, here's the Badger and the tank destroyer variant.

It's a T-26 / AT-1 using an L-10.

Solid derp-tonk.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I-I-Is that a J-Jagdpanther?

The superstructure of that TD is more of a Hetzer than Jagdpanther.

Alas its on a T-26 chassis.

[Cordis]

(Image) So, here's the Badger and the tank destroyer variant.

It's a T-26 / AT-1 using an L-10.

Solid derp-tonk.

That's actually based on a Vickers 6-Ton, but you're forgiven because the T-26 was based on the Vickers. =v=

Also, that's an L-24.

[Cordis]

Also, here's the assault gun based on the tank destroyer, armed with a 12cm pack howitzer. Even more solid derp-tonk.

[Cordis]

I-I-Is that a J-Jagdpanther?

The superstructure of that TD is more of a Hetzer than Jagdpanther.

Alas its on a T-26 chassis.

That is, indeed, a Hetzer casemate on a Vickers 6-Ton chassis.

[Cordis]

Cordisian SPAA, armed with two 14mm machine guns.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've fixed it. An ammunition stowage bin is sat on the floor of the turret basket. It feeds rounds to a piston-driven rammer also mounted to the floor of the turret basket.

The rammer rams the shells upwards into the gun breech, pushing the spent cartridge out of an ejection port in the top of the mantlet.

this doesn't take into account the gun elevating and depressing relative to the position of the loading mechanism.

the CTA gun works as it does because with the push through trunnion design the feed position never moves relative to the turret. With the gun rotated on its side the fed position now moves forwards and backwards when the gun elevates and depresses.

I'd hoped it was obvious, but I wasn't entirely serious. If we're taking up the space of a loader though, a moving mechanism could easily be considered. Or we could just design another 40CTA gun with a different feed system.

[Husseinarti]

Didn't Sumer make some post about the Leopard 1's armor or something like that?

Like, talking about some myths about it?

[The Akasha Colony]

Didn't Sumer make some post about the Leopard 1's armor or something like that?

Like, talking about some myths about it?

Yeah, about how it's not as paper-thin as AMX-30's and was optimized toward defeating shaped charges, which it was supposed to be good at given its weight class.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Didn't Sumer make some post about the Leopard 1's armor or something like that?

Like, talking about some myths about it?

I don't know if I've ever made a full post just to that. So if you're interested...

There are four generations of armour on the Leopard 1. Well, two are pretty simmilar and one is based on another so we really could shrink it down to two, but four fits the discussion better.

First Generation: Cast solid steel.
This is where a lot of the Leopard 1 myths come from, because it's the first four production batches of tanks, and ammount to about 4000 of all Leopard 1 gun tanks produced. So most of them. There is not much to say, this is just solid cast steel turrets, solid welded steel hulls. The hulls in this batch would be the same hulls used in every other type except the A4, which would have a new spaced steel welded hull. These vehicles were mostly uparmoured with an applique armour kit which is most common on the A5 model now. I'll cover that in the 3rd gen.

Second Generation: Cast solid steel.
First half of the fifth production batch is the A2. These 230 tanks had a thicker solid cast turret. The armour on these was considered thick enough by the Germans that these vehicles were not uparmoured in the same program the A1s received. Since the applique armour added to the A1s was developed to provide all around protection against anything T-55 had available in the late 1960s, and possibly some of what T-62 had, it is reasonable to assume the A2's turret was capable of defeating these. These vehicles were largely withdrawn in the late 1980s, but as far as I know have not been sold abroad, and only loaned out once (To Canada prior to delivery of the C1).

Third Generation: Cast steel with applique.
This is the most common because it was fitted to most A1 models, and subsequently all A5 models. There are variances, but the basic standard of this are a perforated plate coated in polycarbonate with a resin-fiber outer shell. These are known to be effective against 3UBM6.

Fourth Generation: Welded spaced armour.
The last 360 Leopard 1s produced (Or less than 8% of all Leopard 1 gun tanks) had a spaced armour welded turret, with the last 250 having a spaced armour welded hull as well. These vehicles were introduced in response to the T-62 and as such were among the first vehicles capable of reliably defeating 115mm HEAT rounds frontally. Protection on the A4 is superior to the M60 and Chieftain.

It's interesting to note that the A4 was never exported. Greek A4GRs are A3s with elements of the A4 fire control system. The AS1, C1, and A3DK are all A3 based vehicles. The Leopard 1A4 (AKA the Ultimate Leopard 1^TM) formed the basis of Leopard 2 development, with the Leopard 2 being developed as a vehicle more adaptable than the Leopard 1 so future upgrades could take place.

A side note on the MEXAS kits: There are two types of MEXAS kits available and they differ in protection. The kit developed for the Leopard C1 (Kosovo Kat) was reported to be able to shrug off anything in the Balkans when it was deployed there in the late 1990s. The C2 kits (Deployed to Afghanistan) are different and are built around defeating RPGs and ATGMs instead of APFSDS.

AMX-30, on the flip side to all of this, was a featherweight. Although the AMX-30 mantlet was very well protected (Better than Leopard 1A1), it was also very large and thus very heavy.

PS: My personal favorite fantasy Leopard 1 would be an A4 with the EMES18 fire control like the A5DK has, plus C1 MEXAS armour. Add IWS and maybe a 1200hp powerpack and you have pure awesome.

[Opplandia]

PS: My personal favorite fantasy Leopard 1 would be an A4 with the EMES18 fire control like the A5DK has, plus C1 MEXAS armour. Add IWS and maybe a 1200hp powerpack and you have pure awesome.

Well, you are pretty much describing an A5 variant there. That Version already has the EMES 18 and can carry MEXAS heavy (either solo or together with the normal turret-applique it has). Further it can pack the Rh120 and a more powerful engine could be slapped in.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Well, you are pretty much describing an A5 variant there.

Except I'm not.
A5, while having EMES 18, would not have PERI R12, would have weaker base armour, weaker MEXAS, poorer munition stowage, and generally poorer systems.

Additionally, new engine is a common thing across all vehicles, so a non-issue. And the 120mm gun can be adapted to any of the three Leopard 1 turret varieties. The welded (A3/A4) turret has more internal volume and greater layout for both EMES 18 and the 120mm gun, and both have been fitted to this turret type*.

Or, to put this all another way: Saying what I described is a Leopard 1A5 is like saying a Sabra II is the same as M48A5 MOLF, which is absurd.

*Prototypes of A3s with the 120mm existed, and Leopard 1A5DK is a Leopard 1A3 with EMES 18.

[Opplandia]

yeah whatever. I better stop posting in this thread entirely.

[Dostanuot Loj]

yeah whatever. I better stop posting in this thread entirely.

I spent an entire post describing just one difference between the various Leopard 1 models, and you went to the fine print and ignored the entire post before it.

If that's reason to not contribute here, then most of the posters here should not be contributing.

[Opplandia]

yeah whatever. I better stop posting in this thread entirely.

I spent an entire post describing just one difference between the various Leopard 1 models, and you went to the fine print and ignored the entire post before it.

If that's reason to not contribute here, then most of the posters here should not be contributing.

Seeing as what kind of stuff is often enough being said here, I had to agree on the last point.