NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Pentaga Giudici]

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

[Purpelia]

Can you explain to me, why Lybida had such a hard time using them during their war with Chad, and the tanks were basically operated as bunkers?

For the same reason they would have had problems operating any other tanks. They were idiots. And this is not an exaggeration.

I've read and heard many times that tanks are a lot harder to drive then a truck, and so I've considered wheeled TDs, or tanks that can operate on just wheels.

The Ratel and other vehicles like it seem to do well in parts of Africa, and the BTR-80 does well in most of Russia, so I think things should work out.

Wheels are nice but really they just can't carry the weight of gun AND armor combined that a tank can. They also can't go where a tank can. And overall the entire convertible drive part of Christies just isn't worth it and does not work past something the size of a BT anyway. At which point you just built the worlds most expensive BTR knockoff.

A-10s were semi-regularly strafing Rolands and ZSUs in Desert Storm and 2003 without much issue tbf. AH-64 also dismantled a large portion of Iraqi SHORADS with Hellfires, even after 3d ID's failed helicopter raid.

AAA in general doesn't seem to offer any substantial protection for ground troops against air attack, TBH.

Calling anything the Iraq army did competent and basing your judgment off those is problematic to say the least.

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

That's because in the period the vast majority of people wouldn't have had any experience at all with any other vehicle than a horse and cart. Teaching them to fix or drive a jeep would have been equally hard.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

Tbh the ergonomics for the driver of a T-34 was generally trash. Same for the turret crews in a small turret version.

[Pentaga Giudici]

What about the general ease of repairing wheels compared to tracks, the general cheapness of repairing them, and the lack of various problems of tracks?

Would the additional cost of a T-55 really be of much use, considering the extra armor is mostly better if we're worring about... IDK... 85mm Soviet guns or 76mm NATO guns? I've read that the 20 pounder is comparable to the Soviet 100mm, so I doubt the armor is really...THAT great.

Did someone ever inform this guy/gal/them, that according to many sources, the ATGMs were dismounted off the truck, fired, and then remounted? Manokan?

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

Tbh the ergonomics for the driver of a T-34 was generally trash. Same for the turret crews in a small turret version.

This is reminding me that the faction I want to make these tanks, is going to be like Italy during WW2. Everything is going to be of WW2 quality or worse, stolen, or bought off the black-market.

Starting to really think that the UK Scorpion would be way better then most other options right now.

[Gallia-]

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles,

Lol.

and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

A rural peasant would have a lot better time driving a tank of the 1930's or whatever than anyone else I can think of. Who else would grow up with the know-how to use literal tractor tillers? City slickers born after 1903 only know Lombardi's, wind they dynamo on Model T, Charleston, be gay, eat steak frites & lie. They're literally the worst humans to put in a tank they would just give up halfway through cranking the generator on the Tiger 2 because it's too big or something.

Considering the relative commonalities in handling and maintenance of your average tank and your average Holt tractor I'd think the rural farmer would be an ideal tank crewman.

Russia's main problem is that the Russian peasant is intractable, culturally and psychologically, and will literally bully to death any attempt to make him conform to things like "maintenance schedules" and "machinery". Russia would have been better off making the peasants push their field guns up the hills like it was 1860 instead of mounting them in cantankerous metal boxes, were it not for the fact that not even the ox-like peasantry wouldn't be able to wear enough body armor to make that plausible I suppose. OTOH it would have been more in-tune culturally with them.

Anyway by 1935 the Russians had tons of trained tractor mechanics and drivers, so the real reason is they were probably literally grabbing random Chechens and Belarussians, handing them a uniform, and tossing them into a tank. Barbarossa was a pretty desperate time and the exigencies of war took precedence over methodical training or whatever. The bulk of the professional soldiery had already been liquidated, twice, and what manpower they had sometimes couldn't even speak Russian. There were also corners cut in factories over meeting manufacturing tolerances, although this is probably more due to Ukrainian work ethic, and because of bizarre Stalinist wage practices the kolkhozes tended to shove their worst dregs into the tractor driving.

So anyone with any actual experience driving a tractor was a truly stereotypical Russian peasant by the time T-34 starts getting built. It's really difficult to understate just how bad the early tractorization efforts were, and these were a mere 5-10 years before Barbarossa obliterates all the actually good tractor drivers in the Red Army, but it was still probably the best the Russians had.

[Purpelia]

What about the general ease of repairing wheels compared to tracks, the general cheapness of repairing them, and the lack of various problems of tracks?

Would the additional cost of a T-55 really be of much use, considering the extra armor is mostly better if we're worring about... IDK... 85mm Soviet guns or 76mm NATO guns? I've read that the 20 pounder is comparable to the Soviet 100mm, so I doubt the armor is really...THAT great.

It's not that great at all. In fact if you are coming up against modern weapons and tanks built after say 1970 it's positively bad. But they still thrive across the world because in large parts of the planet, like say subsaharan africa modern weapons are hard to come by. And a force like you described in your original question would get crushed if it ran into a modern army no matter what sort of tank they had.

[Pentaga Giudici]

What about the general ease of repairing wheels compared to tracks, the general cheapness of repairing them, and the lack of various problems of tracks?

Would the additional cost of a T-55 really be of much use, considering the extra armor is mostly better if we're worring about... IDK... 85mm Soviet guns or 76mm NATO guns? I've read that the 20 pounder is comparable to the Soviet 100mm, so I doubt the armor is really...THAT great.

It's not that great at all. In fact if you are coming up against modern weapons and tanks built after say 1970 it's positively bad. But they still thrive across the world because in large parts of the planet, like say subsaharan africa modern weapons are hard to come by. And a force like you described in your original question would get crushed if it ran into a modern army no matter what sort of tank they had.

They're going up against Nigerians soldiers and police who haven't seen their paychecks in weeks or months.

I'm mostly really wanting to factor in cost considerations as well, along with manpower and materials.

Speaking of which, I got another weird question.... Which of the Soviet tanks before the T-72 (No T-64, expensive), is the easiest to upgun? Let's say someone went insane and wanted to replicate the Isherman/Super Sherman but with a T-55 or T-62, which sounds easier?

My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles,

Lol.

and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.

A rural peasant would have a lot better time driving a tank of the 1930's or whatever than anyone else I can think of. Who else would grow up with the know-how to use literal tractor tillers? City slickers born after 1903 only know Lombardi's, wind they dynamo on Model T, Charleston, be gay, eat steak frites & lie. They're literally the worst humans to put in a tank they would just give up halfway through cranking the generator on the Tiger 2 because it's too big or something.

Do Nigerians have tractors? I know the Soviet peasants did... I'll have to read more.

Wikipedia obviously doesn't tell the full story of Bastion either

I'd hoped this thread died but I guess it's just Manokan-tier from here on out

Should I shoot this milan missile from two miles away and take out the enemy tank while traveling 60 mph on a Toyota that carries dozens of missiles on it so I can make a fast get away or fire multiple times if I miss, or the machine gun sprays me, or should I get off within 100 yards of the tank where it's inevitable they will see me and the machine gun will open fire on me and I'm traveling 3 mph with a few rockets on foot since it's heavy, and then slowly set my weapon up to fire?

Hmmm, well I did read from a single book once that people did this, so I guess missile systems could have never been mounted on a Toyota truck. All opposing evidence in huge numbers is just wrong. I.Q. levels 300+

Who would go so far as to mount an anti-tank missile on a truck, surely it's better to jump off and slowly walk towards a tank for no reason? I'm guessing there was never a time where they fired it off the back of a truck, after all they assaulted a base once and use a rocket launcher once at close range, thus all times were at close range. Surely they would remove the very heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles firing platforms welded on to the back of their trucks and remove them before battle, this is the smart thing to do? I mean in all seriousness being contrarian for the sake of it is stupid. The U.S. Bradley has TOW missiles mounted on it, the various BMP and BMD Russian vehicles fire a variety of anti-tank munitions, the Israelis have anti-tank missiles mounted on their guns... you only get out and dismount sparingly, and when you do it's with a more expensive and sophisticated missile system, to fire a few rounds, in an ambush, using stealth, rather than as a main line of attack. For obvious reasons a faster moving armored vehicles with extra machine guns mounted on it and armor to protect the men is better to fire from. One of the reason why anti-tank guns fell out of use was they took too long for infantry to jump out and set up, and in that time frame they could expect return fire or for the enemy tank to go away. Lightly armored tank destroyers largely replaced them like the Hellcat or M10 or M36, during WWII, as it became clear that infantry slowly setting up their weapons was a mistake, it was better to move in and fire quickly then move in, set down for 30 minutes setting up the weapon and unloading all the ammunition and slowly firing at the target. Having it mounted to a vehicle not only means you can move and fire faster, but that you carry all your ammunition with you, food and water, extra machine guns and armor, and that has a generator to power things built right in to the vehicle via it's engine. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to dismount and try to set the big heavy gun up when you could just keep it mounted to the vehicle. But you can go on saying all sources except yours are fake, even years later, that's fine, might want to seek out a therapist though if you're that attached to the idea.

So I spent like 10-30 minutes reading lots of comments before and after this...and I have no idea why this person started sperging out of nowhere. I also can't tell what their question is, if it's a real question, or they're just being...salty? Cray cray?

EDIT 41 minutes in:

Wait, is this person saying they know better then four people with a stack of tank books, and 9 years of reading/RPing on the site?

[Gallia-]

no nigeria has literally no tanks at all

never had any

it's not like they werent constantly subsidizing tons of British defense industries in the 70s and 80s or whatever

[Purpelia]

They're going up against Nigerians soldiers and police who haven't seen their paychecks in weeks or months.

I'm mostly really wanting to factor in cost considerations as well, along with manpower and materials.

Speaking of which, I got another weird question.... Which of the Soviet tanks before the T-72 (No T-64, expensive), is the easiest to upgun? Let's say someone went insane and wanted to replicate the Isherman/Super Sherman but with a T-55 or T-62, which sounds easier?

T-55 by far. The T-62 and T-64 are very expensive comparatively. And they were a somewhat niche product that hasn't been widely exported which means update packages are going to be hard to come by. Where as the T-55 is everywhere and you literally have real world off the shelf solutions for anything your money can buy including but not limited to western 105mm guns, modern thermal optics, explosive reactive armor etc. Stuff that basically makes it comparable to the T-72 was on release (excluding the armor obviously). Now none of those are going to make it an actual match for something like a modern T-72 or other modern tanks. But that's just impossible for either the 55 or 62/64 family. The gap is just too large. And at least you can get the T-55 for cheaper.

This all being said your case is one where Rule 1 of tank warfare applies. That being if your enemy does not have tanks and you do it does not matter what your tanks are. All that matters is that you have some and they don't.

[Pentaga Giudici]

no nigeria has literally no tanks at all

never had any

it's not like they werent constantly subsidizing tons of British defense industries in the 70s and 80s or whatever

I know they have like a hundred T-72s and Vickers tanks, along with some other models. That's why "GIN" (Read, "Not GLA") wants a mixture of options available to them.

Btw, have you read the writeup for the Force on Force version of the C&C nod "Light Tank"? It had something to do with um, lemme copy/paste it.

"Nod evaluated the American M2/M3 IFVs and CSVs in the late 1980s and early 1990s through corrupt contacts at United Defense. The vehicle as-is was not accepted for wide adoption. However, Nod engineers melded the chassis and general turret with a modernized 75mm hyper-velocity gun (based on the “ARES” project abandoned by the United States) to create the “Magarru” Though often thought of as a replacement to the Rekeb, it performs a role more akin to a tank destroyer rather than general infantry support - usually hanging back in a reserve until enemy heavy armor is reported, then rapidly approaching to deliver a powerful blow.

The 75mm hyper-velocity gun fired different cartridges and a far more limited ammunition array than the more common Rekeb (only Sabot rounds were authorized), but was a contender against heavily armored targets. The vehicle features a hopper-based, semi-auto-loading mechanism that can hold up to five ready rounds in a lifter that can shuttle ammo from the loader (in what would normally be the passenger compartment) to the gun itself.

The vehicle can mount two jump-seats in the rear, where the magazine and loader are located. Though rarely used, the mounts remain and are a vestige of an earlier doctrine concept in which four Magarru would operate as a single platoon, each carrying two infantry as a dismount team that could all form together into an ordinary rifle squad to support the armored unit on foot."
'

They're going up against Nigerians soldiers and police who haven't seen their paychecks in weeks or months.

I'm mostly really wanting to factor in cost considerations as well, along with manpower and materials.

Speaking of which, I got another weird question.... Which of the Soviet tanks before the T-72 (No T-64, expensive), is the easiest to upgun? Let's say someone went insane and wanted to replicate the Isherman/Super Sherman but with a T-55 or T-62, which sounds easier?

T-55 by far. The T-62 and T-64 are very expensive comparatively. And they were a somewhat niche product that hasn't been widely exported which means update packages are going to be hard to come by. Where as the T-55 is everywhere and you literally have real world off the shelf solutions for anything your money can buy including but not limited to western 105mm guns, modern thermal optics, explosive reactive armor etc. Stuff that basically makes it comparable to the T-72 was on release (excluding the armor obviously). Now none of those are going to make it an actual match for something like a modern T-72 or other modern tanks. But that's just impossible for either the 55 or 62/64 family. The gap is just too large. And at least you can get the T-55 for cheaper.

This all being said your case is one where Rule 1 of tank warfare applies. That being if your enemy does not have tanks and you do it does not matter what your tanks are. All that matters is that you have some and they don't.

From what I've been reading, a lot of nations got the T-62s for free and on NS they are actually commonly cheaper then the T-55. I've done a lot of reading about why they cost a lot more, and it turns out most of those costs were exagerated, due to limited production runs, inflation, ect ect.

You are right that T-55 has a lot more upgrade packages lying around, but if you're stuck trying to make your own ammo or are in a situation like Saddam's Iraq, the T-62 is a lot better. What if the faction was getting North Korea's upgrades via connections to Iran?

Not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the stuff you are naming requires Russia or someone like them to like you.

[Purpelia]

From what I've been reading, a lot of nations got the T-62s for free and on NS they are actually commonly cheaper then the T-55. I've done a lot of reading about why they cost a lot more, and it turns out most of those costs were exagerated, due to limited production runs, inflation, ect ect.

You are right that T-55 has a lot more upgrade packages lying around, but if you're stuck trying to make your own ammo or are in a situation like Saddam's Iraq, the T-62 is a lot better. What if the faction was getting North Korea's upgrades via connections to Iran?

Not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the stuff you are naming requires Russia or someone like them to like you.

Nothing confrontational about it. I am operating off real world data because that's all I have. If you want to change the conditions to suit your setting that is something that I absolutely encourage as it is where fun comes from. And I would be happy to help you work these things out. But at that point your question really needs to change from "What is the best X" to "I want X, how do i achieve it." Or in your case "I want to have a fleet of modernized T-62's, what needs to change with the world for me to have that be reasonable." Nothing wrong about that at all.

This being said, a lot of the update packages for either tank come from non Russia/Soviet sources. Like for example the T-55 variant the British of all people built for Egypt. Tanks from this era are just very versatile if you are willing to put the money in.

[Pentaga Giudici]

From what I've been reading, a lot of nations got the T-62s for free and on NS they are actually commonly cheaper then the T-55. I've done a lot of reading about why they cost a lot more, and it turns out most of those costs were exagerated, due to limited production runs, inflation, ect ect.

You are right that T-55 has a lot more upgrade packages lying around, but if you're stuck trying to make your own ammo or are in a situation like Saddam's Iraq, the T-62 is a lot better. What if the faction was getting North Korea's upgrades via connections to Iran?

Not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the stuff you are naming requires Russia or someone like them to like you.

Nothing confrontational about it. I am operating off real world data because that's all I have. If you want to change the conditions to suit your setting that is something that I absolutely encourage as it is where fun comes from. And I would be happy to help you work these things out. But at that point your question really needs to change from "What is the best X" to "I want X, how do i achieve it." Or in your case "I want to have a fleet of modernized T-62's, what needs to change with the world for me to have that be reasonable." Nothing wrong about that at all.

This being said, a lot of the update packages for either tank come from non Russia/Soviet sources. Like for example the T-55 variant the British of all people built for Egypt. Tanks from this era are just very versatile if you are willing to put the money in.

I thought the Ramses upgrade was made in the US and uses an engine like the M60?

[Purpelia]

Nothing confrontational about it. I am operating off real world data because that's all I have. If you want to change the conditions to suit your setting that is something that I absolutely encourage as it is where fun comes from. And I would be happy to help you work these things out. But at that point your question really needs to change from "What is the best X" to "I want X, how do i achieve it." Or in your case "I want to have a fleet of modernized T-62's, what needs to change with the world for me to have that be reasonable." Nothing wrong about that at all.

This being said, a lot of the update packages for either tank come from non Russia/Soviet sources. Like for example the T-55 variant the British of all people built for Egypt. Tanks from this era are just very versatile if you are willing to put the money in.

I thought the Ramses upgrade was made in the US and uses an engine like the M60?

Could be. I am working off memory here.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I thought the Ramses upgrade was made in the US and uses an engine like the M60?

Could be. I am working off memory here.

Looked it up, it was.

Do you think without having to do the crazy T-55 AGM or whatever package, a 115mm or 125mm gun would fit on a T-55? Do you think switching to 105 or making your own 100mm smoothbore would really improve things?

I mean, if the gun knocks out T-72M1s/Vickers tanks it's worth it, I suppose. Trying to do this poorly with HEAT shells and Steel KEPs.

[Purpelia]

Do you think without having to do the crazy T-55 AGM or whatever package, a 115mm or 125mm gun would fit on a T-55?

The original soviet 115mm possibly, but don't quote me on that. The 120mm and 125mm would probably physically fit but I don't know how they would perform. I mean for one thing a much larger gun and ammo would screw with the ergonomics of the turret. And soviet tanks aren't exactly known for being roomy to begin with. My guess is that the AGM did what it did for a reason and not just to add cost.

Do you think switching to 105 or making your own 100mm smoothbore would really improve things?

Going from the original 100mm to a modern 100mm or the L7 105 would definitively improve things a lot. But it wouldn't make you capable of fighting modern tanks. Than again this does not really seem to fit your scenario anyway and even if it did no upgrade in the world could. What it would do is make you superior to unupgraded tanks from the era (lots of whom are still floating around large parts of the world) and give you access to modern munitions that are not just plain better but also available off the shelf from foreign manufacturers. Especially if you go with the L7.

I mean, if the gun knocks out T-72M1s/Vickers tanks it's worth it, I suppose. Trying to do this poorly with HEAT shells and Steel KEPs.

Anything short of 12cm isn't going to knock out any variant of T-72. Not even the at launch export versions. But at the same time a T-55 or T-62/64 modernized to any degree going up against a T-72 with equal levels of modernization is going to die a horrible screaming death anyway. So that's somewhat of a moot point.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I have been reading about the Iran/Iraq War and as far as I understand, the T-62 Iraq could shoot through Chieftains and the Chieftains could shoot through T-72s.

I think when it comes to AP, their capabilities were close to one another, and I think the Chieftain had the same or slightly more armor.

[Purpelia]

I have been reading about the Iran/Iraq War and as far as I understand, the T-62 Iraq could shoot through Chieftains and the Chieftains could shoot through T-72s.

I think when it comes to AP, their capabilities were close to one another, and I think the Chieftain had the same or slightly more armor.

Chieftains use a 120mm gun. So their performance is not that surprising against early T-72 models.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I have been reading about the Iran/Iraq War and as far as I understand, the T-62 Iraq could shoot through Chieftains and the Chieftains could shoot through T-72s.

I think when it comes to AP, their capabilities were close to one another, and I think the Chieftain had the same or slightly more armor.

Chieftains use a 120mm gun. So their performance is not that surprising against early T-72 models.

It's still rifled, so I could imagine a smoothbore gun being on par against vehicles, because the KEPs are moving faster and the HEAT isn't being spun out of effectiveness (Slight exaggeration)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's still rifled, so I could imagine a smoothbore gun being on par against vehicles, because the KEPs are moving faster and the HEAT isn't being spun out of effectiveness (Slight exaggeration)

The difference regarding KEP's are so small they are nigh irrelevant between a smoothbore and a rifled. The only reason you'd keep the latter vs getting the versatility of the Rh120 is because you are an inertia-crippled budget-piñata for HM Treasury.

[Gallia-]

riffl bad

all my homies HATE riffls

[Pentaga Giudici]

It's still rifled, so I could imagine a smoothbore gun being on par against vehicles, because the KEPs are moving faster and the HEAT isn't being spun out of effectiveness (Slight exaggeration)

The difference regarding KEP's are so small they are nigh irrelevant between a smoothbore and a rifled. The only reason you'd keep the latter vs getting the versatility of the Rh120 is because you are an inertia-crippled budget-piñata for HM Treasury.

I've been reading a lot of numbers that are closer to 20% improvement, then 0%, over the last few years.

I'm not entirely sure if the T-62's gun ended up being a "bored out" T-55 gun, but it started out that way according to my books. If they are measuring from the inside of the barrel, then 100mm could become 115mm.

If that is the case, then the improvement from T-55 to T-62 vs tanks, which is greater then 20%, would be the result of changing to smoothbore.

[Purpelia]

The difference regarding KEP's are so small they are nigh irrelevant between a smoothbore and a rifled. The only reason you'd keep the latter vs getting the versatility of the Rh120 is because you are an inertia-crippled budget-piñata for HM Treasury.

I've been reading a lot of numbers that are closer to 20% improvement, then 0%, over the last few years.

I'm not entirely sure if the T-62's gun ended up being a "bored out" T-55 gun, but it started out that way according to my books. If they are measuring from the inside of the barrel, then 100mm could become 115mm.

If that is the case, then the improvement from T-55 to T-62 vs tanks, which is greater then 20%, would be the result of changing to smoothbore.

Nope. It's the result of using physically larger ammo which is built using more modern technology.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I've been reading a lot of numbers that are closer to 20% improvement, then 0%, over the last few years.

I'm not entirely sure if the T-62's gun ended up being a "bored out" T-55 gun, but it started out that way according to my books. If they are measuring from the inside of the barrel, then 100mm could become 115mm.

If that is the case, then the improvement from T-55 to T-62 vs tanks, which is greater then 20%, would be the result of changing to smoothbore.

Nope. It's the result of using physically larger ammo which is built using more modern technology.

If that was the case, wouldn't more then two nations being using rifledguns of caliber larger then 110mm?

[Purpelia]

Nope. It's the result of using physically larger ammo which is built using more modern technology.

If that was the case, wouldn't more then two nations being using rifledguns of caliber larger then 110mm?

Various factors. None of which are more important than the massive difference made by the larger caliber.

Fundamentally caliber is your primary game changer along side with shell technology. A really good shell design can offset a centimeter of caliber and vice versa. Smoothbore vs rifling on the other hand is just nuance. It's what you get into once you have maxed out everything else and need that extra 1% over your enemy.

[Danternoust]

No amount of armor that can fit on a moving vehicle can defeat a steel 125mm APDS shell.