Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Zeinbrad]

I present the new hit single from Ironi's new ablum (Ironi:Greatest Hits) the Estian universal tank!


FV-122 "Estian"
Country of Origin-United Kingdoms of Britcan.
Designed-1947-1948.
Produced-1949-1962.
Number Built-7,000
Operators-Britcan Royal Army.
Ironi Self-Defense force-Modified into APC's, ARV's and CEV's.
South Azrea Defense force-All modernized as the Elfent Main Battle Tank
Hecome
Gazillion more.
Crew-5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Radio Operator and Driver.)
Main Armament-L/5 84mm Tank Gun(Mark.1 )
L/6 105mm Tank Gun (Mark.2)
Secondary Armament-.303 Boy Machine Gun.
.303 Da machine gun.
Weight-51 tons.
Armor-150mm
Engine-Roys-12 Diesel Engine.
Maximum Speed-23 mph
Operational Range-290 miles.
Combat History-Zweiland War(Britcan)-300 Estian Universal tanks fought in the first year of this war, destroying many North Zweiland tanks, with only 20 Estians being destroyed in the first year of the war. Numbers grew to 400 Estians with 60 causalities.
Kua Crisis(Britcan) 5 Estians where deployed by Britcanish peacekeepers,
First invasion of Ironi(1956-1958) About 200 Estians fought on the Ironi side in this war, and where well liked by their crews. They where able to take on the T-45 with ease, unlike the M6 Leytons(Non-upgraded version) that formed the bulk of the Ironi tank forces in the 50's. About 60 Estians where lost.

[Oaledonia]

Stealing art without credits is bad, mmmmkay?

[Dostanuot Loj]

What befuddles me is primarily the 'semi-auto magazine' - would you by any chance have any more information regarding that? I'm guessing its a revolving magazine that presents rounds to the loader as selected?

IIRC it's basically two drums of ammunition that is held as ready and replenished as needed.
Not entire sure where the "semi-automatic" comes into it, because it's manually loaded and manually unloaded.

Anemos, I think you might want to just link this in the main post, I explain this about every iteration of the thread. I'm writing it as a general Merkava-ammo-troop-carry thing, but it will answer your question.

Merkava Ammunition Stowage Explained:

So, you want to know how the Merkava stores ammunition, or you believe that you can fit troops into it? Well, it's learning time!

First things first, primary ammunition stowage and the rear of the hull. Now, the primary thing people claim is that you can carry troops in the Merkava, and this is true to a small extent. You can cram 5-6 troops into the Merkava, with only their gun and webgear/helmet, if you pack them tightly enough, and you remove all the ammunition. I do mean cram, as the space involved is neither comfortable in terms of dimensions nor in terms of pointy things sticking into the soldiers. Here is what that space looks like:

You will note two things: the man on the left is hunched really uncomfortably, and all the things sticking out of the wall on the right. First, that is how much space is in the back, you can fit two soldiers like that on each side, then two in the middle row in a very close position that their wives would most definitely not be comfortable with. The second, is where the ammunition stowage racks are attached, and they can not be removed without never storing ammunition there again.

So, here we have a conundrum. It's cramped, and you need to keep ammo there. Here is that same spot with ammunition bins in place:


Now, fun stuff. You can count there 48 rounds available. Those boxes are for 105mm, so an early Merkava, but the 120mm guns use the same space to store their ammunition. For the 120mm gun tanks, 32 rounds in individual containers, with a more narrow "hallway" to the door.

So what kind of fun stuff does this mean to your troop-carrying Merkava? It means you can't carry troops unless you throw out all of your ammunition. And when you do carry them, they will be really, really uncomfortable. But this is the point. Let's postulate some scenarios that the Merkava was designed to deal with.

1: Overwhelming numbers on a defensive war. The Israelis found on the Golan Heights that their biggest issue fighting the Syrians was not numbers, it was ammunition. The Israelis had the Syrians down, tank for tank, every time, and Israeli gunnery was really good about this. But when a tank is out of ammo it has to leave the battle, go to a rear area, and reload. Reloading takes a long time. You have a crew of four, and every one of them is involved in reloading the tank. One crew member unpacks the rounds individually from its crate and hands it to a crew member on the hull of the tank, he then hands it to one on top of the turret, who then hands it down through the loader's hatch to the loader. The loader then has to place the ammunition into its space, in a way he can remember or in accordance with a label/colour system that is there.One round at a time. When you are loading ~62 rounds into a tank this takes a long, long time.

2: One tank gets knocked out out of a four-tank platoon. The crew to the Israelis are the most valuable asset. They can have as many tanks as they want, but people to man them are limited. If you lose a tank to, say, an IED, you can take two of your remaining tanks, throw out half of your ammunition from the rear of your hull, and each can then carry two extra people, or half the crew of the knocked out tank. This means that while the fourth tank is providing cover, the crew can be recovered and brought back to be given a new, not-destroyed tank and go back to the fight quicker.

These two reasons are why the Merkava has a rear door, front engine, and ammo in that space. Do you know a faster way to load the Merkava then what I described in 1? To open the door, and have two people outside, two people inside, pick up boxes of four rounds each (Or individual for 120mm), and hand them to the people inside, who stack them. It takes a fraction of the time normal tanks take to reload. Less time reloading = more time shooting, which is good. For the second, I think I explained it in the description, but the ability to recover crew under fire is very very important to Israel.

Now, on to ready rounds. That picture with 48 rounds in the hull? That's a Merkava II, which has a total of 62 rounds ready for combat. Fourteen rounds are available to the loader, ten stacked along the turret basket wall next to him, and four above the ring for ready rounds. It's hard to find pictures of this though.

For the Merkava IV, it gets better. The bustle contains 10 ready rounds in a single semi-automatic retrieval system. This is two rotary containers, five rounds each, which can be programmed for what round is where. The rounds are lined with a single hatch by the computer, and pushed out a bit for the gunner to grab. This eliminates a large blast door, so round cookoff is even less of an issue. This also means that the loader hits a button, and then grabs the round that is presented, he doesn't have to find the round he wants and manually pull it from its tube.


I believe two loose rounds are carried in brackets in the turret too, for immediate-ready use, but I could be wrong.

So, in short.
1: Your Merkava is not an IFV.
2: Your Merkava does not have an autoloader.
3: Your Merkava can reload faster then anyone else.

[Zeinbrad]

Stealing art without credits is bad, mmmmkay?

...............................

Why am I so stupid sometimes?

Maybe because I spent hours looking for a good design.

[Anemos Major]

Stealing art without credits is bad, mmmmkay?

Even worse because the tracks on that tank were already stolen.

[Zeinbrad]

Stealing art without credits is bad, mmmmkay?

Even worse because the tracks on that tank were already stolen.

So I stole something from someone that stole something from someone else.

*Goes outside to rethink his life*

[The New Lowlands]

Even worse because the tracks on that tank were already stolen.

So I stole something from someone that stole something from someone else.

*Goes outside to rethink his life*

*BWOOM*

[Gallia-]

Even mighty Abrams doesn't have it ):
(Image)

Yeah and look how many wars Abrams has lost.

Tanks should be like 40% armour 30% ammunition 15% engine 5% cyberbrain:



You need like three CENTAGs and 50 Minuteman missiles to stop this dude.

Then you have to deal with the manned mechanised division behind him. o:

Get owned son.

[The New Lowlands]

Even mighty Abrams doesn't have it ):
(Image)

Yeah and look how many wars Abrams has lost.

Since when do tanks win wars?

[Gallia-]

Yeah and look how many wars Abrams has lost.

Since when do tanks win wars?

Since 2070 A.D.

[The New Lowlands]

Since when do tanks win wars?

Since 2070 A.D.

No, that'll still be economics.

[Gallia-]

Since 2070 A.D.

No, that'll still be economics.

Didn't work in The Last War, everyone lost. o:

Pretty sure "economics" didn't have anything to do with Iraq, either. Seems to be "sectarianism", maybe?

[The New Lowlands]

No, that'll still be economics.

Didn't work in The Last War, everyone lost. o:

Pretty sure "economics" didn't have anything to do with Iraq, either. Seems to be "sectarianism", maybe?

wait, let's think about this for a second
Coalition
US GDP: 15.68 trillion
Population: circa 330 million
GB GDP: 2.435 trillion
Population: circa 60 million
Capacity for Military: fucking gargantuan

Iraq GDP: 210.3 billion
Population: circa 30 million
Capacity for Military: practially nothing

who won again?

[The Kievan People]

No, that'll still be economics.

If economics were the easy road to victory, Vietnam would be an American client, Afghanistan would be communist, Israel would not exist, Korea would be unified under the ROK, Iraq would be an American ally...

[The New Lowlands]

No, that'll still be economics.

If economics were the easy road to victory, Vietnam would be an American client, Afghanistan would be communist, Israel would not exist, Korea would be unified under the ROK, Iraq would be an American ally...

Vietnam? You mean the country backed up by the USSR?

Afghanistan? You mean the insurgency backed up by the USA?

There wasn't a second Korean War, so the third point is moot.

Iraq isn't under American influence since when?

[The Kievan People]

1. The USA was economically superior to the USSR by an overwhelming margin. Vietnam still counts, the result directly contradicts your claim.
2. Based on your original axiom North Korea should have been wiped out. The economic power of the UN forces was absolutely overwhelming, even if the USSR is accounted for. But instead the Communist forces fought the UN to a stalemate, which from a economy=power standpoint is incomprehensible.
3. Iraqs government is now for all intents and a purposes an Iranian client. Its government is so weak it doesn't entirely control the country, but its definitely not a US friend.

[Gallia-]

Didn't work in The Last War, everyone lost. o:

Pretty sure "economics" didn't have anything to do with Iraq, either. Seems to be "sectarianism", maybe?

wait, let's think about this for a second
Coalition
US GDP: 15.68 trillion
Population: circa 330 million
GB GDP: 2.435 trillion
Population: circa 60 million
Capacity for Military: fucking gargantuan

Iraq GDP: 210.3 billion
Population: circa 30 million
Capacity for Military: practially nothing

who won again?

I thought you were going to be clever or something.

[The New Lowlands]

1. The USA was economically superior to the USSR by an overwhelming margin. Vietnam still counts, the result directly contradicts your claim.
2. Based on your original axiom North Korea should have been wiped out. The economic power of the UN forces was absolutely overwhelming, even if the USSR is accounted for. But instead the Communist forces fought the UN to a stalemate, which from a economy=power standpoint is incomprehensible.
3. Iraqs government is now for all intents and a purposes an Iranian client. Its government is so weak it doesn't entirely control the country, but its definitely not a US friend.

1. US and Soviet productive capacity in the fifties to seventies was roughly on par.
2. No, it isn't. China and the USSR combined had more than enough productive capacity to hold off the UN.
3. I'm surprised, frankly, but the Coalition still won the Iraq war.

-snip-

I thought you were going to be clever or something.

No, just factual.

[Gallia-]

No, just factual.

If it were factual, it would have been clever.

1. USA had a higher GDPPC than the USSR for basically the entire Cold War.
2. That's not "economy", that's the industrial sector. It didn't, btw.
3. It didn't.

[The New Lowlands]

No, just factual.

If it were factual, it would have been clever.

1. USA had a higher GDPPC than the USSR for basically the entire Cold War.
2. That's not "economy", that's the industrial sector. It didn't, btw.
3. It didn't.

1. k
2. Which is why the USA produced more bullets, tanks, guns, etc. than the USSR, amirite?
3.

[Stahn]

Stealing art without credits is bad, mmmmkay?

Whose art is it?

[The Kievan People]

1. US and Soviet productive capacity in the fifties to seventies was roughly on par.
2. No, it isn't. China and the USSR combined had more than enough productive capacity to hold off the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... _%28PPP%29

US Economy was roughly three times the size of the USSR in 1950. China was smaller the Britain, France or Germany.

[The New Lowlands]

1. US and Soviet productive capacity in the fifties to seventies was roughly on par.
2. No, it isn't. China and the USSR combined had more than enough productive capacity to hold off the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... _%28PPP%29

US Economy was roughly three times the size of the USSR in 1950. China was smaller the Britain, France or Germany.

Alright, fair enough. Guerilla wars seem to be an exception to the rule, then.

Any others?

[United States of PA]

-- Gunner by driver seating in the front ; Is it possible/how much width might i need?
-- If possible, how easy/hard would it be to theoretically isolate the commander on the right side of the turret from the autoloader assembly using a sizable enough bulkhead to prevent a round cookoff while being loaded from killing the crew?Blowout panels obviously will be included.
-- Anyone know how AMX-30 reloaded its coaxial 20mm cannon? Beltfeed or no?

Other suggestions obv. welcome.

And the rifled gun stays, before anyone says anything

Hey, it's good. Not my style tho.

For the gunner by driver that's fine. If you look at the Leopard 2, if it didn't have the ammo store there, there's enough space for a second person. So sure, you could do it. Seems to me there's no benefit though. Also, it would be a bad place to put optics.

I don't think so, re the commander.

My though behind the Gunner by driving seating in the front of the hull is that if i can than contain both any rounds currently being loaded and the autocannon & ammo on the left side, any cookoffs will not annihilate the crew. As for the sights, i dont really see why the sights cant be conventionally placed and linked to a small TV screen for the gunner to use.

[Riysa]

55 tons, 157mm with 35 rounds, front hull armor ~870mm RHAe. Wankish or not?

Boop.