Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[Korva]

Any opinion on the Pandur II as a replacement for a former BMP family using country?

bump

It would be fine.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Purpelia: 3edgy5me

What a mess

That's a lot of extra space you have in there. I'd imagine the crew stuffed in there if it's anything like a normal AFV. In troop carriers, you sometimes barely even have the room to scratch your nose.

[Korva]

That's a lot of extra space you have in there. I'd imagine the crew stuffed in there if it's anything like a normal AFV. In troop carriers, you sometimes barely even have the room to scratch your nose.

only cause he hasn't added the additional machine guns, hull fuel sprayers, and mortars

[Elan Valleys]

Which is itself a reward.

Anyway, for anyone here who thinks the british still have some cool left in them here is proof from the 70's to say otherwise.

For what it's worth the British were unimpressed with the Swedes too.

[Padnak]

That's a lot of extra space you have in there. I'd imagine the crew stuffed in there if it's anything like a normal AFV. In troop carriers, you sometimes barely even have the room to scratch your nose.

only cause he hasn't added the additional machine guns, hull fuel sprayers, and mortars

Needs a giant plow too

[Crookfur]

(Image)

What Mobile Artillery is in this picture?

M109 Doher. Israelli modification of the M109A5

[Fordorsia]

Purpelia: 3edgy5me

What a mess

That's a lot of extra space you have in there. I'd imagine the crew stuffed in there if it's anything like a normal AFV. In troop carriers, you sometimes barely even have the room to scratch your nose.

That's not the most recent update. This is. Still pretty roomy though, even with the ammo and extra loader. That said it would be far more cramped for everyone but the loaders if I put in all their equipment, which I almost certainly won't do.

[The Soodean Imperium]

You can not make people behave selflessly by rewarding them for it. That by definition makes the behavior selfish because they are doing it for the reward.

If the reward is not being tortured/killed/etc then how is this "selflessness" not selfish?

I'd like to note Purp that you have a chance of death or dismemberment every day, everywhere. You could walk outside and be shot, or hit by a bus, or anything. People who accept this and decide to live their lives as they see fit despite this are worth respecting. Otherwise you might as well cower in fear in your room for the rest of your life.

I did a year as an armed guard recently (2 years ago), during a period where three other armed guard companies were robbed at gunpoint a total of five times, two involving shootings. I drew my own firearm once on top of that. Safest year of my life I think. There was never any thought about getting shot beyond the initial "it could happen", and never a worry that I was taking a job overly dangerous for some crazy reason. The money was good, the training free (and relevant to my interests) and I got to do things others didn't.

You're perfectly right to decide your own interests and priorities in life, but don't lie to yourself about how dangerous normal life is. You take your life in your hands every time you do anything.

The thing to remember, though, is that even though danger itself is objective, the perception of danger is subjective, and the latter is relevant in determining how people assess their life chances. Within the US, more people die every year from furniture falling on them than from terrorist attacks, more die of complications from influenza than from other exotic diseases, and more die in car crashes than freak airplane accidents. But that doesn't stop people from panicking about terrorists, Ebola, and airline safety while ignoring the poorly balanced bookshelf looming menacingly across the room.

I am by no means endorsing the idea that the only people who go to war are those too stupid to see how suicidal it is; but there is a grain of truth in the fact that some people, maybe even most people, will recoil from the thought of joining the military because they think it's much more dangerous than it actually is.

For it to truely be selfless there needs not be either reward or punishment. That is, there needs to be no outside influence, otherwise it is selfish. For example: I f I hold the door open for you at a restraunt, it is selfless because I will neither be rewarded or punished for doing so outside your own choice of actions (which you have full control over). If, however, I must hold the door open for you or be fined $10, then holding the door open for you results in the reward of me keeping my $10, or not doing so the punishment of losing it. My actions are directed by an external element for selfish reasons (I want my $10!) and not for selfless ones.

Strictly speaking, one could argue that holding a door for someone else is actually a "selfish" action because you are rewarded by the satisfaction of feeling like you helped someone out - or, better yet, the knowledge that you've made a good impression, whether on the person walking through or on bystanders nearby. It's an altogether different kind of incentive than pursuing a reward or evading a punishment, but it's an incentive nonetheless.

Of course, arguing that would involve a rather messy foray into the chaotic dimension where philosophy, psychology, and behavioral economics intersect, and this "ground vehicles" thread is off-topic enough already.

The bottom line is, Authoritarian regimes tend to stress the Communitarian value of putting one's country before oneself. And while this is seldom as successful as the regime would like, the combination of Nationalism and social pressure can make powerful recruiting tools, even in democracies (as Tim O'Brien wrote, "I was a coward; I went to the war.") Purpelia is correct in the sense that when Authoritarian regimes can't achieve this level of selfishness they often fall back on terror; and in a more abstract sense, he illustrates correctly that sometimes the politicians who push for war most ardently are also the most reluctant to put their own lives on the line. But a Stalinist state which openly embraces these principles is, to invoke familiar Marxist dialectics, pursuing short-term benefits in a way that builds up long-term contradictions and will doom it to an inevitable collapse.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Purpelia: 3edgy5me


That's a lot of extra space you have in there. I'd imagine the crew stuffed in there if it's anything like a normal AFV. In troop carriers, you sometimes barely even have the room to scratch your nose.

That's not the most recent update. This is. Still pretty roomy though, even with the ammo and extra loader. That said it would be far more cramped for everyone but the loaders if I put in all their equipment, which I almost certainly won't do.

It looks like it can't decide which way the turret wants to face. The rear looks a little like the KV glacis(if the prow were greatly flattened), and the front looks like a Jagdpanther. Also y u no firing ports for small arms?

And are you sure about the interleaved bogie wheels? I'm sure you're familiar with how their complexity hampered the Panther and Tiger I.

[New Vihenia]

This look VERY interesting.

WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery.
http://vk.com/doc67707672_338610150?has ... 265ab60d1b

[Fordorsia]

M43A2 with 130mm gun y/n?

[The balkens]

Thinking about Reviving the Heavy Panzer Battalion concept.

leopard 2 140 (called King leopards) with ERA blocks, beefier engines form 2 companies for each battalion, supported by Leopard 2 A6's and with Infantry.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Thinking about Reviving the Heavy Panzer Battalion concept.

leopard 2 140 (called King leopards) with ERA blocks, beefier engines form 2 companies for each battalion, supported by Leopard 2 A6's and with Infantry.

Heavy tanks aren't used anymore. The MBT combines the speed and maneuverability of light and medium tanks with the armor and firepower of heavies. No reason to do any of that.

This look VERY interesting.

WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery.
http://vk.com/doc67707672_338610150?has ... 265ab60d1b

ooh, pretty colors. Big doc, tho.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Nice work on the model side.

On the design side...

1. The big gun on the roof and radar antenna ruin any chance of subtlety in any band. Also, the gun blocks the radar antenna AND the antenna is too close to the surface of the turret. This is why EndWar is bad.
3. Water injection produces big clouds of black smoke. Not desirable at all. Also requires water.
4. ADAPTIV is neat but you only put it on the sideskirts. This will not do much. That was just the proof of concept vehicle, in reality it needs to cover the entire surface of the vehicle. It also requires a mapping camera to measure the IR background in real time, which was absent from the demonstrator. It also needs to be able to see itself for calibration, though I am not sure if anyone has figured out a convenient way to do that.

The radar was a relic that I forgot to delete from when the tank was a t-100 ogre knockoff. I was thinking of using a AN/ALR-94 type system like that on the F-22 which would allow the tank to detect radar signals while remaining stealthy as well as maybe an active electronically scanned array integrated into the RWS.

The water injection system is used for improving power and engine efficiency. Using it in combat would compromise the stealth of the vehicle so it would be reserved for when the tank is out of combat and just wants to drive really fast or in emergency situations during combat. Or when the driver feels like ramming something really, really hard. In all seriousness I'm not sure if it's all that useful so I would be open to removing it.

Yeah the model is a WIP so I haven't gotten around to covering the whole thing with ADAPTIV panels. The tank would also have a bunch of IR cameras providing a 360 degree view around the vehicle so that it can project the IR signature of the background onto the panels in real time.

Right now I'm trying to come up with some sort of active optical camouflage system that isn't crazy PMT-FT. I'm thinking of a system where cameras with a 360 degree view around the vehicle actively project the tanks environment onto panels covering the surface of the tank or mimic the image of another vehicle but I'm not too sure how one would go about that or if something like that is even possible using current technology.

[The Akasha Colony]

Thinking about Reviving the Heavy Panzer Battalion concept.

leopard 2 140 (called King leopards) with ERA blocks, beefier engines form 2 companies for each battalion, supported by Leopard 2 A6's and with Infantry.

Why not just convert them all to that standard? If you have a need for 140 mm guns on some of your tanks then presumably all of your tanks would need them. ERA can be attached to any tank, and if you're re-engining some of them, you may as well do it for all of them.

[Thunbergia]

(Image)

What Mobile Artillery is in this picture?

M109 Doher. Israelli modification of the M109A5

Thanks!

[Lydenburg]

Does putting a large cannon on an IFV chassis automatically make it an MBT, or is it simply an IFV with a bigger gun? I noticed that the BMP-3, for instance, is not considered a tank despite the size of its armament but stick a 105mm on the ASCOD or AMX-10P and instantly the word "tank" is thrown around by Jane's and everybody else.

I suppose it all boils down to doctrine, but forgive me if I don't believe that mating an IFV chassis to a tank gun does a tank make.

[The Akasha Colony]

Does putting a large cannon on an IFV chassis automatically make it an MBT, or is it simply an IFV with a bigger gun? I noticed that the BMP-3, for instance, is not considered a tank despite the size of its armament but stick a 105mm on the ASCOD or AMX-10P and instantly the word "tank" is thrown around by Jane's and everybody else.

I suppose it all boils down to doctrine, but forgive me if I don't believe that mating an IFV chassis to a tank gun does a tank make.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it makes it a main battle tank, but it may certainly qualify as a light tank. BMP-3 isn't considered a tank because its 100 mm gun is low pressure and can't fire APFSDS, only HE(AT) and missiles. And it carries infantry in that configuration.

Put a proper HV gun and it becomes a more debatable topic. Especially since in an age of constrained budgets, light tanks are increasingly derived from existing platforms in that weight class, which are usually IFVs. It's becoming rare for modern IFVs to not get a light tank model, if only for demonstration purposes. And these light tanks often have the same or better protection than earlier MBTs like the Leopard 1, with comparable or superior firepower.

Given that the addition of such armaments usually eliminates their infantry carrying capability, they can't really be called IFVs anymore. And at that point, what is the functional difference between purpose-built light tanks like M8 AGS and converted ones like TAM or CV90-120?

Whether it's an MBT is dependent on use and role, IMO.

[Kouralia]

Like, if it's got a gun to support infantry and no transport capacity, it's basically becoming an Infantry Tank from the '20s-'30s.

[Purpelia]

Like, if it's got a gun to support infantry and no transport capacity, it's basically becoming an Infantry Tank from the '20s-'30s.

That's what an IFV is supposed to be. An infantry tank with seats.

[Kouralia]

Like, if it's got a gun to support infantry and no transport capacity, it's basically becoming an Infantry Tank from the '20s-'30s.

That's what an IFV is supposed to be. An infantry tank with seats.

And without the seats... It's just an Infantry Tank. Boom, 'problem with deciding whether an upgunned IFV without seats is a tank or not' is solved.

[Purpelia]

That's what an IFV is supposed to be. An infantry tank with seats.

And without the seats... It's just an Infantry Tank. Boom, 'problem with deciding whether an upgunned IFV without seats is a tank or not' is solved.

Speaking of that. How would you rate the idea of adding seats and a lightly armored superstructure to the back of a Stug III (StuH 42 variant) to house a squad of men? I just thought about it and think it might be a good IFV-ish vehicle for pioneers and the like to ride on.

[Nachmere]

And without the seats... It's just an Infantry Tank. Boom, 'problem with deciding whether an upgunned IFV without seats is a tank or not' is solved.

Speaking of that. How would you rate the idea of adding seats and a lightly armored superstructure to the back of a Stug III to house a squad of men? I just thought about it and think it might be a good IFV-ish vehicle for pioneers and the like to ride on.

Considering the ammount of AT gun and HMG fire a Stug will attract, are you not worried "lightly armored" may not suffice.

[Purpelia]

Speaking of that. How would you rate the idea of adding seats and a lightly armored superstructure to the back of a Stug III to house a squad of men? I just thought about it and think it might be a good IFV-ish vehicle for pioneers and the like to ride on.

Considering the ammount of AT gun and HMG fire a Stug will attract, are you not worried "lightly armored" may not suffice.

I figured it would be used as an engineering demolitions vehicle rather than a breakthrough one. The big gun would be used to blow apart various obstacles that are too hard to mine manually. Essentially it'd be a cheapo M728 with room for dismounts.

[Nachmere]

Considering the ammount of AT gun and HMG fire a Stug will attract, are you not worried "lightly armored" may not suffice.

I figured it would be used as an engineering demolitions vehicle rather than a breakthrough one. The big gun would be used to blow apart various obstacles that are too hard to mine manually. Essentially it'd be a cheapo M728 with room for dismounts.

but that is sort of my point- you are going to assault bunkers and obstacles with this thing, these bunkers and obstacles will be protected by enemy fire. this is how obstacles are used, they are not just left there, they are manned/protected. all i am saying is make the box tougher(at least in the front).