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

[New Vihenia]

well... for coolness.. i would love to adopt Ob-477 "Molot" as my nation's 1980-early 1990 tank.

[The Teutonic Republic]

rl tanks are meant to look cool too

I know it's a dressed up CV90120-T, but MEIN UBER-STEALTH PANZERKAMFWAGEN

Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.

On an unrelated note how practical is it to have your IFV double as a SPAAG?

[The Kievan People]

Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.

No. Just no.

[Takistan DR]

Would these vehicles work for a middle eastern nation: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=takistan_dr/detail=factbook/id=454054 ?

Note, I still have dedicated SAM systems (Tor, Osa, Buk; all part of the Air Defense Forces) and most of the older stuff (T-34s, T-54/55) is only for training and reserve purposes. The army will mostly be facing rebel groups and other low-tech armies.

[Fordorsia]

On an unrelated note how practical is it to have your IFV double as a SPAAG?

Not at all. SPAAGs need a lot of ammo, which they wouldn't have if they carried troops.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.

No. Just no.

????

The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.

[Husseinarti]

No. Just no.

????

The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.

The Crusader Tank from C&C is a single manned design, the crewman sits in the hull of the vehicle operating the entire system.

Its highly impractical.

Also Laser Avenger is a real thing.

[The Teutonic Republic]

The Crusader Tank from C&C is a single manned design, the crewman sits in the hull of the vehicle operating the entire system.

Its highly impractical.

Also Laser Avenger is a real thing.

I said realistic-ish. It is a video game after all, not a full blown military simulation software. Lots of game developers will look to RL stuff for inspiration although it being a video game they're bound to change and exaggerate things for balance reasons or "rule of cool" or whatever.

Not at all. SPAAGs need a lot of ammo, which they wouldn't have if they carried troops.

What if you have an unmanned turret? Could you cram a few hundred rounds of 35mm in there while the troops are carried in the troop compartment in the hull?

[Imperializt Russia]

Are you familiar with Swiss Army Knife Syndrome?

Your IFV has IFV things to do. It does not need SPAAG capabilities. It should have a 20-40mm gun with FCS that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of heavy machine gun that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of ATGM, which may be able to harass low-flying aircraft.

If you desperately want try AA capabilities, strap a MANPADS in the weapons locker for the dismounts to use. I would personally argue against this - I don't think the infantry section has much business waving around that kind of hardware. Leave it to dedicated units with dedicated systems.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Are you familiar with Swiss Army Knife Syndrome?

Your IFV has IFV things to do. It does not need SPAAG capabilities. It should have a 20-40mm gun with FCS that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of heavy machine gun that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of ATGM, which may be able to harass low-flying aircraft.

If you desperately want try AA capabilities, strap a MANPADS in the weapons locker for the dismounts to use. I would personally argue against this - I don't think the infantry section has much business waving around that kind of hardware. Leave it to dedicated units with dedicated systems.

True, I was just thinking since it already has a fast-firing autocannon it wouldn't be a huge stretch to give it SPAAG capabilities. Would something more logical be to make a dedicated SPAAG/SHORAD version of the IFV kind of like the m6 linebacker or CV9040 AAV?

[Husseinarti]

Yeah but it'd belong somewhere at like, the battalion AA platoon.

Possibly brigade air defense company

[The Akasha Colony]

True, I was just thinking since it already has a fast-firing autocannon it wouldn't be a huge stretch to give it SPAAG capabilities. Would something more logical be to make a dedicated SPAAG/SHORAD version of the IFV kind of like the m6 linebacker or CV9040 AAV?

The autocannon is the cheap part compared to the expensive things you need to make it a real SPAAG, like a fast-tracking turret and an expensive radar system. And as others have mentioned, enough space dedicated to hold a significant quantity of ammunition onboard.

The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.

If only. Just carrying the name and general aesthetic of IRL vehicles doesn't make them "realistic." In fact, that's the exact problem people in this thread are so used to encountering. People who play these games, see that IRL vehicle names are tossed around, and then start thinking that this is how these pieces of equipment, and warfare in general, actually works. Then they come here and post a list of their vehicles taken from the game, extolling how they work according to game physics with things like "balance" and "rushing."

That somehow tanks don't bother using their machine guns against a horde of infantry that stand stock still and pummel it with their rocket launchers.

Gatling guns that require like 30 seconds to "spin up" to their maximum speed (wat).

Folding artillery barrels on a chassis that clearly isn't NLOS-C but is called NLOS-C anyway and gets random rocket pods attached (what happened to M270? Or NLOS-LS if you want to be all FUTUR).

Using a platform that was never designed for ground attack and was instead highly specialized as an air-to-air platform as a dedicated ground attack aircraft. There are a whole host of better ideas out there, but of course a futurized F-22 looks cool in marketing so let's go with that one. And for Europe how about a Rafale with LAZERS?

tl;dr: There's more to "realism" that copying a name and a vague aesthetic. Just because you have a tank with angled faceplates and called it an "Abrams" doesn't make it "realistic."

[The Teutonic Republic]

If only. Just carrying the name and general aesthetic of IRL vehicles doesn't make them "realistic." In fact, that's the exact problem people in this thread are so used to encountering. People who play these games, see that IRL vehicle names are tossed around, and then start thinking that this is how these pieces of equipment, and warfare in general, actually works. Then they come here and post a list of their vehicles taken from the game, extolling how they work according to game physics with things like "balance" and "rushing."

That somehow tanks don't bother using their machine guns against a horde of infantry that stand stock still and pummel it with their rocket launchers.

Gatling guns that require like 30 seconds to "spin up" to their maximum speed (wat).

Folding artillery barrels on a chassis that clearly isn't NLOS-C but is called NLOS-C anyway and gets random rocket pods attached (what happened to M270? Or NLOS-LS if you want to be all FUTUR).

Using a platform that was never designed for ground attack and was instead highly specialized as an air-to-air platform as a dedicated ground attack aircraft. There are a whole host of better ideas out there, but of course a futurized F-22 looks cool in marketing so let's go with that one. And for Europe how about a Rafale with LAZERS?

tl;dr: There's more to "realism" that copying a name and a vague aesthetic. Just because you have a tank with angled faceplates and called it an "Abrams" doesn't make it "realistic."

I'm going to clarify my earlier post and say that I meant" realistic" as in purely the visual design, not the function.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'm going to clarify my earlier post and say that I meant" realistic" as in purely the visual design, not the function.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zu4csNpMKrA/hqdefault.jpg

Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.

yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.

[The Akasha Colony]

Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.

yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.

And what point is this supposed to make?

[Husseinarti]

Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.

yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.

The M5A2 doesn't look realistic.

[The Teutonic Republic]

And what point is this supposed to make?

Some guy earlier wanted to base his military off the GLA from generals and thus wanted to know how "realistic" the GLA units where.

[Immoren]

well... for coolness.. i would love to adopt Ob-477 "Molot" as my nation's 1980-early 1990 tank.

Still can't take name "molot" seriously.

[New Vihenia]

Still can't take name "molot" seriously.

Well.. it means "Hammer"

[Immoren]

Still can't take name "molot" seriously.

Well.. it means "Hammer"

Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".

[Husseinarti]

Well.. it means "Hammer"

Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".

Well my dick is a hammer

so its synnomn

[The Teutonic Republic]

Well.. it means "Hammer"

Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".

"Hammer" in Russian means "Dicks" in Finnish.

This can't be a coincidence

[Imperializt Russia]

It makes sense if we inexplicably apply anglophone idioms to the words, because you can hammer on someone, but you can also dick on them.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Wasn't the object 447 a sort of prototype for the later T-14 Armata that featured an unmanned turret and a 152mm smoothbore gun? I also recall it being the "FST-2/3" tank that prompted western nations to begin developing 140mm guns and ETC technology.

Edit: mean Object 477