NationStates Jolt Archive

Well. I've been thinking and looking up some bit of IFV weaponry, and well I don't really see the point in using MBTs in II. They're bigger targets, a bit more firepower, but all a (H)IFV has to do is put in a larger anti-tank missiles system and the MBT isn't really a problem. Their use in city combat isn't as good as the average (H)IFV's 30mm cannons would be. They can carry infantry (Excluding the Merkava) unlike MBT's. So I really don't see the use of MBTs over (H)IFVs in II, or in future combat. Also, (H)IFVs are lighter with modular armor that could be equipped later. I.E. drop in a basic-armoured (H)IFV then on the ground, or drop right besides it, its modular armor to equip. I mean I really think MBTs are becoming like the rifle in WWI. They're OVER powering it to the point were the extra is useless.

That depends on your stand point, Personally, although MBT's may be usless in some scenarios and things that can counter them are increasing in sophistication and damage, nothing looks or sounds better than hundreds of MBT's roaring across open plains, or one or two rolling through a city...

To me, the MBT, The HMBT, The SHMBT and Land Fortresses are the epitome of cinematic Roleplay...

Just my thoughts on the matter

Um, considering that the current military situation of II is more in line with the Cold War what with ZOMG MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL ARMIES, scrapping MBTs in favor of HIFVs is nothing short of suicide.

scrapping MBTs in favor of HIFVs is nothing short of suicide.
I'm not dead yet...

Though my IFV crews generally get slaughtered in the first 5 minutes of combat...

I've developed heavy tanks and such, but thus far, have never used them in anger...

A basic IFV is lighter, but unles it is an econobox like the M113, it will also be considerably more expensive than any MBT, plus, it will have considerable less armor for a given mass and dimension (crew/passenger capacity is a double edged sword).

And then there is the issue of IFVs becoming deathtraps if you remain 'buttoned up' in combat.
(Although it does spare you the sniper fire)

Um, considering that the current military situation of II is more in line with the Cold War what with ZOMG MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL ARMIES, scrapping MBTs in favor of HIFVs is nothing short of suicide.

This.

A) Who needs maneuverability when you can just roll over a building.
B) I have 800mm armour with 2800mm RHAe and 10:1 effectiveness against KE lolzu.
C) NS style tank guns & secondaries >>>> RL style tank guns & secondaries.

And as TKC said, tanks are more fun to RP.

I use both.

Unforunately, many of the advantages IFV have don't play a big part in nationstates combat. Things like fuel consumption, speed, and noise (in the case of wheeled IFV's) just don't matter as much as they do in real life.

Tanks are the kings of open plains land warfare when enemy air CAS isn't around. Given that open land and not cities make up the majority of land tanks are good in this role. Another good part about tanks is that they are just that..tanks. Don't for a second come to the false conclusion that armor or even NS armor is obsolete for tanks. For example during (either the 1st or 2nd Iraq war) an M1 Abrams was stuck in a ditch or something. They decided to destroy it so another M1 was ordered to fire on the disabled tank. Even with a high penetration depleted uranium round it took multiple shots (to the amazement of crews) to destroy the tank.

A single tank in its element can wreck havoc with minimal effort on a collumn of hostile IFVs. Urban warfare maybe the only place where tanks are at a disadvantage but then they have other tactics to level the playing field..such as..

Infantry support. No tank will run the streets of a city without infantry running along with it. Support infantry can take care of smaller and more nimble threats.

Scare factor: tanks have coaxial machine guns. The tank I'm in the process of designing has a 20mm coaxial chaingun, and .50 cal machine guns for the commander and gunner, both manually or remotely controled. A tank can, no..WILL rip apart any squad of opposing infantry unless the tactical odds are heavily in the infantry's favor or if they are a specialized anti-tank squad.

After all this there are the two largest trump cards that the tank so arrogantly plays: Armor and Armament.

The armor of NS grade tanks, not RL-grade, is insane. Most of the 1st NS nations here invest huge amounts of resources into building highly advanced armor schemes for their tanks. The result is a shell of armor which is at best very difficult to crack. Forget frontal hits with infantry AT weapons, or even side hits most times, a rear hit, or multiple will be necessary.

The second part is the tanks weapons.. I can guarantee you that any NS grade tank can take out an H-IFV with a single hit with its main gun. They also have smaller weapons for dealing with smaller threats.

In short the H-IFV and other APCs have their purpose most deffinitely. However a weapon is needed that is just a tank. Something built tough and badass that can deal out loads of punishment while taking even more of it at the same time. This is where you get your tank.

By no means are tanks obsolete. Sometimes used incorectly yes, but not obsolete. You're setting yourself up to lose if you beleive this, unless you can invest enough resources in a new (and inherently expensive) counter technology.

I use both, personally, and have no intention of changing that any time soon..

It is a good way to reuse obsolete tank hulls and or production capability.

You pretty much have to use both have their own advantages...in an open battlefield you would want MBT's in an urban or more "compact" battlefield you would want a more mobile smaller IFV capable of moving you're troops around..

IFVs are smaller?
Amphibious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVTP5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle

Land only:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle

Airborne:

-------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
(8.2 meters long w/o gun)

The tank is also shorter (height)

Also, tanks in NS are much more complicated and better protected than in real life. Your standard ATGM won't get by the APS most NS tanks are protected by now.

a HIFV pitted against an MBT will always lose(one on one in open terrian) consdiering you need RL antishipping missile to crack the armor on high end NS tanks. HIFVs have ther place in urban warfare and maybe able to kill a tank if attack it in a place it can't move around.

As the operator of probably the largest tank force on Ns, I have to say I have no reason to conside them obsolete. That said my nation is mostly open plains where tanks are effectivly god. But I don't see IFVs as anywhere near as effective as a tank in anything the tank is designed to do. The IFV can carry troops in less hostile situations, and can support those troops when they dismount. What an IFV can't do however, is provide heavy armour to it's crew, a lasting presence on the battlefield that will be hard for the enemy to deal with. Some top of the line NS grade MBTs can't even be killed to the front by other tanks of equal caliber, and you can forget about killing them with a little IFV gun. A missile may work, if the tank's APS isn't an issue, but it always is. And that would be one big missile. So say it takes three or even four modern and large ATGMs to take out a tank with ERA and a decent APS system, what does the tank have to do to kill the IFV firing those missiles? Shoot it once with an APHE or dual purpose round that an APS or ERA can't really stop. That's a multi-million dollar IFV, and several hundred thousand dollars worth of missiles, completely wasted by a cheap round fired from a tank, which can continue to do that to several other IFVs at least.

Now IFVs have their place. I can agree, but I don't see them as completely useful for anyone unless they're more infantry-centric and defensive minded. I have all but removed IFVs from my forces simply because heavy APCs based on my tanks are more capable of carrying infantry to support my tanks then IFVs that have to lose that armour to provide a gun and missile system that the tanks it works with will be more effective with.

IFVs are smaller?
Amphibious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVTP5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle

Land only:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle

Airborne:

-------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
(8.2 meters long w/o gun)

The tank is also shorter (height)

The vehicles you mentioned are all more APCs than IFVs though except for the Bradley and maybe the EFV. THe others have nowhere near enough armor or firepower to take on a T-34, let alone a modern NS tank or RL MBT.

tonnage wise IFV's are a lot smaller than MBT's..the turrets are smaller and can turn more quickly..also IFV's main armament is much better suited to fighting in urban likes areas I would rather have a 30 mm cannon than a massive MBT cannon

..IFV's can carry about a squad size of men good for moving from house to house combat...and and IFV can offer better supporting fire under those situations than an MBT which using its main cannon would be wasteful and cause way too much collateral damage and be high risk to friendly forces the only other armament would be the 50 cal etc on top of the turret..then swinging an entire MBT turret around would be a lot slower than turning a bradley's...

Most IFV's have AT missiles on them as well making them more than ample to defeat a MBT in a closed urban environment..MBT's are meant to fight MBT's...or enemy fortified defensive positions. IFV's are meant to fight enemy infantry/light armored vehicles and move troops around the battle field

tonnage wise IFV's are a lot smaller than MBT's..the turrets are smaller and can turn more quickly..also IFV's main armament is much better suited to fighting in urban likes areas I would rather have a 30 mm cannon than a massive MBT cannon

..IFV's can carry about a squad size of men good for moving from house to house combat...and and IFV can offer better supporting fire under those situations than an MBT which using its main cannon would be wasteful and cause way too much collateral damage and be high risk to friendly forces the only other armament would be the 50 cal etc on top of the turret..then swinging an entire MBT turret around would be a lot slower than turning a bradley's...

Most IFV's have AT missiles on them as well making them more than ample to defeat a MBT in a closed urban environment..MBT's are meant to fight MBT's...or enemy fortified defensive positions. IFV's are meant to fight enemy infantry/light armored vehicles and move troops around the battle field

Don't forget that many NS MBTs mount coaxial autocannons though, something RL tanks don't do. The closest analog is the BMP-3 with its 100mm gun, 30mm autocannon, plus two MGs and a grenade launcher. The Lancer crusier tanks I bought from Aequatio and use in my cavalry formations carry a 125mm main gun and a 20mm gun for killing light armor, plus the roof mounted .50 cal and .30 MGs.

I use both, however, I avoid urban combat.

NEITHER the IFV OR MBT should be thrust into urban warfare with a determined enemy. What you need is a Urban Infantry Combat Tank.

Basically a tank with a snub cannon designed to fire hire caliber [155-203mm] rocket assisted shell to blow the fuck out of enemies while having a 20-30mm cannon mounted either coax or on the roof in a remote turret.

It will bigger then any MBT, slap a ton of armor on that baby [you could redistribute armor from the front since you probably won't have to worry much about MBTs main guns].

Throw reactive armor all over the baby, APS, SAMs/ATGMs, infantry carrying capacity and you have yourself a urban infantry combat tank. :)

I use both, however, I avoid urban combat.

NEITHER the IFV OR MBT should be thrust into urban warfare with a determined enemy. What you need is a Urban Infantry Combat Tank.

Basically a tank with a snub cannon designed to fire hire caliber [155-203mm] rocket assisted shell to blow the fuck out of enemies while having a 20-30mm cannon mounted either coax or on the roof in a remote turret.

It will bigger then any MBT, slap a ton of armor on that baby [you could redistribute armor from the front since you probably won't have to worry much about MBTs main guns].

Throw reactive armor all over the baby, APS, SAMs/ATGMs, infantry carrying capacity and you have yourself a urban infantry combat tank. :)

Or. You could use napalm to burn the city to the ground??

I would prefer using chem/bio weps..kills all the enemy troops that don't have a gas mask..and after awhile I can send my own troops in safely..without destroying the city...which i would colonize later

I would prefer using chem/bio weps..kills all the enemy troops that don't have a gas mask..and after awhile I can send my own troops in safely..without destroying the city...which i would colonize later

using Chemical weapons would work to clear a city but what happens if it gets into the ground water before you move in? then any colonization attemp would get screwed because they'd die the afte rdrink the water. and then there's the potential respnse. a while back Aeson( he's inactive) used chem/ bio weapons on kraven and he got the crap nuked out of him. At best you'll get a matched chem weapon attacl. at worst you get carpet nuked.

Don't forget that many NS MBTs mount coaxial autocannons though, something RL tanks don't do. The closest analog is the BMP-3 with its 100mm gun, 30mm autocannon, plus two MGs and a grenade launcher. The Lancer crusier tanks I bought from Aequatio and use in my cavalry formations carry a 125mm main gun and a 20mm gun for killing light armor, plus the roof mounted .50 cal and .30 MGs.

See also: French AMX-30*, British Centurion I, and Swiss PZ. 58/61
Their 20 mm coaxial autocannons would gladly disagree with you.
They also carried a remotely operated HMG on the roof...

*Its 20 mm elevated independent of the main gun (apparently for shooting helicopters)

Both the IFV and MBT have their role to play on the battlefield.

IFVs would have great difficulty going head to head with a RL modern MBT like an Abrams or a Leopard without taking hideous losses.

An MBT with reasonably good armor can take some serious punishment.

IFVs are more like beer cans. With AT missiles, they can dish out the damage but they can't take it.

_______________________
One thing that NS does not model well is the political pressure and consequences of taking casualties (which can be severe).

In a situation where real time battlefield images can land on your television set, it is difficult even for totalitarian governments to hide the battlefield truth.

During the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, Pravda gave glowing reports of what was happening at the front. It was an organization of MOTHERS of soldiers and veterans who caused the Soviet government a great deal of embarrassment for exposing their lies.

There is nothing less popular in a democracy than a hot war that is causing casualties and motivating mothers like Cindy Shehan(SIC) to act politically. It also gives opposition politicians a rally point and ready made position to distance them self from the sitting government.

Don't throw away your troops! If they live, they'll become elite. If they don't, you've hand delivered the rope for your opponents to hang you with.

using Chemical weapons would work to clear a city but what happens if it gets into the ground water before you move in? then any colonization attemp would get screwed because they'd die the afte rdrink the water. and then there's the potential respnse. a while back Aeson( he's inactive) used chem/ bio weapons on kraven and he got the crap nuked out of him. At best you'll get a matched chem weapon attacl. at worst you get carpet nuked.

I used chemical weapons multiple times to great effect on a regional rival Zambistan (inactive also)..basically started off as an invasion..quite successful came to a city..was going to turn into an insurgency..so I shelled it with chem weps...the GUSN i believe it was became mildly involved seeing as Zambistan was communist..ended up being a Korea like war..I had to withdraw all the way back to my original border...

A few NS years later..another conflict erupts...Zambistan was attempting to get nuclear weapons..I invaded again..besieged the city where nuclear testing/production was going on I gassed it and napalmed it to nothing..and then withdrew again destroying several other towns on the way back in the same manner.

I would send in decontamination teams etc etc before I sent in citizens...if need be I would find another source of water to sustain the city if it was that important to me..