NationStates Jolt Archive

The need for the Griffincrest Corporation to produce a light tank capable of traveling ahead of the main armoured division finnaly came to the Griffincrest board of directors, and soon, the Mars Light Tank was put into the works. The Mars combines firepower with speed, and was built to be able to hold its own against both the smaller nations that the Corporation annexes based on oil wealth, or the modern nations that attemot to intervene. With this tank in the Griffincrest Armoured Division, not only will the ability for fast raids be improved, but the threat of mines will also be drastically decreased, as a major component of this tank is a mine tread. This tank is first and foremeost designed for missions ahead of the army, and it should accel at any tasks given to it.

Primary Armament: 90mm smoothbore cannon
Secondary Armament: Asgarn 12.7mm heavy machine gun (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14158456&postcount=1); AT-15 rocket launcher mounted on left side of turret; 60mm mortar in rear of tank
Armour: 30mm titanium alloy, 70mm RHAe
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Road speed: 65 mph
Weight: 10 tons

http://www.cncgames.com/yuri_concept/wspacific_lashertank.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

You need alot more info about your tank in the form specifications. Other than that, good.

OOC:
Nope no way you are going to have 153mm of armour, nor even 153mm of RHAe armour peformance. You might be able to squeeze on STANAG lvl 4 armour on the glacis with STANAG lvl 2-3 on the sides and rear but nothing more than that.
As for the mine roller it is a bit useless on such a light vehicle, you would be better off with a plow or better yet a proper engineering vehicle based on the chassis of what ever MBT you use.

So... A lighty?

Let's see...

Not amphibious...

Light and air portable...

Small gun even compared to armored cars...

And less armor than my APC no matter how you make it... (though I include stuff like engine blocks an caked on mud as armor... then add modifiers such as angle, then add a complementry 45 degree quartering shot test...)

The front roller appears to be more ant-personel than Anti-mine.
As it fails to extend its cover to the tank treads...

OOC:
Nope no way you are going to have 153mm of armour, nor even 153mm of RHAe armour peformance. You might be able to squeeze on STANAG lvl 4 armour on the glacis with STANAG lvl 2-3 on the sides and rear but nothing more than that.
As for the mine roller it is a bit useless on such a light vehicle, you would be better off with a plow or better yet a proper engineering vehicle based on the chassis of what ever MBT you use.

It has the armour as a T-62, thats feasible, shut up

OOC:
The T-62 is a MBT not a LBT.


REFERENCE MATERIAL:
GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-62.htm)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62)
FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t62tank.htm)
MilitaryFactory.com (http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=21)

OOC:
Shaz has a point, it isn't fair to have a light tank that has the armour of a MBT...Unless by "light" you mean camparatively light and that your MBT's are massive...But that's not really practical.

It has the armour as a T-62, thats feasible, shut up

MBT>LBT.

You'd probably be better of trying to base something off an existing LBT, than trying to go indigenous and so something completely off the wall. It would make everything a lot more practical.

And as for the shut-up bit.... be nice man, it's sunday!

At only 10 tons, carrying a 90mm gun in a fully traversable turret, you have no armour at all, only a thin steel casing that's resistant to maybe 12.7mm rounds.

It has the armour as a T-62, thats feasible, shut up

Actually no i won't

So you have an extra 1.5tons of weight over the Scropion 90 most of which would be taken up by your larger engine and the mine roller.
As it stands the scorpion family have in thier most heavily armoured version aprroximatly STANAG LVL 3 i.e. protection against 7.62mm AP ammo.
now admittedly you could get a bit better using modern composite armours, hence the suggestion that you use STANAG lvl 4 (protection against 14.5mm ammo) on the front and Lvl 3 on the sides and rear. Thus you would be protected agaisnt msot small arms which in reality is all this class of vehicle really needs as it could never carry enough armour to protect against cannon rounds so why even bother trying.

Personally while i can see the point in a 90mm gun as an HE thrower i do think you would be better off mounting a decent cannon and couple of ATGM tubes.

OOC: Sorry for the shut up bit, long day yesterday

Anyway, I'll cut the armor down to 60mm, is that better?

OOC: Sorry for the shut up bit, long day yesterday

Anyway, I'll cut the armor down to 60mm, is that better?

30 to 45 mm actual thickness
40-60 mm RHAe.

Though I'd rather it be a flamethrower, light cannon/heavy MG, and a single ATGM than a 90 mm, causes more fear...

Hmm, taking a page from desprate WW2 Germany attempts to stop Russian armor:
203 mm oversize muzzle attached grenade to 90 mm cannon?*
*Germany went as far to attach a 15 cm grenade to a 50 mm gun. essentaily it was an HH3 magnetic 'mine' with a long rod attached.

A flamethrower would be perfect for inspiring fear in the enemy and useful when raiding enemy bases to cause significant destruction. If not fitted as standard, why not commission a variant with this weapon?

A flamethrower would be perfect for inspiring fear in the enemy and useful when raiding enemy bases to cause significant destruction. If not fitted as standard, why not commission a variant with this weapon?

I think I may do that actually. Thanks

Constantinalia would like to order ten of these tanks for testing and fielding.

Constantinalia would like to order ten of these tanks for testing and fielding.

That will be 20 million dollars please

I think I may do that actually. Thanks

I'm kicking myself for giving such advice to an IC enemy nation.

OOCly, eh... might as well help others design their tanks with some degree of sanity behind them.

(HT-101 capabilities are far less than quoted, mostly in HP, and perhaps in RHAe)

OOC:
Actually 30-40mm RHAe would closer to the truth which would stop most HMG and sniepr rifle projectiles but then agaon is there really much point in argueing over 10mm or so, i find it easier just to use more specific threat classifications for light vehicles, hence why i like the STANAG levels.

As for a flame thrower, that would be a hideously bad idea on such a light vehicle. Light armourd vehicles should be trying to keep as far away as possible from the enemy as they simply don't have the armour to close in and slug it out with a heavier enemy force and no matter how good your flame thrower it woudl still have a shorter rnage than an RPG/LAW. For destruction of property a decent 90mm HE or HESH round would work far better.

A flamethrower would be perfect for inspiring fear in the enemy and useful when raiding enemy bases to cause significant destruction. If not fitted as standard, why not commission a variant with this weapon?
Or in the case of a competent army, it will inspire hilarity as vast numbers of tanks equipped only with short-ranged weaponry are destroyed from long range in massive petroleum explosions caused by man-portable machineguns...

Indeed. I would think that it would probably be easier to use thermobaric rounds from either a mortar or the tank's main gun rather than bothering with a short ranged and dangerous flamethrower.

I finally took a look at this an noticed that its the same tank I used for my low cost military hardware. Take a look at my sig and find low cost military hardware.... I think you will find What I saw to to be true.

I finally took a look at this an noticed that its the same tank I used for my low cost military hardware. Take a look at my sig and find low cost military hardware.... I think you will find What I saw to to be true.

Same picture, different stats. You're a CNC fan to I presume?

bet your knockers I am!

Bump for changes in the Mars.