NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Gawdzendia]

I'm doping my suicide brigades with adrenaline and meth. Apparently insurgents in Iraq could continue fighting with both their legs blown off and riddled with bullets as long as they were doped up on drugs.

One word man, Phencyclidine.

and I quoteth;

"At low PCP doses (5 mg or less), physical effects include shallow, rapid breathing, increased blood pressure and heart rate, and elevated temperature. Doses of 10 mg or more cause dangerous changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration, often accompanied by nausea, blurred vision, dizziness, and decreased awareness of pain."

It's a pretty big decreased awareness as well, from my understanding.

[Vitaphone Racing]

.

Regular glass is a really shitty insulator. The only reason your windows provide good insulation is because there are two layers of glass with a fairly large gap of AIR in the middle. You could use practically any materials in place of the glass for insulation, and many of them would be better materials.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

You can't see through glass with Thermal or FLIR devices because glass acts as a natural mirror to the spectrum of wavelengths that these devices operate in. You could have a man standing behind a pane of windshield glass, and he will be for all intents and purposes invisible to these devices.


Here is an excellent example.

Unless you're putting up a glass wall between your tank and the thermal imager with half a metre of space, it will be useless. The glass will just heat up to the same temperature of the tank.

Meh, I have no idea what's going on.

[Aqizithiuda]

.



Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

You can't see through glass with Thermal or FLIR devices because glass acts as a natural mirror to the spectrum of wavelengths that these devices operate in. You could have a man standing behind a pane of windshield glass, and he will be for all intents and purposes invisible to these devices.


Here is an excellent example.

Unless you're putting up a glass wall between your tank and the thermal imager with half a metre of space, it will be useless. The glass will just heat up to the same temperature of the tank.

When did tanks enter into thing?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Unless you're putting up a glass wall between your tank and the thermal imager with half a metre of space, it will be useless. The glass will just heat up to the same temperature of the tank.

When did tanks enter into thing?

With my post that you just quoted.

[Aqizithiuda]

When did tanks enter into thing?

With my post that you just quoted.

Point.

[Lietuvos]

So... Lietuvós needs an airforce...one that fits the general theme: small south-eastern european nation, appr. 2.500.000 inhabitants, total army <75.000 soldiers, past-tech scenario (late 1920s to early 1930s), diminutive defense budget. What do?



Lietuvó: the white Finns meet Romania. The Prezidento Perpetuvo is basically a former colonel made president-for-life, and modeled along the lines of Antanas Smetona or Marshall Mannerheim. The Nation is landlocked and has only a few river-patrolboats, so no fancy aircraft-carriers.

Need: light bombers, interceptors

Question here: which??? Outdated of course, but what fighters are outdated in 1929-1931? I have no idea. Biplanes of somewhat modern design propably, and no Tchaika's neither! A few semi-modern fighters (1/4 of complement?), paired with some rather shitty workhorses (Ex-WWI material, 3/4 of total complement).

perhaps an option: few larger transport planes, paratroopers? Heavier bombers?

Something slow and lumbering that works passably well to transport loads of bombs or if need be can accommodate troops.

Ground-attack planes? Something along a further development of wwi ground attack ones, Junkers J1 and the like, perhaps a bit bigger. Something to rake trenches, and if need be to bomb enemy armor. Something like this?


AEG GIV-K ground attack fighter

[Registug]

In a lab maybe. Give it even the slightest breeze and I'm willing to bet your boned. Though none of this would matter as a FE discharge big enough to cover even a single soldier will pretty much give your position away.

MythBusters tested using fire extinguishers to block out thermal vision. It worked, admittedly for a small time frame, and a small area but it does work...

Of course, that's not really going to be effective while standing on top of a skyscraper, as the situation was.

Maybe in that corridor fighting we always see in games.

But would that happen in an IRL battle in a city, however?

[Strykla]

MythBusters tested using fire extinguishers to block out thermal vision. It worked, admittedly for a small time frame, and a small area but it does work...

Of course, that's not really going to be effective while standing on top of a skyscraper, as the situation was.

Maybe in that corridor fighting we always see in games.

But would that happen in an IRL battle in a city, however?

Well, any tank has smoke grenade launchers. Some have a lot.

[Ularn]

Is there a particular reason that no tiltjet aircraft have ever got beyond the prototype stage? I ask because I'm in the process of designing an FT tiltjet dropship family to replace the ground-based hovertank and APC fleets my space marines currently operate and looking for inspiration. Either Wikipedia's just being useless, or it looks like there might have been some sort of significant flaw with the concept, which is weird given that there have been plenty of working tiltrotor designs and replacing the propeller with a jet engine would seem like the next obvious step.

I'm going ahead with the design either way because Rule of Cool, but is anyone able to share more info on this?

Also, pic of the still very early in design Sabre Dropship family. Once it's finished I'll have an APC variant capable of carrying two crew and eight marines (or four assault marines with bigger armour and that lolhueg gun I keep spamming), as well as an MBT which replaces the troop carrying capacity with a tank turret (because who wouldn't want to put a tank cannon on what's basically a horrendously well armoured helicopter?) and probably one with a shit-ton of missiles unless I can fit them onto the APC and MBT variants. Also thinking about some more specialised loadouts like mobile command centres, medical transports, drone carriers and general heavy lifting - though it may be too small for that even with the magic of futurewanking.

[Immoren]

Unrelated.
Beyond signals and supply&service units, what other support units would be good for artillery brigades to have? I was considering giving them at least some sort of recce and engineering capability. Or are these things things best left in entirety for other corps level support formations?

[Spirit of Hope]

Is there a particular reason that no tiltjet aircraft have ever got beyond the prototype stage? I ask because I'm in the process of designing an FT tiltjet dropship family to replace the ground-based hovertank and APC fleets my space marines currently operate and looking for inspiration. Either Wikipedia's just being useless, or it looks like there might have been some sort of significant flaw with the concept, which is weird given that there have been plenty of working tiltrotor designs and replacing the propeller with a jet engine would seem like the next obvious step.

The big problem is fuel consumption. Jet engines eat fuel, and a tilt jet would need massive engines to lift itself, which would eat more fuel. You can see the problem, you want range you have to ad more fuel, which means you have to have bigger engines which eat more fuel...

In MT or PMT you could have a tilt jet as long as your willing to have short ranges and relatively light weights. Germany tested the Dornier and it worked to an extent. They were just having problems that can be dealt with using modern technologies. For FT the idea should be solid, since you aren't necessarily using jet engines but some FT engine.

[The Kievan People]

Of course, that's not really going to be effective while standing on top of a skyscraper, as the situation was.

Why would you stand on top of a skyscraper?

[New Vihenia]

Is there a particular reason that no tiltjet aircraft have ever got beyond the prototype stage? I ask because I'm in the process of designing an FT tiltjet dropship family to replace the ground-based hovertank and APC fleets my space marines currently operate and looking for inspiration. Either Wikipedia's just being useless, or it looks like there might have been some sort of significant flaw with the concept, which is weird given that there have been plenty of working tiltrotor designs and replacing the propeller with a jet engine would seem like the next obvious step.

I'm going ahead with the design either way because Rule of Cool, but is anyone able to share more info on this?

As far as i can see

This is because the tiltjet engine lifting mechanism impose unacceptable penalty in weight..and we know weight is kinda important parameter in aircraft design.. another reason perhaps related to one engine lost flight.. hmm although i'm not really sure on this one.. but having one engine down..let's say left engine will present danger of "engine yawing" due to thrust asymmetry. This need to be compensated by either lowering thrust of the left engine or using aerodynamic control (rudder perhaps)..however the size of the rudder might be a premium asset in size in fighter and may not provide necessary control power for one engine thrust loss compensation.


hmm hope this help.

Oh and other than that.. I'm making a short article(hmm actually it's a deviant art journal entry) about Anti Ship Missile design.

http://stealthflanker.deviantart.com/jo ... -331665775

[The Kievan People]

Is there a particular reason that no tiltjet aircraft have ever got beyond the prototype stage? I ask because I'm in the process of designing an FT tiltjet dropship family to replace the ground-based hovertank and APC fleets my space marines currently operate and looking for inspiration. Either Wikipedia's just being useless, or it looks like there might have been some sort of significant flaw with the concept, which is weird given that there have been plenty of working tiltrotor designs and replacing the propeller with a jet engine would seem like the next obvious step.

Specific fuel consumption.

Big propellers produce far more thrust per unit of fuel burned than any jet engine ever has (or will). The fuel consumption of hovering jets is usually absurd, and any time spent hovering comes at the expense of a whole lot of range. For lifting it's hard enough generating the jet thrust to takeoff vertically with an otherwise empty plane, the plane + useful cargo is really pushing it.

[Registug]

Of course, that's not really going to be effective while standing on top of a skyscraper, as the situation was.

Why would you stand on top of a skyscraper?

To look at far away things.

But then everyone sees you.

So that guy said use a fire extinguisher to mask your heat signature.

But you're ON TOP OF A VERY TALL BUILDING.

So I guess there was no reason to be up there?


As for the tiltjet thing, they never made more because there were too many disadvantages for the advantages. Jets eat up a lof of fuel, so if they're hovering for any major amount of time they wouldn't have too long a range or time on station. To keep weight low you'd need to keep loadout low as well, and it's pretty much impossible to realistically lift troops with them.

Of course, NS being fiction, we can ignore those things. For the most part.

[Crookfur]

So... Lietuvós needs an airforce...one that fits the general theme: small south-eastern european nation, appr. 2.500.000 inhabitants, total army <75.000 soldiers, past-tech scenario (late 1920s to early 1930s), diminutive defense budget. What do?

(Image)

Lietuvó: the white Finns meet Romania. The Prezidento Perpetuvo is basically a former colonel made president-for-life, and modeled along the lines of Antanas Smetona or Marshall Mannerheim. The Nation is landlocked and has only a few river-patrolboats, so no fancy aircraft-carriers.

Need: light bombers, interceptors

Question here: which??? Outdated of course, but what fighters are outdated in 1929-1931? I have no idea. Biplanes of somewhat modern design propably, and no Tchaika's neither! A few semi-modern fighters (1/4 of complement?), paired with some rather shitty workhorses (Ex-WWI material, 3/4 of total complement).

perhaps an option: few larger transport planes, paratroopers? Heavier bombers?

Something slow and lumbering that works passably well to transport loads of bombs or if need be can accommodate troops.

Ground-attack planes? Something along a further development of wwi ground attack ones, Junkers J1 and the like, perhaps a bit bigger. Something to rake trenches, and if need be to bomb enemy armor. Something like this?

(Image)
AEG GIV-K ground attack fighter

Proabably you are looking at late ww1 gear for just about everything .Late ww1 aircraft and a few derivatives more or less make up the entirety of airpower through the 20s with a new batch of high performance biplanes coming into service about 30-32 (stuff like the Westland Wapiti and the hawker hart/demon and fury in the RAF).

[The Kievan People]

So there are no floors anymore between top and bottom?

[Registug]

So there are no floors anymore between top and bottom?

I guess not. The opinion that the people ITT have said is that you're pretty vulnerable to all sorts of everything.

What's your opinion on warfare in a modern, high-rise city?

[The Kievan People]

Don't blame me because you misinterpreted what was said and arrived at the silly maximal position that you should never ascend a tall building ever.

It was established in the course of discussion that sending substantial units of men to the upper levels of skyscrapers is a bad idea. There is virtually no cover in a skyscraper and there is no way out but down. This is not the same as saying small units that can take advantage of the enormous boost in LOS, like scouts or snipers, should never attempt it. It is riskier than sitting on the ground, but that is a fact of life for a scout (for example.)

[San-Silvacian]

Why would you stand on top of a skyscraper?

To look at far away things.

But then everyone sees you.

So that guy said use a fire extinguisher to mask your heat signature.

But you're ON TOP OF A VERY TALL BUILDING.

So I guess there was no reason to be up there?

So your troops are doing something that any high level recce can do?

[Ularn]

Is there a particular reason that no tiltjet aircraft have ever got beyond the prototype stage? I ask because I'm in the process of designing an FT tiltjet dropship family to replace the ground-based hovertank and APC fleets my space marines currently operate and looking for inspiration. Either Wikipedia's just being useless, or it looks like there might have been some sort of significant flaw with the concept, which is weird given that there have been plenty of working tiltrotor designs and replacing the propeller with a jet engine would seem like the next obvious step.

The big problem is fuel consumption. Jet engines eat fuel, and a tilt jet would need massive engines to lift itself, which would eat more fuel. You can see the problem, you want range you have to ad more fuel, which means you have to have bigger engines which eat more fuel...

In MT or PMT you could have a tilt jet as long as your willing to have short ranges and relatively light weights. Germany tested the Dornier and it worked to an extent. They were just having problems that can be dealt with using modern technologies. For FT the idea should be solid, since you aren't necessarily using jet engines but some FT engine.

It's sort of an FT Jet engine. It uses antigrav technology (of the sort that keeps your feet glued to the floor of your spaceship) to force the air through at much higher velocities than is possible with regular jet or propeller engines. It is very energy intensive but with FT power sources that's not so much of an issue. So basically if fuel's the main concern then a little FTwankery will have that covered.

[Crookfur]

The big problem is fuel consumption. Jet engines eat fuel, and a tilt jet would need massive engines to lift itself, which would eat more fuel. You can see the problem, you want range you have to ad more fuel, which means you have to have bigger engines which eat more fuel...

In MT or PMT you could have a tilt jet as long as your willing to have short ranges and relatively light weights. Germany tested the Dornier and it worked to an extent. They were just having problems that can be dealt with using modern technologies. For FT the idea should be solid, since you aren't necessarily using jet engines but some FT engine.

It's sort of an FT Jet engine. It uses antigrav technology (of the sort that keeps your feet glued to the floor of your spaceship) to force the air through at much higher velocities than is possible with regular jet or propeller engines. It is very energy intensive but with FT power sources that's not so much of an issue. So basically if fuel's the main concern then a little FTwankery will have that covered.

There is also the issue of surface errosion as a vertical jet can literally big holes in even properly tarmaced runways.

if you are playing with some sort of FT feild engine it'' will likely have a high jet velocity mode for high alt/speed flight and a low velocity (but still very high mass flow rate) mdoe for landing/take off without destroyign surfaces i.e. its would be like a uber varible cycle jet.

[Velkomorave]

Does anyone know the minimum runway length for the Yugoslav (Serb, now?) J-22 light attack aircraft? I'm considering modifying it as a carrier-capable STOL aircraft and operating it off of something like the Príncipe de Asturias, and would like to get a bearing for exactly how much deck space would be needed.

[Crookfur]

Does anyone know the minimum runway length for the Yugoslav (Serb, now?) J-22 light attack aircraft? I'm considering modifying it as a carrier-capable STOL aircraft and operating it off of something like the Príncipe de Asturias, and would like to get a bearing for exactly how much deck space would be needed.

no idea but looking at comparable aircraft that had navalised versions (i.e the Jaguar) you would need to go with catapults to make it a worthwhile carrier aircraft.

maybe, just maybe you could ski jump off something the size of a Kuznetsov but an itty bitty sea control ship/through deck cruiser like the Principe de Asturias needs some form of SVTOL aircraft (i.e. harrier).

[Velkomorave]

Does anyone know the minimum runway length for the Yugoslav (Serb, now?) J-22 light attack aircraft? I'm considering modifying it as a carrier-capable STOL aircraft and operating it off of something like the Príncipe de Asturias, and would like to get a bearing for exactly how much deck space would be needed.

no idea but looking at comparable aircraft that had navalised versions (i.e the Jaguar) you would need to go with catapults to make it a worthwhile carrier aircraft.

maybe, just maybe you could ski jump off something the size of a Kuznetsov but an itty bitty sea control ship/through deck cruiser like the Principe de Asturias needs some form of SVTOL aircraft (i.e. harrier).

Thanks for the quick reply. Pity I can't use the J-22. I guess I'll scrap the carrier program and use the manpower elsewhere.