NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Inyourfaceistan]

It's kind of a non-sequitur fielding IFVs/APCs whose armor is able to withstand up to .50 cal when IFVs mounting autocannons (typically 20 to 40mm) are the norm. What's the point if it can't defend against its' counterparts?

Cheaper, faster, and easier to make float.

Use it in accordance with somthing heavier, for example an MBT.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well.. even if it isn't a direct hit but rather above it? Although top armor is usually weak on AFVs.. ATGMs are designed to be fired perpendicularly to the armor they are supposed to penetrate (because of their shaped charge for HEAT)... so in the scenario in which a HEAT hit another HEAT located in a launcher on top of an AFV, you would theoretically have two jets of metal spraying around on top of the vehicle relatively parallel to the actual armor.

It's unlikely you'd be able to set off an ATGM in precisely the way necessary to generate a proper HEAT jet. Just like you wouldn't be able to 'accidentally' set off an implosion nuclear weapon.

It's kind of a non-sequitur fielding IFVs/APCs whose armor is able to withstand up to .50 cal when IFVs mounting autocannons (typically 20 to 40mm) are the norm. What's the point if it can't defend against its' counterparts?

A little thing called strategic mobility. Israel can field honking heavy IFVs/APCs because airlift is simply not a requirement for them; their enemies are right next door. But for other nations, particularly NS nations who fight wars across the globe, being able to practicably transport a vehicle as quickly as possible is valuable.

Also, not every enemy unit will be fielding large IFVs. It is quite possible to encounter enemy light infantry. By your argument, even an IFV should be armored against tank fire since what happens if it happens to encounter an enemy tank, the sort that normally accompanies the mechanized infantry that use IFVs in the first place?

MRAPs aren't very good multipurpose vehicles. High center of gravity and an already very heavy design before you slap other things on it.

[Rich and Corporations]

A little thing called strategic mobility. Israel can field honking heavy IFVs/APCs because airlift is simply not a requirement for them; their enemies are right next door. But for other nations, particularly NS nations who fight wars across the globe, being able to practicably transport a vehicle as quickly as possible is valuable.

Now you've tempted me to design an orbat that would allow me to conduct D-day.
From across the Pacific.

It's unlikely you'd be able to set off an ATGM in precisely the way necessary to generate a proper HEAT jet. Just like you wouldn't be able to 'accidentally' set off an implosion nuclear weapon.

I'm not sure about that. Sympathetic detonation can occur, as well as secondary explosions.

MRAPs aren't very good multipurpose vehicles. High center of gravity and an already very heavy design before you slap other things on it.

Assuming a non-linear battlespace with insurgents, maybe MRAPs would be more viable.

[Ayreonia]

Well.. even if it isn't a direct hit but rather above it? Although top armor is usually weak on AFVs.. ATGMs are designed to be fired perpendicularly to the armor they are supposed to penetrate (because of their shaped charge for HEAT)... so in the scenario in which a HEAT hit another HEAT located in a launcher on top of an AFV, you would theoretically have two jets of metal spraying around on top of the vehicle relatively parallel to the actual armor.

It's unlikely you'd be able to set off an ATGM in precisely the way necessary to generate a proper HEAT jet. Just like you wouldn't be able to 'accidentally' set off an implosion nuclear weapon.

It's kind of a non-sequitur fielding IFVs/APCs whose armor is able to withstand up to .50 cal when IFVs mounting autocannons (typically 20 to 40mm) are the norm. What's the point if it can't defend against its' counterparts?

A little thing called strategic mobility. Israel can field honking heavy IFVs/APCs because airlift is simply not a requirement for them; their enemies are right next door. But for other nations, particularly NS nations who fight wars across the globe, being able to practicably transport a vehicle as quickly as possible is valuable.

Also, not every enemy unit will be fielding large IFVs. It is quite possible to encounter enemy light infantry. By your argument, even an IFV should be armored against tank fire since what happens if it happens to encounter an enemy tank, the sort that normally accompanies the mechanized infantry that use IFVs in the first place?

MRAPs aren't very good multipurpose vehicles. High center of gravity and an already very heavy design before you slap other things on it.

Even light infantry can punch through armor. The old Soviet BMP-2 IFV? Get a steady man and give him a machine gun -> perforated IFV. Yes, it's mobile, it's light, it's amphibious... and it's vulnerable. Modern AT weapons come in so small varieties these days, a single soldier can easily carry two LAWs and his service rifle and fight effectively.

[San-Silvacian]

Everything. Forget about armor and weapon issues. The chassis, drive train and engine of an IFV just are not built to withstand the strain of those in the first place. One is a 20 ton vehicle (at most) and the other a 60+ ton one. By the time you scale things up you either have a brand new tank design that has no issues but also nothing in common with your IFV or you have an overloaded IFV that embodies the old adage: "if it looks good it is good." I.E. It does not look good.

That or you have a TAM which is kind of cool when you think about it.

Nope.. my IFVs would definitely not be 20 tons. IFV would be based on my heavy platform. My light platform, even with wheeled vehicles would be 15 tons at the very least, being MRAP and all. My HP would probably be around 35-40 tons, 40-45 for the heaviest payloads.. up to 50 for the "light tank"

EDIT: The TAM and its' variants are indeed somewhat relevant but a little too light IMO

I don't think there's anything under 20t that can stop anything bigger than a .50 cal or 14.5

BMP-3s can take 30mm rounds frontal and are only 20.6 tons.

M2A3 Bradleys can, with their upgrade packages, take 30mm all-round by are over 30 tons.

[Yes Im Biop]

Biopian Airship
Name: Dragon
Length 100 meters
Width 50 meters
Height:75 meters?
Carry weight:220 Tons
Power Plant: 5000HP Diesel engine10 tons, 2: 6 bladed propellers: 3 tons
Frame: Titanium beams: 14 tons
Skin: resin soaked Kevlar, Helium bags, 2 side resin soaked Kevlar. 3 ton's per bag: !8 Bags
Crew cabin: 5.7 tons
Armaments:
3 M2 .50 Machine Gun: 68 pound's each
1200 .50BMG Rounds
1:M100 60mm Cannon
35 HE-Frag 60mm
35: HEAT 60mm


Top Speed: 54 Miles per hour
Max Height: 16,000 Feet

Designed by Cyber Corp to be the world's first assault Airship, Before it's creation Aviator's simply carried a dozen or so 200 pound bomb's or two dozen firebomb's. But were dangerous due to their weaker frames and much lower cursing altitudes as well as being designed without Helium bag's but to be filled with helium. With this innovation the Blimp is much more expensive, but also much safer and durable, as well as the resin soaked Kevlar skin and bag's make it very resistant to any Flack cannon's used by our enemies. Though the helium can lift just over two pounds per cubit meter it is recommended not to load the blimp to capacity, if one of the ten bag's are hit it could drop faster then safe and the propeller's wouldn't be much help.

The typical load out is shown above, Though there are hard point's on the cabin for up to 10 2000 pound bombs or 100, 200 pound bombs

[The Akasha Colony]

Even light infantry can punch through armor. The old Soviet BMP-2 IFV? Get a steady man and give him a machine gun -> perforated IFV. Yes, it's mobile, it's light, it's amphibious... and it's vulnerable. Modern AT weapons come in so small varieties these days, a single soldier can easily carry two LAWs and his service rifle and fight effectively.

The BMP-2 is lightly armored by modern standards. It's quite possible to have a vehicle in the mid-20 tonne range or possibly even lower that is armored against HMG fire, including 14.5 mm. This being NS of course there are people trolling around with much larger 'machine guns,' but such is the nature of an arbitrary protective standard, and 14.5 mm or at best 15.5 mm plus splinter protection is enough to resist almost any infantry weapon.

LAWs are of limited range, but even then would be a threat to a much larger 30-40 tonne vehicle anyway, as would a heavier ATGM. They can't be considered unique threats only to light vehicles. The 400 mm RHAe the AT4 gets is enough to threaten pretty much any vehicle, assuming that vehicle manages to get within range.

[Yes Im Biop]

I thought LAW's were only just considered anti Armor weapons

[San-Silvacian]

I thought LAW's were only just considered anti Armor weapons

LAWS and disposable launchers in general are a multiple use weapons.

LAWS in Vietnam were used for anti-fortification purposes and limited armor uses when the NVA used it.

Modern LAWS come in both anti-armor and anti-fortification roles however both are able to do the other's job just not a good.

[The Akasha Colony]

I thought LAW's were only just considered anti Armor weapons

LAWs are a whole category of weapon, and many have either multiple warheads for multiple different types of targets like the USMC SMAW (HEDP, HEAA, thermobaric) or a single multi-fuze warhead like MATADOR (HEAT and HESH modes).

[Yes Im Biop]

Good point. I was thinking of The LAW. I didn't know there were different models.

[Rich and Corporations]

Even light infantry can punch through armor. The old Soviet BMP-2 IFV? Get a steady man and give him a machine gun -> perforated IFV. Yes, it's mobile, it's light, it's amphibious... and it's vulnerable. Modern AT weapons come in so small varieties these days, a single soldier can easily carry two LAWs and his service rifle and fight effectively.

The BMP-2 is lightly armored by modern standards. It's quite possible to have a vehicle in the mid-20 tonne range or possibly even lower that is armored against HMG fire, including 14.5 mm. This being NS of course there are people trolling around with much larger 'machine guns,' but such is the nature of an arbitrary protective standard, and 14.5 mm or at best 15.5 mm plus splinter protection is enough to resist almost any infantry weapon.

LAWs are of limited range, but even then would be a threat to a much larger 30-40 tonne vehicle anyway, as would a heavier ATGM. They can't be considered unique threats only to light vehicles. The 400 mm RHAe the AT4 gets is enough to threaten pretty much any vehicle, assuming that vehicle manages to get within range.

Armor protection isn't binary however. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012 ... r-tactics/ <-- this goes to show that even if you increase your MG caliber by .1mm or muzzle energy by 10%, it will only increase the probability of penetration slightly. Ergo, a vehicle protected against 7mm weapons will hve decent protection against 8mm weapons.
Furthermore, the Bradley is protected by explosive reactive armor, which would mitigate the effectiveness of many types of anti tank weapons.

[Republica Newland]

I always had the impression 40mm AGLs were somewhat like UBGLs, are they ever used in semi-indirect fire?

EDIT: Also, is the low fire rate to save ammo or is there more to it than that?

[Themiclesia]

I have a traditional Westminster-style government, and I was wondering if we should allow proceedings in error (a type of review/appeal) from courts-martial in the House of Peers - the supreme court of judicature.

[San-Silvacian]

I have a traditional Westminster-style government, and I was wondering if we should allow proceedings in error (a type of review/appeal) from courts-martial in the House of Peers - the supreme court of judicature.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Whoa.

You want to do something for military realism other than war stuff?

Get out now.

[Grand Britannia]

Didn't we have a non-military realism thread...

...somewhere...I'm sure it's still around.

[Yes Im Biop]

Didn't we have a non-military realism thread...

...somewhere...I'm sure it's still around.

I made one I think it's still in my sig.

[Themiclesia]

Where is it precisely?

I can't find it in your sig.

[Yes Im Biop]

Where is it precisely?

I can't find it in your sig.

I have absolutely no Idea... I spent the last half hour looking for it... Well I Guess I'll make a new one.


viewtopic.php?f=23&t=248687

Can someone put this in the OP As well? Cause I have no clue and you folk's are much more knowledgeable than me.

[Altito Asmoro]

Didn't we have a non-military realism thread...

...somewhere...I'm sure it's still around.

Wasn't that got banned months ago?

[Yes Im Biop]

Didn't we have a non-military realism thread...

...somewhere...I'm sure it's still around.

Wasn't that got banned months ago?

Don't believe so Unless I made it with my first nation...

[Bhelyant]

Wasn't that got banned months ago?

Don't believe so Unless I made it with my first nation...

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=181183&p=9419724&hilit=realism#p9419724

[Yes Im Biop]

Don't believe so Unless I made it with my first nation...

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=181183&p=9419724&hilit=realism#p9419724

How the hell did ja find that? Aw well..

[Graznovia]

The Eastern Bloc counterpart to the Little Bird with some modification Y/N?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-126

[San-Silvacian]

Mi-34 better.