NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Oaledonia]

So you are going out of your way to discredit yourself? Good to know.

Why do you care so much that he's quoting people the hard way? It's not hurting anyone and isn't detracting from the ongoing topic at hand.

It's weird, and it's inconvenient to others. Especially given posters nowadays, editing everything.

[The Kievan People]

Caliber is a decent yardstick for ROF, as long as you are comparing like and like. Remember that the real limiter on ROF is heat, the faster the gun heats up the lower it's sustainable ROF. Swapping out barrels is not a practical option for guns this large.

A 105mm L7 can fire at a higher rate than the 120mm M256. Ditto for 120mm and 160mm mortars.

It isn't an iron rule though. In NS there are (or were?) a fair number of tanks with "overbore" guns that have exceptionally powerful propellant charges for their caliber. This will create a lot of barrel heating and result in a lower ROF than one would except from a weapon of that caliber.

[Anacasppia]

I'd think swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns could overcome issues with loading and heat that would otherwise prevent largish (60mm+) caliber guns mounted on AFVs from achieving high (~60 rpm for ~75mm) rates of fire.

In retrospect I'm not even sure if the 75mm ARES gun from back then would have worked properly - heat would've been a real bitch at the rate of fire of 60 rpm. And its exactly what Kiev called an 'overbore' gun, to boot.

[Velkanika]

swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns

It's not every day that something goes so far over my head that I can't even hear the whooshing noise anymore. What is it and how does it work?

[The Akasha Colony]

swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns

It's not every day that something goes so far over my head that I can't even hear the whooshing noise anymore. What is it and how does it work?

Presumably a normal rarefaction wave gun with an MRAAS-style swinging chamber.

[Kampala-]

I'd think swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns could overcome issues with loading and heat that would otherwise prevent largish (60mm+) caliber guns mounted on AFVs from achieving high (~60 rpm for ~75mm) rates of fire.

In retrospect I'm not even sure if the 75mm ARES gun from back then would have worked properly - heat would've been a real bitch at the rate of fire of 60 rpm. And its exactly what Kiev called an 'overbore' gun, to boot.

A better option would be active cooling, but that would require a lot of volume for the coolant.

[The Kievan People]

I'd think swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns could overcome issues with loading and heat that would otherwise prevent largish (60mm+) caliber guns mounted on AFVs from achieving high (~60 rpm) rates of fire.

In retrospect I'm not even sure if the 75mm ARES gun from back then would have worked properly - heat would've been a real bitch at the rate of fire of 60 rpm.

I am going to sound like R&C, but it needs to said.

Heating isn't binary.

A gun will be able to withstand much higher ROF when it is fired in short bursts spaced out over a longer period of time then if it is pumping out rounds like a Maxim gun. This is precisely how the ARES cannon was intended to operate. It also depends on the design of the gun. Guns designed specifically for high ROF generally have extra heavy barrels with more thermal mass. Very high ROF naval artillery usually combines an extra heavy barrel with a water jacket.

Sustainable ROF can't actually be accurately expressed by a single number, even for a simple case like continuous fire. You need either an equation or a graph. More complex cases like repeated bursts of fire, I don't have a clue. Maybe New Vihenia knows more.

Edit: And yes the RAVEN is supposed to reduce barrel heating a lot. Not surprising when you consider most of the gas is going the other way...

[The Akasha Colony]

Guns designed specifically for high ROF generally have extra heavy barrels with more thermal mass.

Perhaps ironically, the exact opposite of existing NS tank gun trends in spite of ever-increasing RoF claims.

[The Kievan People]

A better option would be active cooling, but that would require a lot of volume for the coolant.

I don't have it on hand, but there is RAND report which has a graphical comparison of the Crusader and Paladin's ROF vs. time and the effects of the active cooling system. It is real, but it is not nearly as dramatic as might be expected. It can still only sustain it's maximum ROF for a very short time. The rate at which barrels are heated is simply too intense.

It does have a nice side effect of increasing barrel life though, which is particularly valuable for artillery.

[The Kievan People]

Perhaps ironically, the exact opposite of existing NS tank gun trends in spite of ever-increasing RoF claims.

I warned you about min-maxing bro...

But it keeps happening!

[The Akasha Colony]

Perhaps ironically, the exact opposite of existing NS tank gun trends in spite of ever-increasing RoF claims.

I warned you about min-maxing bro...

But it keeps happening!

I look forward to the era of 200 mm guns shooting at 20 RPM yet weighing only 500 kg and using 95% efficient muzzle brakes.

[Imperializt Russia]

1) Try reading it again.

And again.

Until you understand both what you wrote, and what I replied to. You said "a single penetration at that range guarantees a kill" more or less. Not only is it not a function of range, it's also false.

2) I don't see how tank ammunition is different from tank ammunition. Caliber has nothing to do with rate of fire, length has a little bit to do depending on if you're using a manual loader or not so it varies, because sometimes rounds are just awkward to move. Two piece ammunition is a bit slower than single piece depending on the size.

Most loaders, human and automatic, achieve about 7-8 RPM no matter the caliber.

1. I did read it again and again, don't know how else to explain it to you so you understand it. So moving on...

2. Well, it would help if you saw the difference, so here's a different example that illustrates the same point.

25mm {200rpm or 500rpm}
30mm {100rpm to 200rpm}

Note the differences, even if small. Now apply that upwards to 155mm. Caliber size & length effect ROF.

They do, yes, but not to such a great extent. Note the OTO Melara 76mm gun. With either a 900mm OAL or 900mm case (I cannot recall which), it can achieve a burst rate of 120rpm.
A six-inch tank gun's autoloader doesn't have significantly more work to do than a five-inch tank gun's autoloader. Nor does that have significantly more work to do than a four-inch gun's autoloader.

I'd think swinging chamber rarefaction wave guns could overcome issues with loading and heat that would otherwise prevent largish (60mm+) caliber guns mounted on AFVs from achieving high (~60 rpm for ~75mm) rates of fire.

In retrospect I'm not even sure if the 75mm ARES gun from back then would have worked properly - heat would've been a real bitch at the rate of fire of 60 rpm. And its exactly what Kiev called an 'overbore' gun, to boot.

The ARES gun was only intended to fire in bursts at a cyclic rate of about 60rpm. Cooling probably wouldn't have been an enormous issue.

I warned you about min-maxing bro...

But it keeps happening!

I look forward to the era of 200 mm guns shooting at 20 RPM yet weighing only 500 kg and using 95% efficient muzzle brakes.

Since you've said it, that era is probably now.

[The Akasha Colony]

They do, yes, but not to such a great extent. Note the OTO Melara 76mm gun. With either a 900mm OAL or 900mm case (I cannot recall which), it can achieve a burst rate of 120rpm.

900 mm OAL, btw.

Since you've said it, that era is probably now.

Only if it's mounted on next-gen 20-tonne air-droppable tank hunters.

[Firmador]

That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. By being so expensive, it will inevitably be fielded in fewer numbers. Which means that it is responsible for making itself outnumbered in the first place.

How so? I simply don't have enough natural Chokepoints to justify having to field so very many. And then by having that many, dispersed, it wouldn't make sense. If I wanted it in number, it would be the mainstay of my armored fleet. I just want it to add another layer of tactical defense to very important points.

Snipers are outnumbered, but they serve a supporting, synergistic, role.

No, but your tanks sitting in the mountain pass you're trying to defend will be. Unless you withdraw from that pass, in which case you're no longer operating in the very specific terrain you claim to want to use these tanks in and the enemy has achieved his objective of dislodging you.

The attacker's objective will be to bombard your tanks, your artillery is a secondary objective at best. Firing from outside the constrained terrain, the attacker can evade counterbattery fire while pounding your tank force, which cannot evade without surrendering the objective. This is why static defense of mountain passes for anything more than the time required by the enemy to bring up artillery or air support is a rather moot point.

Static defense of mountain passes is a bad idea if the enemy has air parity and artillery?

They wouldn't be in the pass itself but somewhere away from where the initial battlefield would be had. Depending on preparation, into numerous pre-prepared positions many of which outfitted with decoys or nothing at all. Without them, these tank destroyers have a longer effective range than the tanks, and can pick them off while they engage a first and/or second echelon of regular battle tanks. They'd be firing from further, decreasing ATGM capabilities, C-RAM that could help defend your forward ranks as well. Then it peels off, into another tank ditch, or away as your FO gets the fire support call threw. I can move more freely from position to position, or out of the area simply because I am further away and hidden behind more layers of defense.

The incoming round/rocket is tracked during its initial upward/launch trajectory (i.e., the linear portion of its flight path) prior to reaching apogee. A computer program analyzes the track data and then extrapolates the round’s point of origin. This calculated point of origin is then reported to the operator with map coordinates, thus allowing friendly artillery to direct counterbattery fire towards the enemy artillery. The system has a reported range of up to 50 kilometers. The system may also be operated in a friendly fire mode to determine the accuracy of counterbattery return fire.

And what if this system had a surface-to-surface missile unit slaved to it, like an MLRS, with another separate (or attached) missile unit that has until yet fired.

I suppose your Aircraft would be just as liable to pick out decoy as real, "The United States Army has developed a modern dummy tank. It imitates the M1 Abrams tank not only in appearance, but also in its heat signature, in order to appear real to infrared detectors. One of these decoys can take fire from the enemy and still appear to be operational, thus delaying the enemy by as much as an hour, as they are forced to destroy the decoy. These M1 decoys cost only $3,300,[16] compared to $4.35 million for a real M1." It would cost more to make them maneuverable, but since they're so large and the actual dummy weight so small it'd require a small engine I believe. I wonder if someone would even want to put on a passive or active system, depending on the cost. I wouldn't be surprised if one could even get it to fire blanks.

And hell, if it costs so much wouldn't that make multiple decoys more efficient? It would be a sunken cost, the tanks, but the decoys could be bought 5 a piece. If you can trick your enemy with 5 different images, only one of which is fake and they expend a huge amount of ordinance on these calls, unknowingly expending their supplies on dummy targets, and this behemoth gets just another shot or two off for those five decoys (since it costs so much relative to the tank destroyer), wouldn't that be worth it? Assuming* (suspension of belief, yes, yes) you get 6 to 5 decoys per tank kill, having to constantly shoot and scoot even while MLRS fire counter-batteries, partly slaved (or fully, depending on the person. Though, while it'd react faster, I think it could lead to some pretty nasty problem like having to immediately reposition an entire MLRS battery while they're eating) and partly commanded using something better than an old counter-battery radar, that theoretically comes out to... 50-60,000 per enemy tank. Plus whatever ordinance you decide to lob. Get a positive I.D.? Kill. I don't claim them to be invulnerable I just think they could play a serious role as a tank 'sniper'.

And which of these features inherently requires a specialized vehicle? Why is this a role you cannot fill with conventional main battle tanks equipped with APS?

Nothing precludes this vehicle from being used aside from the fact that you already have a perfectly functional tank that should already have these capabilities. So why do you insist on having another?

Mitheldalond wants to use this tank as his standard tank. Not a fortress tank. Not a defensive tank. Not a heavy tank. As a main battle tank. It won't be operating at a 100:1 or 5:1 ratio in the tank force, it is the tank force.

The tank sniping role, for a critical strategic point.

I can't speak for what or how Mith plans to use this tank, just how I plan to. I've been very pleased with player-created material, like Anemos' Illusion.

I wouldn't care. This is where you make due with what you have on hand, rather than what you wish you had. Your existing tanks should already be of suitable quality in terms of tank-killing ability. If they aren't, then you don't need specialist defensive tanks, you need to upgrade or replace your conventional tanks. The only time this vehicle might have a use is if your normal tanks are insufficient for their job. But if they're insufficient, then the priority should be on improving them, not buying other tanks for other roles.

90% Preparation, 10% Execution.

[San-Silvacian]

IRL AMX-56 Leclerc costs like 10 million USD to build.

Then again, I remember someone telling me that much of the price was labor costs.

[Firmador]

IRL AMX-56 Leclerc costs like 10 million USD to build.

Then again, I remember someone telling me that much of the price was labor costs.

LeClerc costs more because it is best tank.

Do not question the LeClerc nor its unimportant price tag.

[Kampala-]

LeClerc rofl

[San-Silvacian]

IRL AMX-56 Leclerc costs like 10 million USD to build.

Then again, I remember someone telling me that much of the price was labor costs.

LeClerc costs more because it is best tank.

Do not question the LeClerc nor its unimportant price tag.

Its Leclerc.

Leclerc

And I will. Because for NS France, it reaches production and ends at about 2-3,000 vehicles, then being supplemented by the VCC-70 and replacing most of the AMX-30s in service.

[Imperializt Russia]

That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. By being so expensive, it will inevitably be fielded in fewer numbers. Which means that it is responsible for making itself outnumbered in the first place.

How so? I simply don't have enough natural Chokepoints to justify having to field so very many. And then by having that many, dispersed, it wouldn't make sense. If I wanted it in number, it would be the mainstay of my armored fleet. I just want it to add another layer of tactical defense to very important points.

Snipers are outnumbered, but they serve a supporting, synergistic, role.

No, but your tanks sitting in the mountain pass you're trying to defend will be. Unless you withdraw from that pass, in which case you're no longer operating in the very specific terrain you claim to want to use these tanks in and the enemy has achieved his objective of dislodging you.

The attacker's objective will be to bombard your tanks, your artillery is a secondary objective at best. Firing from outside the constrained terrain, the attacker can evade counterbattery fire while pounding your tank force, which cannot evade without surrendering the objective. This is why static defense of mountain passes for anything more than the time required by the enemy to bring up artillery or air support is a rather moot point.

Static defense of mountain passes is a bad idea if the enemy has air parity and artillery?

They wouldn't be in the pass itself but somewhere away from where the initial battlefield would be had. Depending on preparation, into numerous pre-prepared positions many of which outfitted with decoys or nothing at all. Without them, these tank destroyers have a longer effective range than the tanks, and can pick them off while they engage a first and/or second echelon of regular battle tanks. They'd be firing from further, decreasing ATGM capabilities, C-RAM that could help defend your forward ranks as well. Then it peels off, into another tank ditch, or away as your FO gets the fire support call threw. I can move more freely from position to position, or out of the area simply because I am further away and hidden behind more layers of defense.

The incoming round/rocket is tracked during its initial upward/launch trajectory (i.e., the linear portion of its flight path) prior to reaching apogee. A computer program analyzes the track data and then extrapolates the round’s point of origin. This calculated point of origin is then reported to the operator with map coordinates, thus allowing friendly artillery to direct counterbattery fire towards the enemy artillery. The system has a reported range of up to 50 kilometers. The system may also be operated in a friendly fire mode to determine the accuracy of counterbattery return fire.

And what if this system had a surface-to-surface missile unit slaved to it, like an MLRS, with another separate (or attached) missile unit that has until yet fired.

I suppose your Aircraft would be just as liable to pick out decoy as real, "The United States Army has developed a modern dummy tank. It imitates the M1 Abrams tank not only in appearance, but also in its heat signature, in order to appear real to infrared detectors. One of these decoys can take fire from the enemy and still appear to be operational, thus delaying the enemy by as much as an hour, as they are forced to destroy the decoy. These M1 decoys cost only $3,300,[16] compared to $4.35 million for a real M1." It would cost more to make them maneuverable, but since they're so large and the actual dummy weight so small it'd require a small engine I believe. I wonder if someone would even want to put on a passive or active system, depending on the cost. I wouldn't be surprised if one could even get it to fire blanks.

And hell, if it costs so much wouldn't that make multiple decoys more efficient? It would be a sunken cost, the tanks, but the decoys could be bought 5 a piece. If you can trick your enemy with 5 different images, only one of which is fake and they expend a huge amount of ordinance on these calls, unknowingly expending their supplies on dummy targets, and this behemoth gets just another shot or two off for those five decoys (since it costs so much relative to the tank destroyer), wouldn't that be worth it? Assuming* (suspension of belief, yes, yes) you get 6 to 5 decoys per tank kill, having to constantly shoot and scoot even while MLRS fire counter-batteries, partly slaved (or fully, depending on the person. Though, while it'd react faster, I think it could lead to some pretty nasty problem like having to immediately reposition an entire MLRS battery while they're eating) and partly commanded using something better than an old counter-battery radar, that theoretically comes out to... 50-60,000 per enemy tank. Plus whatever ordinance you decide to lob. Get a positive I.D.? Kill. I don't claim them to be invulnerable I just think they could play a serious role as a tank 'sniper'.

And which of these features inherently requires a specialized vehicle? Why is this a role you cannot fill with conventional main battle tanks equipped with APS?

Nothing precludes this vehicle from being used aside from the fact that you already have a perfectly functional tank that should already have these capabilities. So why do you insist on having another?

Mitheldalond wants to use this tank as his standard tank. Not a fortress tank. Not a defensive tank. Not a heavy tank. As a main battle tank. It won't be operating at a 100:1 or 5:1 ratio in the tank force, it is the tank force.

The tank sniping role, for a critical strategic point.

I can't speak for what or how Mith plans to use this tank, just how I plan to. I've been very pleased with player-created material, like Anemos' Illusion.

I wouldn't care. This is where you make due with what you have on hand, rather than what you wish you had. Your existing tanks should already be of suitable quality in terms of tank-killing ability. If they aren't, then you don't need specialist defensive tanks, you need to upgrade or replace your conventional tanks. The only time this vehicle might have a use is if your normal tanks are insufficient for their job. But if they're insufficient, then the priority should be on improving them, not buying other tanks for other roles.

90% Preparation, 10% Execution.

Your fire control radar is probably just as vulnerable to exploit as enemy weapon systems are to a dummy Abrams or an inflatable T-72.
All someone needs to do is rig a rudimentary launcher module to fire inert, countermeasure or even live rockets or shells at your positions, causing your rear-area artillery assets to engage in counterbattery, then exposing themselves to air or artillery retaliation.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

They do, yes, but not to such a great extent. Note the OTO Melara 76mm gun. With either a 900mm OAL or 900mm case (I cannot recall which), it can achieve a burst rate of 120rpm.

900 mm OAL, btw.

Since you've said it, that era is probably now.

Only if it's mounted on next-gen 20-tonne air-droppable tank hunters.

you guys got it all wrong, aerogavins is where it's at.

[Kampala-]

LeClerc costs more because it is best tank.

Do not question the LeClerc nor its unimportant price tag.

Its Leclerc.

Leclerc

And I will. Because for NS France, it reaches production and ends at about 2-3,000 vehicles, then being supplemented by the VCC-70 and replacing most of the AMX-30s in service.

It's actually LEH-claire.

[Oaledonia]

Its Leclerc.

Leclerc

And I will. Because for NS France, it reaches production and ends at about 2-3,000 vehicles, then being supplemented by the VCC-70 and replacing most of the AMX-30s in service.

It's actually LEH-claire.

Lu-claire.

[Velkanika]

It's actually LEH-claire.

Lu-claire.

The Lingua Franca strikes again with half the letters in the word silent, another few that aren't written down added in, and all of that slurred together into one confusing mess of a word unless you already know French.

[Firmador]

Your fire control radar is probably just as vulnerable to exploit as enemy weapon systems are to a dummy Abrams or an inflatable T-72.
All someone needs to do is rig a rudimentary launcher module to fire inert, countermeasure or even live rockets or shells at your positions, causing your rear-area artillery assets to engage in counterbattery, then exposing themselves to air or artillery retaliation.

Pretty much.

[Firmador]

It's actually LEH-claire.

Lu-claire.

'Tis inbasion time.