NationStates

It was originally developed for the Vietnamese fighting the US.

However, it, like pretty much every single weapon ever designed, has found its way into the hands of Chechens, and then into the hands of Russians, who originally rejected the weapon.

However to say that it didn't get purchased in small, limited numbers by Russian special forces is completely possible, as its hard to pass up 10km fire support in a mostly man portable package.

Krazakistan wrote:

Allanea wrote:
It's actually designated "Grad-P", with the P standing for "Partisan".

It looks like a recoilless rifle. So you could direct fire it at a building with Chechens inside of it.

Well yes, but the original intent is to give it to guerilla units whom you have some interest in backing.

I envisioned at one point having a vehicle that was a tank chaise with a BM-14 mounted on top instead of a turret which would be used in urban combat

Da!

Sounds like a direct fire TOS-1.

Do it.

Padnak wrote:I envisioned at one point having a vehicle that was a tank chaise with a BM-14 mounted on top instead of a turret which would be used in urban combat

Da!

I volunteer to make this a reality in MS Paint.

Korva, if you wanted to that would be badass

-T-55/62/72 chassis
-slightly raised armoured super structure
-BM-14
-heavy machine gun RWS (russian of coarse)
-Shark teeth painted somewhere
-Razor wire

> urban combat

How does it reload?

It would most likely get requested by a field commander. It'd come back, fire off its rockets, then leave back to resupply.

Velkanika wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Isn't that the whole reason the Longsword is so big? So that it can just barely cram a OTH radar set into it? Thats at least is what Lyras claims anyways, though I have seen that it would be rather hard to cram said OTH radar into the Longsword.

Yep, that's his explanation. He still needs another ship for the reciever even after all that effort.

For the record, the Longsword is way too narrow for its length and lacks the tourque strength to hold together on a rough ocean unless you made it out of a few dectillion dollars worth of carbon nanotubes and industrial spider silk.

Actually, this is not so, as evidenced by the transmitter and receiver functions of the French 'NOSTRADAMUS' system being co-located, although the parallels more or less end there. The conceptual utility of co-located systems was the important element.

Further, the ship has a length:beam ration of barely 6:1, with a 50m draft... it should have absolutely no issue at all in rough sea. Although docking is a granted issue.

Korva wrote:

Padnak wrote:I envisioned at one point having a vehicle that was a tank chaise with a BM-14 mounted on top instead of a turret which would be used in urban combat

Da!

I volunteer to make this a reality in MS Paint.

MSPaint. From whence all awesome cometh.

Padnak wrote:Korva, if you wanted to that would be badass

-T-55/62/72 chassis
-slightly raised armoured super structure
-BM-14
-heavy machine gun RWS (russian of coarse)
-Shark teeth painted somewhere
-Razor wire

Here you go:

So it looks like the netfire, or nlos missile could have been a game changer if not for the obscene price. Is there any way to lower the obscene cost of 466,000 dollars a missile?

Allanea wrote:Six meters is hand-to-hand combat range.

It's wholly possible for the horsemen to win out at this range, but only because the infantry have somehow failed grotesquely enough to allow guys on horseback to sneak into touch range from them.

oh.
serry. About 250 metres is bettar?

The Second German Empire wrote:

Allanea wrote:Six meters is hand-to-hand combat range.

It's wholly possible for the horsemen to win out at this range, but only because the infantry have somehow failed grotesquely enough to allow guys on horseback to sneak into touch range from them.

oh.
serry. About 250 metres is bettar?

An ideal charge should be at a distance of about ~350 metres. Which usually characterises speeding up so as not to tire the horses out. This was successful up until about the Napoleonic era, after which the volume of fire usually available to infantry could reliably repel such a charge (not that they were used against organised infantry in that era, Waterloo being a prominent example). This took about 45 seconds to do.

If an enemy cannot lay down fire upon a group of targets that are getting larger with each passing second with semi-automatic weapons they are doing something seriously wrong.
A cavalry charge in Napoleonic times and beyond relied very much on the enemy being disorganised, as they had evolved from highly armoured shock elements to mobile exploitative combat formations.
The last units I can think of who performed such charges against organised infantry were probably the Polish, against pikes no less!
Disorganised units on the other hand have been attacked up until WWII. A prominent example being by the Italians. I can even think of a few anecdotes of charges in WWI working due to the disorganisation of the enemy.

On other cavalry related matters, what are peoples opinions on sabres - straight or curved? The ultimate military question.

The Second German Empire wrote:

Allanea wrote:Six meters is hand-to-hand combat range.

It's wholly possible for the horsemen to win out at this range, but only because the infantry have somehow failed grotesquely enough to allow guys on horseback to sneak into touch range from them.

oh.
serry. About 250 metres is bettar?

The closer the charge is, the better it is for the horsemen.

Nedorubov's - the guy whose picture I've posted earlier on - Cossack Division prevailed against the Germans primarily because they managed to infiltrate the horses to the very edge of the German positions in tall grass, and then attacked. This is not typical.

Cavalry charges against unprepared (i.e. not entrenched) infantry, or following a successful artillery barrage, were often tactically successful even during WW1.

However, infantry firepower increased several orders of magnitude since then.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Velkanika wrote:What after burners? It's a Frogfoot, not a Falcon!

Anyways, the Frogfoots Ukraine has only carry IR SRAAMs and lack an air-search radar. To lock onto an enemy they need to be within two miles and have the target directly infront of them. They cannot track aircraft of any type.

Why would the Ukrainians remove the radar from their Su-25s during their modernisation programme? The Kopyo has air-search, track and ground-scanning modes.

Su-25s don't typically carry radar. It'd take a great deal of timing and luck to intercept an airliner with one, but it's possible.

Far more likely is incompetence all around.

Gallia- wrote:Su-25 doesn't have reheat, and even if it did it wouldn't be able to catch the plane in the first place since it wouldn't be carrying any ordnance at such an altitude.~

"Gallia-" has wiki-fever.

As for the issue of the sword, that is a complicated affair.

The answer given by the research committee Russia appointed to study this just before WW1 was to have a sabre that was sufficiently curved to be useful for slashing, while capable still of stabbing. For this reason they produced several dozen different sabres and had them extensively tested by a dragoon unit.

The result was the Mark 6 cavalry shashka, which was the perfect shashka... for Russian cavalry doctrine.

British military researches, working simultaneously, developed a totally different sword.

Allanea wrote:As for the issue of the sword, that is a complicated affair.

The answer given by the research committee Russia appointed to study this just before WW1 was to have a sabre that was sufficiently curved to be useful for slashing, while capable still of stabbing. For this reason they produced several dozen different sabres and had them extensively tested by a dragoon unit.

The result was the Mark 6 cavalry shashka, which was the perfect shashka... for Russian cavalry doctrine.

British military researches, working simultaneously, developed a totally different sword.

Story of every military, amirite?

San-Silvacian wrote:Sounds like a direct fire TOS-1.

Do it.

TOS-1 is direct fire.
TOS-1A offers BLOS capability.

Can anyone explain to me the need for a separate launcher for thermobaric rounds? I know for a fact thermobaric rounds exist for Smerch.

Allanea wrote:Can anyone explain to me the need for a separate launcher for thermobaric rounds? I know for a fact thermobaric rounds exist for Smerch.

Because it's what Israel and Russia do, and since America doesn't really have thermobaric munitions those are the two defaults left open to NSers.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Allanea wrote:Can anyone explain to me the need for a separate launcher for thermobaric rounds? I know for a fact thermobaric rounds exist for Smerch.

Because it's what Israel and Russia do, and since America doesn't really have thermobaric munitions those are the two defaults left open to NSers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Allanea wrote:Can anyone explain to me the need for a separate launcher for thermobaric rounds? I know for a fact thermobaric rounds exist for Smerch.

Because it's what Israel and Russia do, and since America doesn't really have thermobaric munitions those are the two defaults left open to NSers.

Russia produces thermobaric rounds for Smerch, as I said above.

I think the reason why the US doesn't have Smerch-like Thermobaric weaponry is because they haven't been presented with a Gronzzy like situation, only tactical things like isolated buildings or city blocks, which is why M202A1 FLASH works perfectly.

The question I had was why NS didn't have more MLRS rockets capable of using both regular HE and thermobaric rockets.

...well, Lyras makes this.