Advertisement
by Gallia- » Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:00 am
by Allied Connurist States » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:39 am
Brytene wrote:brb gonna goteach some spanish people the secrets of a tasty lancashire hotpot as part of my secret imperialist ambitions
by Shuggy555 » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:40 am
New Vihenia wrote:So for Fusion reactor we might have "direct conversion" Scheme that claim 90% conversion efficiency of power extraction.
However as far as i read, in order to contain and generate plasma, one still need quite amount of power, the question is how much the power needed for maintaining the magnetic trap and to start plasma generation.
Wouldn't be funny to have 100 Megawatt capacity BUT only 1 Megawatt that can be allocated to propulsion or any other purpose.
by Immoren » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:44 am
Allied Connurist States wrote:For defensive operations, what would be the recommended tank/soldier ratio?
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Allied Connurist States » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:48 am
Brytene wrote:brb gonna goteach some spanish people the secrets of a tasty lancashire hotpot as part of my secret imperialist ambitions
by Immoren » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:03 am
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Aelarus » Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:32 am
That depends on whether you'd be enjoying air superiority or not.Allied Connurist States wrote:For defensive operations, what would be the recommended tank/soldier ratio?
by Karaginsky » Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:51 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:
a.) Eurofighter Typhoon is technically the better aircraft; younger design, greater payload, better performance, better sensors and systems. The latest F-16E/F Block 60 is a good design though and is still cheaper than the Typhoon. At this point its a matter of cost and whether you don't want or can't afford a better 5th gen+ fighter.
b.) Archer is much more mobile strategically, but is currently pricey due to the limited numbers and is not that mobile offroad. PzH2000 is better protected, combat-tested and can keep up with your armoured units if you have them. A choice between either will come down to cost and doctrinal considerations.
c.) Submarines, particularly diesel electric submarines with AIP, are the preferred ship for area access denial. For a navy that's defensive submarines should be the priority, with frigates and corvettes supporting as they can do things submarines can't (such as general patrol duties which don't involve automatically sinking everything that comes across it.)
by Sahrani South » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:26 am
by San-Silvacian » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:44 am
by Aelarus » Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:43 am
by Rich and Corporations » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:03 am
25mm APFSDS is... insufficient to penetrate the panther across the frontal arc. Panther APCR could penetrate potentially 175mm to 200mm of armor steel which could potentially overmatch Bradley armor.Sahrani South wrote:Not counting its TOWs, how would a mere Bradley fare against a Panther? Do the advances in material science allow the Bradley's thin armor to stand up to a KwK42 APCR impact? Likewise, does the Bradley's relatively puny M242 have sophisticated enough shells to crack a Panther's front armor?
I looked it up and the Bushmaster can fire APDS and depleted uranium APFSDS, though I don't know what their exact capabilities are.
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by The United Remnants of America » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:15 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:Yukonastan wrote:
Either way it sucks, that was implied.
What's more surviveable, a heavy but fairly slow round that has a tendency to overpenetrate, or a light and fast bullet designed not to tumble, that also overpenetrates?
Well first I would like to point out that going all the way through a person is the best result for a bullet. Now they have two holes instead of one. Plus the exit would is usually bigger, in part because of bullet expansion but also for various other reasons.
by Rich and Corporations » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:22 am
by Spirit of Hope » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:22 am
The United Remnants of America wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:Well first I would like to point out that going all the way through a person is the best result for a bullet. Now they have two holes instead of one. Plus the exit would is usually bigger, in part because of bullet expansion but also for various other reasons.
But a bullet going all the way through is also easier to survive.
I was always told a bullet penetrating and then bouncing around or shattering upon impact is much deadlier.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by The United Remnants of America » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:28 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:The United Remnants of America wrote:
But a bullet going all the way through is also easier to survive.
I was always told a bullet penetrating and then bouncing around or shattering upon impact is much deadlier.
Yes a bullet bouncing around is better, for the same sized bullet, fragmenting is debatable and in part depends on the bullet.
But bouncing is not something you can guarantee to happen and is much more likely with smaller bullets, which is the exact opposite of what you want for a standard wound profile.
The best results come from making the biggest whole in the guy shot. You can reliably do this by having a large bullet go all the way through.
by Doppio Giudici » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:29 am
by Connori Pilgrims » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:30 am
Karaginsky wrote:I think the Pzh2000 will work well for me, but I'll employ the Archer in limited use as well, based on the advice of an earlier reply. As for my navy, I base my subs off the Type 212, and destroyer on the Type 45, but I'm at a loss at what my frigate/corvette should be, and for a carrier I'm considering the Queen Elizabeth class. Advice?
by Yukonastan » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:32 am
Yukonastan wrote::not:Sweden and :not:Finland anno 1974 needs a navy. ;_;
Help please? What'd be semireasonable to have for those two countries having become one around WWI-ish?
Edit: Keep in mind that the :not:Cod War is still being fought with the :not:UK, as well as the :not:Cold War with the :not:Soviet Union.
by The United Remnants of America » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:33 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:Karaginsky wrote:I think the Pzh2000 will work well for me, but I'll employ the Archer in limited use as well, based on the advice of an earlier reply. As for my navy, I base my subs off the Type 212, and destroyer on the Type 45, but I'm at a loss at what my frigate/corvette should be, and for a carrier I'm considering the Queen Elizabeth class. Advice?
Do you really need carriers? Especially if your navy is as you say "defensively minded"?
Carriers on the scale of Queen Elizabeth, Kuznetsov, Charles de Gaulle and the US super carriers are meant to be used for power projection and offensive actions. Sure you can use them defensively, but in a serious shooting match if your enemies had any brains they would go after your carriers and they won't last long, especially if your prospective enemies have more carriers and more weapons than you. But if you really feel you need to make your presence felt on the world and want to have carriers just for the sake of having them, then by all means go ahead and build a carrier.
As for choice of escorts, if you are going Type 45 then you will need a suitable ASW/PD frigate to accompany it - logically you might want either Type 26 or Type 23 as they're British and you seem to be going for a brit-theme.
by Aelarus » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:36 am
by Connori Pilgrims » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:51 am
Yukonastan wrote:Yukonastan wrote::not:Sweden and :not:Finland anno 1974 needs a navy. ;_;
Help please? What'd be semireasonable to have for those two countries having become one around WWI-ish?
Edit: Keep in mind that the :not:Cod War is still being fought with the :not:UK, as well as the :not:Cold War with the :not:Soviet Union.
The United Remnants of America wrote:If he's going defensive only, then a helicopter carrier of some sort might be all he needs, right?
Aelarus wrote:I feel ignored. ;_;
by The United Remnants of America » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:53 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:Yukonastan wrote:
They'd probably have the same things they did have IRL, a small fleet of diesel-electric submarines, and a very large number of not-Spica and other missile fast attack craft. Any large surface ships such as frigates and destroyers would depend on whether you follow the Swedish government's IRL 1972 decision to have nothing larger than missile boats.The United Remnants of America wrote:If he's going defensive only, then a helicopter carrier of some sort might be all he needs, right?
Indeed. But as with real life, if his country has the wealth and the desire to have at least 1 carrier for political reasons, then who are we to tell him no.Aelarus wrote:I feel ignored. ;_;
Define your comparison parameters? Comparing very different aircraft with potentially different roles and doctrines (especially the F-15C, F/A-18E/F and the Su-27s, which are much much heavier than the F-16) is a disengenious exercise in futility.
by Aelarus » Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:57 am
Simply countermeasures. Jammers, flares, etc.Connori Pilgrims wrote:Define your comparison parameters? Comparing very different aircraft with potentially different roles and doctrines (especially the F-15C, F/A-18E/F and the Su-27s, which are much much heavier than the F-16) is a disengenious exercise in futility.
by Spirit of Hope » Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:06 am
The United Remnants of America wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:Yes a bullet bouncing around is better, for the same sized bullet, fragmenting is debatable and in part depends on the bullet.
But bouncing is not something you can guarantee to happen and is much more likely with smaller bullets, which is the exact opposite of what you want for a standard wound profile.
The best results come from making the biggest whole in the guy shot. You can reliably do this by having a large bullet go all the way through.
But those are still easier to treat than internal bleeding and shredded organs.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement