NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Grangeco]

but specialized to fire missiles at like almost machine gun rate.

[Mitheldalond]

but specialized to fire missiles at like almost machine gun rate.

Gatling ballistic missile launcher?

[Inyourfaceistan]

but specialized to fire missiles at like almost machine gun rate.

Why? Just why?

[Grangeco]

mainly just to freak out your enemys by having a large cloud of death heading towards them at a fast speed

[Inyourfaceistan]

mainly just to freak out your enemys by having a large cloud of death heading towards them at a fast speed

And then freak out your own defense budget and logistics trails by having to support such a monstrosity...

[Nachmere]

Question: Does anyone know how NS Tracker works out the size of your military? I'm not sure how it works it out, and I've made a few attempts at working it out already.

I would not reccomend NS Tracker for when you pass the 1 billion mark. A good example would be my nation, with its military budget exceeding the GDP of the united states.

And this why you can play with a pop cap. Otherwise, fuck yeah my nation has unlimited resources and will bring armies with the manpower of the entire RL world to the fight.

[Grangeco]

it owuld also be extremely devastating and proboably wouldnt always be cloud of deathing it could spend most of its time just sending a burst of missiles.
Also how does popcap work?

[Nachmere]

it owuld also be extremely devastating and proboably wouldnt always be cloud of deathing it could spend most of its time just sending a burst of missiles.
Also how does popcap work?

Like any other element of RPing, by mutual consent and respect. If I want to RP with you and you have a much smaller population according to NS, we agree to cap our populations. Some people predetermine this and have their capped population figure in the signature or elsewhere. This is however, not a military realism issue, so I am running back to the topic before someone kicks me there.

[Atomic Utopia]

it owuld also be extremely devastating and probably wouldn't always be cloud of deathing it could spend most of its time just sending a burst of missiles.
Also how does popcap work?

Replying to bolded text only.

Why not instead have a large number of smaller ships, rather than one giant worthless one. With a bunch of small ships with about 10-20 VLS tubes each you can annihilate any enemy ship with the desired huge swarm of missiles when all of the ships fire at once, or you can divide the group of ships into smaller groups to more effectively defend against enemy attack.

Basically all the arguments that go against the Longsword go against this ship idea, large cost per unit, cannot effectively engage smaller threats, ect.

[Antiago]

Ok this is my basic Platoon at the moment.

Mechanized Infantry Platoon
PL (7.62mm FN FAL)
PSG (7.62mm FN FAL)
RTO (7.62mm FN FAL)

1st Squad
2nd Squad

Details:

3rd Squad Leader/ Team A leader (7.62mm FN FAL)
Assistant gunner (7.62mm FN FAL)
Automatic rifleman (7.62mm FN MAG w/bipod)


Team leader B (7.62mm FN FAL and RPG-7)
Rifleman/Scout (7.62mm FN FAL and 2x VP-7VR)
Designated Marksman (FN FAL sniper)


Team leader C (7.62mm FN FAL and RPG-7)
Rifleman/Scout (7.62mm FN FAL and 2x VP-7VR)
Grenadier (7.62mm FN FAL, Milkor MGL)

M113A3 ACAV
1x Driver (9mm MP5A3)
1x Commander/gunner (9mm MP5A3)

[Lydenburg]

Sounds kind of wankish...

And why are you obsessed with tanks fighting outnumbered?

It's not just fighting outnumbered. The rate of fire advantage is still very helpful in a battle between two equally sized tank forces.

And the size of many NS militaries seems to be based on the premise that the Cold War never ended. So figuratively speaking, you can either be the USSR with massive numbers of tanks and AFVs, or NATO with smaller numbers of tougher tanks. In this case, I am NATO.

Or the Third World with whatever rusty castoffs from both the USSR and NATO they can scrape together.

Just saying.

[The Soodean Imperium]

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO for pistols

Come on

I'm an utter idiot when it comes to guns and even I know that this is wrong

Sounds kind of wankish...

And why are you obsessed with tanks fighting outnumbered?

It's not just fighting outnumbered. The rate of fire advantage is still very helpful in a battle between two equally sized tank forces.

And the size of many NS militaries seems to be based on the premise that the Cold War never ended. So figuratively speaking, you can either be the USSR with massive numbers of tanks and AFVs, or NATO with smaller numbers of tougher tanks. In this case, I am NATO.

Your tank is still a solution in search of a problem. Your line of thought isn't "My most likely enemy has far more tanks than I do, how can I respond?" but "This autoloader is super fast, maybe if I put it on a tank I could use it for... killing lots of other tanks!" which is backwards.

If you expect to be attacked by waves of enemy APCs, there are much better ways to deal with them. Mass indirect fire on their assembly points, secure air superiority and spam precision-guided munitions, or knock out their C3 assets and gain the advantage in coordination. Take a look at what NATO has/had planned for conventional wars and start from that logic. But unless your military is Directed by Michael Bay^tm, a bigger, shootier tank spewing death in all directions as fast as the gunner can fire is not the best solution to your problem.

[Mitheldalond]

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO for pistols

Come on

I'm an utter idiot when it comes to guns and even I know that this is wrong

It's not just fighting outnumbered. The rate of fire advantage is still very helpful in a battle between two equally sized tank forces.

And the size of many NS militaries seems to be based on the premise that the Cold War never ended. So figuratively speaking, you can either be the USSR with massive numbers of tanks and AFVs, or NATO with smaller numbers of tougher tanks. In this case, I am NATO.

Your tank is still a solution in search of a problem. Your line of thought isn't "My most likely enemy has far more tanks than I do, how can I respond?" but "This autoloader is super fast, maybe if I put it on a tank I could use it for... killing lots of other tanks!" which is backwards.

If you expect to be attacked by waves of enemy APCs, there are much better ways to deal with them. Mass indirect fire on their assembly points, secure air superiority and spam precision-guided munitions, or knock out their C3 assets and gain the advantage in coordination. Take a look at what NATO has/had planned for conventional wars and start from that logic. But unless your military is Directed by Michael Bay^tm, a bigger, shootier tank spewing death in all directions as fast as the gunner can fire is not the best solution to your problem.

Out of character, the tank is certainly motivated by coolness factor and a desire to create something more unique than a generic MBT more so than by any practical need. In character, the problem is something along the lines of "I am an island nation with a military geared towards force projection. As such, the only way for me to deploy a sizeable ground force abroad is by amphibious landings. This means that my ground forces, including tank units, can expect to be at a numerical disadvantage most of the time. As such, we can expect to have fewer tanks than the enemy. Furthermore, it will be significantly more difficult and time consuming for us to transport more tanks to the battlefield than it will for the enemy. Therefore, in order for us to defeat the enemy, our tanks will need to achieve a high kill-to-loss ratio against the enemy tanks."

A relatively lightweight, rapid firing tank would be an effective solution to this problem. A lighter vehicle will be more suitable for amphibious transport, and the extremely rapid reload will allow a smaller group of tanks to achieve the same rate of fire as a much larger group of normal tanks, allowing them to engage the same number of targets just as fast as this much larger enemy force.

It may not be the best solution, but it is a solution nonetheless. Additionally, as it stands now, the tank is no larger than a normal MBT like the Abrams or Merkava. Nor does it require more powerful or complex electronics and FCS than a normal tank. The only thing that really makes this unique is the design of the autoloader and the use of completely combustible ammunition. As such, the cost of producing it should be comparable to that of a real life MBT (though on the more expensive side).

[Rich and Corporations]

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ric ... /id=209121

Tank Uber is most realistic wank tank.

[Allanea]

but specialized to fire missiles at like almost machine gun rate.

This also already exists, look up Operation Behemoth.

[New Vihenia]

Now i'm thinking "Gatling Missile Launcher"

[Auroya]

...Like this?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Now i'm thinking "Gatling Missile Launcher"

Aren't S-300FM and 3K95 "Kinzhal" sort of like revolver missile launchers?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How does this sound for a weaponization kit for helicopters?

lightweight, low-profile, RWS-style turret capable of mounting a light autocannon (e.g. 20x102mm) - to be bolted to the chin/belly area with ammo magazine within cargo compartment (belt-feeding through flexible shrouds) a la IAR 330 Puma Socat / Battlehawk Level 3
compact optronics pod with basic gunner's daylight/low light CCD, thermal camera, laser rangefinder and designator, pilot NV - to be mounted on the nose of the aircraft
stub wings w/ 3 hardpoints per each side (including wingtip) - to be mounted either above sidedoors or to the belly

sounds good y/y?

[New Vihenia]

Aren't S-300FM and 3K95 "Kinzhal" sort of like revolver missile launchers?

Well not that revolver stuff. I'm thinking about gatling missile launcher that can fire in the same rate as gatling gun :3 (sooo 1000-2000 rpm or moar)

[Gallan Systems]

You should check out The Phoenix Milita's storefront for that stuff.

[The Kievan People]

If you were driving this tank, you would be able to engage all four targets in only 3 seconds. You could kill all four of them before they even had time to load a second round.

You are mistakenly assuming modern tanks ability to engage multiple targets is limited by their ROF. A tank needs to find, ID, shoot, look then either shoot and look again or repeat the process for the next target. This takes time. More time on average than it takes to reload the gun.

In MT you need eyes on target to reliably engage land targets. This means you are limited by the speed the crew can process targets. Which means a couple seconds per target, under ideal circumstances. Weapons that fire tens or hundreds of rounds per minute really add very little to a tanks combat worth unless it is some kind of land battleship abomination with three gunners.

Just use a VLS tank. VLS tanks are way cooler

[The Kievan People]

You should check out The Phoenix Milita's storefront for that stuff.

Don't joke around like that.

[Bratislavskaya]

Would it be reasonable to say between about 1% and 0.5% of my entire population should be in the forces? I know there is all the doctrine stuff that affects it, but is that a good starting number?

[Lamoni]

Up to 1% of your total population in the active forces would be fine.