Advertisement
by Gallia- » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:20 pm
by New Vihenia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:25 pm
Austrasien wrote:
I don't think there is enough clearance between the ATGM rails and the guns on the side - a missile leaving rail is going to pass REALLY close to the muzzle of the Gatling gun. Perhaps increase the length of the pylons so there is more clearance?
Questarian New Yorkshire wrote: can't it be timed so the missile is released into freefall then the engine activates?
although its probably easier juts to extend the pylon lol
Purpelia wrote:I am sort of more concerned about the missile belching hot exhaust plumes next to an open window. So I assume that if he is intending to do missile heavy operations he would probably reel the gun in and close it.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:44 pm
Gallia- wrote: The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.
by Sibauk » Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:13 pm
by Gallia- » Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:53 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Gallia- wrote: The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.
Would you mind elaborating or providing something that discusses it at length? I'm very curious.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:24 am
by New Vihenia » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:11 am
Sibauk wrote:Nice! Reminds me of the Blackhawk and Eurocopter Panther.
I'm curious about the active protection system though - what are the sensors and interceptors?
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:55 am
do not read this post as meaning tanks shouldn't existGallia- wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Would you mind elaborating or providing something that discusses it at length? I'm very curious.
Trenches can't be broken by tanks without disproportionately large casualties. A few hundred infantrymen in well camouflaged and prepared trenches and with enough ammunition can defeat a thousand tanks.
The Hundred Days Offensive was mostly possible because the trenches were absent. Tanks are excellent at attacking infantry that are not prepared to deal with them, usually, but infantry in earthworks with adequate missiles are their bane. If the infantry recover from the initial tank terror and manage to separate the tanks from their infantry, they can still kill the tanks, too.
Conversely, it is extremely hard to defeat an attack in Brusilov's manner. There is no obvious weakness, because it isn't as simple as shooting a machine gun or firing a cannon to make the infantry stop while the tanks continue driving along so you can deal with the problems piecemeal. The attack has to be absorbed and stopped in its entirety, and suitably motivated and led infantrymen are not an easy thing to stop*. More often than not, a frontal attack by foot soldiers supported by artillery pieces will succeed than it will fail, against either an army of tanks or a mirror of itself. At which point your trench is then occupied, and the problem presents itself once again. Once the infantry have broken out of the initial earthworks and into open ground, they become to vulnerable to tank attacks again, at least until they have dug trenches and the process repeats itself.
Basically, tanks are helpless without infantry's help, and tanks serve to help an otherwise numerically inadequate number of infantrymen overcome an obstacle that would have difficulty with, but if you have sufficient amounts of infantry it is generally the hardier obstacle. Tanks are just seen as essential I guess because moderns are so inundated with techno fetishism of Anglo-American culture that they are somehow indispensable and they've literally forgotten how to attack with infantry.
Something like a minefield or poison gas covered by a really good machine gun team, or a large number of accurate marksmen with sniper rifles, are pretty potent obstacles to infantry though. But you still have the issue of absorbing the attack, and the nature of the infantryman (his quickness, his small size, and the relative lack of weapons designed to defeat him solely outside of snipers and grenade launchers) makes him less vulnerable on the attack inherently than the tank. A tank can be killed by a single rocket, and we are good at making big rockets to kill tanks with. It is much harder to make a rifle, train every soldier to shoot accurately (or mechanize the rifle so it eliminates accuracy issues), and have enough of these soldiers and rifles with ammunition to defeat a large infantry attack while being suppressed or blinded by mortars or howitzers or recoilless rifles.
But perhaps eventually we will get there and then the WW1 methods of war will be obsolete rather than suddenly in vogue again.
tl;dr:
*You can liquidate the attacking infantry with massive amounts of artillery fire but this won't make it easier to attack them with tanks or whatever.
e: Also planes won't help because I'm covering the radar sites with 2-4 feet of oak logs and mud so you cannot hurt them do NOT I will NOT let you hurt that spinny boi.
by Austrasien » Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:54 am
by The Akasha Colony » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:06 pm
by Purpelia » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:30 pm
by Kassaran » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:41 pm
Zarkenis Ultima wrote:Tristan noticed footsteps behind him and looked there, only to see Eric approaching and then pointing his sword at the girl. He just blinked a few times at this before speaking.
"Put that down, Mr. Eric." He said. "She's obviously not a chicken."
by Gallia- » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:54 pm
Purpelia wrote:Random question. If you took an infantry mortar like a 82mm or one of the serious 6cm (so not a knee mortar sort of thing but a big 6cm) and you were to man pack and fire it what would happen to you?
Questarian New Yorkshire wrote:do not read this post as meaning tanks shouldn't existGallia- wrote:
Trenches can't be broken by tanks without disproportionately large casualties. A few hundred infantrymen in well camouflaged and prepared trenches and with enough ammunition can defeat a thousand tanks.
The Hundred Days Offensive was mostly possible because the trenches were absent. Tanks are excellent at attacking infantry that are not prepared to deal with them, usually, but infantry in earthworks with adequate missiles are their bane. If the infantry recover from the initial tank terror and manage to separate the tanks from their infantry, they can still kill the tanks, too.
Conversely, it is extremely hard to defeat an attack in Brusilov's manner. There is no obvious weakness, because it isn't as simple as shooting a machine gun or firing a cannon to make the infantry stop while the tanks continue driving along so you can deal with the problems piecemeal. The attack has to be absorbed and stopped in its entirety, and suitably motivated and led infantrymen are not an easy thing to stop*. More often than not, a frontal attack by foot soldiers supported by artillery pieces will succeed than it will fail, against either an army of tanks or a mirror of itself. At which point your trench is then occupied, and the problem presents itself once again. Once the infantry have broken out of the initial earthworks and into open ground, they become to vulnerable to tank attacks again, at least until they have dug trenches and the process repeats itself.
Basically, tanks are helpless without infantry's help, and tanks serve to help an otherwise numerically inadequate number of infantrymen overcome an obstacle that would have difficulty with, but if you have sufficient amounts of infantry it is generally the hardier obstacle. Tanks are just seen as essential I guess because moderns are so inundated with techno fetishism of Anglo-American culture that they are somehow indispensable and they've literally forgotten how to attack with infantry.
Something like a minefield or poison gas covered by a really good machine gun team, or a large number of accurate marksmen with sniper rifles, are pretty potent obstacles to infantry though. But you still have the issue of absorbing the attack, and the nature of the infantryman (his quickness, his small size, and the relative lack of weapons designed to defeat him solely outside of snipers and grenade launchers) makes him less vulnerable on the attack inherently than the tank. A tank can be killed by a single rocket, and we are good at making big rockets to kill tanks with. It is much harder to make a rifle, train every soldier to shoot accurately (or mechanize the rifle so it eliminates accuracy issues), and have enough of these soldiers and rifles with ammunition to defeat a large infantry attack while being suppressed or blinded by mortars or howitzers or recoilless rifles.
But perhaps eventually we will get there and then the WW1 methods of war will be obsolete rather than suddenly in vogue again.
tl;dr:(Image)
*You can liquidate the attacking infantry with massive amounts of artillery fire but this won't make it easier to attack them with tanks or whatever.
e: Also planes won't help because I'm covering the radar sites with 2-4 feet of oak logs and mud so you cannot hurt them do NOT I will NOT let you hurt that spinny boi.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:58 pm
by Gallia- » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:01 pm
by Purpelia » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:15 pm
by Gallia- » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:35 pm
by Korva » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:19 pm
by Gallia- » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:48 pm
by Doppio Giudici » Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:49 pm
by Communist Xomaniax » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:43 pm
Gallia- wrote:Generally speaking it's better than self propelled pieces in a lot of areas. It's not exactly well protected so it can't shoot while being shot at, but it's more survivable against conventional (non-ICM) counter fire, and harder to locate until it starts shooting. It's probably easier to construct realistic decoys of towed field pieces too.
It's also easier to recover and repair a towed gun than it is to repair a self propelled one which has suffered similar damage. There are fewer things to break on a towed piece, a towed gun has a much smaller overhead profile/area, and the things that are most likely to be affected by stuff like ICM bombardment (caissons, barrels, hydraulics) can be stockpiled since they are replaceable components anyway. Overhead cover for crew and ammunition, and a fairly robust series of firing positions (a couple for each gun or gun-pair) is generally sufficient to ensure that an artillery crew will survive. The battery can also split itself up into penny packets (singles or duos of guns) and move around to avoid attracting attention of airplanes or counter artillery.
Having single guns meander around between heavily fortified firing position,s scattered a few hundred meters apart, was what the Chinese did in 1951. They also gave their howitzers overhead cover with logs and earth. Imagine a parapet with a big box of logs and soil piled on top, and the front opens to the limits of elevation and traverse of the mount. This would be sufficient to stop a ODS-esque scenario where towed guns are destroyed by ICM rocket artillery within a few hours of a ground war. The downside, obviously, is that this sort of fortification requires time and the Chinese had been given a few months to prepare their defensive positions. The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.
by Crookfur » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:57 pm
Doppio Giudici wrote:Every time I look up the 9×19mm "7N21 +P+", I get data that says it's going 1500-2000 fps, while also claiming lessened recoil. What? How? 7.62x39mm has comparable bullet weights going only a couple hundred feet per second faster. I looked up .44 Magnum necked down to .357 and those loads appear to be going slower, then "7N21 +P+", with comparable bullet weights.
I've seen guns that can fire ammo like this, but generally they are large handguns, with large recoil springs, and impressive muzzle-breaks. MP-443 Grach seems like it should at least have a rotating barrel or something, to prevent it from having some horrific failure from the pressure.
by Gallia- » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:08 pm
Communist Xomaniax wrote:Gallia- wrote:Generally speaking it's better than self propelled pieces in a lot of areas. It's not exactly well protected so it can't shoot while being shot at, but it's more survivable against conventional (non-ICM) counter fire, and harder to locate until it starts shooting. It's probably easier to construct realistic decoys of towed field pieces too.
It's also easier to recover and repair a towed gun than it is to repair a self propelled one which has suffered similar damage. There are fewer things to break on a towed piece, a towed gun has a much smaller overhead profile/area, and the things that are most likely to be affected by stuff like ICM bombardment (caissons, barrels, hydraulics) can be stockpiled since they are replaceable components anyway. Overhead cover for crew and ammunition, and a fairly robust series of firing positions (a couple for each gun or gun-pair) is generally sufficient to ensure that an artillery crew will survive. The battery can also split itself up into penny packets (singles or duos of guns) and move around to avoid attracting attention of airplanes or counter artillery.
Having single guns meander around between heavily fortified firing position,s scattered a few hundred meters apart, was what the Chinese did in 1951. They also gave their howitzers overhead cover with logs and earth. Imagine a parapet with a big box of logs and soil piled on top, and the front opens to the limits of elevation and traverse of the mount. This would be sufficient to stop a ODS-esque scenario where towed guns are destroyed by ICM rocket artillery within a few hours of a ground war. The downside, obviously, is that this sort of fortification requires time and the Chinese had been given a few months to prepare their defensive positions. The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.
Thank you. Another question: how would you organize that artillery, in large artillery parks?
by Doppio Giudici » Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:11 pm
Crookfur wrote:Doppio Giudici wrote:Every time I look up the 9×19mm "7N21 +P+", I get data that says it's going 1500-2000 fps, while also claiming lessened recoil. What? How? 7.62x39mm has comparable bullet weights going only a couple hundred feet per second faster. I looked up .44 Magnum necked down to .357 and those loads appear to be going slower, then "7N21 +P+", with comparable bullet weights.
I've seen guns that can fire ammo like this, but generally they are large handguns, with large recoil springs, and impressive muzzle-breaks. MP-443 Grach seems like it should at least have a rotating barrel or something, to prevent it from having some horrific failure from the pressure.
You are comparing the entire cartridge weight from the 7N series to the bullet weight of 7.62x39mm.
The Russian loads fire 80gr (5.2g) bullets at 460m/s or even lighter circa 60gr projectiles at 600m/s. Pretty much comparable to comercial +p loads.
Your. 44mag wildcats such as. 357-44 bain and Davis are pushing double the projectile mass at similar velocities.
by Theodosiya » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:14 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: New Vihenia
Advertisement