NationStates

Vorkova wrote:Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

If you have an army large enough in which you can afford toying around with "specialized" divisions such as mechanized or armored, then yes. But really, in armored formations tanks are viewed more as a part of the main combat force as opposed to support assets. I think 100 tanks / division is too little. For example, an Armored Brigade Combat Team with 3 Combined Arms Battalions has 2 Tank coys and 2 Mech Inf coys. 60 tanks, 60 IFVs and 112 M113s , so strictly speaking IFV to tank, you're looking at a 1:1 ratio.

How many brigades/regiments do your divisions have?

Vorkova wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Armoured Divisions gives you a much stronger spearhead for an assault, by being focused around its firepower than its mobility and capability.

The Armoured (Tank) Division of the Soviet Union gave you 300 tanks in regiments plus the forty tanks of its Motor Rifle Regiment. The Mechanised (Motor Rifle) Division offered 100 tanks in a Tank Regiment and the 120 tanks of the three Motor Rifle Regiments.

Huh. That's... quite a lot of tanks, and exactly what I need! Thank you, I shall use the USSR's divisions as a base for mine.

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Vorkova wrote:Is there any reason to have separate mechanised and armoured divisions? I'm buildings tanks by the thousands so I could easily equip each division with around one hundred.

If you have an army large enough in which you can afford toying around with "specialized" divisions such as mechanized or armored, then yes. But really, in armored formations tanks are viewed more as a part of the main combat force as opposed to support assets. I think 100 tanks / division is too little. For example, an Armored Brigade Combat Team with 3 Combined Arms Battalions has 2 Tank coys and 2 Mech Inf coys. 60 tanks, 60 IFVs and 112 M113s , so strictly speaking IFV to tank, you're looking at a 1:1 ratio.

How many brigades/regiments do your divisions have?

Three brigades per division with around 6,000 troops each.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Vorkova wrote:Huh. That's... quite a lot of tanks, and exactly what I need! Thank you, I shall use the USSR's divisions as a base for mine.

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

I equipped my MBT with an autoloader so I could probably copy their divisional numbers exactly.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Vorkova wrote:Huh. That's... quite a lot of tanks, and exactly what I need! Thank you, I shall use the USSR's divisions as a base for mine.

In the Cold War, the American armoured division wasn't exactly far off for the number of tanks.

The USSR's advantage was in its layout. In using a three man tank, the Russians could put two Battalions on the field for every one the US could in terms of manpower.

Not only this, but they also had 3-tank platoons (PL's tank included)

Ardavia wrote:we fight dragons, and rifles with small bullets are useful for this, as are high caliber weapons. The smaller bullets afaik go faster, and 20mm and such do more damage.

*sigh*

There's more to "damage" then the size of the bullet. Velocity is also a chief component, as is the design of the bullet itself. "Bigger bullet = more damage" is a common misconception among people that aren't familiar with how ballistics work.

Also, larger bullets are not inherently slower than smaller ones. Generally speaking yes, because there is less mass a smaller bullet will go faster. However, given sufficient powder charges behind it even a big bullet can go fast. This is why some .50 BMG (.50 caliber bullet, very heavy) loadings go just as fast as 5.56x45mm NATO loadings (.223 caliber bullet, lighter), and both go substantially faster then .22 Short loadings (.22 caliber bullet, extremely light). As a general rule, bullets of the same velocity but different weights will favor the heavier bullet as having a better terminal effect, but this is only really a rule when the design of the bullets are identical and even then there are dozens of cases where this isn't the case.

Finally, saying "20mm cartridge" is about as descriptive as saying "blue house". Yes we know that the house is blue, but how many stories is it? What's the square footage? How many bedrooms? Is it an actual house or just a trailer? 20x??? could mean anything, from a (for example) 20x150 autocannon cartridge to a (for example) 20x30 high caliber revolver cartridge, or even a 20mm shotshell. For a real life example of just how nondescriptive the caliber is, let's look at two cartridges with the same caliber. .380 ACP is a compact pistol cartridge with a 9mm bore, designed to be fired from small, compact pistols. It is also known as 9x17 Auto, which is much more descriptive; 17mm is very, VERY small for a case, and that tells you that .380 ACP isn't going to be the hardest hitting cartridge ever. Now let's look at the other one. .357 Remington Maximum is an extremely powerful revolver cartridge with a 9mm bore. Same bore as .380 ACP, but .357 Maximum was so powerful it was considered too powerful for common revolvers and is really only used in single shot break-action rifles. It's dimensions are 9x41, which, as you can see, is over double that of the .380 ACP. Even without mentioning the fact that the .357 Maximum is overloaded as fuck and uses extremely potent powder, as well as a flat-nose bullet, you can see that the .357 Remington Maximum will perform substantially better than the .380 ACP, even if they both have the same bullet diameter (well, in fact, the .357 has a .358 inch bullet where the .380 as a .355 inch bullet, but that 0.003 inches isn't going to be doing anything to the terminal effectiveness).

20x100mm, it was iirc.

Also, I stand corrected. Fuck it, I'm going with .303 and adjusting the history to allow for it in a plausible manner.

United states of brazilian nations wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Alternatively, figure out some Spanish (or just find the search bar) and use Municion.org

So use.

that's when you're glad to be south american and have spanish classes in addition to portuguese ones.]

also, for a 5.56mm NATO cartridge, would a 0.3mm tickness for the case at the neck and 0.5mm at the base sound right?

About 0.8mm at the base and 0.4mm at the neck.

http://www.murdoconline.net/2008/M855_drawing.jpg

Now that I think about it, APCs are relevant to infantry - that, and picwhores like myself don't really need an excuse anyhow.




Finally got the ruddy thing coloured. Do the tyres look fine, or am I just telling myself that so that I shan't have to redo them?

Anemos Major wrote:Now that I think about it, APCs are relevant to infantry - that, and picwhores like myself don't really need an excuse anyhow.

(Image)
(Image)

Finally got the ruddy thing coloured. Do the tyres look fine, or am I just telling myself that so that I shan't have to redo them?

Belongs in the vehicle thread, not here.

Aqizithiuda wrote:

United states of brazilian nations wrote:
that's when you're glad to be south american and have spanish classes in addition to portuguese ones.]

also, for a 5.56mm NATO cartridge, would a 0.3mm tickness for the case at the neck and 0.5mm at the base sound right?

About 0.8mm at the base and 0.4mm at the neck.

http://www.murdoconline.net/2008/M855_drawing.jpg

thank you, good sir.

Imgur works for me now.

So here's this:



Got bored, decided to use the brush tool to into finish wear. It turned out "okay." I've also done a little work on my notAK-107/8/9 and created a new muzzle brake for it. I might post it later.

I also dicked around with other schemes:

Spreewerke wrote:Imgur works for me now.

So here's this:

(Image)

Got bored, decided to use the brush tool to into finish wear. It turned out "okay." I've also done a little work on my notAK-107/8/9 and created a new muzzle brake for it. I might post it later.

I also dicked around with other schemes:

Woodland/Jungle: http://i.imgur.com/oImizYw.png
Arctic: http://i.imgur.com/KRopruN.png
Desert: http://i.imgur.com/beAHIOT.png

"okay"? Spree that's one of the best wear-work I've ever seen posted in this thread

Black Hand wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
With a DMR, accuracy is more important.
With a DMR, more expensive scopes are generally used.
DMRs often have low capacity magazines where IARs work best with very high capacity magazines.
Some IARs have very short barrels. Some don't.
Some DMRs have very short barrels, where some have very long barrels.

accuracy/reduced barrel wear is typically achieved through similar methods IE:heavy barrels or fluted barrels
I suppose depends it seems quite few seem to use "standard" optics like a trijicon ACOG, considering the optic I plan on issuing is a 2.5x/4.5X scope
The typical magazine size for DMR's such as say the M21 is 20 rounds because that's what the M14 used, magazine for the SAM-R was typically a 30 rounder or a 20 rounder not because it had to be, but because as a DMR it wasn't always necessary to have those ten extra rounds. I use a 24Round casket magazine for my battle rifle with a 36 round casket being available as well as a 72 round double drum (was going to be a single drum but a single drum of 9.3X64 would be lolhuge)
it seems to me that typically when an IAR or DMR is based off an existing service weapon the barrel is lengthened or it uses the longest "standard" barrel available. examples being: HK416/M27 M16/SAM-R AKM/RPK/Tabuk.
I'm willing to bet that if I built them all with super sturdy receivers, and fitted them with heavy barrels and a non accuracy impinging muzzle device (I'm looking at you AKM compensator) such as the AK-74 based muzzle device I put on most things, and gave it the standard 2.5/4.5X scope then it should work out fine I think.


weird unrelated note I'm going to remove the ROTC student part of my sig, I decided fuckit I'm not entirely certain of my major and I'll just enlist and do this whole college thing later.

Bump to confirm before i start art

Spreewerke wrote:Imgur works for me now.

So here's this:

(Image)

Got bored, decided to use the brush tool to into finish wear. It turned out "okay." I've also done a little work on my notAK-107/8/9 and created a new muzzle brake for it. I might post it later.

I also dicked around with other schemes:

Woodland/Jungle: http://i.imgur.com/oImizYw.png
Arctic: http://i.imgur.com/KRopruN.png
Desert: http://i.imgur.com/beAHIOT.png

those camos are so much win.

Black Hand wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
With a DMR, accuracy is more important.
With a DMR, more expensive scopes are generally used.
DMRs often have low capacity magazines where IARs work best with very high capacity magazines.
Some IARs have very short barrels. Some don't.
Some DMRs have very short barrels, where some have very long barrels.

accuracy/reduced barrel wear is typically achieved through similar methods IE:heavy barrels or fluted barrels
I suppose depends it seems quite few seem to use "standard" optics like a trijicon ACOG, considering the optic I plan on issuing is a 2.5x/4.5X scope
The typical magazine size for DMR's such as say the M21 is 20 rounds because that's what the M14 used, magazine for the SAM-R was typically a 30 rounder or a 20 rounder not because it had to be, but because as a DMR it wasn't always necessary to have those ten extra rounds. I use a 24Round casket magazine for my battle rifle with a 36 round casket being available as well as a 72 round double drum (was going to be a single drum but a single drum of 9.3X64 would be lolhuge)
it seems to me that typically when an IAR or DMR is based off an existing service weapon the barrel is lengthened or it uses the longest "standard" barrel available. examples being: HK416/M27 M16/SAM-R AKM/RPK/Tabuk.
I'm willing to bet that if I built them all with super sturdy receivers, and fitted them with heavy barrels and a non accuracy impinging muzzle device (I'm looking at you AKM compensator) such as the AK-74 based muzzle device I put on most things, and gave it the standard 2.5/4.5X scope then it should work out fine I think.


weird unrelated note I'm going to remove the ROTC student part of my sig, I decided fuckit I'm not entirely certain of my major and I'll just enlist and do this whole college thing later.

1: Indeed, but LMG barrels often aren't "accurized" like DMR barrels are. DMRs will, very often, have free-floating handguards, while this is not really an important factor with LMGs.
2: The ACOG is only standard for the marines.
3: Exactly. Most DMRs have, at most, 20 round magazines. LSWs work better with 50-150 round magazines because they're supposed to be suppressive weapons. You can't suppress much with twenty rounds.
4: Not always. The M27's barrel is only barely longer than the M4's, and significantly shorter than the M16's. The SVD (world's first DMR) wasn't based on the AKM at all.
5: It might, but you still run into the problem of either it's more expensive then an LSW or it's not as good as being a DMR.

Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you the ultimate manstopper.

Langnes Armory Model 1902 in .52 Berndsen.

Designed for bear defense, hunting, competition shooting and dueling.

Length is 245 mm, weight is 1.2 kilograms and it fires a 22 gram, 13.5 mm bullet at a muzzle velocity of 195 m/s, giving 420 joules of muzzle energy for you to utilize.

The magazine holds 6 rounds.

Bezombia wrote:

Black Hand wrote:accuracy/reduced barrel wear is typically achieved through similar methods IE:heavy barrels or fluted barrels
I suppose depends it seems quite few seem to use "standard" optics like a trijicon ACOG, considering the optic I plan on issuing is a 2.5x/4.5X scope
The typical magazine size for DMR's such as say the M21 is 20 rounds because that's what the M14 used, magazine for the SAM-R was typically a 30 rounder or a 20 rounder not because it had to be, but because as a DMR it wasn't always necessary to have those ten extra rounds. I use a 24Round casket magazine for my battle rifle with a 36 round casket being available as well as a 72 round double drum (was going to be a single drum but a single drum of 9.3X64 would be lolhuge)
it seems to me that typically when an IAR or DMR is based off an existing service weapon the barrel is lengthened or it uses the longest "standard" barrel available. examples being: HK416/M27 M16/SAM-R AKM/RPK/Tabuk.
I'm willing to bet that if I built them all with super sturdy receivers, and fitted them with heavy barrels and a non accuracy impinging muzzle device (I'm looking at you AKM compensator) such as the AK-74 based muzzle device I put on most things, and gave it the standard 2.5/4.5X scope then it should work out fine I think.


weird unrelated note I'm going to remove the ROTC student part of my sig, I decided fuckit I'm not entirely certain of my major and I'll just enlist and do this whole college thing later.

1: Indeed, but LMG barrels often aren't "accurized" like DMR barrels are. DMRs will, very often, have free-floating handguards, while this is not really an important factor with LMGs.
2: The ACOG is only standard for the marines.
3: Exactly. Most DMRs have, at most, 20 round magazines. LSWs work better with 50-150 round magazines because they're supposed to be suppressive weapons. You can't suppress much with twenty rounds.
4: Not always. The M27's barrel is only barely longer than the M4's, and significantly shorter than the M16's. The SVD (world's first DMR) wasn't based on the AKM at all.
5: It might, but you still run into the problem of either it's more expensive then an LSW or it's not as good as being a DMR.

1: that is true, but I also believe that many DMR's are over accurized to a degree, it only needs to be effective out to 800m or so.
2: I know this.
3: Nothing prevents you from loading say a SAM-R with a beta C-mag the magazine isn't the issue.that's an easy fix.
4: compared to it's companion weapon the HK416 it has a longer barrel than most models. The SAM-R and SDM-R are both 20" barrels.
5: Well I'm thinking that prioritization as a IAR, with enough accuracy to serve as a DMR need be. part of this is that it's chambered in 9.3X64 so it would be a heavier rifle round to accompany the 6.8X45 assault rifle, and would complement the 9.3X64 GPMG

Tule wrote:(Image)

Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you the ultimate manstopper.

Langnes Armory Model 1902 in .52 Berndsen.

Designed for bear defense, hunting, competition shooting and dueling.

Length is 245 mm, weight is 1.2 kilograms and it fires a 22 g (340gr) .52 bullet at a muzzle velocity of 195 m/s (640 fps).
The magazine holds 6 rounds.

Not enough Nambu

Black Hand wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
1: Indeed, but LMG barrels often aren't "accurized" like DMR barrels are. DMRs will, very often, have free-floating handguards, while this is not really an important factor with LMGs.
2: The ACOG is only standard for the marines.
3: Exactly. Most DMRs have, at most, 20 round magazines. LSWs work better with 50-150 round magazines because they're supposed to be suppressive weapons. You can't suppress much with twenty rounds.
4: Not always. The M27's barrel is only barely longer than the M4's, and significantly shorter than the M16's. The SVD (world's first DMR) wasn't based on the AKM at all.
5: It might, but you still run into the problem of either it's more expensive then an LSW or it's not as good as being a DMR.

1: that is true, but I also believe that many DMR's are over accurized to a degree, it only needs to be effective out to 800m or so.
2: I know this.
3: Nothing prevents you from loading say a SAM-R with a beta C-mag the magazine isn't the issue.that's an easy fix.
4: compared to it's companion weapon the HK416 it has a longer barrel than most models. The SAM-R and SDM-R are both 20" barrels.
5: Well I'm thinking that prioritization as a IAR, with enough accuracy to serve as a DMR need be. part of this is that it's chambered in 9.3X64 so it would be a heavier rifle round to accompany the 6.8X45 assault rifle, and would complement the 9.3X64 GPMG

I still don't think it's a good idea.

Bezombia wrote:

Tule wrote:(Image)

Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you the ultimate manstopper.

Langnes Armory Model 1902 in .52 Berndsen.

Designed for bear defense, hunting, competition shooting and dueling.

Length is 245 mm, weight is 1.2 kilograms and it fires a 22 g (340gr) .52 bullet at a muzzle velocity of 195 m/s (640 fps).
The magazine holds 6 rounds.

Not enough Nambu

Nambu? I'm offended.

It's a Lahti L-35 ripoff.

Tule wrote:

Bezombia wrote:
Not enough Nambu

Nambu? I'm offended.

It's a Lahti L-35 ripoff.

I know. Needs more nambu.

Premislyd wrote:(Image)

Name: 5.6x40mm Jeneral Proposal (General Purpose)
Bullet diameter: 5.6 mm
Bullet length: 24.4
Bullet weight: 65 gr (average)
Neck diameter: 7.6 mm
Shoulder diameter: 9.6 mm
Base diameter: 10.4 mm
Rim diameter: 10.4 mm
Rim thickness: 1.4 mm
Case length: 39.8 mm
Case capacity: 29 grains H₂O
Overall length: 57 mm

Looks general purpose to me.

Premislyd wrote:(Image)

Name: 5.6x40mm Jeneral Proposal (General Purpose)
Bullet diameter: 5.6 mm
Bullet length: 24.4
Bullet weight: 65 gr (average)
Neck diameter: 7.6 mm
Shoulder diameter: 9.6 mm
Base diameter: 10.4 mm
Rim diameter: 10.4 mm
Rim thickness: 1.4 mm
Case length: 39.8 mm
Case capacity: 29 grains H₂O
Overall length: 57 mm

That neck doesn't look entirely right.