NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Purpelia]

It's simple really. I want a CR warhead for the exact same reason it's used on AA missiles. A standard HEFRAG rounds sends fragments out on a spherical path away from the center of the blast. That means many fragments will go off into the air and ground or at angles where they will hit non vital areas like the feet. In comparison, a CR warhead fragments but does so along an almost perfectly horizontal plane. So instead of a ball of fragments extending in all direction you get a wall of fragments as tall as long as the rod is long. This focuses the fragments into one single lethal area extending the maximum deadly range and the density of the fragments them self.

[Fatatatutti]

So instead of a ball of fragments extending in all direction you get a wall of fragments as tall as long as the rod is long. This focuses the fragments into one single lethal area extending the maximum deadly range and the density of the fragments them self.

Seems to me you'd get a cylinder of frags. That's less concentrated than a sphere.

[Purpelia]

So instead of a ball of fragments extending in all direction you get a wall of fragments as tall as long as the rod is long. This focuses the fragments into one single lethal area extending the maximum deadly range and the density of the fragments them self.

Seems to me you'd get a cylinder of frags. That's less concentrated than a sphere.

I disagree. Yes there would be less fragments per unit of surface area but at the same time I would get more fragments total inside said area (since all those fragments that would have flown in non lethal directions are now focused into the fragmentation cylinder). Although I would need to find some way to run a calculation to see what the ratio is and if my estimate is right.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's simple really. I want a CR warhead for the exact same reason it's used on AA missiles. A standard HEFRAG rounds sends fragments out on a spherical path away from the center of the blast. That means many fragments will go off into the air and ground or at angles where they will hit non vital areas like the feet. In comparison, a CR warhead fragments but does so along an almost perfectly horizontal plane. So instead of a ball of fragments extending in all direction you get a wall of fragments as tall as long as the rod is long. This focuses the fragments into one single lethal area extending the maximum deadly range and the density of the fragments them self.

You wouldn't get a wall, you'd get a ring, or perhaps several rings, expanding outward to their maximum extent. But beyond that, they're basically harmless. Unlike HEFRAG, which may only kill within five meters for a grenade-sized explosive, but wound out to fifteen or more, a continuous-rod warhead is useless outside of its concentrated radius. It also means that hitting the deck (if the enemies are quick thinkers) will save them; the rod will only cause damage in a thin line emanating out from the blast, whereas fragmentation devices would still take out soldiers on the ground.

You could also use a simple shaped charge to keep the fragments within a more useful radius with a HE-Frag detonator. The wound radius is of interest in a fragmentation device since it still incapacitates, and that's functionally as good as killing the enemy for a minefield. To match the wounding radius of the M67 grenade, you'd need a rod 94.24 meters long, which if you used 200 mm rods, would mean 47 of them.

[Purpelia]

You wouldn't get a wall, you'd get a ring, or perhaps several rings, expanding outward to their maximum extent.

Well yes. But a wall extending in all directions across a single plane at once is a ring. I just described it with more words.

But beyond that, they're basically harmless.

I think we are talking past one another here. What I am proposing is basically a metal rod, 60mm in diameter. Inside is a strip of TNT or what ever explosive and around it are metal balls and finally a metal shell designed to fragment as well. Think of it as a planar HEFRAG. The goal is indeed to produce a ring of HEFRAG.

And I seriously doubt that anyone would get a chance to jump to the ground in the perhaps 1 second at most that it takes the projectile to fly into the air and detonate.

[The Akasha Colony]

You wouldn't get a wall, you'd get a ring, or perhaps several rings, expanding outward to their maximum extent.

Well yes. But a wall extending in all directions across a single plane at once is a ring. I just described it with more words.

But beyond that, they're basically harmless.

I think we are talking past one another here. What I am proposing is basically a metal rod, 60mm in diameter. Inside is a strip of TNT or what ever explosive and around it are metal balls and finally a metal shell designed to fragment as well. Think of it as a planar HEFRAG. The goal is indeed to produce a ring of HEFRAG.

And I seriously doubt that anyone would get a chance to jump to the ground in the perhaps 1 second at most that it takes the projectile to fly into the air and detonate.

A ring of HE-Frag though isn't a continuous-rod warhead. It's a ring of HE-Frag. Without the actual expanding rod, it's just a shaped-charge HE-Frag device, so I'm not sure why you're referring to it as continuous-rod.

And were it a real continuous-rod warhead, the soldier wouldn't even need to make it to the ground. If they're even an inch below the rod itself, they're safe from it (the blast will still hit them, but that's more of a concussive stunning effect than a killing effect, depending on the strength of the charge).

[Fatatatutti]

What I am proposing is basically a metal rod, 60mm in diameter. Inside is a strip of TNT or what ever explosive and around it are metal balls and finally a metal shell designed to fragment as well. Think of it as a planar HEFRAG.

There's a "strip" of HE. Then there are metal balls all around the strip, the entire length of the strip? There's no way you're going to get a "planar" effect from that.

[Purpelia]

A ring of HE-Frag though isn't a continuous-rod warhead. It's a ring of HE-Frag. Without the actual expanding rod, it's just a shaped-charge HE-Frag device, so I'm not sure why you're referring to it as continuous-rod.

Mostly because it's a neat approximation to serve as a visual reference.

And were it a real continuous-rod warhead, the soldier wouldn't even need to make it to the ground. If they're even an inch below the rod itself, they're safe from it (the blast will still hit them, but that's more of a concussive stunning effect than a killing effect, depending on the strength of the charge).

Either way as I said. The chances of someone making it to the ground in that one second or so are low.

What I am proposing is basically a metal rod, 60mm in diameter. Inside is a strip of TNT or what ever explosive and around it are metal balls and finally a metal shell designed to fragment as well. Think of it as a planar HEFRAG.

There's a "strip" of HE. Then there are metal balls all around the strip, the entire length of the strip? There's no way you're going to get a "planar" effect from that.

I am trying to approximate here since I can't be bothered to actually design the device in detail before I see if the desired effect would be worth the effort to do so. For now let's just say the device works like I sat it does (creates a ring of HEFRAG) and leave the actual how to a later time.

[Vorond]

Once more my post is ignored.. damn. What I meant to ask was: widespread distribution of recoilless rifle tech in the late 30s - go or no go?

[The Akasha Colony]

Once more my post is ignored.. damn. What I meant to ask was: widespread distribution of recoilless rifle tech in the late 30s - go or no go?

It could be useful for short-range breaching guns, but in general, they're not very practical to fully replace normal infantry guns on the battlefield, on account of their relatively low muzzle velocity. This is why they were only introduced in certain niche roles during the war, and even after didn't find very widespread use. But the 30s was an era of experimentation, so from a non-hindsight perspective, it could seem like a very good idea.

[Purpelia]

Speaking of infantry guns. Just how were these employed? I mean, are we talking one gun per company? Or a dedicated battery at the battalion/brigade level? Or something different altogether?

[Galla-]

You still have fragmentation to worry about thou.

On a completely unrelated note. Say you had a metal rod with a slightly sharpened tip. The rod is 60mm in diameter and 300mm long. How difficult do you consider it would be to drive said rod into the ground so that it is completely driven in (nothing sticking out)? Bonus points. Asses it for various ground conditions.

The idea is to have a metal "spear" as the one i described filled with TNT with a jumping charge on the bottom. You drive the pile into the ground, attach a fuse and it's ready to go. When someone steps on it the thing waits a few seconds and than goes all bouncing betty on the poor sap with a continuous rod charge for maximum effect.

That depends entirely on soil conditions.

And this has literally no advantage over normal mines, and a quite a few disadvantages.

[Crookfur]

Speaking of infantry guns. Just how were these employed? I mean, are we talking one gun per company? Or a dedicated battery at the battalion/brigade level? Or something different altogether?

IIRC the Germans (one of the biggest users of infantry guns) attached both a Gun/Artillery company and an AT gun company at the regimental level in thier Infantry divisions. Thus udner ideal early to middle ww2 conditions each regiment would have 12 37mm AT guns, 6 75mm guns and 2 150mm howitzers.

Nice details of a German Grenadier regiment here:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/GermanRegt.html

And the roughly equivelent British Brigade group:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/BritishInf ... GpTOE.html

As you cna see the british didn't go for directly attached guns beyond AT guns and mortars

[Vorond]

Speaking of infantry guns. Just how were these employed? I mean, are we talking one gun per company? Or a dedicated battery at the battalion/brigade level? Or something different altogether?

I have no idea there.

Once more my post is ignored.. damn. What I meant to ask was: widespread distribution of recoilless rifle tech in the late 30s - go or no go?

It could be useful for short-range breaching guns, but in general, they're not very practical to fully replace normal infantry guns on the battlefield, on account of their relatively low muzzle velocity. This is why they were only introduced in certain niche roles during the war, and even after didn't find very widespread use. But the 30s was an era of experimentation, so from a non-hindsight perspective, it could seem like a very good idea.

Hm. Combined with a hollow charge head they ought to make a formidable AT-weapon. I actually found some data:




I'd imagined these at first as a sort of replacement for any antitank-rifles in general, and for antitank-guns specifically, giving the infantry more punch at less weight. It apparently was light enough to be fitted under the wings of a fighter, and had sufficiently low recoil as that it didn't rip the wing off, so my guess was that this thing could be turned against enemy tanks (or simply be used as hand-held field artillery). Its 45mm version is lighter than a maxim gun, that alone should make it useful.


A T-26 with a 76mm "Dynamojet Cannon" (so the official soviet name for these).


45mm version on field carriage.

I'd imagine the things as sort of a field gun that 5 infantrymen can carry on their backs. The small version should knock out enemy tanks with ease.


I have no idea whether it ws any good, but they built even this 305mm version and mounted it on a destroyer.


The 76mm in mortar configuration.

TL;DR:

Behold, the Commuzooka!

[Purpelia]

IIRC the Germans (one of the biggest users of infantry guns) attached both a Gun/Artillery company and an AT gun company at the regimental level in thier Infantry divisions. Thus udner ideal early to middle ww2 conditions each regiment would have 12 37mm AT guns, 6 75mm guns and 2 150mm howitzers.

Nice details of a German Grenadier regiment here:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/GermanRegt.html

And the roughly equivelent British Brigade group:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/BritishInf ... GpTOE.html

As you cna see the british didn't go for directly attached guns beyond AT guns and mortars

Thanks. What I find interesting is the different approach. The Germans have more weapons but they keep them way up high. The British on the other hand have a 6 gun battery on the battalion level. Right now I am leaning toward the British system my self. As I prefer my support closer down the line. Speaking of which. What do you think about having an infantry tank platoon in each battalion? Those would be the Char B1 lookalikes I was talking about earlier BTW.

[The Akasha Colony]

-snip-

Historically, they were used as anti-tank weapons, and did replace anti-tank rifles. The famous German panzerfaust and the American Bazooka were of course recoilless weapons, but adoption of heavier recoilless weapons was limited. A few airborne units adopted them for their light weight, but normal combat tended to be dominated by traditional guns, and still is today. Their very low muzzle velocity makes them very inaccurate at range, where normal anti-tank engagements take place, although in short-range infantry engagements, they can be useful.

[Crookfur]

IIRC the Germans (one of the biggest users of infantry guns) attached both a Gun/Artillery company and an AT gun company at the regimental level in thier Infantry divisions. Thus udner ideal early to middle ww2 conditions each regiment would have 12 37mm AT guns, 6 75mm guns and 2 150mm howitzers.

Nice details of a German Grenadier regiment here:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/GermanRegt.html

And the roughly equivelent British Brigade group:
http://www.kerynne.com/games/BritishInf ... GpTOE.html

As you cna see the british didn't go for directly attached guns beyond AT guns and mortars

Thanks. What I find interesting is the different approach. The Germans have more weapons but they keep them way up high. The British on the other hand have a 6 gun battery on the battalion level. Right now I am leaning toward the British system my self. As I prefer my support closer down the line. Speaking of which. What do you think about having an infantry tank platoon in each battalion? Those would be the Char B1 lookalikes I was talking about earlier BTW.

Personally I wouldn'lt assign infantry tanks as an integral part of each battalion but have a regiment/battalion of tanks at the brigade/battle group level and have the tanks get spread out as needed. In the end it works out more or elss as you propose during actual operations but makes it easier to concentrate your tanks if and when you need to and keeps all the logistical head aches from the tanks centralised.

[Purpelia]

Thanks. What I find interesting is the different approach. The Germans have more weapons but they keep them way up high. The British on the other hand have a 6 gun battery on the battalion level. Right now I am leaning toward the British system my self. As I prefer my support closer down the line. Speaking of which. What do you think about having an infantry tank platoon in each battalion? Those would be the Char B1 lookalikes I was talking about earlier BTW.

Personally I wouldn'lt assign infantry tanks as an integral part of each battalion but have a regiment/battalion of tanks at the brigade/battle group level and have the tanks get spread out as needed. In the end it works out more or elss as you propose during actual operations but makes it easier to concentrate your tanks if and when you need to and keeps all the logistical head aches from the tanks centralized.

How does this sound than. I'll start with a tank platoon per battalion in the 30's and than at some point before 38 the tanks would get concentrated into a single battalion at the brigade level due to experience in training exercises and operation. Also, some time before 39 I'll also start phasing in proper tanks into the mix.

Speaking of which, are you familiar with my infantry tank/assault gun with a MG turret concept?

[Crookfur]

Personally I wouldn'lt assign infantry tanks as an integral part of each battalion but have a regiment/battalion of tanks at the brigade/battle group level and have the tanks get spread out as needed. In the end it works out more or elss as you propose during actual operations but makes it easier to concentrate your tanks if and when you need to and keeps all the logistical head aches from the tanks centralized.

How does this sound than. I'll start with a tank platoon per battalion in the 30's and than at some point before 38 the tanks would get concentrated into a single battalion at the brigade level due to experience in training exercises and operation. Also, some time before 39 I'll also start phasing in proper tanks into the mix.

Speaking of which, are you familiar with my infantry tank/assault gun with a MG turret concept?

not particularly, i've kind of been skipping bits of this and other threads recently.

And yes your idea soudns good.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Random though. Can you get Shell shocked in space? No air = No HE Shockwave right?

I don't think you know what shell shock is.

[Purpelia]

How does this sound than. I'll start with a tank platoon per battalion in the 30's and than at some point before 38 the tanks would get concentrated into a single battalion at the brigade level due to experience in training exercises and operation. Also, some time before 39 I'll also start phasing in proper tanks into the mix.

Speaking of which, are you familiar with my infantry tank/assault gun with a MG turret concept?

not particularly, i've kind of been skipping bits of this and other threads recently.

And yes your idea soudns good.

Well basically it's what the Char B1 should have been. I was imagining a 1930's assault gun that has an 80mm infantry gun in the body and a small, one man turret for the commander. The turret would carry a 20mm autocanon like this one but belt fed. The vehicle would have light armor (HMG's can't kill it, a 20mm can). The concept being that the vehicles operate as support guns, running to what ever infantry formation needs them, blasting away the offending bunker or something and than going back to the central unit.

Let me see if I can find my notes...
EDIT: I found my old posts. And I noticed I was talking to you back than too. So yeah...

[Immoren]

Is it pointless to have two different calipered MLR platforms? because I was thinking of giving my "divisional" artillery battalion of 122mm RM-70 rockets and corps level artillery divisions would have a regiment of both 122mm RM-70 and M270 MLRS.

[The UK in Exile]

Random though. Can you get Shell shocked in space? No air = No HE Shockwave right?

I don't think you know what shell shock is.

pressumably he means primary blast injuries. and I'd have thought not.

primary - pressure from HE causes internal damage.
secondary - shrapnel and splinter.
tertiary - explosion knocks you on your ass. you break you arm.
shell shock - constant barrage causes a stress reaction that renders casualty combat ineffective.

for his benefit.

[San-Silvacian]

Is it pointless to have two different calipered MLR platforms? because I was thinking of giving my "divisional" artillery battalion of 122mm RM-70 rockets and corps level artillery divisions would have a regiment of both 122mm RM-70 and M270 MLRS.

Not really, though I would keep divisional battalions with RM-70s and Regiments with M270s. Its like how SAM systems work, you have Divisional, then battalion, and even company level.

[Allanea]

Is it pointless to have two different calipered MLR platforms? because I was thinking of giving my "divisional" artillery battalion of 122mm RM-70 rockets and corps level artillery divisions would have a regiment of both 122mm RM-70 and M270 MLRS.

It is in fact very pointful.

Most RL nations have a light-caliber and a heavy-caliber MLRS for different applications.