NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Spirit of Hope]

Ok, I'm designing a PMT powered armored system, so far every things gone pretty well. However I'm having trouble finding a realistic power source for my powered armor, does anyone happen to know of a system that might be small enough to use with powered armor?

If you assume that humanity finds a way to sustainably produce and efficiently transport hydrogen in twenty years or so, a fuel cell is the way to go.

Fuel Cell covers a large amount of different energy storage systems, which I have looked into. The main problem is finding out size information on them, like how large for what power, both theoretical and realistic.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

wasn't the original purpose of the MOAB to clear LZ's?

Yeah, but its also been used as a psychological weapon due to the sheer size of the blast. They also used dropped a few at Tora Bora so that the shock wave would kill everyone in the caves.

Ah, psywar. Very effective, very impressive--unless you're on the receiving end, of course.

[The Corparation]

IIRC the only thing that can drop a MOAB is the MC-130, it's too heavy for the bomb racks of other USAF aircraft.

You recall right, I believe that FOAB is believed to deployed similarly, despite what Russia claims

[DASHES]

If the MOAB can only be fitted onto the MC-130 , that could definitely be a problem.

How about this:
Say I build my own Tsar Bomb, but in the design process I remove everything 'nuclear' about it, essentially taking nuclear fallout out of the equation should I detonate it.
I'm talking about constructing a Tsar Bomb filled with a modern non-nuclear payload instead of a nuclear payload.
I understand I'm looking at a significantly reduced blast radius and less damage to the enemy upon impact, but how much would it be reduced?
Lastly how much would it cost to build a non-nuclear Tsar Bomb?

[Spirit of Hope]

If the MOAB can only be fitted onto the MC-130 , that could definitely be a problem.

How about this:
Say I build my own Tsar Bomb, but in the design process I remove everything 'nuclear' about it, essentially taking nuclear fallout out of the equation should I detonate it.
I'm talking about constructing a Tsar Bomb filled with a modern non-nuclear payload instead of a nuclear payload.
I understand I'm looking at a significantly reduced blast radius and less damage to the enemy upon impact, but how much would it be reduced?
Lastly how much would it cost to build a non-nuclear Tsar Bomb?

Now your just building a big bomb, which is what the MOAB is. The Tsar Bomb idea only really works if it's nuclear, i.e. it is designed and used as a nuclear weapon. You just can't get that type of destruction without using a nuclear weapon.

[The Corparation]

If the MOAB can only be fitted onto the MC-130 , that could definitely be a problem.

How about this:
Say I build my own Tsar Bomb, but in the design process I remove everything 'nuclear' about it, essentially taking nuclear fallout out of the equation should I detonate it.
I'm talking about constructing a Tsar Bomb filled with a modern non-nuclear payload instead of a nuclear payload.
I understand I'm looking at a significantly reduced blast radius and less damage to the enemy upon impact, but how much would it be reduced?
Lastly how much would it cost to build a non-nuclear Tsar Bomb?

Why not just build a giant bomb and scrap the whole convert a nuclear weapon into a conventional weapon bit. You can't just scoop out the inside of a nuke and fill it with something else. Well you could but it wouldn't do anything worth the cost.

Also what do you need the bomb for? If its just flat out destruction then just do regualr carpet bombing. Simple and cheap. If you want a psychological effect finding a way to get a MOAB type weapon out of a conventional bomber would be a good bet. (MOP is carried by a conventional bomber and weighs almost 50% more then the MOAB, you'd have to figure out a good release and deployment method though, not sure on how you'd do it.) If you want to bust a bunker then use MOP.

[Gawdzendia]

I'm working backwards in terms of Tank Designs, this is what I had in terms of an idea, for the mid Cold War era (T72 and M60 zone). The only problem I'm having so far with it is that the rearmost end of the tracks doesn't look like it's far back enough, but that may just be me.

No idea on actual... written in stone capabilities, but in terms of aesthetics (form and function wise), what d'ya think?

Thanks to Junior General for the art that helped (did most of the work) to spawn this.

[Purpelia]

Looks similar to the Centurion to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

Or to this thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_MBT

I agree on the tracks. I would move them further back and add another set of road wheels if I were you.

[Gawdzendia]

Looks similar to the Centurion to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_tank

Or to this thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_MBT

I agree on the tracks. I would move them further back and add another set of road wheels if I were you.

Well, it's more or less a Centurion turret slapped ontop of a Achzarit hull.

EDIT: Which apparently means it's a Centurion turret atop a modified T-55 hull.

[DASHES]

If the MOAB can only be fitted onto the MC-130 , that could definitely be a problem.

How about this:
Say I build my own Tsar Bomb, but in the design process I remove everything 'nuclear' about it, essentially taking nuclear fallout out of the equation should I detonate it.
I'm talking about constructing a Tsar Bomb filled with a modern non-nuclear payload instead of a nuclear payload.
I understand I'm looking at a significantly reduced blast radius and less damage to the enemy upon impact, but how much would it be reduced?
Lastly how much would it cost to build a non-nuclear Tsar Bomb?

Now your just building a big bomb, which is what the MOAB is. The Tsar Bomb idea only really works if it's nuclear, i.e. it is designed and used as a nuclear weapon. You just can't get that type of destruction without using a nuclear weapon.

Yes, but I don't want to use the MOAB because it'll just require me to introduce another type of airplane into my air force.
Bringing an MC-130 into my air-force just to drop MOABs seems like just a waste.

I want the Tsar Bomb for a similar effect as the MOAB, and I just hope that either I can modify a B-52H to carry the [non-nuclear] Tsar Bomb, or that I can just replace the B-52H with the Tu-95 (which was the only plane known to carry and deploy it).

[The Corparation]

Now your just building a big bomb, which is what the MOAB is. The Tsar Bomb idea only really works if it's nuclear, i.e. it is designed and used as a nuclear weapon. You just can't get that type of destruction without using a nuclear weapon.

Yes, but I don't want to use the MOAB because it'll just require me to introduce another type of airplane into my air force.
Bringing an MC-130 into my air-force just to drop MOABs seems like just a waste.

I want the Tsar Bomb for a similar effect as the MOAB, and I just hope that either I can modify a B-52H to carry the [non-nuclear] Tsar Bomb, or that I can just replace the B-52H with the Tu-95 (which was the only plane known to carry and deploy it).

I don't think you're getting our point. You can't just unuclear a nuclear bomb, weapons don't work that way. Drop the whole Tsar bomb into a conventional bomb thing thing and just settle for making a FOAB or MOAB like weapon. Also if you aren't operating C-130s or an aircraft of a similar role you should really take a step back and reevaluate your air force.

To reiterate: Drop the whole Tsar bomb thing and just settle for a large thermobaric weapon along the lines of MOAB or FOAB. Plus FOAB is supposed to be able to be dropped from a Tu-160* and has the yield of a tac nuke.

*That claim is dubious as there's no evidence other then their word that they can and it appears to be similar in deployment to MOAB. All the test footage looks like they shoved it out a cargo plane and spliced that footage in with the bomber opening its doors.

[The Kievan People]

If the MOAB can only be fitted onto the MC-130 , that could definitely be a problem.

How about this:
Say I build my own Tsar Bomb, but in the design process I remove everything 'nuclear' about it, essentially taking nuclear fallout out of the equation should I detonate it.
I'm talking about constructing a Tsar Bomb filled with a modern non-nuclear payload instead of a nuclear payload.
I understand I'm looking at a significantly reduced blast radius and less damage to the enemy upon impact, but how much would it be reduced?
Lastly how much would it cost to build a non-nuclear Tsar Bomb?

Many orders of magnitude.

The largest conventional bombs are on par with the W54's lowest yield settings (actual lethality being far inferior because no radiation). Tsar Bomba was on a whole other plane of existence compared to that; it could wipe larger cities off the map. An equally sized conventional bomb would knock down a few buildings at most.

http://wweapons.blogspot.ca/2011/05/tsa ... eapon.html

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I think I remember a nuclear bomb simulator thing. It was like google map and you could punch in the force of the explosion in megatons and it would show several circles showing the where every building will be leveld, where most buildings will be badly damaged, and where there would only be minor damage. Anyone got an idea what I am thinking of? I think it might have been posted in NSD a long time ago.

[Jagalonia]

Alright, so we all know that nuclear bombs release an EMP blast that fries most electronics.

Is there such thing as an "EMP bomb" that only damages electronics?

[Spirit of Hope]

Alright, so we all know that nuclear bombs release an EMP blast that fries most electronics.

Is there such thing as an "EMP bomb" that only damages electronics?

Closest I know of is detonating a nuclear weapon high in the sky, which releases a larger EMP and does not directly damage or release radiation on the ground.

Supposedly their are also ways that you can increase the EMP release by tinkering with the nuke. However, no you can't get a usable EMP without a nuclear weapon

[Licana]

Alright, so we all know that nuclear bombs release an EMP blast that fries most electronics.

Is there such thing as an "EMP bomb" that only damages electronics?

Nope.

Every time we want to test the effects of an EMP, we have to detonate a nuclear weapon. That's probably why we built so many of them, come to think of it.

[The Kievan People]

Alright, so we all know that nuclear bombs release an EMP blast that fries most electronics.

Is there such thing as an "EMP bomb" that only damages electronics?

In a manner of speaking...

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

Alright, so we all know that nuclear bombs release an EMP blast that fries most electronics.

Is there such thing as an "EMP bomb" that only damages electronics?

In a manner of speaking...

Not exactly...

[The Kievan People]

Thx for that irrelevant link.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

Thx for that irrelevant link.

It is one kind of non-nuclear electro-magnetic pulse weapon, so I thought it was relevant.

[Spirit of Hope]

Here is the wikipedia on EMP's it mentions non nuclear ways of doing it, which should be checked out.

[The Kievan People]

Thx for that irrelevant link.

It is one kind of non-nuclear electro-magnetic pulse weapon, so I thought it was relevant.

No it isn't. That article is full of nonsense.

[Jagalonia]

Here is the wikipedia on EMP's it mentions non nuclear ways of doing it, which should be checked out.

Interesting....What do you think the range would be on them.....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

[Spirit of Hope]

Here is the wikipedia on EMP's it mentions non nuclear ways of doing it, which should be checked out.

Interesting....What do you think the range would be on them.....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

Short, probably, the first wiki notes that they have greatly decreased ranges. I would guess that you could maybe use it on a military base or portions of a city. I would try and launch EMP armed missiles at enemy radar instillations, airports, and aircraft storage to completely knock them out, then fallow up with air raids to keep them knocked out.

However you can make machines resistant to EMP's so that strategy would be less effective.

[Anemos Major]

-snip-