NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Sure, but you will probably be looking at 0.3%> of your population in the military.

Why is that? Sorry for all the questions, I just like my RPing to be very accurate

It is a very general number, but you cannot spend a lot of your resources, monetary or human on your military and have a good economy. Think of it this way, any money you put into the military is gone. You do not gain your investment back. Economically speaking military spending is the same as burning money.

[Azaca]

Why is that? Sorry for all the questions, I just like my RPing to be very accurate

It is a very general number, but you cannot spend a lot of your resources, monetary or human on your military and have a good economy. Think of it this way, any money you put into the military is gone. You do not gain your investment back. Economically speaking military spending is the same as burning money.

I changed it already to $21,000 after that other guy corrected me.

[Yes Im Biop]

The Laser LMG Is a Pulsed weapon. Laser Bolts to save energy and prevent overheating

As for the Rotary rocket. The 3 mag at the top was just to show the rockets. Not the feed.

Still, a revolving barrel mechanism is going to be too heavy to be practical for a man portable weapon. If you want a revolving rocket launcher (And I don't see why you would because having separate launch tubes is much much easier.) have it vehicle mounted.

Hehe. Yeah. *rubs head* Probably half of the two people behind this were drunk... Anyway. What about the Plasma Cannon?

[The UK in Exile]

Still, a revolving barrel mechanism is going to be too heavy to be practical for a man portable weapon. If you want a revolving rocket launcher (And I don't see why you would because having separate launch tubes is much much easier.) have it vehicle mounted.

Hehe. Yeah. *rubs head* Probably half of the two people behind this were drunk... Anyway. What about the Plasma Cannon?

plasma cannons are a no-no.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Anyway. What about the Plasma Cannon?

Railguns are better. Railguns are always better.

[Yes Im Biop]

Anyway. What about the Plasma Cannon?

Railguns are better. Railguns are always better.

Agreed but we have yet to make them capable of punching through Tank armor. Yet.

[Immoren]

Railguns are better. Railguns are always better.

Agreed but we have yet to make them capable of punching through Tank armor. Yet.

Pardon?

[The Corparation]

Railguns are better. Railguns are always better.

Agreed but we have yet to make them capable of punching through Tank armor. Yet.

Hahahhaa no. We've got railgns now that can punch straight through a tank's armor. Power use and wear on the rails is a bitch though.

[The Kievan People]

Where would we have those exactly?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Where would we have those exactly?

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065926599
I think with 32 MJ of muzzle energy you can create a projectile that can punch through most things.

[Licana]

Railguns are better. Railguns are always better.

Agreed but we have yet to make them capable of punching through Tank armor. Yet.

If you can make a viable plasma cannon, you can make a railgun suitable for anti-armour uses.

[The Kievan People]

Where would we have those exactly?

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065926599
I think with 32 MJ of muzzle energy you can create a projectile that can punch through most things.

This has shot how many tanks?

A gigantic piece of laboratory equipment is not a weapon, or even close to a weapon, which is what was being implied. It's in the same category as rocket sleds and light gas guns.

[The Corparation]

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065926599
I think with 32 MJ of muzzle energy you can create a projectile that can punch through most things.

This has shot how many tanks?

A gigantic piece of laboratory equipment is not a weapon, or even close to a weapon, which is what was being implied. It's in the same category as rocket sleds and light gas guns.

Its a proof that the technology exists and will someday be practical. While the protype guns are being deisgned for Navy warships, I see no reason (apart from finding a good power supply, but if its PMT/FT then wank away), why a land vehicle wouldn't be able to carry a railgun capable of punching through tank armor.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065926599
I think with 32 MJ of muzzle energy you can create a projectile that can punch through most things.

This has shot how many tanks?

A gigantic piece of laboratory equipment is not a weapon, or even close to a weapon, which is what was being implied. It's in the same category as rocket sleds and light gas guns.

No one is claiming you could weld it onto a tank and suddenly have a super tank, they are saying that if you designed a railgun to kill a tank, you could. It wouldn't be feasible for actual combat yet, but railguns currently have the potential to kill a tank outright. Beyond that, the overall argument is between railguns and plasma weapons, and railguns currently exist and can produce enough energy to potentially penetrate a lot of armour, while plasma guns do not yet exist in any form.

[Spirit of Hope]

First what I am about to say is a thought experiment on PMT warfare.

Assumptions:
1) Powered armor that is highly resistant to infantry small arms.
2) All of said powered armor carries weapons able to damage or destroy light armored vehicles.
3) Some of said powered armor can carry weapons capable of damaging and destroying tanks and other heavy armored vehicles.
4) Powered armor is cheaper to produce in bulk than heavy armored vehicles i.e. tanks.
5) Powered Armor can remain in combat situations for extended periods of time.

Going off of those assumptions wouldn't tanks become obsolete? Powered armor would be cheaper to produce and more versatile, while still being able to destroy tanks in a confrontation. The idea is that if a tank engaged a squad of say 5 suits of powered armor it would destroy maybe 3, while in turn being destroyed by the remaining suits. Economically the powered armor would come out ahead they lost less material and man hours of production than was put into the tank, while crew loss remaining even between the two.

So the question is in PMT would powered armor replace tanks? I would say yes, but want to hear what others have to say.

[The Kievan People]

Why is anyone even arguing about plasma weapons. They are stupid buzzword cannons.

[Yes Im Biop]

Agreed but we have yet to make them capable of punching through Tank armor. Yet.

Hahahhaa no. We've got railgns now that can punch straight through a tank's armor. Power use and wear on the rails is a bitch though.

Im not talking about Tank Mounted plasma weapons. This one is a shoulder fired Plasma Tunnel. The specs we have arent far enough to make an Anti Tank rifle that is man portable. Yet.

[The Corparation]

Why is anyone even arguing about plasma weapons. They are stupid buzzword cannons.

No one is really arguing about plasma cannons. We're just saying they don't exist.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

First what I am about to say is a thought experiment on PMT warfare.

Assumptions:
1) Powered armor that is highly resistant to infantry small arms.
2) All of said powered armor carries weapons able to damage or destroy light armored vehicles.
3) Some of said powered armor can carry weapons capable of damaging and destroying tanks and other heavy armored vehicles.
4) Powered armor is cheaper to produce in bulk than heavy armored vehicles i.e. tanks.
5) Powered Armor can remain in combat situations for extended periods of time.

Going off of those assumptions wouldn't tanks become obsolete? Powered armor would be cheaper to produce and more versatile, while still being able to destroy tanks in a confrontation. The idea is that if a tank engaged a squad of say 5 suits of powered armor it would destroy maybe 3, while in turn being destroyed by the remaining suits. Economically the powered armor would come out ahead they lost less material and man hours of production than was put into the tank, while crew loss remaining even between the two.

So the question is in PMT would powered armor replace tanks? I would say yes, but want to hear what others have to say.

It would be obsolete if all of those assumptions were true. Lets work with them one at a time.

1) Powered armor that is highly resistant to infantry small arms.

Well I suppose I can roll with that, given advances in armour technologies overtime.

2) All of said powered armor carries weapons able to damage or destroy light armored vehicles.

So, these can penetrate power armour as well? Seems like you simply redefined what is considered an infantry weapon by bumping up the caliber. Also, if infantry armour improves it stands to believe that vehicle armour would improve as well.

3) Some of said powered armor can carry weapons capable of damaging and destroying tanks and other heavy armored vehicles.

That has been true since WW2 and it hasn't ended the role of tanks.

4) Powered armor is cheaper to produce in bulk than heavy armored vehicles i.e. tanks.

Probably, but tanks can carry heavier guns. Have a tank carrying a 120mm gun and no one bats an eye, have a guy in PA carrying it and you will be called the worst kind of God Modder.

5) Powered Armor can remain in combat situations for extended periods of time.

Not likely, it will be about as complex as any other vehicle that is getting shot at and bumped around and filled with dirt constantly. Unless each man is an engineer with his own full toolkit you will need to spend a lot of time and resources maintaining them. Even if everyone is an engineer it will take a lot of time and resources anyway to train them to such an extent.

[Yes Im Biop]

This has shot how many tanks?

A gigantic piece of laboratory equipment is not a weapon, or even close to a weapon, which is what was being implied. It's in the same category as rocket sleds and light gas guns.

No one is claiming you could weld it onto a tank and suddenly have a super tank, they are saying that if you designed a railgun to kill a tank, you could. It wouldn't be feasible for actual combat yet, but railguns currently have the potential to kill a tank outright. Beyond that, the overall argument is between railguns and plasma weapons, and railguns currently exist and can produce enough energy to potentially penetrate a lot of armour, while plasma guns do not yet exist in any form.

Actually they do. The Navy's "Lightning Gun" IS an example of early Plasma Tunnel Tech., Think of a Tazer that lights every single pain nerve in your body at once.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Hahahhaa no. We've got railgns now that can punch straight through a tank's armor. Power use and wear on the rails is a bitch though.

Im not talking about Tank Mounted plasma weapons. This one is a shoulder fired Plasma Tunnel. The specs we have arent far enough to make an Anti Tank rifle that is man portable. Yet.

The same is true with plasma weapons. At least railguns still exist and work on a very simple formula energy=1/2(MxV²).

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

No one is claiming you could weld it onto a tank and suddenly have a super tank, they are saying that if you designed a railgun to kill a tank, you could. It wouldn't be feasible for actual combat yet, but railguns currently have the potential to kill a tank outright. Beyond that, the overall argument is between railguns and plasma weapons, and railguns currently exist and can produce enough energy to potentially penetrate a lot of armour, while plasma guns do not yet exist in any form.

Actually they do. The Navy's "Lightning Gun" IS an example of early Plasma Tunnel Tech., Think of a Tazer that lights every single pain nerve in your body at once.

And something similar to that can punch through a tank?

[The Corparation]

No one is claiming you could weld it onto a tank and suddenly have a super tank, they are saying that if you designed a railgun to kill a tank, you could. It wouldn't be feasible for actual combat yet, but railguns currently have the potential to kill a tank outright. Beyond that, the overall argument is between railguns and plasma weapons, and railguns currently exist and can produce enough energy to potentially penetrate a lot of armour, while plasma guns do not yet exist in any form.

Actually they do. The Navy's "Lightning Gun" IS an example of early Plasma Tunnel Tech., Think of a Tazer that lights every single pain nerve in your body at once.

Link? I highly doubt the weapon in question fires superheated ionized gas.

[Yes Im Biop]

Actually they do. The Navy's "Lightning Gun" IS an example of early Plasma Tunnel Tech., Think of a Tazer that lights every single pain nerve in your body at once.

Link? I highly doubt the weapon in question fires superheated ionized gas.

Working on it. And Yes Anglo it can. And solves the face melting effect of the weapon discharging plasma. They cannon i have dosent. It creates a Laser tunnel which creates Oxygen plasma. And sends it into the target.

[Yes Im Biop]

Actually they do. The Navy's "Lightning Gun" IS an example of early Plasma Tunnel Tech., Think of a Tazer that lights every single pain nerve in your body at once.

Link? I highly doubt the weapon in question fires superheated ionized gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_Aco ... eld_System

It dosent 'Fire" Plasma. But it makes and guides it.