NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

Well I don't think any type of powered armor would become widely used amongst infantry. In my opinion it would be given out to specialized units to be used in combat.

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.

What I more meant by this is that powered armor wouldn't need to be pulled out every 12 hours for fuel or battery refill. The idea being that powered armor could remain on the front as long as, if not longer than, tanks and similar systems.

And yeah I agree with you some of my assumptions are wrong/out there. However I'm thinking about my PMT military not having tanks, but instead just using powered armor. The main problem I see is infantry support problems, however I think I can get around that via certain weapons systems.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

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.

Well I don't think any type of powered armor would become widely used amongst infantry. In my opinion it would be given out to specialized units to be used in combat.

Then how would it revolutionize warfare? If everyone had autocannons it might change things, but if only independent companies or platoons do they can only do so much.

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.

What I more meant by this is that powered armor wouldn't need to be pulled out every 12 hours for fuel or battery refill. The idea being that powered armor could remain on the front as long as, if not longer than, tanks and similar systems.

They need some kind of power source, and if it is efficient enough that they can go such a long period of time without replacement it should probably be used with tanks.

And yeah I agree with you some of my assumptions are wrong/out there. However I'm thinking about my PMT military not having tanks, but instead just using powered armor. The main problem I see is infantry support problems, however I think I can get around that via certain weapons systems.

If you truly want to toss out tanks you might be able to. Perhaps some system using light infantry, PA infantry, and heavy support assets (artillery and aircraft in tandem). Overall however your military will be inefficient. That is why I would only consider FT outside of MT. Mobile Infantry with Railguns. Bouncing around the battlefield firing off railguns. Fuck Yeah!

[The Kievan People]

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.

No it isn't. Electricity can create Plasma as it passes through air, but an electrical weapon is *not* a plasma weapon.

[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.

No it isn't. Electricity can create Plasma as it passes through air, but an electrical weapon is *not* a plasma weapon.

Well then Orc's science behind Our Plasma tunnel is sound enough. Anyone looked at it? Or Just focused on how 'bad' Our Hydra is

[The Corparation]

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.

That's not a weapon.... In fact it even says, "it would be unable to do significant damage to a specific enemy." It's like me grabbing a laser pointer and saying I can turn it into a laser rifle. Military weapons technology doesn't work that way.

[Yes Im Biop]

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

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

That's not a weapon.... In fact it even says, "it would be unable to do significant damage to a specific enemy." It's like me grabbing a laser pointer and saying I can turn it into a laser rifle. Military weapons technology doesn't work that way.

I realized that. Anyway. Now on to the Oblitrater. It works on teh principle of the Laser Tunnel. Creating a stream of plasma tords the target. Trying or killing the target.

[Spirit of Hope]

If you truly want to toss out tanks you might be able to. Perhaps some system using light infantry, PA infantry, and heavy support assets (artillery and aircraft in tandem). Overall however your military will be inefficient. That is why I would only consider FT outside of MT. Mobile Infantry with Railguns. Bouncing around the battlefield firing off railguns. Fuck Yeah!

Well, PMT and maybe FT they would be using nuclear mortars, nuclear artillery, nuclear Anti-tank rounds, nuclear everything. All while using rail guns. But thats FT which isn't exactly realism.

That's not a weapon.... In fact it even says, "it would be unable to do significant damage to a specific enemy." It's like me grabbing a laser pointer and saying I can turn it into a laser rifle. Military weapons technology doesn't work that way.

Well, it can be used to channel enemy forces, just like barbed wire and mines. Second it can be used to disperse crowds and riots by causing pain and making them want to withdraw. However as a battlefield weapon it leaves much to be desired.

[Yes Im Biop]

http://orcbruto.deviantart.com/art/Obliterator-Gun-MLIPCC-Mk-2-270806543

The Obliterator Gun (or technically MLIPCC MK 2, Military Laser Induced Plasma Channel Cannon MarK 2) is a huge bazooka-like device capable of emitting powerful plasma discharges, similar to a natural ball lightning in both power and appearance.

Here is how it works: The Obliterator uses three powerful batteries to produce high energy lasers. In a planetary atmosphere this lasers will overheat the gases and form a tunnel of plasma (high energy ionized gas). A powerful electromagnet is turned on a millisecond after the plasma tunnel was formed, impulsing the high energy matter to the target. The lack of other matter inside the laser tunnel makes the plasma travel in high speeds (220,000 km/h (140,000 mph)), hitting the target as a contained lightning, melting materials (it reaches 30,000 °C (54,000 °F)) and delivering 16 millions volts of electricity, capable to burn all the crew and circuits of a vehicle.

Because of the overheating, it also have a shoulder-mounted liquid nitrogen tank, and several tubes to cool the weapon after and during each shot.

The gun range is limited only by the density of the atmospheric gases. In good conditions (no clouds, no mist or smoke) it can hit a spaceship or a satellite in orbit, in bad conditions the gun range falls for some kilometers, but delivers a more potent blast (more gases to ionize in the laser tunnel).

It can work in vacuum conditions, but them it would use the nitrogen stored in the cooling tanks as ammunition, overheating it inside the laser tunnel.

In atmospheric conditions it can be fired several hundred times, and despite the silence, it's easy to detect the shooter because of the light and nitric acid gases it release (and smell of ozone). In vacuum it can be fired about 100 times before it needs to refill the liquid nitrogen tank.

In addition to the original Obliterator, the MK2 have the cooling system and engines encased in a resistant carbon fiber hull, making it more durable and protecting it from water, sand and other materials.

[The UK in Exile]

once the plasma leaves the gun it runs into the air which stops it pretty quickly. theres very little you can do to make the plasma effective as a weapon that wouldn't be even more devasting if you used a standard kinetic projectile.

[Crookfur]

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.

Even with all thsoe assumptions tanks/AFVs will not be obsolete as the even power armoured infantry still wont have the speed or range of a vehicle, be able to survive such a wide range of threats and will not be able to bring as much concentrated fire power to bear on a target.

[Senestrum]

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 railgun isn't the issue.

The ZOMGWTFBBQHUGE capacitors are the problem with putting a railgun of that size in a tank.

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.

Hellbore.

[The Corparation]

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 railgun isn't the issue.

The ZOMGWTFBBQHUGE capacitors are the problem with putting a railgun of that size in a tank.

Bolded the part you missed.

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

Hellbore.

Currently does not exist to my knowledge.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

That also must assume that said powered armor had the range, survivability, and reliability of a tank. Presuming you had the technology to make something that complex and compact, you could probably make a more effective tank for much less than one of those suits, given their inherent mechanical complexity. Right now, we already have infantry weapons that can destroy tanks at stand-off ranges (top-attack ATGMs), but the reason they haven't replaced tanks is because tanks are faster, more versatile, and better protected, even though they're much more expensive. ATGMs are decent for ambushing, but if you're fighting on the move, tanks can't really be beat since they have the necessary size to mount a combination of firepower, protection, and an engine large enough to provide mobility, all while remaining off-road mobile.

Then there's fatigue issues. Even with powered armor, walking the distance a tank is expected to drive will cause major personnel fatigue, since they still have to do the walking, even if assisted.

The railgun isn't the issue.

The ZOMGWTFBBQHUGE capacitors are the problem with putting a railgun of that size in a tank.

Might as well just roll with ETC. Similar velocities, no need for HUEG LIEK XBOX capacitors.

[Senestrum]

The railgun isn't the issue.

The ZOMGWTFBBQHUGE capacitors are the problem with putting a railgun of that size in a tank.

Bolded the part you missed.

Capacitors do not supply power.

Hellbore.

Currently does not exist to my knowledge.

Neither do magical fapium-powered capacitors.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Bolded the part you missed.

Capacitors do not supply power.

Which he admitted. The point was that railguns that can potentially kill tanks currently exist, the problem is in the power supply and not having the projectile fuse to the gun every third shot.

[Euladis]

I'm considering having my armed forces adopt the IMI Galil family. If I do this I would be replacing the sections light machine gun from the belt-fed C9 to the Galil ARM. This would most likely reduce the sections overall firepower.

Now my questions is this. Could I offset this firepower reduction by:
A) Giving an armoured/mechanised infantry platoon three FN MAG machine gun teams and then attaching a MG team to each section?
B.1) Increasing the light infantry's section size?
B.2) Having more Galil ARMs issued to the section?

[Purpelia]

Neither do magical fapium-powered capacitors.

Just be cool and use a Hafnium decay fuel cell. You know you want to.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm considering having my armed forces adopt the IMI Galil family. If I do this I would be replacing the sections light machine gun from the belt-fed C9 to the Galil ARM. This would most likely reduce the sections overall firepower.

Now my questions is this. Could I offset this firepower reduction by:
A) Giving an armoured/mechanised infantry platoon three FN MAG machine gun teams and then attaching a MG team to each section?
B.1) Increasing the light infantry's section size?
B.2) Having more Galil ARMs issued to the section?

Any of those would work, but the question is firstly whether or not they're needed. The difference in firepower would likely not be enormous, the major differences being a slightly lower rate of fire and more frequent, but faster, reloading. Personally, I would prefer the third option, as it impacts squad mobility and coherency the least, but any of these would likely require a major reworking of squad tactical doctrine to account for the shift, whereas the replacement of the C9 itself would probably be a minor adjustment at best.

[Euladis]

I'm considering having my armed forces adopt the IMI Galil family. If I do this I would be replacing the sections light machine gun from the belt-fed C9 to the Galil ARM. This would most likely reduce the sections overall firepower.

Now my questions is this. Could I offset this firepower reduction by:
A) Giving an armoured/mechanised infantry platoon three FN MAG machine gun teams and then attaching a MG team to each section?
B.1) Increasing the light infantry's section size?
B.2) Having more Galil ARMs issued to the section?

Any of those would work, but the question is firstly whether or not they're needed. The difference in firepower would likely not be enormous, the major differences being a slightly lower rate of fire and more frequent, but faster, reloading. Personally, I would prefer the third option, as it impacts squad mobility and coherency the least, but any of these would likely require a major reworking of squad tactical doctrine to account for the shift, whereas the replacement of the C9 itself would probably be a minor adjustment at best.

Hmm, Ok, thanks. I'll give that some thought. I'm planning on adopting the 7.62 NATO variant of the Galil, and wanting to keep the sections logistics simple, I'd rather have both the standard rifle and LMG use the same ammunition.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Capacitors do not supply power.

Which he admitted. The point was that railguns that can potentially kill tanks currently exist, the problem is in the power supply and not having the projectile fuse to the gun every third shot.

Or the gun itself melting after all those shots.

[The Corparation]

Which he admitted. The point was that railguns that can potentially kill tanks currently exist, the problem is in the power supply and not having the projectile fuse to the gun every third shot.

Or the gun itself melting after all those shots.

I think that's what he meant by it fusing to the gun.

[Jagalonia]

Or the gun itself melting after all those shots.

I think that's what he meant by it fusing to the gun.

Then he was pretty far off. The amount of energy that goes through the barrel of the weapon creates a retarded amount of heat, after about 10 shots, the barrel is normaly slag.
That's if you're firing at max RPM.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I think that's what he meant by it fusing to the gun.

Then he was pretty far off. The amount of energy that goes through the barrel of the weapon creates a retarded amount of heat, after about 10 shots, the barrel is normaly slag.
That's if you're firing at max RPM.

Which you don't do.

[Yes Im Biop]

I think that's what he meant by it fusing to the gun.

Then he was pretty far off. The amount of energy that goes through the barrel of the weapon creates a retarded amount of heat, after about 10 shots, the barrel is normaly slag.
That's if you're firing at max RPM.

Have a nitrogen flush or Liquid Helium to keep the rails Super cool. Or at least not melting together.

[Galla-]

Capacitors do not supply power.

Which he admitted. The point was that railguns that can potentially kill tanks currently exist, the problem is in the power supply and not having the projectile fuse to the gun every third shot.

A tank with a railgun capable of firing once ~10 seconds would make the Abrams look like a T-72. The problem is that having enough capacitors to store the energy required for a decent ROF requires excessive weight and size. The tank below was projected to weigh at ~90 tons

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.

1) So am I, when wearing a IOTV or MTV.
2) So can I, without powered armor.
3) See above. It's called a "Carl Gustav" or "Javelin".
4) A PASGT is cheaper than powered armor or an IOTV if you want to be really obnoxious.
5) So can I, and I don't require batteries.

The answer to your question: No. Never.