NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Galla-]

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.



i.e. Me.

If your Marines aren't looking like this:



or this:



While getting fire support from something that looks like this:



Which ends up cooking commies with something like this:



Or this:



You're not doing NS rite.

I agree with this.

railgun FT patton and blaster m16a1s

No.

More like actual M48 Patton (it should be an AMX-30 or -13 actually) and actual M16s (or actual this)

If Kennedy had built Orion we would have won in Vietnam.

[Aqizithiuda]

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

[Galla-]

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

It will be this big.

[Aqizithiuda]

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

It will be this big.

Is that an "oh god no" or a "just making sure you know it's going to be massive"?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

My first thought is why.

[Aqizithiuda]

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

My first thought is why.

3

Because I like bad ideas? Basically, what I wanted was a BMP-3 style armament, with a comfortable crew compartment and better than average protection.

[Vitaphone Racing]

My first thought is why.

3

Because I like bad ideas? Basically, what I wanted was a BMP-3 style armament, with a comfortable crew compartment and better than average protection.

I can't see how well justified this all is when included together. Namer, for example, weighs the same, is dimensionally smaller than the EFV, doesn't have the main gun and seats the same amount of troops. I suppose it depends how much value you place on the 100mm main gun and how you define better than average protection.

Realizing my mistake just then; you'd place heavy value on the gun because you want an IFV and not an APC like Namer... Too tired, sorry.

[Aqizithiuda]

3

Because I like bad ideas? Basically, what I wanted was a BMP-3 style armament, with a comfortable crew compartment and better than average protection.

I can't see how well justified this all is when included together. Namer, for example, weighs the same, is dimensionally smaller than the EFV, doesn't have the main gun and seats the same amount of troops. I suppose it depends how much value you place on the 100mm main gun and how you define better than average protection.

The turret is pretty much the reason why the IFV is so long. That and to allow for an extra couple of troops and their gear. Actually, thinking on it, I could probably justify shrinking the length down somewhat, since I've just realised that the turret probably won't be taking up much more room than the EFV's current turret. Armour wise, I'm looking from protection against, say, up to a 76mm HV gun at 2km and/or LAWs/RPGs at close range. The cannon isn't really critical, but if it goes, then I'm probably going to have to go with something like the 50 SS or 40mm CTWS and a subsequent decrease in pure HE capability (plus a smaller number of rounds vs the Super 40).

[Samozaryadnyastan]

BMP-1 is 1st Gen era (and not even 1st Gen anyway since it's not a battle tank) and the T-34-anything doesn't even register on the Gen scale, since it's before the advent of the Main Battle Tank concept.

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.

Not in the slightest.
What's bolted onto it makes that distinction.

It will be this big.

Is that an "oh god no" or a "just making sure you know it's going to be massive"?

I'm thinking more "oh god yes", because that M44 looks hilarious, in a good way.

[Galla-]

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.

Not in the slightest.
What's bolted onto it makes that distinction.

A T-80U turret and a Thales Catherine LWIR night sight? Sure.

That's 80s vintage. That puts it on par with a M60-2000, so basically a cheap, easy to put to together upgrade package for poor third world countries. Like Russia.

It will be this big.

Is that an "oh god no" or a "just making sure you know it's going to be massive"?

Get a Namer or Nagamashot or something and put a RWS on it with a 40mm cannon, 6.5mm MG, and four Spike missiles.

Or an extended Puma or something with a Super 40 turret and box launched Spike.

[Nydaria]

http://nydari.wikia.com/wiki/Nydarian_Combat_Regiment
Specially designed to widely employ http://nydari.wikia.com/wiki/CMS-4S/T/A
The OOB was built for a tactical forum wargame; what do you think?

[Purpelia]

I'll take that and raise you the 9K1.

http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=9893

Better in every way. And not just because it's mine.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?di ... 100&page=1
The level of fail is making my head hurt.

[Nydaria]

Purpelia,

We seem to have both to many of the same conclusions on a flexible weapon system. However, you should noted that the CMS also replaces short SAMs and has the considerable ad hoc datalink capacity which provides some indirect benefits to a simple launcher. The CMS also fires its missiles vertically before they assume a profile.

Your system seems to be a more complete ground-attack system able to provide LOS and NLOS capability and a variety of warheads. It also appears to have downtime associated with setup before launch. The CMS requires no setup time and carries the anti-aircraft missiles, giving vehicles with access to either their own radar or associated radar pictures, the ability to defend themselves from aircraft.

Finally, like the CMS, the 9K1 has innate disadvantages over purpose-built weaponry that it replaces, either due to minimum range, targeting, cost, etc.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13215684710A10300100&page=1
The level of fail is making my head hurt.

Pass the noose.

Been thinking about IFVs lately. At the moment I'm thinking of using something dimensionally similar to the EFV, but in the 60 tonne range, with NERA or reactive armour added on from extra protection. The armament would consist of an unmanned turret with a 100mm LV cannon (45 rounds in the bustle), Super 40 autocannon (400 HE, 160 APFSDS), and 6.5mm MG (4000 rounds), and 4 BLATGMs. Troop capacity would be about 10, assuming they're fully loaded with packs, weapons, etc.

Thoughts, MRT?

It will be this big.

TACTICAL CLOWN CAR INSTANTWIN GG

[Purpelia]

Purpelia,

We seem to have both to many of the same conclusions on a flexible weapon system. However, you should noted that the CMS also replaces short SAMs and has the considerable ad hoc datalink capacity which provides some indirect benefits to a simple launcher.

If you read about the 9K1 you will notice that the unit does not actually contain any sensors, just a targeting computer that works with data from where ever it may come along.

The computer takes input in terms of environmental factors and target data either from a console on the side or through a cable connection to an external source like a battery command vehicle and based on them calculates the required elevation and traverse angle required to hit the target.

So the idea is pretty much the same. I just did not feel the need to write up half a page worth of text to explain an USB port.

Also, in my newest revisions (not yet posted sadly but stay tuned) I am making a Spike LR derived missile variant for it.

The CMS also fires its missiles vertically before they assume a profile.

That I would argue is a disadvantage and not an advantage. As my launcher fires its missiles at regular angles it can expel the recoil into the air behind it thus making it reconciles. This allows it to be fired safely from the backs of vehicles, ships and soft ground safely. By comparison your launcher drives all the propellant gases directly into the ground or if mounted on a vehicle into the vehicle it self. This means that you will either have to launch missiles at a low initial velocity (thus making it only really useful for guided munitions at limited ranges) or fire it from very sturdy platforms indeed. Plus, since your system has no method of adjusting the firing angle it means that it is incapable of firing unguided projectiles thus making it far less flexible for ground applications. And the 9K1 can fire its missiles at a very high elevation of 57° (for the towed launcher variant) and probably higher elevations for the vehicle mounted ones.

Finally, the 9K1 is in theory also capable of replacing short range IR SAM systems but I gave up on designing such a missile for it for the simple reason that it was pointless. AA work really requires dedicated crews, missiles and equipment. So while you could have the capability to aim your AA from one spot and launch it from another it would be vastly inferior to simply launching from a dedicated platform like the Soviet 9K22. Plus with the limited range of light AA missiles you would pretty much have to hope that both the target and your guidance module are all in the same narrow targeting circle.

Your system seems to be a more complete ground-attack system able to provide LOS and NLOS capability and a variety of warheads. It also appears to have downtime associated with setup before launch. The CMS requires no setup time and carries the anti-aircraft missiles, giving vehicles with access to either their own radar or associated radar pictures, the ability to defend themselves from aircraft.

Unless it is vehicle mounted in which case no setup is required. The setup stats as well as the carriage are as noted in the thread for the towed version intended for use by my airborne and mountain divisions. My regular army uses this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/70757389/ExportTest_00014.png which could due to the recoilless nature of the launcher probably even fire on the move.

Finally, like the CMS, the 9K1 has innate disadvantages over purpose-built weaponry that it replaces, either due to minimum range, targeting, cost, etc.

That is true. Hence we both need to focus on using it not as a replacement but as a supplement. Use it to aid and reinforce and not to replace.

[Risen Britannia]

I'll take that and raise you the 9K1.

http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=9893

Better in every way. And not just because it's mine.

This man is clearly crazy. What you want its this:

Continuing my containerisation, this time using a 20ft container unit

This one is basically a beefed up XM501 "Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System" in container form (and with 140 missiles rather than 15)
Missile Stats
Weight: 75kg
Diameter: 180 mm
Length: 1.8m
Guidance: GPS/INS, infrared, semi-active laser homing.
Datalink: Networked for in-flight updates, retargeting and images.
Motor: Variable thrust rocket motor
Range: 50 km
Warhead: Tandem HEAT/ Flechette submunition/ White phosphorus/ Anti-Structures / Multi-purpose submunition.....

The system is fully contained within one unit (though multiple can be linked), with little set up required.

[Useful Daveia]

And the T-72 isn't anywhere near a hypothetical "next generation" tank.



i.e. Me.

If your Marines aren't looking like this:



or this:



While getting fire support from something that looks like this:



Which ends up cooking commies with something like this:



Or this:



You're not doing NS rite.

I agree with this.

railgun FT patton and blaster m16a1s

Basically Hammer's Slammers, including ACAVs with gatling energy weapons.

[San-Silvacian]

It will be this big.

TACTICAL CLOWN CAR INSTANTWIN GG

I think sparky just came.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Funny thing is, that image was actually hosted on combat reform xD

[Galla-]

I agree with this.

railgun FT patton and blaster m16a1s

Basically Hammer's Slammers, including ACAVs with gatling energy weapons.

It's the 1960s so nope/10.

TACTICAL CLOWN CAR INSTANTWIN GG

I think sparky just came.

He hates it. So did the US Army, since the handful they made ended up being used as ammunition carriers or something.

[Aqizithiuda]

I'm thinking more "oh god yes", because that M44 looks hilarious, in a good way.

Unfortunately, the turret and armour would probably make the side doors difficult to do right and reduce capacity to nonlol levels.

Get a Namer or Nagamashot or something and put a RWS on it with a 40mm cannon, 6.5mm MG, and four Spike missiles.

Or an extended Puma or something with a Super 40 turret and box launched Spike.

By the time I lengthened the Puma to accommodate the extra 4 men, it would be almost as long as the EFV. A slightly longer Namer might be possible, perhaps with a 100mm FSV version deployed at company level.

In terms of ATGMs, I was thinking more along the lines of the JCM, with the ability to swap the boxes out for ones containing 10 CRV7s (probably firing a mix of HE, AP and/or flechette).

[Rich and Corporations]

The frontal armor profile of a box-like AFV I'm thinking of designing.

[San-Silvacian]

Basically Hammer's Slammers, including ACAVs with gatling energy weapons.

It's the 1960s so nope/10.

I think sparky just came.

He hates it. So did the US Army, since the handful they made ended up being used as ammunition carriers or something.

Would they be effective ammunition carriers?

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's the 1960s so nope/10.



He hates it. So did the US Army, since the handful they made ended up being used as ammunition carriers or something.

Would they be effective ammunition carriers?

Nah, they're just fucking useless at everything else.