NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Transnapastain]

That was my thought, complete with some sort of ballast system to let it raise when if it sinks

That, or, with the application of more jets, we'll just make it VTOL

Well if we are going that far, why not just get it enough power so that it can boost to orbit. Then it could drop rods from god, ahem Tactical Rocks. That must save money in the long run, no expensive explosives!

Unfortunately, Google yielded me no space B-52's to go along with RRoan's earlier post containing space F-4 Phantoms

Internet, i r disappoint

[Risen Britannia]

With a MRLS is it better to have more smaller rockets (110m), or a few larger ones (200mm)?

[Immoren]

With a MRLS is it better to have more smaller rockets (110m), or a few larger ones (200mm)?

I use both RM-70 and M270.

[Purpelia]

It depends on what you want the system to be good at. Larger and longer missiles tend to have a greater range and payload. But smaller missiles are quicker and easier to reload. And you can store and carry more for the same logistics train. And with a bit of fiddling you can make something awesome out of them. Like I did here with the 220mm 9K1.

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

Note: A newer version is in the works that will also have access to heat seeking AA missiles and some other fun stuff.

[Risen Britannia]

It depends on what you want the system to be good at. Larger and longer missiles tend to have a greater range and payload. But smaller missiles are quicker and easier to reload. And you can store and carry more for the same logistics train. And with a bit of fiddling you can make something awesome out of them. Like I did here with the 220mm 9K1.

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

Note: A newer version is in the works that will also have access to heat seeking AA missiles and some other fun stuff.

Thanks for the advice, I have gone with larger missiles that are 3.5m in length and 200mm in diameter.

Also with the 9K1. isn't a range of 10-15km a bit far for a rocket thats only 1.5m in length? Especially as it has laser guidance and a penetration of 1'700mm RHA.

[Purpelia]

Thanks for the advice, I have gone with larger missiles that are 3.5m in length and 200mm in diameter.

Also with the 9K1. isn't a range of 10-15km a bit far for a rocket thats only 1.5m in length? Especially as it has laser guidance and a penetration of 1'700mm RHA.

I have been asked this before. Check out the whole thread. Or just let me quote it:

Well the ranges are not purely random. I analised several comparable artillery pieces like the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 and the modern BM-27 Uragan.

The former has projectiles similar in size and scale to my own and a range of approximately 8'000 meters. The later presumably has much larger projectiles but the same diameter and a range of 35'000 meters.

Based on that and the growth of range between say the BM-13 (WW2 vintage) and the BM-21 (modern) I assumed that the adaptation of modern propellants and lighter materials would allow me to take a guess and say that my missiles would get about 40% more range than the WW2 German counterpart. And that is it really, the increase is about 40%.

Or on other words. This thing is based off a modernized Nebelwerfer. And it has a range to reflect that. And the reaction from the folks at the draftroom was positive to my numbers.

And the penetration is a 220mm heat charge x 7.7. Considering that HEAT charges go between 8 and 10 times the diameter in penetration around here you could say I went conservative on purpose. Remembering that in ideal circumstances it is supposed to be top attack as well.

[Crookfur]

With a MRLS is it better to have more smaller rockets (110m), or a few larger ones (200mm)?

Do both ala ASTROS II (and to a limited extent M270 MLRS with ATACMS)

[The Kievan People]

With a MRLS is it better to have more smaller rockets (110m), or a few larger ones (200mm)?

The smallest rocket than can reach the desired range.

[Purpelia]

Here is a question. How plausible would it be to claim something like the Zis-2 being developed about 5 years earlier as the main armament for my main tank of the time. The idea being that the army wanted something that could kill any tank at the time and remain competitive for like forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2)

[Galla-]

Here is a question. How plausible would it be to claim something like the Zis-2 being developed about 5 years earlier as the main armament for my main tank of the time. The idea being that the army wanted something that could kill any tank at the time and remain competitive for like forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2)

Use 6-pdr Hotchkiss like a real man.

[DASHES]

Am I correct in assuming that an Iwo Jima-class LPH would be cheaper than a Wasp-class LHD? I plan to update my Navy soon.

Unless your industry has the capability to manufacture obsolete equipment, it may actually be more expensive to set up the necessary production facilities for equipment no longer considered up-to-date. The Iwo Jima-class will still probably be cheaper if for no other reason than they're simply smaller than the Wasp-class, but the savings probably aren't quite what you're looking for, and has been demonstrated, when it comes to capacity and capability, larger ships are actually much more cost-efficient, the drawback being flexibility (you have fewer ships).

Considering that the Wasp-class costed around 1.6 Billion USD per ship in modern times, what would it cost in 2012 to make an Iwo Jima-class LPH , even if I did pay to have two medium-sized ship-building plants refitted to produce the outdated design? Also how long would it take per ship (My guess is around 1-year each)?

[Grand Britannia]

I just had a lulzy idea.

Jamming sonar.

[Purpelia]

I just had a lulzy idea.

Jamming sonar.

Shout real hard?

[The Akasha Colony]

I just had a lulzy idea.

Jamming sonar.

What of it? It's less effective than other methods, such as acoustic decoys and simple stealth procedures. It also kills the whales, you heartless bastard.

[Grand Britannia]

But I don't wanna shout

The whaling industry may benefit, then.

[Leos]

Here is a question. How plausible would it be to claim something like the Zis-2 being developed about 5 years earlier as the main armament for my main tank of the time. The idea being that the army wanted something that could kill any tank at the time and remain competitive for like forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2)

Inutolands Tano VII used a 57mm gun and its from 1939

[Grand Britannia]

Say I make a pretty huge underwater explosion. Would that be enough to mask the advance of submarines?

[The Akasha Colony]

Here is a question. How plausible would it be to claim something like the Zis-2 being developed about 5 years earlier as the main armament for my main tank of the time. The idea being that the army wanted something that could kill any tank at the time and remain competitive for like forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2)

How would they know they'd need it? That's the real question when designing vehicles for the time period; intelligence on other armies and other tank fleets was limited. The Germans thought their little Panzer IIIs and IVs would be fine, and would be able to handle anything their enemies had until they encountered French and Soviet mega-tanks in the field. Luckily for the Germans, these behemoths were too heavy and too slow to be employed successfully, and in any event were hindered by poor leadership early in the war. But nonetheless, most nations drastically underestimated the strength of the enemy tank fleets and designs at the time, and didn't change until they'd actually faced them in combat.

In the days before big-bore multi-purpose guns like the 7.5 and 8.8 cm guns, anti-tank guns were kept as small as possible since they were of limited utility for any other purpose. They couldn't carry a big explosive shell, so a tank armed with such a gun could really only be used effectively against other tanks. This is why the Germans kept two separate medium tank lines until they finally developed bigger guns and tanks that could adequately combine both shell types into a single gun. 57 mm is going to be too small to be as useful as the 7.5 cm or 10.5 cm howitzers used in other infantry support tanks, so you'd need at least two variants of the tank, unless the infantry gets stuck with just assault guns.

Say I make a pretty huge underwater explosion. Would that be enough to mask the advance of submarines?

No. It'd just bounce the sound of the explosion off those submarines like a sonar pulse, along with the force. Remember, force travels underwater along with sound. And once that explosion dissipates, you can hear everything again.

[Grand Britannia]

Derp....right I forgot....

[Samozaryadnyastan]

When you jam a radar site, their information on target goes from "USN F/A-18 Super Hornet, bearing 270, altitude 110ft, speed 200knts" to "NATO jammer 10 o'clock".
So you're no longer tracking an enemy aircraft, you're looking at a jammer. Nothing precise enough for an actual SAM launch, not until it's in visual range at least.

I imagine sonar would be similar in perceived effect. You could always try and float said jammer and have it latch onto a ship with magnets right next to its hydrophone.

But as said, simple decoys and buoys work excellently.

[Galla-]

When you jam a radar site, their information on target goes from "USN F/A-18 Super Hornet, bearing 270, altitude 110ft, speed 200knts" to "NATO jammer 10 o'clock".
So you're no longer tracking an enemy aircraft, you're looking at a jammer. Nothing precise enough for an actual SAM launch, not until it's in visual range at least.

I imagine sonar would be similar in perceived effect. You could always try and float said jammer and have it latch onto a ship with magnets right next to its hydrophone.

But as said, simple decoys and buoys work excellently.

Actually subs are way more difficult to find, to the point where a sub engaging a ship has very good chance of evasion provided they aren't shooting nuclear SUBROCs or anything.

[Arkania 5]

Anyone heard of Chlorine Triflouride?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

If it's what was brought up a thread ago (or more, if from the MBT thread), yes. It's stupidly nasty to the point of being hilarious.
Volatile, explosive, difficult to store, difficult to transport, pointless to make a munition from because you'll probably kill yourself on firing it.

I mean come on, it sets asbestos on fire. Asbestos.

[Arkania 5]

If it's what was brought up a thread ago (or more, if from the MBT thread), yes. It's stupidly nasty to the point of being hilarious.
Volatile, explosive, difficult to store, difficult to transport, pointless to make a munition from because you'll probably kill yourself on firing it.

I mean come on, it sets asbestos on fire. Asbestos.

Dang it. I was hoping on finding some way of storing it for suicide bombers and flame tanks.

EDIT:

"It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals — steel, copper, aluminum, etc. — because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere."

Found a way.

[Jagalonia]

So, say I decided to weaponize liquid nitrogen. Put it in a bomb, drop it on some poor sods, and have it air burst, to rain down on them.

Would this be effective?