NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[San-Silvacian]

So pretty much everything a normal tank can do?

This is for a PMT setting just humor me what could be changed to make these things better?

I won't.

Mecha are pretty stupid in anything that isn't uber FT.

[Moriskov]

I swear to God every single NS'er needs a mandatory class on the BMPT.

Indeed. That thing is just so awesome. I made my own version of one.

[Basque Socialist States]

So pretty much everything a normal tank can do?

This is for a PMT setting just humor me what could be changed to make these things better?

Use regular tanks?

[Arthurista]

So... Tyulpans and Pions - are they any use these days? Or should I just stick with 155s with lower calibre but higher RoF?

[The Kievan People]

By the way, guys, the top five results in a cursory Google search for "GLATGMs" come out as Nationstates or the NS Draftroom.

What the hell is wrong with us? Does the rest of the Internet not do this kind of thing?

Actually you discovered one of my pet peeves.

GLATGM is an acronym most of the world has never heard of.

[Elan Valleys]

What is the best and cheapest class of dreadnaught?

What time frame?

[The Kievan People]

just stick with 155s

Mysteries revealed.

[Lubyak]

So pretty much everything a normal tank can do?

This is for a PMT setting just humor me what could be changed to make these things better?

See, this is the realism thread, and as such, we will be telling you what and what isn't realistic...and mecha are from realistic in any sense of the word. Any technology you could use to build mecha could be put on a tank and used more effectively.

Your list of things basically reads as 'list of things tanks do', and will do better than your mecha. Or any mecha for that better. When you ask this thread for help on how to make mecha better, the answer you receive will be 'use tanks instead'. Do read this for more detail on why mecha will always be nothing but a complete and utter failure.

[Lubyak]

IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Ok, going through it one at a time.

*obviously protecting the shit out of the legs is a must

Thus wasting resources. If you used a tank you'd be able to concentrate all your armor around the guns and crew, rather than having to worry about legs.

*making it an unmanned vehicle

Well given the amount of computer assistance it'd need to stand up in the first place....

*keeping it below 4 meters to reduce surface area (maybe below 3 meters, downside less dakka)

Tall things on the battlefield translate into things that are visible. Things that are visible tend to get artillery, ATGMs, air strikes and all kinds of other lovely things thrown at them. Not to mention you can mount plenty of dakka on a tank that's about 2 or so meters in height.

*bipedal legs that can transform into quad legs

Why? What possible advantage does this contain other than adding needless mechanical complexity?

*wheels in the legs for faster movement

Oh god no. Don't follow the Code Geass design school. While I adore that anime, I despise their mechs.

other ideas?

Use tanks. They do what you want better and cheaper.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Is there any reason not to (optionally) include an external box launcher for ATGMs on an MBT? I was thinking using them similiar to the Longbow, where an FCS automatically identifies and engages threatening targets. Top attack, not TOWs.

Longbow works by being up above the battlefield. On a tank, it's going to be at max three metres above the battlefield (which will give you a distance to the horizon of less than 6200m).
Leave long-range missile interdiction of enemy armoured vehicles to vehicles designed to do just that.

You can use GLATGMs to the same effect, and then the box launcher can be dropped, reducing weight and allowing reactive armor to be more evenly mounted (i.e. where the box launcher would have been).

At first I was thinking of pointing out that external ATGMs could serve as an emergency secondary weapon, if you were caught reloading by another tank and it was an every-second-counts situation.

But, then again, I think that the time involved in waiting for a missile to hit its target would be longer than to just put a new shell in there.

Another reason I'd shy away from them is that, from the battlefield accounts I've heard, intense tank battles tend to strip things off of the sides of tanks. Antennae, kit, etc. tends to get sheared off even with the most insignificant glancing blow. Now, imagine putting a box full of really, really explosive missiles right next to your critical and fragile comms equipment, your optics, and generally all the important stuff. Somehow I think that might be a bit of a bad idea. Plus, GLATGMs can be reloaded in battle, whereas a box of two or four missiles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) usually need to be reloaded manually by supply personnel. Which is hard to do when you're in a firing position.

EDIT:

By the way, guys, the top five results in a cursory Google search for "GLATGMs" come out as Nationstates or the NS Draftroom.

What the hell is wrong with us? Does the rest of the Internet not do this kind of thing?

NS really skews Google.
Do an image search for 'casket magazine', at least three of my rifles appear as the first few results.

you guys have any tips on making mechs MORE practical

Not really.
In MT, at any rate, they're wholly inferior to regular armoured vehicles.
In PMT, technology allows them to become technologically feasible, but they will provide no advantages whatsoever over conventional armoured vehicles, which will have better protection, firepower, mobility and even favourable cost.

seems nice im just looking for something a little smaller



IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
*obviously protecting the shit out of the legs is a must
*making it an unmanned vehicle
*keeping it below 4 meters to reduce surface area (maybe below 3 meters, downside less dakka)
*bipedal legs that can transform into quad legs
*wheels in the legs for faster movement

other ideas?

Something 'a little smaller' won't be survivable in urban environments. The Russians already have something 'a little smaller' than a BMPT, it's called a BMP-3. It has a 100mm gun-launcher and a 30mm autocannon. It's insufficiently protected. So the Russians built the BMPT, which mounts ATGM and twin 30mm autocannons (and probably some MGs in there too) onto a T-72 chassis. Being an MBT hull, it's better able to survive urban firepower threats such as landmines, rocket attack and IEDs than an IFV or gun-truck.

So... Tyulpans and Pions - are they any use these days? Or should I just stick with 155s with lower calibre but higher RoF?

I imagine that the Tulip's 240mm mortar will have some purpose. Few and far between, but some. Like bombing a HQ or something.

[Strykla]

See, what I don't like about no endorse's guide or whatever it is is that they go and outright say mechs are impossible. Decidedly not true.

See? Nature already invented them. However, they are not very useful for actual combat. Impossible? By no means. Useless for combat? Yes, probably.

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

I've decided to go with two Konig class ships, minimally upgraded with catapults.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

See, what I don't like about no endorse's guide or whatever it is is that they go and outright say mechs are impossible. Decidedly not true.

See? Nature already invented them. However, they are not very useful for actual combat. Impossible? By no means. Useless for combat? Yes, probably.

Living things understand balance.
Mechanoids do not.

See how long it took to get ASIMO to walk, let alone climb stairs and run.

[The Akasha Colony]

So... Tyulpans and Pions - are they any use these days? Or should I just stick with 155s with lower calibre but higher RoF?

155 mm guns will do everything you need. Often, the modern objective of artillery is to disrupt, rather than destroy, especially since pretty much every vehicle larger than a Humvee nowadays is armored against HE shell fragments and will shrug off a conventional bombardment unless you get a lucky dead-on hit. This means that the objective is to keep a steady stream of shells on the target area, and the inverse square law which governs explosions would make a large number of smaller explosions more efficient at blanketing an area than a small number of large ones.

A 155 mm piece will also be more tactically and strategically mobile, which is the real reason why heavy pieces were discontinued. Given the above, that having some kind of firepower on the target is the objective, a more mobile piece even at the expense of firepower is more desirable than a heavy piece that may not be brought to action. 155 mm is presently the sweet spot between mobility and firepower, with enough explosives to cover a good radius with an explosive shell, but not too large to be used on a fully-enclosed turret on an IFV or MBT-class chassis.

Now, mortars are a different matter; the 2S4 Tyulpan falls into the same weight class as 155 mm conventional howitzers since mortars are inherently lighter. This means it may have a role, but determining whether it does requires an evaluation of its usefulness versus the cost of stocking a new type of ammunition. IMO, it's probably more than you need in 99.9% of situations, and in the few that you would need it, it's faster to call in air support than drag even a self-propelled mortar to the front.

By the way, guys, the top five results in a cursory Google search for "GLATGMs" come out as Nationstates or the NS Draftroom.

What the hell is wrong with us? Does the rest of the Internet not do this kind of thing?

It doesn't, really. Take a look at Wikipedia, all of the weapons we call GLATGMs are usually referred to simply as anti-tank guided missiles that can be launched out of guns, although Wikipedia isn't immensely fond of non-official acronyms anyway. They're just much more common on NS (they're not common globally outside of CIS/former USSR nations and Israel + its export customers; NATO dun liek them) and this being an internet forum, is prone to invent new acronyms out of laziness.

IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
*obviously protecting the shit out of the legs is a must
*making it an unmanned vehicle
*keeping it below 4 meters to reduce surface area (maybe below 3 meters, downside less dakka)
*bipedal legs that can transform into quad legs
*wheels in the legs for faster movement

other ideas?

At that low a height, you're looking at something like powered armor anyway, which is an entirely different concept. In any event, what the others stated still counts: it will be taller than a conventional vehicle and thus more obvious, it will be immensely more mechanically complex for little benefit, and it will almost certainly not be any more compact than a conventional wheeled or tracked vehicle.

Ultimately, using a mech in any manner of practical operation requires vast amounts of handwaving, something not found to such a degree in most PMT settings unless these are specifically predicated on everyone using mechs (e.g. Gundam, Code Geass, etc.).

[Altito Asmoro]

This is for a PMT setting just humor me what could be changed to make these things better?

See, this is the realism thread, and as such, we will be telling you what and what isn't realistic...and mecha are from realistic in any sense of the word. Any technology you could use to build mecha could be put on a tank and used more effectively.

Your list of things basically reads as 'list of things tanks do', and will do better than your mecha. Or any mecha for that better. When you ask this thread for help on how to make mecha better, the answer you receive will be 'use tanks instead'. Do read this for more detail on why mecha will always be nothing but a complete and utter failure.

Have you ever looked into Mecha from Sidobaishi Heavy Industries? There is one with diesel engine and armed with BB bullets and targeting system.

[Altito Asmoro]

It is called KURATAS

[Samozaryadnyastan]

One of the biggest non-technological reasons why Mecha are unsuitable is that they're bloody tall. You've said that 3-4m height will be a design goal, putting this a metre or more taller than most MBTs (which better armed, better armoured, better protected against non-ballistic threats, more reliable, faster, cheaper, simpler).
Height kills.

Note how the lesser-protected Eastern Bloc tanks are much shorter, height-wise, than their NATO force counterparts. It affords them much worse gun depression, but makes them a harder target to hit at two, three, four thousand metres.
In the unique case of the bipedal mecha, this height is accompanied by very poor (unacceptable) ground pressure and a very small footprint. This makes firing weapons ludicrously difficult. You'd frankly struggle with an HMG or autocannon, let alone any kind of cannon.

[Altito Asmoro]

One of the biggest non-technological reasons why Mecha are unsuitable is that they're bloody tall. You've said that 3-4m height will be a design goal, putting this a metre or more taller than most MBTs (which better armed, better armoured, better protected against non-ballistic threats, more reliable, faster, cheaper, simpler).
Height kills.

Note how the lesser-protected Eastern Bloc tanks are much shorter, height-wise, than their NATO force counterparts. It affords them much worse gun depression, but makes them a harder target to hit at two, three, four thousand metres.
In the unique case of the bipedal mecha, this height is accompanied by very poor (unacceptable) ground pressure and a very small footprint. This makes firing weapons ludicrously difficult. You'd frankly struggle with an HMG or autocannon, let alone any kind of cannon.

The video demonstration of KURATAS, where they aiming with slowly

[The Akasha Colony]

See, this is the realism thread, and as such, we will be telling you what and what isn't realistic...and mecha are from realistic in any sense of the word. Any technology you could use to build mecha could be put on a tank and used more effectively.

Your list of things basically reads as 'list of things tanks do', and will do better than your mecha. Or any mecha for that better. When you ask this thread for help on how to make mecha better, the answer you receive will be 'use tanks instead'. Do read this for more detail on why mecha will always be nothing but a complete and utter failure.

Have you ever looked into Mecha from Sidobaishi Heavy Industries? There is one with diesel engine and armed with BB bullets and targeting system.

I have. And a Humvee that costs a quarter of the cost of a Kuratas (not an acronym, by the way) outguns it and has better tactical and strategic mobility, as well as troop carrying capacity and reduced maintenance requirements. It's also nearly 30 years old.

[Registug]

One of the biggest non-technological reasons why Mecha are unsuitable is that they're bloody tall. You've said that 3-4m height will be a design goal, putting this a metre or more taller than most MBTs (which better armed, better armoured, better protected against non-ballistic threats, more reliable, faster, cheaper, simpler).
Height kills.

Note how the lesser-protected Eastern Bloc tanks are much shorter, height-wise, than their NATO force counterparts. It affords them much worse gun depression, but makes them a harder target to hit at two, three, four thousand metres.
In the unique case of the bipedal mecha, this height is accompanied by very poor (unacceptable) ground pressure and a very small footprint. This makes firing weapons ludicrously difficult. You'd frankly struggle with an HMG or autocannon, let alone any kind of cannon.

The video demonstration of KURATAS, where they aiming with slowly

It's a BB gun.

Probably only an eighth of the weight of an LMG.

[Altito Asmoro]

It paved a long way to Mecha.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The video demonstration of KURATAS, where they aiming with slowly

It's a BB gun.

Probably only an eighth of the weight of an LMG.

Which is in turn a third the weight of an HMG, which is a third the weight of an autocannon, which is in turn about a tenth to a thirtieth of a piece.
At max, this is a factor of nearly 2200 that we have to climb, in the gun weight alone (let alone stowage and feed and the weight of the systems required to lift these systems).

[Yes Im Biop]

It paved a long way to Mecha.

Long way to the Junkyard maybe. I'm a bit crazy. But Mech's are really really dumb for any purpose other then for mobile targets... Actually that's their 1 use. Make one out of some cheap metal and basic motors. And when your enemy is looking and laughing. Shoot em in the ass with MBT's

[The Akasha Colony]

The video demonstration of KURATAS, where they aiming with slowly

It's a BB gun.

Probably only an eighth of the weight of an LMG.

It probably actually weighs about the same as a normal gun. Most full-metal high-quality airsoft guns will not be too far off from the real steel in weight, but the recoil will be severely reduced for obvious reasons, and that's the more important part.

It paved a long way to Mecha.

No it didn't, and the point is that regardless of whether it is physically possible to build a mech, it will never be a practical or realistic battlefield weapon relative to a conventional vehicle combined with infantry.

[Altito Asmoro]

It paved a long way to Mecha.

In FT