NationStates

Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

If need be, you can. However that adds a few pounds of weight that you might need for something else.

Radio operators, medics and such if on the frontline should be given at the least carbines.

Quartermasters and other rear support personal should get whatever is available. USAF maintenance personnel in Afghanistan get clean M16A2s and M9s.

Efsanevi wrote:

Aqizithiuda wrote:
The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).

American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).



There's a reason even modern battle rifles weigh a bit. Mass really does help reduce recoil, and there's only so much you can lighten a weapon before it becomes unfit for the military.

What would be a good middle ground between the current weight of the G3A3 and the current EMBR-13?

9lbs.

There really isn't much weight at all to shave from the G3 and sticking on a retactable stock and rails will add weight (because of how the butt stocks attach to the G3 the folding and retractable stocks are heavier then the fixed stocks).

9lbs allows you add the extra features and claim some weight reduction from "super light weight polymers" which woudl only feature in the psitol grip, stock and possibly the forearm although with rails the forearm will be msotly aluminum

Immoren wrote:Bars makes sense in small arms. In autocannons bars don't give meaningful benefit.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:What BARS does is negate the felt recoil of the action's components. What this does is remove one aspect of the recoil, leaving the only felt recoil as the rearward forces of the cartridge itself firing.
Understandably, this will provide little effect on an autocannon.

How did the ASP-30 recoil then? Is it mainly just a matter of small bursts (1-3 rounds?) and a soft cradle mount (which I understand is when the gun is allowed to recoil rearwards?) How many rounds is a burst limited to for 12.7 and 14.5 in doctrine and in reality?

M621, M2 Browning

Bhelyant wrote:

Immoren wrote:Bars makes sense in small arms. In autocannons bars don't give meaningful benefit.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:What BARS does is negate the felt recoil of the action's components. What this does is remove one aspect of the recoil, leaving the only felt recoil as the rearward forces of the cartridge itself firing.
Understandably, this will provide little effect on an autocannon.

How did the ASP-30 recoil then? Is it mainly just a matter of small bursts (1-3 rounds?) and a soft cradle mount (which I understand is when the gun is allowed to recoil rearwards?) How many rounds is a burst limited to for 12.7 and 14.5 in doctrine and in reality?

M621, M2 Browning

Basically the gun's barrel and bolt group are allowed to recoil within the receiver on firing, in fact IIRC its very similar if not indentical to the XM307/XM317/XM806. Combine that with the recoil adsrobing soft mount and you would ahve realtively low felt recoil.

For a WWII-era nation, could I get by with a navy comprised of destroyers, escort carriers, frigates, etc., without having any larger, more expensive vessels such as battleships and aircraft carriers?

Sevvania wrote:For a WWII-era nation, could I get by with a navy comprised of destroyers, escort carriers, frigates, etc., without having any larger, more expensive vessels such as battleships and aircraft carriers?

Depends on what you plan to do with it. You won't be able to decisively engage and control the seas, but you could harass enemy supply vessels, and make it hard to impossible for the enemy to control the seas.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Sevvania wrote:For a WWII-era nation, could I get by with a navy comprised of destroyers, escort carriers, frigates, etc., without having any larger, more expensive vessels such as battleships and aircraft carriers?

Depends on what you plan to do with it. You won't be able to decisively engage and control the seas, but you could harass enemy supply vessels, and make it hard to impossible for the enemy to control the seas.

So for hit-and-run, guerrilla tactics, and defensive purposes, they would be more-or-less adequate?

I'm building a WWII-era nation. I have two questions, regarding a megacarrier concept.

First of all, for long-range bombing operations, would it be better to have this:


Or to develop long-range bombers, like the German Amerikabomber concept, or something the B-29 with longer range?

Second, for effective antisubmarine duties, would it be better to have that megacarrier concept equipped with antisubmarine aircraft, like the Neptune, or to build something like the Spruce Goose, a giant, very long-range antisubmarine/antiship aircraft which would be operated from my homeland, with squadrons of them performing patrols over large stretches of ocean?

Sevvania wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Depends on what you plan to do with it. You won't be able to decisively engage and control the seas, but you could harass enemy supply vessels, and make it hard to impossible for the enemy to control the seas.

So for hit-and-run, guerrilla tactics, and defensive purposes, they would be more-or-less adequate?

They would be 'good enough' for defending the coast and raiding, but as was said you'll have no real chance of engaging the enemy on the high seas or getting into their sea lines of communications with such a force. However, if your navy is not meant to do that, then that's good enough.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I'm building a WWII-era nation. I have two questions, regarding a megacarrier concept.

First of all, for long-range bombing operations, would it be better to have this:

(Image)

Or to develop long-range bombers, like the German Amerikabomber concept, or something the B-29 with longer range?

Second, for effective antisubmarine duties, would it be better to have that megacarrier concept equipped with antisubmarine aircraft, like the Neptune, or to build something like the Spruce Goose, a giant, very long-range antisubmarine/antiship aircraft which would be operated from my homeland, with squadrons of them performing patrols over large stretches of ocean?

As far as I can tell, there were problems with the Habbakuk project, namely that it would have taken up a simply insane amount of resources to build. Yes, it would have been made of pykrete, but everything else would have to be installed as well, and likely would have required the development of a new kind of ship building procedure based on the material. Moreover, I'm not sure of the research, but the ship's deployment zones would have been limited no doubt. The Habbakuk was designed for the Atlantic, and I can't imagine even a pykrete carrier doing well in tropical waters. You might be better off with a B-36 style aircraft than trying to do a Habbakuk.

What's wrong with the escort carriers that did ASW in real life? They combined with standard ASW patrols should be more than enough without having to use un-tested concepts.

I will use escort carriers for ASW duties in that case, then, and develop B-36 style bombers. But could there be any advantage to developing Spruce Goose-style aircraft? Could they effectively be employed in anything? I've had one idea, and that is to use them instead of ship convoys, as fast, heavy cargo transports. They would not be affected by enemy submarines, and I could develop a long-range fighter (think Twin Mustang crossed with a Me-262) to escort them.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I will use escort carriers for ASW duties in that case, then, and develop B-36 style bombers. But could there be any advantage to developing Spruce Goose-style aircraft? Could they effectively be employed in anything? I've had one idea, and that is to use them instead of ship convoys, as fast, heavy cargo transports. They would not be affected by enemy submarines, and I could develop a long-range fighter (think Twin Mustang crossed with a Me-262) to escort them.

If the thing could fly you could use it to deliver stuff that is too valuable to risk on a ship. But really there is no alternative to shipping. Any form of air transport would be far too expensive even today to replace the sheer tonnage you need to transport to keep any form of war going.

I suppose that is a good idea. It would of course not be able to fully replace shipping.

Another idea: a version which has several parasite fighters under the wings. It can be used to fly alongside bomber formations or such, and would release the fighters when they were needed. They fighters would then dock inflight with their carrier aircraft and be carried again.

super carriers for ww2

animu pls

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

Aqizithiuda wrote:
It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)

Huh.
So how come the Soviet rounds have a full kilo less explosive?

Also, interestingly, the warhead on the Copperhead 155mm guided shell is only a 7kg shaped charge.
Feels like all that guidance is pretty wasted in the only target of an individual munition is a single battle tank. Why not just save the money and saturate-bomb where you think the enemy armoured company is with regular 155mm rounds?
Or, why not SADARM?

Speed and accuracy. It takes a lot of dumb rounds to take out a tank; you basically have to pray for a direct hit to the roof. The number of shells involved firstly negates most of the cost advantage, but more importantly negates the time advantage; once the first shell lands, the tank is going to try to leave the target area, making it harder to saturate it. A friend in the army mentioned that 32 unguided rounds are needed on average to take out a tank. For an M109 Paladin, that's nearly a half-hour of firing.

And SADARM never entered full production. Fewer than a thousand were made, and they were not precision-guided.

Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?

The USMC only issues sidearms to corpsmen, as they already have to lug a big bag full of medical supplies with them. Throwing in a carbine and any other combat equipment would make them one of the most overburdened members of the squad (currently they carry the same weight as a rifleman, ~90 lbs).

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I will use escort carriers for ASW duties in that case, then, and develop B-36 style bombers. But could there be any advantage to developing Spruce Goose-style aircraft? Could they effectively be employed in anything? I've had one idea, and that is to use them instead of ship convoys, as fast, heavy cargo transports. They would not be affected by enemy submarines, and I could develop a long-range fighter (think Twin Mustang crossed with a Me-262) to escort them.

It's not practical. Even today, with much more powerful aircraft with longer ranges, movement of any significant quantity of materiel by air is not practical. The US thought it could do so for Desert Storm, but was forced to ship over 90% of the equipment by sea. You can ship personnel by plane, but not large amounts of equipment. The Spruce Goose itself was one of the largest aircraft ever construction, and it could only carry a single M4 Sherman.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I suppose that is a good idea. It would of course not be able to fully replace shipping.

Another idea: a version which has several parasite fighters under the wings. It can be used to fly alongside bomber formations or such, and would release the fighters when they were needed. They fighters would then dock inflight with their carrier aircraft and be carried again.

(Image)

The 'docking pole' would be used to supply fuel as well.

Lots of complexity relative to the other, much better solution: long-range fighters with drop tanks.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I suppose that is a good idea. It would of course not be able to fully replace shipping.

Another idea: a version which has several parasite fighters under the wings. It can be used to fly alongside bomber formations or such, and would release the fighters when they were needed. They fighters would then dock inflight with their carrier aircraft and be carried again.

(Image)

The 'docking pole' would be used to supply fuel as well.

I can tell you are new here. So I am going to be honest to you. There is a sort of unwritten rule about designing things and generally using stuff from the past that goes something like this. If someone (like say a nation) has in the past tried the thing you want to use and after evaluating it decided that it is utterly pointless and generally useless garbage. After which they abandoned the project like so many ET Atary cartridges and newer looked back. That means that it is in fact utterly pointless and should be abandoned. And that you should feel bad about even considering it.

An alternative wording goes: When looking at Wikipedia for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned.

My initial 'Twin Mustang crossed with Me-262' concept is what I will do. And I'm not that new, but thanks anyway.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:My initial 'Twin Mustang crossed with Me-262' concept is what I will do. And I'm not that new, but thanks anyway.

So something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH.88

Atlaniegan Union wrote:My initial 'Twin Mustang crossed with Me-262' concept is what I will do. And I'm not that new, but thanks anyway.

Do note that jets make bad dogfighters in that era, and that twin fighters are also poor at dogfighting.

Atlaniegan Union wrote:My initial 'Twin Mustang crossed with Me-262' concept is what I will do. And I'm not that new, but thanks anyway.

P-38 Lighting.

In that case, I will use regular propeller aircraft. Something like the P-38, but with greater range.

I discovered something interesting. After my last post, I scoured a local bookstore and came away with Battles of The Medieval World and began leafing through it. Did you know at the battle of Crecy in 1346 the French army had 6,000 Genoese crossbowmen, 10,000 Men At Arms (Knights and mercenaries) and 14,000 peasant militia. Further at the Battle of Tannenburg in 1410 the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem had 21,000 cavalry and 6000 infantry (I'm assuming of all types)

Purpelia wrote:

Atlaniegan Union wrote:I suppose that is a good idea. It would of course not be able to fully replace shipping.

Another idea: a version which has several parasite fighters under the wings. It can be used to fly alongside bomber formations or such, and would release the fighters when they were needed. They fighters would then dock inflight with their carrier aircraft and be carried again.

(Image)

The 'docking pole' would be used to supply fuel as well.

I can tell you are new here. So I am going to be honest to you. There is a sort of unwritten rule about designing things and generally using stuff from the past that goes something like this. If someone (like say a nation) has in the past tried the thing you want to use and after evaluating it decided that it is utterly pointless and generally useless garbage. After which they abandoned the project like so many ET Atary cartridges and newer looked back. That means that it is in fact utterly pointless and should be abandoned. And that you should feel bad about even considering it.

An alternative wording goes: When looking at Wikipedia for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned.

I wouldn't say all things that were abandoned were useless.

That being said I'm only thinking about the Australian Sentinel tank and I'm kinda biased since I am currently in love with that thing.

Welded armour, using the planned engine instead of the Perrier-Cadillac, thing would've been fuckin' nice.

Cooksland Sentinel tanks will obviously have these sorts of improvements. Also, perhaps a cupola, yes.

Registug wrote:I wouldn't say all things that were abandoned were useless.

Of course not. But if things are in fact abandoned as useless people should take note.

That being said I'm only thinking about the Australian Sentinel tank and I'm kinda biased since I am currently in love with that thing.

Well it sure beats the Bob Sample.

Purpelia wrote:

Registug wrote:I wouldn't say all things that were abandoned were useless.

Of course not. But if things are in fact abandoned as useless people should take note.

That being said I'm only thinking about the Australian Sentinel tank and I'm kinda biased since I am currently in love with that thing.

Well it sure beats the Bob Sample.

Of course it'd be the kiwis that took a corrugated water tank and turned it into a fighting tank.

Registug wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Of course not. But if things are in fact abandoned as useless people should take note.


Well it sure beats the Bob Sample.

Of course it'd be the kiwis that took a corrugated water tank and turned it into a fighting tank.

I wonder how that thing would have fared if it had been used in battle.