NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

by **Purpelia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:57 pm

Anyone know any good source aside from Wikipedia to read up on in regard to modern infantry helmets? I am talking about stuff such as materials, size, weight etc. Also, are chin straps a good idea? What about an overhang in the front like on the old Adrian helmets? Or one in the back like on the Imperial German ones?

by **Soviet Putinland** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:21 pm

I have a question about Soft Kill systems. (Like Shtora) Would it be possible for the system to cover more than one vehicle?
As in. Lets say that for some reason Tank A's Soft Kill system is occupied already, and another munition is heading towards it. Could Tank B's System jam that munition for Tank A?

by **Spirit of Hope** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:24 pm

Soviet Putinland wrote:I have a question about Soft Kill systems. (Like Shtora) Would it be possible for the system to cover more than one vehicle?
As in. Lets say that for some reason Tank A's Soft Kill system is occupied already, and another munition is heading towards it. Could Tank B's System jam that munition for Tank A?

Depends on how the Softkill system works. If it is a laser that blinds the enemy munition it could work, if the laser could align with the weapons sensors. Not all softkill systems are the same, and you have to figure out how your system works.

by **Soviet Putinland** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:41 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Soviet Putinland wrote:I have a question about Soft Kill systems. (Like Shtora) Would it be possible for the system to cover more than one vehicle?
As in. Lets say that for some reason Tank A's Soft Kill system is occupied already, and another munition is heading towards it. Could Tank B's System jam that munition for Tank A?

Depends on how the Softkill system works. If it is a laser that blinds the enemy munition it could work, if the laser could align with the weapons sensors. Not all softkill systems are the same, and you have to figure out how your system works.

I'm planning on using a Laser jammer, aerosol grenade, and threat detection combo like Shtora. But i'm planning on integrating it into my Vehicle Joint operations package. (VJOP for short) Which is designed to increase the effectiveness of vehicles working as a group. I still need to work out the specifics. But what I got now is a computerized system that tracks the movement of allied vehicles, and the field of view of their weapons. Essentially allowing the tank unit to more efficiently cover their blind spots, and engage multiple different targets without doubling up. Now that I can add the Soft kill system to that mix aswell.

by **United Earthlings** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:23 pm

Transnapastain wrote:Threads are locked and began anew at 500 pages.

Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

by **Yes Im Biop** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:26 pm

United Earthlings wrote:
Transnapastain wrote:Threads are locked and began anew at 500 pages.

Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

Fiasco a few years back when the TET Thread kinda destroyed the forum at page like? 4000?

by **Spirit of Hope** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:37 pm

Yes Im Biop wrote:
United Earthlings wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

Fiasco a few years back when the TET Thread kinda destroyed the forum at page like? 4000?

This essentially. For an unknown (to me at least) reason the servers that hold the forum apear to start bugging out when threads go to far over 500 pages.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:33 pm

United Earthlings wrote:
Transnapastain wrote:Threads are locked and began anew at 500 pages.

Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

Arbitrary limit that the admins felt would reduce server load, so the server wouldn't have to keep loading and flowing the posts into pages every time someone tried to access a thread.

Spirit of Hope wrote:This essentially. For an unknown (to me at least) reason the servers that hold the forum apear to start bugging out when threads go to far over 500 pages.

The server has to check through the entire thread to properly flow it onto pages (notice how the specific page URLs are by post number, not by page number). Thus, longer threads require a lot more resources, particularly for very long and very popular threads like TET.

Purpelia wrote:Anyone know any good source aside from Wikipedia to read up on in regard to modern infantry helmets? I am talking about stuff such as materials, size, weight etc. Also, are chin straps a good idea? What about an overhang in the front like on the old Adrian helmets? Or one in the back like on the Imperial German ones?

Kit Up is a decent place to read up on infantry gear of all sorts. I know they've covered helmets in the past. They're mostly a news and review site though but they do have lots of links in their articles to other sources.

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:What sort of manpower am I looking at for a nation of almost 2.6 Billion, 13% defence budget, 89% Public sector economy, and 95% economy rating?

The culture is quite heavily militarised, and there's 1 year's mandatory armed service for all citizens of good health.
(do go ahead and check my nation's stats if you think I've missed out anything relevant)

13% of GDP or 13% of your government budget to defense? The former is ludicrous, the latter is more reasonable.

by **San-Silvacian** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:43 pm

United Earthlings wrote:
Transnapastain wrote:Threads are locked and began anew at 500 pages.

Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

Admins can't count over 500.

They start going haywire after that.

by **Novayan Unifed Republics** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:35 am

Well, I did a thread in Spacebattles a while back about using electro-motive (i.e. railguns/coilguns) in tanks. There was a bit on the US having a tank improvement program that gave some theoretical stats and size of a tank using an EM weapon... and a theoretical tank that the think tank came up with said that 'it would be up to twice as wide as an Abrams' and showed a rough silhouette of such a tank... and it was near twice the width of an Abrams.

Just asking, using an 80 ton chassis, what is the heaviest round mass when the velocity is 3.5km/s or 5km/s?

Also, would a tank with an operable thermo-optic cammo system with other active cammo systems be practical?

by **Grand Britannia** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:46 am

San-Silvacian wrote:
United Earthlings wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why 500 pages exactly?

Admins can't count over 500.

They start going haywire after that.

Ah, Gaben syndrome.

by **Samozaryadnyastan** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:39 am

San-Silvacian wrote:
The Caldari Union wrote:Can a 2K11 Krug missile shoot down anything these days even if only helicopters?

Not even helicopters with todays modern jamming and other ECM systems.

*points out blue-on-blue AIM-120 versus UH-60*

Soviet Putinland wrote:I have a question about Soft Kill systems. (Like Shtora) Would it be possible for the system to cover more than one vehicle?
As in. Lets say that for some reason Tank A's Soft Kill system is occupied already, and another munition is heading towards it. Could Tank B's System jam that munition for Tank A?

It'd be difficult.

Directed soft and hardkill systems work by watching the projectile in flight and deciding whether it is or is not a threat to the vehicle (ie, if the trajectory will hit, come close or miss).
Your system will now have to have each tank talk to each other and say where each on is, and then be capable of analysing whether or not the trajectory is a threat to the vehicles of the unit.
It might just overtax them.

Novayan Unifed Republics wrote:Well, I did a thread in Spacebattles a while back about using electro-motive (i.e. railguns/coilguns) in tanks. There was a bit on the US having a tank improvement program that gave some theoretical stats and size of a tank using an EM weapon... and a theoretical tank that the think tank came up with said that 'it would be up to twice as wide as an Abrams' and showed a rough silhouette of such a tank... and it was near twice the width of an Abrams.

Just asking, using an 80 ton chassis, what is the heaviest round mass when the velocity is 3.5km/s or 5km/s?

Also, would a tank with an operable thermo-optic cammo system with other active cammo systems be practical?

5km/s is ludicrously fast.
It's Mach 15. It's two-thirds of escape velocity.

There are three things that travel that fast, and two of them are powered by explosive force.

A 5km/s projectile at 1kg already offers you 25MJ, which is low ballpark what a 140mm ETC might offer, which is the kind of energy that an 80t tank can withstand, with recoil measures in force.

by **Soviet Putinland** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:47 am

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:
It'd be difficult.

Directed soft and hardkill systems work by watching the projectile in flight and deciding whether it is or is not a threat to the vehicle (ie, if the trajectory will hit, come close or miss).
Your system will now have to have each tank talk to each other and say where each on is, and then be capable of analysing whether or not the trajectory is a threat to the vehicles of the unit.
It might just overtax them.

As I said in my reply to Spirit of Hope, I have plans for a system that will link Armored Vehicles together to improve group effectiveness. Could a system that would electronically connects each tank, Such as the one i'm suggesting Allow soft kill systems to work in this way?

by **Samozaryadnyastan** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:58 am

Systems do exist specifically to trade targeting information between vehicles of a unit, yes.

Demanding the system now calculate further to see if it may strike other vehicles in the unit may critically slow its reaction time, though.
If you have a series of sub-radars (lol) - one to engage and a separate one to decided the threat of it and have the threat-acquisition radar be the one that shares information.
That would presumably allow other vehicles to engage if possible - but again, with a reduced reaction time.

by **Soviet Putinland** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:03 am

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Systems do exist specifically to trade targeting information between vehicles of a unit, yes.

Demanding the system now calculate further to see if it may strike other vehicles in the unit may critically slow its reaction time, though.
If you have a series of sub-radars (lol) - one to engage and a separate one to decided the threat of it and have the threat-acquisition radar be the one that shares information.
That would presumably allow other vehicles to engage if possible - but again, with a reduced reaction time.

I'll probably do that then. Slower reaction time or not.Its just something to add an extra layer of protection, Which would increase a tankers confidence. That helps even if the system doesn't work as planned. Besides I think if so many ATGMS and the like are being fired that a vehicles countermeasures are overwhelmed, Something probably has gone horribly wrong.

by **European Prussia** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:08 am

My Nation's ration

by **The Kievan People** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:16 am

Soviet Putinland wrote:I'll probably do that then. Slower reaction time or not.Its just something to add an extra layer of protection, Which would increase a tankers confidence. That helps even if the system doesn't work as planned. Besides I think if so many ATGMS and the like are being fired that a vehicles countermeasures are overwhelmed, Something probably has gone horribly wrong.

Waste of money. If a tank is being saturated with fire, it can pop smoke.

by **Samozaryadnyastan** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:16 am

A half second delay is easily enough to let a munition slip through the cordon.

by **Transnapastain** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:17 am

Soviet Putinland wrote:
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Systems do exist specifically to trade targeting information between vehicles of a unit, yes.

Demanding the system now calculate further to see if it may strike other vehicles in the unit may critically slow its reaction time, though.
If you have a series of sub-radars (lol) - one to engage and a separate one to decided the threat of it and have the threat-acquisition radar be the one that shares information.
That would presumably allow other vehicles to engage if possible - but again, with a reduced reaction time.

I'll probably do that then. Slower reaction time or not.Its just something to add an extra layer of protection, Which would increase a tankers confidence. That helps even if the system doesn't work as planned. Besides I think if so many ATGMS and the like are being fired that a vehicles countermeasures are overwhelmed, Something probably has gone horribly wrong.

its only going to increase the crews confidence (I'd actually call it false hope if the system doesn't function as planned) until the system fails to work enough for crews to figure out they can't rely on it.

Then its dead weight.

by **Lamoni** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:35 am

European Prussia:

To get the obvious out of the way, it looks like a barely modified German EPa.

Now for the problems/suggestions...

1.) Add a multi-vitamin tablet to all of the rations. While rations should provide most nutrients that a soldier needs, they often can't provide all of them. A good multi-vitamin will help you with this.

2.) Are you using one-time foldable Esbit stoves, or do your soldiers carry their own (better) Esbit stoves as part of their kit?

3.) You're only adding how much Food/Drink is in what container (in grams) for the main dishes. You should include it for the other things, as well. This will give you a better idea of how much that your soldiers are carrying into battle, which has other uses.

4.) Crackers are generally a better idea for "ration bread" than canned breads are. Crackers last longer, and can be placed nearer the center of the ration, where they tend to take less damage from rough handling. They can also be nutritionally enriched just as easily as canned breads can be.

5.) How many matches in the box? There should be at least 10, which allows you to light the Esbit tabs, as well as handling any firestarting needs that your troops might have.

6.) I'd go with at least six water purification tablets, due to the simple fact that soldiers will be drinking LOTS of water while on training or in combat. You will be wanting to keep up with that, so that your soldiers don't get dehydrated.

7.) Instead of using two plastic bags, it'd be easier (and less wasteful) if you used one larger plastic bag.

8.) You might give consideration to changing things like sides or drinks in different rations (more than you already have). In this way, your troops will not get tired with the rations as quickly, which helps with overall soldier morale. For example, one ration has a chocolate bar, while another has boiled sweets.

9.) I will give you kudos for having 21 different ration menus. Pursuant to point #8, this will help to improve overall soldier morale.

***

If you'd like help with your rations, i've made a special study of them (including posting a list of RL and NS rations up on the NSDraftroom, and I run a military ration storefront on GE&T, which you can find here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=212763

by **Soviet Putinland** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:43 am

The Kievan People wrote:
Soviet Putinland wrote:I'll probably do that then. Slower reaction time or not.Its just something to add an extra layer of protection, Which would increase a tankers confidence. That helps even if the system doesn't work as planned. Besides I think if so many ATGMS and the like are being fired that a vehicles countermeasures are overwhelmed, Something probably has gone horribly wrong.

Waste of money. If a tank is being saturated with fire, it can pop smoke.

I now realize this, I'm not going to use it.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:A half second delay is easily enough to let a munition slip through the cordon.

A well aimed missile will hit the vehicle regardless of whether its being jammed or not. These systems reduce the likelyhood of being hit, Not completely prevent them.

by **Nirvash Type TheEND** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:56 am

Lamoni wrote:European Prussia:

If you'd like help with your rations, i've made a special study of them (including posting a list of RL and NS rations up on the NSDraftroom,

Actually I'd like a link to that thread.

by **Galla-** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:05 am

An rcir appears.

by **Lamoni** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:08 am

by **Nirvash Type TheEND** » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:22 am

Galla- wrote:An rcir appears.

>a paper or something

I was going to say that's quite silly, but then I remembered that the directions on an American MRE say to prop it up against 'rock or something' during heating.

Also, thank you Lamoni. I think using this I might draft an in depth study of the characteristics common on a broad scale and write a guide for creating the master race of rations.

With due credit ofc

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

Who will OP the next realism consolation thread?

Who is online