NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[East Vlaricstan]

I just need some one to make a super heavy tank because I cannot into line art </3

her u go:

Red = Armour
Brown = 350mm L/15 ETC Rifled Cannon
Blue = Bustle Ammunition Autoloader (which can hold a whole 1 round of ammunition!)
Purple = Crew Compartment (because driver-in-turret is best-in-turret)
Grey = 3000kW Engine

Question: how would one go about on a island-hopping campaign in an MT setting? I assume it'd be much like that of the Pacific Theatre during WW2, but long-range munitions are a major factor.

[Ea90]

Question: how would one go about on a island-hopping campaign in an MT setting?

By requesting one tactical nuclear strike on each island

[East Vlaricstan]

Question: how would one go about on a island-hopping campaign in an MT setting?

By requesting one tactical nuclear strike on each island

Can't, since I'm supposedly 'liberating' said islands.

[GHawkins]

Question: how would one go about on a island-hopping campaign in an MT setting? I assume it'd be much like that of the Pacific Theatre during WW2, but long-range munitions are a major factor.

Isolate each island with a naval fleet. I don't know in what scale of islands I should think (The size of Wake island or the size of Okinawa?), but you have to cut off your enemy's supply lines. After that, you target critical structures with precision ordinance such as cruise missiles or smart bombs. Land the marines to mop up whatever is left after having taken out fortifications, missile sites, command and control stations, power stations, etcetera.

At least, that's how it might work. Don't know all other factors involved.

[East Vlaricstan]

Question: how would one go about on a island-hopping campaign in an MT setting? I assume it'd be much like that of the Pacific Theatre during WW2, but long-range munitions are a major factor.

Isolate each island with a naval fleet. I don't know in what scale of islands I should think (The size of Wake island or the size of Okinawa?), but you have to cut off your enemy's supply lines. After that, you target critical structures with precision ordinance such as cruise missiles or smart bombs. Land the marines to mop up whatever is left after having taken out fortifications, missile sites, command and control stations, power stations, etcetera.

At least, that's how it might work. Don't know all other factors involved.

Naval dominance, then smoke em' out.

Got it.

[Galla-]

So should I be sending super heavy tanks as breakthrough units.

I just need some one to make a super heavy tank because I cannot into line art </3

[Vitaphone Racing]

Where is this third engine going to go? In the bomb-aimers position?

I imagine the engine fitting front and center Ju-52 style. The layout was used on bombers during WW2 so the proof of concept is there. The bomb aiming guy would sit in a separate blister under the hull or something. So he would get a front-down view.

I've said this before, but just because something has been done doesn't mean it was a good idea. The list of bad designs that somehow managed to swindle investors into funding them is indeed long and has some pretty prestigious names on there.

The Ju-52 was never meant to be a medium bomber, it was a cargo plane. And it wasn't a very good medium bomber either. Yes, it is possible to have a three engine bomber and have a blister pod underneath where the aimer can look, but it's not a good idea. For one, he can't sit too close to the front because of the engine. He can't sit in the wing box because of the bomb-bay. So really, he ends up sitting behind the bomb bay in the rear-most section of the fuselage which isn't a really prime place to be sitting when you need to aim bombs as you're pretty well limited in what you can see forwards-wise.

Just choose between two or four engines and don't bother dealing with the flaws of three engines.

[Registug]

Isolate each island with a naval fleet. I don't know in what scale of islands I should think (The size of Wake island or the size of Okinawa?), but you have to cut off your enemy's supply lines. After that, you target critical structures with precision ordinance such as cruise missiles or smart bombs. Land the marines to mop up whatever is left after having taken out fortifications, missile sites, command and control stations, power stations, etcetera.

At least, that's how it might work. Don't know all other factors involved.

Naval dominance, then smoke em' out.

Got it.

Basically the same way as you would take a fortified city on land.

If you had the naval power and the time to do so you could probably just blockade the island from receiving supplies and wait for their surrender.

[GHawkins]

Naval dominance, then smoke em' out.

Got it.

Still don't know the full situation or who you're up against, but you might also want to introduce a propaganda campaign along with the island hopping.

It's better to have the enemy surrender than lose your men when you have to kill them. Leaflet drops urging them to surrender so that they can go home, that they'll be treated humanely (whether you do is up to you). If there's no risk of AA fire, have helicopters use speakers to announce surrender pleas. Use previous victories against them, specifically by naming islands that have already fallen to your troops and asking them if they want the same fate.

Psychological warfare at its best.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

By requesting one tactical nuclear strike on each island

Can't, since I'm supposedly 'liberating' said islands.

Liberate them from this hellish existence that is life.

[Anemos Major]

"practical useable power" is a weird term to use tbh. Aircraft will take off and climb at full throttle, cruise at 70-80% and descend at 20%. You can use full power whenever you want, it's just you don't always need to. Unless the aircraft is placed into an uncontrollable dive, I highly doubt it's ever going to approach the structural V-max.

It's not an odd term at all - especially since this is in reference to level flight, not take-off (when an aircraft uses its full throttle power regardless of what engine it mounts and what kind of aircraft it is). A long range, high speed bomber is probably going to have fairly long transit times that take it to targets that make full use of its range envelope; it won't exceed the immediate structural limits, sure, but there's a reason most airspeed indicators (I know there was one the last time I flew) distinguish between the never exceed speed and the structural cruising maximum (which is somewhat lower). There's an airspeed envelope between the two where the potential for structural damage, though not immediate, exists anyway and for an aircraft being used in level flight most of the time that's a fairly important consideration (since it'll be spending most of its time at cruise speed). Even if you don't suffer immediate problems, operating beyond a certain threshold would mean a far higher risk of longer term structural fatigue and problematic wear and tear - for a bomber, that's enough of a consideration to warrant the distinction between the 6000hp of power its engines have and the amount of power from that 6000hp they'll be using for most of their flying life.

[Anemos Major]

I imagine the engine fitting front and center Ju-52 style. The layout was used on bombers during WW2 so the proof of concept is there. The bomb aiming guy would sit in a separate blister under the hull or something. So he would get a front-down view.

There's no questioning the fact that dedicated three-engined bombers didn't exist, though the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Alcione, but there're few reasons to obstruct the forward visual arc of your bomber like that. Bear in mind that you'll get your required performance with a conventional engine layout while making thing a bit easier for your crew, who'll have a bit more room and a better view of the ground below (it's not just the bombardier who has to be able to see the ground, the pilot needs to be able to navigate to the bombing area as well).

[The Akasha Colony]

If the esteemed members of this thread will forgive my haste, the next NSMRC thread is up already since I will likely be away today when this thread reaches page 500 and gets locked. I know it may seem premature but I'd rather avoid what happened to the MBT/MGV thread when the new thread wasn't unlocked by the time the old one was locked. The thread link is here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=253310

If anyone has any suggestions to add to the OP, feel free to post them here or in the new thread.

[The Kievan People]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Bugle_R80M1

bill 2 + javelin GLATGM

Seems odd that the entire munition can be defeated by the autoloader loading the round a few degrees off-axis.

This would be why the TOW missile has a gyro to measure roll.

Measuring and controlling roll is a fundamental part of missile guidance and control and every missile deals with it somehow. Rolling airframe missiles (the titular RAM and almost every Soviet/Russian ATGM) roll continuously at a fixed rate, some command guided missiles have their roll tracked by the fire control system and most standard missiles have an internal roll rate sensor of some sort. Usually a gyro, but magnetic roll sensors are now a thing.

[Dragomere]

I fixed most of it; however, do not see why I would need to spend more money to train more men for exclusive tank/artillery training.

LINK

[Elan Valleys]

I imagine the engine fitting front and center Ju-52 style. The layout was used on bombers during WW2 so the proof of concept is there. The bomb aiming guy would sit in a separate blister under the hull or something. So he would get a front-down view.

There's no questioning the fact that dedicated three-engined bombers didn't exist, though the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Alcione, but there're few reasons to obstruct the forward visual arc of your bomber like that. Bear in mind that you'll get your required performance with a conventional engine layout while making thing a bit easier for your crew, who'll have a bit more room and a better view of the ground below (it's not just the bombardier who has to be able to see the ground, the pilot needs to be able to navigate to the bombing area as well).

The Sparviero also had a trimotor design.

It's worth mentioning that the B model for export came with only two engines and a glass nose for the bomb aimer, and that the Italian trimotor versions were relegated swiftly to torpedo attacks (where the pilot does the aiming)

[Anemos Major]

I fixed most of it; however, do not see why I would need to spend more money to train more men for exclusive tank/artillery training.

LINK

Look at it this way. If one recruit spends a few months training to become an infantryman, another spends a few months training to become a tank crewman, another spends a few months training to become an artilleryman and so on and so forth for every job you've clumped into that one category (ranging from cook to quartermaster to anti-aircraft gunner to combat engineer to army air corps pilot), how many months and how much money will you need to train each soldier in every role required for your army to continue functioning before you send them off to the frontline to die in a few minutes because they can't remember anything they need to remember under all the useless rubble you've shovelled into their heads?

[Anemos Major]

The Sparviero also had a trimotor design.

It's worth mentioning that the B model for export came with only two engines and a glass nose for the bomb aimer, and that the Italian trimotor versions were relegated swiftly to torpedo attacks (where the pilot does the aiming)

Yep, but even the Sparviero was designed as a passenger plane

(and you're indeed right, it wasn't doing too well by the middle of the war)

[Dragomere]

I fixed most of it; however, do not see why I would need to spend more money to train more men for exclusive tank/artillery training.

LINK

Look at it this way. If one recruit spends a few months training to become an infantryman, another spends a few months training to become a tank crewman, another spends a few months training to become an artilleryman and so on and so forth for every job you've clumped into that one category (ranging from cook to quartermaster to anti-aircraft gunner to combat engineer to army air corps pilot), how many months and how much money will you need to train each soldier in every role required for your army to continue functioning before you send them off to the frontline to die in a few minutes because they can't remember anything they need to remember under all the useless rubble you've shovelled into their heads?

One year of training.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Seems odd that the entire munition can be defeated by the autoloader loading the round a few degrees off-axis.

This would be why the TOW missile has a gyro to measure roll.

Measuring and controlling roll is a fundamental part of missile guidance and control and every missile deals with it somehow. Rolling airframe missiles (the titular RAM and almost every Soviet/Russian ATGM) roll continuously at a fixed rate, some command guided missiles have their roll tracked by the fire control system and most standard missiles have an internal roll rate sensor of some sort. Usually a gyro, but magnetic roll sensors are now a thing.

But what Mat was suggesting was that if the round is loaded into the gun at the incorrect angle, the entire munition essentially "fails".
This isn't an issue in flight.

[Anemos Major]

One year of training.

You could literally force the combat manuals in through their ears* and it'd still take a lot longer than one year, trust me.

* don't try this at home

[Anemos Major]

But what Mat was suggesting was that if the round is loaded into the gun at the incorrect angle, the entire munition essentially "fails".
This isn't an issue in flight.

That's true, but also...

not a few degrees. but like if you loaded it "upside down" so to speak...

I think the implication here is that the incorrect angle has to be pretty incorrect indeed before the munition becomes inoperable. I can't name too many rounds off the top of my head which work if you loaded it upside down, for one.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I cannot understand why upon any level loading a round at any angle whatsoever could affect munition performance.

[Galla-]

I cannot understand why upon any level loading a round at any angle whatsoever could affect munition performance.

Because it has to interface with the tank computer via infrared.

Because mat's tank is from 1985 I guess. I mean jesus, infrared data transfer what the actual fuck.

[Anemos Major]

I cannot understand why upon any level loading a round at any angle whatsoever could affect munition performance.

Because in this particular case, he never said anything about affecting munition performance - the issue in question was that the guidance system wouldn't be able to operate if loaded incorrectly due to its inability to create a data sharing connection via the missile's IR ports.

When the missile is loaded into the barrel it connects via an infrared link to the tank's system. If the missile is loaded wrongly the infrared ports will not align and the missile won't be able to take any data.

(a round chambered upside down would cause a fair few problems concerning munitions performance too, mind, but I suppose that's not the issue at hand)