NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Tongola]

Why not just have crew cab pickups? IIRC they started making those a long while ago so if you RP old Hiluxes there probably exist crew cab variants even for those.

Just just as easily cram a bunch of people in the bed of the truck alongside the gun too

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Why not just have crew cab pickups? IIRC they started making those a long while ago so if you RP old Hiluxes there probably exist crew cab variants even for those.

Just just as easily cram a bunch of people in the bed of the truck alongside the gun too

Doesn't make a lot of sense, but if you've made up your mind at least go this way



(ignore crew cab and rollcage) and mount your gun to the front of the bed above the roof so the poor fellows actually have a bit of room in there. Bolt some planks to the sides of the bed and you have benches. Do note that you will lose your capability to rotate the gun 360 degrees if you mount the weapon like this. Well obviously there's nothing stopping the gun from turning but there's nowhere for the gunner to go. You can only go under +- 90. Actually even 45 or over would probably be hard to pull off.

[Tongola]

Doesn't make a lot of sense, but if you've made up your mind at least go this way

(Image)

(ignore crew cab and rollcage) and mount your gun to the front of the bed above the roof so the poor fellows actually have a bit of room in there. Bolt some planks to the sides of the bed and you have benches. Do note that you will lose your capability to rotate the gun 360 degrees if you mount the weapon like this. Well obviously there's nothing stopping the gun from turning but there's nowhere for the gunner to go.

That's kinda what I was thinking of doing

Only reason I'm not using crew cabs is because (as far as I can discern) there were no crew cab models of the Hiluxes and landrover trucks during the 80s (when most of my trucks were probably built)

EDIT: should probably have said, most of the crew cab trucks my military does have are used by motorized infantry units that cannot get 6x6 utility trucks

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Doesn't make a lot of sense, but if you've made up your mind at least go this way

(Image)

(ignore crew cab and rollcage) and mount your gun to the front of the bed above the roof so the poor fellows actually have a bit of room in there. Bolt some planks to the sides of the bed and you have benches. Do note that you will lose your capability to rotate the gun 360 degrees if you mount the weapon like this. Well obviously there's nothing stopping the gun from turning but there's nowhere for the gunner to go.

That's kinda what I was thinking of doing

Only reason I'm not using crew cabs is because (as far as I can discern) there were no crew cab models of the Hiluxes and landrover trucks during the 80s (when most of my trucks were probably built)

EDIT: should probably have said, most of the crew cab trucks my military does have are used by motorized infantry units that cannot get 6x6 utility trucks

Suit yourself, but from a quick glance on Wikipedia I see that every Hilux generation starting with '78-'83 had crew cab.

But I understand that you want to differentiate between just scouts and motor infantry.

IMO a better choice for broke motor inf would be even 4x4 utility trucks if you have them.

[Zeinbrad]

How exactly effective was the Flak 88 (I think it's actually called the Flak 18 but I could be wrong) against aircraft and late war tanks? By aircraft I don't mean P-47's, as I think they would have to get really really lucky to hit that, but slower moving bombers.

[Tongola]

IMO a better choice for broke motor inf would be even 4x4 utility trucks if you have them.

(Image)

Currently my motorized infantry use whatever utility trucks I can find, so they have a mix of 4x4s, 4x6s and 6x6s

[Auroya]

Does it make much sense for a light fighter to have capability for airborne refueling?

[New Vihenia]

Does it make much sense for a light fighter to have capability for airborne refueling?

Currently.. every light fighter have such capability or upgrades are underway to make them capable to do so.

[Auroya]

Right-o.

Also, there should be no problems combining a deceleron with a flaperon, right?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How exactly effective was the Flak 88 (I think it's actually called the Flak 18 but I could be wrong) against aircraft and late war tanks? By aircraft I don't mean P-47's, as I think they would have to get really really lucky to hit that, but slower moving bombers.

Even with massive bunker complexes such as anti-aircraft towers in Berlin, the RAF and USAAF bombers was able to arrive over the target area with as much as 80-90% of their strength remaining, anti-aircraft guns without radar firecontrol like you see with the Mark 37 GFCS and shooting at comparatively very close ranges could count their kills by the barrel (also known as an very rare event).

[New Vihenia]

Right-o.

Also, there should be no problems combining a deceleron with a flaperon, right?

No. With current FBW and digital flight control system.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

How exactly effective was the Flak 88 (I think it's actually called the Flak 18 but I could be wrong) against aircraft and late war tanks? By aircraft I don't mean P-47's, as I think they would have to get really really lucky to hit that, but slower moving bombers.

There were several versions of the 88 - the full name was 8.8cm Flugzeugabwehrkanone 18/36/37/41, or just acht-acht. It surprisingly wasn't nearly as excellent as killing aircraft as it was tanks; there were more powerful guns in service which could reach much higher to hit the bigger and better planes. It wasn't poor at killing aircraft, just meh. It was very much overshadowed in the aircraft-killing role by the development of the VT fuse. Early on when it was used in the Spanish Civil War it was a great AAA platform, but not later on.

However, it was truly excellent at killing tanks. Early in the war, the 88 was the only gun capable of killing the very well armored tanks like the T-34, KV series, Char tanks, and Matildas deployed against the inferior early Panzers. Aiding it were the excellent German optics, on their tanks as well as towed guns, which allowed them to strike at record ranges(though more on the vast, open steppes of Russia) and score hits with much greater accuracy.

The Flak 88 was widely feared by tankers, and rightfully so. It was more than capable of killing the two primary tanks of the allies - the T-34 and Sherman - at almost any reasonable range. It was even theoretically capable of killing late-war heavies like the Pershing and IS from medium-close range. The vehicle-borne variants(KwK 36 and 43) were again excellent guns in their own right, but not quite the same as the Flak guns.

Bottom line, it was great for tank killing, so-so at plane killing. Generally, for killing planes in WWII combat, you need planes of your own; flak defenses are only so good and can easily be overwhelmed by massed bomber formations.

[Zeinbrad]

How exactly effective was the Flak 88 (I think it's actually called the Flak 18 but I could be wrong) against aircraft and late war tanks? By aircraft I don't mean P-47's, as I think they would have to get really really lucky to hit that, but slower moving bombers.

Even with massive bunker complexes such as anti-aircraft towers in Berlin, the RAF and USAAF bombers was able to arrive over the target area with as much as 80-90% of their strength remaining, anti-aircraft guns without radar firecontrol like you see with the Mark 37 GFCS and shooting at comparatively very close ranges could count their kills by the barrel (also known as an very rare event).

Even with Luftwaffe interceptors? (The 80-90%)

From what I've seen, AA guns are less of a "They will not attack here" and more of a deterrent to sending Aircraft into a battle. I feel I worded that weird.

[Elan Valleys]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

youll probably want a heavier lifting copter like a CH-53 variant

[Korva]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

is this just for your land forces?

if not, some kind of naval helicopter

[Elan Valleys]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

is this just for your land forces?

if not, some kind of naval helicopter

Landlocked.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

is this just for your land forces?

if not, some kind of naval helicopter

just NH-90 bro

but try not to fail like the real NH-90 did

[Crookfur]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

if you are using a light utility design then you porbabaly want a bigger medium transport to fill the gap to the chinook and act as an assault transport i.e. Puma, Commando or possibly Merlin.

[The Akasha Colony]

There were several versions of the 88 - the full name was 8.8cm Flugzeugabwehrkanone 18/36/37/41, or just acht-acht. It surprisingly wasn't nearly as excellent as killing aircraft as it was tanks; there were more powerful guns in service which could reach much higher to hit the bigger and better planes. It wasn't poor at killing aircraft, just meh. It was very much overshadowed in the aircraft-killing role by the development of the VT fuse. Early on when it was used in the Spanish Civil War it was a great AAA platform, but not later on.

However, it was truly excellent at killing tanks. Early in the war, the 88 was the only gun capable of killing the very well armored tanks like the T-34, KV series, Char tanks, and Matildas deployed against the inferior early Panzers. Aiding it were the excellent German optics, on their tanks as well as towed guns, which allowed them to strike at record ranges(though more on the vast, open steppes of Russia) and score hits with much greater accuracy.

The Flak 88 was widely feared by tankers, and rightfully so. It was more than capable of killing the two primary tanks of the allies - the T-34 and Sherman - at almost any reasonable range. It was even theoretically capable of killing late-war heavies like the Pershing and IS from medium-close range. The vehicle-borne variants(KwK 36 and 43) were again excellent guns in their own right, but not quite the same as the Flak guns.

Bottom line, it was great for tank killing, so-so at plane killing. Generally, for killing planes in WWII combat, you need planes of your own; flak defenses are only so good and can easily be overwhelmed by massed bomber formations.

Early engagements using the Flak 36 against tanks were not frequent or spectacular. It took an average of 11 rounds to kill a tank with the Flak 36, and despite being "so-so" at anti-aircraft work, it claimed far more planes than all ground targets combined in the Battle of France.

[Crookfur]

I don't see how 12 vehicles could be a platoon. A platoon is normally 3 (for Soviet motor inf and tanks) to 6 (for e.g. US scout humvees iirc) .

A 4 or 5 vehicle platoon should be sufficient. Just have crew cab pickups that can fit 4 guys (or 5 if you really want to) in the cab and then a gunner in the bed and you should be golden. Or if 5-6 guys are too little for a squad (which they kind of are) have 6 vehicles with three 2-vehicle/10-man squads.

I had a 12 vehicle platoon because each vehicle only carries the driver (who is the vehicle commander) and 1 or 2 gunners, although I can bring it down to 6 vehicles if that makes more sense.

A 12 vehciles platoon could if you split it down to 3 vechiels sectiosn of 4. You probabaly want a big hitter truck in each section So you would be down to nine across the company but gain a lot more flexibility. Oh and you proabably want a truck or two for the platoon HQ (most likely two a pair of gun trucks or a gun truck plus a bigger support/supply wagon like a unimog or ACMAT as a "mothership") and a bigger HQ element at company level so you could be gettign clsoe to 50 trucks at company level.

As mentioned you are working at an organisational level below where things normally sit for combat vehciles (where each vehcile takes the place of a section/squad) buts its not unworkable for light strike vehicles

[Inyourfaceistan]

If I have a scout helicopter (Gazelle or Loach), attack helicopter (UK Apache), utility helicopter (Huey or Lynx) and lift helicopter (Chinook), have I got my rotary-wing bases covered or am I missing something?

youll probably want a heavier lifting copter like a CH-53 variant

Mi-26 could easily fulfill this role, correct?

Also, as far as tank hunting goes, the AH-1Z has a lot of the same systems as the Apache, and I beleive the same amount of hard points (lemme check); so I don't see why any fast helicopter with Longbow radar and Hellfire missiles wouldn't make a good tank-buster?

[Elan Valleys]

I doubt the cost difference is enough to make it worth the lower capability.

[Questers]

Apache looks a lot cooler than AH-1Z. AH-1Z is anorexic.

[Gallan Systems]

Gunships are better as Kat Tsuns.

Save the Skyenets for transporting ammunition or whatever. ):

e: S-s-stop i-it CH-47 s-senpai you're making me w-wet, baka!