NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Urulandia]

My first attempt at drawing a weapon. Does it look like it could actually work? I'm not that knowledgeable about guns but I wanted to custom make something for my nation. Is there anything I should add. Maybe a tutorial for line art guns that could help me.

Some info on the gun:

It shoots 5.56mm
The barrel is 18 inches
It weighs 7.5 pounds (empty)
Magazine: 35+1
Steel and wood make up the majority of the weapon, however the polymer is used to replace the wood on other models.

[Spirit of Hope]

My first attempt at drawing a weapon. Does it look like it could actually work? I'm not that knowledgeable about guns but I wanted to custom make something for my nation. Is there anything I should add. Maybe a tutorial for line art guns that could help me.

(Image)

Some info on the gun:

It shoots 5.56mm
The barrel is 18 inches
It weighs 7.5 pounds (empty)
Magazine: 35+1
Steel and wood make up the majority of the weapon, however the polymer is used to replace the wood on other models.

Where is the action/ejection? As in where is the hot brass being spat out from so that a new round can be fired?

[The Akasha Colony]

Okay, this is my first attempt at making proper line art for my sub. Is there anything in particular I'm missing on the outside I need to draw in? (I'm sure there is...)

It depends how detailed you want to get...

There should be some valves/holes at the bow and stern to allow water into and out of the ballast tanks.

A flank sonar array of some sort, either a multi-part array like the US WAA or a single larger array like the British and French type. Also, possibly a retraction point for the towed sonar array?

A propeller of some sort...

Where is your ventral stern plane? Is it that spike? The ventral plane is the most important one since it's the only control surface a submarine has while surfaced. On that note, if you wish you can add detailing to the planes showing which specific parts move. The bow planes could also be made slightly smaller but this isn't a big deal so it doesn't really matter hugely.

Launch tubes for decoys, if you expect to have/use them could be added.

Coolant scoops for the reactor, as well as water intakes for general ship use. On a related note, vents for dumping used water overboard.

There are also purely aesthetic things like paint schemes, water level indicators, and such. Beyond that, it'll also look more "complete" once details on existing parts are drawn, such as on the missile hatches, sail, and periscopes/antennas.

If you're interested, here's a bunch of good pictures of the Russian Akula-class, which can illustrate how some of these things look from a different perspective.

Also, did I do those torpedo tubes right? I'm not totally certain where they should be, longitudinally speaking. Or how they should be drawn properly...

I would consider moving the torpedo room and thus the torpedo tubes up one deck. For one, it makes it easier to reload since the torpedo loading hatch doesn't need to go through every single deck to reach the torpedo room, and it improves space arrangements in the room itself.

Also, are there any other roles for UUVs besides sonar, minesweeping, and acoustic decoying?

With sonar you cover the important part. It's what the UUV does with the sonar after it has it that's the question. If you trust it enough, you could even arm it if you wished, and have it autonomously detect and attack targets in a given area while the "mothership" sits at a safe distance, beyond the expected ASW cordon.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I have something of a confession: I have a massive hard on for chemical warfare.

Do you all think chemical weapons have a place on the modern battlefield, and if so, how would you use them, and to what extent against which enemies?

[Korouse]

I have something of a confession: I have a massive hard on for chemical warfare.

Do you all think chemical weapons have a place on the modern battlefield, and if so, how would you use them, and to what extent against which enemies?

well some are kinda banned, so yeah...

[The Nuclear Fist]

I have something of a confession: I have a massive hard on for chemical warfare.

Do you all think chemical weapons have a place on the modern battlefield, and if so, how would you use them, and to what extent against which enemies?

well some are kinda banned, so yeah...

I'm thinking more in terms of usefulness in NS war rather than IRL, should have specified.

[Allanea]

Okay it's that one again.

No, chemical weapons don't have a meaningful place on the modern battlefield.

1. Protecting against chemical weapons is very easy.

2. Any chemical weapons that endanger the enemy also endanger you, which means your troops also need to wear NBC suits etc.

3. Chemical weapons are affected by weather (air temperature, wind, rain, snow). Note that even if you have a detailed wind map -which you often won't in wartime - you will not have detailed plans of every which random air current 40 km away where you're dropping the chemweapons.

4, Generally it's better and more effective to drop HE-F shells than the same amount of chemical weapons shells.

5. The exception to the above rule is weapons where the main effect is explosive or incendiary, but there is a poisonous effect a byproduct. White Phosphorous is extremely effective because it's prime effect is to MELT STEEL AND VAPORIZE FLESH... the poisonous smoke is just kind of a happy side effect...

[The Nuclear Fist]

What about CFL3?

[Allanea]

Are you a troll, good Sir?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Are you a troll, good Sir?

No

[Nachmere]

to be fair CLF3 is a combined incendiary and poison effect weapon allanea

[Empire of Narnia]

Okay it's that one again.

No, chemical weapons don't have a meaningful place on the modern battlefield.

1. Protecting against chemical weapons is very easy.

2. Any chemical weapons that endanger the enemy also endanger you, which means your troops also need to wear NBC suits etc.

3. Chemical weapons are affected by weather (air temperature, wind, rain, snow). Note that even if you have a detailed wind map -which you often won't in wartime - you will not have detailed plans of every which random air current 40 km away where you're dropping the chemweapons.

4, Generally it's better and more effective to drop HE-F shells than the same amount of chemical weapons shells.

5. The exception to the above rule is weapons where the main effect is explosive or incendiary, but there is a poisonous effect a byproduct. White Phosphorous is extremely effective because it's prime effect is to MELT STEEL AND VAPORIZE FLESH... the poisonous smoke is just kind of a happy side effect...

Could it be good for my nation since we have animatronics in our special forces? I could see our army fires some poison artillery shells into a position before deploying the animatronics who would be totally unaffected. One advantage of chemical weapons is that they don't destroy equipment so if we wanted to steal documents or vehicles it could be useful.

[The Akasha Colony]

What about CFL3?

The difficulty in handling it makes it unfeasible as a weapon in a modern battlefield. The Germans might have hoped to use it against the stationary Maginot Line defenses where they would have all the time in the world to carefully observe safe handling procedures, but schlepping the stuff around on the battlefield makes it a disaster just waiting to happen. Which is true of most chemical weapons, but nerve gases are comparatively easier to contain and deal with in the event of an accident. Modern nerve gases are also much deadlier in smaller quantities.

[Nachmere]

Okay it's that one again.

No, chemical weapons don't have a meaningful place on the modern battlefield.

1. Protecting against chemical weapons is very easy.

2. Any chemical weapons that endanger the enemy also endanger you, which means your troops also need to wear NBC suits etc.

3. Chemical weapons are affected by weather (air temperature, wind, rain, snow). Note that even if you have a detailed wind map -which you often won't in wartime - you will not have detailed plans of every which random air current 40 km away where you're dropping the chemweapons.

4, Generally it's better and more effective to drop HE-F shells than the same amount of chemical weapons shells.

5. The exception to the above rule is weapons where the main effect is explosive or incendiary, but there is a poisonous effect a byproduct. White Phosphorous is extremely effective because it's prime effect is to MELT STEEL AND VAPORIZE FLESH... the poisonous smoke is just kind of a happy side effect...

Could it be good for my nation since we have animatronics in our special forces? I could see our army fires some poison artillery shells into a position before deploying the animatronics who would be totally unaffected. One advantage of chemical weapons is that they don't destroy equipment so if we wanted to steal documents or vehicles it could be useful.

well, not having actual human beings is an advantage if your going to use chemical weapons. that does not make them any less un predictable in terms of their effect on the enemy.

also i don't think you actually mean animatronics, unless you have movie props in you armed forces.

[The Akasha Colony]

well, not having actual human beings is an advantage if your going to use chemical weapons. that does not make them any less un predictable in terms of their effect on the enemy.

also i don't think you actually mean animatronics, unless you have movie props in you armed forces.

He does.

[New Vihenia]

I'm wondering what is the best altitude (taking into account survivability and stealth) for a reconnaissance satellite designed to use synthetic aperture radar to track enemy ships (like the Russian US-A series RORSATs). I would also like to know if it is possible to have this satellite communicate with an electro-optical imaging satellite that can zoom in on the the fleets, take photos and relay them back to Earth. Finally, I want to know what the optimum operating altitude for a satellite of this kind is.

You can't really do "Stealth" with sattelite. At best you can do is either make them redundant (large number of satellites) or put them some form of defensive measure (decoy, counterdazzler equipment, etc) All space tracking radar can track object as small as golf ball in orbit since 1960's

About altitude well.. this really dependant on your sensor.. The Russian US-A Sattelite have altitude of 250 Km.. a very low orbit t and it's not using SAR..it's using real beam imaging radar (Resolution is proportional to distance). The first Soviet space based SAR was Venera 13/15 used to image Venus.

SAR imaging however allow higher orbit, maybe as high as 700 Km while still providing adequate resolution for identification. You can also incorporate optical imaging into that Sattelite thus no need for dedicated optical imaging sattelite.

[Nachmere]

well, not having actual human beings is an advantage if your going to use chemical weapons. that does not make them any less un predictable in terms of their effect on the enemy.

also i don't think you actually mean animatronics, unless you have movie props in you armed forces.

He does.

so he has like, Jurassic Park figures as part of his military? thats p. bad ass

[Empire of Narnia]

well, not having actual human beings is an advantage if your going to use chemical weapons. that does not make them any less un predictable in terms of their effect on the enemy.

also i don't think you actually mean animatronics, unless you have movie props in you armed forces.

Good point, but they could still come in useful in limited situations. Imagine gassing a military base before sending in the animatronics to retrieve sensitive data for example.

I actually do. Read my military factbook and find out how.

[Nachmere]

had a look, was a afraid I won't be able to find my way back out of the rabbits hole

edit:I am not criticizing, I wish I was so creative with unusual backstory.

[Empire of Narnia]

had a look, was a afraid I won't be able to find my way back out of the rabbits hole

Did you read about the CEC Mafia?

[Nachmere]

had a look, was a afraid I won't be able to find my way back out of the rabbits hole

Did you read about the CEC Mafia?

indeed. that said, you are past the point of really worrying about milirealism no? If someone is willing to war rp against sentient uber-animatronics, I really can't see them objecting to modern use of chemical weapons

[The Nuclear Fist]

well, not having actual human beings is an advantage if your going to use chemical weapons. that does not make them any less un predictable in terms of their effect on the enemy.

also i don't think you actually mean animatronics, unless you have movie props in you armed forces.

Good point, but they could still come in useful in limited situations. Imagine gassing a military base before sending in the animatronics to retrieve sensitive data for example.

I actually do. Read my military factbook and find out how.

I'm pretty sure animatronics are slow and clunky, they'd be pretty worthless in combat.

[Nachmere]

Good point, but they could still come in useful in limited situations. Imagine gassing a military base before sending in the animatronics to retrieve sensitive data for example.

I actually do. Read my military factbook and find out how.

I'm pretty sure animatronics are slow and clunky, they'd be pretty worthless in combat.

his are fast and p. deadly. fanT, it gets shit done.

[Allanea]

I'm wondering what is the best altitude (taking into account survivability and stealth) for a reconnaissance satellite designed to use synthetic aperture radar to track enemy ships (like the Russian US-A series RORSATs). I would also like to know if it is possible to have this satellite communicate with an electro-optical imaging satellite that can zoom in on the the fleets, take photos and relay them back to Earth. Finally, I want to know what the optimum operating altitude for a satellite of this kind is.

You can't really do "Stealth" with sattelite. At best you can do is either make them redundant (large number of satellites) or put them some form of defensive measure (decoy, counterdazzler equipment, etc) All space tracking radar can track object as small as golf ball in orbit since 1960's

About altitude well.. this really dependant on your sensor.. The Russian US-A Sattelite have altitude of 250 Km.. a very low orbit t and it's not using SAR..it's using real beam imaging radar (Resolution is proportional to distance). The first Soviet space based SAR was Venera 13/15 used to image Venus.

SAR imaging however allow higher orbit, maybe as high as 700 Km while still providing adequate resolution for identification. You can also incorporate optical imaging into that Sattelite thus no need for dedicated optical imaging sattelite.

And yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

[Empire of Narnia]

Did you read about the CEC Mafia?

indeed. that said, you are past the point of really worrying about milirealism no? If someone is willing to war rp against sentient uber-animatronics, I really can't see them objecting to modern use of chemical weapons

My nation does exist in the modern world though. Most of our army is totally normal with just US military based units. I still want realism in my army.

Good point, but they could still come in useful in limited situations. Imagine gassing a military base before sending in the animatronics to retrieve sensitive data for example.

I actually do. Read my military factbook and find out how.

I'm pretty sure animatronics are slow and clunky, they'd be pretty worthless in combat.

Real animatronics like at Chuck E. Cheese's are bolted to the floor and can only perform pre-programmed movements from a central computer. Our animatronics however use the latest in robotics and advanced materials such as titanium alloy to keep them relevant on the battlefield. For power, which is a major limiting factor in robotics we use nuclear fuel cells. While limited for cost, safety and political reasons in real life they provide longer-lasting power than any battery.