NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Elan Valleys]

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

(Image)

Daz not an LMG.

It is in light role configuration however.

[Imperializt Russia]

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

(Image)

Daz not an LMG.

It actually is.
Welcome to the world of military designations! It's not dependent on calibre.

1. 6 inches.
2. Regardless of caliber tank barrels are usually no longer than than 7-8 meters. Most are between 5 and 7. Experimental guns have had barrels 9 meters long or more, but these are impractical.

So if it is approximately 150mm what would one do to ensure a high enough ammunition capacity to engage a large number of targets. My armored forces are very similar to cold war Great Britons where I am expecting to face large numbers of enemy tanks (T-90's, T-80s, Type 99's ect) . As such the tank need heavier armor and fire power but mobility and range are secondary. At 120mm Most main battle tanks can only carrier 45-50 rounds right now.

A tank-sized tank equipped with a 6 inch gun may expect anything up to a third reduction in stowed ammunition over a tank with a 5 inch gun. So for a tank that stows 40 rounds with a 120mm or 125mm gun, an upgunned 6-inch piece may limit stowage to 22-30 rounds. Which is still plenty.

That's plenty.

Thanks to improvements in fire control it only takes about 1-3 tank rounds on average per vehicle kill. A tank with 40 rounds has an average of 12-20 "stowed kills" which is still far in excess of what it will actually need (this would be roughly equivalent to a single battalion destroying a whole division worth of enemy AFVs) in the approximately 24 hours (at most) it can go before it needs to be resupplied with fuel.

A reasonable baseline is:
>30 rounds of main gun ammunition
>10,000 rounds of MG ammunition

If you exceed this your tanks will be fine.

What is the general consensus on high caliber coaxial for anti APC/IFV work, Is a 25-40mm worth the extras space or would a .50 cal be sufficient for most situations?

A HMG will be sufficient for almost all applications. The US Army recently introduced the M830A1 shell for use in the Abrams. It is a multipurpose HEAT shell suitable for all targets not tanks - LAVs, helicopters, light fortifications etc. Unlike the M830 it replaces, it is not actually a 120mm shell. It is a subcalibre, saboted shell. I've guessed it's somewhere between about 75-90mm in diameter.

I personally operate my tanks with an autocannon replacing the commander's RWS and a HMG coaxial gun. The autocannon has a GPMG coaxial to it. This offers greater effect on target in the suppression of enemy infantry, particularly ATGM teams or machine-gun nests; helicopters, think-skin vehicles (trucks, jeeps) and lightly-armoured vehicles will all be more vulnerable to a 23, 25 or 30mm autocannon shell. I also fit an ATGM launcher to the turret roof of my tanks. I accept this is entirely superfluous. I am relatively alone in these opinions and I accept that.

.50 cal is fine. Anything it can't kill is worth spending a main gun round on.

Ok, so I am thinking the main armament would be. 150mm maintain with a coax .50 caliber and a roof mounted .50 cal.

I would like to try and stick 35 main gun rounds in it and at least 6,000 machine gun rounds.

I can't help but think that six thousand rounds of .50 ammunition is really a lot. Most tanks carry thousands of rounds of ammunition because at least one of their guns is a 7.62mm weapon and they have the space to stow them.

35 rounds for a six-inch piece is a lot. Your tank may have to be quite large to safely accommodate all of these shells - not in the fighting compartment or below the turret ring.

[Totulga]

OK so a 150mm gun with 30 rounds in an autoloader that also supports a 7.62mm GPMG with 1,200 rounds for it and a .50 caliber roof mounted antiaircraft gun with 600 rounds.

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

15 rounds in the turret, 15 in the hull, how would the rounds be stored, in the turret? I am sorry I am very knew to autoloaders, I know the Sherman and Panther like the back of my hand but these are a bit more complex.

[Purpelia]

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

You maintain a lock on the target by keeping your sights pointed at it. The firing computer than tells the gun what position to assume to hit it. When the gun needs to reload, it moves out of that position and into a loading angle at which it is reloaded and than the same mechanism that put it there returns it to where it was.

[Totulga]

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

You maintain a lock on the target by keeping your sights pointed at it. The firing computer than tells the gun what position to assume to hit it. When the gun needs to reload, it moves out of that position and into a loading angle at which it is reloaded and than the same mechanism that put it there returns it to where it was.

Approximately how long will it take for the gun to readjust and get the round loaded and then back on target at maximum depression?

[Korva]

You maintain a lock on the target by keeping your sights pointed at it. The firing computer than tells the gun what position to assume to hit it. When the gun needs to reload, it moves out of that position and into a loading angle at which it is reloaded and than the same mechanism that put it there returns it to where it was.

Approximately how long will it take for the gun to readjust and get the round loaded and then back on target at maximum depression?

Engagement cycles are generally longer than the time it takes to load and re-lay the gun. It is pretty much an non-issue.

OK so a 150mm gun with 30 rounds in an autoloader that also supports a 7.62mm GPMG with 1,200 rounds for it and a .50 caliber roof mounted antiaircraft gun with 600 rounds.

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

15 rounds in the turret, 15 in the hull, how would the rounds be stored, in the turret? I am sorry I am very knew to autoloaders, I know the Sherman and Panther like the back of my hand but these are a bit more complex.

There are bustle autoloaders and carousel autoloaders.

[Totulga]

Approximately how long will it take for the gun to readjust and get the round loaded and then back on target at maximum depression?

Engagement cycles are generally longer than the time it takes to load and re-lay the gun. It is pretty much an non-issue.

Ok, where are rounds stored in an autoloading system, I know that in a conventional load out they are kept just behind the main gun in the turret like on the M1.

Edit: What would be a better auto loader for a 150mm round? I guess it would depend on what takes up more space really.

[Gallia-]

OK so a 150mm gun with 30 rounds in an autoloader that also supports a 7.62mm GPMG with 1,200 rounds for it and a .50 caliber roof mounted antiaircraft gun with 600 rounds.

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

The gun is brought to an elevation preferable to whatever the autoloader needs to load the breech. When it's done and the breech is closed, the gun is returned to its previous lay and control handed back to the gunner.

It takes like five seconds.

Engagement cycles are generally longer than the time it takes to load and re-lay the gun. It is pretty much an non-issue.

Ok, where are rounds stored in an autoloading system, I know that in a conventional load out they are kept just behind the main gun in the turret like on the M1.

Anywhere really.

A bustle autoloader handles the biggest rounds and is the simplest implementation, which has the rounds stored behind the gun in a turret bustle, some kind of automatic belt that goes around, and a ramming arm that loads the breech. Leclerc does this.

The alternative is a "carousel" loader, which has concentric rings of ammunition around the gun inside the turret. This can pack more ammunition than a bustle, it's better protected (theoretically), and you can have a high density of stowed rounds. The rammer arm is a folding arm (or if you're Russian, a tube with a chain on the end) of some sort that pulls rounds from the rings, if it's two piece ammunition like 150mm would likely be, inserts the ammunition sequentially into the tube, and closes the breech. This takes about the same amount of time, a bit more maybe, than a bustle loader.

Bustle:



Carousel:



The problem comes when you need to fit crew inside the turret, which tends to be bad if the tank is penetrated the ammunition ignites. Western tanks that have had carousel autoloaders used unmanned, robotic turrets.

There are more esoteric placements (the funniest I've seen is Strv 103 rear ammunition storage) but those are the most "conventional" in that they're common to multiple tanks IRL.

For a very large cannon like 150mm, an automatic loader of some method is preferable. If it's anything like Soviet or American 152mm or 140mm (respectively) rounds, it's two piece and it's about two meters long. You can manually load it, but you'd need two loaders to have an appreciable fire rate, which takes up a lot of room. The alternatives are a fully automatic loading system, which is the least volume, and if you want you can copy the Leclerc's since it is the most absolutely boring method of loading a Big Gun(tm) and probably would work perfectly; or a semi-automatic loading system like Leopard 2-140, where you have a rammer load the first half of the round, and a human loader put the second half in and close the breech.

The latter would be good if you need to rapidly modify an older tank like Leopard 2 or Abrams without any significant redesign of the turret or interior. A newly designed tank would probably be totally robotic in loading.

[Elan Valleys]

For PT-peoples purposes.

[Totulga]

OK so a 150mm gun with 30 rounds in an autoloader that also supports a 7.62mm GPMG with 1,200 rounds for it and a .50 caliber roof mounted antiaircraft gun with 600 rounds.

I do not fully understand how and autoloader works, how would it load the round if the gun is not straight and still maintain its lock on a target. What would be the best way to design and autoloader?

The gun is brought to an elevation preferable to whatever the autoloader needs to load the breech. When it's done and the breech is closed, the gun is returned to its previous lay and control handed back to the gunner.

It takes like five seconds.

Ok, where are rounds stored in an autoloading system, I know that in a conventional load out they are kept just behind the main gun in the turret like on the M1.

Anywhere really.

A bustle autoloader handles the biggest rounds and is the simplest implementation, which has the rounds stored behind the gun in a turret bustle, some kind of automatic belt that goes around, and a ramming arm that loads the breech. Leclerc does this.

The alternative is a "carousel" loader, which has concentric rings of ammunition around the gun inside the turret. This can pack more ammunition than a bustle, it's better protected (theoretically), and you can have a high density of stowed rounds. The rammer arm is a folding arm (or if you're Russian, a tube with a chain on the end) of some sort that pulls rounds from the rings, if it's two piece ammunition like 150mm would likely be, inserts the ammunition sequentially into the tube, and closes the breech. This takes about the same amount of time, a bit more maybe, than a bustle loader.

Bustle:



Carousel:



The problem comes when you need to fit crew inside the turret, which tends to be bad if the tank is penetrated the ammunition ignites. Western tanks that have had carousel autoloaders used unmanned, robotic turrets.

There are more esoteric placements (the funniest I've seen is Strv 103 rear ammunition storage) but those are the most "conventional" in that they're common to multiple tanks IRL.

That leads to another question, do I go with a conventional maned turret or something like the T-14?

Edit: I would also ask, what you be the best way to achieve a high level of gun depression, it is meant to fight in a hull down position and then move to another position.

[Gallia-]

The gun is brought to an elevation preferable to whatever the autoloader needs to load the breech. When it's done and the breech is closed, the gun is returned to its previous lay and control handed back to the gunner.

It takes like five seconds.



Anywhere really.

A bustle autoloader handles the biggest rounds and is the simplest implementation, which has the rounds stored behind the gun in a turret bustle, some kind of automatic belt that goes around, and a ramming arm that loads the breech. Leclerc does this.

The alternative is a "carousel" loader, which has concentric rings of ammunition around the gun inside the turret. This can pack more ammunition than a bustle, it's better protected (theoretically), and you can have a high density of stowed rounds. The rammer arm is a folding arm (or if you're Russian, a tube with a chain on the end) of some sort that pulls rounds from the rings, if it's two piece ammunition like 150mm would likely be, inserts the ammunition sequentially into the tube, and closes the breech. This takes about the same amount of time, a bit more maybe, than a bustle loader.

Bustle:

(Image)

Carousel:

(Image)

The problem comes when you need to fit crew inside the turret, which tends to be bad if the tank is penetrated the ammunition ignites. Western tanks that have had carousel autoloaders used unmanned, robotic turrets.

There are more esoteric placements (the funniest I've seen is Strv 103 rear ammunition storage) but those are the most "conventional" in that they're common to multiple tanks IRL.

That leads to another question, do I go with a conventional maned turret or something like the T-14?

A manned turret gives you more visibility and tankmen like it. It's bigger, and heavier, there's more room and it gives the TC a good view of the surrounding area.

A robotic turret keeps the tankmen safer, they can look through cameras, but obviously no one is going to be poking their head out of the cupola. It's smaller profile, it's lighter, and a robotic turret is easier to replace than a tank crew. It requires more complex electrical connections and camera setups because you aren't just slapping a camera down right above the TC, instead you need to wire it to the hull, etc. You're basically denying the TC his peripheral vision in favour of keeping him protected.

If you stress crew survivability as most post-industrial economies do, a robotic turret is the best way to achieve this. A manned turret is more conventional and [probably] easier for the tank crew to maintain since it isn't quite shrink wrapped around the automatic loader and stuff. IIRC, the US Army was interested in robotic turrets for Block III tank, but decided on a manned turret in the end. I don't know the exact reasoning, I suspect it has something to do with it being easier maintenance, more visibility, etc. etc.

Western tankmen in general really enjoy being able to poke their heads out of their armour and shoot at people with their big machine guns, so if you're Anglo-American tankman culture you will probably want to go with a manned turret and driver-in-hull, like Abrams or Leopard.

e: -20 degrees is about all you really need for a big gun. The best way to get this is to have a tall turret. If you want a smaller turret, you can cant it forward slightly like T-14 to get a few more degrees of depression, or you can put a flap on top so the breech doesn't hit the roof:

[Totulga]

That leads to another question, do I go with a conventional maned turret or something like the T-14?

A manned turret gives you more visibility and tankmen like it. It's bigger, and heavier, there's more room and it gives the TC a good view of the surrounding area.

A robotic turret keeps the tankmen safer, they can look through cameras, but obviously no one is going to be poking their head out of the cupola. It's smaller profile, it's lighter, and a robotic turret is easier to replace than a tank crew. It requires more complex electrical connections and camera setups because you aren't just slapping a camera down right above the TC, instead you need to wire it to the hull, etc. You're basically denying the TC his peripheral vision in favour of keeping him protected.

If you stress crew survivability as most post-industrial economies do, a robotic turret is the best way to achieve this. A manned turret is more conventional and [probably] easier for the tank crew to maintain since it isn't quite shrink wrapped around the automatic loader and stuff. IIRC, the US Army was interested in robotic turrets for Block III tank, but decided on a manned turret in the end. I don't know the exact reasoning, I suspect it has something to do with it being easier maintenance, more visibility, etc. etc.

Western tankmen in general really enjoy being able to poke their heads out of their armour and shoot at people with their big machine guns, so if you're Anglo-American tankman culture you will probably want to go with a manned turret and driver-in-hull, like Abrams or Leopard.

e: -20 degrees is about all you really need for a big gun. The best way to get this is to have a tall turret. If you want a smaller turret, you can cant it forward slightly like T-14 to get a few more degrees of depression, or you can put a flap on top so the breech doesn't hit the roof:

Well I did like the view I had when I was at tank fest, You can see a great deal more when you are outside the turret looking around so I would prefer manned personally.

I am fine with having a higher profile tank if it is thickly armored and give me better depression.

[Gallia-]

A manned turret gives you more visibility and tankmen like it. It's bigger, and heavier, there's more room and it gives the TC a good view of the surrounding area.

A robotic turret keeps the tankmen safer, they can look through cameras, but obviously no one is going to be poking their head out of the cupola. It's smaller profile, it's lighter, and a robotic turret is easier to replace than a tank crew. It requires more complex electrical connections and camera setups because you aren't just slapping a camera down right above the TC, instead you need to wire it to the hull, etc. You're basically denying the TC his peripheral vision in favour of keeping him protected.

If you stress crew survivability as most post-industrial economies do, a robotic turret is the best way to achieve this. A manned turret is more conventional and [probably] easier for the tank crew to maintain since it isn't quite shrink wrapped around the automatic loader and stuff. IIRC, the US Army was interested in robotic turrets for Block III tank, but decided on a manned turret in the end. I don't know the exact reasoning, I suspect it has something to do with it being easier maintenance, more visibility, etc. etc.

Western tankmen in general really enjoy being able to poke their heads out of their armour and shoot at people with their big machine guns, so if you're Anglo-American tankman culture you will probably want to go with a manned turret and driver-in-hull, like Abrams or Leopard.

e: -20 degrees is about all you really need for a big gun. The best way to get this is to have a tall turret. If you want a smaller turret, you can cant it forward slightly like T-14 to get a few more degrees of depression, or you can put a flap on top so the breech doesn't hit the roof:

Well I did like the view I had when I was at tank fest, You can see a great deal more when you are outside the turret looking around so I would prefer manned personally.

I am fine with having a higher profile tank if it is thickly armored and give me better depression.

Profile is relative.

It would probably be Leclerc sized if you want to make it tiny.

[Totulga]

Well I did like the view I had when I was at tank fest, You can see a great deal more when you are outside the turret looking around so I would prefer manned personally.

I am fine with having a higher profile tank if it is thickly armored and give me better depression.

Profile is relative.

It would probably be Leclerc sized if you want to make it tiny.

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

[Gallia-]

Profile is relative.

It would probably be Leclerc sized if you want to make it tiny.

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

Leclerc is as well protected as any other Western tank.

They just shaved the hull down by a meter to make it ten tonnes lighter.

[Totulga]

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

Leclerc is as well protected as any other Western tank.

They just shaved the hull down by a meter to make it ten tonnes lighter.

Well this actually brings another question in. What type and how much armor should I be using? Its main purpose is to fight out numbered and so I am expecting rounds to hit it.

[Korva]

Profile is relative.

It would probably be Leclerc sized if you want to make it tiny.

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

not being there to get hit > getting hit but having thicker armor

[Totulga]

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

not being there to get hit > getting hit but having thicker armor

Well I am trying to base it off the concept of the Challenger which is thick armor but also nimble.

[Gallia-]

Leclerc is as well protected as any other Western tank.

They just shaved the hull down by a meter to make it ten tonnes lighter.

Well this actually brings another question in. What type and how much armor should I be using? Its main purpose is to fight out numbered and so I am expecting rounds to hit it.

I don't know what type. Generically you would probably want to stop 140-152mm sabot rounds at like 500m, which is about as specific as you can get.

Ideally you don't get hit at all, since if you're using very modern ammunition (not 1960s Iraki shells) the tank will have things break if it is hit. TCs, optics, guns, gunners, etc. A better way to even exchange ratio is using lots of different weapons (howitzers, long range missiles, helicopter gunships) with the tanks, and driving backwards slowly.

The armour of a tank isn't really supposed to stand up to repeated abuse, especially something like a 140mm or 152mm gun. If it doesn't penetrate, it will still do some damage: The thermal sight might be broken, the periscope gets damaged, the laser rangefinder breaks, the TC breaks a rib, etc. It keeps the crew alive and the gun working, everything else is secondary.

[Totulga]

Well this actually brings another question in. What type and how much armor should I be using? Its main purpose is to fight out numbered and so I am expecting rounds to hit it.

I don't know what type. Generically you would probably want to stop 140-152mm sabot rounds at like 500m, which is about as specific as you can get.

Ideally you don't get hit at all, since if you're using very modern ammunition (not 1960s Iraki shells) the tank will have things break if it is hit. TCs, optics, guns, gunners, etc. A better way to even exchange ratio is using lots of different weapons (howitzers, long range missiles, helicopter gunships) with the tanks, and driving backwards slowly.

The armour of a tank isn't really supposed to stand up to repeated abuse, especially something like a 140mm or 152mm gun. If it doesn't penetrate, it will still do some damage: The thermal sight might be broken, the periscope gets damaged, the laser rangefinder breaks, the TC breaks a rib, etc. It keeps the crew alive and the gun working, everything else is secondary.

Well a better question would be how much armor I would need ATL allow the vehicle and crew to service more or less intact and still allow the tank to be highly nimble. I would prefer to have it have good acceleration and turning speeds for both the vehicle and turret but too much armor would hamper that correct?

[Gallia-]

60 tonnes
1,500 HP engine

All the mobility you need.

Protection would probably end up looking like Leopard 2A6 or merkava IV

[Imperializt Russia]

Profile is relative.

It would probably be Leclerc sized if you want to make it tiny.

I am hesitant with the idea of a smaller tank, I would prefer thicker armor over speed and size for my purposes.

Low profile and low internal volume imbue you with protection of its own by reducing your likelihood of being seen and subsequently struck.

[Totulga]

60 tonnes
1,500 HP engine

All the mobility you need.

Protection would probably end up looking like Leopard 2A6 or merkava IV

Could the tank be only 60 tons and still have good armor and a 150mm gun?

[Gallia-]

60 tonnes
1,500 HP engine

All the mobility you need.

Protection would probably end up looking like Leopard 2A6 or merkava IV

Could the tank be only 60 tons and still have good armor and a 150mm gun?

Yes.

[Totulga]

Could the tank be only 60 tons and still have good armor and a 150mm gun?

Yes.

Well the next question is how many rounds can be held in the autoloader if they are two peice ammunition?