NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[The Kievan People]

Depends but.

22 rounds is a normal load for a bustle autoloader. You should be able to fit another 10-20 rounds in the hull depending on how everything is configured. 40 rounds should be feasible.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

Abrams, Leo 2, Challenger 2 are all sixty something tonnes.

[Ictia]

If i want to equip my forces with gauss rifles (for infantry) and railguns (for artillery), do i need a smaller caliber for my weapons for having the same effects (because i have more kinetic energy than with a modern weapon)?? Or should i use similar calibers to modern ones???

[Imperializt Russia]

I would recommend you did not issue those weapon systems in the first place.

[The Kievan People]

I would recommend you did not issue those weapon systems in the first place.

THANK YOU

[Aelarus]

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

I thought GPMG/M240Bravo wasn't supposed to be an LMG? Sure, it can be used as one (if you want to make your squaddie's life very miserable) but I thought it fell more into the MMG category?

---

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

I don't think any shaving of armor is going to make a tank that much harder to hit (automated turrets in hull down is an exception of course) especially as even the Ruskies seem to have given up this line of thinking to some extent. Unless you mean moar soft/hard kill countermeasures.

---

If i want to equip my forces with gauss rifles (for infantry) and railguns (for artillery), do i need a smaller caliber for my weapons for having the same effects (because i have more kinetic energy than with a modern weapon)?? Or should i use similar calibers to modern ones???

You're in the wrong thread if you're trying to peddle that equipment.

[Arthurista]

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

I thought GPMG/M240Bravo wasn't supposed to be an LMG? Sure, it can be used as one (if you want to make your squaddie's life very miserable) but I thought it fell more into the MMG category?

Until the Minimi became widespread, the GPMGs were used as standard squad automatic weapons in many (most?) western armies - FN MAG, MG3s and so forth. The British Army brought the MAG back to the section/fireteam level in Afghanistan to address the range/firepower deficiencies of its 5.56mm small arms.

I think lightened GPMGs will make a major comeback as squad-guns in the next few years, with the M240L and the Pecheneg being the prime examples. The alternative is to beef up a LMG platform to use full-sized ammunition, such as the Minimi Mk3, though they're probably inferior in terms of sustained fire capability.

[Algieristan]

At what level of organization does electronic warfare units go?

(stuff like jammers, signals interception and that sort of thing)

[Imperializt Russia]

Battalion HQ would have some EW asset, but heavier assets would be part of the larger reconnaissance, intelligence-gathering and command groups available to regimental, brigade and divisional commanders.

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

I thought GPMG/M240Bravo wasn't supposed to be an LMG? Sure, it can be used as one (if you want to make your squaddie's life very miserable) but I thought it fell more into the MMG category?

The point of a GPMG is that it is equally adept in the light and medium machine gun role. Because those are roles, rather than types.

When hefted as one man's personal weapon, it is in the LMG role. When positioned in a tripod as a static crew-served weapon in support of a group, it is in the MMG role. When mounted on a vehicle I suppose this technically also makes it an MMG.
A GPMG traditionally uses a full-power rifle cartridge as this makes it highly capable at all combat ranges and also useful (with AP ammunition) against thin-skinned vehicles and barriers. An intermediate-calibre weapon could feasibly be used as a GPMG, but would be of reduced performance at long combat ranges, against thin-skin vehicles and barriers.

[Dostanuot Loj]

22 rounds of 150mm is a lot of volume.

[Totulga]

22 rounds of 150mm is a lot of volume.

Especially as two piece ammunition, that is why I am thinking of 16 in the turret as ready to use ammo and 14 more in the tank itself.

[Imperializt Russia]

As two-piece ammunition, it's easier to move, because that great volume of ammunition is now broken up into two volumes that can be stowed in different places.
As stated by Galla, the Leopard-2-140 purportedly had the gun ram warheads into the breech while the loader manually loaded a propellant charge behind it.

This could allow you to place warheads in a protected bustle, but propellant charges must be strewn in a vulnerable position so the loader can actually utilise them. The Leopard 2's ammunition stowage is haphazard enough with just 120mm ammo.

[The Kievan People]

Not all space is created equal! If the cartridge is comparable to say a 120mm NATO cartridge in width or a 125mm propellant charge, but significantly longer, getting 22 in a normal size bustle is definitely possible. It will just be a long bustle. Alternatively the number of rounds in the bustle could be halved and the pieces stored individually, which would make the bustle a lot shorter.

Especially as two piece ammunition, that is why I am thinking of 16 in the turret as ready to use ammo and 14 more in the tank itself.

Two piece ammunition don't take up more space.

[Aelarus]

Until the Minimi became widespread, the GPMGs were used as standard squad automatic weapons in many (most?) western armies - FN MAG, MG3s and so forth. The British Army brought the MAG back to the section/fireteam level in Afghanistan to address the range/firepower deficiencies of its 5.56mm small arms.

I think lightened GPMGs will make a major comeback as squad-guns in the next few years, with the M240L and the Pecheneg being the prime examples. The alternative is to beef up a LMG platform to use full-sized ammunition, such as the Minimi Mk3, though they're probably inferior in terms of sustained fire capability.

Ah yes, the age of the GPMG. Muh M60 and all that.

They made a comeback due to engagement ranges (as you said, going on patrol in the sandbox with a GPMG is much better for your health). Fairly sure you'd want a nice Minimi or something equivalent for urban combat which is also why they became popular to begin with.

---

The point of a GPMG is that it is equally adept in the light and medium machine gun role. Because those are roles, rather than types.

I've always considered L/M/HMG to be types rather than roles, but that's just my connotation (I'm aware they are often mixed and interchanged as with the GPMG). SAW sounds like more of a role really.

[Totulga]

Until the Minimi became widespread, the GPMGs were used as standard squad automatic weapons in many (most?) western armies - FN MAG, MG3s and so forth. The British Army brought the MAG back to the section/fireteam level in Afghanistan to address the range/firepower deficiencies of its 5.56mm small arms.

I think lightened GPMGs will make a major comeback as squad-guns in the next few years, with the M240L and the Pecheneg being the prime examples. The alternative is to beef up a LMG platform to use full-sized ammunition, such as the Minimi Mk3, though they're probably inferior in terms of sustained fire capability.

Ah yes, the age of the GPMG. Muh M60 and all that.

They made a comeback due to engagement ranges (as you said, going on patrol in the sandbox with a GPMG is much better for your health). Fairly sure you'd want a nice Minimi or something equivalent for urban combat which is also why they became popular to begin with.

---

The point of a GPMG is that it is equally adept in the light and medium machine gun role. Because those are roles, rather than types.

I've always considered L/M/HMG to be types rather than roles, but that's just my connotation (I'm aware they are often mixed and interchanged as with the GPMG). SAW sounds like more of a role really.

Well we have to remember that guns like the Minimi were created to replace the BAR in the united states army. To be honest it was a rather superfluous role because the M16 was already fully automatic, the Bars only true advantage over say the Grande and later the M14. Also a major reason for the switch was the mass inclusion of APC's and IFV's the idea was that these heavier vehicles would provide the heavy fire support and thus the infantry would not need a larger machine gun. The SAW is in many ways poor extension of a units fire power. We can already see that the marines have adopted the same idea with the M27 IAR, essentially a service rifle with a heavier barrel, There is no big reason not to give everyone in the Squad an IAR, it weighs a hair more than a standard rifle (negligible amounts) but has better accuracy than the M249. It might not be belt fed but if everyone has a Fully automatic weapon capable of laying down withering amounts of fire power following the old WW2 BAR gunner trick of I fire till dry, then you fire will work fine even at the team level. For the most part you would be better off having a platoon with 3 rifle squads and then a weapons squad with 3 M240b's they could then each be assigned to a rifle squad without loss of the maneuver element and tern them into a more effective form of the old German "Machine gun" squads.

Not all space is created equal! If the cartridge is comparable to say a 120mm NATO cartridge in width or a 125mm propellant charge, but significantly longer, getting 22 in a normal size bustle is definitely possible. It will just be a long bustle. Alternatively the number of rounds in the bustle could be halved and the pieces stored individually, which would make the bustle a lot shorter.

Especially as two piece ammunition, that is why I am thinking of 16 in the turret as ready to use ammo and 14 more in the tank itself.

Two piece ammunition don't take up more space.

What would be the best way of having an Autoloader do everything for a 150mm? Would a two piece be better or a one piece? What about when it comes to maintaining the Rate of Fire?

[Gallia-]

As two-piece ammunition, it's easier to move, because that great volume of ammunition is now broken up into two volumes that can be stowed in different places.
As stated by Galla, the Leopard-2-140 purportedly had the gun ram warheads into the breech while the loader manually loaded a propellant charge behind it.

This could allow you to place warheads in a protected bustle, but propellant charges must be strewn in a vulnerable position so the loader can actually utilise them. The Leopard 2's ammunition stowage is haphazard enough with just 120mm ammo.

This was done so Leopard 2-140's bustle wasn't fucking gigantic like CATTB's.

It was a test vehicle, not a production one. Like Thumper in the United States.

CATTB stored two-piece rounds complete IIRC, which is why its bustle is "fucking gigantic".

[Totulga]

As two-piece ammunition, it's easier to move, because that great volume of ammunition is now broken up into two volumes that can be stowed in different places.
As stated by Galla, the Leopard-2-140 purportedly had the gun ram warheads into the breech while the loader manually loaded a propellant charge behind it.

This could allow you to place warheads in a protected bustle, but propellant charges must be strewn in a vulnerable position so the loader can actually utilise them. The Leopard 2's ammunition stowage is haphazard enough with just 120mm ammo.

This was done so Leopard 2-140's bustle wasn't fucking gigantic like CATTB's.

It was a test vehicle, not a production one. Like Thumper in the United States.

CATTB stored two-piece rounds complete IIRC, which is why its bustle is "fucking gigantic".

I apologize, but what is the CATTB? I have never heard of it before.

[Gallia-]

This was done so Leopard 2-140's bustle wasn't fucking gigantic like CATTB's.

It was a test vehicle, not a production one. Like Thumper in the United States.

CATTB stored two-piece rounds complete IIRC, which is why its bustle is "fucking gigantic".

I apologize, but what is the CATTB? I have never heard of it before.

CATTB is "Component Advanced Technology Testbed" which is a pretentious acronym referring to a very heavily modified Abrams tank the US Army built in the 1980s.

It had a new turret that could store 140mm ammunition as well as 120mm, and a gun that could fire both (the American 140mm was built with the same base diameter as the 120mm round, the barrels for the former were just longer and had chambers twice the length of the latter) calibers of ammunition and used a bustle autoloader. The bustle was...large (and in charge):

[Totulga]

I apologize, but what is the CATTB? I have never heard of it before.

CATTB is "Component Advanced Technology Testbed" which is a pretentious acronym referring to a very heavily modified Abrams tank the US Army built in the 1980s.

It had a new turret that could store 140mm ammunition as well as 120mm, and a gun that could fire both (the American 140mm was built with the same base diameter as the 120mm round, the barrels for the former were just longer and had chambers twice the length of the latter) calibers of ammunition and used a bustle autoloader. The bustle was...large (and in charge):

Ok, That is pretty cool. So would two stage ammunition allow the bustle to be smaller? Also can an autoloader load that type of ammunition?

[Korva]

CATTB is "Component Advanced Technology Testbed" which is a pretentious acronym referring to a very heavily modified Abrams tank the US Army built in the 1980s.

It had a new turret that could store 140mm ammunition as well as 120mm, and a gun that could fire both (the American 140mm was built with the same base diameter as the 120mm round, the barrels for the former were just longer and had chambers twice the length of the latter) calibers of ammunition and used a bustle autoloader. The bustle was...large (and in charge):

Ok, That is pretty cool. So would two stage ammunition allow the bustle to be smaller? Also can an autoloader load that type of ammunition?

Yes, autoloaders can load two piece ammo.

[Imperializt Russia]

See every Soviet tank since T-64.

[Aelarus]

Well we have to remember that guns like the Minimi were created to replace the BAR in the united states army. To be honest it was a rather superfluous role because the M16 was already fully automatic, the Bars only true advantage over say the Grande and later the M14. Also a major reason for the switch was the mass inclusion of APC's and IFV's the idea was that these heavier vehicles would provide the heavy fire support and thus the infantry would not need a larger machine gun. The SAW is in many ways poor extension of a units fire power. We can already see that the marines have adopted the same idea with the M27 IAR, essentially a service rifle with a heavier barrel, There is no big reason not to give everyone in the Squad an IAR, it weighs a hair more than a standard rifle (negligible amounts) but has better accuracy than the M249. It might not be belt fed but if everyone has a Fully automatic weapon capable of laying down withering amounts of fire power following the old WW2 BAR gunner trick of I fire till dry, then you fire will work fine even at the team level. For the most part you would be better off having a platoon with 3 rifle squads and then a weapons squad with 3 M240b's they could then each be assigned to a rifle squad without loss of the maneuver element and tern them into a more effective form of the old German "Machine gun" squads.

What would be the best way of having an Autoloader do everything for a 150mm? Would a two piece be better or a one piece? What about when it comes to maintaining the Rate of Fire?

Sounds a lot like what I said earlier. The example even relates to the M27 too.

You should keep in mind that two piece ammunition tends to limit sabot length which basically means an added restriction to how much bang you can give per shell (unless you made the breech long as hell or something).

[Gallia-]

CATTB is "Component Advanced Technology Testbed" which is a pretentious acronym referring to a very heavily modified Abrams tank the US Army built in the 1980s.

It had a new turret that could store 140mm ammunition as well as 120mm, and a gun that could fire both (the American 140mm was built with the same base diameter as the 120mm round, the barrels for the former were just longer and had chambers twice the length of the latter) calibers of ammunition and used a bustle autoloader. The bustle was...large (and in charge):

(Image)

(Image)

Ok, That is pretty cool. So would two stage ammunition allow the bustle to be smaller? Also can an autoloader load that type of ammunition?

Yes the autoloader can load two piece ammunition fine. It would just take one or two seconds more maybe, and halve the ammunition stored in the bustle. Unless you're putting a 140mm gun in an existing tank, like Leclerc, I don't really see the need for non-complete round stowage inside a bustle tbh. It makes sense if you're fitted for 120mm rounds or something that are literally half the length, but if you have a new bustle you might as well go big and fit a normal fighting load of ammo in the rack.

Keeps the tanks from having to find a place to hide to reload the bustle twice as often.

See every Soviet tank since T-64.

Soviet automatic loaders aren't bustle loaders.

Well we have to remember that guns like the Minimi were created to replace the BAR in the united states army. To be honest it was a rather superfluous role because the M16 was already fully automatic, the Bars only true advantage over say the Grande and later the M14. Also a major reason for the switch was the mass inclusion of APC's and IFV's the idea was that these heavier vehicles would provide the heavy fire support and thus the infantry would not need a larger machine gun. The SAW is in many ways poor extension of a units fire power. We can already see that the marines have adopted the same idea with the M27 IAR, essentially a service rifle with a heavier barrel, There is no big reason not to give everyone in the Squad an IAR, it weighs a hair more than a standard rifle (negligible amounts) but has better accuracy than the M249. It might not be belt fed but if everyone has a Fully automatic weapon capable of laying down withering amounts of fire power following the old WW2 BAR gunner trick of I fire till dry, then you fire will work fine even at the team level. For the most part you would be better off having a platoon with 3 rifle squads and then a weapons squad with 3 M240b's they could then each be assigned to a rifle squad without loss of the maneuver element and tern them into a more effective form of the old German "Machine gun" squads.

What would be the best way of having an Autoloader do everything for a 150mm? Would a two piece be better or a one piece? What about when it comes to maintaining the Rate of Fire?

Sounds a lot like what I said earlier. The example even relates to the M27 too.

You should keep in mind that two piece ammunition tends to limit sabot length which basically means an added restriction to how much bang you can give per shell (unless you made the breech long as hell or something).

If you're sensible, you make the two piece rounds two meters long...or more.

[Korva]

Well we have to remember that guns like the Minimi were created to replace the BAR in the united states army. To be honest it was a rather superfluous role because the M16 was already fully automatic, the Bars only true advantage over say the Grande and later the M14. Also a major reason for the switch was the mass inclusion of APC's and IFV's the idea was that these heavier vehicles would provide the heavy fire support and thus the infantry would not need a larger machine gun. The SAW is in many ways poor extension of a units fire power. We can already see that the marines have adopted the same idea with the M27 IAR, essentially a service rifle with a heavier barrel, There is no big reason not to give everyone in the Squad an IAR, it weighs a hair more than a standard rifle (negligible amounts) but has better accuracy than the M249. It might not be belt fed but if everyone has a Fully automatic weapon capable of laying down withering amounts of fire power following the old WW2 BAR gunner trick of I fire till dry, then you fire will work fine even at the team level. For the most part you would be better off having a platoon with 3 rifle squads and then a weapons squad with 3 M240b's they could then each be assigned to a rifle squad without loss of the maneuver element and tern them into a more effective form of the old German "Machine gun" squads.

What would be the best way of having an Autoloader do everything for a 150mm? Would a two piece be better or a one piece? What about when it comes to maintaining the Rate of Fire?

Sounds a lot like what I said earlier. The example even relates to the M27 too.

You should keep in mind that two piece ammunition tends to limit sabot length which basically means an added restriction to how much bang you can give per shell (unless you made the breech long as hell or something).

Only in cramped carousels such as those in the T-72 and T-64.

Pretty much all 140mm proposals used two piece rounds with massive penetrators.

[Totulga]

Well we have to remember that guns like the Minimi were created to replace the BAR in the united states army. To be honest it was a rather superfluous role because the M16 was already fully automatic, the Bars only true advantage over say the Grande and later the M14. Also a major reason for the switch was the mass inclusion of APC's and IFV's the idea was that these heavier vehicles would provide the heavy fire support and thus the infantry would not need a larger machine gun. The SAW is in many ways poor extension of a units fire power. We can already see that the marines have adopted the same idea with the M27 IAR, essentially a service rifle with a heavier barrel, There is no big reason not to give everyone in the Squad an IAR, it weighs a hair more than a standard rifle (negligible amounts) but has better accuracy than the M249. It might not be belt fed but if everyone has a Fully automatic weapon capable of laying down withering amounts of fire power following the old WW2 BAR gunner trick of I fire till dry, then you fire will work fine even at the team level. For the most part you would be better off having a platoon with 3 rifle squads and then a weapons squad with 3 M240b's they could then each be assigned to a rifle squad without loss of the maneuver element and tern them into a more effective form of the old German "Machine gun" squads.

What would be the best way of having an Autoloader do everything for a 150mm? Would a two piece be better or a one piece? What about when it comes to maintaining the Rate of Fire?

Sounds a lot like what I said earlier. The example even relates to the M27 too.

You should keep in mind that two piece ammunition tends to limit sabot length which basically means an added restriction to how much bang you can give per shell (unless you made the breech long as hell or something).

So we think alike. That is one thing that always bugged me, the damn m249, it has no real place in a modern infantry squad.

What would be better for a tank killing tank then, a single piece Sabot or a two piece?