NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Gallia-]

The sabot is always one piece. If it's multiple piece ammunition, the sabot is loaded first, followed by subsequent pieces of the complete round.

In British 120mm guns, the sabot has no propellant charge since it uses bags or whatever because Britain is weird.

American 140mm just took a 120mm sabot round and added another 120mm-sized propellant charge on the end (and 20mm more diameter). The sabot length is determined by the limits of the autoloader. For a bustle, this is practically unlimited, ref. CATTB. For a carousel loader, you're limited to about a meter unless you want a crazy tall loading drum or something.

NATO 120mm, incidentally, is about a meter long for a complete round, which is more than sufficient length to kill any tank today or in the future. At that point you're just looking to add more propellant behind the penetrator than anything else.



Here is 140mm next to 120mm. The penetrators are roughly the same length.

e: For reference, the 140mm round is about 2m "tall".

[Totulga]

The sabot is always one piece. If it's multiple piece ammunition, the sabot is loaded first, followed by subsequent pieces of the complete round.

In British 120mm guns, the sabot has no propellant charge since it uses bags or whatever because Britain is weird.

American 140mm just took a 120mm sabot round and added another 120mm-sized propellant charge on the end (and 20mm more diameter). The sabot length is determined by the limits of the autoloader. For a bustle, this is practically unlimited, ref. CATTB. For a carousel loader, you're limited to about a meter unless you want a crazy tall loading drum or something.

NATO 120mm, incidentally, is about a meter long for a complete round, which is more than sufficient length to kill any tank today or in the future.

Well what I have so far is a 60-70 ton Main battle tank with a 150mm main in fed from a bustle auto loaded with 20 ready to use rounds and 15 more stored in the vehicle. The ammunition is 1 peice with a sabot of indeterminent length. The is also a coax 7.62mm GPMG with around 1,500- 2,000 rounds (because you never know when China will start trying to climb all over your tank), and a roof mounted .50 cal with 600 rounds for the commander.

[Ictia]

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

Why???

My nation is FT so i think we wouldn't have any energetic problem, which is the main disadvantage that i see.

And what do you recomend me as an alternative???

[Gallia-]

The sabot is always one piece. If it's multiple piece ammunition, the sabot is loaded first, followed by subsequent pieces of the complete round.

In British 120mm guns, the sabot has no propellant charge since it uses bags or whatever because Britain is weird.

American 140mm just took a 120mm sabot round and added another 120mm-sized propellant charge on the end (and 20mm more diameter). The sabot length is determined by the limits of the autoloader. For a bustle, this is practically unlimited, ref. CATTB. For a carousel loader, you're limited to about a meter unless you want a crazy tall loading drum or something.

NATO 120mm, incidentally, is about a meter long for a complete round, which is more than sufficient length to kill any tank today or in the future.

Well what I have so far is a 60-70 ton Main battle tank with a 150mm main in fed from a bustle auto loaded with 20 ready to use rounds and 15 more stored in the vehicle. The ammunition is 1 peice with a sabot of indeterminent length. The is also a coax 7.62mm GPMG with around 1,500- 2,000 rounds (because you never know when China will start trying to climb all over your tank), and a roof mounted .50 cal with 600 rounds for the commander.

How long is the one piece ammunition?

2,000 rounds is low. Abrams -A2 for ref carries ~8,000, and 105mm Abrams stowed 10,800 of 7.62mm.

[Crookfur]

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?

Actually the M249 was to repalce thre M60 which had repalced the BAR many many years before that. The whole SAW project was aimed at making what is more or less an 5.56mm GPMG (orignally it was a 6mm GPMG but things, including SS109, happened). The thing is no IAR is goign to match the minimi (or any of the competing or susbequent designs it inspired) for the ability to deliver supressive fire. no rifle based AR is goign to stand up the kind of abuse multiple mag dumps inflicts on a firearm for long. They are fine for covering the repositioning/reloading/barrel change gap but not for provding the true base of fire unless there is a vehcile at hand to porvide that. Stuff like the minimi are more competing with a light role GPMG and to be hoenst ina more conventional conflcit the lighter weight and extra ammo the 5.56mm belt fed gives you over a true GPMG will be prefered. Also IIRC the marines havn't ditched the minimi, each company keep enough for each squad to have one in addition to or in place of one of the IARs.

[Totulga]

Well what I have so far is a 60-70 ton Main battle tank with a 150mm main in fed from a bustle auto loaded with 20 ready to use rounds and 15 more stored in the vehicle. The ammunition is 1 peice with a sabot of indeterminent length. The is also a coax 7.62mm GPMG with around 1,500- 2,000 rounds (because you never know when China will start trying to climb all over your tank), and a roof mounted .50 cal with 600 rounds for the commander.

How long is the one piece ammunition?

2,000 rounds is low. Abrams -A2 for ref carries ~8,000, and 105mm Abrams stowed 10,800 of 7.62mm.

I am admittedly not sure how long it should be. It's main purpose is to destroy enemy armor so it will be almost all SABOT but aside from that I do not know what would be ideal. I would like the gun to be able to just shred through Challengers frontal armor with easy at around 4km but I am not sure how to achieve that.

So around 6-8,000 rounds for the coax?

[Gallia-]

How long is the one piece ammunition?

2,000 rounds is low. Abrams -A2 for ref carries ~8,000, and 105mm Abrams stowed 10,800 of 7.62mm.

I am admittedly not sure how long it should be. It's main purpose is to destroy enemy armor so it will be almost all SABOT but aside from that I do not know what would be ideal. I would like the gun to be able to just shred through Challengers frontal armor with easy at around 4km but I am not sure how to achieve that.

So around 6-8,000 rounds for the coax?

140mm sabot would probably go through any modern tank today. Its LRP was roughly the same length as 120mm's, about a meter. It also an additional meter of propellant, and more volume overall comparable to your cartridge. For the least mathematics effort and best "assumptionability" I'd suggest 1.9-2m long ammunition, with half that being the penetrator/sabot's length. The entire volume would be filled with propellant. You can leave it one piece, but this reduces hull stowage drastically which is why 140mm was two-piece, so it could fit inside modified hull racks designed for 120mm length rounds.

Yes that sounds like a better number of rounds.

[Totulga]

I am admittedly not sure how long it should be. It's main purpose is to destroy enemy armor so it will be almost all SABOT but aside from that I do not know what would be ideal. I would like the gun to be able to just shred through Challengers frontal armor with easy at around 4km but I am not sure how to achieve that.

So around 6-8,000 rounds for the coax?

140mm sabot would probably go through any modern tank today. Its LRP was roughly the same length as 120mm's, about a meter. It also an additional meter of propellant, and more volume overall comparable to your cartridge. For the least mathematics effort and best "assumptionability" I'd suggest 1.9-2m long ammunition, with half that being the penetrator/sabot's length. The entire volume would be filled with propellant. You can leave it one piece, but this reduces hull stowage drastically which is why 140mm was two-piece, so it could fit inside modified hull racks designed for 120mm length rounds.

Ok, so if the hull racks are custom designed for the 150mm then it should be able to store 15 of them without any problem or would space still be an issue?
Yes that sounds like a better number of rounds.

[Aelarus]

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

Which is why I said "tends".

---

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?

It has a place as being lighter and easier to carry more ammunition for compared to a 7.62 GPMG. It's not a necessity by any means, and the idea you mentioned essentially takes the two things the M249 combines and separates them out so both fast, accurate fire and long ranged suppressive potential are given more attention.

Both work just fine all things considered. Nothing nowadays will survive any sensible round you would likely have in a 140/150mm cannon and there doesn't exist a reliable "countermeasure" for sabots yet (though IIRC the Ruskies claimed the most recent hard kill system they made negates sabots, not that I actually believe that claim).

[Gallia-]

140mm sabot would probably go through any modern tank today. Its LRP was roughly the same length as 120mm's, about a meter. It also an additional meter of propellant, and more volume overall comparable to your cartridge. For the least mathematics effort and best "assumptionability" I'd suggest 1.9-2m long ammunition, with half that being the penetrator/sabot's length. The entire volume would be filled with propellant. You can leave it one piece, but this reduces hull stowage drastically which is why 140mm was two-piece, so it could fit inside modified hull racks designed for 120mm length rounds.

Ok, so if the hull racks are custom designed for the 150mm then it should be able to store 15 of them without any problem or would space still be an issue?
Yes that sounds like a better number of rounds.

You would need to find room in the hull for a rack that size, which is problematic with a manned turret.

Unfortunately I don't have any images, but the most reasonable stowage for ammunition this length I've seen involved a front mounted engine, crew in an armoured capsule between the robotic turret and engine, a bustle automatic loader, and a pair of very long hull magazines with doors on the rear of the tank so the crew can reload the gun from behind the tank.

It was very interesting, I'm sure Anemos has pictures.

The alternative is to simply make the hull longer, but breaching 8m seems to be a bit far imo. Perhaps you could use a Leclerc sized engine on an Abrams sized hull, fit the single piece rounds that way. The racks would be gigantic, but they would probably fit in that case.

[Totulga]

Ok, so if the hull racks are custom designed for the 150mm then it should be able to store 15 of them without any problem or would space still be an issue?
Yes that sounds like a better number of rounds.

You would need to find room in the hull for a rack that size, which is problematic with a manned turret.

Unfortunately I don't have any images, but the most reasonable stowage for ammunition this length I've seen involved a front mounted engine, crew in an armoured capsule between the robotic turret and engine, a bustle automatic loader, and a pair of very long hull magazines with doors on the rear of the tank so the crew can reload the gun from behind the tank.

It was very interesting, I'm sure Anemos has pictures.

The alternative is to simply make the hull longer, but breaching 8m seems to be a bit far imo. Perhaps you could use a Leclerc sized engine on an Abrams sized hull, fit the single piece rounds that way. The racks would be gigantic, but they would probably fit in that case.

I was looking at the Merkava for inspiration. Perhaps a 2 man turret in a layout similar to a Merkavas would work?

[Atomic Utopia]

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

Why???

My nation is FT so i think we wouldn't have any energetic problem, which is the main disadvantage that i see.

And what do you recomend me as an alternative???

I would recommend a an chemical expansion based propulsion system for your projectiles. You see by igniting a mono-fuel in a cilenderical container with a plug at one end an the projectile sitting in the tube pointing the other way you can accelerate the projectile to high speeds at a extremely low cost.

In other words, use regular guns. They are cheap, proven, and there is not really much of an advantage to using rail-guns or any other electrically accelerated projectiles for anything than divisional artillery.

[Ictia]

Why???

My nation is FT so i think we wouldn't have any energetic problem, which is the main disadvantage that i see.

And what do you recomend me as an alternative???

I would recommend a an chemical expansion based propulsion system for your projectiles. You see by igniting a mono-fuel in a cilenderical container with a plug at one end an the projectile sitting in the tube pointing the other way you can accelerate the projectile to high speeds at a extremely low cost.

In other words, use regular guns. They are cheap, proven, and there is not really much of an advantage to using rail-guns or any other electrically accelerated projectiles for anything than divisional artillery.

Well, if enemies wear power armours or liquid armours maybe I need something more powerful than a regular gun. Also technological advance will made electromagnetic weapons cheaper. I mean, bows were also cheaper and proven, but they became outdated. Maybe gauss or rail guns are not the best alternative for replacing them, but I don't think that regular weapons are so perfect that they just cannot be replaced by something better. Maybe today they are, but as i said, my nation is FT.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's a limit to which greater capabilities are required from an infantry arm.

The bow worked when armour was thin. The musket worked when infantry were massed.
Combat rifles of today can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn. If your current cartridge is insufficient - use a larger cartridge. if this makes your weapon prohibitively heavy, stand off and send in the AFVs. They have autocannons, HMGs, ATGMs, AGLs.

[Crookfur]

There's a limit to which greater capabilities are required from an infantry arm.

The bow worked when armour was thin. The musket worked when infantry were massed.
Combat rifles of today can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn. If your current cartridge is insufficient - use a larger cartridge. if this makes your weapon prohibitively heavy, stand off and send in the AFVs. They have autocannons, HMGs, ATGMs, AGLs.

As to combat rifles that depends on if you consider ESAPI and XSAPI plates reasonable to wear

[Algieristan]

What sort of systems can you install on a helicopter to make it harder to kill with surface to air missiles?

[Imperializt Russia]

There's a limit to which greater capabilities are required from an infantry arm.

The bow worked when armour was thin. The musket worked when infantry were massed.
Combat rifles of today can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn. If your current cartridge is insufficient - use a larger cartridge. if this makes your weapon prohibitively heavy, stand off and send in the AFVs. They have autocannons, HMGs, ATGMs, AGLs.

As to combat rifles that depends on if you consider ESAPI and XSAPI plates reasonable to wear

I think it depends more on what you consider a "combat rifle".
Or how you define "defeat".

[Imperializt Russia]

What sort of systems can you install on a helicopter to make it harder to kill with surface to air missiles?

You can fight smart and fly low.
If you hide from enemy radars and IR seekers behind buildings, trees and other terrain features, they can't shoot you down.

Additionally, you can fit alert systems for radar guided systems, missile launches and incoming munitions that will allow the pilots to take action, including evasive manoeuvres and suppressing the launch platform.
Further, you can fit ECM systems that may attempt to interfere or defeat the incoming munition/launcher directly.

[Velkanika]

What sort of systems can you install on a helicopter to make it harder to kill with surface to air missiles?

ECM jammers plus regular old chaff and flares work rather well. You can also partially mask the thermal signature from the ground by directing engine exhaust up into the rotor disk where it'll mix with ambient air. It's also a good idea to install an RWR and MAW so the pilot knows when he's being fired upon.

[Ictia]

There's a limit to which greater capabilities are required from an infantry arm.

The bow worked when armour was thin. The musket worked when infantry were massed.
Combat rifles of today can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn. If your current cartridge is insufficient - use a larger cartridge. if this makes your weapon prohibitively heavy, stand off and send in the AFVs. They have autocannons, HMGs, ATGMs, AGLs.

They can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn today. If your soldier wears an exoesqueleton, he can wear a better and heavier armour (that's basically what a power armour is). Liquid armour is another variable, or new materials (think about the firts warriors that wore an iron or an steal armour and their enemies only had bronze swords). I can call AFVs, of course, but there are places where only infantry can go. Maybe aerial support is not avaible. Of course is not only about fire power. Gauss guns also shoot faster, they make little noise... Other weapondry systems may offer other advantages. It makes no sense to me that in the year 5.000, soldiers were still fighting with AK-47.

[Husseinarti]

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.

The M249 is the mainstay of fire suppression in the typical US Army squad. It is the most casualty producing weapon system available to the squad and without it the squad is seriously compromised in a modern setting.

Each US Army squad is issued 2 M249 machine guns, 2 M203 grenade launchers, and 7 M4 carbines.

The M249s and M203s are broken into 2 separate fireteams of 4 men each, headed by the squad leader who is the 9th man. Each fireteam has 4 people, 3 M4s, an M203 and an M249 machine gun.

The fireteams work in tandem with one another, supporting each with fire-and-maneuver tactics.

[The Akasha Colony]

There's a limit to which greater capabilities are required from an infantry arm.

The bow worked when armour was thin. The musket worked when infantry were massed.
Combat rifles of today can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn. If your current cartridge is insufficient - use a larger cartridge. if this makes your weapon prohibitively heavy, stand off and send in the AFVs. They have autocannons, HMGs, ATGMs, AGLs.

They can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn today. If your soldier wears an exoesqueleton, he can wear a better and heavier armour (that's basically what a power armour is). Liquid armour is another variable, or new materials (think about the firts warriors that wore an iron or an steal armour and their enemies only had bronze swords). I can call AFVs, of course, but there are places where only infantry can go. Maybe aerial support is not avaible. Of course is not only about fire power. Gauss guns also shoot faster, they make little noise... Other weapondry systems may offer other advantages. It makes no sense to me that in the year 5.000, soldiers were still fighting with AK-47.

"Liquid armor" won't change it. You still have no justification for linear accelerators; if he's using heavier armor, use a bigger gun.

[Ictia]

They can defeat any level of armour that can be reasonably worn today. If your soldier wears an exoesqueleton, he can wear a better and heavier armour (that's basically what a power armour is). Liquid armour is another variable, or new materials (think about the firts warriors that wore an iron or an steal armour and their enemies only had bronze swords). I can call AFVs, of course, but there are places where only infantry can go. Maybe aerial support is not avaible. Of course is not only about fire power. Gauss guns also shoot faster, they make little noise... Other weapondry systems may offer other advantages. It makes no sense to me that in the year 5.000, soldiers were still fighting with AK-47.

"Liquid armor" won't change it. You still have no justification for linear accelerators; if he's using heavier armor, use a bigger gun.

Ok, i give my soldier a bigger gun. My enemy creates a better armour. I create an ever bigger gun an he creates an even better armour. Whats the next step, looking for a new weapondry system or transforming my infantry units in artillery ones (changing my bows to muskets or to ballistas)??? A bigger gun is heavier and uncomfortable and also more expensive (so it loses one of its main advantages). Bigger bullets means than the soldier can carry less of them. Also, making no noise and shooting more bullets per minute are good advantages for linear accelerators.

I mean, kinetic energy=mass*speed^(2). If I want a more powerful bullet, it's much more efficient to make it faster than to make it more massive.

[Galba Dea]

"Liquid armor" won't change it. You still have no justification for linear accelerators; if he's using heavier armor, use a bigger gun.

Ok, i give my soldier a bigger gun. My enemy creates a better armour. I create an ever bigger gun an he creates an even better armour. Whats the next step, looking for a new weapondry system or transforming my infantry units in artillery ones (changing my bows to muskets or to ballistas)??? A bigger gun is heavier and uncomfortable and also more expensive (so it loses one of its main advantages). Bigger bullets means than the soldier can carry less of them. Also, making no noise and shooting more bullets per minute are good advantages for linear accelerators.

I mean, kinetic energy=mass*speed^(2). If I want a more powerful bullet, it's much more efficient to make it faster than to make it more massive.

Newton's third, for one.

Secondly, efficient is not always efficient. You have to have enough potential energy, and translate it efficiently enough into the kinetic energy of the round, which then has to impart that kinetic energy efficiently into the target. The higher Kinetic Energy you're going for, you're going to need either more chemical potential energy (for propellant) or electrical charge (for your linear accelerator), and since your weapon probably isn't operating in frictionless vaccuum, you're going to need more energy per shot than you'll actually deliver to the target. And that's assuming the round is stopped by the body it's penetrating and therefore imparts all its energy into it. If it's a through-and-through, it's probably only delivering a fraction.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

"Liquid armor" won't change it. You still have no justification for linear accelerators; if he's using heavier armor, use a bigger gun.

Ok, i give my soldier a bigger gun. My enemy creates a better armour. I create an ever bigger gun an he creates an even better armour. Whats the next step, looking for a new weapondry system or transforming my infantry units in artillery ones (changing my bows to muskets or to ballistas)??? A bigger gun is heavier and uncomfortable and also more expensive (so it loses one of its main advantages). Bigger bullets means than the soldier can carry less of them. Also, making no noise and shooting more bullets per minute are good advantages for linear accelerators.

I mean, kinetic energy=mass*speed^(2). If I want a more powerful bullet, it's much more efficient to make it faster than to make it more massive.

If you want to be fighting in powered armor in the 51st century then by all means use railguns or whatever. And if you are using powered armor, why can't you use a bigger gun?