NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Aelarus]

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.

You're asking whether or not an as of yet imaginary (not in service) weapon is sufficient to tackle an as of yet imaginary threat in a military realism thread. If anything, the only question you'd be able to really ask without getting massively theoretical is how much $$$ are you willing to spend per soldier?

[Allanea]

THere's no evidence that a bigger small arm is going to be much more expensive than a smaller one, certainly not simply due to its size. Obviously a tank cannon is more expensive than a pistol, but your soldier is not going to be carrying a tank cannon.

Let's say you armed your soldiers with a .308 rifle. Now a .308 rifle will defeat most infantry armor in existence today (except for Level IV NIJ vests, which are very heavy). It's not meaningfully more expensive than a 5.56mm rifle, and the ammunition is only slightly more expensive and has double the muzzle energy (3590 Joules vs. 1500 Joules in the 5.56)... and yet a .308 rifle is not meaningfully more expensive than an AR-15, you can get a FAL or an AR-15 for about $700.

Either - your setting is so deeply far in the future our understanding of small arms doesn't apply - or there's no justification for a Gauss gun.

[Aelarus]

I was referring to the whole gauss rifle and exo suit example, not larger caliber sticks.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

Was it this one?

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.

Switching to a linear accelerator doesn't change the battle between weapons and armor. You could say the same thing: you introduce a magnetic accelerator, and your enemy builds better armor. So you build a more powerful accelerator, and he makes even better armor. It's the same thing. There's nothing magical about a railgun that makes it able to penetrate anything, and presumably each railgun would need to be larger than the last to accommodate a larger power source, stronger rails, a longer acceleration period, etc.

There's also no reason that it would have a faster firing rate or be quieter. A very large component of a weapon's noise is the projectile breaking the sound barrier as it accelerates. This is why suppressed weapons usually use subsonic ammunition, which eliminates this noise. A hypervelocity weapon would still generate this noise, and it would still be limited by heat dissipation in regards to rate of fire, like a modern firearm. But unlike a modern firearm, it doesn't get to dump a lot of this heat overboard when it ejects the cartridge case, because it doesn't have one (caseless weapons also have this problem). And it is also limited by the rate in which power can be supplied by whatever power source is on hand, unlike a firearm, in which every round has its own propellant charge.

And it isn't any more efficient to make it faster rather than larger. Either way, you still have to input that much energy (more, once accounting for inefficiency losses) to get that much kinetic energy as an output. Yes, the velocity component is squared which gives it a larger effect on kinetic energy, but you still have to actually input that energy, so it isn't any easier, and indeed may be much harder as the faster acceleration means even more friction heating to deal with.

[Inyourfaceistan]

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.

Thank you for providing hope to those of us who still bother with our puny Abrams.

[Padnak]

With an unmanned turret on an MBT, could you hypothetically built a tank with a markeva style layout (engine in the front, crew in the back) where the turret is partially over the engine to reduce the size of the vehicle?

[Iltica]

Mmmmaybe but where would the driver's viewport or periscope be?

[Gallia-]

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.

Thank you for providing hope to those of us who still bother with our puny Abrams.

I never said the powder charge was sufficient.

[Aelarus]

If you have unmanned turret then you can use the entire thing as a very large blowout panel.

[The United Remnants of America]

Is there any benefit for having two different sets of troops trained for airborne and airmobile, or should that be condensed into a single trained unit?

[Iltica]

What practical and geopolitical factors should a non-aligned nation consider when deciding whether to use Western or Eastern derived military equipment? Can you mix and match the ammo sizes as long as they are consistent for each unit type? (NATO cannons shells, Warsaw rifle rounds, etc)

[The Kievan People]

What geopolitical factors should a non-aligned nation consider when deciding whether to use Western or Eastern derived military equipment? Can you mix and match them?

In what context?

[Iltica]

Well most can only make their own stuff to a certain extent, It's not practical to give your whole army unique ammo sizes and logistical vehicles unless you're a superpower.
Basically I'm asking what factors to consider when deciding whether it makes more sense for the military to be mostly NATO or Warsaw sourced.

[New Vihenia]

With an unmanned turret on an MBT, could you hypothetically built a tank with a markeva style layout (engine in the front, crew in the back) where the turret is partially over the engine to reduce the size of the vehicle?

Sure but no.. you'll have difficulty maintaining the engine.

The most common layout is this :

http://i.imgur.com/gGOn8VV.jpg

[Totulga]

Well most can only make their own stuff to a certain extent, It's not practical to give your whole army unique ammo sizes and logistical vehicles unless you're a superpower.
Basically I'm asking what factors to consider when deciding whether it makes more sense for the military to be mostly NATO or Warsaw sourced.

This would highly depend on the nations budget, type of military, and terrain. For example tanks, soviet tanks are swarm tanks, they are built to attack in large numbers and over run then enemy through support numbers. In addition, a soviet tank is mainly and anti fortification/infantry support vehicle. That is one of the reasons that it has ATGM's that can be fired from the main gun, the soviet armor is not really designed to fight enemy armor. It can but it is a secondary function for it.

A NATO tank is primarily a tank killer. It has a high velocity gun and excellent stabilization for its main gun allowing it to do a better job in armored combat. That was one of the problems faced by coalition forces in Iraq, they did not have a highly effective anti fortification or bunker round.

So if you are looking at being over run by armor you would probably want NATO equipment if you just want a general army then I would say soviet.

[Gallia-]

Well most can only make their own stuff to a certain extent, It's not practical to give your whole army unique ammo sizes and logistical vehicles unless you're a superpower.
Basically I'm asking what factors to consider when deciding whether it makes more sense for the military to be mostly NATO or Warsaw sourced.

Whichever you are closer to geographically.

The main question to be asked is: Can one side invade you better/easier/faster than the other?

[Iltica]

Well most can only make their own stuff to a certain extent, It's not practical to give your whole army unique ammo sizes and logistical vehicles unless you're a superpower.
Basically I'm asking what factors to consider when deciding whether it makes more sense for the military to be mostly NATO or Warsaw sourced.

Whichever you are closer to geographically.

The main question to be asked is: Can one side invade you better/easier/faster than the other?

That's the part that makes it hard to choose. Iltica's currently in Eastern Africa close to where Ethiopia and Somalia are. Quite a ways from either side's territory.
Those show up as 2nd world aligned on this map but they have their own historical reasons for that. Unless you think proximity the Bab-el Mandeb strait would make one come after me over the other?

[Gallia-]

Whichever you are closer to geographically.

The main question to be asked is: Can one side invade you better/easier/faster than the other?

That's the part that makes it hard to choose. Iltica's currently in Eastern Africa close to where Ethiopia and Somalia are. Quite a ways from either side's territory.

A lot of this depends on your history with your neighbours and what interactions you've had historically with the West during colonization period. It also depends on the specific geographical location of your country. Somalia was a pretty heavy "communist" state that received support from both the USSR and USA randomly when Barre decided it would be funny to kick out the Soviets and invade the Derg, mostly because it was in a super important geographical position on the Gulf of Aden and a lot of oil traffic went through it on its way through the Suez.

Derg was a reluctant Soviet "ally" that sort of resented Moscow's insistence on Soviet/Marxist doctrine, but went with it out of fear of Barre and another Ogaden War.

Africa is really complicated. If you want to be "simple" you can be a straight faced colonial standup who had a peaceful, patient transition to independence like Botswana, and barricade yourself inside your bunkerstate of representative democracy with Western tanks, jet fighters, and MAS 49s or whatever against the unwashed communist hordes.

e: Being located on the coast of the Gulf of Aden across the Strait, with a commanding naval presence of a large portion of oil traffic worldwide is not a pretext for invasion. Quite the opposite, you can shop for partners on a whim like Siad Barre did.

Just be Djibouti and turn into a Franco-American naval base/bunkerreich.

[Arthurista]

What're your takes on using something like a modded A400M loaded with a tonne of Storm Shadows or JASSM as an alternative to heavy bombers?

While cruise missiles are quite a bit more expensive than simpler dropped PGMs, the cost/benefit analysis will probably work out well compared to the losses of manned aircrafts which can be inflicted by sophisticated IADS. Even B-2s are iffy when faced with NEBO or similar VHF/UHF radars.

Yet another alternative seems to be to use TBMs for a lot of the strike missions which manned aircrafts do these days. Again, more expensive per shot, but probably cheaper in the long run compared to lost aircrafts and pilots.

[Imperializt Russia]

"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.

Your enemy stops increasing in protection because there are significant weight and mobility restrictions that more armour gives.

Interceptor body armour as worn by coalition forces in Afghanistan offered protection against AP loads of .30-06
It gave lots of soldiers heatstroke and broken or twisted ankles.

Insurgents were then found with heavy weapons such as the SVD-K, a weapon designed to defeat heavy armour on infantry. I do not know if weapons such as this were used to particular effect there.

[Arthurista]

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.

Your enemy stops increasing in protection because there are significant weight and mobility restrictions that more armour gives.

Interceptor body armour as worn by coalition forces in Afghanistan offered protection against AP loads of .30-06
It gave lots of soldiers heatstroke and broken or twisted ankles.

Insurgents were then found with heavy weapons such as the SVD-K, a weapon designed to defeat heavy armour on infantry. I do not know if weapons such as this were used to particular effect there.

It seems like a better investment to increase the coverage of soft body armour, rather than bulletproof inserts. Most infantry casualties in real wars against real armies will be caused by HE-frag munitions anyway, not small arms. An infantryman with an arm sliced up by shrapnel is just as out of action as one shot through the chest.

[Imperializt Russia]

A guy with three broken ribs because he took an AP round to the vest probably isn't going to be in much of a fighting state either tbh.

[Gallia-]

What're your takes on using something like a modded A400M loaded with a tonne of Storm Shadows or JASSM as an alternative to heavy bombers?

While cruise missiles are quite a bit more expensive than simpler dropped PGMs, the cost/benefit analysis will probably work out well compared to the losses of manned aircrafts which can be inflicted by sophisticated IADS. Even B-2s are iffy when faced with NEBO or similar VHF/UHF radars.

Yet another alternative seems to be to use TBMs for a lot of the strike missions which manned aircrafts do these days. Again, more expensive per shot, but probably cheaper in the long run compared to lost aircrafts and pilots.

B-2 is not "iffy" against VHF radars. It's specifically designed to operate in environments where systems like Nebo and other L-band/VHF radars are the backbone of GCI air defence. You aren't loitering over Siberia or East Germany without being protected against S-300PmU/V and S-400. The best solution for protecting against attacking B-2s involves AWACS, Barrier-style radar tripwires, interceptors with IRST, and a lot of training at intercepting brief and fleeting radar transients.

TBH, this would not be altogether different from using a heavy bomber as a cruise missile truck, except it would require engineering a new plane. A heavy bomber just needs new software and release/carriage trials, at most.

The advantage of B-2 is that it can directly attack time critical targets like TELs and railway garrisons of nuclear weapons, which was its design mission. A cruise missile cannot.

[Ictia]

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.

Newton third law would apply to both kind of weapons, so the problem is the same. We can balance out it (shock absorbers, exoskeletons...).

That's why i was asking about caliber at first. Maybe because the higher speed of the bullet it would pass through the body without being stoped. With a higher caliber, the bullet surface will be bigger (also it would have more kinetic energy) and it woul be easier to it being stoped by the body. My weapons are not going to operate in vaccuum, but that's a problem that every ranged weapon that has existed have, since stones to ICBM.

I'm learning a lot and thinking about problems that I haven't thought before, so I'm really thankful to all of you, but I still don't see any really big problem with linear accelerators that cannot be solved. I'm a bit surprised by everyone being againts them.

[The Kievan People]

Use explosives.