NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Dostanuot Loj]

How's this for a plan;

dig and build defenses near most of Padnak's beaches (which shouldn't be to much work, the country is pretty small) but leave them unoccupied, save for maybe a few low readiness reservists, to give the impression that there is massive defensive line to be overcome by any landing force and to actually be used by my forces in the event that that beach is being landed on. Defenses 5-20 km inland from the shore-

It's an option.
Get some serious low-tier reservists (old men and boys) to drive around between a series of fortified areas which overlap.

Trenches and bunkers are cheap. Build them as if they are there for serious defense, then don't seriously equip them or equip them lightly and with fake weapons. Then a dozen trucks with crews could move between them at random and do normal-defensive-area things. I know it sounds stupid but even the US right now would have issues determining that this was a trick without heavy, active airborne reconnaissance before hand. And it's doubtful they would consider a forced landing around there just in case. This is an easy and cheap way to deny landing areas to your enemy, while leaving others open.

There are lots of ways to stop LCAC landings, from simple posts to ATGMs. A simple post with a land mine stuck at the end would keep an LCAC from making it far enough on the beach to land if placed right and the tides agree. Otherwise roving ATGM teams are an option.

Taiwan did (and I think still does) has obsolete tanks assigned to immediate beach landing defense as mobile landing craft killers. They're useless against tanks but they're pretty resistant to shell naval bombardment and can mess up a landing craft's day real quick. You can do this less effectively with truck mounted recoiless rifles if you want.

[The Soodean Imperium]

How's this for a plan;

dig and build defenses near most of Padnak's beaches (which shouldn't be to much work, the country is pretty small) but leave them unoccupied, save for maybe a few low readiness reservists, to give the impression that there is massive defensive line to be overcome by any landing force and to actually be used by my forces in the event that that beach is being landed on. Defenses 5-20 km inland from the shore-

It's an option.
Get some serious low-tier reservists (old men and boys) to drive around between a series of fortified areas which overlap.

Trenches and bunkers are cheap. Build them as if they are there for serious defense, then don't seriously equip them or equip them lightly and with fake weapons. Then a dozen trucks with crews could move between them at random and do normal-defensive-area things. I know it sounds stupid but even the US right now would have issues determining that this was a trick without heavy, active airborne reconnaissance before hand. And it's doubtful they would consider a forced landing around there just in case. This is an easy and cheap way to deny landing areas to your enemy, while leaving others open.

There are lots of ways to stop LCAC landings, from simple posts to ATGMs. A simple post with a land mine stuck at the end would keep an LCAC from making it far enough on the beach to land if placed right and the tides agree. Otherwise roving ATGM teams are an option.

Taiwan did (and I think still does) has obsolete tanks assigned to immediate beach landing defense as mobile landing craft killers. They're useless against tanks but they're pretty resistant to shell naval bombardment and can mess up a landing craft's day real quick. You can do this less effectively with truck mounted recoiless rifles if you want.

Would heavier-end recoilless rifles (110-120mm) on light trucks or in concealed positions also do the trick? I'm not planning any urgent coastal-defense scenarios right now, but roughly speaking I've been planning to organize my Coastal Defense Forces into a dispersed forward echelon with ATGMs and RRs to threaten landing craft, and a nearby reserve echelon with Tank Battalions to counterattack at any landing site. And of course I assume Padnak has more RRs than he needs right now.

[Padnak]

-adviceage snip-

This is basically my plan as it stands

[Mitheldalond]

If fitted with dive brakes and folding wings for carrier use, would a P-47 analog make for a decent carrier-based fighter and dive bomber? WWII tech of course.

[Husseinarti]

If fitted with dive brakes and folding wings for carrier use, would a P-47 analog make for a decent carrier-based fighter and dive bomber? WWII tech of course.

Do you not have F4Fs Hellcats?

[Mitheldalond]

If fitted with dive brakes and folding wings for carrier use, would a P-47 analog make for a decent carrier-based fighter and dive bomber? WWII tech of course.

Do you not have F4Fs Hellcats?

F6F Hellcats. I could, but it's more fun coming up with my own design. The P-47 was fast, long-ranged, could carry a massive bomb load, and was extremely good in a dive. Plus, my Air Force already uses a not!P-47, so it seemed like a good candidate for both a fighter and a dive-bomber.

[Velkanika]

If fitted with dive brakes and folding wings for carrier use, would a P-47 analog make for a decent carrier-based fighter and dive bomber? WWII tech of course.

It's called the F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat. They are literally what you'd turn the P-47 into in order to make it operate from a carrier.

[Husseinarti]

Do you not have F4Fs Hellcats?

F6F Hellcats. I could, but it's more fun coming up with my own design. The P-47 was fast, long-ranged, could carry a massive bomb load, and was extremely good in a dive. Plus, my Air Force already uses a not!P-47, so it seemed like a good candidate for both a fighter and a dive-bomber.

How is it your own design if you're just modding a P-47.

[Mitheldalond]

F6F Hellcats. I could, but it's more fun coming up with my own design. The P-47 was fast, long-ranged, could carry a massive bomb load, and was extremely good in a dive. Plus, my Air Force already uses a not!P-47, so it seemed like a good candidate for both a fighter and a dive-bomber.

How is it your own design if you're just modding a P-47.

I used the P-47 as the basis. The original version for my Air Force just had the 8 .50 cals swapped out for six 20mms.

The one I'm doing for my Navy has the engine behind the cockpit (like the P-39 or P-63), and a .50 cal six-barreled Gatling gun with 3000 rounds of ammunition in the nose. The gun is connected to the propellor shaft by a set of reduction gears that are engaged when the trigger is pulled and regulate the gun to spin at 1000 rpm. With six barrels, this provides a rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute.

As it turns out, this arrangement is significantly lighter than the P-47s actual armament. Even if the .50 cal Gatling gun weighed as much as the 20mm M61 (~292kg), it would still be lighter than 8 Brownings. It also carries 400 fewer rounds than the P-47.

[EsToVnIa]

The F6F and F8F basically do what you want, just better since they were designed with carrier operations in mind.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Clearly you just need to have folding wings on a P-61 and use it as a WW2 era F-14.

[Mitheldalond]

Clearly you just need to have folding wings on a P-61 and use it as a WW2 era F-14.

Actually, I was planning on sticking a 20mm Gatling cannon in a P-61 (or P-38), though I wasn't planning on it being a carrier aircraft.

Also, I why bother simulating F-14 when you can just use actual F-15s?

[Vitaphone Racing]

How is it your own design if you're just modding a P-47.

I used the P-47 as the basis. The original version for my Air Force just had the 8 .50 cals swapped out for six 20mms.

The one I'm doing for my Navy has the engine behind the cockpit (like the P-39 or P-63), and a .50 cal six-barreled Gatling gun with 3000 rounds of ammunition in the nose. The gun is connected to the propellor shaft by a set of reduction gears that are engaged when the trigger is pulled and regulate the gun to spin at 1000 rpm. With six barrels, this provides a rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute.

As it turns out, this arrangement is significantly lighter than the P-47s actual armament. Even if the .50 cal Gatling gun weighed as much as the 20mm M61 (~292kg), it would still be lighter than 8 Brownings. It also carries 400 fewer rounds than the P-47.

I think you need to think about this a little harder.

The first thing you need to consider is how you're going to mount an air-cooled engine (because I'm assuming you're taking that from the P-47, otherwise you might have said P-51) behind the cockpit, where it's not going to receive a lot of air for cooling.

The second thing you need to consider is how moving the heaviest part of the aircraft behind the centre of gravity is going to affect the way it flies.

[Mitheldalond]

I used the P-47 as the basis. The original version for my Air Force just had the 8 .50 cals swapped out for six 20mms.

The one I'm doing for my Navy has the engine behind the cockpit (like the P-39 or P-63), and a .50 cal six-barreled Gatling gun with 3000 rounds of ammunition in the nose. The gun is connected to the propellor shaft by a set of reduction gears that are engaged when the trigger is pulled and regulate the gun to spin at 1000 rpm. With six barrels, this provides a rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute.

As it turns out, this arrangement is significantly lighter than the P-47s actual armament. Even if the .50 cal Gatling gun weighed as much as the 20mm M61 (~292kg), it would still be lighter than 8 Brownings. It also carries 400 fewer rounds than the P-47.

I think you need to think about this a little harder.

The first thing you need to consider is how you're going to mount an air-cooled engine (because I'm assuming you're taking that from the P-47, otherwise you might have said P-51) behind the cockpit, where it's not going to receive a lot of air for cooling.

The second thing you need to consider is how moving the heaviest part of the aircraft behind the centre of gravity is going to affect the way it flies.

1. There's a pair of decently sizable air intakes on either side of the fuselage.

2. The weight of the engine is somewhat offset by having all the armament in the nose. The wings are moved a bit further back and the tail wings are larger to help align the center of lift properly with the center of mass. Having the center of mass in the center of the aircraft would probably actually increase the maneuverability over the P-47, as would the larger tail plane, though it may not dive quite as well.

[The Teutonic Republic]

So here's an idea for a nuclear pulse propulsion powered ICBM that i just quickly modeled.



Specifications

• Length: 89.5 m
• Diameter: 27 m
• Weight: 4,000,000 kg
• Engine Weight: 1,700,000 kg
• Thrust: 80,000,000 N
• Thrust Power: 1.6 TW
• Warhead Weight: 1,600,500 kg
• Warhead Yield: 8.25 GT
• Warhead Type: 3 stage thermonuclear
• Range: unlimited
• Terminal Speed: 10,000 m/s

Propulsion Unit:

• Yield: variable, 1 MT max
• Warhead type: two stage thermonuclear
• Efficiency: 97%
• Mass: 1,000kg
• Detonation interval: 1.1-3 seconds
• Propellant velocity: 30,000,000 m/s

The missile is first launched up into low earth orbit and then de-orbits over the target (similar to the Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) before discarding its propulsion unit and re-entering the atmosphere . The frontal nosecone is made from hardened stainless steel 1 meter thick with an inconel-titanium coating designed to survive the heat of atmospheric re-entry as well as resist hits from EKVs and nuclear explosions from anti-ballistic missiles. After re-entering the atmosphere and a few thousand meters from impact the frontal nosecone separates revealing the 8.25 GT warhead inside which has its fall slowed down by a set of massive parachutes before detonating in midair.

Edit: using this site I was able to get some specs on the power of the 8.25 GT warhead

• 500 rem radiation radius (green): 17,32 km
• Fireball radius (yellow: : 17.7 km
• 20 psi Air blast Radius (red): 53.65 km
• 4.6 psi air blast radius (blue): 141.62 km
• 3rd degree burn thermal radiation radius (orange): 470.53 km

[Imperializt Russia]

That appears to be an Orion Battleship concept.
Also, why?

This is needlessly complex for FOBS.
As is the yield, that's utterly, utterly pointless. What are you doing, cracking the planet you live on literally in half to spite your enemy's petrochemical industry?

[Gallia-]

That appears to be an Orion Battleship concept.
Also, why?

This is needlessly complex for FOBS.
As is the yield, that's utterly, utterly pointless. What are you doing, cracking the planet you live on literally in half to spite your enemy's petrochemical industry?

he's exterminating a continent obviously

how else will you beat the ussr?

[Puzikas]

>tfw you live in the 4.6psi range

Fine, fuck you anyways, I didnt want to live in your shitty universe

[Rhoderberg]

As is the yield, that's utterly, utterly pointless. What are you doing, cracking the planet you live on literally in half to spite your enemy's petrochemical industry?

Yes.

[Khornatenreich]

What are you doing, cracking the planet you live on literally in half to spite your enemy's petrochemical industry?

Is that even a question? Yes.

[The Teutonic Republic]

That appears to be an Orion Battleship concept.
Also, why?

high altitude airbusrt keeps planet-cracking to a minimum.

Just for fun:

[Mitheldalond]

So here's an idea for a nuclear pulse propulsion powered ICBM that i just quickly modeled.

(Image)

Specifications

• Length: 89.5 m
• Diameter: 27 m
• Weight: 4,000,000 kg
• Engine Weight: 1,700,000 kg
• Thrust: 80,000,000 N
• Thrust Power: 1.6 TW
• Warhead Weight: 1,600,500 kg
• Warhead Yield: 8.25 GT
• Warhead Type: 3 stage thermonuclear
• Range: unlimited
• Terminal Speed: 10,000 m/s

Propulsion Unit:

• Yield: variable, 1 MT max
• Warhead type: two stage thermonuclear
• Efficiency: 97%
• Mass: 1,000kg
• Detonation interval: 1.1-3 seconds
• Propellant velocity: 30,000,000 m/s

The missile is first launched up into low earth orbit and then de-orbits over the target (similar to the Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) before discarding its propulsion unit and re-entering the atmosphere . The frontal nosecone is made from hardened stainless steel 1 meter thick with an inconel-titanium coating designed to survive the heat of atmospheric re-entry as well as resist hits from EKVs and nuclear explosions from anti-ballistic missiles. After re-entering the atmosphere and a few thousand meters from impact the frontal nosecone separates revealing the 8.25 GT warhead inside which has its fall slowed down by a set of massive parachutes before detonating in midair.

Edit: using this site I was able to get some specs on the power of the 8.25 GT warhead

(Image)

• 500 rem radiation radius (green): 17,32 km
• Fireball radius (yellow: : 17.7 km
• 20 psi Air blast Radius (red): 53.65 km
• 4.6 psi air blast radius (blue): 141.62 km
• 3rd degree burn thermal radiation radius (orange): 470.53 km

For an interplanetary weapon intended to set the atmosphere of the offending planet on fire, I'd imagine it would work fairly well. In any other situation, no. Just no.

EDIT: I should also point out that launching this thing requires you to nuke the area around the launch pad, AKA your own territory.

[Khornatenreich]

That appears to be an Orion Battleship concept.
Also, why?

high altitude airbusrt keeps planet-cracking to a minimum.

Just for fun:

This post makes me unreasonably happy.

[The Teutonic Republic]

For an interplanetary weapon intended to set the atmosphere of the offending planet on fire, I'd imagine it would work fairly well. In any other situation, no. Just no.

EDIT: I should also point out that launching this thing requires you to nuke the area around the launch pad, AKA your own territory.

it's a weapon designed to ensure MAD, plain and simple.

The radiation problem isn't as bad as you might think. It was theorized that launching an orion craft off a launchpad several kilometers in diameter made of concrete would severely reduce the initial radioactive fallout. Also using two stage fission-fusion bombs over the less efficient fission bombs would also cut down on radioactive fallout. Also the "shaped charge" design of the propulsion units focuses most of the blast on the pusher plate and so the blast in other directions is minimized. If you launched it from a remote area or say near the magnetic poles the fallout hazard would be pretty minimal.



http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... lse--Orion
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... ject_Orion

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And then the rest of the world uses their not unreasonably small collective nuclear arsenal to ensure your prompt annihilation for their own sheer self-preservation and the preservation of planetary intergrity. Not to mention where are you getting all these huge masses of fissile material?