Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Immoren]

(Image)

Today I got bored and decided to experiment a bit with WW2 era weaponry, so I took a Panzerschreck and did some modifications to it because why not. I guess it could be used in a modern environment with the modifications I gave it (Minimal, I guess) as it now uses 84mm HEAT rounds. Should I make it shorter? Maybe move the second grip a bit back?

It looks like recoilless gun, does it then even need shield?

[Rodrania]

(Image)

Today I got bored and decided to experiment a bit with WW2 era weaponry, so I took a Panzerschreck and did some modifications to it because why not. I guess it could be used in a modern environment with the modifications I gave it (Minimal, I guess) as it now uses 84mm HEAT rounds. Should I make it shorter? Maybe move the second grip a bit back?

It looks like recoilless gun, does it then even need shield?

It is a recoiless gun, yes. It doesn't really need a shield to be honest, but rule of cool applies and I'll think of an excuse.

[Fordorsia]

The sPzB 41 did use a tungsten core so that would explain the better penetratio, but it's not better by very much. At 100m and 500m my peetration is on the lower and of its estimated penetration, but it's not a huge difference. A better bullet for mine would make a big difference.

It also used a squeezebore round which is essentially the closest thing you can get to proper APDS before you get the DS. You are not going to get much better round design in the period for a high speed maximum kill AP round.

Well if I ever get around to making the HVAP bullet, I'll see if puz can help figure out if it would be any good. Might as well try it.

[Asgeirria]

Not the detailed answer I was looking for but at least you're asking the right question now

if you're going to handwave away all problems that people point out with "let's assume that's not a problem because reasons", there isn't any reason to ask if there are problems in the first place, is there?

You're clearly either not reading my posts, or just don't care what's in them. So which one is it? Because it's pretty clear that they're trying to answer questions I wasn't asking. Because this guy answered relevant questions and I don't seem to be disregarding what he says, now do I? If I wanted to know how hard to make possible my armor choices were, I would have asked. But instead, I asked if they were possible, how effective they would be. So, what's the deal?

leaving out the silly armour issues the general feel of what you have posted is bloated and unweildy with portions of video game style class specialisations and not actually taking care about what your choosing on the side.

Platoons don't need anything other than thier IFVs. Companies don't need extra vehciles other than an ambulance, a "cargo" APC, a couple of run about jeepalikes and maybe a 3 vehicle repair/fitter section (which i think is what you are trying to go for with the boxer GNGP, you really want the BDR).

A junior inf. officer does not need his own MBT. If you are going to include MBTs in an infantry regiment/brigade put them in thier own battalion or at least thier own companys at battalion level.

Numbers of sub units seem not too bad until suddenly the Company commander has 8 Fecking Lftn.s to look after (with no XO aparrently). Why on earth do you have 8 platoons in a company? I assume its some roman flavour thing.

Despite the aparent bloat the battalion is totally missing any form of support weapons capability. Where is the support company with its MGs, Mortars, ATGMs, snipers, recce and assault pioneer assets?

As to small arms the MDR-C is OK as long as you stick to the 16" barrel.
Bullpup M14s suck the biggest boabies in the world so why bother when stuff like the RFB exists? Alternatively any one of the precision ARalikes out here will happily do te same job without being that encumbering in CQB. No such thing as a squad level demo guy, you will have a rocket launcher for of the riflemen but thats about it.
Just make the "commando" a regular rifleman and issue a shotgun for one of them to carry slung and use when required.
Why does the machine gunner have a weapon totally incompatible with the logistics of the rest of the squad? For the PKP to make sense you have either rechambered them to 7.62mm NATO or rechambered your teams' precision rifles and the MGs on all your vehicles to 7.62x54mmR.
The PS90 is a silly comercial civilian toy, either use proper P90s or better yet MDR-Cs as it is hardly over encumbering.

This is exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, addressing the unwieldy company level, the high ratio of PL to CO is sort of supposed to be working on lower-level command autonomy. CO tells PL what needs to go accomplished, PL decides the best way to go about that. Should the autonomy of command begin farther up or farther down?

As far as the PKP, since we're not factoring the cost for rechambering, I was just looking at performance (power, accuracy, etc)

As far as specialization, the commando probably could use a P90 instead of shotgun. On further research, the UTAS is unreliable. I'm not too familiar on the RFB, but from my experience it doesn"'t have automatic? But I hear good things about reliability and accuracy. Weight isn't really an issue. Is there a better option performance-wise than the MDR-C?

This is exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, addressing the unwieldy company level, the high ratio of PL to CO is sort of supposed to be working on lower-level command autonomy. CO tells PL what needs to go accomplished, PL decides the best way to go about that. Should the autonomy of command begin farther up or farther down?

As far as the PKP, since we're not factoring the cost for rechambering, I was just looking at performance (power, accuracy, etc)

As far as specialization, the commando probably could use a P90 instead of shotgun. On further research, the UTAS is unreliable. I'm not too familiar on the RFB, but from my experience it doesn"'t have automatic? But I hear good things about reliability and accuracy. Weight isn't really an issue. Is there a better option performance-wise than the MDR-C?

Having shot the RFB before, it's kinda a hit or miss when it comes to reliability. That can be blamed on the manufacturer though. Accuracy is average, nothing to write home about, but it gets the job done in a satisfactory manner.

As to shotguns, just stick with a pump 870. If you are insistent on it being semi-auto, go with the Benelli M4.

You've probably got more experience with battle rifles than I, (I've only used hunting rifles, AR-15s, pistols), what would be a high-power, high-accuracy alternative? Doesn't have to be pretty, just needs to get the job done for the marksman.

As to shotguns, it was brought to my attention that it would be better to replace it with a SMG. Thoughts on that?

This is exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, addressing the unwieldy company level, the high ratio of PL to CO is sort of supposed to be working on lower-level command autonomy. CO tells PL what needs to go accomplished, PL decides the best way to go about that. Should the autonomy of command begin farther up or farther down?

As far as the PKP, since we're not factoring the cost for rechambering, I was just looking at performance (power, accuracy, etc)

As far as specialization, the commando probably could use a P90 instead of shotgun. On further research, the UTAS is unreliable. I'm not too familiar on the RFB, but from my experience it doesn"'t have automatic? But I hear good things about reliability and accuracy. Weight isn't really an issue. Is there a better option performance-wise than the MDR-C?

It's not really about the independence or otherwise of the subordinate commanders. With 8 units to direct the captain has to come up with 8 tasks and handle requests for help/support, situation reports and the supply chain to 8 different groups. In even the armies with the best junior officers and greatest command delagation comanders don't have to deal with more than 3 or 4 primary subordinate units.

So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?
Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

Here's some information on officer ranks and responsibilities:

Decurio: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a squad, expected to manage tactical decisions on the lowest level. Selected from recently promoted Decanae who show an aptitude in leadership. Trained at an officer's academy to better handle their troops.
Annual Pay: 35,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 3rd combat deployment or 30 months of enlistment.

Tesserarius: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a platoon (four squads), is expected to have a good understanding of strategic objectives as well as tactical command on the battlefield.
Annual Pay: 50,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 8th Combat deployment or 90 months of enlistment.

Centurion: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons Leads. a Company (eight platoons), expected to have an excellent tactical understanding of the battlefield, as well as be intimately familiar with strategic objectives.
Annual Pay: 80,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On qualification on tactical and strategic comprehension or on exemption due to competence exemplified on the battlefield.

Colonel: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a battalion (two companies), expected to advise the Praefect of tactical situation and give feedback on how the strategy continues to affect the tactical situation. Is familiar with grand strategy.
Annual Pay: 120,000 credits +insurance, on-base or off-base housing.
Promotion: Promotion of top candidate(s) only when a Praefect dies, or a new Legion is formed.

I did the numbers when I first started on NS, and haven't updated them since. Had them in separate factbooks before.

Leopard 2A7 MBT


Entered service 2014
Crew: 4 men

Dimensions and weight
Weight 67.5 t
Length (gun forward) 10.97 m
Hull length 7.7 m
Width 4 m
Height ~ 3 m

Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees

Ammunition load
Main gun 42 rounds
Machine guns:

Mobility
Engine MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 72 km/h
Range 450 km

Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.15 m
Trench 3 m
Fording 1 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

This main battle tank is armed with a Rheinmetall 120-mm / L55 smoothbore gun. The same gun is used on the Leopard 2A6. It has better fire accuracy and longer range, comparing with the previous Leopard 2 tanks. The gun is loaded manually and is compatible with all standard NATO ammunition, as well as newly developed programmable HE munitions. These programmable rounds enable to engage targets behind cover and within buildings. These multi-purpose rounds can be also used against enemy troops, armored vehicles and low-flying helicopters. A total of 42 rounds are carried inside the tank. 15 rounds are stored in the turret bustle and are ready to use. Remaining rounds are stored inside the hull.

Secondary armament consists of a 12.7-mm machine gun. It is mounted in a remotely-controlled weapon station on the roof of the turret. There is also a coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun.

This main battle tank has a front and rear thermal image system for the driver. Commander and gunner have additional cameras for long-range surveillance. Vehicle also carries advanced command and control equipment and is fitted with battlefield management system.


GTK Boxer



Weight
25.2 t (24.8 long tons; 27.8 short tons) (vehicle);
33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) (gross)

Length
7.88 m (25 ft 10 in)

Width
2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height
2.37 m (7 ft 9 in) (baseline vehicle)

Crew
3 (+8)



Armor
AMAP composite armour


Main armament
40mm automatic grenade launcher (Heckler & Koch GMG) or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (M3M)

Engine
MTU 8V 199 TE20 Diesel[1]
530 kW (711 hp)

Power/weight
16.1 kW/t (max weight)

Suspension
8x8


Operational
range
1,100 km (684 mi)

Speed
103 km/h (64 mph)



Boxer CP (Boxer Command Post) — The Boxer CP is set up as a command-vehicle and is meant for deployment amongst different combat battalions. The Command Post variants of BOXER are used for command and control in theatre by acting as a centre for communication and control while being protected to a high level. Secured communication, displays for situation awareness and instruments for network enabled warfare are key characteristics of this variant. In the configurations of the German and the Dutch Armies the vehicles provide a variety of radio transmitters for secured communication and data exchange. Further features include: Mine protection (AT blast, AP), 360° ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation, Protection against bomblets and artillery fragments. The vehicle offers room for 4 workstations connected via local area network to the Battlefield Management System (BMS) and the Theater Independent Army and Air Force Network (Titaan)
Crew: 1 commander/staff-assistant, 1 gunner, 1 driver, 3 staff-officers, 1 passenger

Boxer AMB (Boxer Ambulance) — The Boxer AMB replaced the YPR-765 prgwt variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle) casualty transport. It can accommodate 3 casualties that are seated with 7 lying down, 3 seated and 2 lying down, or 4 seated and 1 lying down.
Crew: 1 driver, 1 commander, 1 medic

Boxer GNGP (Boxer Geniegroep) - The Boxer GNPR is an engineering and logistics support vehicle and will be deployed for the transport of troops and engineer group equipment. This variant enables the armoured engineer group to carry out the tactical military and other tasks assigned to them properly, under protection and over a sustained period of time. It provides seating for six dismounts with space available for their personal equipment and an additional separate stowage section for munitions. It may be deployed as a support vehicle with other units or used for independent assignments such as route clearance, or as a protected work location during mine clearance or demolition operations. The Boxer GNGP replaces the YPR-765 prgm/PRCO-C3 variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The Royal Netherlands Army will convert 12 Boxer vehicles to the Boxer Battle Damage Repair.. (BDR) variant. The BDR variant is able to accommodate the special equipment, tools, expendable and non-expendable supplies needed to carry out diagnoses, maintenance and minor repairs if required.
Crew: 1 engineer commander, 1 driver, 1 observing commander, 1 gunner, 5 engineers

Boxer Cargo (Boxer Cargo) — The Boxer Cargo is equipped with a special loading floor to secure cargo during transport and can transport a maximum of two standard one tonne army pallets. The interior design of the vehicle allows adaptation as necessary for different kinds of missions. For conducting peace keeping missions or other peace time operations the set of vehicle equipment can be changed and tailored to suit as required.
Crew: 1 commander/gunner, 1 driver


ARDV-AARC [i]Automated Robotic DefensiVe Anti-Aircraft Roving Combatant.


Armor: AMAP composite
Engine: MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Speed: 120kmph
Armament: x4 LFK NG SAM launchers, x2 Dual 20mm Rheinmetall Rh 202
Defensive: x4 smoke generators

The last bit is incomplete, since I haven't finished doing proper research on it, but I did a wikihaul on the other two.

So, with that knowledge, what's your assessment of who needs what?

[Husseinarti]

if you're going to handwave away all problems that people point out with "let's assume that's not a problem because reasons", there isn't any reason to ask if there are problems in the first place, is there?

You're clearly either not reading my posts, or just don't care what's in them. So which one is it? Because it's pretty clear that they're trying to answer questions I wasn't asking. Because this guy answered relevant questions and I don't seem to be disregarding what he says, now do I? If I wanted to know how hard to make possible my armor choices were, I would have asked. But instead, I asked if they were possible, how effective they would be. So, what's the deal?

This is exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, addressing the unwieldy company level, the high ratio of PL to CO is sort of supposed to be working on lower-level command autonomy. CO tells PL what needs to go accomplished, PL decides the best way to go about that. Should the autonomy of command begin farther up or farther down?

As far as the PKP, since we're not factoring the cost for rechambering, I was just looking at performance (power, accuracy, etc)

As far as specialization, the commando probably could use a P90 instead of shotgun. On further research, the UTAS is unreliable. I'm not too familiar on the RFB, but from my experience it doesn"'t have automatic? But I hear good things about reliability and accuracy. Weight isn't really an issue. Is there a better option performance-wise than the MDR-C?

Having shot the RFB before, it's kinda a hit or miss when it comes to reliability. That can be blamed on the manufacturer though. Accuracy is average, nothing to write home about, but it gets the job done in a satisfactory manner.

As to shotguns, just stick with a pump 870. If you are insistent on it being semi-auto, go with the Benelli M4.

You've probably got more experience with battle rifles than I, (I've only used hunting rifles, AR-15s, pistols), what would be a high-power, high-accuracy alternative? Doesn't have to be pretty, just needs to get the job done for the marksman.

As to shotguns, it was brought to my attention that it would be better to replace it with a SMG. Thoughts on that?

It's not really about the independence or otherwise of the subordinate commanders. With 8 units to direct the captain has to come up with 8 tasks and handle requests for help/support, situation reports and the supply chain to 8 different groups. In even the armies with the best junior officers and greatest command delagation comanders don't have to deal with more than 3 or 4 primary subordinate units.

So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?
Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

Here's some information on officer ranks and responsibilities:

Decurio: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a squad, expected to manage tactical decisions on the lowest level. Selected from recently promoted Decanae who show an aptitude in leadership. Trained at an officer's academy to better handle their troops.
Annual Pay: 35,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 3rd combat deployment or 30 months of enlistment.

Tesserarius: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a platoon (four squads), is expected to have a good understanding of strategic objectives as well as tactical command on the battlefield.
Annual Pay: 50,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 8th Combat deployment or 90 months of enlistment.

Centurion: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons Leads. a Company (eight platoons), expected to have an excellent tactical understanding of the battlefield, as well as be intimately familiar with strategic objectives.
Annual Pay: 80,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On qualification on tactical and strategic comprehension or on exemption due to competence exemplified on the battlefield.

Colonel: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a battalion (two companies), expected to advise the Praefect of tactical situation and give feedback on how the strategy continues to affect the tactical situation. Is familiar with grand strategy.
Annual Pay: 120,000 credits +insurance, on-base or off-base housing.
Promotion: Promotion of top candidate(s) only when a Praefect dies, or a new Legion is formed.

I did the numbers when I first started on NS, and haven't updated them since. Had them in separate factbooks before.

Leopard 2A7 MBT


Entered service 2014
Crew: 4 men

Dimensions and weight
Weight 67.5 t
Length (gun forward) 10.97 m
Hull length 7.7 m
Width 4 m
Height ~ 3 m

Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees

Ammunition load
Main gun 42 rounds
Machine guns:

Mobility
Engine MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 72 km/h
Range 450 km

Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.15 m
Trench 3 m
Fording 1 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

This main battle tank is armed with a Rheinmetall 120-mm / L55 smoothbore gun. The same gun is used on the Leopard 2A6. It has better fire accuracy and longer range, comparing with the previous Leopard 2 tanks. The gun is loaded manually and is compatible with all standard NATO ammunition, as well as newly developed programmable HE munitions. These programmable rounds enable to engage targets behind cover and within buildings. These multi-purpose rounds can be also used against enemy troops, armored vehicles and low-flying helicopters. A total of 42 rounds are carried inside the tank. 15 rounds are stored in the turret bustle and are ready to use. Remaining rounds are stored inside the hull.

Secondary armament consists of a 12.7-mm machine gun. It is mounted in a remotely-controlled weapon station on the roof of the turret. There is also a coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun.

This main battle tank has a front and rear thermal image system for the driver. Commander and gunner have additional cameras for long-range surveillance. Vehicle also carries advanced command and control equipment and is fitted with battlefield management system.


GTK Boxer



Weight
25.2 t (24.8 long tons; 27.8 short tons) (vehicle);
33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) (gross)

Length
7.88 m (25 ft 10 in)

Width
2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height
2.37 m (7 ft 9 in) (baseline vehicle)

Crew
3 (+8)



Armor
AMAP composite armour


Main armament
40mm automatic grenade launcher (Heckler & Koch GMG) or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (M3M)

Engine
MTU 8V 199 TE20 Diesel[1]
530 kW (711 hp)

Power/weight
16.1 kW/t (max weight)

Suspension
8x8


Operational
range
1,100 km (684 mi)

Speed
103 km/h (64 mph)



Boxer CP (Boxer Command Post) — The Boxer CP is set up as a command-vehicle and is meant for deployment amongst different combat battalions. The Command Post variants of BOXER are used for command and control in theatre by acting as a centre for communication and control while being protected to a high level. Secured communication, displays for situation awareness and instruments for network enabled warfare are key characteristics of this variant. In the configurations of the German and the Dutch Armies the vehicles provide a variety of radio transmitters for secured communication and data exchange. Further features include: Mine protection (AT blast, AP), 360° ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation, Protection against bomblets and artillery fragments. The vehicle offers room for 4 workstations connected via local area network to the Battlefield Management System (BMS) and the Theater Independent Army and Air Force Network (Titaan)
Crew: 1 commander/staff-assistant, 1 gunner, 1 driver, 3 staff-officers, 1 passenger

Boxer AMB (Boxer Ambulance) — The Boxer AMB replaced the YPR-765 prgwt variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle) casualty transport. It can accommodate 3 casualties that are seated with 7 lying down, 3 seated and 2 lying down, or 4 seated and 1 lying down.
Crew: 1 driver, 1 commander, 1 medic

Boxer GNGP (Boxer Geniegroep) - The Boxer GNPR is an engineering and logistics support vehicle and will be deployed for the transport of troops and engineer group equipment. This variant enables the armoured engineer group to carry out the tactical military and other tasks assigned to them properly, under protection and over a sustained period of time. It provides seating for six dismounts with space available for their personal equipment and an additional separate stowage section for munitions. It may be deployed as a support vehicle with other units or used for independent assignments such as route clearance, or as a protected work location during mine clearance or demolition operations. The Boxer GNGP replaces the YPR-765 prgm/PRCO-C3 variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The Royal Netherlands Army will convert 12 Boxer vehicles to the Boxer Battle Damage Repair.. (BDR) variant. The BDR variant is able to accommodate the special equipment, tools, expendable and non-expendable supplies needed to carry out diagnoses, maintenance and minor repairs if required.
Crew: 1 engineer commander, 1 driver, 1 observing commander, 1 gunner, 5 engineers

Boxer Cargo (Boxer Cargo) — The Boxer Cargo is equipped with a special loading floor to secure cargo during transport and can transport a maximum of two standard one tonne army pallets. The interior design of the vehicle allows adaptation as necessary for different kinds of missions. For conducting peace keeping missions or other peace time operations the set of vehicle equipment can be changed and tailored to suit as required.
Crew: 1 commander/gunner, 1 driver


ARDV-AARC [i]Automated Robotic DefensiVe Anti-Aircraft Roving Combatant.


Armor: AMAP composite
Engine: MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Speed: 120kmph
Armament: x4 LFK NG SAM launchers, x2 Dual 20mm Rheinmetall Rh 202
Defensive: x4 smoke generators

The last bit is incomplete, since I haven't finished doing proper research on it, but I did a wikihaul on the other two.

So, with that knowledge, what's your assessment of who needs what?

NCOs in critical leadership positions should not be promoted based on length of service.

[Spirit of Hope]

So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?

3-4 Subordinate maneuver units tends to be the ideal. IIRC the US did a study at one point on commanders that found that 3 subordinate units was where they tended to have the best ability to command and control. More and they started loosing details, less and they didn't have the concentration of force needed. 4 tends to stick around at lower levels because it allows units to take casualties and continue operating.

Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

The thing is MBT's can, and should, operate alongside your infantry already. But creating mixed units at such a low level creates it's own issues. Your infantry and armor are going to fight alongside one another even if they aren't in the same company or battalion.

However placing them in the same platoon, company, or battalion tends to create issues, as that commander has to directly juggle different unit types he may not have much experience or training with. A platoon leader directing a tank isn't good, he won't have had enough time or training to know how to operate a tank well and how to operate infantry well. Same generally goes with company commanders. What they should be doing is knowing when they should ask for the others help, for example the infantry platoon leader isn't going to maneuver or order the tank around but he will say "tank I need you to take out that bunker." and then let the tank commander figure the rest out.

[-the Ukrainian SSR-]

A friend of mine designed this for me recently for IC use and I'm rather fond of it. Have an assault rifle:

Zahalʹnyy Hvyntivka Vypusk, 2022
“General Issue Rifle, 2022” or ZHV-22
Weight: 7.5 lbs (empty), 8.2 lbs (With magazine)
Length: 925mm
Barrel Length: 445mm
Caliber: 6.5x52mm Kihot
Operation: Short stroke gas operated, rotating bolt
Fire Rate: 755 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 975 m/s
Effective Range: 720 meters
Feed System: 30 round curved DKAU magazine
Sights: Built in rail iron sights, P-431 Illuminated Dot Sight, Daleko 4x Optical Sight.
Fire Options: Full automatic and Semi-automatic

Background:
The ZHV-22, or General Issue Rifle, 2022 in English, is an automatic assault rifle designed by the Ruthenian DKAU and currently in use with the Ruthenian Armed Forces.

The rifle was borne out of efforts of the of the Ruthenian Armed Forces in the mid 2010s to field a singular service rifle for their armed forces and have it be modular in so far to be able to replace the numerous rifles used by the various sub-branches of the Armed Forces. To this end, DKAU was contracted with the contract, initially for 1,000,000 copies of an “advanced assault rifle”, and DKAU assembled a team under Project Lead Mykola Vitaliy Kohut, a native of the northern city of Kiveritsi, who had done previous ballistic design projects with the firm, but nothing to this scale. Initial work began at DKAU’s secondary facility in the southern section of the country in 2017, and Kohot immediately began hiring additional staff to help complete the project. By 2018, prototype testing had been reached but the initial product had issues handling the initially designed 7.8mm round, the barrel was experiencing cases of fouling and the rifling was even getting warped and in high-endurance tests, barrel warping occurred. The team went back to the drawing board and reached prototype testing again in 2020, fixing previous issues and taking an additional two years to try out their in-house round dubbed “Kihot”, a 6.5mm round which was lighter then most calibers currently in use with the military but was also capable of improved ballistic performance thanks to advanced fabrications and designs available to DKAU [See Kihot section]. Prototype test was conducted from March 2020 till July of the same year and it passed with flying colors and work moved to DKAU’s main facilities as they prepared for main scale production while Kohot and his team began the grueling process of the Armed Forces trials.

After a year and a half’s worth of trials, AARX-20 cleared military trials and was accepted into Ruthenian service as General Issue Rifle, 2022, or ZHV-22. The rifle would replace a number of platforms and every other rifle in service at the time, and DKAU was in contact with munitions companies to help fill up Ruthenian armouries with the new round and rifle. While only one main variant was originally designed, Kohut designed the rifle in mind of later producing carbines, marksman’s and other variant off branch designs should the military request them, or another customer. The construction of the rifle is more advanced then previous designs, the entire platform utilizing a high-grade aluminum-alloy combination blend in order to make the rifle as light as possible, while the stock and receiver cover are polished finished wood pieces. It utilizes a short-stroke gas action style, whose operation will allow the new high-power gunpowder in the Kihot to reach higher muzzle velocities then before.

[Gallia-]

However placing them in the same platoon, company, or battalion tends to create issues, as that commander has to directly juggle different unit types he may not have much experience or training with. A platoon leader directing a tank isn't good, he won't have had enough time or training to know how to operate a tank well and how to operate infantry well. Same generally goes with company commanders. What they should be doing is knowing when they should ask for the others help, for example the infantry platoon leader isn't going to maneuver or order the tank around but he will say "tank I need you to take out that bunker." and then let the tank commander figure the rest out.

It is impossible for mortal minds to comprehend the crushing amount of wrong this post contains.

[Kazarogkai]

However placing them in the same platoon, company, or battalion tends to create issues, as that commander has to directly juggle different unit types he may not have much experience or training with. A platoon leader directing a tank isn't good, he won't have had enough time or training to know how to operate a tank well and how to operate infantry well. Same generally goes with company commanders. What they should be doing is knowing when they should ask for the others help, for example the infantry platoon leader isn't going to maneuver or order the tank around but he will say "tank I need you to take out that bunker." and then let the tank commander figure the rest out.

It is impossible for mortal minds to comprehend the crushing amount of wrong this post contains.

Explain please

[Asgeirria]

You're clearly either not reading my posts, or just don't care what's in them. So which one is it? Because it's pretty clear that they're trying to answer questions I wasn't asking. Because this guy answered relevant questions and I don't seem to be disregarding what he says, now do I? If I wanted to know how hard to make possible my armor choices were, I would have asked. But instead, I asked if they were possible, how effective they would be. So, what's the deal?





You've probably got more experience with battle rifles than I, (I've only used hunting rifles, AR-15s, pistols), what would be a high-power, high-accuracy alternative? Doesn't have to be pretty, just needs to get the job done for the marksman.

As to shotguns, it was brought to my attention that it would be better to replace it with a SMG. Thoughts on that?



So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?
Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

Here's some information on officer ranks and responsibilities:

Decurio: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a squad, expected to manage tactical decisions on the lowest level. Selected from recently promoted Decanae who show an aptitude in leadership. Trained at an officer's academy to better handle their troops.
Annual Pay: 35,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 3rd combat deployment or 30 months of enlistment.

Tesserarius: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a platoon (four squads), is expected to have a good understanding of strategic objectives as well as tactical command on the battlefield.
Annual Pay: 50,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 8th Combat deployment or 90 months of enlistment.

Centurion: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons Leads. a Company (eight platoons), expected to have an excellent tactical understanding of the battlefield, as well as be intimately familiar with strategic objectives.
Annual Pay: 80,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On qualification on tactical and strategic comprehension or on exemption due to competence exemplified on the battlefield.

Colonel: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a battalion (two companies), expected to advise the Praefect of tactical situation and give feedback on how the strategy continues to affect the tactical situation. Is familiar with grand strategy.
Annual Pay: 120,000 credits +insurance, on-base or off-base housing.
Promotion: Promotion of top candidate(s) only when a Praefect dies, or a new Legion is formed.

I did the numbers when I first started on NS, and haven't updated them since. Had them in separate factbooks before.

Leopard 2A7 MBT
(Image)

Entered service 2014
Crew: 4 men

Dimensions and weight
Weight 67.5 t
Length (gun forward) 10.97 m
Hull length 7.7 m
Width 4 m
Height ~ 3 m

Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees

Ammunition load
Main gun 42 rounds
Machine guns:

Mobility
Engine MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 72 km/h
Range 450 km

Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.15 m
Trench 3 m
Fording 1 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

This main battle tank is armed with a Rheinmetall 120-mm / L55 smoothbore gun. The same gun is used on the Leopard 2A6. It has better fire accuracy and longer range, comparing with the previous Leopard 2 tanks. The gun is loaded manually and is compatible with all standard NATO ammunition, as well as newly developed programmable HE munitions. These programmable rounds enable to engage targets behind cover and within buildings. These multi-purpose rounds can be also used against enemy troops, armored vehicles and low-flying helicopters. A total of 42 rounds are carried inside the tank. 15 rounds are stored in the turret bustle and are ready to use. Remaining rounds are stored inside the hull.

Secondary armament consists of a 12.7-mm machine gun. It is mounted in a remotely-controlled weapon station on the roof of the turret. There is also a coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun.

This main battle tank has a front and rear thermal image system for the driver. Commander and gunner have additional cameras for long-range surveillance. Vehicle also carries advanced command and control equipment and is fitted with battlefield management system.


GTK Boxer
(Image)


Weight
25.2 t (24.8 long tons; 27.8 short tons) (vehicle);
33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) (gross)

Length
7.88 m (25 ft 10 in)

Width
2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height
2.37 m (7 ft 9 in) (baseline vehicle)

Crew
3 (+8)



Armor
AMAP composite armour


Main armament
40mm automatic grenade launcher (Heckler & Koch GMG) or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (M3M)

Engine
MTU 8V 199 TE20 Diesel[1]
530 kW (711 hp)

Power/weight
16.1 kW/t (max weight)

Suspension
8x8


Operational
range
1,100 km (684 mi)

Speed
103 km/h (64 mph)



Boxer CP (Boxer Command Post) — The Boxer CP is set up as a command-vehicle and is meant for deployment amongst different combat battalions. The Command Post variants of BOXER are used for command and control in theatre by acting as a centre for communication and control while being protected to a high level. Secured communication, displays for situation awareness and instruments for network enabled warfare are key characteristics of this variant. In the configurations of the German and the Dutch Armies the vehicles provide a variety of radio transmitters for secured communication and data exchange. Further features include: Mine protection (AT blast, AP), 360° ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation, Protection against bomblets and artillery fragments. The vehicle offers room for 4 workstations connected via local area network to the Battlefield Management System (BMS) and the Theater Independent Army and Air Force Network (Titaan)
Crew: 1 commander/staff-assistant, 1 gunner, 1 driver, 3 staff-officers, 1 passenger

Boxer AMB (Boxer Ambulance) — The Boxer AMB replaced the YPR-765 prgwt variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle) casualty transport. It can accommodate 3 casualties that are seated with 7 lying down, 3 seated and 2 lying down, or 4 seated and 1 lying down.
Crew: 1 driver, 1 commander, 1 medic

Boxer GNGP (Boxer Geniegroep) - The Boxer GNPR is an engineering and logistics support vehicle and will be deployed for the transport of troops and engineer group equipment. This variant enables the armoured engineer group to carry out the tactical military and other tasks assigned to them properly, under protection and over a sustained period of time. It provides seating for six dismounts with space available for their personal equipment and an additional separate stowage section for munitions. It may be deployed as a support vehicle with other units or used for independent assignments such as route clearance, or as a protected work location during mine clearance or demolition operations. The Boxer GNGP replaces the YPR-765 prgm/PRCO-C3 variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The Royal Netherlands Army will convert 12 Boxer vehicles to the Boxer Battle Damage Repair.. (BDR) variant. The BDR variant is able to accommodate the special equipment, tools, expendable and non-expendable supplies needed to carry out diagnoses, maintenance and minor repairs if required.
Crew: 1 engineer commander, 1 driver, 1 observing commander, 1 gunner, 5 engineers

Boxer Cargo (Boxer Cargo) — The Boxer Cargo is equipped with a special loading floor to secure cargo during transport and can transport a maximum of two standard one tonne army pallets. The interior design of the vehicle allows adaptation as necessary for different kinds of missions. For conducting peace keeping missions or other peace time operations the set of vehicle equipment can be changed and tailored to suit as required.
Crew: 1 commander/gunner, 1 driver


ARDV-AARC [i]Automated Robotic DefensiVe Anti-Aircraft Roving Combatant.
(Image)

Armor: AMAP composite
Engine: MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Speed: 120kmph
Armament: x4 LFK NG SAM launchers, x2 Dual 20mm Rheinmetall Rh 202
Defensive: x4 smoke generators

The last bit is incomplete, since I haven't finished doing proper research on it, but I did a wikihaul on the other two.

So, with that knowledge, what's your assessment of who needs what?

NCOs in critical leadership positions should not be promoted based on length of service.

I see how that makes sense. However, everyone sees deployment, and the more experienced an NCO, the better he's going to be able assist the officer. Also, two years (three phases) is the initial training time, not including whatever training program they took part in before enlisting. Further, Decanae are trained prior to their first command, and on their qualification for a promotion, are evaluated. Those who show the ability to both lead and command are made officers, which means every officer was once an NCO. Officers and senior NCOs (opt/g.opt) receive specialized training for their roles. (similar to the NCO academy and OTS in the US Army). Also, NCOs are less leadership and more supervisory/advisory at the ranks in which they become necessary for command. A grand optio is going to be intimately aware of Team, Company, and Battalion-level operations, having served directly in the operation of those. The same can be said for higher-ranking officers. They're going to know how things are done on lower levels.
Of course experience aside, everyone is evaluated before a promotion, and if they do not perform satisfactorily, they will not be promoted.

So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?

3-4 Subordinate maneuver units tends to be the ideal. IIRC the US did a study at one point on commanders that found that 3 subordinate units was where they tended to have the best ability to command and control. More and they started loosing details, less and they didn't have the concentration of force needed. 4 tends to stick around at lower levels because it allows units to take casualties and continue operating.

Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

The thing is MBT's can, and should, operate alongside your infantry already. But creating mixed units at such a low level creates it's own issues. Your infantry and armor are going to fight alongside one another even if they aren't in the same company or battalion.

However placing them in the same platoon, company, or battalion tends to create issues, as that commander has to directly juggle different unit types he may not have much experience or training with. A platoon leader directing a tank isn't good, he won't have had enough time or training to know how to operate a tank well and how to operate infantry well. Same generally goes with company commanders. What they should be doing is knowing when they should ask for the others help, for example the infantry platoon leader isn't going to maneuver or order the tank around but he will say "tank I need you to take out that bunker." and then let the tank commander figure the rest out.

You make a lot of good points, but it's one platoon leader to one MBT, which doesn't seem like a huge responsibility. He won't really directly command the AFVs, since those will be under the command of Decanae at the team level. (one AFV per team).

As to the optimal organization, 4B/3C/3P/3S/4T?

[Gallia-]

It is impossible for mortal minds to comprehend the crushing amount of wrong this post contains.

Explain please

It is both self-contradictory and literally the opposite of correct.

If you did the exact opposite of what SoH said in every specific instance he mentioned, you'd be alright.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

One tank per platoon is absurd. From a large scale, you will have so many tanks in infantry units that your armored units will be bled dry for want of vehicles(assuming you have reasonable restrictions on how many AFVs a nation can operate). Further, dispersing all your armor in penny packets will leave none for large offensives - a big problem France and the UK faced early in WWII, compared to the Germans who concentrated their tanks into small areas. A tank per platoon might give you local superiority but any armored offensive will break through relatively easily.

Separate armored and infantry units, just make it easy for them to talk. Attach a smaller armored unit to a larger infantry unit if you need to.

[Gallia-]

One tank per platoon is absurd. From a large scale, you will have so many tanks in infantry units that your armored units will be bled dry for want of vehicles(assuming you have reasonable restrictions on how many AFVs a nation can operate). Further, dispersing all your armor in penny packets will leave none for large offensives - a big problem France and the UK faced early in WWII, compared to the Germans who concentrated their tanks into small areas. A tank per platoon might give you local superiority but any armored offensive will break through relatively easily.

Separate armored and infantry units, just make it easy for them to talk. Attach a smaller armored unit to a larger infantry unit if you need to.

Yeah.

It should be one tank per squad.

[Kassaran]

One tank per platoon is absurd. From a large scale, you will have so many tanks in infantry units that your armored units will be bled dry for want of vehicles(assuming you have reasonable restrictions on how many AFVs a nation can operate). Further, dispersing all your armor in penny packets will leave none for large offensives - a big problem France and the UK faced early in WWII, compared to the Germans who concentrated their tanks into small areas. A tank per platoon might give you local superiority but any armored offensive will break through relatively easily.

Separate armored and infantry units, just make it easy for them to talk. Attach a smaller armored unit to a larger infantry unit if you need to.

Yeah.

It should be one tank per squad.

Lol Plebs, you no tank everyone? Everyone gets a tank, not just the Sergeant.

[Dostanuot Loj]

One tank per platoon is absurd. From a large scale, you will have so many tanks in infantry units that your armored units will be bled dry for want of vehicles(assuming you have reasonable restrictions on how many AFVs a nation can operate). Further, dispersing all your armor in penny packets will leave none for large offensives - a big problem France and the UK faced early in WWII, compared to the Germans who concentrated their tanks into small areas. A tank per platoon might give you local superiority but any armored offensive will break through relatively easily.

Separate armored and infantry units, just make it easy for them to talk. Attach a smaller armored unit to a larger infantry unit if you need to.

Yeah.

It should be one tank per squad.

You're wrong.

It should be one squad per tank.

[Kassaran]

Yeah.

It should be one tank per squad.

You're wrong.

It should be one squad per tank.

Jajajaja

More squads on tenk action! No more APC's! Only tenk!

[Kazarogkai]

One tank per platoon is absurd. From a large scale, you will have so many tanks in infantry units that your armored units will be bled dry for want of vehicles(assuming you have reasonable restrictions on how many AFVs a nation can operate). Further, dispersing all your armor in penny packets will leave none for large offensives - a big problem France and the UK faced early in WWII, compared to the Germans who concentrated their tanks into small areas. A tank per platoon might give you local superiority but any armored offensive will break through relatively easily.

Separate armored and infantry units, just make it easy for them to talk. Attach a smaller armored unit to a larger infantry unit if you need to.

In my infantry battalions(Interwar-WW2 era) I do assign each one a Light Vehicle Company which makes use of Scout Cars and Infantry(Heavy)Tanks but my Cruiser(medium) tanks are assigned to their own Cavalry Battalion. Each Cavalry Battalion in question is composed of 36 Cruiser Tanks in total, not counting those in HQ Units. Is this enough for a brigade of 4320 Troops?

[Gallia-]

Yeah.

It should be one tank per squad.

You're wrong.

It should be one squad per tank.

When tanks can enter buildings I will cede their supremacy as the King of arms.

Until then you will still need to work on replacing infantry with intelligent tanks.

[Purpelia]

You're wrong.

It should be one squad per tank.

When tanks can enter buildings I will cede their supremacy as the King of arms.

Until then you will still need to work on replacing infantry with intelligent tanks.

Tanks can enter buildings just fine. It's just that there isn't much of a house left afterward.

[Novorden]

Is the Carl gustaf suitable for the section level? As i currently have one in each of my 8 man sections, plus an assist. However i can foresee a number of issues with this:

+ Gives the Section a highly versatile weapon with Airburst HE, HEAT, smoke, HEDP, etc...
+ Lighter than an LMG (6.6kg for M4)
+ Ability to swap ammo and have a mutli-shot capability

- Whilst the weapon itself weighs less than an LMG the gunner would still need a rifle or defence weapon on top of that.
- From what i have seen the ammo weighs ~3kg per shot, even if you are only carrying 3 rounds that's that same as carrying a loaded M249.
- The advantage of a CG over an AT4 is the range of ammo and the ability to reload, however is this required at section level?
- Reduces the number of "assault elements" that are within the section.

[Crookfur]

if you're going to handwave away all problems that people point out with "let's assume that's not a problem because reasons", there isn't any reason to ask if there are problems in the first place, is there?

You're clearly either not reading my posts, or just don't care what's in them. So which one is it? Because it's pretty clear that they're trying to answer questions I wasn't asking. Because this guy answered relevant questions and I don't seem to be disregarding what he says, now do I? If I wanted to know how hard to make possible my armor choices were, I would have asked. But instead, I asked if they were possible, how effective they would be. So, what's the deal?

This is exactly what I was looking for.
Okay, addressing the unwieldy company level, the high ratio of PL to CO is sort of supposed to be working on lower-level command autonomy. CO tells PL what needs to go accomplished, PL decides the best way to go about that. Should the autonomy of command begin farther up or farther down?

As far as the PKP, since we're not factoring the cost for rechambering, I was just looking at performance (power, accuracy, etc)

As far as specialization, the commando probably could use a P90 instead of shotgun. On further research, the UTAS is unreliable. I'm not too familiar on the RFB, but from my experience it doesn"'t have automatic? But I hear good things about reliability and accuracy. Weight isn't really an issue. Is there a better option performance-wise than the MDR-C?

Having shot the RFB before, it's kinda a hit or miss when it comes to reliability. That can be blamed on the manufacturer though. Accuracy is average, nothing to write home about, but it gets the job done in a satisfactory manner.

As to shotguns, just stick with a pump 870. If you are insistent on it being semi-auto, go with the Benelli M4.

You've probably got more experience with battle rifles than I, (I've only used hunting rifles, AR-15s, pistols), what would be a high-power, high-accuracy alternative? Doesn't have to be pretty, just needs to get the job done for the marksman.

As to shotguns, it was brought to my attention that it would be better to replace it with a SMG. Thoughts on that?

It's not really about the independence or otherwise of the subordinate commanders. With 8 units to direct the captain has to come up with 8 tasks and handle requests for help/support, situation reports and the supply chain to 8 different groups. In even the armies with the best junior officers and greatest command delagation comanders don't have to deal with more than 3 or 4 primary subordinate units.

So, what would you suggest (again assuming good quality of leadership) as far as organization/structure?
Also I don't think I addressed the MBT thing. My reasoning behind every platoon having one would be that heavy suits of armor are naturally going to be a target for light tanks. With MBTs common enough, this would drive off light tanks for the most part, but create a problem with enemy air units having a LOT more high-value targets. However, I did incorporate in a multi-platform mobile AA unit, though I haven't updated that factbook.

Here's some information on officer ranks and responsibilities: [spoiler]Decurio: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a squad, expected to manage tactical decisions on the lowest level. Selected from recently promoted Decanae who show an aptitude in leadership. Trained at an officer's academy to better handle their troops.
Annual Pay: 35,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 3rd combat deployment or 30 months of enlistment.

Tesserarius: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a platoon (four squads), is expected to have a good understanding of strategic objectives as well as tactical command on the battlefield.
Annual Pay: 50,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On 8th Combat deployment or 90 months of enlistment.

Centurion: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons Leads. a Company (eight platoons), expected to have an excellent tactical understanding of the battlefield, as well as be intimately familiar with strategic objectives.
Annual Pay: 80,000 credits + insurance, on-base housing.
Promotion: On qualification on tactical and strategic comprehension or on exemption due to competence exemplified on the battlefield.

Colonel: Fitted with Powered Exoskeletons. Leads a battalion (two companies), expected to advise the Praefect of tactical situation and give feedback on how the strategy continues to affect the tactical situation. Is familiar with grand strategy.
Annual Pay: 120,000 credits +insurance, on-base or off-base housing.
Promotion: Promotion of top candidate(s) only when a Praefect dies, or a new Legion is formed.

I did the numbers when I first started on NS, and haven't updated them since. Had them in separate factbooks before.

Leopard 2A7 MBT


Entered service 2014
Crew: 4 men

Dimensions and weight
Weight 67.5 t
Length (gun forward) 10.97 m
Hull length 7.7 m
Width 4 m
Height ~ 3 m

Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 1 x 12.7-mm, 1 x 7.62-mm
Elevation range - 9 to + 20 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees

Ammunition load
Main gun 42 rounds
Machine guns:

Mobility
Engine MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Engine power 1 500 hp
Maximum road speed 72 km/h
Range 450 km

Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.15 m
Trench 3 m
Fording 1 m
Fording (with preparation) 4 m

This main battle tank is armed with a Rheinmetall 120-mm / L55 smoothbore gun. The same gun is used on the Leopard 2A6. It has better fire accuracy and longer range, comparing with the previous Leopard 2 tanks. The gun is loaded manually and is compatible with all standard NATO ammunition, as well as newly developed programmable HE munitions. These programmable rounds enable to engage targets behind cover and within buildings. These multi-purpose rounds can be also used against enemy troops, armored vehicles and low-flying helicopters. A total of 42 rounds are carried inside the tank. 15 rounds are stored in the turret bustle and are ready to use. Remaining rounds are stored inside the hull.

Secondary armament consists of a 12.7-mm machine gun. It is mounted in a remotely-controlled weapon station on the roof of the turret. There is also a coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun.

This main battle tank has a front and rear thermal image system for the driver. Commander and gunner have additional cameras for long-range surveillance. Vehicle also carries advanced command and control equipment and is fitted with battlefield management system.


GTK Boxer



Weight
25.2 t (24.8 long tons; 27.8 short tons) (vehicle);
33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) (gross)

Length
7.88 m (25 ft 10 in)

Width
2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height
2.37 m (7 ft 9 in) (baseline vehicle)

Crew
3 (+8)



Armor
AMAP composite armour


Main armament
40mm automatic grenade launcher (Heckler & Koch GMG) or 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (M3M)

Engine
MTU 8V 199 TE20 Diesel[1]
530 kW (711 hp)

Power/weight
16.1 kW/t (max weight)

Suspension
8x8


Operational
range
1,100 km (684 mi)

Speed
103 km/h (64 mph)



Boxer CP (Boxer Command Post) — The Boxer CP is set up as a command-vehicle and is meant for deployment amongst different combat battalions. The Command Post variants of BOXER are used for command and control in theatre by acting as a centre for communication and control while being protected to a high level. Secured communication, displays for situation awareness and instruments for network enabled warfare are key characteristics of this variant. In the configurations of the German and the Dutch Armies the vehicles provide a variety of radio transmitters for secured communication and data exchange. Further features include: Mine protection (AT blast, AP), 360° ballistic protection up to 14.5 mm also at 30° elevation, Protection against bomblets and artillery fragments. The vehicle offers room for 4 workstations connected via local area network to the Battlefield Management System (BMS) and the Theater Independent Army and Air Force Network (Titaan)
Crew: 1 commander/staff-assistant, 1 gunner, 1 driver, 3 staff-officers, 1 passenger

Boxer AMB (Boxer Ambulance) — The Boxer AMB replaced the YPR-765 prgwt variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle) casualty transport. It can accommodate 3 casualties that are seated with 7 lying down, 3 seated and 2 lying down, or 4 seated and 1 lying down.
Crew: 1 driver, 1 commander, 1 medic

Boxer GNGP (Boxer Geniegroep) - The Boxer GNPR is an engineering and logistics support vehicle and will be deployed for the transport of troops and engineer group equipment. This variant enables the armoured engineer group to carry out the tactical military and other tasks assigned to them properly, under protection and over a sustained period of time. It provides seating for six dismounts with space available for their personal equipment and an additional separate stowage section for munitions. It may be deployed as a support vehicle with other units or used for independent assignments such as route clearance, or as a protected work location during mine clearance or demolition operations. The Boxer GNGP replaces the YPR-765 prgm/PRCO-C3 variant of the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle). The Royal Netherlands Army will convert 12 Boxer vehicles to the Boxer Battle Damage Repair.. (BDR) variant. The BDR variant is able to accommodate the special equipment, tools, expendable and non-expendable supplies needed to carry out diagnoses, maintenance and minor repairs if required.
Crew: 1 engineer commander, 1 driver, 1 observing commander, 1 gunner, 5 engineers

Boxer Cargo (Boxer Cargo) — The Boxer Cargo is equipped with a special loading floor to secure cargo during transport and can transport a maximum of two standard one tonne army pallets. The interior design of the vehicle allows adaptation as necessary for different kinds of missions. For conducting peace keeping missions or other peace time operations the set of vehicle equipment can be changed and tailored to suit as required.
Crew: 1 commander/gunner, 1 driver


ARDV-AARC [i]Automated Robotic DefensiVe Anti-Aircraft Roving Combatant.


Armor: AMAP composite
Engine: MTU MB-837 Ka501 diesel
Speed: 120kmph
Armament: x4 LFK NG SAM launchers, x2 Dual 20mm Rheinmetall Rh 202
Defensive: x4 smoke generators

The last bit is incomplete, since I haven't finished doing proper research on it, but I did a wikihaul on the other two.

So, with that knowledge, what's your assessment of who needs what?

As to structure the rule of 3s trumps all i.e.
Platoon=3 squads
Company= 3 platoons
battalion=3 companies etc etc

You can of course modify that by adding support units which under this system don't break the rule. personally i prefer to group all the extra support assets in the HQ and a support company at battalion level but others like to include support platoons at company level (more of an american thing).

having a tank for each platoon is fine but from a logistics and management point of veiw they would be best in thier own battalion at regimental level (with the regiment being 1 tank and 2 armoured inf. battalions which would allow you to form 3 armoured task groups). This allows you to pool the heavy support, engineering and maintainence assets.


Light tanks really aren't a thing outside of recce and airborne forces these days so its more IFVs and regular MBTs which you would have to face regardless of the exosuits. Of coruse the real threat in a setting where such suits exist is that the enemy will be using similar ones to deploy individual weapons capable of over matching what ever armour you put on yours whilst you are using small arms signulalry incapable of effectivly engaging such a threat.

This is why i side stepped any discussion on the armour side of things as we have to assume that if you have the tech for it then so does your enemy. Unless of coruse, you are chasing backwards people of a different skin tone in which case you will be a similar situation to current 1st world forces in the GWOT and the details of your organisations simply can't be assessed as you will win most actual battle regardless.

[Crookfur]

(Image)

Does this design make sense for an SMG? Should I make the barrel longer? (I'm trying to go for a barrel as small as possible while keeping the weapon acceptably accurate)

As said it all looks fine bar a very thin barrel. You might wan tto make the muzzle a bit bigger and make it a bit cleaer as to what its supposed to be, personally i like the HK QD supressor muzzle thiny or thier flash hiders.


on the plus side you inspired me to find the FAME SAF200, a nice little tacticoolisation of one of my favourite SMGs.

[Kassaran]

Someone done goofed up the quotes in your first post Crook, prolly you...

[Fordorsia]

Crook is always to blame cause he can't English

[Crookfur]

You're going to have to get pretty close to kill a lot of tanks in early WWII. Some are easy pickings, but a T-34 lookalike is not going to be fun for the gun crew(or the T-34 crew, but they never have fun).

I'd say go squeezebore, even though you can only fire special APCR ammo. They limit the gun in effectiveness, but depending on how you issue them, have one gun per four(for example) be squeezebore and train that crew to be more effective in tank killing(e.g. train them to know weak spots in common enemy tanks, which was done in some times and places in WWII). The rest can be normal crews firing HE/AP combinations. Or whatever.

Possibly, but hitting the side of a T-34, it's only the upper hull and the lower hull behind the wheels that would be a hard target. It would go straight through the lower sides and even anywhere on the turret withing 400m. For early WWII I think it would be adequate with the standard ammo. Then if this HVAP one I would like is even better than 50mm at 100m, then great.

I would be guessing APCR would give you 70-80mm at 100m. based on a very rough comparisson of figures from variosu guns that used both AP/APHE and APCR over time, the switch to APCR tended to bring anyhtign from a 30-100% improvement so i would split the difference at a 40-60% improvement if the AP was already pretty good.

The numbers also sound right comapred to what i could find on the APDS for RARDEN which gets 63mm at a 1000m so is proabably pulling 80mm or so at 100m.


Of coruse you still want a antitnak boing system as they are a far more versatile tool and altogether much smaller and more portable. You probably don't want to be carting a 30mm wheeled gun when you go up the jungle to hunt japanese supply boats with a bunch of insane gurkas.