NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Purpelia]

Honestly I think that the tiger was not a bad tank as such. I certainly prefer it to the panther when it comes to overall quality of the core concept.

Compared to the Panther the Tiger I looked almost prototypical.

I would say that the opposite is true. The Tiger I was a heavily armored sledgehammer of a tank. And for that role it was good enough. And any unreliability and other issues that came with it are something that every tank in the heavy breakthrough role had to face in the period.

The panther on the other hand was an attempt to jump a decade in advance in terms of features and thus ended up being unreliable and generally bad in practice when, as a medium tank of the late war, it really should not have been. In terms of realistic planing and design for the role the T-34-85 is essentially the panther done right.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

>turret they barely managed to squeeze a third guy in
:purp: things
Also anybody can slap 100 mm's of hull armour on anything.

[Dostanuot Loj]

If the Germans had not built the Tiger, the war would have been no different, or even better for the Germans. The role for which it was built was pointless both in concept and practical use by the Germans and instead it got shoehorned into the role the Americans kept a TD branch for. Panther was a superior vehicle by far and really should have been brought about sooner.

Tiger, while in itself good, is little more than a meme tank.

[Austrasien]

The panther on the other hand was an attempt to jump a decade in advance in terms of features and thus ended up being unreliable and generally bad in practice when, as a medium tank of the late war, it really should not have been. In terms of realistic planing and design for the role the T-34-85 is essentially the panther done right.

The T-34-85 had pretty much all the problems the Panther had.

The Centurion was really the tank that finally realized the medium tank ideal.

[Aclien]

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=410271&p=31617333#p31617333

I deleted most of what I had written. I need to fill things back in, but how does this look in the meantime? I changed a lot of stuff to fit suggestions, and did a bit more research. However, I still know little about vehicles and uniforms. I was thinking about ERDL or DPM being the uniform's pattern of choice, given that both patterns are old but from what I can tell are still used somewhat often. For vehicles, the M113 has so many variants I didn't know what specifics to get into, so I left it vuage and just said, say, "antiair vehicle" rather than any specific models. I know even less about air and naval vehicles, but am just thinking a few fighters, gunships, cargo/transport choppers, and some gunboats/missile frigates would be good for a defense-focused air force and brownwater navy. I just hope I'm not bothering you by asking all these questions.

[Gallia-]

M113 had a lot of air defense vehicles.

The British Rapier and American Vulcan and Chaparral are three. Of them, Chaparral is probably "the best" but it hasn't been updated in a long time. A ranging radar or laser, a new missile (ASRAAM?), and some form of nighttime optics for the gunner (or better yet, a robotic turret) would be welcome additions.

[-Celibrae-]

M113 had a lot of air defense vehicles.

The British Rapier and American Vulcan and Chaparral are three. Of them, Chaparral is probably "the best" but it hasn't been updated in a long time. A ranging radar or laser, a new missile (ASRAAM?), and some form of nighttime optics for the gunner (or better yet, a robotic turret) would be welcome additions.

CAMM would seem to fit the bill in terms of missile choice.

[Gallia-]

Except it wouldn't at all.

AIM-132 is backwards compatible with AIM-9's launch rails and electrics.

[Laritaia]

Except it wouldn't at all.

AIM-132 is backwards compatible with AIM-9.

CAMM is AIM-123

the difference is a matter of what fittings and seekers are attached to the missile body

[Gallia-]

Except it wouldn't at all.

AIM-132 is backwards compatible with AIM-9.

CAMM is AIM-123

the difference is a matter of what fittings and seekers are attached to the missile body

Does it retain the Sidewinder umbilicals like ASRAAM, or is it just :AMRAAM:?

[Laritaia]

CAMM is AIM-123

the difference is a matter of what fittings and seekers are attached to the missile body

Does it retain the Sidewinder umbilicals like ASRAAM, or is it just :AMRAAM:?

the latest batch of ASRAAM ordered by the RAF use CAMM airframes

[Austrasien]

There isn't any reason to upgrade the Chaparral. Better solutions for launching sidewinders are already available off the shelf.

[Gallia-]

Does it retain the Sidewinder umbilicals like ASRAAM, or is it just :AMRAAM:?

the latest batch of ASRAAM ordered by the RAF use CAMM airframes

That doesn't really answer that question though.

The major obstacle would be if Chaparral needs a serious re-wiring to accept the new missile. ASRAAM is backwards compatible with AIM-9 electronics and rails, which would make changing the Chaparral to use it would involve a couple black boxes getting ripped out and a restow of the hull to fit the wider ammunition. If it's using just AMRAAM's umbilical and electrics, then that's probably going to be a more intense job than ripping out some shelves and replacing a couple boxes in the launcher at a depot.

I'm not sure why CAMM would have Sidewinder compatible umbilicals since the RAF hasn't used Sidewinder for years idt?

There isn't any reason to upgrade the Chaparral. Better solutions for launching sidewinders are already available off the shelf.

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

i have pikturs too :^)



none of those are tracked either

rip

put them on M578 instead of wheeled death truck and call it "MIM-72K"

also what is the green box that looks more like a ESSM or sth

[Laritaia]

ASRAAM is used by more then just the RAF so it has to be compatible with AIM-9 interfaces ontop of that ASRAAM is carried by aircraft that were never wired for AMRAAM

[Laywenrania]

[Taihei Tengoku]

Green box is probably dismounted NASAMS

[Aclien]

What about something similar to the SIDAM 25, but with an added radar and 7.62x51mm machine gun? At least for close air defense, four 25x137mm autcannons firing high explosives at 600 rounds per minute seems adequate, as would a full-sized round for use against anti-infantry. For antiarmor, a M901 ITV or something close to it sounds handy.

[Austrasien]

none of those are tracked either

rip

The Chaparral is tracked on a platform that cannot keep up with any modern tank or IFV.

Edit: NASAMS stronk

[Gallia-]

none of those are tracked either

rip

The Chaparral is tracked on a platform that cannot keep up with any modern tank or IFV.

au contraire



ultimate weapon confirm

Edit: NASAMS stronk

o ok

it looks really generic with the boxes tbh

[Austrasien]

au contraire

(Image)

Not pictured: Chaparral.
Pictured: Potential NASAMS carrier.

[Gallia-]

pictured: a vehicle minutes from requesting a wrecker

sisus are cute tho

they have been spergscaled

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

How quickly can Chaparrel, Rapier, and related vehicles be reloaded? With only a few shots each I'd figure they would run out of ammo relatively quickly in heavy combat.

[Laritaia]

How quickly can Chaparrel, Rapier, and related vehicles be reloaded? With only a few shots each I'd figure they would run out of ammo relatively quickly in heavy combat.

It's not a quick process, the missiles have to be pulled out of storage containers and loaded onto the rails by hand.

This is why the later versions of Rapier have 8 missiles on the launcher.

if you want rapid reload you are gonna have to going with a system like Roland which has automated reloading, but even then it only nets you 2 extra missiles over rapier( if abit far more capable)

[Laywenrania]

How quickly can Chaparrel, Rapier, and related vehicles be reloaded? With only a few shots each I'd figure they would run out of ammo relatively quickly in heavy combat.

probably multiple minutes. The Osa takes 6 minutes for a full reload.

[Radictistan]

So I finally opened up my copy of the latest Proceedings today. Does anyone else, when reading such publications, play "Spot the articles which couldn't be published in my NS country without destroying the career of its author?"