NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:22 am

Right. This is a wholly uninteresting and irrelevant issue to me. It seems deeply unlikely, for a variety of complex reasons. (Among them the fact that chemical safety is a necessary feature of many industries and thus can't disappear completely - you don't have people who use tanks in their daily lives in peacetime, and chemical safety is - unlike, say, battleship design - something that is relatively simple and doesn't evolve much. 'Seal yourself off from the exterior air, in a special suit or positive-overpressure vehicle' = secure from every chemical weapon that ever existed or that ever will be developed unless utterly new principles of chemistry will be invented. Just call whatever company makes HAZMAT suits in the future, order a bunch of suits to your specifications, and run into battle. Hurrah.)

As for UGVs, no they won't replace infantry. But augmenting infantry literally means you need less of them for a given task.

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:22 am

There is no overlap with military needs and civilian needs of chemical suits. None. Civilian chemical suits operate in a wider range of toxic environments and generally use older technologies because they are better for general purpose needs. Meanwhile the carbon-and-the-other-stuff linings of modern chemical combat suits are highly specialized against a small portion of potentially hazardous agents.

You may not understand this, because it is incredibly complex [however it can be stated simply], but military chemical suits must be flexible and lightweight; while civilian chemical suits can afford to be bulky and air-filled precisely because they need a positive overpressure environment to keep out the myriad difficult to identify hazardous industrial chemicals. Even the very essence of identification of chemical compounds takes many hours in an industrial environment, which requires something like 5-6 tests of different compounds just to isolate whether it's toxic or not, and possibly +100 tests to identify the specific compound. This takes hours. Maybe even a day.

A military man can identify a chemical agent, precisely because there are so few actually good chemical weapon agents, that they can determine this with a strip of paper in a few seconds. The practices and techniques of industrial hazardous materials management and chemical warfare are completely segregated and incompatible, beyond "they keep nasty stuff out" I guess. You might as well suggest that a supertanker can be an adequate replacement for a missile cruiser on the principle that 'supertankers float and have lots of space'. Not that anyone hasn't considered that IRL, but that the concept itself was rejected by actual militaries when they did bother to consider it.

It may very well go the way of battleship design in the future if you don't have a chemical boogeyman, at least in countries that can't afford to be duplicitous to their own people like Russia and the United States can, because of a variety of simple reasons. Chiefly, the design constraints of a chemical suit and a hazmat suit are entirely different beasts. You cannot live in a hazmat suit, for one thing, because the atmosphere is incredibly debilitating. There is no way to consume fluids or water, no way to easily strip out of the suit (why do you think that man is spraying down the plastic suit? for laughs?), and the suits themselves are extremely vulnerable to tears from the most minor of punctures. Which is why you strip to your skivvies when wearing a HAZMAT suit.

Anyone who says that they're interchangeable has no serious knowledge of how hazardous materials works.

You do not simply "call the company that makes HAZMAT suits" and tell them "hey we need a totally new kind of suit" when their engineers have no experience in the matter. That's the same sort of airheaded garbage that legislators think can be applied to any other kind of military engineering after they've "rationalized" and "privatized" portions of the MIC, only to find out that they need to pay exorbitant sums of money to bring back the decayed infrastructure.

But you also think deindustrialization is a myth, so I'm hardly surprised you have no understanding of how industrialization actually works. :/

It's not something you just pluck off a shelf when you need it. By the time you've realized you needed a chemical suit again, you've already lost the war. Just ask Saddam if his ability to produce Special Armor and tank munitions saved him from the US Army. By the time he realized he needed good generals, he'd already lost! Given the state of affairs in European NATO re: conventional wars, it might as well be similar even without the chemical weapons being made more useful due to lack of collective and individual protection.

So in the future, it may very well be that, through apathy or perhaps complacency of the kind that you apparently show, that Western European armies will be helpless against chemical combat conditions and make gas warfare valuable again. Since it seems that only the US Army has any interest whatsoever in retaining a chemical defense industry, one that might actually vanish without a boogeyman (just look at the state of Western tank industry, where we can count the number of operational tank factories west of the Vistula on one hand!), and that boogeymen are rapidly vanishing as well.

But that was what I was saying about you complaining about Russia's boogeyman: That there is more rational thought hidden beneath the rhetoric than you might initially believe.

So it is probably beneficial for Russia to encourage the belief, despite the apparent nonsense of it, that chemical warfare is the future. It's not so much make work lobbying as it is retention of a vital national deterrence. The same applies to nuclear weapons too, but Westerners seem rather intent on letting that industry atrophy as well, while the enemies of the West are busy re-arming themselves. :/

tl;dr You have it backwards. It would be much easier if you killed the civilian industry of chemical defense and retained the military one, precisely because the military industry is much more niche, specialized and generally optimized towards a smaller range of threats. It is an artisan industry, while the civilian industry is as simply as asking some men for impermable plastic ponchos and a firefighter's SCBA. Since fires and rain are unlikely to stop happening in the future, this is very likely to always be available, while chemical weapons may not be (and thus the immediately apparent utility of their countermeasures diminishes rapidly).

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:38 am

Allanea wrote:As for UGVs, no they won't replace infantry. But augmenting infantry literally means you need less of them for a given task.

I mean, if you considered mounted reconnaissance troops to be "infantry", then sure I guess. But if you mean men who actually attack and reduce enemy positions, then not so much. That's more of a proportional thing, since the Russians don't have a million man army, we certainly don't need a million man army either. Real life armies are all about "min max" as the kids say.

UGVs are more like tanks-in-miniature than they are like infantry. They will probably reduce the need for tanks in the same manner that the US Army hoped that Stryker MGS would reduce the need for tanks in medium brigades, except for all brigades. And specifically the need for reconnaissance systems.

Or they may just augment reconnaissance and mounted systems in general.

They are certainly not going to reduce foxhole strength. That will come from something else. Generally it comes from improved killing power of the infantrymen proper, so maybe TrackingPoint or OICWs combined with advanced LPI HF/VHF radios will reduce the need for foxhole strength, because each infantryman can cover more ground with his new sensors, his killier gun, and his super communications radio. Tanks themselves haven't reduced the need for infantry per se, since tanks haven't made it possible to conduct frontal assaults against fortifications, but they have increased the mobility of infantry.

Rather, personal body armor and automatic rifles have reduced the need for infantry, because each infantryman is simultaneously statistically harder to kill and statistically more likely to kill.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:48 am

You do not simply "call the company that makes HAZMAT suits" and tell them "hey we need a totally new kind of suit" when their engineers have no experience in the matter. That's the same sort of airheaded garbage that legislators think can be applied to any other kind of military engineering after they've "rationalized" and "privatized" portions of the MIC, only to find out that they need to pay exorbitant sums of money to bring back the decayed infrastructure.

Except it doesn't need to be 'totally new'. The Russians are not going to invent some new super-duper phosgene. It's not like battleships where the materials science has totally altered and we would have no idea how to build a modern battleship because we don't know how to.

You could literally copy an OZK or MOPP suit 20 years from now and it'd protect.

So it is probably beneficial for Russia to encourage the belief, despite the apparent nonsense of it, that chemical warfare is the future. It's not so much make work lobbying as it is retention of a vital national deterrence. The same applies to nuclear weapons too, but Westerners seem rather intent on letting that industry atrophy as well, while the enemies of the West are busy re-arming themselves. :/

It's feasible. But there is ample documentation to the contrary, at least in regards to the 1980s.

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:59 am

Allanea wrote:
You do not simply "call the company that makes HAZMAT suits" and tell them "hey we need a totally new kind of suit" when their engineers have no experience in the matter. That's the same sort of airheaded garbage that legislators think can be applied to any other kind of military engineering after they've "rationalized" and "privatized" portions of the MIC, only to find out that they need to pay exorbitant sums of money to bring back the decayed infrastructure.

Except it doesn't need to be 'totally new'. The Russians are not going to invent some new super-duper phosgene. It's not like battleships where the materials science has totally altered and we would have no idea how to build a modern battleship because we don't know how to.

You could literally copy an OZK or MOPP suit 20 years from now and it'd protect.

I doubt this very much. You cannot simply "copy" something that no longer has an industrial base to produce it. You first must build up the industrial base and rediscover the lost knowledge. Or more accurately, you must apply existing knowledge in ways that solve the problems of the past, without the benefits of the knowledge of the past. Especially if our capability of chemical defense grows/changes in any substantial manner (say, new plastics or fabrics), which it no doubt will, because there is tremendous interest in adapting military-type laser chemical detectors to industrial pollution. There is also interest in lighter fabrics and breathier cloths that can still resist chemical agent penetration.

But that can change with the whim of a lawmaker's pen stroke, of course.

So you would not be able to "copy" an OZK or BDO or JSLIST suit 20 years from now. You would need to make it out of Nano-Nylon or Cyber-Carbon or Smart-Char whatever the materials that exist in the future are, because the things that you use to make the OZK/BDO/JSLIST will no longer exist. This will require actual research and engineering. Much like you cannot make a battleship today because our technology of shipbuilding has changed, you won't be able to make JSLIST tomorrow because our technology of fabricmaking has changed. Rather you need Objective Force Warrior's stupid battlesuit or something, assuming it's ever actually made, which it looks very likely to never be made. And probably not for want of smart fabrics.

It may not be as dramatic as 100 years ago (almost certainly it will not be), but it will probably be several years before chemical defense re-emerges ex nihilo. And many people will die from gas warfare in the meantime, and many Western politicians will surrender to the adversary of the future. A chemical defense capability is cheap to maintain on the budget, but I suspect it's a hard sell until there's no obvious threat, then the Western governments lose their minds again and go into panic mode.

But then it might be too late.

Hinging on "just-in-time" war strats is a great way to lose the big one.

The first time we lost Austerlitz.
The second time we lost Alsace-Lorraine.
The third time we almost lost France.
The fourth time we lost all of Europe and almost lost Egypt.
What's the fifth to be? Subjugation by despotic slaver states? Possibly.

There's a time where you need to look at your history and realize that "skin of your teeth" thinking means you come ever closer to actually being annihilated in the next war.

The one time we actually prepared for the war to come, it never actually came, so we might not have made it a sticking point. Judging by the war fighting capabilities of Western European NATO armies like the British, Norwegians, Dutch, Germans, etc., this is very possible and we may have reverted to the typical Western Democratic complacency that strikes in every Interbellum except the 1980s.

Allanea wrote:
So it is probably beneficial for Russia to encourage the belief, despite the apparent nonsense of it, that chemical warfare is the future. It's not so much make work lobbying as it is retention of a vital national deterrence. The same applies to nuclear weapons too, but Westerners seem rather intent on letting that industry atrophy as well, while the enemies of the West are busy re-arming themselves. :/

It's feasible. But there is ample documentation to the contrary, at least in regards to the 1980s.

I wouldn't know anything about this documentation since I am illiterate in Russian. Do you have concise summaries? Or perhaps English language books?

I tried to find that book ("Chemical Warfare Throughout the Centuries"?) that you mentioned earlier on Amazon but I think it might not be in English? Or it is simply a bit obscure and not on Amazon at all.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:04 am

I tried to find that book ("Chemical Warfare Throughout the Centuries"?) that you mentioned earlier on Amazon but I think it might not be in English? Or it is simply a bit obscure and not on Amazon at all.

It's a Russian book, by a Russian General who worked in the chemical program and then switched to working for the Ministry of Health.

I wouldn't know anything about this documentation since I am illiterate in Russian. Do you have concise summaries? Or perhaps English language books?

TL;DR The Soviet Union was not free of the politicized MIC nonsense America has. If anything it had it at an exponential level. Procurement decisions - and even foreign policy decisions sometimes - were made to satisfy one design bureau or another. For this reason design bureaus were able to get away with things that would get a lesser mortal arrested or shot. Give me 24 hours and I'll do my best to find you a blow-by-blow account of the specific issue.

by **Theodosiya** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:07 am

What would kill a person if he get shot on left shoulder, thighs, and/or head, between the peak and temple?

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:10 am

Allanea wrote:
I tried to find that book ("Chemical Warfare Throughout the Centuries"?) that you mentioned earlier on Amazon but I think it might not be in English? Or it is simply a bit obscure and not on Amazon at all.

It's a Russian book, by a Russian General who worked in the chemical program and then switched to working for the Ministry of Health.

RIP. NSMRC must pool our liquid assets and pay a translator a quarter of a Litecoin an hour.

Allanea wrote:
I wouldn't know anything about this documentation since I am illiterate in Russian. Do you have concise summaries? Or perhaps English language books?

TL;DR The Soviet Union was not free of the politicized MIC nonsense America has. If anything it had it at an exponential level. Procurement decisions - and even foreign policy decisions sometimes - were made to satisfy one design bureau or another. For this reason design bureaus were able to get away with things that would get a lesser mortal arrested or shot. Give me 24 hours and I'll do my best to find you a blow-by-blow account of the specific issue.

I read about similar things in T. Buttler's Soviet Secret Projects books. I am very interested to hear of the boardroom brawls that took place behind the Autistic Curtain, or really boardroom brawls in general, because the boardroom is where actual ideas and real life meets together more than any other place in the universe besides perhaps an engineer's drafting table.

But engineers still boardroom brawl too. O:

Theodosiya wrote:What would kill a person if he get shot on left shoulder, thighs, and/or head, between the peak and temple?

The bullet.

by **Theodosiya** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:15 am

I kinda hope for Puz level detail. So, what organs got hit, any chunks flying..

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:17 am

I read about similar things in T. Buttler's Soviet Secret Projects books. I am very interested to hear of the boardroom brawls that took place behind the Autistic Curtain, or really boardroom brawls in general, because the boardroom is where actual ideas and real life meets together more than any other place in the universe besides perhaps an engineer's drafting table.

Daily reminder that Kurchevsky was a sufficient master of intrigue to arrange of the physical elimination of most of the other recoilless gun developers.

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:24 am

Not only is he a master engineer but a master politician too.

Someone must go back in time and give Kurchevsky the secret of the RAVEN guns. Then he will be able to conquer the Earth with an all recoilless army.

e: He even made a helicopter.

Kurchevsky is the greatest of all spergs. Besides like, Lenin or Hitler or Thatcher I guess.

1) He knows the only method to eliminate competition is to eliminate competition.
2) He just makes stuff for its own sake and sperg's for sperg's sake.
3) Unrepentant to the end.
4) Howitzermobile.

He could have made a Davy Crockett on a Cobra helicopter with RAVEN guns for maximum atomic war gunship.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:46 am

You forgot the part where he was a prisoner in the Gulags [before his engineering career] and tried to persuade the cconcentration camp administrators to let him go by handmaking a recoilless cannon and presenting it to them.

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:48 am

L O L
O
L

T R U E _ S P E R G
R
U
E

S
P
E
R
G

Remind me why I'm supposed to hate Kurchevsky again he sounds like a badass and a real life Truspergen. I don't think I can hate this guy he sounds like he really just needs a good solid hug and an anime about Magical Venturi.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:48 am

On a different topic, how difficult would it be to make a blast-resistant fuze for an existing landmine?

And how effective are blast-resistant mine fuzes?

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:49 am

Blast resistance is an inbuilt feature of most modern mines?

It's at least partially the reason the US Army didn't adopt SLUFAE.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:50 am

Gallia- wrote:
Remind me why I'm supposed to hate Kurchevsky again he sounds like a badass and a real life Truspergen.

Muzzleloading.
Automatic.
Pneumatic-feed.
Cloth-cartridge.
Recoilless guns.
On aircraft.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:50 am

Gallia- wrote:Blast resistance is an inbuilt feature of most modern mines?

It's at least partially the reason the US Army didn't adopt SLUFAE.

Specifically, can I produce a blast-resistance pneumatic fuze that fits TM-62s?

by **Gallia-** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:54 am

Allanea wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
Remind me why I'm supposed to hate Kurchevsky again he sounds like a badass and a real life Truspergen.

Muzzleloading.
Automatic.
Pneumatic-feed.
Cloth-cartridge.
Recoilless guns.
On aircraft.

Badass.

Kurchevsky is dope as hell.

Allanea wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Blast resistance is an inbuilt feature of most modern mines?

It's at least partially the reason the US Army didn't adopt SLUFAE.

Specifically, can I produce a blast-resistance pneumatic fuze that fits TM-62s?

I don't know.

Blast resistant mines have been a thing since WW2, though. The easiest way to do it is to have a tilt rod or air bladder or something. Blast waves are supposed to push down on pressure pads so as long as you don't have a pressure pad you should be OK. But I'm also pretty sure that landmines tend to be built around their fusing mechanisms.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:56 am

Blast resistant mines have been a thing since WW2, though. The easiest way to do it is to have a tilt rod or air bladder or something. Blast waves are supposed to push down on pressure pads so as long as you don't have a pressure pad you should be OK. But I'm also pretty sure that landmines tend to be built around their fusing mechanisms.

I want Allanea to be like Russia in that there'sa bewildering array of mines sharing compatible fuze openings.

by **Vaillana** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:18 am

So what is the point of a bomber like the Tu-160 having such a long range if you cannot protect it for most of that distance?

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:20 am

Gallia- wrote:The Type 183s are around to fit inside V-22s for most part. Haflinger is just a toolbox with wheels for aviation crew chiefs to pull around. It's also a tractor for bomb trolleys and other really small things. You list M-Gator and Growler, which are the same class as Haflinger and Type 183 respectively, but Galla would just call them different names. In reality I think the number of trucks that Carthage and Galla use are the same, but Galla just chops them up into even finer divisions because the Gallan Brain is essentially autistic. The examples were for comparison, Galla only has one truck in each weight class, respectively:

Haflinger
Type 183 Iltis
HMMWV
LMTV
MTV
HEMTT? LVSR?
Undecided Super!Truck

The real meat is just HMMWV/FMTV/FHTV. Although Galla probably doesn't use HET, but maybe some gigantic Super!HEMTT that can pull 70 tons.

M-Gator and Growler though are specialist vehicles in Carthage and are pretty rare; Growler is limited to heliborne units and M-Gator to logistics, rear-area, and garrison units that could use a golf cart-like vehicle. They'd all have different names but there's no particular reason to use them here. I listed HETS as a stand-in because Carthage would inevitably need something different and better, since the Jaguar II weighs more than M1070 is rated to pull at full speed (especially if up-armored).

The biggest difference is that Carthage has a single truck for the LMTV and MTV range.

I'm just wondering if there's really a need for a 10-ton truck when you have a 20-ton truck. Or if I can get by with nothing but LVSR ripoffs forever. Or if a 20-ton heavy is even possible with 1980s technology. I guess I'd be shooting for a 10x10 heavy lifter al a PLS/LVSR instead of a 8x8. Skip the 8x8 entirely, actually, and go from 6x6 to 10x0, in the '80s. Galla would be all over that because a 20-ton heavy mover would be exactly what it thinks it needs in the 1980s to cut down the tooth:tail ratio to produce the ideal army:

The problem: What good is a 8x8 10-ton truck and why are they so common in a world when 10x10 20-ton trucks can exist and have almost an identical ground footprint? This is why I am confused. Only the US Marines have a solidly 20 ton heavy truck. So why not just use LVS instead of HEMTT and forget 10-tons even exist? Then the "x80" classification becomes "8-20 tons" and "x90" becomes ">20 tons".

All I can presume is that the 8x8s came first and they already do enough that 10x10s aren't necessary for most nations and most loads. A 20-ton truck would be a pretty big jump in payload from the trucks that preceded it in the 1980s, seeing as how Goer wasn't even a 10-ton truck except in the wrecker variant. It's probably technologically possible, but I don't know if it'd be as compact as PLS and LVSR are. But PLS is late 1980s technology anyway so it's not that far away chronologically. 10x10s outside the US seem to be fairly rare, and until the USMC bought into LVSR 10x10s were still specialist vehicles in the US military. RMMV cancelled the 10x10 SX due to lack of perceived need and only has a single 10x10 model (in the HX line) that doesn't seem to have sold very well, being only purchased by a tiny handful of nations as wreckers.

Given that 8x8s are cheaper to buy and to operate, it's probably no surprise they are dominant. I suspect the Marines bought the 10x10 LVSR simply because it was the easiest path for them and their truck order wasn't big enough to justify a political fight for different models. FWIW, the Army doesn't seem very pressed to switch to 10x10s and seems to be stuck ordering more PLS to keep Oshkosh's factories afloat until they put their HEMTTs through the recapitalization program to upgrade them to A4s. Or maybe because they ran out of old HEMTTs to recapitalize into M1120.

Although dig this: LVS is an 8x8 that can still pull 20-tons. So maybe HEMTT has the same muscular legs that LVSR does on roads, but LVS can't match that. So there's still a break somewhere between the 10- and 20-ton line that can't be met. I just don't really want two heavy trucks that do essentially the same thing running around being redundant. That means I'll have to include the caveat that "x00" is actually a ">20-ton" heavy truck that pulls tanks. So Tgb 1100 isn't a tiny mover like Haflinger or a motor bike, it's the biggest of them all.

All of the tractor variants can pull a lot of weight since their trailers come with their own axles. M983 HEMTT tractor could also pull in excess of 20 tons. But at least from what I can tell, they're still rated for the same off-road capacity as a regular HEMTT on their trailers (20 tons is road-only). But pulling a heavy trailer is something all of them can do since PLS, LVSR, and HEMTT can all double their volume and weight capacity with trailers. It's also presumably the only reason HETS can get away with pulling an MBT despite being an 8x8 and having an engine in the same power category as PLS/LVSR/HEMTT.

At the end of the day, my ultimate opinion on the question is already pretty evident: if you don't care about whatever costs might be involved, you can just buy 10x10s 20-tons without any 8x8s. Because that's what I did with Carthage.

by **Allanea** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:59 am

Vaillana wrote:So what is the point of a bomber like the Tu-160 having such a long range if you cannot protect it for most of that distance?

You don't need to.

by **Variota** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:55 am

Would a ratio of 20% volunteers, 80% draftees be deemed reasonable/realistic for an army?

I'm currently thinking of having ten brigades/regiments/units/groups of one thousand men each, one fully staffed by volunteer troops to be placed in the capital city (as they would be deemed more loyal to the regime) with the other volunteers evenly spread among the other units. Their primary goal isn't as much external defence but much more internal defence, keeping unrest low, the regime stable, a way to show the people the government's power sort of thing. They'll be aided by paramilitary groups if that matters, which could easily do the actual beat-down of civilians if needed. I can imagine that draftees wouldn't like to put the smack down on their fellow citizens.

by **Greater Allidron** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:38 am

Variota wrote:Would a ratio of 20% volunteers, 80% draftees be deemed reasonable/realistic for an army?

I'm currently thinking of having ten brigades/regiments/units/groups of one thousand men each, one fully staffed by volunteer troops to be placed in the capital city (as they would be deemed more loyal to the regime) with the other volunteers evenly spread among the other units. Their primary goal isn't as much external defence but much more internal defence, keeping unrest low, the regime stable, a way to show the people the government's power sort of thing. They'll be aided by paramilitary groups if that matters, which could easily do the actual beat-down of civilians if needed. I can imagine that draftees wouldn't like to put the smack down on their fellow citizens.

One thousand is battalion sized. A brigade sized unit is about 4 thousand.

Edit: I would recommend looking into the Iraqi Republican Guard for inspiration on political loyalty units.

by **Isapito** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:44 am

So i'm looking for some advice on the viability of a concept for an attack craft both from a military and engineering point of view. It would be a turboprop powered craft (to make it cheaper) who's general design would be based roughly on a slightly upscale Westland Wyvern. The major difference would be it has a remotely controlled ball turret armed with either twin automatic grenade launchers (maybe something similar to the H&K GMG) or twin 0.50 cal mgs. This would be at the cost of a reduced payload of rockets and bombs.

NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

Who is online