NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Palmyrion]

I like the Merkava's ass

I can load my tank ammo more easily now

Crew can enter the tank faster

#EngineOnFrontMasterRace

Can I have weapons squads in mechanized infantry units in tank battalions? (sans ATGM launchers, just more GPMGs)

Do GPMGs really need two soldiers to be effectively used?

[The Soodean Imperium]

How hard would it be to put small electric motors into a PG-7 rocket to get it to move its fins about for steering?

As a non-tube diameter constrained launcher, surely one has more flexibility in appending things to and generally altering the RPG-7's ammunition?

PG-7's fins go inside the 40mm launch tube, though, and the sustainer rocket fires through the core cylinder they're attached to. So there's actually not much space to work with.

Presumably the easier path would be to put the electric motors and control surfaces elsewhere on the warhead, instead of adding them to the existing stabilizer fins.

I once suggested fitting a sort of "semi-guidance" package to FROG-7 in order to improve its accuracy and reduce its splash zone, but I was told that basically the entire rocket body would need to be changed, and at that point, it's not really FROG-7 anymore.

The benefit of doing this with RPG ammunition, though, is that you can in fact make an entirely new rocket body and it will still fit in the old launcher.

[Gallia-]

I like the Merkava's ass

I can load my tank ammo more easily now

Crew can enter the tank faster

#EngineOnFrontMasterRace

Can I have weapons squads in mechanized infantry units in tank battalions? (sans ATGM launchers, just more GPMGs)

Do GPMGs really need two soldiers to be effectively used?

Engine on front reduces protection.

[Imperializt Russia]

Do GPMGs really need two soldiers to be effectively used?

No, and this is why GPMGs are awesome. GPMGs are used in the "light role", on a bipod by one man or a two-man team, or in a "medium role" where it is on a tripod, operated by usually 2-3 men.

It will however provide a more effective base of fire when used as part of a GPMG team, though obviously can be issued as a section machine gun and is.

[Allanea]

As a non-tube diameter constrained launcher, surely one has more flexibility in appending things to and generally altering the RPG-7's ammunition?

PG-7's fins go inside the 40mm launch tube, though, and the sustainer rocket fires through the core cylinder they're attached to. So there's actually not much space to work with.

Presumably the easier path would be to put the electric motors and control surfaces elsewhere on the warhead, instead of adding them to the existing stabilizer fins.

I once suggested fitting a sort of "semi-guidance" package to FROG-7 in order to improve its accuracy and reduce its splash zone, but I was told that basically the entire rocket body would need to be changed, and at that point, it's not really FROG-7 anymore.

The benefit of doing this with RPG ammunition, though, is that you can in fact make an entirely new rocket body and it will still fit in the old launcher.

THe rocket's back is the same diameter as Pike. My logic is that it can fit in a 40mm rocket that shoots from an M203, it will fit in a larger rocket.

[Takhshiyt]

Do navies conduct snap exercises with their forces? Like for instance I want to conduct a exercise with a squadron of patrol boats and a squadron of missile boats to intercept a simulated naval force, and I was wondering if it would be normal to tell them to do the exercise without any prior warning?

Oh, and what kind of problems could that cause within naval squadrons?

I am really bad at navy stuff, so excuse my ignorance.

The individual personnel might not be told in advance about a training exercise, but if for no reasons aside from the need for scenario planning and budgeting (exercises are not free), they still require a good deal of planning in advance. The commanding and overseeing officers, as well as the admiralty will certainly know about such exercises in advance, because they planned them. They're not really something a squadron commander in the field can suddenly order on the spot, aside from basic readiness drills.

Do navies conduct snap exercises with their forces? Like for instance I want to conduct a exercise with a squadron of patrol boats and a squadron of missile boats to intercept a simulated naval force, and I was wondering if it would be normal to tell them to do the exercise without any prior warning?

Oh, and what kind of problems could that cause within naval squadrons?

I am really bad at navy stuff, so excuse my ignorance.

http://news.sky.com/story/putin-orders- ... e-10367601

Thanks for the info!

[Palmyrion]

Do GPMGs really need two soldiers to be effectively used?

No, and this is why GPMGs are awesome. GPMGs are used in the "light role", on a bipod by one man or a two-man team, or in a "medium role" where it is on a tripod, operated by usually 2-3 men.

It will however provide a more effective base of fire when used as part of a GPMG team, though obviously can be issued as a section machine gun and is.

Both roles though

2 soldiers

[Palmyrion]

I like the Merkava's ass

I can load my tank ammo more easily now

Crew can enter the tank faster

#EngineOnFrontMasterRace

Can I have weapons squads in mechanized infantry units in tank battalions? (sans ATGM launchers, just more GPMGs)

Do GPMGs really need two soldiers to be effectively used?

Engine on front reduces protection.

How so?

[Gallia-]

how do you think? the space where the engine is cant be armour, otherwise tanks would be made entirely of engines

it can work if you armour the crew capsule behind the engine, but at that point why not just put the armoured capsule in front and the engine in back to avoid the whole issue? you have discover TTB and T-14

[Palmyrion]

how do you think? the space where the engine is cant be armour, otherwise tanks would be made entirely of engines

it can work if you armour the crew capsule behind the engine, but at that point why not just put the armoured capsule in front and the engine in back to avoid the whole issue? you have discover TTB and T-14

Well, the Israelis did it.

[Anemos Major]

PG-7's fins go inside the 40mm launch tube, though, and the sustainer rocket fires through the core cylinder they're attached to. So there's actually not much space to work with.

Presumably the easier path would be to put the electric motors and control surfaces elsewhere on the warhead, instead of adding them to the existing stabilizer fins.

That's the thrust of what I was going for. It's the solution they employed with APKWS, I think - you're probably not going to stick control surfaces on the back of the rocket, but it can be a mid-body (in this case, out-of-launcher) addition.



some sort of crude SALH modification to the RPG-7 might be feasible, I suppose, though given that you're essentially going to be adding a sighting system and expensively modifying all the ammunition in use it's probably best to just introduce a new system straight-up (like many comprehensive modifications)

[Anemos Major]

how do you think? the space where the engine is cant be armour, otherwise tanks would be made entirely of engines

it can work if you armour the crew capsule behind the engine, but at that point why not just put the armoured capsule in front and the engine in back to avoid the whole issue? you have discover TTB and T-14

Well, the Israelis did it.

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

[Palmyrion]

Well, the Israelis did it.

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

But why? Why the front-engined tank?

[Spirit of Hope]

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

But why? Why the front-engined tank?

A number of reasons. I'm just going to spout off a couple that I've heard here.

It allows for faster reloading, which is kind of important to Israel since they very likely will be out numbered in any given war. Allows them to have reduced down time for combat.

It allows for better crew survive ability, especially coupled with the fact that other tanks can dump there ammo to pick up crew who have lost their tank. Since Israel is rich enough to afford more tanks than crew, this means recovered crew can be stuck in a new tank to keep fighting.

This does come at the expense of frontal armor, but Israel generally has better training than any of it's likely opponents. Additionally most of it's opponents aren't necisarily using the latest and greatest military equipment to face off against them.

[Anemos Major]

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

But why? Why the front-engined tank?

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=279876&p=18513159#p18513159

tl;dr merkava had very particular requirements re: preserving crew and rapid resupply, it was originally conceived of during a time when both offensive threats and defensive technology were very different, and as time passed the threat picture faced by israeli tanks looked a lot less like the Fulda Gap - the tanks they were facing down were increasingly less capable, whereas the HEAT warheads being thrown their way by groups like Hezbollah were very much top-of-the-line, which justified retaining a protective layout that you wouldn't dream of seeing on the frontlines of the Cold War

(this isn't an exhaustive or particularly sophisticated response - I'm sure I've written about this before, I'll link you if I find it)

E: oh, and also because Israel's invested in anti-tank capabilities elsewhere. By the time you get to the 1980s, if, say, the Syrians had broken through on the Golan Heights, they wouldn't just be facing the motley array of tanks that they faced in 1973 - they'd be facing weapons systems like Tamuz/Spike-NLOS, or Nimrod, as well as an air force much better versed in the dismantling of air defence systems. as time passed, in essence, the anti-tank role of tanks was supplemented by increasingly capable weapons systems elsewhere, which arguably eased the pressure on tank development somewhat, especially as pertains to their capacity to destroy other tanks

[Gallia-]

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

But why? Why the front-engined tank?

so they could put a door on the back

jewtanks would be hull down so much it wouldnt matter at all it's fine if you just want to fight in fields i guess

it matters now because in city there is no hull down only speical armor

and engine bad at special armor

it's like british tanks with their shitty lower hull front glacis but not as bad

[Purpelia]

What I'd love to see in a RPG-7 rocket is give it an airburst round with a XM-25 style range finder sight.

[Spirit of Hope]

What I'd love to see in a RPG-7 rocket is give it an airburst round with a XM-25 style range finder sight.

Wouldn't be that hard to set up, the RPG-7 already has a self detonating mechanism, IIRC it is already somewhat adjustable. Though I don't know if that is a warhead, fuse or actual adjustment thing. Just need a way to know the range, and make adjustments in the field.

[Purpelia]

What I'd love to see in a RPG-7 rocket is give it an airburst round with a XM-25 style range finder sight.

Wouldn't be that hard to set up, the RPG-7 already has a self detonating mechanism, IIRC it is already somewhat adjustable. Though I don't know if that is a warhead, fuse or actual adjustment thing. Just need a way to know the range, and make adjustments in the field.

Yea, there are plenty of ways that could be done really. That's why I love the idea so much. You could literally do it using ye-old tech and just have some sort of mechanically adjustable airburst fuse 40's style.

The way I imagine it though is to have a fancy smart sight thing that tells the user the distance to the target and has some sort of aid to let him aim more easily to account for projectile drop over that distance. And than have some sort of easy to use mechanical adjustment, like say a ring he can rotate with range marked on it on the rockets them self. That way you could just swap the new sights out onto a standard scope rail on the old launcher and swap the warheads round.

[Laritaia]

it's like british tanks with their shitty lower hull front glacis but not as bad

tbf they fixed that.

[The Kievan People]

the reasoning behind the Israelis a) adopting a front engined tank b) sticking with it isn't easily extrapolated to other cases

But why? Why the front-engined tank?

When it was developed Israel had no special armour, and ERA did not exist. That configuration provided the best possible protection from shaped charges.

[Gallia-]

it's like british tanks with their shitty lower hull front glacis but not as bad

tbf they fixed that.

with a big lump of applique tho

how will it fight The Next War without high speed mobility?

oh wait it's british it was designed by snails

[Laritaia]

tbf they fixed that.

with a big lump of applique tho

how will it fight The Next War without high speed mobility?

oh wait it's british it was designed by snails

it's a block of Dorchcester, it's basically the same as the Abrams lower glacis cavity just removable.

[Gallia-]

with a big lump of applique tho

how will it fight The Next War without high speed mobility?

oh wait it's british it was designed by snails

it's a block of Dorchcester, it's basically the same as the Abrams lower glacis cavity just removable.

that's not an advantage

an internal armour array is always better

you strain the suspension less and for a given mass growth you can add more protection

should have just bought M1s and won all the atomic wars

[New Vihenia]

talkin bout engine position.

Is Swedish's stridsvagn 2000 front engined or rear engined ;w; ?