Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Elan Valleys]

In a conventional war, is a Level IV vest w/plates worth it for general issue? Or would the savings in the fighting load be better used for better ammunition/communications etc?

Seems to me that a 155mm isn't going to notice Osprey etc.

I'm leaning towards a PASGT equivalent or having something where the plates would live in the rear unless a deliberate attack by motorised troops etc.

[Ord Caprica]

In a conventional war, is a Level IV vest w/plates worth it for general issue? Or would the savings in the fighting load be better used for better ammunition/communications etc?

Seems to me that a 155mm isn't going to notice Osprey etc.

I'm leaning towards a PASGT equivalent or having something where the plates would live in the rear unless a deliberate attack by motorised troops etc.

Depends on who you are fighting in my opinion..

If you're playing hardball with someone that uses armor plates and shoots rounds with good AP characteristics then logic would seem to follow that you'd be at a disadvantage. The enemy is capable of penetrating your lighter armor and return fire has the very real potential of not knocking them out of the fight.

If your in a total dominance situation then, sacrificing the overall protection of ground troops for better maneuverability downrange and communications equipment wouldn't be as bad but you're going to feel it outside of urban environments when range and protection start to matter even more.

As a guy that's humped a few hills with SAPIs and gear; I personally feel better having them and that also does something in combat, individual confidence get's into the human element of war.

To sum it up, depends entirely on the situation, doctrine and what you and the people at home feel comfortable with and can afford.

[Gallia-]

In a conventional war, is a Level IV vest w/plates worth it for general issue?

Yes.

[Theodosiya]

In a conventional war, is a Level IV vest w/plates worth it for general issue?

Yes.

I thought you would say no. Since you said something about how body armor are actually a deadweight, if an element to boost a soldier aggressiveness could be used while shedding the armor.

Anyway, from a source that shall not be named, he said that average operators and soldiers use level 3 plates, since level 4 are heavy and mostly used in vehicle. Me, I'll issue level 4 in general, although there's option to use level 3 for few operators, soldiers and marines who want to go light

[Gallia-]

That's because you, among others, miss the obvious, simple point I made.

[Theodosiya]

That's because you, among others, miss the obvious, simple point I made.

Is it cultural issues or what? You mentioned that since body armor are "proven" to protect, they got used, alot. While if lucky charms or things like that are believed, they'll use it. Or something like that. Since many westerners usually value individues over collective...

[Gallia-]

That's not the point, that's a supporting argument. The point is much simpler: protection against a threat enhances aggressiveness of ground troops.

There is no trade off between armor and radios or whatever. Both are needed. You might as well ask if you can save weight by not wearing a uniform or something. Or not having a gun.

Acceptance of chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis at 35, and spinal disc compression is simply the price you pay for having troops who can fight a battle without breaking.

[Ord Caprica]

That's not the point, that's a supporting argument. The point is much simpler: protection against a threat enhances aggressiveness of ground troops.

This

[Gallia-]

Honestly given that mfg cost of modern plate carriers and plates themselves have dropped so dramatically since the 1980s, the dichotomy ceased to exist decades ago. The only reason people weren't being issued hard armor in 1993 was because it was heavy and shit. Millions of dollars and 5 years later the U.S. Army makes Interceptor with the intent of issuing it to every dogface and POG in existence outside CONUS with a few early vests being earmarked for Contingency Force troops who might need them before Big Green. Since no major war happens between 1998-2000 the rest of the Army receives Interceptor more or less in time for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cue ISAPO and Ranger Body Armor being pushed down the chain until everyone has one.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Scaling issues mostly fixed, I guess. Woohoo.

[Theodosiya]

To be fair, I'll kept the dichotomy between plate carrier and ballistic vest. The latter still provides limited protection minus plate, the former needs to be filled with one. Thus, light infantry divisions (Paratroopers, Air Cavalry) and SOF operators would tend to use plate carrier, although there would be some people who used ballistic vest. Ditto for helmets, where LWH/SCHUBERT 826 are the dominant helmet for nearly all formation, while MICH-2000/ACH would've been worn by light infantry and SOF. High Cut FAST & Airframe would be nearly exclusively used by SOF.

Note : Chest rigs would be commonly issued to increase combat load capability.

[Manokan Republic]

When does ´tism go too far?

A nice M16 you might think, eh? Magpul is a bit tasteless, and the C79 is dated, but not too bad. Aha, but you see, this M16 is chambered in 3x47mm FABRL!

Look at them, in their teeny-tiny glory! With an average weight of .77g, and muzzel velocities of 1280m/s or greater, it flies like a lazor, and kicks like a malnourished infant. The perfect combat rifle round.

I realize you're sort of joking, but to give some legitimate criticisms with hard numbers, there are a few things off with the idea. You would generate approximately 655 joules of energy, which of course is quite low, and roughly on par with a 9mm or .45 ACP, being slightly under a .357 magnum. In comparison, a 5.56mm is 1800 joules, a 7.62mm NATO is 3500 joules, and a 5.7mm armor piercing round is about 600 joules. The main advantage of using a lightweight bullet is light weight ammunition, of which with a large brass cartridge case, is still not going to save much weight. A caseless rounds or aluminum cased round might be really light weight, but using a typical brass case is going to invariably increase weight. Ignoring the fact most propellant can't transfer the energy of the round that quickly (there was a limit to the velocity of black powder weapons back in the day of about 600 m/s, and smokeless powder that isn't used in a tank, which used massively oversized powder granules with air gaps in them, isn't going to generate that high of a velocity), you still don't gain much. For example, if you consumed 1 gram of gun powder powder and had a .8 gram bullet, you might have a 2 gram cartridge in total, which means you can carry a lot of ammunition, the equivalent of 1800 rounds in comparison to a 5.56mm at 300 rounds. But if you use a 6 gram 5.56mm case and load in .8 gram bullet with 1-2 grams of powder, you're left with something about 9 grams, which is not all that much lighter weight than a 5.56mm, or would allow you to carry about 400 rounds in comparison to 300 rounds for a standard 5.56mm load-out. You really don't gain much advantage by using such a tiny bullet, without also using a really light weight case, or no case at all.

Soft tissue ballistics is a big deal, as a really high velocity round like a .8 gram bullet is going to penetrate straight through the human body without doing much damage, and therefore not have all that much stopping power. Doctors use needles for a reason, because small puncture wounds are rarely lethal and close up quickly, and cases of people being stabbed with ice picks or railroad spikes but surviving, even if hit in the head, are quite common. Therefore something that small is unlikely to severely wound the enemy, and may result in them actually being able to fight while barely noticing the damage. Shrapnel is easily stopped by light body armor, even at high velocities, so something like this is more easily stopped by a helmet or vest, giving a soldier with body armor invincibility to the round probably at 100-200 yards easily. But let's assume the cartridge is designed well and say, fragments in to dozens of razor sharp tungsten splinters on impact, therefore causing a much larger wound than people would anticipate. Probably a warcrime, but whatever. Maybe it's designed like blended metal bullets, which weren't very good, but the lethality or stopping power of a 9mm or .223 would be a fairly good achievement for ar ound that tiny.

Now let's talk a bout the big issue. It might not piercing armor well or deliver much damage to the target, and it's overly heavy for it's lack of power, but surely that high velocity means a flat trajectory, right? Right...? Well, no. Low mass bullets tend not to be very aerodynamic, and launching them with too much force can actually shorten the range by destabilizing the round and providing too much air resistance. Imagine you throw a paper airplane as hard as you possibly could; it would probably dive straight down and crash in to the floor, veering off at some weird angle. If you've ever thrown a paper airplane as hard as you could, you know it just crumples immediately due to air resistance and goes flying off in a weird direction, which means it doesn't actually go further. On the other hand if you throw it gracefully, it will glide through the air, and travel much further. A marble is denser than a paper ball, but you could probably throw a marble farther than you could throw a paper ball, due to the fact the paper ball would lose momentum and eventually slow down, perhaps even stopping suddenly in mid-air, and you can probably throw a baseball further than either. Despite the incredibly low velocity of say, a mortar round, it can get out to several thousand yards, something like a rifle round quite frankly can't do. The heavier mass gives good aerodynamic stability, which means a longer range. Mortar rounds are also fin stabilized, which helps. An example of a high velocity round that veered off and destabilized at 200 yards was the .223 super short magnum, which was an attempt to put a .223 in a larger rifle case. By 200-300 yards the round was destabilizing so bad it was less accurate and less powerful than a .223 at those ranges, and by 400-500 yards was nearly useless. The truth is that if you fling something really really hard, it needs to be heavy enough to resist the force of the air, or else it crashes.

But let's say you design the thing right. You use artillery powder, make it caseless, used a saboted sub-caliber round that's fin stabilized and made of a hard enough material not to crumple under the force of the propellant. You replace your barrels every 3000 rounds and use polygonal gain twist rifling, also reminiscent of really powerful artillery weapons, or just go straight smoothboore, possibly with driving bands, which of course is cheaper. You totally optimize the cartridge in every way possible, and slick up the weapon as much as possible to handle the high velocity and high pressure. You still have to deal with the incredibly short range. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's say you use the ballistic coefficient of a .22 LR, which is 2 grams or 2.5 times bigger than your round. The G1 ballistic coefficient of 5.56mm is .2, while the 7.62mm NATO is .35, and the .338 lapua is .768. The G1 ballistic coefficient of a .22 LR is between .08 and .15, with an average of about .125. Let's give you .125; doing the math, assuming the round doesn't veer off early, you reach subsonic velocities by 450 yards. This means that high velocity is gone by 450 yards, and isn't maintained like it would be in a larger bullet. By say, 1000 yards, you're hitting with the force of some BB guns, meaning it likely won't penetrate any armor. You at best penetrate armor out to say, 200-300 yards, with the velocity dropping off exponentially by about 300 yards. The chart won't even let it go out past 2300 yards, due to the fact it would drop off so bad it would be impossible, even at a 45 degree angle, to get out that far. But basically, even under ideal conditions with a perfectly designed cartridge, you have a glorified 200 yard range gun. Why not just a 5.7mm from a P90 at that point; same energy, smaller, penetrates armor at close range and is fairly effective out to 200 yards. Or even cooler would be a P90 like weapon with a 5.56mm, with a micro tavor using a 13.5 inch barrel or something getting rather close. In fact the 6.8mm remington actually does well from short barrels, as does the newer M855A1 cartridges, so that would be more interesting than a full size rifle with the range of a P90 and a super short barrel life.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Getting back into making unit organizations. Just for the short background, my IC nation (Prussia 2.0) was made post-WWII as a more militarized counter to the communists rather than the liberal democratic West Germany. How does this sound for an early 1950s-era platoon? At this time, I'm thinking the Prussian military would be armed with a cross of American equipment, WWII-era Nazi equipment, and postwar European-developed weapons.

Platoon HQ

• 1x Platoon Leader: M1 Carbine, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x RTO: M1 Carbine, SCR-300
• 2x Marksmen: Accurized Kar98k w/ optics
• 1x Corpsman: Medical equipment
  
  3x Rifle Squad per platoon
  Squad HQ
• 1x Squad Leader: FN UC*
• 1x Deputy Squad Leader: FN UC
  
  1x Rifle Team per rifle squad
• 1x Team Leader: FN UC
• 2x Rifleman: FN UC w/scheissbecher rifle grenade launcher
  
  1x Machine Gun Team per rifle squad
• 1x MG Team Leader: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
• 1x Machine Gunner: MG42, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
  
  1x Antitank Team per rifle squad
• 1x Antitank Team Leader: M1 Carbine, AT/HE ammunition
• 1x Antitank Weapons Operator: MP40, M1 Carl Gustav
• 1x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, AT/HE ammunition
  
  1x Weapons Squad per platoon
• 1x Weapons Squad Leader: FN UC
• 1x Deputy Squad Leader: FN UC
• 3x Riflemen: FN UC w/ Scheissbecher rifle grenade launchers
• 1x Machine Gunner: MG 42, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x Tripod Bearer: M1 Carbine, Lafette Tripod
• 2x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
• 2x Combat Engineers: M1 Carbine, engineering equipment, landmines

In addition to equipment listed, all members carry an E-tool, gas mask, M56 Stalhelm, and the other trappings of soldiers. Grenades are brought based on mission requirements, although the platoon and squad leaders usually carry smoke grenades.

*= FN Universal Carbine, the early 7.92mm kurz version of the FAL.

Okay, so as I look over this again, it sounds like I have entirely too many supporting teams and not enough pure riflemen. However, given the defensive battles western Europe probably would have waged in WWIII, is outfitting an army for maximum firepower at the expense of mobility okay?

[Manokan Republic]

Getting back into making unit organizations. Just for the short background, my IC nation (Prussia 2.0) was made post-WWII as a more militarized counter to the communists rather than the liberal democratic West Germany. How does this sound for an early 1950s-era platoon? At this time, I'm thinking the Prussian military would be armed with a cross of American equipment, WWII-era Nazi equipment, and postwar European-developed weapons.

Platoon HQ

• 1x Platoon Leader: M1 Carbine, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x RTO: M1 Carbine, SCR-300
• 2x Marksmen: Accurized Kar98k w/ optics
• 1x Corpsman: Medical equipment
  
  3x Rifle Squad per platoon
  Squad HQ
• 1x Squad Leader: FN UC*
• 1x Deputy Squad Leader: FN UC
  
  1x Rifle Team per rifle squad
• 1x Team Leader: FN UC
• 2x Rifleman: FN UC w/scheissbecher rifle grenade launcher
  
  1x Machine Gun Team per rifle squad
• 1x MG Team Leader: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
• 1x Machine Gunner: MG42, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
  
  1x Antitank Team per rifle squad
• 1x Antitank Team Leader: M1 Carbine, AT/HE ammunition
• 1x Antitank Weapons Operator: MP40, M1 Carl Gustav
• 1x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, AT/HE ammunition
  
  1x Weapons Squad per platoon
• 1x Weapons Squad Leader: FN UC
• 1x Deputy Squad Leader: FN UC
• 3x Riflemen: FN UC w/ Scheissbecher rifle grenade launchers
• 1x Machine Gunner: MG 42, Browning Hi-Power
• 1x Tripod Bearer: M1 Carbine, Lafette Tripod
• 2x Ammunition Bearer: M1 Carbine, MG ammunition
• 2x Combat Engineers: M1 Carbine, engineering equipment, landmines

In addition to equipment listed, all members carry an E-tool, gas mask, M56 Stalhelm, and the other trappings of soldiers. Grenades are brought based on mission requirements, although the platoon and squad leaders usually carry smoke grenades.

*= FN Universal Carbine, the early 7.92mm kurz version of the FAL.

Okay, so as I look over this again, it sounds like I have entirely too many supporting teams and not enough pure riflemen. However, given the defensive battles western Europe probably would have waged in WWIII, is outfitting an army for maximum firepower at the expense of mobility okay?

What are your squad tactics? One machine gun team sets up, then the anti-tank team goes one way and flanks the enemy and the riflemen goes the other way?

Also I would replace the rifle grenade team in your weapons section with mortars, given the longer range and higher power and disperse the rifle grenades among the regular troops, perhaps the riflemen instead. German mortars were gigantic in WWII and too big for infantry to realistically carry on foot, but with a mix of American and german weapons you could easily use a 60mm or even 50mm and carry a lot more rounds. A weapons squad with one mortar and one machine gun would be rather interesting, but doable.

My only recommendation in regards to the weapons themselves is that the mg42's notoriously high rate of fire frequently became a problem, so I'd use the heavier bolt and stiffer spring modification that reduced it's rate of fire to 950 RPM, like in the MG3. It also wouldn't overheat as fast and would be more accurate. Maybe also a slightly heavier barrel. If you wanted to get really fancy, your heavy weapons squad could use something like a heavy or water cooled machine gun, based on the browning 1919, vickers or some other heavy german machine gun, for better sustained rates of fire. In this way the infantry would have a lighter more maneuverable gun, and the heavy weapon's team would have a heavier gun that was better for sustained rates of fire, but honestly it doesn't really matter all that much.

[Husseinarti]

Future infantry platoon, hyperwar of 2019 edition:

--Command Team:

Platoon leader
Platoon SiC
Platoon Radio
Platoon Electronic Warfare and Systems Officer
Sharpshooter
Sharhshooter

--x3 rifle squads:

Squad leader
---Machine Gun Group
Group Leader
Machine Gunner
Assistant
Assistant

---Assault Group
Group Leader
Grenadier
Automatic Rifleman
Rifleman
Rifleman

Then there is a support squad with 2 ATGM launchers and a light mortar. It has 7 people all together in that sqaud.

The grenadier in the best equipped units are issued XM-25 launchers and probably frogified AR-18 carbines.

The regular riflemen are getting, at this time, SCAR rifles with FELIN optics and stuff.

Everyman is linked into the FELIN system with higher levels of command and everything.

[Austrasien]

Honestly given that mfg cost of modern plate carriers and plates themselves have dropped so dramatically since the 1980s, the dichotomy ceased to exist decades ago. The only reason people weren't being issued hard armor in 1993 was because it was heavy and shit. Millions of dollars and 5 years later the U.S. Army makes Interceptor with the intent of issuing it to every dogface and POG in existence outside CONUS with a few early vests being earmarked for Contingency Force troops who might need them before Big Green. Since no major war happens between 1998-2000 the rest of the Army receives Interceptor more or less in time for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cue ISAPO and Ranger Body Armor being pushed down the chain until everyone has one.

ye

Ceramics ballistic properties haven't changed much since ceramic armor was introduced in the 60s. What has changed is fabricating large ceramic plates with tolerably bad mechanical properties has become more practical over time.

[Gallia-]

lmao san's pic reminds me i need to make something that is shittier than RIS but not PCAP that will work with fiddies a e s t h e t i c

i think it will involve sheet metal and springs like a lateral bayonet connector but the real name of this kind of fastener escapes me

like the ALICE clip of guns so manly so real it makes you want to suck start your rifle when trying to attach a PEQ

im thinking this will be built into the ar-10 style foregrip, i.e. the metal part you're not supposed to touch, where it kinda sorta doubles as vent holes for the silencer

Dig this y'all:

Ak58
- Old shit from 195X but foresighted IQ 110 avg Gallans added QOL from -A2 like a windage drum and other stuff
- Basically M16A1 with a brass deflector and 601 type grenade retention spring
- Also 1:9 twist instead of 1:12 like original -A1 because raisins and it means I don't have to change to 1:7 twist when 62 gr shows up in 198X

Ak21
- Updated Ak58 starting in the 2010s
- Still 5.56x45mm
- Action is the same
- Integrally silenced barrel (NSWC Crane)
- New furniture (like AR-10)
- Sullivan's Counterpoise to reduce felt recoil
- Tritium night sights on the irons and an elevation knob with labels for ranges
- Absolutely disgusting four point attachment system involving snap hooks or spring loaded fasteners

Ak2000
- Actually new gun
- It's an LR300 LoL
- But it's in 6.5x42-48mm (bullet from 6.5x55mm; cartridge OAL increased from 57.5mm to 60-65mm)
- BARS or Counterpoise or Ultimax for recoil control
- QD nut like Ultimax to retain zero
- Still a fixed carry handle because RIS is for wimps
- Still integrally silenced
- Plastic/fiberglass (carbon fiber? Nylon 66?) lower for reduced weight to counteract the shit that's been thrown into it and keep it under 9 lbs loaded
- New FALO-esque handguard
- Irons are relabeled for the new cartridge
- Bufferless design keeps the stock from cracking when the squad needs to volley fire Literally a Dozen Type 06s for maximum shock effect
- Also gives helicoptermen a slightly shorter survival rifle
- But it's still an M16 because Galla will use M16s until it dies which is never, so it will always use M16s which reminds me I need to make its fturrokit gun an M16

But how do constant recoil with a DI M16? I have no countermass except like in Counterpoise which requires a buffer. So LR-300 but short-stroke like an HK416 but BARS?

The hammer presses will smash the opposition into submission. The eternal cog grinds all beneath it to dust.

[/quote]

[Pan-Asiatic States]

So, quick request here.

Can someone please design PMT Tanks for the PAS? I'm willing to give IC-Credit to whoever designs it as a "Manufacturer".

[Manokan Republic]

So, quick request here.

Can someone please design PMT Tanks for the PAS? I'm willing to give IC-Credit to whoever designs it as a "Manufacturer".

What do you mean by design?

[Free-Don]

So, quick request here.

Can someone please design PMT Tanks for the PAS? I'm willing to give IC-Credit to whoever designs it as a "Manufacturer".

What type of tank, what extra roles do you want, how do you want it designed, what do you mean by design, what general year or period, any particular tech you want incorperated, etc.

[Manokan Republic]

So, I was doing some research, and the Merkava Mk. IV is pretty awesome. It's basically the same tank as the original Merkava, but it can fit 8 soldiers, or three stretchers and a medical crew. The tank has a high performance air conditioning system and can even be fitted with a toilet for long duration missions, something I find severely lacking in APC's; otherwise without this, it can store boatloads of extra ammunition in the passenger positions. It also has removable armor and an removable engine, making repairs, even in the field, quick and easy. To replace an M1 abrams turret costs approximately 1.6 million dollars and take several months, and it can be done in less than a day for the merkava, while the engine can be replaced in 30 minutes. Tank rounds are stored in individual fire-proof canisters, which reduce the chance of cookoffs in a fire inside the tank, while the turret is electrically-powered (hydraulic turrets use flammable liquid that ignites if the turret is penetrated) and "dry", with no active rounds are stored in it. Some features, such as hull shaping, exterior non-reflective paints (radar cross-section reduction), and shielding for engine heat plumes mixing with air particles (reduced infrared signature) to confuse enemy thermal imagers, were carried over from the IAI Lavi program of the Israeli Air Force, to make the tank harder to spot by heat sensors and radar. It also has an electrical semi-automatic revolving magazine for 10 rounds to fire multiple rounds in rapid succession, and can fire a wider variety of rounds at higher velocities with the newer barrel.

The model has a new fire-control system, the El-Op Knight Mark 4. The computer-controlled fire control system can acquire and lock onto moving targets, even airborne helicopters, while the tank itself is on the move. It includes line-of-sight stabilisation in two axes, a second-generation television sight and automatic thermal target tracker, a laser range finder, an improved thermal night vision system and a dynamic cant angle indicator. An Amcoram LWS-2 laser warning receiver notifies the crew of threats like laser-guided anti-tank missiles, which can fire smoke grenade launchers to obscure the tank from the laser beam. Electromagnetic warning against radar illumination is also installed. The tank carries the Israeli Elbit Systems BMS (Battle Management System; Hebrew: צי"ד), a centralised system that takes data from tracked units and UAVs in theater, displays it on color screens, and distributes it in encrypted form to all other units equipped with BMS in a given theater. It also employs the trophy active defense system, which has a fairly high reliability in shooting down oncoming missiles.

If I was going to make any changes, I would add the iron curtain system and of course used American depleted uranium 120mm rounds, and switch to a more fuel efficient, faster accelerating hybrid electric engine if at all possible, and to power the electronic systems. Otherwise, it seems pretty awesome. I know the armor is supposed to be slightly worse than American armor, but honestly it seems legit. I'm jokingly, but-not-so-jokingly thinking about only using 8 man squads, and then deploying nothing but pure Merkava tanks to replace all my APC's. The modular armor is designed to make the tank cheaper to mass produce and repair, and it's only about 4.5 million dollars a pop. So to deploy 600,000 men, you would need about 75,000 Merkava's, or 340 billion dollars, which is actually not all that expensive, given that the Stryker is about 5 million dollars these days.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It fits 8 equipped infantrymen by stripping out all but 1 120 mm shell.

[Spirit of Hope]

I want to know where he is getting 8 troops from. The best I have heard for putting troops in the back of the Merkava is 6, with only fighting load equipment, crammed together, without seats and hunched over uncomfortably. Since it is literally the space where the ammo is, you aren't going to do better than that.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I want to know where he is getting 8 troops from.

I mean if you put guy 7 in the loader's lap and guy 8 in the commander's lap you can have 12 guys in a tank.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Like with all things he either made it up or read it in a popsci article. Its not like the Merkava capacity is well known or anything.