NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Austrasien]

Assuming a WW2 that lasts between 1940 and 1950 how early could turboprop aircraft get in the air and how would they fair against the early jets they will encounter in this period? Assume a situation where both sides are equally matched and neither has the capability to do unimpeded strategic bombing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB.50_Trent

Jets can offer inherently higher speed and altitude performance. There wouldn't be any more reason to build turboprop fighters in alternate-WWII than in the actual war/postwar period.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Assuming a WW2 that lasts between 1940 and 1950 how early could turboprop aircraft get in the air and how would they fair against the early jets they will encounter in this period? Assume a situation where both sides are equally matched and neither has the capability to do unimpeded strategic bombing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB.50_Trent

Jets can offer inherently higher speed and altitude performance. There wouldn't be any more reason to build turboprop fighters in alternate-WWII than in the actual war/postwar period.

But Kyiv, how else are you going to incapacitate enemy pilots by simply approaching them?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Given a sufficiently good turboprop, would it be worth canning the jet trainer entirely? Many turboprop trainers today have performance comparable to or in excess of front-line fighter planes of the Second World War. The current "modern" syllabus for a fighter pilot is something like:

Pre-primary piston plane->primary turboprop->jet trainer->replacement squadron

The primary turboprop block contains a lot of things like "radio navigation" and "instrument flight" that really don't need 1000+ horsepower, and spends a lot of time on "aerobatics" only to send most people to helicopters and multi-engine planes, and then duplicate instruction on jet trainers. If it were changed to:

Primary piston plane->aerobatic selection screener->integrated turboprop->replacement squadron

A long syllabus on a piston plane can teach instrument flight and navigation on cheap Cessna hours. A short aerobatic selection screener syllabus weeds out people who can take G's and think at 300+ knots from those who can't or don't want to, and sends them to helicopters and multi-engine. People who pass ASS spend more time doing stunts on the cheaper (than a jet) turboprop and a little more dual time on the OCU or a simulator on the back end. There are a few more exorbitantly expensive fighter jet flight hours in the end but I think they would be more than amortized by eliminating the still expensive turbojet trainer hours and the time-consuming navigation and instrument blocks on the turboprop.

[Crookfur]

It's definitely something that's being played with a marketed by the likes of pilatus.

On the other hand there is a trend of doing away with twin seat conversion trainers and pushing more from the OCUs down onto the LIFT/fast jet trainer which is why we are seeing higher performance jet trainers becoming more wide spread.

It's hard to tell which way things will go particularly when you start bringing in virtual and simulated capabilities. IIRC the pc-21 had some stuff about being able to simulate having a full radar and aam fit but I'm not sure how much that relied on range and off board instrumentation.

[Taihei Tengoku]

This is training so if the simulation is real enough I would take that over having to produce more X-band radars to meet quota. A centralized simulator can also be updated via software to replicate hardware advances.

[Iltica]

Hello all, I was wondering if you guys could settle an argument? Do you think the suspension design used on the Halo warthog actually work cross-country? The trailing arms seem ok but I imagine the leading arms would dig into any depression or crevice (crevasse?) like a pole vaulter and send it flipping end over end.
Normally I'd post this in mgvoyn but it's looking a little corpsy lately sorry.

[Gallia-]

It's definitely something that's being played with a marketed by the likes of pilatus.

On the other hand there is a trend of doing away with twin seat conversion trainers and pushing more from the OCUs down onto the LIFT/fast jet trainer which is why we are seeing higher performance jet trainers becoming more wide spread.

It's hard to tell which way things will go particularly when you start bringing in virtual and simulated capabilities. IIRC the pc-21 had some stuff about being able to simulate having a full radar and aam fit but I'm not sure how much that relied on range and off board instrumentation.

F-22B for president ;_;

[Purpelia]

I keep hearing about "wet" ammo stowage on the Sherman. Just what was that? I don't imagine they literally had a water tank with shells in it.

[Gallia-]

That's because the bags were filled with glycol.

[Kassaran]

It was effectively just racks with spall layers of glycol inserted. A Redditor had a pretty good explanation of it all, though I can't give the veracity of the statement in whole.

"Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp." As /u/RobWithOneB said, the rounds aren't actually "wet," the rounds are just separated by the small liquid containers. When the ammunition rack was hit, the logic was that the liquid would spill out, quenching any fires, similar to flooding the magazine on a warship.

Reddit Link

[United Earthlings]

Some more detail on the introduction of "wet" ammunition stowage for the Sherman, which actually involved quite a few different solutions and design changes to rectify the problems of early Shermans so easily catching fire when penetrated by enemy guns.

The relevant parts...

"To make it less likely to be hit, the ammunition was shifted from high in the sponsons to low in the hull under the turret basket. Not only did this reduce the likelihood of the ammunition being hit, but it also gave the ammunition some passive protection from tank components."

"In addition, the ammunition was now placed in lightly armored bins surrounded by water or antifreeze. This was not enough to stop a complete projectile, but a frequent source of tank fires was the spray of sizzling metal fragments that careened around inside the tank like supersonic ping-pong balls when a projectile broke up after penetrating the tank's armor; the new bins were enough to stop many of these small fragments. An army study in 1945 concluded that only 10-15 percent of the wet-stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60-80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans."

Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, Pg 117-118

[Gallia-]

It was effectively just racks with spall layers of glycol inserted. A Redditor had a pretty good explanation of it all, though I can't give the veracity of the statement in whole.

"Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp." As /u/RobWithOneB said, the rounds aren't actually "wet," the rounds are just separated by the small liquid containers. When the ammunition rack was hit, the logic was that the liquid would spill out, quenching any fires, similar to flooding the magazine on a warship.

Reddit Link

It was quite literally commercial antifreeze stuffed into waterproofed bags.

Wet storage for US tanks ended after the war and never resumed, though. I don't think M60s were ever fitted for it.

[Purpelia]

Thanks you guys. That really is an interesting solution. I wonder why nobody else did it.


Now, for something completely different.

Assuming a WW2 that lasts between 1940 and 1950 how early could turboprop aircraft get in the air and how would they fair against the early jets they will encounter in this period? Assume a situation where both sides are equally matched and neither has the capability to do unimpeded strategic bombing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB.50_Trent

Jets can offer inherently higher speed and altitude performance. There wouldn't be any more reason to build turboprop fighters in alternate-WWII than in the actual war/postwar period.

I was thinking of having it be some sort of super IL-2 actually. Was mostly inspired by the British Westland Wyvern. But I'd like make it a strike aircraft because it's insane and cool. But would it be too easy for jets to shoot down?

[Gallia-]

Thanks you guys. That really is an interesting solution. I wonder why nobody else did it.

They did and do.

Chieftain and its descendants (Challenger) have wet racks for the propellant charges under the turret. Short of something else, like a true blowout panel like the M1 or Leopard 2, this is the safest method of ammunition stowage. Sadly no one bothers to fill up the racks with antifreeze and they stow the charges in their laps, but that says more about the crew than the tank.

T-72 doesn't, but the ammunition isn't well protected to begin with aside from behind stored behind the fuel tanks and under the turret ring. Considering how small T-72 is this is not a surprise.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Thanks you guys. That really is an interesting solution. I wonder why nobody else did it.

They did and do.

Chieftain and its descendants (Challenger) have wet racks for the propellant charges under the turret. Short of something else, like a true blowout panel like the M1 or Leopard 2, this is the safest method of ammunition stowage. Sadly no one bothers to fill up the racks with antifreeze and they stow the charges in their laps, but that says more about the crew than the tank.

Well it's a glorious British tradition stemming from the Jutland days after all.

[Gallia-]

Landship Committee rides eternal.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Would a mass infrastructure attack using earthquake bombs be a good idea and/or realistic? I would face little resistance since I've already wiped out their airforce (Thanks Israel and Nazi Germany before you bombed London on accident) and so I would be able to cripple their infrastructure with little casualties, preventing them from mobilising their land troops, and allowing me to stage my aerial-amphibious invasion whilst they're still off-balance.

[Spirit of Hope]

Whats with the earthquake bombs?

If you have total air superiority you can certainly target enemy infrastructure. Without guided weapons however this isn't likely to be all that damaging to enemy infrastructure, roads and railroads are incredibly hard targets to it, can can be repaired relatively easily. Bridges are harder to repair, but are still hard to hit without guided weapons, and are more limited which means they are easier to guard, even if the enemy has no planes they are likely to have ground based defenses.

[ImperialRussia]

Nothing much as Captain Russia

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Whats with the earthquake bombs?

If you have total air superiority you can certainly target enemy infrastructure. Without guided weapons however this isn't likely to be all that damaging to enemy infrastructure, roads and railroads are incredibly hard targets to it, can can be repaired relatively easily. Bridges are harder to repair, but are still hard to hit without guided weapons, and are more limited which means they are easier to guard, even if the enemy has no planes they are likely to have ground based defenses.

They're WWII-era bombs designed to target steel and concrete infrastructure, along with bunkers.

[Crookfur]

Whats with the earthquake bombs?

If you have total air superiority you can certainly target enemy infrastructure. Without guided weapons however this isn't likely to be all that damaging to enemy infrastructure, roads and railroads are incredibly hard targets to it, can can be repaired relatively easily. Bridges are harder to repair, but are still hard to hit without guided weapons, and are more limited which means they are easier to guard, even if the enemy has no planes they are likely to have ground based defenses.

They're WWII-era bombs designed to target steel and concrete infrastructure, along with bunkers.

They are for defeating hardened and deeply buried targets. As such their target set is somewhat limited.

yeah you likely would use penetrator bombs against hardened targets as part of a general air campaign waged against transport hubs and supporting infrastructure but its hardly something you would really need to mention unless you are dealing with a foe with a massive amount of hardened bunkers etc.

[Spirit of Hope]

Whats with the earthquake bombs?

If you have total air superiority you can certainly target enemy infrastructure. Without guided weapons however this isn't likely to be all that damaging to enemy infrastructure, roads and railroads are incredibly hard targets to it, can can be repaired relatively easily. Bridges are harder to repair, but are still hard to hit without guided weapons, and are more limited which means they are easier to guard, even if the enemy has no planes they are likely to have ground based defenses.

They're WWII-era bombs designed to target steel and concrete infrastructure, along with bunkers.

I am aware of what they are, I'm curious why you would want to use them in this case.

They are huge bombs, that require the largest bombers and severely limit the number of bombs you can carry. Unless your target is to heavily fortified to be destroyed by regular bombs, which infrastructure generally can't be, it is better to hit the targets with regular bombs. The earthquake bombs that were made were specialist weapons used on targets that deserved them, generally heavily fortified factories, sub pens, and in a few cases tunnels and bridges.

For general infrastructure damage you are probably best served by normal bombs.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Would a mass infrastructure attack using earthquake bombs be a good idea and/or realistic? I would face little resistance since I've already wiped out their airforce (Thanks Israel and Nazi Germany before you bombed London on accident) and so I would be able to cripple their infrastructure with little casualties, preventing them from mobilising their land troops, and allowing me to stage my aerial-amphibious invasion whilst they're still off-balance.

They'd probably work alright against subways but you'd be better off using general purpose munitions against most other targets. 1,000 pound bombs can do a decent amount of damage to most infrastructure targets.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Would a mass infrastructure attack using earthquake bombs be a good idea and/or realistic? I would face little resistance since I've already wiped out their airforce (Thanks Israel and Nazi Germany before you bombed London on accident) and so I would be able to cripple their infrastructure with little casualties, preventing them from mobilising their land troops, and allowing me to stage my aerial-amphibious invasion whilst they're still off-balance.

They'd probably work alright against subways but you'd be better off using general purpose munitions against most other targets. 1,000 pound bombs can do a decent amount of damage to most infrastructure targets.

Alright, got it.

So, yes or no on the infrastructure. The good thing is that they won't be able to mobilise, the problem is that it'll be harder to invade.

[Crookfur]

They'd probably work alright against subways but you'd be better off using general purpose munitions against most other targets. 1,000 pound bombs can do a decent amount of damage to most infrastructure targets.

Alright, got it.

So, yes or no on the infrastructure. The good thing is that they won't be able to mobilise, the problem is that it'll be harder to invade.

The thing is many of the targets for the likes of tallboy and grand slam can today be just as effectively services by much smaller and more accurate weapons be it laser/gps guided bombs with penetrator warheads or cruise missiles with warheads similar to BROACH.