Theodosiya wrote:Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?
They dont take Biology which is my major :x.
Advertisement
by New Vihenia » Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:57 am
Theodosiya wrote:Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?
by Theodosiya » Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:44 am
by Triplebaconation » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:32 pm
by United Earthlings » Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:27 pm
Purpelia wrote:My requirements are, if I recall correctly to have an intermediary cartridge in the same range as 5.45 and 5.56 but that's optimized for flat shooting and AP action at longer than average ranges on account of the fact that a large part of my expected operational area involves rather open terrain where you can reasonably expect shots pr at least suppression at up to 500m to be a thing. Especially with modern optics. So whilst there is going to be plenty of 300m spraying action (thus necessitating the small round) everyman a DMR is also a thing in certain areas. And the thing had to straddle the line.
Makes sense. What doesn't is that I am only replying to this after so much time. But that's life.
by Purpelia » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:22 am
United Earthlings wrote:That’s one of the reasons why I decided it took so long for the Commonwealth Army to bring into service the 5.56 NATO round and yet still not fully abandon 7.62 NATO assault rifles. Going back decades, the infantry squads of the Commonwealth Army have had one or two 7.62 NATO armed LMG/SAWs to lay down effective suppressive fire all the way out to 800-1,000 meters which is a clear advantage if you’re expecting to engage an enemy at very long range.
On the topic of barrel length and effective range, while researching potential weapons that could succeeded the AUG in service within my nation, the weapon I decided to go with has an option of a 16.5 in or approx. 419{420}mm* barrel length with a stated effective engagement range of up to 600 meters and an area of effect out to 800 meters, which seems to me to be plenty factoring in the various types of 7.62mm NATO armed weapons the average infantry squad in my nation’s army has access to.
by Danternoust » Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:10 am
by Mzeusia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:19 am
by Hurtful Thoughts » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:50 am
Purpelia wrote:Gallia- wrote:It was nothing special except it looked weird. It would have been exceedingly mediocre if it showed up in 1940, like Hurricane was. By 1945 it was just really lame.
That's basically what I was looking at actually. An aircraft roughly around those specs and design in 1940. Like, would it have been a viable fighter back than? And more importantly could it have been produced in that period to be a competitor to stuff like the 109?
Also on a related note could a P-39 style aircraft be a decent A-10 style tank buster in the same time area? Basically I imagine an unholy hybrid of the P-39 (front 37mm gun and engine layout) and the IL-2 (everything else).
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:27 pm
by Purpelia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:31 pm
Gallia- wrote:Those shitty guns might scratch the paint on a tank I guess.
Short of mounting a 88mm Pak or something on a tank you aren't going to achieve a reasonable ssPk on any mid-war armor. That requires a large bomber, not a fighter, to make do.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:32 pm
Gallia- wrote:Those shitty guns might scratch the paint on a tank I guess.
Short of mounting a 88mm Pak or something on a tank you aren't going to achieve a reasonable ssPk on any mid-war armor. That requires a large bomber, not a fighter, to make do.
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:37 pm
Purpelia wrote:Gallia- wrote:Those shitty guns might scratch the paint on a tank I guess.
Short of mounting a 88mm Pak or something on a tank you aren't going to achieve a reasonable ssPk on any mid-war armor. That requires a large bomber, not a fighter, to make do.
Mid war being 42-43 or so sure. My question was explicitly about 1940-41.
by Purpelia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:12 pm
Gallia- wrote:Purpelia wrote:Mid war being 42-43 or so sure. My question was explicitly about 1940-41.
Then an external gunpod like the Vickers S is the better solution.
Motor cannons are going to be relatively more optimized for firing HEI at moderate velocities and pressures rather than AP, because they're intend to blow up flimsy airplanes obviously, and not tanks.
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:18 pm
by Purpelia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:03 pm
Gallia- wrote:no you dont understand
Hs 129 and Ju-88P were too small for their large cannon armaments, which is why they never got produced in big quantities, and the only other aircraft that carried an appreciable cannon armament that could defeat armor of the period was B-25. A tank destroyer with a high velocity 40mm or something in a motor cannon probably wouldn't work because there is no aircraft strong enough to carry such an armament in the nose that isn't a medium bomber. And those aircraft wouldn't be fitted with cannons because they could be fit on fighters externally just fine.
Wingtip gunpods like Vickers S, or a ventral gunpod, work and were reasonably common in the early war period.
The 37mm in the P-39 was a glorified HEI thrower, not a tank buster, and its performance was roughly half what an identical anti-tank cannon would achieve. Because fighters aren't big enough to carry big AT guns internally. The M4 cannon had a velocity 2/3rds the M3 37mm and firing the same ammo it achieved about half the penetration as a result. In practice it would probably be less because the aircraft is attacking at a grazing angle. You would be lucky to kill a tank if you hit its rooftop and it wouldn't be able to kill relatively common vehicles of the late 1930s like Panzer IV.
It would be a good AT gun if it were made in 1930 but P-39 shows up in 1940.
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:32 pm
by Purpelia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:40 pm
Gallia- wrote:No, because P-39 didn't exist until 1940.
In 1937-38 you're stuck with Hurricanes, at best, or Ju 87s.
Which, incidentally, had gunpods on their wings. Which were about twice as effective as any tiny motorcannon, even a large one like P-39, which again was a glorified HEI thrower for killing bunkers.
The primary aviation anti-tank weapon of the era was probably the aerial bomb.
by Triplebaconation » Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:24 pm
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:23 pm
Purpelia wrote:Obviously I am not talking about a literal P-39! It's the bloody layout.
Ian V. Hogg wrote:The 37 mm Automatic Gun, M4, is a plane-to-plane and plane-to-ground weapon with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second and a cyclic rate of 150 rounds per minute. The armor-piercing projectile, M80, fired from this gun will penetrate 1 inch of homogeneous armor plate at 500 yards.
by Gallia- » Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:57 pm
Purpelia wrote:Same here. My progression of rounds is something like this:
by Theodosiya » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:51 pm
by Danternoust » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:37 am
Gallia- wrote:20XX: Neo-Maoist Revolutionary World State and the Singularity Cults replace pneumatic crossbows, pikes, and blunderbusses with slug firing shotguns propelling a menagerie of 10-20mm lead cones and spitzers, fired by a stable of unregulated pipe shotguns, Luty carbines, and beer can/bicycle recycled cast aluminum recoil operated auto-shotguns similar to Sten Auto Rifle to fight the Celestial Crown, which is armed with Sterling Auto Rifles (Rifle, Austere, Wartime Emergency, .265" Long), imported millet congee, and the few non-radioactive M60 machine guns and 84mm recoilless rifles left. Thus the 800-year cycle comes full circle.
Gallia- wrote:2020: The Army needs a new general rifle to yeet body armor. It makes a fat bullet it calls .265" Automatic Carbine (Ak) to fit inside the M16. It's a fat 6.8mm SPC case with a 6.5mm bullet. .265" is renamed .265" Long, and there is a corresponding cartridge named .265" Automatic Pistol (6.5mm CBJ). Done entirely so the Army can standardize on barrel blanks.
by Gallia- » Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:31 am
by Barfleur » Thu Dec 26, 2019 7:36 am
by The Manticoran Empire » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:23 pm
Barfleur wrote:Had it entered regular service, would Curtiss's XP-55 Ascender have been a useful fighter, or tasty food for Zeros?
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Terra da Cinza
Advertisement