NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

Generally speaking it's better than self propelled pieces in a lot of areas. It's not exactly well protected so it can't shoot while being shot at, but it's more survivable against conventional (non-ICM) counter fire, and harder to locate until it starts shooting. It's probably easier to construct realistic decoys of towed field pieces too.

It's also easier to recover and repair a towed gun than it is to repair a self propelled one which has suffered similar damage. There are fewer things to break on a towed piece, a towed gun has a much smaller overhead profile/area, and the things that are most likely to be affected by stuff like ICM bombardment (caissons, barrels, hydraulics) can be stockpiled since they are replaceable components anyway. Overhead cover for crew and ammunition, and a fairly robust series of firing positions (a couple for each gun or gun-pair) is generally sufficient to ensure that an artillery crew will survive. The battery can also split itself up into penny packets (singles or duos of guns) and move around to avoid attracting attention of airplanes or counter artillery.

Having single guns meander around between heavily fortified firing position,s scattered a few hundred meters apart, was what the Chinese did in 1951. They also gave their howitzers overhead cover with logs and earth. Imagine a parapet with a big box of logs and soil piled on top, and the front opens to the limits of elevation and traverse of the mount. This would be sufficient to stop a ODS-esque scenario where towed guns are destroyed by ICM rocket artillery within a few hours of a ground war. The downside, obviously, is that this sort of fortification requires time and the Chinese had been given a few months to prepare their defensive positions. The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

[New Vihenia]

I don't think there is enough clearance between the ATGM rails and the guns on the side - a missile leaving rail is going to pass REALLY close to the muzzle of the Gatling gun. Perhaps increase the length of the pylons so there is more clearance?

Thanks.

Looks fine for me at first TBH. Originally


But yeah i guess there is a good case for extending the pylon so it will be below the level of the doorgunner. I should look more at the BattleHawk.




I guess the armorer now will appreciate more on the lower pylon so he/she wont risk accidentally drop the missile.

can't it be timed so the missile is released into freefall then the engine activates?

although its probably easier juts to extend the pylon lol

Most tactical missiles from Helicopter is rail launched except the big anti ship missiles. and perhaps those loading the missile may not like the height of the pylon.

I am sort of more concerned about the missile belching hot exhaust plumes next to an open window. So I assume that if he is intending to do missile heavy operations he would probably reel the gun in and close it.

Good news is that helicopter tactical missiles are mostly have low smoke motor so there shouldn't be an issue and the smoke could be quickly dispersed by the helicopter's downwash.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

Would you mind elaborating or providing something that discusses it at length? I'm very curious.

[Sibauk]

Chopper time.

"Marishka" in her standard paintscheme.

(Image)

(Image)

In this configuration, she has active protection system underside to actively engage RPG's or stingers if any.

Nice! Reminds me of the Blackhawk and Eurocopter Panther.

I'm curious about the active protection system though - what are the sensors and interceptors?

[Gallia-]

The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

Would you mind elaborating or providing something that discusses it at length? I'm very curious.

Trenches can't be broken by tanks without disproportionately large casualties. A few hundred infantrymen in well camouflaged and prepared trenches and with enough ammunition can defeat a thousand tanks.

The Hundred Days Offensive was mostly possible because the trenches were absent. Tanks are excellent at attacking infantry that are not prepared to deal with them, usually, but infantry in earthworks with adequate missiles are their bane. If the infantry recover from the initial tank terror and manage to separate the tanks from their infantry, they can still kill the tanks, too.

Conversely, it is extremely hard to defeat an attack in Brusilov's manner. There is no obvious weakness, because it isn't as simple as shooting a machine gun or firing a cannon to make the infantry stop while the tanks continue driving along so you can deal with the problems piecemeal. The attack has to be absorbed and stopped in its entirety, and suitably motivated and led infantrymen are not an easy thing to stop*. More often than not, a frontal attack by foot soldiers supported by artillery pieces will succeed than it will fail, against either an army of tanks or a mirror of itself. At which point your trench is then occupied, and the problem presents itself once again. Once the infantry have broken out of the initial earthworks and into open ground, they become to vulnerable to tank attacks again, at least until they have dug trenches and the process repeats itself.

Basically, tanks are helpless without infantry's help, and tanks serve to help an otherwise numerically inadequate number of infantrymen overcome an obstacle that would have difficulty with, but if you have sufficient amounts of infantry it is generally the hardier obstacle. Tanks are just seen as essential I guess because moderns are so inundated with techno fetishism of Anglo-American culture that they are somehow indispensable and they've literally forgotten how to attack with infantry.

Something like a minefield or poison gas covered by a really good machine gun team, or a large number of accurate marksmen with sniper rifles, are pretty potent obstacles to infantry though. But you still have the issue of absorbing the attack, and the nature of the infantryman (his quickness, his small size, and the relative lack of weapons designed to defeat him solely outside of snipers and grenade launchers) makes him less vulnerable on the attack inherently than the tank. A tank can be killed by a single rocket, and we are good at making big rockets to kill tanks with. It is much harder to make a rifle, train every soldier to shoot accurately (or mechanize the rifle so it eliminates accuracy issues), and have enough of these soldiers and rifles with ammunition to defeat a large infantry attack while being suppressed or blinded by mortars or howitzers or recoilless rifles.

But perhaps eventually we will get there and then the WW1 methods of war will be obsolete rather than suddenly in vogue again.

tl;dr:

*You can liquidate the attacking infantry with massive amounts of artillery fire but this won't make it easier to attack them with tanks or whatever.

e: Also planes won't help because I'm covering the radar sites with 2-4 feet of oak logs and mud so you cannot hurt them do NOT I will NOT let you hurt that spinny boi.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Thank you!

[New Vihenia]

Nice! Reminds me of the Blackhawk and Eurocopter Panther.

I'm curious about the active protection system though - what are the sensors and interceptors?

The sensors are some mmwave radar along with the IR MAWS. Interceptor will of course be a small command guided missile. Which will intercept the round at safe distance of about 250 m. Against Stinger like target in such distance, provide about 92% survival chance.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Would you mind elaborating or providing something that discusses it at length? I'm very curious.

Trenches can't be broken by tanks without disproportionately large casualties. A few hundred infantrymen in well camouflaged and prepared trenches and with enough ammunition can defeat a thousand tanks.

The Hundred Days Offensive was mostly possible because the trenches were absent. Tanks are excellent at attacking infantry that are not prepared to deal with them, usually, but infantry in earthworks with adequate missiles are their bane. If the infantry recover from the initial tank terror and manage to separate the tanks from their infantry, they can still kill the tanks, too.

Conversely, it is extremely hard to defeat an attack in Brusilov's manner. There is no obvious weakness, because it isn't as simple as shooting a machine gun or firing a cannon to make the infantry stop while the tanks continue driving along so you can deal with the problems piecemeal. The attack has to be absorbed and stopped in its entirety, and suitably motivated and led infantrymen are not an easy thing to stop*. More often than not, a frontal attack by foot soldiers supported by artillery pieces will succeed than it will fail, against either an army of tanks or a mirror of itself. At which point your trench is then occupied, and the problem presents itself once again. Once the infantry have broken out of the initial earthworks and into open ground, they become to vulnerable to tank attacks again, at least until they have dug trenches and the process repeats itself.

Basically, tanks are helpless without infantry's help, and tanks serve to help an otherwise numerically inadequate number of infantrymen overcome an obstacle that would have difficulty with, but if you have sufficient amounts of infantry it is generally the hardier obstacle. Tanks are just seen as essential I guess because moderns are so inundated with techno fetishism of Anglo-American culture that they are somehow indispensable and they've literally forgotten how to attack with infantry.

Something like a minefield or poison gas covered by a really good machine gun team, or a large number of accurate marksmen with sniper rifles, are pretty potent obstacles to infantry though. But you still have the issue of absorbing the attack, and the nature of the infantryman (his quickness, his small size, and the relative lack of weapons designed to defeat him solely outside of snipers and grenade launchers) makes him less vulnerable on the attack inherently than the tank. A tank can be killed by a single rocket, and we are good at making big rockets to kill tanks with. It is much harder to make a rifle, train every soldier to shoot accurately (or mechanize the rifle so it eliminates accuracy issues), and have enough of these soldiers and rifles with ammunition to defeat a large infantry attack while being suppressed or blinded by mortars or howitzers or recoilless rifles.

But perhaps eventually we will get there and then the WW1 methods of war will be obsolete rather than suddenly in vogue again.

tl;dr:

*You can liquidate the attacking infantry with massive amounts of artillery fire but this won't make it easier to attack them with tanks or whatever.

e: Also planes won't help because I'm covering the radar sites with 2-4 feet of oak logs and mud so you cannot hurt them do NOT I will NOT let you hurt that spinny boi.

do not read this post as meaning tanks shouldn't exist

[Austrasien]

Thanks.

Looks fine for me at first TBH. Originally
(Image)

Now that I see that view it was probably less of an issue than I thought.

[The Akasha Colony]

All this artillery stuff has finally gotten me back to drawing something, however small it may be.

Left to right:

• Hypervelocity projectile (bare)
• Hypervelocity projectile in launch sabot
• Ramjet shell scaled similarly to NV's shell
• Ramjet shell that can actually fit in the ammo handling system

These are all drawn to be 210 mm shells because I never got around to finishing my 155 mm gun. Unfortunately, because the shells are stored vertically in the carousel, maximum shell length is restricted by the interior hull height, so projectiles can't really exceed ~1.3 meters while the tallest shell is 1.78 meters. It may be possible to store a handful of these longer rounds in the bustle loader where the charges are normally stored. The HVP fits fine in the carousel. I have not bothered figuring out any ranges for these shells, nor even necessarily "introduced" them IC.

[Purpelia]

Random question. If you took an infantry mortar like a 82mm or one of the serious 6cm (so not a knee mortar sort of thing but a big 6cm) and you were to man pack and fire it what would happen to you?

Basically I mean a guy just taking a squad or standing at an angle, so NOT sitting down. He takes the mortar and puts it on his back so that the muzzle runs behind and above his head and the front two legs are draped over his shoulders like the straps of a backpack. Than he grips the two legs and his friend throws a shell in. And than you run a mortar like that.

So like a backpack mounted mortar basically.

[Kassaran]

Broken back, shoulders, and collar bone it sounds like to me. Mortars are not well known for being low recoil. They rest on the ground, have to be recalibrated after every shot, You'd probably need to make it have exhaust vents on the back which makes it a recoilless rifle rocket launcher and you've just reinvented the wheel at that point.

EDIT: My mistake. Meant Rocket Launcher, but wanted to flex typing speed with recoilless rifle. My point still stands, shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher is a mortar. Look at RPG and the arc's you can get on those suckers if wanting to go for the distance and disabled the self-detonation mechanism.

[Gallia-]

Random question. If you took an infantry mortar like a 82mm or one of the serious 6cm (so not a knee mortar sort of thing but a big 6cm) and you were to man pack and fire it what would happen to you?

You miss.

Trenches can't be broken by tanks without disproportionately large casualties. A few hundred infantrymen in well camouflaged and prepared trenches and with enough ammunition can defeat a thousand tanks.

The Hundred Days Offensive was mostly possible because the trenches were absent. Tanks are excellent at attacking infantry that are not prepared to deal with them, usually, but infantry in earthworks with adequate missiles are their bane. If the infantry recover from the initial tank terror and manage to separate the tanks from their infantry, they can still kill the tanks, too.

Conversely, it is extremely hard to defeat an attack in Brusilov's manner. There is no obvious weakness, because it isn't as simple as shooting a machine gun or firing a cannon to make the infantry stop while the tanks continue driving along so you can deal with the problems piecemeal. The attack has to be absorbed and stopped in its entirety, and suitably motivated and led infantrymen are not an easy thing to stop*. More often than not, a frontal attack by foot soldiers supported by artillery pieces will succeed than it will fail, against either an army of tanks or a mirror of itself. At which point your trench is then occupied, and the problem presents itself once again. Once the infantry have broken out of the initial earthworks and into open ground, they become to vulnerable to tank attacks again, at least until they have dug trenches and the process repeats itself.

Basically, tanks are helpless without infantry's help, and tanks serve to help an otherwise numerically inadequate number of infantrymen overcome an obstacle that would have difficulty with, but if you have sufficient amounts of infantry it is generally the hardier obstacle. Tanks are just seen as essential I guess because moderns are so inundated with techno fetishism of Anglo-American culture that they are somehow indispensable and they've literally forgotten how to attack with infantry.

Something like a minefield or poison gas covered by a really good machine gun team, or a large number of accurate marksmen with sniper rifles, are pretty potent obstacles to infantry though. But you still have the issue of absorbing the attack, and the nature of the infantryman (his quickness, his small size, and the relative lack of weapons designed to defeat him solely outside of snipers and grenade launchers) makes him less vulnerable on the attack inherently than the tank. A tank can be killed by a single rocket, and we are good at making big rockets to kill tanks with. It is much harder to make a rifle, train every soldier to shoot accurately (or mechanize the rifle so it eliminates accuracy issues), and have enough of these soldiers and rifles with ammunition to defeat a large infantry attack while being suppressed or blinded by mortars or howitzers or recoilless rifles.

But perhaps eventually we will get there and then the WW1 methods of war will be obsolete rather than suddenly in vogue again.

tl;dr:

(Image)

*You can liquidate the attacking infantry with massive amounts of artillery fire but this won't make it easier to attack them with tanks or whatever.

e: Also planes won't help because I'm covering the radar sites with 2-4 feet of oak logs and mud so you cannot hurt them do NOT I will NOT let you hurt that spinny boi.

do not read this post as meaning tanks shouldn't exist

NOOOO YOU CANT JUST REPLACE TANKERINOS WITH ATGW AND DISPERSED LAUNCH SITES OF LONG RANGE ARTILLERY YOU WILL LOSERINO THE WARNERINO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Listen here Jack how do I march 30 miles a day on a bicycle?

To say what Kester means: Tanks are fine but they're not great for attacking well dug, well equipped troops with a strong anti-tank defense belt. Since anti-tank defense was the prime consideration of military R&D spending for the past 100 years it's not surprising that anti-infantry weapons have suffered. If we had some sort of weapon that could be equivalent to a FOG or a Javelin, but killed a dozen dudes, then yes the infantry attack would be pretty easy to defeat. But we don't. The closest you get are VT fuzed howitzer and mortar rounds and they are not serious defensive weapons since they'll just be suppressed by counter battery fire from rocket launchers prior to the assault.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Random question. If you took an infantry mortar like a 82mm or one of the serious 6cm (so not a knee mortar sort of thing but a big 6cm) and you were to man pack and fire it what would happen to you?

You miss.

Probably wrench the entire shoulder off its socket as well.

[Gallia-]

You miss.

Probably wrench the entire shoulder off its socket as well.

The guy was fine he just wasn't aiming at anything in particular.

[Purpelia]

That's why I envision it being back mounted. I figure you could basically aim with your whole body.

[Gallia-]

Just have a buttplate drop off the back Manokan.

He slav squats and shoots.

[Korva]

Just have a buttplate drop off the back Manokan.

He slav squats and shoots.

I expected better from you.

If he keeps shooting while braced against the ground he will gradually build up negative lift which is NOT good if he needs to get in a helicopter or plane later.

[Gallia-]

the human thigh can only lift 24 lbs per second

[Doppio Giudici]

Every time I look up the 9×19mm "7N21 +P+", I get data that says it's going 1500-2000 fps, while also claiming lessened recoil. What? How? 7.62x39mm has comparable bullet weights going only a couple hundred feet per second faster. I looked up .44 Magnum necked down to .357 and those loads appear to be going slower, then "7N21 +P+", with comparable bullet weights.

I've seen guns that can fire ammo like this, but generally they are large handguns, with large recoil springs, and impressive muzzle-breaks. MP-443 Grach seems like it should at least have a rotating barrel or something, to prevent it from having some horrific failure from the pressure.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Generally speaking it's better than self propelled pieces in a lot of areas. It's not exactly well protected so it can't shoot while being shot at, but it's more survivable against conventional (non-ICM) counter fire, and harder to locate until it starts shooting. It's probably easier to construct realistic decoys of towed field pieces too.

It's also easier to recover and repair a towed gun than it is to repair a self propelled one which has suffered similar damage. There are fewer things to break on a towed piece, a towed gun has a much smaller overhead profile/area, and the things that are most likely to be affected by stuff like ICM bombardment (caissons, barrels, hydraulics) can be stockpiled since they are replaceable components anyway. Overhead cover for crew and ammunition, and a fairly robust series of firing positions (a couple for each gun or gun-pair) is generally sufficient to ensure that an artillery crew will survive. The battery can also split itself up into penny packets (singles or duos of guns) and move around to avoid attracting attention of airplanes or counter artillery.

Having single guns meander around between heavily fortified firing position,s scattered a few hundred meters apart, was what the Chinese did in 1951. They also gave their howitzers overhead cover with logs and earth. Imagine a parapet with a big box of logs and soil piled on top, and the front opens to the limits of elevation and traverse of the mount. This would be sufficient to stop a ODS-esque scenario where towed guns are destroyed by ICM rocket artillery within a few hours of a ground war. The downside, obviously, is that this sort of fortification requires time and the Chinese had been given a few months to prepare their defensive positions. The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

Thank you. Another question: how would you organize that artillery, in large artillery parks?

[Crookfur]

Every time I look up the 9×19mm "7N21 +P+", I get data that says it's going 1500-2000 fps, while also claiming lessened recoil. What? How? 7.62x39mm has comparable bullet weights going only a couple hundred feet per second faster. I looked up .44 Magnum necked down to .357 and those loads appear to be going slower, then "7N21 +P+", with comparable bullet weights.

I've seen guns that can fire ammo like this, but generally they are large handguns, with large recoil springs, and impressive muzzle-breaks. MP-443 Grach seems like it should at least have a rotating barrel or something, to prevent it from having some horrific failure from the pressure.

You are comparing the entire cartridge weight from the 7N series to the bullet weight of 7.62x39mm.
The Russian loads fire 80gr (5.2g) bullets at 460m/s or even lighter circa 60gr projectiles at 600m/s. Pretty much comparable to comercial +p loads.

Your. 44mag wildcats such as. 357-44 bain and Davis are pushing double the projectile mass at similar velocities.

[Gallia-]

Generally speaking it's better than self propelled pieces in a lot of areas. It's not exactly well protected so it can't shoot while being shot at, but it's more survivable against conventional (non-ICM) counter fire, and harder to locate until it starts shooting. It's probably easier to construct realistic decoys of towed field pieces too.

It's also easier to recover and repair a towed gun than it is to repair a self propelled one which has suffered similar damage. There are fewer things to break on a towed piece, a towed gun has a much smaller overhead profile/area, and the things that are most likely to be affected by stuff like ICM bombardment (caissons, barrels, hydraulics) can be stockpiled since they are replaceable components anyway. Overhead cover for crew and ammunition, and a fairly robust series of firing positions (a couple for each gun or gun-pair) is generally sufficient to ensure that an artillery crew will survive. The battery can also split itself up into penny packets (singles or duos of guns) and move around to avoid attracting attention of airplanes or counter artillery.

Having single guns meander around between heavily fortified firing position,s scattered a few hundred meters apart, was what the Chinese did in 1951. They also gave their howitzers overhead cover with logs and earth. Imagine a parapet with a big box of logs and soil piled on top, and the front opens to the limits of elevation and traverse of the mount. This would be sufficient to stop a ODS-esque scenario where towed guns are destroyed by ICM rocket artillery within a few hours of a ground war. The downside, obviously, is that this sort of fortification requires time and the Chinese had been given a few months to prepare their defensive positions. The upside is that Korea shows that large, mechanized tank armies are generally poor performers against large infantry armies, but this has been shown throughout the 20th century I think so it's not particularly unique to that war.

Thank you. Another question: how would you organize that artillery, in large artillery parks?

I don't know what you mean by this.

The artillery can be organized however. Dumbla uses 6-9 gun batteries (depending on the battery) and organized either as platoon or battery fire. How they're used depends on the METT. In places of high air attack threat and high threat of counter battery the guns are probably positioned in battery style constructions with 1-2 guns and 4-6 decoys per construction, with decoy batteries assembled as needed. In places with little to no air raid threat and little artillery threat, they're just positioned in firebase-esque constructions with the whole battery occupying a position.

[Doppio Giudici]

Every time I look up the 9×19mm "7N21 +P+", I get data that says it's going 1500-2000 fps, while also claiming lessened recoil. What? How? 7.62x39mm has comparable bullet weights going only a couple hundred feet per second faster. I looked up .44 Magnum necked down to .357 and those loads appear to be going slower, then "7N21 +P+", with comparable bullet weights.

I've seen guns that can fire ammo like this, but generally they are large handguns, with large recoil springs, and impressive muzzle-breaks. MP-443 Grach seems like it should at least have a rotating barrel or something, to prevent it from having some horrific failure from the pressure.

You are comparing the entire cartridge weight from the 7N series to the bullet weight of 7.62x39mm.
The Russian loads fire 80gr (5.2g) bullets at 460m/s or even lighter circa 60gr projectiles at 600m/s. Pretty much comparable to comercial +p loads.

Your. 44mag wildcats such as. 357-44 bain and Davis are pushing double the projectile mass at similar velocities.

Okay I got it, some of the sources had typos or weren't clear what each number was which. Thank you.

Do you think the terminal effect is going to be comparable to standard FMJ?

EDIT: Any idea how the Lightweight Helmet is lighter then the PASGT, if they are about the same size and both made of kevlar?

[Theodosiya]

Will have to remember to make a real 21st century Soldier System. But realistic and use off the shelf/existing technology instead of future stuff, while upgrading continuously whenever possible.