NationStates

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do Muslim countries ever use female spies as honeytraps?

Do they?

Allanea wrote:
At least if we are to assume that the artillery manuals I have in front of me mean anything.

According to the chart I have here, 152mm howitzers firing HE-F require 150 shells per hectare to suppress entrenched armored vehicles. 203 mm shells reduce this requirement to 40 shells per hectare. One can imagine a further reduction with 305mm shells, although for obvious reasons PSUO-96 does not include them (at that time Russia did not have any such armament).

clearly a 610mm could do something wonderful.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do Muslim countries ever use female spies as honeytraps?

Do they?

Generally speaking, yes. You should clarify if you're asking about Gulf Arabs, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, or North African Muslim states with these questions, as there are significant cultural distinctions between Muslim-dominated states in those regions. You're asking questions with so broad of a group that the answers you will get are essentially meaningless.

Triplebaconation wrote:

Purpelia wrote:I am just endlessly amused by the notion of expressing your CEP in units of battleship.

Drift has nothing to do with CEP. It's caused by gyroscopic force in the direction the shell is spinning and is a known quantity that would be input into a fire control solution. This is why this kind of stuff is listed in a range table.

Mean dispersion of a good WW2 battleship gun would be about .5% of range. At 45km this is a probable error of 190m.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

Velkanika wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do they?

Generally speaking, yes. You should clarify if you're asking about Gulf Arabs, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, or North African Muslim states with these questions, as there are significant cultural distinctions between Muslim-dominated states in those regions. You're asking questions with so broad of a group that the answers you will get are essentially meaningless.

Near-Eastern Muslims

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Velkanika wrote:Generally speaking, yes. You should clarify if you're asking about Gulf Arabs, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, or North African Muslim states with these questions, as there are significant cultural distinctions between Muslim-dominated states in those regions. You're asking questions with so broad of a group that the answers you will get are essentially meaningless.

Near-Eastern Muslims

So Turkey and the Levant?

New Visayan Islands wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
Near-Eastern Muslims

So Turkey and the Levant?

Yeah including but not limited to Iraq and Jordan

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

New Visayan Islands wrote:So Turkey and the Levant?

Yeah including but not limited to Iraq and Jordan

I blame magical brainwaves in the communal drinking water keeping this joke alive in one piece.

I need an idea critiqued. And that idea is:
Convertible drive halftrack APC / logistical truck for the 1930s. Basically the idea is that you have a halftack used for various things you use a halftrack for. So APC, gun carrier etc. but also ambulance and just general purpose truck to bring supplies to front line units. Design vise it would be a simple thing with unpowered front wheels used for steering and tracks in the rear with a powered rear sprocket. For wheeled drive the rear wheels (which would be large and either 4 of 6 of them in the bacK) would be powered instead. In both tracked and wheeled mode steering is done 100% with the front wheels.

The idea here is that you can basically make a truck that has the endurance and maintenance needs of a truck and is used as a truck. But occasionally when you really need to get into the mud it puts the tracks on. But for most part it would be used on roads as a truck. Only the combat variants would rely heavily on the tracks. This would allow my logistics units to better maneuver with the mechanized elements of my army in all terrain without having to go all in on tracked transporters that cost a lot and are very maintenance intensive.

What are the downsides of a honey-trap in terms of military effectiveness?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:What are the downsides of a honey-trap in terms of military effectiveness?

It doesn't work if your target is diabetic. Also it tends to attract bears.

Purpelia wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:What are the downsides of a honey-trap in terms of military effectiveness?

It doesn't work if your target is diabetic. Also it tends to attract bears.

LOL,
is that a genuine mistake as to the meaning in this context of "honey trap" or is it a joke?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Purpelia wrote:It doesn't work if your target is diabetic. Also it tends to attract bears.

LOL,
is that a genuine mistake as to the meaning in this context of "honey trap" or is it a joke?

The second.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

New Visayan Islands wrote:So Turkey and the Levant?

Yeah including but not limited to Iraq and Jordan

Yes. The Turks specifically have a history of using male and female honeypots as part of their clandestine operations, and IIRC Jordan has been using them on the Israelis (and vice versa) for at least 50 years.

Purpelia wrote:I need an idea critiqued. And that idea is:
Convertible drive halftrack APC / logistical truck for the 1930s. Basically the idea is that you have a halftack used for various things you use a halftrack for. So APC, gun carrier etc. but also ambulance and just general purpose truck to bring supplies to front line units. Design vise it would be a simple thing with unpowered front wheels used for steering and tracks in the rear with a powered rear sprocket. For wheeled drive the rear wheels (which would be large and either 4 of 6 of them in the bacK) would be powered instead. In both tracked and wheeled mode steering is done 100% with the front wheels.

The idea here is that you can basically make a truck that has the endurance and maintenance needs of a truck and is used as a truck. But occasionally when you really need to get into the mud it puts the tracks on. But for most part it would be used on roads as a truck. Only the combat variants would rely heavily on the tracks. This would allow my logistics units to better maneuver with the mechanized elements of my army in all terrain without having to go all in on tracked transporters that cost a lot and are very maintenance intensive.

Tracked and wheeled vehicles in the 1930s used completely different suspension technologies, so converting back and forth is completely out of the question. You could potentially build two vehicles based off of the same basic layout, but then again this is the 1930s where you buy new vehicles every 5 years due to the rapid march of technology so why bother?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:What are the downsides of a honey-trap in terms of military effectiveness?

Honeypots gather human intelligence, they provide absolutely nothing to the military except for potential intelligence insights, assuming they successfully recruit their target as an agent.

Velkanika wrote:Tracked and wheeled vehicles in the 1930s used completely different suspension technologies, so converting back and forth is completely out of the question. You could potentially build two vehicles based off of the same basic layout,

You are aware of the fact convertible drive vehicles existed and were in widespread use, the most notable example being the Soviet BT series of tanks?

but then again this is the 1930s where you buy new vehicles every 5 years due to the rapid march of technology so why bother?

I figure that it wasn't until the late 30's and early 40's that track technology got good enough for convertible drive to loose its one big advantage, that being comparative ease of maintenance. As in if you have something that mostly uses wheels and only tracks occasionally that was much easier to maintain. Not so much during WW2 but certainly during the 20's and early 30's when a vehicle to be used in the 30's would have been designed. So by 1940 when my WW2 starts these things would be mildly obsolescent, I imagine. But only mildly. And I'd still get a decent truck that has good off road characteristics.

Kégresse tracks - they were quite common.

Purpelia wrote:

Velkanika wrote:Tracked and wheeled vehicles in the 1930s used completely different suspension technologies, so converting back and forth is completely out of the question. You could potentially build two vehicles based off of the same basic layout,

You are aware of the fact convertible drive vehicles existed and were in widespread use, the most notable example being the Soviet BT series of tanks?

I did not, I had no idea Kégresse tracks were a thing in the 30s.

but then again this is the 1930s where you buy new vehicles every 5 years due to the rapid march of technology so why bother?

I figure that it wasn't until the late 30's and early 40's that track technology got good enough for convertible drive to loose its one big advantage, that being comparative ease of maintenance. As in if you have something that mostly uses wheels and only tracks occasionally that was much easier to maintain. Not so much during WW2 but certainly during the 20's and early 30's when a vehicle to be used in the 30's would have been designed. So by 1940 when my WW2 starts these things would be mildly obsolescent, I imagine. But only mildly. And I'd still get a decent truck that has good off road characteristics.

[/quote]
I personally am of the opinion that a wheeled APC is inferior to a tracked one unless you're fighting up and down roads and avoiding the areas between them, so I don't see much of a point in investing in vehicles that convert back and forth.

Astonishing.

Purpelia wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:What are the downsides of a honey-trap in terms of military effectiveness?

It doesn't work if your target is diabetic. Also it tends to attract bears.

Astolfo would never attract a bear. All the honey he's smothered on himself would get stuck in the bear's beard and he'd have to shave to get it out. Oof ouch.

But then I guess that's the point of a honey trap: to convert bears into bulls.

Velkanika wrote:I did not, I had no idea Kégresse tracks were a thing in the 30s.

Very much so. There were also several other variants including the Christies convertible drive which was used on the BT series and even the prototypes of what would become the T-34. The later actually uses metal tracks and has powered road wheels. In theory, you could have built an 8x8 armored car that can turn into a tracked light tank within 30 minutes or less. Which is an idea I, reasonably so, find to be extremely cool.

but then again this is the 1930s where you buy new vehicles every 5 years due to the rapid march of technology so why bother?

I personally am of the opinion that a wheeled APC is inferior to a tracked one unless you're fighting up and down roads and avoiding the areas between them, so I don't see much of a point in investing in vehicles that convert back and forth.[/quote]
It is my understanding that back in the 20's and 30's (not so much the 40's) track systems were still underdeveloped and thus required a lot more maintenance than wheeled ones. So convertible drives offered not only the advantage of higher road speed but also being far less maintenance intensive.

Triplebaconation wrote:Kégresse tracks - they were quite common.

How effective were they at turning a truck into a halftack though? I mean, compared to a purpose built halftrack.

Purpelia wrote:Very much so. There were also several other variants including the Christies convertible drive which was used on the BT series and even the prototypes of what would become the T-34. The later actually uses metal tracks and has powered road wheels. In theory, you could have built an 8x8 armored car that can turn into a tracked light tank within 30 minutes or less. Which is an idea I, reasonably so, find to be extremely cool.

They were not really in "widespread use." The Soviets used them in a single line of tanks that never made up a majority of their tank fleet and had decided to phase them out by the end of the 1930s because they never lived up to expectations and the cost involved in adding that feature and maintaining it was not worth the benefit. No one else outside the USSR found them interesting in the first place.

It is my understanding that back in the 20's and 30's (not so much the 40's) track systems were still underdeveloped and thus required a lot more maintenance than wheeled ones. So convertible drives offered not only the advantage of higher road speed but also being far less maintenance intensive.

Rather the opposite. This is why the Soviets dropped the concept. The biggest strength of Kegresse tracks is that they avoid this issue by not requiring any additional hardware in the drivetrain itself.

Track systems still require much more maintenance than wheeled drives even today. This is why tank transporters are still in common use. But we have realized that this is the most efficient solution to deal with the problem, rather than adding more complexity to the tracked vehicles themselves.

Can the large caliber naval guns of World War II increase their range by adding gliders?

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Can the large caliber naval guns of World War II increase their range by adding gliders?

What do you mean by gliders ? Does that means fins ? or wings ?

New Vihenia wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Can the large caliber naval guns of World War II increase their range by adding gliders?

What do you mean by gliders ? Does that means fins ? or wings ?

glide extended-range projectile like Fritz X.But it was fired from battleship guns

K5 had a primitive finned sabot shell.

It would probably miss by literal miles.

Does targeting different recruitment ads for specific religions work?

In Sharifistan Muslims specifically are targeted with adds about "Freeing the Muslims of Danistarab from their undemocratic, un-Islamic imperialism" whilst Rastafari are told about the availability of Ital rations and the evils of slavery practised by one of our other enemies.