NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[New Vihenia]

Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?

They dont take Biology which is my major :x.

[Theodosiya]

Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?

They dont take Biology which is my major :x.

Biology. Hmm, Armed Forces might be interested in something. Bio warfare, perhaps?

[Triplebaconation]

Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?

They dont take Biology which is my major :x.

If you're passionate about engineering stick with it. I know several people who got into engineering graduate programs with literature degrees.

[United Earthlings]

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.

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.

As for spraying action, I had the Commonwealth Army not be a big fan of that tactic for CQB infantry combat minus a few exceptions since the majority of the Commonwealth’s assault/battle rifles were designed without a full-auto capability.

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.

Makes sense. What doesn't is that I am only replying to this after so much time. But that's life.

No worries, better late than never…speaking of replies after so much time, I’m still waiting on a reply to this post when you find the time.

*Third source says 419.1mm...

[Purpelia]

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.

Same here. My progression of rounds is something like this:
1890 - 7.5x55 Swiss
In all its developments right up to and including GP11.
1930 - 7.5x55 GP30
Basically a lightened version of the same cartridge so that it's ballistics are similar to an intermediary but still retains the case and bulk of the full power one. Think 6.5 Italian. The goal was to get a new lighter cartridge without breaking ammo comparability with GP11. And strictly speaking all weapons that can shoot one can also load the other just fine. Although self loading ones need a different gas setting. Through WW2 my MG's and snipers and the like used GP11 and rifles used GP30.
1955 - 7.5x42mm GP50
Literally identical to GP30 but now finally in a new shortened case that matches its needs. Dramatically drops weight and generally makes things better. GP11 stays on for snipers and MG's.
1989 - 5.5x42mm Purpelian
The new light intermediary to replace GP50. GP11 still stays on for snipers and MG's.

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.

My current thoughts are on a downward ejecting bullpup rifle with about 5-6dm of barrel and an integrated suppressor for the main rifle role. Supported by PKM lookalikes firing 7.5x55 GP11 and an XM-25 style gun per squad to serve as the DMR. Because nothing says long range accurate fire suppression like a 25mm grenade.

Long reply to other post incoming.

Edit: Half way done. Am tired. Will finish it later.

[Danternoust]

They dont take Biology which is my major :x.

Biology. Hmm, Armed Forces might be interested in something. Bio warfare, perhaps?

I don't think any country stopped with inethical human experimentation after WWII. If the conspiracy theorists are right.

---

Platoon-level high velocity 37mm guns for barrier penetration, y/n?

[Mzeusia]

My apologies if there is anything wrong with this query , but I was thinking about writing a dispatch about a realistic modern war. I'm not sure what to take into account when writing about an invasion in a dispatch. I want the invasion to take place in 1994. The defending country is landlocked with a small military. The invaders are a coalition of nations and they have the technological and numerical advantage.

None of the invading countries share a border with the country being invaded and the people of the invading country are supportive of the government.

I'm looking for examples of how an invasion might be undertaken in just less than a year. If there are examples from history you can point me to, possible tactics or things you know I might need to include in an account of the war, that would be great.

If you would like to know anything more, I'd be more than happy to tell you.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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).

YaK-3T waves hello with its 37mm cannon while big brother YaK-9K wields the holy 45mm.

[Gallia-]

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.

[Purpelia]

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.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

And 23×152 mmB? <.>

[Gallia-]

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.

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.

[Purpelia]

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.

In most cases that would be the case. But in this case I envision an aircraft designed from the ground up to be an attacker. Hence the P-39 style rear engine layout to maximize room for the gun and ammo. The idea with this thing is that when it's designed in the late 30's it's supposed to be an A-10 style tank buster. But than later into the war the cannon is mostly used to strafe trucks and stuff whilst its ungodly loadout of rockets and bombs takes over the anti tank role.

Like literally imagine an IL-2 having sex with an aerocobra.

[Gallia-]

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.

[Purpelia]

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.

So what you're basically saying that I could get away with it being intended as a tank buster in say 37-38 but by the time the shooting actually starts the gun would only be good for hitting soft stuff like trucks and not actual tanks? I can live with that.

[Gallia-]

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.

[Purpelia]

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.

Obviously I am not talking about a literal P-39! It's the bloody layout. It's easier to give you an existing object as reference than to try and write several paragraphs worth of design specifications. Seriously, at this point you are just being obtuse with your insistence to use my rough analogy as a literal thing.

[Triplebaconation]

Merry Christmas.

[Gallia-]

Obviously I am not talking about a literal P-39! It's the bloody layout.

It would have a tiny useless pop gun and get shot down a lot I guess.

The T9 cannon was the only "big gun" that could fit in a fighter nose and still have enough recoil length to not bust the pilot's balls or something. It's not a very good anti-tank gun, though. It never was. By the time the "big gun tank buster" shows up as an idea, which was only after it was found in combat that dive bombers can't really hit tanks with 500 lbs bombs and obliterate them, you have better options like the T5E2 75mm or the BK 75mm, or the 6-pounder Mollins.

You're just ignoring the path dependency here: Wartime experience counts for a lot and wartime experience showed that the pre-war idea of simply bombing a tank with an aerial bomb won't work. Which is why the gunpods like BK 3,7 and Vickers S show up in the first place in North Africa, retrofitted to the fighter-bombers readily available in 1940-41: Hurricane and Ju 87.

The idea of using a big cannon was non-obvious because aircraft were of limited size, and the cannons that could be fit in aircraft were pretty useless AT weapons compared to contemporaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_autocannon

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.

Compare to the 50-55mm penetration of these things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_37 ... i-tank_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_Gun_M3

Also this guy manages 50-55mm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_S

2" (50mm) penetration is minimum viable for late-30s, and this grows to 4" (100mm) by 1943 on or so. Otherwise it will be completely useless against most mediums, even relatively thin skinned vehicles like Crusader, and only marginally useful against the lightest tanks of the era, such as the cheap export tanks like the Vickers 6-ton. Any military use will be limited to imagining the weapon as a bomber destroyer rather than a tank buster. A tank busting aircraft would want a higher velocity, close to 800-1,000 m/s, rather than 600 m/s, which is not possible with any single engine fighter. It would fit in a twin engine medium or Zerstorer-type like Bf 110/He 111 pretty easily, but again, these sort of aircraft would be viewed as interceptors, not ground attackers.

Again, the reasons why:

1) The effectiveness of all aviation cannons in the anti-tank role was limited due to the constraints of the recoil length/muzzle energies of the cannon. External gunpods could accommodate the former and muzzle brakes can solve the latter, which is how BK 3,7 manages absurdly high velocities in an aviation gun: it has a long recoil stroke because it's externally mounted and it has a integrated brake/flash hider. You could also make bigger airplanes to get around the mass problem, but really big stuff like Firebrand and Tempest is rather beyond the time period. If people thought the 37mm M4 was a great AT weapon, it would have been issued to tank crews first, not airplanes, and since you can't fit a proper 2-pounder or a Bofors 37mm in an airplane, it's not a good anti-tank gun carriage clearly.

2) Pre-war experience over estimated the efficacy of aviation's ability (at the time) to locate ground targets and destroy them with bombs, which factored into production orders for dive bombers, and rockets were considered more suitable for attacking ground targets than cannons, because rockets could carry bigger booms further, and use hollow charges. This is more a result of institutional biases than anything, I think, but there wasn't a lot of serious concern until shooting started that aviation cannons might be useful: the Vickers S wasn't ordered until 1940.

3) Armoring would need to be extensive for most aircraft, which is why it precludes small aircraft for the most part, but this increases signature and thus damage taken. A small, compact fighter would be ideal, but not really possible, since P-39 or something doesn't have the excess space/mass margins for armor. A P-38 might be good, but it's also rather big, and Hs 129 was significantly smaller in all dimensions. You'd want something about the size of a Westland Whirlwind, with more armor, and a Vickers S or something, which was a real thing, but it would also need to be armored which might necessitate a bigger engine. By the time it's flying it will probably be obsolete, since technology moved way faster than it does now, back then, and a few months delay meant serious issues.

What I did for Galla was take Westland Whirlwind, armor it, give it good radials (Wasp Jr), and slapped a T5E2 inside it and called it a 1943 tank buster. This replaces Hawker Harts and Dauntless dive bombers, basically. Pretty sure I stole the idea from Tony Williams or something. P-39/63 are fighter-interceptors that replace the Hurricane, because Galla never really got bitten by the idea of super high climb rate twin fighters like P-38, but it liked twins for surface attack so it builds Whirlwinds and Beaufighters for that job (ground/coastal attack).

Merry Christmas.

(Image)

Cursed.

But yeah just having a LONG BOI would work.

[Gallia-]

Same here. My progression of rounds is something like this:

dumbla's:

12th to early-17th centuries: A menagerie of 20-30mm calibers of lead balls fired by a stable of unregulated snaphances, wheel locks, matchlocks, and actual handgonnes.
1725: The Royal Ordnance .722" Flintlock is commissioned. It serves for a little over a century as standard.
1815: Percussion cap mechanism Ordnance .72" is produced, thousands of rifles are converted for line troops. This is designated the Model 1725/65/15.
1840: Small quantities of Chamber Loading Rifles, in .68" rifled caliber, are produced for Rangers units and other skirmishers. It is never seen by line troops.
1848: Minie ball rifled musket in .68" caliber, is adopted as the Alvik Model 1848 Rifled Musket. Thus, the end of the Model 1725.
1867: A .495" breech loading rolling block rifle, chosen for its robustness and simplicity, is adopted for all line troops. This replaces all Chamber Loading Rifles and rifled muskets.
1890: After an embarrassing series of failures and experiments over the next two decades, the Army chooses the .265" Smokeless as its new cartridge. The Model 1891 Cavalry Carbine is adopted, which is a lever action repeater with a integral 5-round box magazine and no magazine cut-off, and the 1890 Infantry Rifle, a bolt-action with a side-loading magazine and cut-off, is used for line troops. In the meantime, the Model 1867 Rolling Block is found to be suitable to be converted to .265" Smokeless, and this is done. At the same time, the Model 1895 machine gun is adopted in the same caliber, using a modified form of the Cavalry Carbine action.
1914: The first issued .265" automatic rifle, the Bofors Machine Rifle, is developed, ostensibly for general use. It is considered too expensive for general issue but finds use as a primitive form of squad automatic weapon in the 3rd Northern War (1913-1918).
1938: Artillerists are tired of shooting beefy boi .265" and buy a .30" Short (7.62x33mm) automatic carbine (M1 Carbine but it isn't a gas trap because I don't like gas trap).
1940: The second issued .265" automatic rifle, the Alvik Auto-Rifle, is presented to the Army. It uses a direct gas impingement operating system derived from a series of automatic rifles 30 years old, but works alright. The Army orders a bunch. It displaces the bolt-action 1890/21 and 1891/38 carbines over the next few years. The older weapons are placed into Home Guard hands until the 1980s, where they're sold off to collectors/hunters/shooting groups or destroyed.
1955: The Army wants a magazine fed rifle. It goes to Bofors and asks for one. They give it a rifle called the Bofors Automatic Rifle. It is chambered in .265". It has bakelite. It's AR-10 but crustier and more communist. The Army buys a few and decides they're OK, but it's still not sold on the 20-round magazines or whatever.
1958: Bofors shows the Army a fiberglass aluminum rifle it calls the Bofors Automatic Carbine. It is chambered in .223" caliber. The Army buys it and calls it Ak58. It's M16A1. End of .265" as a general issue cartridge. The Ak55 is converted into sniper's rifles or light machine guns, while the older Alvik Auto-Rifles are issued to the Home Guards.
1990: The Marines are tired of getting the Army's rejects, and they don't want another brass clad M16, so they decide to make a plastic gun. It's chambered in 6.5x30mm Caseless. It's G11 with a fatter bullet and cartridge. It works fine. The Army buys some for its paratroopers.
2018: Artillerists are tired of shooty beefy boi .223" and buy a .265" Short (6.5x30mm) automatic carbine (KAC PDW but it's a shrink wrapped M16A1 like UDP-9 because rails are dumb).
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.
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.

[Theodosiya]

Rounds progression? 90s to early 2000s are USSR, 2003 NATO stuffs got adopted, and projected to fully replace 7.62x39, 7.62x53r, 5.45x39 and 12.7x108 in 2024, in all lines, from 1st line 90% mobilization Army units to 45% mobilization Militia units.

So, 1995 to 2003 are Warsaw Pact standard, 2024 full NATO standard.

[Danternoust]

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.

Ah, yes. Have you played Command HQ? Wasted a few dozen hours on that game in my youth to get the same outcomes each time. Has options for 1918, 1942, 1986, 2023, and ????.

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.

Rifles will likely move from APCR to APFSDS as micromachining improves.

[Gallia-]

yes randc i have

pilsudski world empire control of all oil vs. the neo-yamato co-prosperity sphere's fifty million infantry divisions

the only good options are 1985 and random placement/???

[Barfleur]

Had it entered regular service, would Curtiss's XP-55 Ascender have been a useful fighter, or tasty food for Zeros?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Had it entered regular service, would Curtiss's XP-55 Ascender have been a useful fighter, or tasty food for Zeros?

Hard to say. On paper it looks fairly good. 4 .50 cal machine guns in the nose, giving it a narrow arc of fire plus being a bit faster than the Zero. However, as it was cancelled at the flight test stage, we don't know much about its flight characteristics, so it could have been very good or an absolute piece of shit.