NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

Who needs trains when you have thousands of tank transporters and heavy trailers?

Road train GO.

e: But I think I see what you mean. You could have a lot of hammer men putting down railroad ties for as many truck drivers as "several thousand" comprises. Literal railroad grand division.

I think it does depend on the local infrastructure. But if you look at Europe, North America and China the rail networks are comparable to the highway networks in density and coverage.

O ok. TBH I'm sort of surprised that China has such dense rail infrastructure I guess, but whatever.

PAX | The Best Portable Loose-Leaf Vaporizer

So the idea is to fly over, drops tons of maro-jziuanash on the enemies, get them all high, and then storm their undefended bases? Seems legit.

PAX is aviation term for passenger.

No. It's from buses and from, like all Good Works, the Disco Age. It means "paying passenger" as opposed to "subsidized passenger" like a pensioner or whatever, but the actual wording is oddball and slightly archaic. It's been so bastardized by semi-literate civilizations that it more or less has become shorthand for "human being" though. To the point where you can find businesses referring to booth occupant availability in "pax" and apartment rentals with bed numbers listed in "pax". It went from buses to planes and then literally everywhere else.

Honestly using "pax" for military passengers is kind of screwy since it's wrong. Military passengers are subsidized, not paying, so they aren't "pax" in the traditional sense of the "word". Rather, they're gun-toting pensioners.

But I'm a product of my time and place so I use words how I was taught rather than how I know they should be used. Because only squares are sticklers.

That's a distinct possibility of course; you could have a bunch of glass cannons, that'd rely more on maneuverability then armor; basically self propelled guns with anti-infantry armor, like able to stop a 7.62mm or .50 cal or something.

Tanks aren't planes.

All helicopter army.

a wholly original operation in no way planned according to the recommendations of Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia

original meme DO NOT steal

[Manokan Republic]

That's a distinct possibility of course; you could have a bunch of glass cannons, that'd rely more on maneuverability then armor; basically self propelled guns with anti-infantry armor, like able to stop a 7.62mm or .50 cal or something. However if you made an unmanned tank, that was really tiny, or had most of it be automated (with like two seats in the middle for a driver and gunner), you could save a lot of space normally set aside for the crew and make it ultra tiny but still have good armor. But I'm not sure if it would be enough of a weight save.

30 ton tanks exist, I would not however rate the TAM as anyhow capable against anything but T-55's, and even then it'll fight T-55's on a fair basis, and fair fights are for suckers.

Well you could essentially have an SPG, or self-propelled gun which would be cheaper and easier to mass produce.

As for a well armored tank, the basic idea is to remove the internal space needed for the crew. For example, an M1 Abrams has a manned turret, as space for the driver, and an extra area in the back, along with walk ways and pathways for people to travel in the tank. If you had an unmanned turret with an autoloader, drove entirely based on cameras instead of needing someone to see the driver seet and had one small little bubble in the middle of the tank for the crew, you could easily reduce the size of the vehicle substantially. So basically imagine an umanned tank that didn't need things like, crew compartments and the resulting large surface area you have to cover to protect them. Except maybe you had two guys in the middle.

Compare the size of a drone for example to a full sized aircraft. You can save a lot of space by not needing people, or by making the space for the people smaller.

[Manokan Republic]

That's a distinct possibility of course; you could have a bunch of glass cannons, that'd rely more on maneuverability then armor; basically self propelled guns with anti-infantry armor, like able to stop a 7.62mm or .50 cal or something.

Tanks aren't planes.

Now you can't prove that.

[The Akasha Colony]

For example, an M1 Abrams has a manned turret, as space for the driver, and an extra area in the back, along with walk ways and pathways for people to travel in the tank.

Wow I didn't know the US Army figured out how the TARDIS worked.

[Axis Nova]

I'll see your 30 ton tank and raise you a 22 ton tank.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'll see your 30 ton tank and raise you a 22 ton tank.

>23 mm armour
>KPV is going hue.

[Austrasien]

Now you can't prove that.

You don't know what I can prove.

• The weight of a tracked vehicle is not a good predictor of is mobility off-road.
• The speed a vehicle can travel cross-country contributes little to its ability to avoid being hit. Evasive manoeuvring has little impact value against common anti-tank weapons. Dashing between cover confers no advantage unless the vehicle can acquire and engage targets significantly faster than its opponent, which is unlikely unless there is a major gap in training/technology.
• Of the three leading killers of tanks two of the most significant, anti-guns/missiles and mines, usually take tanks by surprise. An unexpected attack cannot be outmanoeuvred.
• The best way for a tank to avoid being hit is to avoid being spotted. The best way for a tank to avoid being spotted is to have a low silhouette. Weight is a weak predictor of a tanks silhouette and airborne light tanks, in particular, tend to have exceptionally high profiles because aircraft impose significant limits on the width of cargo.
• Light tanks, in general, are best suited to defensive anti-tank combat as tanks on the defense tend to shoot first, engage at longer range and are less likely to be ambushed by anti-tank weapons or encounter mines. All of which are favourable for a tank with minimal armour that must rely on terrain concealment and achieving the first shot to survive. They are poorly suited for offensive operations.

[Manokan Republic]

I'll see your 30 ton tank and raise you a 22 ton tank.

>23 mm armour
>KPV is going hue.

[Manokan Republic]

Now you can't prove that.

You don't know what I can prove.

• The weight of a tracked vehicle is not a good predictor of is mobility off-road.
• The speed a vehicle can travel cross-country contributes little to its ability to avoid being hit. Evasive manoeuvring has little impact value against common anti-tank weapons. Dashing between cover confers no advantage unless the vehicle can acquire and engage targets significantly faster than its opponent, which is unlikely unless there is a major gap in training/technology.
• Of the three leading killers of tanks two of the most significant, anti-guns/missiles and mines, usually take tanks by surprise. An unexpected attack cannot be outmanoeuvred.
• The best way for a tank to avoid being hit is to avoid being spotted. The best way for a tank to avoid being spotted is to have a low silhouette. Weight is a weak predictor of a tanks silhouette and airborne light tanks, in particular, tend to have exceptionally high profiles because aircraft impose significant limits on the width of cargo.
• Light tanks, in general, are best suited to defensive anti-tank combat as tanks on the defense tend to shoot first, engage at longer range and are less likely to be ambushed by anti-tank weapons or encounter mines. All of which are favourable for a tank with minimal armour that must rely on terrain concealment and achieving the first shot to survive. They are poorly suited for offensive operations.

This was more of a joke obviously as I don't expect to use tanks as planes, I expect them to be transported by planes. Making a tank a drone was to make it an unmanned vehicle, of which there are unmanned ground vehicles as well. The gladiator is a good example, but too small to mount a 120mm cannon. Some kind of scaled up version of that using M1 abrams armor would be the goal.

Also the SPG's would be best in support of main battle tanks, deployed behind them in order to have the MBT take the damage of an enemy tank or clear roads of obstacles (like mines), while they hang back and attack the enemy in order to increase the volume of fire. But again probably not worth it in the design, just a funny idea. The idea would be something more akin to the Sherman or Hellcat in WWII, where as most modern militaries rely upon MBT's for everything.

[Austrasien]

My sarcasm is high altitude.

Unmanned ground vehicles are not desirable for general use. In most situations, they will be more of a burden than an asset. UGVs have poor situational awareness and prone to getting stuck or otherwise disabled. Because of these limitations doing anything with them without good terrain reconnaissance and planning is difficult; they won't be much value in hasty attack or defense situations. Furthermore, the amount of autonomy that is possible for UGV at a reasonable cost is very limited and even with no cost constraints they still aren't very good without direct control. They are a step backwards from manned vehicles in just about every way except size.

[Manokan Republic]

My sarcasm is high altitude.

Unmanned ground vehicles are not desirable for general use. In most situations, they will be more of a burden than an asset. UGVs have poor situational awareness and prone to getting stuck or otherwise disabled. Because of these limitations doing anything with them without good terrain reconnaissance and planning is difficult; they won't be much value in hasty attack or defense situations. Furthermore, the amount of autonomy that is possible for UGV at a reasonable cost is very limited and even with no cost constraints they still aren't very good without direct control. They are a step backwards from manned vehicles in just about every way except size.

The idea is to remote control them rather than have them be automated, or to put a tiny little egg-shaped protective compartment to hold the crew and take up as small amount of space as possible. And be used primarily to support MBT's. Smaller also more or less means cheaper so you can put out a higher volume of them as well, and they consume less fuel, making them more fuel efficient and have a longer range.

[Albynau]

When aircraft receive service life extensions and overhaul the airframes to "zero hour" status, what do they actually do? Could you theoretically have aircraft with ridiculous lifespans if you keep overhauling airframes?

My interest in this was piqued when a ~100 year old building near where I work is being remodeled and expanded and apparently they're keeping a lot of the original building.

[The Akasha Colony]

When aircraft receive service life extensions and overhaul the airframes to "zero hour" status, what do they actually do? Could you theoretically have aircraft with ridiculous lifespans if you keep overhauling airframes?

SLEPs usually just involve taking the aircraft apart, inspecting all of the components carefully, replacing the ones that are near the end of their life, and certifying any of the remaining components for additional service. There is no way to magically un-stress an airframe, but airframe life estimates are generally conservative so extensions are pretty easy.

The problem is that over time, the airframe itself becomes obsolete and is uneconomical to operate. Newer airliners are more aerodynamic and more efficient than older ones which creates an incentive for airlines to continuously buy new aircraft rather than perpetually reconditioning old ones. Military aircraft also have advances in design that cannot be incorporated into an older airframe.

My interest in this was piqued when a ~100 year old building near where I work is being remodeled and expanded and apparently they're keeping a lot of the original building.

Buildings are different because they are quite simple. They don't have to worry about being rendered "obsolete" because the basic function of a building, which is to safeguard the things inside from the elements, hasn't changed. They have high capital costs but aside from special-purpose buildings or buildings in places with inclement weather, they generally have low operating costs so there's little reason to replace them.

[Gallia-]

This would be a good question for my husbando to use his PhD on since he off-handedly mentioned this a few months ago. Unfortunately he is "busy" in "real life" or something. ):

[Kazarogkai]

That's a distinct possibility of course; you could have a bunch of glass cannons, that'd rely more on maneuverability then armor; basically self propelled guns with anti-infantry armor, like able to stop a 7.62mm or .50 cal or something. However if you made an unmanned tank, that was really tiny, or had most of it be automated (with like two seats in the middle for a driver and gunner), you could save a lot of space normally set aside for the crew and make it ultra tiny but still have good armor. But I'm not sure if it would be enough of a weight save.

30 ton tanks exist, I would not however rate the TAM as anyhow capable against anything but T-55's, and even then it'll fight T-55's on a fair basis, and fair fights are for suckers.

I got another one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

29.2 Tons!,

should be fine until I don't know... The 60s?




it's a joke..

[Allanea]

It was still being made at the time!

[Dostanuot Loj]

My sarcasm is high altitude.

Unmanned ground vehicles are not desirable for general use. In most situations, they will be more of a burden than an asset. UGVs have poor situational awareness and prone to getting stuck or otherwise disabled. Because of these limitations doing anything with them without good terrain reconnaissance and planning is difficult; they won't be much value in hasty attack or defense situations. Furthermore, the amount of autonomy that is possible for UGV at a reasonable cost is very limited and even with no cost constraints they still aren't very good without direct control. They are a step backwards from manned vehicles in just about every way except size.

The idea is to remote control them rather than have them be automated, or to put a tiny little egg-shaped protective compartment to hold the crew and take up as small amount of space as possible. And be used primarily to support MBT's. Smaller also more or less means cheaper so you can put out a higher volume of them as well, and they consume less fuel, making them more fuel efficient and have a longer range.

I don't think you understand how tanks work, or are designed. There are no "walkways" or corridors for the crew to move around in, as you mentioned in a previous post. Protected volume is a very well understood and deeply ingrained concept in tank design, and has been for decades. Nothing you have said so far unless it is for a poorly thought out video game or anime tank.

Also, your ideal "crew-egg" compartment tank exists, it's call ed T-14 Armada and it's huge. Which kinda defeats your idea.

[The Akasha Colony]

Who needs trains when you have thousands of tank transporters and heavy trailers?

Road train GO.

e: But I think I see what you mean. You could have a lot of hammer men putting down railroad ties for as many truck drivers as "several thousand" comprises. Literal railroad grand division.

Each military district in Carthage (there are around 20) has a battalion of railway pioneers, although most of these are reserve formations. Districts that have international borders though have active battalions. Given that each military district supports on average just about 10 divisions (not including militia formations), this may well not be enough, but the expectation is that reserve battalions from inland can be shipped off to the front since they won't likely be needed at home. Eisenbahntruppen forever.

[Gallia-]

You can't use a railway as an airstrip!

[Rich and Corporations]

My sarcasm is high altitude.

Unmanned ground vehicles are not desirable for general use. In most situations, they will be more of a burden than an asset. UGVs have poor situational awareness and prone to getting stuck or otherwise disabled. Because of these limitations doing anything with them without good terrain reconnaissance and planning is difficult; they won't be much value in hasty attack or defense situations. Furthermore, the amount of autonomy that is possible for UGV at a reasonable cost is very limited and even with no cost constraints they still aren't very good without direct control. They are a step backwards from manned vehicles in just about every way except size.

obviously unmanned ground vehicles should serve as decoys in the long tradition of camouflage in war

[Manokan Republic]

The idea is to remote control them rather than have them be automated, or to put a tiny little egg-shaped protective compartment to hold the crew and take up as small amount of space as possible. And be used primarily to support MBT's. Smaller also more or less means cheaper so you can put out a higher volume of them as well, and they consume less fuel, making them more fuel efficient and have a longer range.

I don't think you understand how tanks work, or are designed. There are no "walkways" or corridors for the crew to move around in, as you mentioned in a previous post. Protected volume is a very well understood and deeply ingrained concept in tank design, and has been for decades. Nothing you have said so far unless it is for a poorly thought out video game or anime tank.

Also, your ideal "crew-egg" compartment tank exists, it's call ed T-14 Armada and it's huge. Which kinda defeats your idea.

Crew members have to be able to walk to different sections of a tank, such as from the turret to the driver's location, so in actuality yes there are various walking and moving paths. If you remove the part of the turret that is expected to hold a person, and requires them to move in order to load a weapon, you'll see it'll drop the turret size substantially, as would removing the driving section of the vehicle, and the area you need to walk through to get to the driving section and turret.

If you look at an M1 Abrams for example, you can see how much room is needed to grab a round, move it, and then put it in the chamber of the 120mm cannon. You can see how much dead space there is, which wouldn't need to be there if it was minimized to as small a size as humanly possible. Another good example is this picture, which you see how much area the crew compartments take up. If you shortened it, by removing a turret or the need for someone to crawl in one, removed the driving area, and shrunk down the cabin space, you'd have a much smaller overall tank.

[Celitannia]

Protected volume has been a metric used in tank design for decades so what's your point?

[Manokan Republic]

Protected volume has been a metric used in tank design for decades so what's your point?

A predominately automated system that removes the need for crews to expose themselves and visually see their targets is not only more protective but potentially smaller if designed correctly. You could theoretically have a tank that's just as effective but is much smaller. I'm not sure how much, but it could be pretty substantial, perhaps twice as small. With less armor comes better fuel efficiencies, faster speeds, and lower costs, not needing as much material to manufacture the tanks, particularly the high end armor.

So it would be a huge improvement over existing tanks and also make them small enough to be easily transportable, or pass over rougher more difficult terrain. That and hybrids would probably be some of the biggest improvements to tanks.

[Celitannia]

Protected volume has been a metric used in tank design for decades so what's your point?

A predominately automated system that removes the need for crews to expose themselves and visually see their targets is not only more protective but potentially smaller if designed correctly. You could theoretically have a tank that's just as effective but is much smaller. I'm not sure how much, but it could be pretty substantial, perhaps twice as small. With less armor comes better fuel efficiencies, faster speeds, and lower costs, not needing as much material to manufacture the tanks, particularly the high end armor.

So it would be a huge improvement over existing tanks and also make them small enough to be easily transportable, or pass over rougher more difficult terrain. That and hybrids would probably be some of the biggest improvements to tanks.

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

e:

Precision marksmanship from battalion sniper company suppresses the enemy in infantry-on-infantry champion combat, proceeding to direct robotic fires from airborne NLOS tank Block II Gavin "aluminium Wunderwaff". Meanwhile, depth fires are provided by railgun battleship USS Pitchfork Ben after destroying the enemy navy with contemptuous ease. Victory is attained within 48 hours and the 7th Precision Marksmanship Brigade Combat Team (PMBCT) is withdrawn, as another democracy emerges like a phoenix from the broken remains of evil kleptocracy.
What a wonderful world you live in.

[The Akasha Colony]

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

He's actually saying he knows very little about tanks.

The sheer amount of writing needed to convey this notion though is quite impressive. Most use only a few words to get this point across.