NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[The Akasha Colony]

Nope. It's the result of using physically larger ammo which is built using more modern technology.

If that was the case, wouldn't more then two nations being using rifledguns of caliber larger then 110mm?

Why?

The world has settled on using just two gun calibers for modern tanks, and both happen to be smoothbore (there are obviously reasons for this). There's no interest or market in developing an alternative, since as the British and Indians have found out, that means you will always be on the hook for ammo costs. Unlike if you adopted 120 mm or 125 mm, in which case you could easily buy new rounds off the shelf.

[Gallia-]

Plenty of people still use 100mm, 115mm, and 105mm.

Probably a goodish number still use 85mm and 88mm.

[Manokan Republic]

So I spent like 10-30 minutes reading lots of comments before and after this...and I have no idea why this person started sperging out of nowhere. I also can't tell what their question is, if it's a real question, or they're just being...salty? Cray cray?

EDIT 41 minutes in:

Wait, is this person saying they know better then four people with a stack of tank books, and 9 years of reading/RPing on the site?

I actually own the main book much of this is referenced in, or Arabs at War, by Kenneth Pollack, who is a fairly well respected military analyst. I actually keep it by my bed side, which is why I happen to know a bit about this particular conflict. I hate to be so pedantic, but here are exact quotes from this and other sources. The key thing here is the Chadian strategy emphasized speed. "The Chadians overcame the Libyans' far superior weaponry, which included Soviet T-55 tanks, by utilizing innovative tactics. For example, the Chadians would mount French-supplied MILAN anti-tank missiles on Toyota pickup trucks and then race two of the trucks towards the tank from opposite directions. The tanks were unable to move their turrets fast enough to track them.[3] Meanwhile, the "Libyans conducted simple, slow-moving frontal assaults, which were easily broken up by fast, enveloping Chadian counterattacks." [1][2] "The Chadians, on the other hand, had nothing but 10,000 brave and motivated soldiers with neither air support nor armoured tanks. However, by 1987, Chad could count on the French Air Force to keep Libyan aircraft grounded but, perhaps more importantly, a 400 Toyota pickups fleet equipped with MILAN (Missile d´infanterie léger antichar) anti-tank guided missiles sent by the French Government." [3] "The terrain allowed the Chadians to use MILAN at it's maximum range, well out of the reach of the convoy's weapons." - "Firing distances AMLs and Toyotas allowed them to stay clear of enemy's weapons and even attack them from the rear. The AML's were coordinated with the MILAN's." [4] Quote from the Arabs at War: "These troops fielded seventy French Panhard and American V-150 armored cars plus about 400 Toyota Trucks equipped with machine guns, recoilless rifles, mortars, grenade launchers, and Milan ATGM's."

There's no solid evidence they primarily engaged the enemy on foot with M72 LAW's and RPG-7's despite having fast traveling Toyota trucks to carry the ammunition in, and my previous post was sort of trolling at their expense. Your walking in a to a conversation you don't have the background on. The prevailing sources of the issue report that primarily, they fired milans off the back of Toyotas. It really shouldn't be that big of a contention, but, there's literally one poorly written infographic book, a book known as "Technicals", that claims the Chadians more frequently dismounted to attack with MILAN missiles, which doesn't really make a lot of sense as it's far easier to mount a large heavy weapon's system to back of a truck and fire it, than it is to get within close range of an enemy tank with a machine gun and use M72 LAWS and RPG-7's to defeat tanks that can stop these rounds over their frontal arc, and mostly from the sides. This is what the conversation was originally about, that they did not predominately take out tanks in this manner. Then they changed it to, sometimes they dismounted to fire MILAN missiles. I'm sure they did, but given that it takes at least several minutes to do this, and you can only carry a handful of rounds with you, it makes more sense to mount them to vehicles and fire them from vehicles, as it would take less time and you could carry more ammunition with you than you could on foot. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to dismount regularly and engage your enemy, on foot, when you can travel far faster on a vehicle and carry more ammunition. The range of MILAN is a maximum of like 2 miles, and in just a few minutes an enemy armored vehicles can travel that distance and completely wipe out infantry forces at close range. The toyota truck had no armor and the infantry didn't as well, so the only real advantage of the Toyota trucks was speed and range. The Bradley, BMD, BPD, and most IFV's mount the anti-tank missiles to the vehicles so it can be fired rapidly and they can carry more missiles, and there are HUMVEEs and other light vehicles with vehicle mounted missiles, and it makes sense this would also be done to smaller and lighter vehicles. There's nothing crazy about me saying there were rockets mounted to Toyota trucks fired at long range during the Toyota wars, or that this is the superior strategy than getting within close range of an enemy machine gun. In fact, the particular French Toyota vehicle comes with the MILAN mounted to it.

The point of contention here is that TripleBacon and the Austria-Bohemia-Hungary refuse to believe that a Toyota truck ever fired a MILAN missile off the back of it, or did so very rarely, where as I believe that both happened, that people got off of the trucks and fired rockets occasionally, and primarily fired them from the back of the Toyota truck. This shouldn't really matter, but they tend to never drop a matter no matter how many times it's been proven, and tend to hold a grudge, so you have to deal with their strange opinions. Triple bacon also argued for a while that if you made the bullet smaller in a cartridge case it would necessarily increase the chamber pressure by that amount, so going from a .44 magnum to a .22 would double the pressure, something decidedly false, and refused to back down from this point despite numerous cartridges cases that are necked down without a substantial pressure increase or vice versa (the .270 from the .30-06, the .357 sig from the .40, and vice versa the .300 black-out from the .223 which has the same pressure despite a bigger bullet), so they just stick to a point and will never drop it, no matter how many examples to the contrary, and then try to bad-mouth people to anyone who will listen. It's pretty classic forum problems, so take it with a grain of salt. Here is an exact quote: "It's very simple. The pressure doesn't change much in neck-downed cartridges because wildcatters carefully adjust the powder load (including burn rate) to stay within safe limits, generally those of the parent cartridge." This isn't true at all, which is why the .300 black out and .223 have exactly the same pressure and use the same powder, and if it is true, then it would be easily possible to neck down bullets to smaller sizes if special powders could be used to eliminate this. I'd have otherwise not talked about this entire thing anymore, but they keep bringing it up over and over again and won't let it die.

As you can see, there is ample evidence of them firing rockets from a distance and from on the backs of their Toyotas, largely exploiting their mobility. They did occasionally dismount or get within close range of the enemy, especially in attacks on bases. To give TrippleBacon the best advantage possible and steel-man his position: "As they pursued the remnants of the Libyan forces, the Chadians took advantage of the openings made by the retreat to enter the Libyian positions of Ouadi-Doum. The whole Chadian pursuit force entered the post unopposed. As in the Fada battle, firing distances were very short- MILAN at 400 meters, AML with 90mm gun at 200-300 meters, light rocket launchers (French LRAC and U.S. M72A2 LAAW) at 50-100 meters. Some RPG-7s were fired from within 20 meters of the target often wounding or killing the gunner. AMLs and Toyotas allowed them to stay clear of the enemy's weapons even attack them from the rear. The AML's were coordinated with the MILAN's. They successfully drew Libyan tanks away from their dug-in positions and in to the open where the MILAN's could engage them." There were actually reports of battle occurring at close range, as there are in all wars; the U.S. even had reports of marines using bayonets on enemy soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, as may be imagined, this is particularly rare, and was largely done when attacking static targets, not in open tank warfare. My argument is not that this never happened, but that it was rare, where as Tripple insists they almost never fired rockets from the back of Toyotas, ever, which is patently false. They also originally claimed most anti-tank kills were from M72 laws and RPG-7's, which have a range of about 200 meters and can barely penetrate the side armor of most tanks under ideal conditions. Without a perfect 90 degree angle hit, there is really no chance of a penetration on most modern tanks, or even older tanks.



Quote from Arabs at war book: "Chadians conducted a series of swift pincer movements, enveloping the Libyian positions and crushing them with sudden attacks from all sides." The key thing here is that the Chadians emphasized speed, outflanking their enemy and taking them out before they could even return fire or understand what was going on, which was aided by Libyia's slow response times and poor training and skill. They largely attacked in full frontal assaults, where as the Chad's moved in swiftly and took out their vehicles which moved too rigidly to take advantage of their speed. The key thing here is that heavy vehicles are useful because they can move, and well armored vehicles are only meant to take a few hits, relying primarily on mobility for defense and strategic advantage. A bunker is well armored but can't move; a tank can barely shrug off 1 or 2 hits from an enemy tank or heavy rocket, and thus is really only useful for taking a few hits and primarily gains it's advantage from mobility. The U.S. military tank killers from the tank-killer doctrine for example in WWII were based on the concept of mobility, which is why both the Hellcat and M36 Jackson had light armor, but were considered tank killers. Similarly the U.S. puts a lot of emphasis on "shoot and scoot", as any time you are within range of the enemy, they are within close range of you, and are likely to return fire. Simply avoid getting hit by moving around a lot and making it difficult for an enemy with poor tracking systems to hit you is extremely important for defense, and so mobility has been a premium in modern warfare, which is why the M1 abrams was made to be one of the fastest tanks possible. The reason why we are no longer fighting WWI trench style warfare where both sides dig in and slowly wage war is due to the mobility offered by modern vehicles, which can carry enough armor not to be torn to shred by any machine guns and autocannons, and can take a round or two at a distance from tank fire. Mobility warfare is key to modern combat, which is why helicopters and planes have so much of an advantage, tanks, armored vehicles and so on. It's all about the ability to pick and move armor and ordinance over there, and get it to the enemy before they get it to you. It's not just about raw firepower. It also shows that guns are cheap by relation to armored vehicles, and simply landing the first solid blow on the enemy typically allows you to win. If you never get hit, you never need armor, and one way to avoid getting hit is simply to kill the enemy before they kill you.

Arabs at war, page 388: "The armored cars and Toyota trucks restored to the Chadians the strategic mobility and tactical maneuverability they had lost when they had adopted modern infantry weapons, organization, and tactics. With their new mobility, the FANT'S Toubou and Zaghawa warriors were now able to employ their traditional tactics in a way they had not seen before. In Battle, Chadian forces employed "swarming" tactics. They used the speed of their armored cars and Toyotas to dart around the battlefield, hitting Libyan armored vehicles in the flanks and often from several angles Simultaneously. The Chadians maintained a very high pace of operations, relying on the speed and flexibility of their units to confuse the slow-moving and slow-to-react Libyans, isolate them in smaller units, and then crush them suddenly with attacks from all sides. The Chadians maneuvered constantly on the battlefield to prevent the Libyans from bringing their heavier firepower to bear and to get to flank shots at Libyan armor and Fortifications. Indeed, the Chadians moved so quickly that Libyan tank crews often had difficulty moving the turrets on their T-55 tanks fast enough to accurately target FANT Toyotas."- Other than the fact we KNOW some Milan missiles were mounted on some Toyota trucks and fired in this manner from a distance, the Chadians relied heavily on speed and mobility for defense. It wouldn't make sense to give up the tactical advantage of speed by dismounting and firing a gun, rather than drive up quickly, fire off a round, and drive away in hit-and-run tactics, given this was a strategy they very rarely deployed, with notable exception on base attacks.

[Gallia-]

this site isnt exactly a repository of great thinks but manokan is probably the apex poster on these threads

he just craves attention so as long as you ignore him he'll stop replying otherwise the posts get increasingly long and disjointed

[Manokan Republic]

this site isnt exactly a repository of great thinks but manokan is probably the apex poster on these threads

he just craves attention so as long as you ignore him he'll stop replying otherwise the posts get increasingly long and disjointed

I actually hate these sorts of debates, but for some reason people like to dredge it back up. So I'll just cite my same sources again and let people decide what they think. Whatever the case, speed and mobility are extremely important in modern warfare, and out-maneuvering the enemy is extremely important, which is why rocket launchers mounted on lightly armored vehicles has proven to be so useful (in the persian gulf for example, the Bradley's killed more enemy armored vehicles than the Abrams, largely due to this).

[Gallia-]

for example, the Bradley's killed more enemy armored vehicles than the Abrams, largely due to this).

The associative thinking non-logic strikes again.

The actual reason is probably too complex for you to fully understand, unfortunately.

[Triplebaconation]

So I spent like 10-30 minutes reading lots of comments before and after this...and I have no idea why this person started sperging out of nowhere. I also can't tell what their question is, if it's a real question, or they're just being...salty? Cray cray?

To be most charitable, he has a very impressive ability to spontaneously create from first principles alternate models of reality based on vague or misinterpreted snippets from Wikipedia.

but they keep bringing it up over and over again and won't let it die.

As he links to a post from 20 months ago lol

To be less charitable, Manokan seems to be on these threads entirely to argue incessantly, and does so in bad faith. If you misinterpret something he's said in several contradictory ways in his lengthy rambling posts, he'll use it as a gotcha for at least 20 months or insult your ability to comprehend English despite his *ahem* unconventional writing style. He's best avoided and ignored, and in fact most of the discussion on these threads has moved to Discord for precisely that reason.

[The Manticoran Empire]

this site isnt exactly a repository of great thinks but manokan is probably the apex poster on these threads

he just craves attention so as long as you ignore him he'll stop replying otherwise the posts get increasingly long and disjointed

I actually hate these sorts of debates, but for some reason people like to dredge it back up. So I'll just cite my same sources again and let people decide what they think. Whatever the case, speed and mobility are extremely important in modern warfare, and out-maneuvering the enemy is extremely important, which is why rocket launchers mounted on lightly armored vehicles has proven to be so useful (in the persian gulf for example, the Bradley's killed more enemy armored vehicles than the Abrams, largely due to this).

Uh...the article you link to says nothing about kills aside from a broad claim with limited substantiation. The only source for the Wikipedia claim is an article on Global Security that has no sources listed. Furthermore, attributing kills to one system or another with definitive accuracy is a difficult thing to accomplish. While the claim may be true, there is no evidence presented to indicate that it is.

[Gallia-]

You really can't expect Manokan to read the things he says he reads. He has enough trouble reading people's posts on this site judging by his replies.

[Pentaga Giudici]

No amount of armor that can fit on a moving vehicle can defeat a steel 125mm APDS shell.

Is this a joke? The Abrams back during Persian Gulf could stop that ammo, as far as I know.

So I spent like 10-30 minutes reading lots of comments before and after this...and I have no idea why this person started sperging out of nowhere. I also can't tell what their question is, if it's a real question, or they're just being...salty? Cray cray?

To be most charitable, he has a very impressive ability to spontaneously create from first principles alternate models of reality based on vague or misinterpreted snippets from Wikipedia.

but they keep bringing it up over and over again and won't let it die.

As he links to a post from 20 months ago lol

To be less charitable, Manokan seems to be on these threads entirely to argue incessantly, and does so in bad faith. If you misinterpret something he's said in several contradictory ways in his lengthy rambling posts, he'll use it as a gotcha for at least 20 months or insult your ability to comprehend English despite his *ahem* unconventional writing style. He's best avoided and ignored, and in fact most of the discussion on these threads has moved to Discord for precisely that reason.

Is he like Sparky in how Sparky thought that the King Tiger was better then the Abrams somehow, due to really weird math and statistics?

How how he thinks the Stryker sucks because you can fit it on a C-130 or something and have it swim AND fit it with uparmor...but he somehow thinks the M133 can fit on that plane, swim, and have uparmor?

There's no solid evidence they primarily engaged the enemy on foot with M72 LAW's and RPG-7's despite having fast traveling Toyota trucks to carry the ammunition in, and my previous post was sort of trolling at their expense. Your walking in a to a conversation you don't have the background on. The prevailing sources of the issue report that primarily, they fired milans off the back of Toyotas. It really shouldn't be that big of a contention, but, there's literally one poorly written infographic book, a book known as "Technicals", that claims the Chadians more frequently dismounted to attack with MILAN missiles, which doesn't really make a lot of sense as it's far easier to mount a large heavy weapon's system to back of a truck and fire it, than it is to get within close range of an enemy tank with a machine gun and use M72 LAWS and RPG-7's to defeat tanks that can stop these rounds over their frontal arc, and mostly from the sides. T

I read the replies to your comments and the comments you replied to, and you are making bad faith arguments are misread what they said.

They said that many battles of the conflict involve T-55s, which had very bad vision and situational awareness, being flanked from multiple directions. Many dictatorships such as the USSR, had this problem of not having dismounted infantry around tanks or BMPs to provide extra eyes, and if they did, radios were in short supply, and tanks are loud enough that you can't talk over the engine, ect ect.

So what they mention is lots of close range ambushes from brush, hills, or hidden areas, into the sides or rear of tanks, or from below or above where the tanks is pointed. On top of that, I have read many books about T-55s being very cramped and having terrible fire-rates, and many problems.

I have read more then one source that says the Chad's would dismount the ATGM systems, fire them, and then move again. According to what I read, the system can point in more directions, has less risk of tipping a truck over, and is easier to hide. Many users of the AT-3, would hide in bushes behind the system and remotely operate it, and the same goes for other systems like the Milan I believe.

this site isnt exactly a repository of great thinks but manokan is probably the apex poster on these threads

he just craves attention so as long as you ignore him he'll stop replying otherwise the posts get increasingly long and disjointed

I actually hate these sorts of debates, but for some reason people like to dredge it back up. So I'll just cite my same sources again and let people decide what they think. Whatever the case, speed and mobility are extremely important in modern warfare, and out-maneuvering the enemy is extremely important, which is why rocket launchers mounted on lightly armored vehicles has proven to be so useful (in the persian gulf for example, the Bradley's killed more enemy armored vehicles than the Abrams, largely due to this).

The average "Armored" unit the US military has, is like 2/3rds or more Bradleys and 1/3rd or less Abrams.

This is also why the largest killer of tanks during WW2 for Germany, was towed AT guns, followed by StuGs

The point of contention here is that TripleBacon and the Austria-Bohemia-Hungary refuse to believe that a Toyota truck ever fired a MILAN missile off the back of it, or did so very rarely, where as I believe that both happened, that people got off of the trucks and fired rockets occasionally, and primarily fired them from the back of the Toyota truck. This shouldn't really matter, but they tend to never drop a matter no matter how many times it's been proven, and tend to hold a grudge, so you have to deal with their strange opinions. Triple bacon also argued for a while that if you made the bullet smaller in a cartridge case it would necessarily increase the chamber pressure by that amount, so going from a .44 magnum to a .22 would double the pressure, something decidedly false, and refused to back down from this point despite numerous cartridges cases that are necked down without a substantial pressure increase or vice versa (the .270 from the .30-06, the .357 sig from the .40, and vice versa the .300 black-out from the .223 which has the same pressure despite a bigger bullet), so they just stick to a point and will never drop it, no matter how many examples to the contrary, and then try to bad-mouth people to anyone who will listen. It's pretty classic forum problems, so take it with a grain of salt. Here is an exact quote: "It's very simple. The pressure doesn't change much in neck-downed cartridges because wildcatters carefully adjust the powder load (including burn rate) to stay within safe limits, generally those of the parent cartridge." This isn't true at all, which is why the .300 black out and .223 have exactly the same pressure and use the same powder, and if it is true, then it would be easily possible to neck down bullets to smaller sizes if special powders could be used to eliminate this. I'd have otherwise not talked about this entire thing anymore, but they keep bringing it up over and over again and won't let it die.

I've read what both of you said and it didn't make sense to me, or line up with anything I know.

I know the powder used in the M855A1 is faster burning then the powder used in the M855, and is designed for shorter barrels. This is why it has enough chamber pressure to seriously decrease the lifespan of bolts.

I also know that there is a super heavy bullet for the 9x19mm caliber, which is deeply seated and has high pressures.

I would assume faster burning powders, higher energy powders, and deeply seated bullets mean more pressure.

On top of that, the .45 has more muzzle energy then most handgun calibers, but has less chamber pressure, which is why the casings are kinda weak. I don't know if this is because of the large .45ish hole the powder detoates and moves through, or because of how slow the bullets move.

I know that narrowed blood vessels means more blood pressure, so necking down could be more chamber pressure.

"The .300 black-out, despite being larger, doesn't really produce significantly larger amounts of energy than the standard .223 or 5.56mm NATO, despite the pressure being the same, and the same holds true in the reverse for necked down cartridges"

Muzzle energy is about Mass x Speed squared, if I recall correctly. .300 Blackout bullets are way heavier the 62 grains, which means more mass and less speed.

Yes, .300 blackout has more surface area, but is also a lot heavier. I've read and seen that .45 ACP is heavier then 5.56, which is about the same weight as 9x19mm. Lead is heavy, hallow brass is not.

[Gallia-]

Stugs and towed AT guns probably had more kills because they were half a meter shorter than contemporary turreted tanks.

Don't try to make sense of Manokan posts. They're literally just wrongthink. Anything he says can be better synthesized from reading an Osprey book or something.

[Pentaga Giudici]

Stugs and towed AT guns probably had more kills because they were half a meter shorter than contemporary turreted tanks.

Don't try to make sense of Manokan posts. They're literally just wrongthink. Anything he says can be better synthesized from reading an Osprey book or something.

My point is that if a vehicle is 10 times more common and can kill a tank just as good, it will get into 10 times as many fights, and ten times as many tanks will die.

[Gallia-]

It's literally height though.

[Pentaga Giudici]

It's literally height though.

That helps you be the first one to get off a shot, it doesn't increase how many weapons you have and how likely they are to get into fights.

More vehicles means more fights, lower height means winning fights you have.

According to TC and The Tank Museum, most fights didn't have tanks, and the side with a tank usually won a battle.

Also, if you have ten AT guns for every tank you make, that can mean enemy tanks might face large numbers of anti-tank guns at the same time.

[Gallia-]

It's literally height though.

That helps you be the first one to get off a shot

Which is all that matters. Stug III and AT guns were the deadliest weapons against tanks (besides land mines) because they were short, hard to see, and generally fired first.

The guy that shoots first generally wins tank-on-tank (or tank-on-AT gun/SPG) combat.

Bradleys in Desert Storm generally killed more tanks than M1s because they were used as reconnaissance vehicles and encountered the Iraqis first. You could have put Humvees or DPVs with TOWs in the recon elements and the Iraqis would have still died in droves to them. It doesn't say a lot about the Bradley's merits as a vehicle because it wasn't much of a challenge. The Iraqis had enough trouble trying to hit American armor with their literal WW2 tanks. Guided missiles made it worse for them because they were probably being shot at from 2-3 kilometers rather than the ideal <1000 meters that the D-10T would prefer. No wonder they were dying: they were calling ranges by gut and observing fall of shot while under attack by long range weapons with self-corrected aiming and crewed by rather highly trained gunners.

[Danternoust]

Is this a joke? The Abrams back during Persian Gulf could stop that ammo, as far as I know.

Has to fragment before it is stopped. Need non-frangible rounds.
Resistance to penetration is a property of surface area of penetrator losing kinetic energy to armor.

Bradleys in Desert Storm generally killed more tanks than M1s because they were used as reconnaissance vehicles and encountered the Iraqis first.

Weren't Iraqi units surrendering enmasse?

[Gallia-]

No because the Army dealt with the Republican Guards?

[Pentaga Giudici]

If infantry in the West or of comparable nature, had their training times cut down to eight weeks, what exactly would be left out? The specifics of their "MOS" or equiv?

What about if the training was shortened to four weeks?

[Gallia-]

A lot.

[Pentaga Giudici]

A lot.

Looks like eight weeks is enough to get past basic training, but four weeks is enough to just barely get to the part involving live fire with small arms; after physical fitness, adjustment, CS gas training, navigation, first-aid training, and how to maintain or clear their rifles.

Really going to be cutting it.

[Gallia-]

this is how i worked out dumbla's training schedules

[Pentaga Giudici]

this is how i worked out dumbla's training schedules

Did you ironicly make this really hard to read?

[Gallia-]

I can read it fine idk.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I can read it fine idk.

It needs some spacing, and it's a lot of text on a white background.

[Purpelia]

I can read it fine idk.

Same here. Perfectly readable. Maybe he needs glasses.