Advertisement
by Pentaga Giudici » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:44 am
by Gallia- » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:46 am
by Pentaga Giudici » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:50 am
Gallia- wrote:The threads move around there depending on who posts last IIRC.
by Danternoust » Thu Nov 05, 2020 9:52 pm
Pentaga Giudici wrote:For some reason, when I click "View your posts", this thread doesn't appear.
Did my posts get deleted?
by Pentaga Giudici » Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:04 pm
by Gallia- » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:15 am
by Gallia- » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:20 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Does anyone remember how big an ECT gun has to be, to have comparable performance to a 120mm Smoothbore gun?
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Is there anything stopping people from milling AKs using CNC machines? I think there are AKs out there that use alumium or have polymer receivers too.
by Austrasien » Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:07 am
by Gallia- » Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:46 am
by Austrasien » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:39 pm
Gallia- wrote:Given it has two turbine engines that can probably be described as "the t in turbine means titanium" and would make F135 blush, I imagine the roundbois are gonna be around for plenty of years to come.
by Gallia- » Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:16 pm
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:38 pm
The Manticoran Empire wrote:Manokan Republic wrote: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.
by Purpelia » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:04 pm
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:26 pm
Pentaga Giudici wrote: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.
Manokan Republic wrote:
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
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.
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:27 pm
Purpelia wrote:Am I the only one seeing the torpedo boat vs battleship analogy in using a Toyota pickup with a missile on the back to hunt tanks?
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:27 pm
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:30 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.
by Purpelia » Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:49 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:04 pm
Purpelia wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.
I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.
by Purpelia » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:07 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Purpelia wrote:I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.
Well! You can use a sterling generator with uranium, and sterling generators are like 10-20 times more efficient than most RTG's, so you get what is essentially an electric tank with a nuclear reactor and a big battery. All the reactor has to do is produce heat, and with a high enough percentage of uranium, such as 8% or whatever, it will produce enough heat to run the sterling engine. It would be really big, but probably around the same size as the tank engine. Danger of nuclear radiation, aside. You see this engine could be heavily embedded inside the tank so the tank armor itself acts as radiation shielding. The thick steel and depleted uranium armor would easily act as a radiation shield, and provide protection. The only problem is if it blows up, but with a nuclear powered tank, how likely is that really? Sometimes you must sacrifice for progress.
Plus, with the emergence of unmanned vehicles, tons of drones, including ground drones, could be used to launch missiles, basically tiny vehicles that zip around the battlefield shooting at other armored vehicles. You could even think of them of fancy, mobile anti-tank mines.
by Manokan Republic » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:13 pm
Purpelia wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:
Well! You can use a sterling generator with uranium, and sterling generators are like 10-20 times more efficient than most RTG's, so you get what is essentially an electric tank with a nuclear reactor and a big battery. All the reactor has to do is produce heat, and with a high enough percentage of uranium, such as 8% or whatever, it will produce enough heat to run the sterling engine. It would be really big, but probably around the same size as the tank engine. Danger of nuclear radiation, aside. You see this engine could be heavily embedded inside the tank so the tank armor itself acts as radiation shielding. The thick steel and depleted uranium armor would easily act as a radiation shield, and provide protection. The only problem is if it blows up, but with a nuclear powered tank, how likely is that really? Sometimes you must sacrifice for progress.
Plus, with the emergence of unmanned vehicles, tons of drones, including ground drones, could be used to launch missiles, basically tiny vehicles that zip around the battlefield shooting at other armored vehicles. You could even think of them of fancy, mobile anti-tank mines.
How much radiation protection would I really need anyway? I mean, most of the stuff on the field will be drones anyway so there is no need to protect anything but the crew compartment. And I can shove that into a box at the front. And with the heat this thing would be putting out anyway it's not like I need to care about anti radiation missiles too much. While we are at it what's the smallest useful size for an atomic bomb anyway?
by Purpelia » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:22 pm
Manokan Republic wrote:Purpelia wrote:How much radiation protection would I really need anyway? I mean, most of the stuff on the field will be drones anyway so there is no need to protect anything but the crew compartment. And I can shove that into a box at the front. And with the heat this thing would be putting out anyway it's not like I need to care about anti radiation missiles too much. While we are at it what's the smallest useful size for an atomic bomb anyway?
51 pounds (23 kg) approximately, if going by the U.S. military Davy Crockett Mk-54 warhead, although it was rumored the soviets might have 30 pound or so suitcase nukes, although this was never actually proven. At the time, the Davy Crockett was fired from a recoilless rifle and had too short a range to be useful, but considered the warhead size is only marginally larger than a javelin missile that is well outside the range needed, a man portable rocket using a javelin launching system, well outside the range needed of several miles, may actually be viable. That also being said rockets have developed a lot since then so, it would be pretty easy to launch the 51 pound device from a relatively small vehicle mounted rocket that has fairly good accuracy, despite it's small size. At that time small precision guided missiles were rare and expensive, today it's not really the case, and even laser guidance for a relatively cheap guided missile is available, among other things like inertial guidance. A cruise missile has a 2000 pound payload, so 50 pounds is pretty easy to field in the modern day.
I'll even put it to you another way. The 155mm howitzer uses 100 pound (45 kilogram shells). So in theory, with a warhead that weight, although perhaps not that shape, you could launch it from a 155mm howitzer. So nuclear artillery is a possibility.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:23 pm
by Austrasien » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:29 pm
Purpelia wrote:I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.
by Purpelia » Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:31 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Can you two like... not circlejerk in my thread?
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement