NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[New Vihenia]

It says "fire unit", but somehow still feels like I need to be clarified if this battery is basic unit of fire or if they fire by battalions (or entire artillery brigade) as "standard" unit of fire.
I guess with modern fire control one gun might be enough for precision fires, but not sure about "conventional" fire mission.

Basic unit of fire. What one needs to get the railgun to fire. Yeah i dont really have the proper term

But can it be used as direct fire artillery or a coastal gun?

Of course. Like US Naval railgun program also includes direct fire. It will be faster than CIWS with more lethal payload.

In your view, railguns with high enough performance would be able to fulfill both air defense and operational fires roles?

Yes. although for air defense role one can doubt it based on the fact that air defense role may require guidance system for long range shot. This will provide complications especially if it involve seekers. As you can see the railgun in my spec sheet will subject the munition with over 90000 G of acceleration. Laser seekers and have been demonstrated the ability to withstand 10000-15000 G in conventional gun but remains to be seen at least in MT Settings one can be made for 100000G's. GPS tho seems to be sturdy enough for that.

This sounds like the typa shi that Gerald Bull would design (Before he got Mossaded)

Good man died too fast, sadly

[Danternoust]

subject the munition with over 90000 G of acceleration.

too bad the munition will have to shatter at the end of it's journey to have any effect

Its requirements include a low weight, low maintenance, "sealed" design, plus a large ammo capacity, so that spare magazines aren't necessary.

semi-automatic machine pistol made of polymer
30 or 50 round detachable box
if sealed, maybe make it a requirement to dismantle the gun to get to the magazine

[Danternoust]

For anti-protest technology, should a low HP/tonne air independent propulsion armored bulldozer be used?

Has to be absolutely sealed, operate while on fire, treads must be protected against damage...

Am I missing something? Any additional requirements?

Just reading old posts. Recent campus encampments globally remind me of this.

[Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries]

For anti-protest technology, should a low HP/tonne air independent propulsion armored bulldozer be used?

Has to be absolutely sealed, operate while on fire, treads must be protected against damage...

Am I missing something? Any additional requirements?

Just reading old posts. Recent campus encampments globally remind me of this.

Sounds like an actually working Killdozer, until Student protestors become armed student militia and pelt it with EFPs and other improvised anti tank weapons. You are also gonna probably want to have a couple of smoke launchers repurposed into tear gas mounted on it too. Also strap a remotely operated Water cannon on it and have it tow a giant armored and pressurized water tank with it too.

All jokes aside brutally suppressing protests with live rounds is pretty based and skibidipilled /s

[Yektov]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable? I was thinking perhaps a sort of metal panel of sorts extends down to almost touch the ground, protecting the tires somewhat and making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal. But i am open to suggestions.

[New Visayan Islands]

Just reading old posts. Recent campus encampments globally remind me of this.

Sounds like an actually working Killdozer, until Student protestors become armed student militia and pelt it with EFPs and other improvised anti tank weapons. You are also gonna probably want to have a couple of smoke launchers repurposed into tear gas mounted on it too. Also strap a remotely operated Water cannon on it and have it tow a giant armored and pressurized water tank with it too.

All jokes aside brutally suppressing protests with live rounds is pretty based and skibidipilled /s

In snarky terms, it's all fun and games until a certain COMPLETELY ORDINARY Sunday morning in 1989 goes sideways PERFECTLY ORDERED.

[Kasa Tkoth Sphere]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable? I was thinking perhaps a sort of metal panel of sorts extends down to almost touch the ground, protecting the tires somewhat and making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal. But i am open to suggestions.

The term you're looking for is a side skirt. A skirt on a wheeled vehicle is certainly possible and there are plenty of improvised examples, though I would appreciate if anyone can find any manufactured ones, because I couldn't. It does need to have a bit of space over the sides, since when wheels turn they stick out from the body diagonally, which is a little awkward.

Otherwise you just suck it up. Solid rubber tires do work, but may be heavy or unpleasant to drive with, so you might instead consider more sophisticated run-flat pressurized tires. You get shot at with small arms, you get a flat or two, oh well; you can probably make it back to base with those.

I'm not sure if "making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal" is that significant, given how readily accessible photos of vehicles are for people to study (or how little someone firing bursts from some heavy machinegun will care).

[Scandinavian Nations]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable?

Modern military tires come run-flat as standard. They're not filled with rubber, the walls are just thicker and stiffer.

Make the vehicle more defendable, not the tires.

One of the reasons tanks don't use tires is axle loading. 4 axles is about the most that fits, only the Piranha went to 10x10 (5 axles). That limits their weight to 34,000*2 (treating the axles as tandem) ~= 68,000 lbs or ~30,000 kg, which isn't enough even for Russian-style "pocket MBTs". Possibly 100,000 lbs if all 5 axles were treated as single. Tracks give 12-16 axles, which puts their weight limits as 42,000x4=168,000 lbs minimum and up to 238,000 lbs for the 7x2 configuration (Abrams), well above what they need.

[Gallia-]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable? I was thinking perhaps a sort of metal panel of sorts extends down to almost touch the ground, protecting the tires somewhat and making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal. But i am open to suggestions.

The concern with tires isn't that they'll go flat, it's that they have a smaller ground contact area than a tank tracks.

That said, you would be better off making them fireproof but that would require them to not be made of rubber. A tweel might work, which is both a tire and a wheel and usually made of plastic or metal, but that's so far in the future who knows. The only vehicles that use tweels commercially are UTVs and ATVs AFAIK.

So yeah just say it's a tweel made of a super metal or something. That's cool.

[Dtn]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable?

Modern military tires come run-flat as standard. They're not filled with rubber, the walls are just thicker and stiffer.

Make the vehicle more defendable, not the tires.

One of the reasons tanks don't use tires is axle loading. 4 axles is about the most that fits, only the Piranha went to 10x10 (5 axles). That limits their weight to 34,000*2 (treating the axles as tandem) ~= 68,000 lbs or ~30,000 kg, which isn't enough even for Russian-style "pocket MBTs". Possibly 100,000 lbs if all 5 axles were treated as single. Tracks give 12-16 axles, which puts their weight limits as 42,000x4=168,000 lbs minimum and up to 238,000 lbs for the 7x2 configuration (Abrams), well above what they need.

I don’t think it works like this.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable? I was thinking perhaps a sort of metal panel of sorts extends down to almost touch the ground, protecting the tires somewhat and making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal. But i am open to suggestions.

what if mud

[Pizza Internazionale Di Zona Anti-ananas]

Tell me if you agree with these two quotes:

"Other countries often fear of running out of soldiers. Us? When you have a population of almost 20 billion because of approximately 10K years of fucking like rabbits, you won't have to worry in the slightest".

"The Aber are like the hydra, especially in the military. If the enemy manages to cut a thousand of us down, ten thousand more will take our place. If they manage to cut those ten thousand down, then a hundred thousand will take their place. And we make sure one set of replacements are even deadlier than the last."

Yes.

[Gallia-]

So my nation primarily uses armored cars instead of tanks. And i understand one of the main weaknesses would be the tires. My current solution for now is that the tires are completely filled with rubber to avoid them being easily deflated. However is there anything else i can do to make the tires more defendable? I was thinking perhaps a sort of metal panel of sorts extends down to almost touch the ground, protecting the tires somewhat and making it harder to figure out where the tires are behind the metal. But i am open to suggestions.

what if mud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE

[Weltkria]

what if mud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE

is this mike sparks youtube channel?

these descriptions are very funny and non-credible

but yeah a m1 has a better chance of digging itself out of a ditch than a FMTV or stryker; the stryker is prolly going to require a m88 or something to get it out

[Gonswanza]

I find it funny that people on NS consistently forget about mobility kills but scream bloody murder when its mentioned as a blatant weakness agajnst their "uber deff machine 500" tank that weighs 572 tons and has 10 inches of composite armor with a 300mm rifled cannon firing nuclear AP shells.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Just reading old posts. Recent campus encampments globally remind me of this.

Sounds like an actually working Killdozer, until Student protestors become armed student militia and pelt it with EFPs and other improvised anti tank weapons. You are also gonna probably want to have a couple of smoke launchers repurposed into tear gas mounted on it too. Also strap a remotely operated Water cannon on it and have it tow a giant armored and pressurized water tank with it too.

All jokes aside brutally suppressing protests with live rounds is pretty based and skibidipilled /s

iirc, the US Army went with an M113 with some claymore-mines strapped to it.

[Scandinavian Nations]

I don’t think it works like this.

This is maximum axle loading for highways.
It's a lot lower for dirt roads and off the road.

If you have too much per-axle weight and/or tire pressure for the road (both are limits on vehicle weight), you have WAY too much of both for off-road endeavors.
Tracks are even more forgiving re:axle weight than tires, forming a flatter surface and not wasting so much energy washboarding the road.

[Gallia-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE

is this mike sparks youtube channel?

that or one of his orbiters i dont know

it's just the video that is funny because gis gigglecel about their stuck wagon while an m1 tank motors along in the background

sadly mike has a few of the only places to get these videos and i tend to reach for his YT uploads cos im a fan of cyberskitzos

also the joes use an accompanying m1 tank to dig themselves out with the tow cable iirc it's a combined stryker-m1 coy team iirc

[Weltkria]

I find it funny that people on NS consistently forget about mobility kills but scream bloody murder when its mentioned as a blatant weakness agajnst their "uber deff machine 500" tank that weighs 572 tons and has 10 inches of composite armor with a 300mm rifled cannon firing nuclear AP shells.

cite example pls, my single celled homo-sapien brain requires entertainment

is this mike sparks youtube channel?

that or one of his orbiters i dont know

it's just the video that is funny because gis gigglecel about their stuck wagon while an m1 tank motors along in the background

sadly mike has a few of the only places to get these videos and i tend to reach for his YT uploads cos im a fan of cyberskitzos

also the joes use an accompanying m1 tank to dig themselves out with the tow cable iirc it's a combined stryker-m1 coy team iirc

ah nice lol

[Gonswanza]

Well, I found one. Seems less common than I originally thought. Or they're just harder to find.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ass ... id=2002985

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Well, I found one. Seems less common than I origionally thought. Or they're just harder to find.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=ass ... id=2002985

Only needs one minute to sink down in North American rasputitsa. Like this

[Socalist Republic Of Mercenaries]

Guys I just had a revelation.

When most Russian tanks suffer catastrophic failures, it is almost 70% of the time attributed to ammunition detonation.

What if they just removed the ammo? Wouldn't that reduce casulties by 70%?

[Yektov]

Guys I just had a revelation.

When most Russian tanks suffer catastrophic failures, it is almost 70% of the time attributed to ammunition detonation.

What if they just removed the ammo? Wouldn't that reduce casulties by 70%?

The only downside is that it would reduce effectiveness 100%

[Gallia-]

Guys I just had a revelation.

When most Russian tanks suffer catastrophic failures, it is almost 70% of the time attributed to ammunition detonation.

What if they just removed the ammo? Wouldn't that reduce casulties by 70%?

this is why so few tanks brew up in ukraine

main threat for az/mz autoloader is going to be the spare ammunition stored in various places around the tank rather than the carousel because the t-72 is very old school in that "ammo is everywhere"

if you get rid of that and load maybe a dozen or two rounds you can get pretty decent protection in real terms

a penetration might still result in a burned tank but it's dozens of minutes after penetration rather than immediately because a shaped charge hits a propellant charge or something

[Allanea]

To add a bit to what Gallia said: some (not all) T-72 and T-90 "modernization" plans included engineers finding "creative" places to add an extra shell or two so they could lay claim to "having increase d ammunition capacity".