Page 94 of 136

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:33 am
by Crookfur
Miku the Based wrote:can a f22 attack 4 targets simultaneously? Or at least more than one?
The only ones I could pick out is the f-14, mig-31 and Rafael. This is due to the on board radar system right?

Multiple target simultaneous engagement at BVR requires 2 main things, a radar capable of operating in Track While Scan mode and active radar guided missiles. A data link for mid course updates to be supplied to the missiles also helps.

Pretty much any western fighter with a full amraam fit is capable of it and the mirage 2000-5 and later had it with MICA. It was a capability worth shouting about up until the late 90s when the European f-16 MLU programs kicked off.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:45 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Crookfur wrote:
Miku the Based wrote:can a f22 attack 4 targets simultaneously? Or at least more than one?
The only ones I could pick out is the f-14, mig-31 and Rafael. This is due to the on board radar system right?

Multiple target simultaneous engagement at BVR requires 2 main things, a radar capable of operating in Track While Scan mode and active radar guided missiles. A data link for mid course updates to be supplied to the missiles also helps.

Pretty much any western fighter with a full amraam fit is capable of it and the mirage 2000-5 and later had it with MICA. It was a capability worth shouting about up until the late 90s when the European f-16 MLU programs kicked off.

Safe to say in 2021, barring any knowledge of highly classified info that the numbers of targets engaged is no longer depending on the innate radar capabilities of one's platform, but on the number of weapons one can bring with them. And in certain cases that might include an entire navy battlegroup's complement of SAM's.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:02 pm
by New Vihenia
Crookfur wrote:Multiple target simultaneous engagement at BVR requires 2 main things, a radar capable of operating in Track While Scan mode and active radar guided missiles. A data link for mid course updates to be supplied to the missiles also helps.

Pretty much any western fighter with a full amraam fit is capable of it and the mirage 2000-5 and later had it with MICA. It was a capability worth shouting about up until the late 90s when the European f-16 MLU programs kicked off.



You dont actually need the active missile part. but you need a Phased array.

This is in fact what Soviet had in mind for MiG-31. The reason why Zaslon was a Phased array is that so it can engage 4 targets simultaneously with SARH missile. US navy also had that in mind with Typhoon & SPG-59 and later borrowed by the Army which gave birth to Patriot. The idea is of course putting the most expensive part in the platform that can return, so the missile can be cheap.

Phased array's advantage is that revisit time can be instanteneous or completely under computer control, so all SARH missile can get illumination juice equally while all the targets got the date they needed.

Then active missile seeker got cheaper and easier to build, Agat for example in 1990's can spam over 1500 seekers for R77's.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:01 pm
by Untecna
RPG-7 or Bazooka?

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:07 pm
by Dayganistan
Untecna wrote:RPG-7 or Bazooka?

Considering that the RPG-7 is almost 20 years newer and remains in use while nobody uses the Bazooka anymore I'm not sure why this is even a question.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:24 pm
by TPFII
Untecna wrote:RPG-7 or Bazooka?


A more apt comparison would be RPG-7 or a Carl Gustaf. The RPG-7 is nice because you can have a warhead larger than the rocket motor, but aiming the RPG-7 is counter-intuitive because the rocket flies *into* a crosswind. Effective range is shorter, but it can be fired from a more confined space, which certainly has it's benefits.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:34 pm
by Hathian Prime
I do not mean to interrupt any discussions, but I’m looking to update my Military factbooks and was wondering if some people could look over them and tell me what’s wrong with them, what I can improve, and what I could add? I would really appreciate it!

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:54 am
by Miku the Based
The kanagawa prefecture called shinobi 草 . it is said they got name through how they do job or how they look like.
I'm wondering if they look like a pile of astroturf or something or how they did their job resembles grass or something.
If they actually do look like grass then it may be said that the tiret ghillie suit may not actually have been from a Scottish highland marksman regiment in WW1 but actually back in the civil war era 500 years ago.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:33 am
by Miku the Based
Hathian Prime wrote: Military factbooks and was wondering if some people could look over them and tell me what’s wrong

The 12.6mm and 50 caliber is basically the same diameter. In order to standardize production you'll need to make them the same caliber unless you have some unique situation where there's two factories with differing equipment that is unable to be replaced. (7.62 mm in russia is actually .312 caliber and in America it's .308 due to factory specifications, probably something similar to Yugoslav 8mm mauser and German 8mm mauser).
Most vehicles on the list most likely are noisy as heck but most of them are used for reconnoiter. They must have some really special mufflers and I'd like you to go more in detail for them. Also since most of them are used for that purpose I expected to see flir sets or telescopes.
As for the Main fact book I have nothing for you because I don't have experience in relative numbers of things or how branches of a military function. I muet know that for the US there is a commander in charge of a region and anything in the region coule be taken control by him at a moments notice (for example CENTCOM). This makes cooperation between the branches easier. I still don't really know why marines exist as a separate branch. Back in WWII the army and airforce was one. The army also participated in lottorial operations like d-day so that's not what's make the marines unique. Other than that Seems fine to me.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:13 am
by Kassaran
Hathian Prime wrote:I do not mean to interrupt any discussions, but I’m looking to update my Military factbooks and was wondering if some people could look over them and tell me what’s wrong with them, what I can improve, and what I could add? I would really appreciate it!


Combat-to-Non-Combat roles is generally 1:3 or 1:4 iirc. You currently have it at the reverse.

If you have dreadnoughts, are you referring to the pre-battleship era watercraft, or something of your own making. Additionally, you have battleships also in your navy, which is a bit of a redundancy not needed. Additionally, why are they both still in use when you have naval carriers and potentially a functional air force?

In regards to numbers, a generally common ratio of active to reserve is 3:2 or 2:1 sized. You quite literally have 19 million, and then 10k in active and reserves respectively. This is excessively large and unwieldy regardless of the idea behind your nation.

Your own Kapp doctrine forbids the holding of foreign lands, so why have such a massive army and what bite does it hold? You have discounted the issue of your military with the very same doctrine it works from.

Your armored vehicle and transport numbers also seem strangely skewed. If the average land transport can carry roughly 15-20 troops, we should see a reduction in the number seen from 3 million transports to just over a million. That's not including your IFV and AFV forces which probably aren't counted in that number and likewise can be discounted from the land transport number. Your number of waterborne transports also is a bit high, as the average landing craft probably has a capacity in the platoon-size, this drops an equivalently sized military as yours down from 700k transports to 475k. This sounds reasonable until you realize not every single military unit has use for naval operations and this creates a bit of an overlap. That and your massed troop transports probably better belong in Naval convoys, thus meaning the number overall should be driven lower as those kinds of transports are much larger in size, so a more reasonable number begins to be more like 50k. That still is a stupid large number, but overall, the number of waterborne craft can support an adequately large navy for a avowedly non-conquest oriented military.

Numbers for your Marines are surprisingly realistic, though having read their write-up, I'm not going to say it's due to your desire to adhere to realism that this has happened. Additionally, the realism goes out the window the moment someone realizes your 750k Marines which have a limited number, for some reason have 1 million vehicles.

For your navy write-up, you have no reserves which is understandable until one considers that the number of vessels you have are supposed to support your full navy in spite of many jobs in the navy not actually being waterborne in nature. Shipyards and Harbors managed by the Navy need ground support personnel and additionally, such a pervasively large force should probably focus more on having carriers and submarines to enable offensive actions in spite of your Kapp doctrine.

Your air force suffers from a similar personnel anemia and should probably be looked into a bit more seriously.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:19 am
by Crookfur
Untecna wrote:RPG-7 or Bazooka?

This depends on what you mean by "bazooka". If you mean the original M1/M9 bazooka, well it was a bit shit even when introduced and had the war gone on a few months more would have largely been replaced by the M20 super bazooka. Sadly the ending of ww2 and budget cuts meant that US units didn't get M20s until after the start of the Korean war, during which the bazooka had largely demonstrated its uselessness against current tanks. The M20 was much better and kicked around until the 70s when the Carl Gustav and the M72 LAW nailed its coffin firmly shut.
Honestly the original bazooka isn't even an option as you would need to be making ammo for a system that was binned by everyone else in the 1959s (maybe 60s for some real back water places living on US surplus) and was obsolete by 1945...
Now if you mean bazooka in the more general sense of a shoulder fired anti tank system where the projectile is contained within the launch tube/barrel and is propelled by a rocket or recoiless gun system then we have a more interesting question.
As a rough rule of thumb when the entire projectile is contained within the launcher its tends to be more accurate and have a longer range but is naturally limited in terms of warhead diameter which can limit the performance of HEAT warheads.
Conversly where the warhead section of the projectile is outside of the launcher you make it much bigger at the cost of accuracy and range.

As such the question becomes a case of what do you want to shoot and at what range?

Then we can complicate things further by bringing in disposable systems like LAW, M136 or RPG-18

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:29 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Untecna wrote:RPG-7 or Bazooka?

There's a better option than both.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:44 am
by Gallia-
RPG-7 is tied with CG for being the best small unit projector.

Depends on whether you prefer rockets or rifles I guess.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:45 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Gallia- wrote:RPG-7 is tied with CG for being the best small unit projector.

Depends on whether you prefer rockets or rifles I guess.

Doesn't the RPG-7 suffer from being notoriously inaccurate beyond 2-300 yards? <.<

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:55 am
by Gallia-

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:15 am
by Rosmana
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Gallia- wrote:RPG-7 is tied with CG for being the best small unit projector.

Depends on whether you prefer rockets or rifles I guess.

Doesn't the RPG-7 suffer from being notoriously inaccurate beyond 2-300 yards? <.<

I believe so, yes, especially the larger warheads.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:27 am
by Kassaran
So just learned from that global security site that apparently 5.56 is best at 200m range in terms of penetration. Do smaller caliber rounds, such as 5.45 and perhaps 5-straight have even closer effective penetration ranges? Curious about creating an ideal CQC urban carbine and revisiting the idea of micro-caliber weaponry.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:25 am
by Miku the Based
Still kind of want to know the story of the kanagawa prefecture. I havn't seen anything substantial and muet see generic pop articles of tengentally related stuff in my search engine.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:01 pm
by Hathian Prime
Kassaran wrote:snip

I appreciate the feedback and support. I made my Military factbooks roughly 3 years ago and have not given them a massive overhaul/update since their creation. I’ll work on updating them today. If anyone else can find flaws or things to change/update, that would be great!

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:13 pm
by Dayganistan
Kassaran wrote:So just learned from that global security site that apparently 5.56 is best at 200m range in terms of penetration. Do smaller caliber rounds, such as 5.45 and perhaps 5-straight have even closer effective penetration ranges? Curious about creating an ideal CQC urban carbine and revisiting the idea of micro-caliber weaponry.

It's no so much the size of the caliber but the design of the bullet. Modern barrier blind 5.56 loadings like M855A1 and Mk. 318 will have better penetration of both body armour and barriers at closer ranges as well as longer ranges just because they're more designed with penetration of body armour and barriers in mind than older loadings.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:40 pm
by Crookfur
Hathian Prime wrote:
Kassaran wrote:snip

I appreciate the feedback and support. I made my Military factbooks roughly 3 years ago and have not given them a massive overhaul/update since their creation. I’ll work on updating them today. If anyone else can find flaws or things to change/update, that would be great!

Perhaps look at modern tanks and the kinds of ammunition they use in their guns.

Outside of really odd stuff like squeezebore the gun tends not to determine the types of projectile it can fire.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:49 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Is there a minefield system that is persistent enough to not get washed away by a simple measure like turning on firehoses against the mines? Looking for something to fuck up an airfield for significant amounts of time.
Alternatively I'll just put a BLU-109 with a ripoff of the PRC'ian/Kolean wingkit through the airfield commander's window and another one through the ATC tower.
Alternatively assuming all's gone to hell in a handbasket there's W80 in that AGM-154 body I concocted.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:23 pm
by Austrasien
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Is there a minefield system that is persistent enough to not get washed away by a simple measure like turning on firehoses against the mines? Looking for something to fuck up an airfield for significant amounts of time.
Alternatively I'll just put a BLU-109 with a ripoff of the PRC'ian/Kolean wingkit through the airfield commander's window and another one through the ATC tower.
Alternatively assuming all's gone to hell in a handbasket there's W80 in that AGM-154 body I concocted.


Image

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:32 am
by Hrstrovokia
Can I ask opinions on the configuration of a weapons platoon in a Mech Infantry Weapons company?

Currently looks like this:

Heavy Weapons Plt Composition

[x3 Assault Squad composed of 8 - x1 Squad Leader - AK-105 + RPG-26, x1 Senior Rifleman - AK-74M w/GP-34 + RPG-26, x1 Rifleman - AK-74M w/GP-34 + RShG-2, x1 Grenadier - 6G30 GL w/CZ 99, x1 Shotgun - USAS-12 or Saiga-12 w/CZ 99, x1 Squad Automatic - RPK-74M + RShG-2 [LMG], x2 Vehicle Crew]

[x2 Weapons Squad composed of 8 - x1 Squad Leader - AK-105, x1 ATGM Gunner - AK-105 + Bumbar, x2 ATGM Assistants - AK-105 + Bumbar rounds + MATADOR, x1 Gunner - Kord 6P50-6T7 [HMG] w/CZ 99, x1 Gunners Assistant - AK-105 + Kord ammo, x2 Vehicle Crew]

[x1 Heavy Weapons Plt HQ composed of 6 - x1 Plt Leader - AK-105, x1 Plt Sergeant - AK-74M w/ GP-34, x1 Medic - AK-105, x1 RTO - AK-105, x3 Marksman - SVDK w/CZ 99]

x1 BMP-3M will carry additional ammunition and supplies for Infantry Plt's + Bumbar/MATADOR rounds


Thinking of removing the ATGM gunner - there is already an ATGM gunner in Mech Infantry platoon equipped with Metis-M1 - and equipping with AGS-30, so one gunner and assistant, and then 1 soldier will carry MATADOR for building breaching etc.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:23 am
by Ideal Britain
Would MI6 officers have guns if they were deployed to Bosnia?