NationStates

Miku the Based wrote:I can see the purpose of limiting flight range to prevent collateral damage

It's literally twice the range of AT-4 except it can actually hit things at any range, as opposed to needing to shoot half a dozen of them to hit something.

MBT-LAW is, as the name implies, a LAW for killing MBTs. The fact that it is large is because MBTs need quite big warheads. The fact that it is fast is because it uses an inertial guidance system that relies on the tank not changing direction, braking, or speeding up during the flight time. If it were long ranged the tank crew might actually be able to respond. As it stands, they can't really do anything against it except shoot it down with an APS.

*sigh*

The fins of the RPG-7 don't increase its susceptibility to crosswinds. Far from it.

How a projectile, finned or not, interacts with crosswinds will be determined by where the center of pressure is located in relation to its center of gravity. The further these two are separated the more aerodynamically stable the projectile will be.

The tendency of the RPG-7 to veer into crosswinds is simply the weathercocking associated with highly stable rockets.

With an overbore warhead, an RPG-7 rocket with no fins would have a center of pressure very close to the center of gravity. It may no longer turn into crosswinds but it would be more susceptible to air currents in general - possibly to the point of just spinning in a circle.

To account for all possible wind speeds and angles the rocket must be capable of changing its shape - ie, with control surfaces.

Note that the pop-out fins are not responsible for spinning the RPG-7 rocket in the first place so all this venturi stuff is simply superfluous.

Finally, an AT rocket is not like a rifle bullet. Just because it spins doesn't mean it's actually spin-stabilized. Finned rockets are rotated to reduce angular deviation during the first phase of flight. Actually spin-stabilizing one would require imparting much more angular momentum and reduce the effectiveness of a shaped charge warhead.

Note that the listed velocity of any rocket propelled weapon on Wikipedia is going to be misleading, because unlike a bullet, rockets speed up in flight.

How important is it to be able to have dismounted or towed artillery, mortars, anti-tank guns etc on a modern battlefield?

Is a force heavy composed of self-propelled equipment at a huge disadvantage? I would imagine only in a mountainous environment, no?

And then on top of that question; would it be more beneficial to delegate self-propelled weapons to a proper standing professional force and towed weaponry to a reserve force?

Hrstrovokia wrote:How important is it to be able to have dismounted or towed artillery, mortars, anti-tank guns etc on a modern battlefield?

Is a force heavy composed of self-propelled equipment at a huge disadvantage? I would imagine only in a mountainous environment, no?

And then on top of that question; would it be more beneficial to delegate self-propelled weapons to a proper standing professional force and towed weaponry to a reserve force?

Towed weapons are generally better at surviving than self propelled systems, they can be dug in and have a lower signature. That said they are slower, especially if you want to dig them in properly.

Which is better is going to depend on what you are doing with them.

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Towed weapons are generally better at surviving than self propelled systems, they can be dug in and have a lower signature. That said they are slower, especially if you want to dig them in properly.

Which is better is going to depend on what you are doing with them.

Would it be exceptionally naïve to have a military force with little or no towed weaponry?

Real brain move is WW2 tier mechanization.

80% 5-ton trucks and towed artillery.
20% fully mechanized self propelled tracks.

If you face off against an enemy force willing to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, towed equipment and crews is pretty much f*cked right?

So the advantage is towards self-propelled stuff, no?

Every war involving mass use of chemical and biological weapons involved both sides having substantial quantities of towed, and unprotected, artillerists and infantrymen.

It didn't really do much to stop British gunners from firing on the Western Front or Iranian infantrymen from taking the Iraqi trenches.

No reason to assume getting doused in nerve agents or whatever is going to substantially affect the outcome of a war, but the people who tend to use the most chemicals also tend to lose. There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies. A force bound by motor trucks would probably fare well against chemicals in environments where the width of the truck is not a substantial barrier to movement.

In tighter terrains (forests, jungles) or more congested urban areas ("pedestrian friendly") or whatever then trucks are obviously kinda bad, but at that point you're better off looking at motorbikes or something since width matters and a tank is wider than any truck.

Just get a bunch of low profile Katyusha and slap in a mortar and rocket combo for every personnel carrier. If you need to dig in just use dynamite if you're in a hurry or a bobcat or official engineering force for concrete dugout for placing the Katyusha below the surface.
Cannons tend to take time to set up and even some self propelled arty needs stablizing posts and a entire 15 man team to set up due to the recoil and the tedious mounting process.

this dude over here really do be like "tow the 70mm rocket pod with the golf cart"

based and ISISpilled but ill use my goldwing instead

Gallia- wrote:There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies.

I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one? And the use of chemical weapons was akin to tanks, something that could conceivably break the deadlock? I don't think they were inferior or the use of chemical weapons a loser's crutch, but I am absolutely open to correction.

Hrstrovokia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies.

I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one?

No, because they lost.

Hrstrovokia wrote:And the use of chemical weapons was akin to tanks, something that could conceivably break the deadlock?

It didn't, and it didn't do much to dissuade Allied gunners from firing. Even mustard gas just meant slathering basically stark naked in protective ointment and shooting shells in your skivvies.

Hrstrovokia wrote:I don't think they were inferior or the use of chemical weapons a loser's crutch, but I am absolutely open to correction.

Germans pioneered, and made most use of, and most innovative use of, chemical weapons during the war. Germans also lost. Iraqis made most of use chemical weapons during Iran-Iraq. Iraq also lost. Chemical weapons tend to be seen as a panacea for fundamental failings in other, more imperative concerns, because there's a somewhat pervasive belief that tactical successes can be translated to strategic successes, but this hasn't really been demonstrated ever. If anything, the opposite has, but planners who think more about weapon effectiveness than achievable objectives and campaign goals inevitably miss the forest for the trees to begin with.

Chemical weapons are not substantially more irritating on a grand scheme than bombarding the enemy with smoke or something. They are generally more expensive than WP though, unless it's something relatively simple like phosgene or chlorine, which is itself are important industrial chemicals, so they're usually available in huge quantities. Sulfur mustard is also nice because it likes to stick to things and practically speaking produces the same quantity of casualties as VX or sarin without the literal space age requirements of production.

Doesn't mean they should be stockpiled or anything but being able to produce a few thousand or so shells of chemicals might be worth a look if you once had success with them or whatever.

Gallia- wrote:Real brain move is WW2 tier mechanization.

80% 5-ton trucks and towed artillery.
20% fully mechanized self propelled tracks.

I don't know why my brain prefilled this post as
"80% horses and towed artillery.
20% mechanized artillery."

truck is horse 2 so maybe?

was thinking more datsuns and scania trucks tho

Is it true that Soviet/Russian military equipment is cheaper and easier to maintain compared to Western-made military equipment? If so, does this come at the cost of quality?

T-64 has like two dozen types of fasteners just in the fighting compartment so it probably suffers from the same problems that 1980's GM did.

Gallia- wrote:

Hrstrovokia wrote:
I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one?

No, because they lost.

Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?

Hrstrovokia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
No, because they lost.

Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?

The US was an inferior military to the PAVN because it didn't know what it was going to do in Vietnam. The Vietnamese had a much simpler job: make the Americans go home and unify the country.

Chemical weapons are tangential to this, but people who are poor at planning wars probably think winning fights = winning wars, so chemical weapons are attractive to them.

Hrstrovokia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
No, because they lost.

Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?

The US defeat in Vietnam was primarily twofold.

1st, the military leaders did not understand the war they were fighting. They tried to fight the war in a conventional fashion and, since they couldn't take land, they measured success in body count. This accomplished nothing. The PAVN and VC could use the US military as a recruiting tool, pointing to their casual disregard for civilian casualties to galvanize the population against them. They similarly could reoccupy positions in short order since the US left and returned to their firebase as soon as the battle was over.

2nd, the political will of the United States was quickly spent. The American people didn't believe in the war, they didn't know why we were fighting or why they should care or go. The increasing casualties in a war that we were told we were winning but that never seemed to end drained the people of their will to fight and that led to the political leaders throwing in the towel.

Agent Orange was a tool that the military used because they didn't understand the war they were fighting. They didn't understand the war, they didn't understand the enemy, and they didn't respect the American people and for those reasons, the US lost the war in Vietnam.

The US kind of did know what they were fighting. They were fighting a enemy that was using the jungle to hide. Even today we do not have anything that could see through the hot and dense foliage of the jungle. Angent orange was a answer to that, to get rid of the jungle so they could see the enemy.
They used terrible tactics and did not dare to convince or sway the majority of south Vietnam. The instead relied on ethnic reivalrys of the Minority tribes against the majority in the highland to "win hearts and minds" while Diệm enforced his unpopular rule on the majority in the lowlands. In the end both the capitalist regiem and the tribes were wiped out.

These guys didn't need no trux to bring to Bongland the greatest defeat in... Bongland history I think? Whyfor would you need those trux?

The British thought trucks were the answer to everything TBF. Still do.

I guess fighting bush wars on the relatively shrubbery free areas of India and Africa does that to a man.

Eventually they will conquer urban combat by making a tank small enough to drive through hallways and mobile enough to climb stairs.

Gallia- wrote:The British thought trucks were the answer to everything TBF. Still do.

I guess fighting bush wars on the relatively shrubbery free areas of India and Africa does that to a man.

Eventually they will conquer urban combat by making a tank small enough to drive through hallways and mobile enough to climb stairs.

Beaten by IQ 110's on their bicycles and their knee mortars. Rip.

Yes the British didn't really consider if the enemy had some form of quasi-motorization they would be able to bypass road-bound forces. Or that vehicle width could appreciably open up huge tracts of land for infiltration.

They weren't really focused on defending Malaya probably because they assumed the Japanese would never make it there I guess.