NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

by **Austria-Bohemia-Hungary** » Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:57 pm

The New Rio Grande wrote:Child soldiers?

90-99% of the lot will just run away and hide and have mental breakdowns.

by **Gallia-** » Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:01 pm

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Hrstrovokia wrote:For a modern main battle tank, what would the ammunition loadout for the main gun consist of? Is there a typical configuration, depending on the era of tank?

Soviet Union favored APFSDS, as they found out that soft-steel APFSDS pretty much handles like PELE (Penetrator, enhanced lateral effect) due to greater mushrooming/spalling while being cheaper than HEAT-MP. HEAT was usually reserved for long-range harassing-fire on armor, and HE for anything else (infantry/fortifications, blindly shooting at gridsquares).

Which really just left how much of "the good stuff" APFSDS a tank would be issued.

For towed AT guns up until the 1990s (MT-12):
A standard unit of fire consisted of 80 rounds divided into the same ratio of 50% APFSDS, 30% HEAT and 20% HE-Frag

Hope that helps. Note: "Unit of fire" is a logistics-term. Essential a small ammo-dump's worth rather than what was ever carried into battle.

Gallia- wrote:
ERA or Burlington applique and new thermal optics is fine. Chieftain is a very modern tank, so it doesn't need much.

Basically this and better ammo, maybe even re-bore the tube to 125mm smoothbore. Could even add a laser and radar warning receiver and a bucket of chaff in one of the smoke-chuffer tubes.

Aside from that, maybe a remote weapons mount if you wanna get fancy.

Oh, and for god's sake, give her a better engine.

"BK" is quite literally just the amount of ammo a unit carries in its trucks...

It's exactly the same definition as "basic load" in the US Army, actually.

Naturally it varies depending on METT factors. If you expect tanks, bring APFSDS, if you expect machine guns and light armor, bring HEAT.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
The New Rio Grande wrote:Child soldiers?

90-99% of the lot will just run away and hide and have mental breakdowns.

young teens would stick around

little kids like prepubescents might run

the 16-18 year olds are the real dangerous ones that's historic average soldier age

if they got two or three years under their belt fighting theyre probably pretty good tbh

i mean in elan tho not in discipline maybe

most child soldiers just do dope or speed or pot and kill civilians but that's fine for terror troops like in rwanda or congo

they can be really brutal like in liberia when there were cannibal squads of child terror troops running around in wigs and life jackets tho

the issue of child soldiers is mostly

1) smol
2) dumb

but routing or breaking when fighting is kinda rare if they got a mean older kid or a adult behind them i.e. an nco

any unit will break without backbone kids or not tho in the great patriotic war a kazakh peasant girl out of 150 kazakhs only like 5 stayed to man 3 machine guns and she killed 100 of hitler's fascists after getting shot twice

what's audie murphy if not a child soldier manning a 50 cal dropping nazis after all?

child soldiers are dumb and easily fooled by basic deception planning but that doesnt make them crybabies

smol dumb troops are bad tho even if they are hard as granite cos dyel and they walk out after babbys first mortar bombing and get ripped up by zhukov's deception lifting of fires for 45 seconds like the nazi ersatz troops did in 44

by **Mitheldalond** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:40 am

So let's say you have two carrier groups far enough apart that their respective AWACS can't detect each other. One fleet is using SM-3s to shoot down recon satellites. The other fleet has and is using radar powerful enough to track targets at that range to track the SM-3s.

Would ECM/jamming from the first fleet be able to prevent the second fleet's radar from tracking the SM-3s at satellite-shoot-downing altitude? Would such ECM/jamming give away the first fleet's location as effectively as firing missiles into orbit?

I feel like the answer to both is "no", but I really don't know enough about electronic warfare to have much confidence in that answer.

by **Torrocca** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:44 am

The New Rio Grande wrote:Child soldiers?

Always remember that giving a kid a rifle is a dummy's play. Team work makes the dream work, so get those kids mounting crew-served MGs and mortars, like a smart dictator with the moral backbone of a wet noodle!

by **Gonswanza** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:52 am

Quick one for y'all, because I'm curious:

Just how large is the radar profile of the B2 in flight with the bomb bay doors open and closed? Just wondering about the difference since I do recall anecdotes about it online where the "B2 is invisible until the bomb bay opens up, then it's as clear as day" as a rather poor analogy, though something to that effect is tossed around on discord a little too much, so I was hoping to get a more solid (and reasonable) answer here.

by **Radictistan** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:03 am

How much flexibility, if any, do the Soviet-style autoloaders allow in ammunition mix? Are they completely hardwired so that you must have X of one shell and Y of another?

by **Mitheldalond** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:37 pm

Radictistan wrote:How much flexibility, if any, do the Soviet-style autoloaders allow in ammunition mix? Are they completely hardwired so that you must have X of one shell and Y of another?

I believe the only limitation is for the gun-launched ATGMs. Otherwise, you should be able to put whatever kind of shell you want wherever you want, and select any of them at will.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:41 pm

Radictistan wrote:How much flexibility, if any, do the Soviet-style autoloaders allow in ammunition mix? Are they completely hardwired so that you must have X of one shell and Y of another?

They are completely customizable. The gunner specifies the type of round as it is loaded into the autoloader, and a simple memory unit keeps track of which round is of which type. When the gunner requests a specific round, the system will rotate to the nearest round of that type (the autoloader only rotates in one direction) and load it, then blank the round value in the memory unit so that it knows that slot is now empty.

Early T-72s had only three round types (APFSDS, HEAT, HE-Frag) to select but a fourth type was added to the memory unit later as missiles became an option.

by **Mitheldalond** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:47 pm

We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to bring you the announcement that we just punched an asteroid in the face a few minutes ago.

Aliens beware: Earth strong!

by **Hurtful Thoughts** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:28 pm

Radictistan wrote:How much flexibility, if any, do the Soviet-style autoloaders allow in ammunition mix? Are they completely hardwired so that you must have X of one shell and Y of another?

HEAT and HE shells MUST be stored horizontally for safety reasons, for fear of a mine-blast or sharp drop off a short cliff arming the contact-fuzes.

So 4 of the stowed rounds in the hull (which are vertical) must be APFSDS only.

The autoloader itself is fine, though. Supposedly.

by **Radictistan** » Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:21 pm

So a tank loaded with [i]only[i] HE would still operate normally. The tank wouldn't assume that Round X is APFSDS because that's what's normally in that slot?

by **The Akasha Colony** » Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:34 pm

Radictistan wrote:So a tank loaded with [i]only[i] HE would still operate normally. The tank wouldn't assume that Round X is APFSDS because that's what's normally in that slot?

There is no "normal" assignment per slot in the first place. Any slot can have any round, completely independent of whatever is in the rest of the carousel. The round types are specified for each slot as they are loaded, and the system automatically blanks that specific slot's value once the round is loaded into the gun. And then the gunner sets a new value for each empty slot as the carousel is reloaded.

by **Hrstrovokia** » Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:06 pm

I've been working on this project for awhile now and consider it finished - it's a MiG-29 variant for my nation's airforce - MiG-29X. It's western avionics (mostly Israeli) meets the latest Klimov RD-33MK engine with a reconditioned airframe.

I've used only real-world avionics, engines and weapons. I did a bit of research and tried to keep it to inclusion of parts actually used on the MiG-29, from a selection of countries such as Russia, India, Slovakia, Algeria and Yemen.

It helped me a lot in learning about what fighter aircraft needs to be competant but also in the roleplay/worldbuilding aspect, it is the beginning of a national aircraft manufacturing sector that could, at the very least, develop foreign fighters to suit domestic needs, if not produce limited numbers of its own fighters.

There's a lot of reading here but I'd appreciate if anyone looked at any portion of it and had feedback - it's located here.

by **Mitheldalond** » Tue Oct 04, 2022 6:24 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:I've been working on this project for awhile now and consider it finished - it's a MiG-29 variant for my nation's airforce - MiG-29X. It's western avionics (mostly Israeli) meets the latest Klimov RD-33MK engine with a reconditioned airframe.

I've used only real-world avionics, engines and weapons. I did a bit of research and tried to keep it to inclusion of parts actually used on the MiG-29, from a selection of countries such as Russia, India, Slovakia, Algeria and Yemen.

It helped me a lot in learning about what fighter aircraft needs to be competant but also in the roleplay/worldbuilding aspect, it is the beginning of a national aircraft manufacturing sector that could, at the very least, develop foreign fighters to suit domestic needs, if not produce limited numbers of its own fighters.

There's a lot of reading here but I'd appreciate if anyone looked at any portion of it and had feedback - it's located here.

€30 million seems a bit low for what is effectively a total rebuild, especially since you're using modern materials and (outdated) stealth technology.

Fly-by-wire flight controls would also help reduce weight, since you're getting rid of all the control wires and connecting rods running to all the control surfaces.

I don't know whether the F-117 would be particularly useful for developing radar absorbing materials for a MiG-29. Early stealth materials like that were fairly delicate, and the F-117 had to be stored in climate-controlled hangars. A 5-6 times RCS reduction does sound reasonable though.

The self-protection jamming pod would probably only be integrated on a couple of hardpoints. On the F-16, the equivalent pod can be mounted on the centerline station and I think either wing station 2 or 8. I assume it would be more expensive to integrate it onto every pylon, and you only need to carry one of them, so they just pick a couple of hardpoints.

You'll probably also want the ability to carry a targeting pod like LITENING, ATFLIR, or Sniper. They provide optical/IR tracking of ground targets and a laser designator. Some Russian aircraft have those systems built in IIRC, but I don't think the MiG-29 is one of them. I don't know of any equivalent Russian pods, but I'm still looking for one for a project of my own. Considering you're basically rebuilding the entire aircraft, you could probably add a hardpoint for such a pod under one or both air intakes. The pods are fairly small and light (~550 lb I think), and that would allow you to carry one without taking up a weapon hardpoint.

I'm not sure what you mean by optical signature reduction features for the engines, unless you're just referring to the fact that they're smokeless, which is a good call.

The conformal fuel tanks for the F-16 and F/A-18 supposedly have little to no effect on the performance of the aircraft. You should be able to develop similar tanks for the MiG-29 if you were so inclined.

You could also probably carry bombs or cruise missiles on the MiG's 7th, centerline hardpoint.

A better standard loadout would probably be 4 x R-77s and 2 x R-73s. You'll want more BVR missiles to either take out a bandit at range, or else keep him busy defending while you close in for a dogfight. Semi-active radar guided missiles like the R-27 may have some niche roles, but are mostly inferior to actively guided missiles like the R-77, since the aircraft has to keep its radar pointed at the target for the entire duration of true missile's flight. This limits your options for defensive maneuvering, or forces you to turn away and scrap the missile. Long-range IR guided variants of the R-27 however, provide an interesting option that enemy pilots may not be expecting. As far as I know, there's no reason to carry the R-60 if you have R-73s.

That's as far as I've gotten so far, but I applaud your dedication to research. :clap:

by **Hrstrovokia** » Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:01 am

Mitheldalond wrote:€30 million seems a bit low for what is effectively a total rebuild, especially since you're using modern materials and (outdated) stealth technology.

Fly-by-wire flight controls would also help reduce weight, since you're getting rid of all the control wires and connecting rods running to all the control surfaces.

I don't know whether the F-117 would be particularly useful for developing radar absorbing materials for a MiG-29. Early stealth materials like that were fairly delicate, and the F-117 had to be stored in climate-controlled hangars. A 5-6 times RCS reduction does sound reasonable though.

Hey Mitheldalond, thanks so much for your feedback. There's a lot for me to digest here but I will certainly consider it all. I'll try my best to respond without going into too much detail. Yeah, I think the price should probably go up. I think a new MiG-35 is $30 million so I was aiming in for around that price point but it probably should go up by another 10-15 million at least. There's the upgraded airframe and AESA radar, besides other brand new avionics. That would surely push the price up.

The RAM from the F-117A is a bit of a stretch for sure. I read that they were very light weight panels that were glued on. And the only reason that Serbia was able to recover any wreckage from the crash was that the US command considered the F-117 already outdated in 1999, but still I thought I would add it in because it's a bit of interesting worldbuilding and real life history combined.

Mitheldalond wrote:The self-protection jamming pod would probably only be integrated on a couple of hardpoints. On the F-16, the equivalent pod can be mounted on the centerline station and I think either wing station 2 or 8. I assume it would be more expensive to integrate it onto every pylon, and you only need to carry one of them, so they just pick a couple of hardpoints.

You'll probably also want the ability to carry a targeting pod like LITENING, ATFLIR, or Sniper. They provide optical/IR tracking of ground targets and a laser designator. Some Russian aircraft have those systems built in IIRC, but I don't think the MiG-29 is one of them. I don't know of any equivalent Russian pods, but I'm still looking for one for a project of my own. Considering you're basically rebuilding the entire aircraft, you could probably add a hardpoint for such a pod under one or both air intakes. The pods are fairly small and light (~550 lb I think), and that would allow you to carry one without taking up a weapon hardpoint.

I had gone with an Israeli targeting pod - EL/M-20600. That's supposed to combine reconnaissance and targeting tasks together. I do admit I am ignoring the centerline station when it comes to loadouts. I was thinking maybe drop tank would go there. That should be the targeting pod, then on the wings one space allocated to the jammer and the rest can be missiles.

Mitheldalond wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by optical signature reduction features for the engines, unless you're just referring to the fact that they're smokeless, which is a good call.

The conformal fuel tanks for the F-16 and F/A-18 supposedly have little to no effect on the performance of the aircraft. You should be able to develop similar tanks for the MiG-29 if you were so inclined.

I did read somewhere that the conformal fuel tank messed up the MiG-29s flight characteristics and in truth, I thought the aircraft should have some disadvantages. I didn't want to write up some godmode piece where this aircraft had a combat radius of 2,000km or something. It's range is fine for Yugoslavia minus Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia. It does have refueling probe.

Mitheldalond wrote:You could also probably carry bombs or cruise missiles on the MiG's 7th, centerline hardpoint.

A better standard loadout would probably be 4 x R-77s and 2 x R-73s. You'll want more BVR missiles to either take out a bandit at range, or else keep him busy defending while you close in for a dogfight. Semi-active radar guided missiles like the R-27 may have some niche roles, but are mostly inferior to actively guided missiles like the R-77, since the aircraft has to keep its radar pointed at the target for the entire duration of true missile's flight. This limits your options for defensive maneuvering, or forces you to turn away and scrap the missile. Long-range IR guided variants of the R-27 however, provide an interesting option that enemy pilots may not be expecting. As far as I know, there's no reason to carry the R-60 if you have R-73s.

That's as far as I've gotten so far, but I applaud your dedication to research.

I had actually dropped bombs from the inventory completely. I was thinking, somehow, that this role could go over to drones, but I really should look at that again. I will probably drop the R-60 then in favour of the R-73.

Thanks again for your feedback I really appreciate it!

by **New Vihenia** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:45 am

BROACH warhead for TBM anyone ? Or just a simple "penetrator" design would suffice ?

I'm thinking of making a "bunker buster" TBM warhead.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 2:46 am

A DU cap is fine.

The only BROACH for a bunker buster is a nuclear warhead. Which is just a earthquake bomb. Against above-ground structures like Iraqi HASes or ABM radars or something it's fine though.

by **Puzikas** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:13 am

It's wild that I come back to look at the thread and the discussion of child soldiers that we had every few months still is occurring.

Never change spaags.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:16 am

ZSU Lena when.

by **Puzikas** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:32 am

A 37mm GsH style action would be fucking crazy

Like the GsH-6-30 already rattled Migs appart and had a 1 second burst mass of 39kg
Imagine a 37x252? 770g per projectile at 6000rpm 77kg per second which is just wild

by **Gallia-** » Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:33 am

first ZSU mounted on an actual MBT chassis

brb drawing BRRRRRRTwagon except it's a Kortik on a supercharged T-62

by **Kerberos** » Sat Oct 15, 2022 1:02 pm

Been doing a bunch of design work with andrenade (https://www.nationstates.net/nation=andrenade) it started with the Sable MBT, an advanced 50 ton MBT armed with a 127mm cannon, a 30mm coax, 30mm remote turret, 40mm smoke launchers and a laser based active defence system. The three man crew is housed in a armoured capsule in the hull, leaving the turret unmanned, armour is a combination of layered composites and NERA plates and power is provided by a turbine engine, with road wheels supported by an electro-dynamic suspension. Theres still some work to be done, we'll be tweaking the turret mounted details, sensors, etc but the overall shape of the turret and hull is 100%.

I also made a version for the USSK named the Martin, using the same hull with a different turret mounting a 125mm 2A46M-5 cannon and 12.7mm DSHK coax. Like the Sable it uses an unmanned turret, and houses the crew in an unarmed capsule, unlike the Sable the capsule is stripped of most of its amenities to fit an dedicated radio operator/gunner who is responsible for the remote turret, usaully a 12.7mm DSHK and AGS-17 in a dual mount. The smaller turret allows considerable weight reduction, putting the Martin around 40 tons, light enough to be airlifted by a specially designed helicopter based on the MIl V-12 that I'm tinkering with ATM.

Both designs are highly modular allowing easy modification and repair in the field, and have their magazines located in the turret bustle, the magazine and autoloader are mounted into a drawer that can slid out the back of the turret for reloading via an replaceable magazine system, the drawer also acts as a blow out panel.

Due to the modular nature of the vehicles the USSK has also equipped a small number of hulls with 152mm howitzers to act as assault guns or SPGs, named the Badger, primarily issued as a support vehicle for Martin Companies.

The final member of the family is a dedicated engineering and recovery vehicle, capable of performing repairs in the field as well as reloading Martin MBTs. In the USSK a Martin Mobile Logistics Vehicle is issued to each Martin Platoon to provide immediate logistical support as needed. As the Martin only has a 30 round magazine, resupply in the field is necessary.

by **New Vihenia** » Sun Oct 16, 2022 5:50 am

Kerberos wrote:Been doing a bunch of design work with andrenade (https://www.nationstates.net/nation=andrenade) it started with the Sable MBT, an advanced 50 ton MBT armed with a 127mm cannon, a 30mm coax, 30mm remote turret, 40mm smoke launchers and a laser based active defence system. The three man crew is housed in a armoured capsule in the hull, leaving the turret unmanned, armour is a combination of layered composites and NERA plates and power is provided by a turbine engine, with road wheels supported by an electro-dynamic suspension. Theres still some work to be done, we'll be tweaking the turret mounted details, sensors, etc but the overall shape of the turret and hull is 100%.
(Image)

Looks nice. What did you do with the room that used to be a turret basket ? Now that the turret is unmanned and have bustle autoloader. There will be considerable amount of free space below it. The recently demonstrated AbramsX seems to store battery there for its hybrid propulsion.

by **Kerberos** » Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:59 am

New Vihenia wrote:
Kerberos wrote:Been doing a bunch of design work with andrenade (https://www.nationstates.net/nation=andrenade) it started with the Sable MBT, an advanced 50 ton MBT armed with a 127mm cannon, a 30mm coax, 30mm remote turret, 40mm smoke launchers and a laser based active defence system. The three man crew is housed in a armoured capsule in the hull, leaving the turret unmanned, armour is a combination of layered composites and NERA plates and power is provided by a turbine engine, with road wheels supported by an electro-dynamic suspension. Theres still some work to be done, we'll be tweaking the turret mounted details, sensors, etc but the overall shape of the turret and hull is 100%.
(Image)

Looks nice. What did you do with the room that used to be a turret basket ? Now that the turret is unmanned and have bustle autoloader. There will be considerable amount of free space below it. The recently demonstrated AbramsX seems to store battery there for its hybrid propulsion.

Some of the drivetrain and the crew capsule, the original dimensions were pretty small so I had to get creative.

My very first draft for the project

by **New Vihenia** » Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:35 pm

Kerberos wrote:
Some of the drivetrain and the crew capsule, the original dimensions were pretty small so I had to get creative.

I see. Should probably try bigger canvas. I would recommend paint.net. it's free and can give more control over the canvas size.

------------
Anyway lemme introduce you guys to "Larissa" a Heavy IFV >:3

3 crews + 6 passanger. 38-40 tonne weight. Active protection system included and a 57mm RWS turret.

The thing im proud of, an observation mast

and she is Hybrid electric, with battery storage in sponson, external of the crew compartment

She's kinda big tho. Mainly to ensure "normal" sitting position for crew and blast mitigation seat.

NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

Who is online