NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Do we consider the FCS program MT? I believe that if enough money was thrown at it then it’d be feasible to enter at least IOC by 2022.

[Janpia]

Do we consider the FCS program MT? I believe that if enough money was thrown at it then it’d be feasible to enter at least IOC by 2022.

Fire control systems or this?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Do we consider the FCS program MT? I believe that if enough money was thrown at it then it’d be feasible to enter at least IOC by 2022.

Fire control systems or this?

The latter one- looks rather promising to me if the US didn’t decide that shooting wars were a thing of the past

[Dtn]

Does this make sense at all? I'm especially confused with 60mm and 81mm mortars since they seem to have a lot of overlap with each other.

60mm is more for support/suppression/immediate-action in the open (smoke, illumination, forcing a unit to cover), 81mm is more for deliberate destruction of fortifications.

yes, the 81mm bunker buster

Mortars (and all other artillery) are supposed to overlap, that's the point.

Gonswanzan pilots can't pull up I suppose, sad!

Fam... You do realize bomb lobbing was used to increase standoff distance and (well, in WWII) loft bombs over obstacles onto targets.

People didn't bomb bridges by lobbing bombs, they either dropped a crapton of bombs from above, or use a precision-guided bomb to strike the pylons.

Or just use a cruise missile to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Now, a flying carrier? Just throw missiles at it. Or drop an iron bomb on it and hope it works. "Lobbing" a bomb would just mean a lost aircraft and a bomb maybe denting the armor below or even failing to fuse and just glancing off, if at all.

incredible

[The Grand World Order]

Do we consider the FCS program MT? I believe that if enough money was thrown at it then it’d be feasible to enter at least IOC by 2022.

Most of these kinds of systems are definitely possible within MT, but not common due to various reasons such as "the Cold War ended so it's unnecessary," "Congress said no," "one of the main companies making parts went out of business," et cetera. FCS itself doesn't seem like it would be out of bounds for MT.

I also think that a lot of the more advanced experimental stuff can be considered "Contemporary Tech," essentially being MT-but-what-if, while avoiding the "MT but with magic" that PMT tends to be. That's just how I see things, CT isn't a commonly used term on NS and ultimately it's between you and who you're RPing with what's kosher.

[Spirit of Hope]

So given the current Ruso-Ukraina war and the artillery duel that follows, which apparently includes thousands of shells being churned out daily. How that might affect the design of future tube artillery ?
There are images and accounts of worn out and overheated barrel, God knows how's the rifling of course.

It isn't anything that new as far as artillery is concerned, the biggest difference is probably that the countries involved don't have a great ability to replace the barrels at the rate they are being used up. But that also isn't new since most countries take more than 6 months to get fully into a war economy and churning out ammunition and war supplies.

Of course part of Ukraine, and Russias, issue is they don't have the most accurate artillery and responsive fire control systems. Which means they are partially replacing accuracy with volume.

I'm kinda feel that the barrel is something one could improve upon more, what do you guys think of adopting say a cooled barrel similar to naval guns, instead of water of course oil could be used. This however could probably bring trouble in disposing the heat, maybe in shape of some heat exchanger on side or back. It could probably help keep the barrel "straight" and retaining accuracy and firing rate as long as possible.

Its been looked into in the past, it would certainly help allow for higher sustained rates of fire. High sustained rates of fire aren't necessarily worth the cost of getting them however. With highly accurate modern guns/fire control systems you need less ammunition to meet specific demands and you can get volume by adding additional guns if it is truly necessary.

The other thing would adopting smoothbore gun which maybe could extend the barrel life a bit as there are no rifiling to concern about. However, this necessitating fin stabilized munitions, which could means old stocks cannot be used or some "finning" program have to be made.

This would probably not dramatically increase the barrels life span or decrease its coast while it would increase the manufacturing cost of the ammo, overall probably a loosing proposition.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

60mm is more for support/suppression/immediate-action in the open (smoke, illumination, forcing a unit to cover), 81mm is more for deliberate destruction of fortifications.

yes, the 81mm bunker buster

Mortars (and all other artillery) are supposed to overlap, that's the point.

Generally, 60mm mortars lack the explosive punch to effectively deal with earthen fortifications (>50cm of earth and 3 layers of logs levels of bunker).

Most countries listing expenditure norms don't even bother with anything less than 81/82mm mortars for that, and statistically are heavily skewed to favor 120mm for dealing with true strongpoints on a logistical budget.

That said, 81s are mid-ground in that they can pick up a mission usually meant for 60mm without being overkill. Such as picking up the slack when some platoon mortars have ran dry or need to reposition.

Fam... You do realize bomb lobbing was used to increase standoff distance and (well, in WWII) loft bombs over obstacles onto targets.

People didn't bomb bridges by lobbing bombs, they either dropped a crapton of bombs from above, or use a precision-guided bomb to strike the pylons.

Or just use a cruise missile to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Now, a flying carrier? Just throw missiles at it. Or drop an iron bomb on it and hope it works. "Lobbing" a bomb would just mean a lost aircraft and a bomb maybe denting the armor below or even failing to fuse and just glancing off, if at all.

Well, lobbing bombs evolved since 1945 due to this thing called nuclear standoff.

So as not to get caught in your own blast.

Also helped avoid AA.

Hurties found other uses for the LABS trajectory for manned air assault.
It sorta required pressure-suits, tho.

Had to solve that low-level mach-1.5 insertion problem.

[Gonswanza]

yes, the 81mm bunker buster

Mortars (and all other artillery) are supposed to overlap, that's the point.

Generally, 60mm mortars lack the explosive punch to effectively deal with earthen fortifications (>50cm of earth and 3 layers of logs levels of bunker).

Most countries listing expenditure norms don't even bother with anything less than 81/82mm mortars for that, and statistically are heavily skewed to favor 120mm for dealing with true strongpoints on a logistical budget.

That said, 81s are mid-ground in that they can pick up a mission usually meant for 60mm without being overkill. Such as picking up the slack when some platoon mortars have ran dry or need to reposition.

Fam... You do realize bomb lobbing was used to increase standoff distance and (well, in WWII) loft bombs over obstacles onto targets.

People didn't bomb bridges by lobbing bombs, they either dropped a crapton of bombs from above, or use a precision-guided bomb to strike the pylons.

Or just use a cruise missile to wipe it off the face of the earth.

Now, a flying carrier? Just throw missiles at it. Or drop an iron bomb on it and hope it works. "Lobbing" a bomb would just mean a lost aircraft and a bomb maybe denting the armor below or even failing to fuse and just glancing off, if at all.

Well, lobbing bombs evolved since 1945 due to this thing called nuclear standoff.

So as not to get caught in your own blast.

Also helped avoid AA.

Hurties found other uses for the LABS trajectory for manned air assault.
It sorta required pressure-suits, tho.

Had to solve that low-level mach-1.5 insertion problem.

Thanks for clarifying. But yea, it's pretty useless for taking out something above your aircraft... When it's more practical to just drop something on it or fire off a missile or something. Literally anything else, really.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Thanks for clarifying. But yea, it's pretty useless for taking out something above your aircraft... When it's more practical to just drop something on it or fire off a missile or something. Literally anything else, really.

I see no point on putting an airstrip at a higher altitude than your plane can go.

[Gonswanza]

Thanks for clarifying. But yea, it's pretty useless for taking out something above your aircraft... When it's more practical to just drop something on it or fire off a missile or something. Literally anything else, really.

I see no point on putting an airstrip at a higher altitude than your plane can go.

Also that, but apparently some people think there's actual merit to that idea... And parasite fighters in general.

[Dtn]

yes, the 81mm bunker buster

Mortars (and all other artillery) are supposed to overlap, that's the point.

Generally, 60mm mortars lack the explosive punch to effectively deal with earthen fortifications (>50cm of earth and 3 layers of logs levels of bunker).

This might as well be Cheyenne Mountain as far as light or medium mortars are concerned.

60- or 81-mm mortars are best used to suppress rather than destroy fortifications. Airbursts will be more effective than trying to actually penetrate significant overhead cover.

That said, 81s are mid-ground in that they can pick up a mission usually meant for 60mm without being overkill. Such as picking up the slack when some platoon mortars have ran dry or need to reposition.

This, perhaps predictably, is exactly the opposite of how artillery echelons generally work.

Now, a flying carrier? Just throw missiles at it. Or drop an iron bomb on it and hope it works. "Lobbing" a bomb would just mean a lost aircraft and a bomb maybe denting the armor below or even failing to fuse and just glancing off, if at all.

How do you think things like JDAM achieve a ~30 km range?

Unsure why a parabolic trajectory would necessarily result in a hit from below.

You're the one who asked the question lol

[Gonswanza]

Generally, 60mm mortars lack the explosive punch to effectively deal with earthen fortifications (>50cm of earth and 3 layers of logs levels of bunker).

Yes, this might as well be Cheyenne Mountain as far as light or medium mortars are concerned.

60- or 81-mm mortars are best used to suppress rather than destroy fortifications. Airbursts will be more effective than trying to actually penetrate significant overhead cover.

That said, 81s are mid-ground in that they can pick up a mission usually meant for 60mm without being overkill. Such as picking up the slack when some platoon mortars have ran dry or need to reposition.

This, perhaps predictably, is exactly the opposite of how artillery echelons generally work.

Now, a flying carrier? Just throw missiles at it. Or drop an iron bomb on it and hope it works. "Lobbing" a bomb would just mean a lost aircraft and a bomb maybe denting the armor below or even failing to fuse and just glancing off, if at all.

How do you think things like JDAM achieve a ~30 km range?

Unsure why a parabolic trajectory would necessarily result in a hit from below.

You're the one who asked the question lol

Someone else suggested throwing the bomb "up" into the helicarrier abomination as if it were perfectly possible.

I mean, aside from the obviously impossible flying aircraft carrier.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

is there something wrong with using a MaRV or a cruise missile

[Dtn]

Someone else suggested throwing the bomb "up" into the helicarrier abomination as if it were perfectly possible.

Kyiv is pretty smart so maybe think about it a bit more?

[Spirit of Hope]

is there something wrong with using a MaRV or a cruise missile

Are you talking about a cruise missile with multiple warheads? Problem would be they probably aren't going to be able to hit targets to widespread given cruise missile altitudes, though I guess the missile could drop warheads along the way. But in that case why not just have two independent missiles? Cost increase wouldn't be huge and it gives you redundancy.

[Gallia-]

Yes, this might as well be Cheyenne Mountain as far as light or medium mortars are concerned.

60- or 81-mm mortars are best used to suppress rather than destroy fortifications. Airbursts will be more effective than trying to actually penetrate significant overhead cover.



This, perhaps predictably, is exactly the opposite of how artillery echelons generally work.



How do you think things like JDAM achieve a ~30 km range?

Unsure why a parabolic trajectory would necessarily result in a hit from below.

You're the one who asked the question lol

Someone else suggested throwing the bomb "up" into the helicarrier abomination as if it were perfectly possible.

I mean, aside from the obviously impossible flying aircraft carrier.

bruh

is there something wrong with using a MaRV or a cruise missile

no but bombs are the traditional anti-carrier solution and thus most muscular

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

i mean yeah
there's absolutely nothing that would stop an LJDAM from being guided onto and hitting an object above it given the proper amount of energy

[Gallia-]

you would just fly under it, pitch up, and release the bomb such that it goes up and dives back down onto the deck

it would be silly but fairly trivial

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

you would just fly under it, pitch up, and release the bomb such that it goes up and dives back down onto the deck

it would be silly but fairly trivial

technically easier than Operation Chastise id reckon lol
less physics involved too

[The Akasha Colony]

Do we consider the FCS program MT? I believe that if enough money was thrown at it then it’d be feasible to enter at least IOC by 2022.

There was nothing particularly special about the vehicles developed under FCS. They were just part of the airmobile medium armor craze that took hold in the West around the same time, except more expensive and with a few more bells and whistles.

But the networking goals were too ambitious, and not simply from a money perspective. The sheer amount of bandwidth and coverage was quickly turning all of the nodes into mobile antenna farms, which also ran directly counter to the goal of jamming resistance. That's a physics problem, not a money problem. And the network was the core of the actual FCS concept, not a handful of medium-weight tracked vehicles.

[NotTheKievanPeople]

Someone else suggested throwing the bomb "up" into the helicarrier abomination as if it were perfectly possible.

I mean, aside from the obviously impossible flying aircraft carrier.

It may not have occurred to you but a bomb released from an aircraft behaves after release like a shell fired from a cannon. If the bomb is released in a climb it will keep climbing. Gravity accelerates objects toward the center of gravitation at 9.802 m/s per second. If the plane was climbing at 100 m/s at release the bomb will continue climbing as well for close to 10 seconds. As should be apparent this means the bomb will travel to a point well above the aircraft's altitude at release.

Bombs do not actually fall from planes. This is only how it appears from the reference point of a plane which also moving. Seen by a stationary observer the behavior of a bomb released in level flight by a plane flying at an altitude of 5000 meters at 300 m/s is identical to the same bomb being fired out of cannon with its muzzle level to the horizon from a mountain 5000 meters high with a muzzle velocity of 300 m/s. If you were manning this cannon and wanted to hit a target at a higher elevation the correct course of action is self-evident: elevate the muzzle before firing.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Generally, 60mm mortars lack the explosive punch to effectively deal with earthen fortifications (>50cm of earth and 3 layers of logs levels of bunker).

This might as well be Cheyenne Mountain as far as light or medium mortars are concerned.

60- or 81-mm mortars are best used to suppress rather than destroy fortifications. Airbursts will be more effective than trying to actually penetrate significant overhead cover.

Well, yes. For dealing with 4 to 10 feet of earthen cover you really do need 120mm delayed-impact mortar shells making a direct hit.

But an 81mm delayed-impact can still do anything with less than 3 feet of cover.
-Yeet over to Chapter 3 Part 4

a. Destruction renders the enemy combat ineffective. Since only direct hits with HE rounds can destroy hardened targets, such as armored vehicles or bunkers, mortars are not often used against them to achieve destruction. Against soft targets, such as trucks or frame buildings, mortars can be used for destruction, but even then the amount of ammunition expended is large. It requires about 30 percent casualties to render a unit combat ineffective. If the enemy infantry is exposed, mortar fires can easily achieve destruction on them. By themselves, mortars can rarely achieve destruction against a dug in enemy. Only the 120-mm mortar is powerful enough to damage well-constructed field
fortifications.

d. If the enemy has prepared fighting positions with overhead cover, only impact-fuzed and delay-fuzed rounds will have much effect. Proximity-fuzed rounds can restrict the enemy's ability to move from position to position, but they will cause few, if any, casualties. Impact-fuzed rounds cause some blast and suppressive effect. Delay-fuzed rounds can penetrate and destroy a position but must achieve a direct hit.

Only the 120-mm mortar with a delay-fuze setting can damage a Soviet-style strongpoint defense. Heavy bunkers cannot be destroyed by light or medium mortar rounds.

(1) A minimum of 18 inches of earth is required to protect a position from fragmentation. This is not enough to protect against direct hits or near-misses.

(2) One strip of pierced steel planking (PSP) and three layers of well-compacted sandbags will protect against a direct hit from an 82-mm mortar round with a PD fuze.

(3) One layer of PSP and eight layers of well-compacted sandbags can protect against a direct hit from a 120-mm mortar round with a PD fuze.

(4) No reasonable amount of sandbags and PSP can protect a bunker against a direct hit by a 120-mm mortar round with a delay fuze. Heavy bunkers with timber supports and carefully constructed shielding material can minimize the damage done by a direct hit. They can also protect the occupants from fragments and near-misses.

So it'll take somewhere between 3 and 8 layers of sandbags to stop a delay-fuzed 81. It is noted elsewhere that a hard cover of rubble can render delay-fuzes moot.

[Dtn]

81mm is more for deliberate destruction of fortifications.

Since only direct hits with HE rounds can destroy hardened targets, such as armored vehicles or bunkers, mortars are not often used against them to achieve destruction.

Thank you for this illuminating source.

60mm and 81mm have more or less the exact same role, especially as they've begun to converge in range and weight lately. The difference is the 60mm's greater versatility, responsiveness, and lighter ammunition weight, but this is less important now that the typical infantry unit has a variety of direct fire HE* to play with.

*) In accordance with the Hurtful Thoughts Theorem, 60mm is actually more effective against fortifications since a 60mm mortar can be fired at close range from cover directly against embrasures or other weak points.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

81mm is more for deliberate destruction of fortifications.

Since only direct hits with HE rounds can destroy hardened targets, such as armored vehicles or bunkers, mortars are not often used against them to achieve destruction.

Thank you for this illuminating source.

60mm and 81mm have more or less the exact same role, especially as they've begun to converge in range and weight lately. The difference is the 60mm's greater versatility, responsiveness, and lighter ammunition weight, but this is less important now that the typical infantry unit has a variety of direct fire HE* to play with.

*) In accordance with the Hurtful Thoughts Theorem, 60mm is actually more effective against fortifications since a 60mm mortar can be fired at close range from cover directly against embrasures or other weak points.

Only if you can get a 60mm to somehow explode like an 81mm

81mm is only marginally effective against bunkers if you have a direct hit with just the right fuze and the shell buries itself properly.

But if you've got a 60 + 120 split system, you're probably fine. With 81mm usually filling-in for the 120 in light/airborne units or standing-in for the 60mm in garrison units due to their still-superior range to the older generation of 60mm M2.
-The other upside being where you can deploy the 81mm from vs a 120mm

For 60mm point-firing the Mk-19 starts stepping up to the plate for immediate-action drills.

[Dtn]

serenity now