Advertisement
by Questers » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:22 am
by Central and Eastern Visayas » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:33 am
Questers wrote:The USSR had mortar subunits at both regimental, divisional and corps level (I think) made up of shit loads of SP mortars like Tyulpan, the Sani, or the Vasilek. The USSR was seriously infatuated with mortars.
by Purpelia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:47 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Anacasppia wrote:For my regular ('motor') infantry units should I assign one SP mortar to each platoon or one SP mortar platoon to each company? Same goes for my MGSes. I'm leaning towards the later since company commanders can always detach vehicles to platoons as needed...
To a platoon? That's pretty low. A platoon would be lucky to have themselves a 76mm mortar between them in most forces.
SP mortars are typically a... Regimental asset? (thinking about stuff the size of Tyulpan here)
The M1129 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier is a Battalion asset.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:54 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Purpelia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:56 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.
It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg
Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:04 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Purpelia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:08 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The Vasilek is a gun-mortar though.
You'd probably get a similar doctrinal effect with great firepower if you got the 2S31 Vena. It's mounted on a BMP-3 chassis, it'd be worth finding out if it still has the capability to move troops.
(It's essentially the replacement for the 2S9 Nona)
A system such as a Company of M1129-alikes, converted APCs with 120mm mortars, as a Battalion asset would bring significantly more firepower than a Tyulipan could, just because of the increased rate of fire per tube (let alone as a battery) and the increased stowage.
Tyulpian still has its uses though - I'm just wondering if "reach and and touch someone" Smerch has stolen those uses though.
by Aqizithiuda » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:13 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.
It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg
Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:I liked the prostitute - never quote me on that.
Puzikas wrote:This is beyond condom on toes. This is full on Bra-on-balls.
Puzikas wrote:Im not cheep-You can quote me on that.
Hellraiser-Army wrote:and clearly I am surrounded by idiots who never looked at a blueprint before...
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:23 am
Aqizithiuda wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:It varies.
It's claimed on wiki (without citation, unsurprisingly) that a 120mm mortar round may contain as much explosive filling as a 155mm shell.
However, the OF-81 HE-FRAG shell as used in the 122mm D-30 howitzer has a 3.5kg explosive filling in a 21.8kg projectile, while the VOF-843 as used in the Sani mortars contains just 1.4kg of explosive - though the shell does only weigh 16.5kg
Even then, it's only 50% the explosive/weight ratio.
It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Aqizithiuda » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:30 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Aqizithiuda wrote:
It should be a 105mm shell. A 120mm NATO round has 2.5kg of filler ( http://www.imemg.org/res/imemts2006_haye_1.ppt.pdf ), which is apparently slightly more than the M760 105mm round ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/hcxtaa/)
Huh.
So how come the Soviet rounds have a full kilo less explosive?
Also, interestingly, the warhead on the Copperhead 155mm guided shell is only a 7kg shaped charge.
Feels like all that guidance is pretty wasted in the only target of an individual munition is a single battle tank. Why not just save the money and saturate-bomb where you think the enemy armoured company is with regular 155mm rounds?
Or, why not SADARM?
Nationstatelandsville wrote:I liked the prostitute - never quote me on that.
Puzikas wrote:This is beyond condom on toes. This is full on Bra-on-balls.
Puzikas wrote:Im not cheep-You can quote me on that.
Hellraiser-Army wrote:and clearly I am surrounded by idiots who never looked at a blueprint before...
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:32 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Aqizithiuda » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:40 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:More blast means more effective shrapnel though, doesn't it?
If you've a solid 70% more explosive power behind the same mass of shrapnel fragments then surely, they're going to go a lot more distance.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:I liked the prostitute - never quote me on that.
Puzikas wrote:This is beyond condom on toes. This is full on Bra-on-balls.
Puzikas wrote:Im not cheep-You can quote me on that.
Hellraiser-Army wrote:and clearly I am surrounded by idiots who never looked at a blueprint before...
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:41 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Efsanevi » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:15 am
by Aqizithiuda » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:18 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Aqizithiuda wrote:
Do they have the same fragment mass?
Literally no idea.
Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.
Efsanevi wrote:(Image)
Basic design of the new reissued G3 of the Efsanevi military. It's official designation is the "EMBR-13" which stands for "Efsanevi Main Battle Rifle 2013". It differs from the G3A3 main assault rifle in that it has a retractable stock and Picatinny rails on the foregrip and resever. Also all plastic parts were replaced with lighter polymers to reduce weight. The EMBR-13 Is 5 pounds as compared to 9 pounds for the G3A3.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:I liked the prostitute - never quote me on that.
Puzikas wrote:This is beyond condom on toes. This is full on Bra-on-balls.
Puzikas wrote:Im not cheep-You can quote me on that.
Hellraiser-Army wrote:and clearly I am surrounded by idiots who never looked at a blueprint before...
by Efsanevi » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:22 am
Aqizithiuda wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Literally no idea.
Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.
The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).
American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).Efsanevi wrote:(Image)
Basic design of the new reissued G3 of the Efsanevi military. It's official designation is the "EMBR-13" which stands for "Efsanevi Main Battle Rifle 2013". It differs from the G3A3 main assault rifle in that it has a retractable stock and Picatinny rails on the foregrip and resever. Also all plastic parts were replaced with lighter polymers to reduce weight. The EMBR-13 Is 5 pounds as compared to 9 pounds for the G3A3.
There's a reason even modern battle rifles weigh a bit. Mass really does help reduce recoil, and there's only so much you can lighten a weapon before it becomes unfit for the military.
by Bhelyant » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:37 am
by Bhelyant » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:11 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The 20mm HE will be effective against thin-skinned vehicles, infantry in the open and unfortified buildings.
The 14.5mm AP will be effective against most vehicles up to a few tonnes in weight.
From a military perspective, you should probably consider the 20mm and 14.5 roughly comparable. The 20mm is for use against all targets and soft targets, the 14.5 is ideal for when target penetration is required.
Aqizithiuda wrote:I didn't think the M-41D had a CTA 76mm gun?
If you accept the Rikhter as a CTA gun, then the Nagant M1895 pistol also qualifies. Other than that, I can't think of any other fielded CTA rounds.
by Immoren » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:18 am
Bhelyant wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:The 20mm HE will be effective against thin-skinned vehicles, infantry in the open and unfortified buildings.
The 14.5mm AP will be effective against most vehicles up to a few tonnes in weight.
From a military perspective, you should probably consider the 20mm and 14.5 roughly comparable. The 20mm is for use against all targets and soft targets, the 14.5 is ideal for when target penetration is required.
Makes sense
What about an APDS for the 20x102? Would that put it somewhere between a 12.7 and 14.5?
There's also the ASP-30. Did that have something similar to BARS? (dual-acting recoil adaptors? whatever the heck those are?) Though the 30x113mm is a bit large for what I had in mind. >.<Aqizithiuda wrote:I didn't think the M-41D had a CTA 76mm gun?
If you accept the Rikhter as a CTA gun, then the Nagant M1895 pistol also qualifies. Other than that, I can't think of any other fielded CTA rounds.
It's quite possible it doesn't.
In full disclosure, and this sounds really stupid as I'm typing this out, but I was only going off of what someone said on tank-net.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:41 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:43 am
Aqizithiuda wrote:Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Literally no idea.
Though I suppose it stands to reason that if the VOF-843 weighs half a kilogram more than the NATO equivalent yet has a kilogram less explosive mass it's pushing a kilo and a half more fragments with less power.
The M934 apparently weights just 13.65 kg ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m933.htm ).
American shells, then, will probably be pushing smaller fragments faster than Russian shells. Presumably, heavier, slower fragments were preferred by the Russians (better penetration? Better residual damage?).
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Samozaryadnyastan » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:54 am
Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Immoren » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:26 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?
I believe no, because a SAW is considered a personal weapon, whereas a GPMG is (I believe) considered equipment, and thus may justify the issuing of a handgun. I think the GPMG is being seen more as a weapon these days than equipment as it was in the ~80s.
Unless you go the route of the Yanks, quartermasters and surgeons, as rear-echelon personnel (or otherwise not frontline troops) should be issued handguns (the Yank route of course being, handing everyone an M4). A Medic is probably combat personnel, as is a radio operator, both of whom should be issued the mainline rifle or possibly a carbine model.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Purpelia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:29 am
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Ea90 wrote:Should SAW gunners be given pistols?
E: And should radio operators, medics and quartermasters?
I believe no, because a SAW is considered a personal weapon, whereas a GPMG is (I believe) considered equipment, and thus may justify the issuing of a handgun. I think the GPMG is being seen more as a weapon these days than equipment as it was in the ~80s.
Unless you go the route of the Yanks, quartermasters and surgeons, as rear-echelon personnel (or otherwise not frontline troops) should be issued handguns (the Yank route of course being, handing everyone an M4). A Medic is probably combat personnel, as is a radio operator, both of whom should be issued the mainline rifle or possibly a carbine model.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: The Owiniman Republic
Advertisement