Advertisement
by Stahn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:46 am
by Puzikas » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:01 am
Allanea wrote:So my books arrived from Russia. It's a shipment of college textbooks in military science.
Preparation and Planning of Military Operations and Planning of Combat Operations in Local Wars and Armed Conflicts - S. A. Batyushkin
Construction and Breaching of Obstacles ~ A. P. Baranov
Preparation of Special Forces Units of the Ministry of Interior for Mountain Operations ~ A whole bunch of authors.
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:10 am
Albynau wrote:I think I might understand it better, in the sense that the development process goes something like:
1) Find a thing that meets our needs
2) License the manufacture of the thing, assembling the thing from imported parts
3) Develop local substitutes for non-complex imported parts
4) Develop local substitutes for complex imported parts
5) Improve local substitute parts that they provide better performance than imported parts, resulting in a better thing
6) Take all the accumulated knowledge of the process to design new thing
I guess my intention behind being militarily self sufficient was having the capability to manufacture most of what it might need should a crisis materialize, even if it is just older equipment, or at the very least, its own munitions. It would be difficult to maintain an independent foreign policy should a nation be reliant upon arms imports should a war start.
Stahn wrote:So, I am doing a new line of vehicles for a new nation. This nations would have a lot of mountain ranges, swamps and river deltas so a lot of the equipment is relatively small, light and/or amphibious.
I was thinking of having two types of main battle tanks. A larger and more powerful one to be able to take other main battle tanks on under normal conditions and a smaller one that is capable of operating on much more demanding terrain. (Mostly mountain roads and jungles and such, I also have an amphibious light tank but that is not the issue here)
I was thinking of giving both these tanks a relatively low velocity gun in 128 mm or so which would also be able to launch missiles but while the larger tank would have room for a healthy number of these the much smaller medium would only have a few. The idea is that the medium would be operating on terrain for which most modern battle tanks would be too large and too heavy and therefor would be less likely having to deal with the heavier armored targets.
by Theodosiya » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:03 am
Stahn wrote:So, I am doing a new line of vehicles for a new nation. This nations would have a lot of mountain ranges, swamps and river deltas so a lot of the equipment is relatively small, light and/or amphibious.
I was thinking of having two types of main battle tanks. A larger and more powerful one to be able to take other main battle tanks on under normal conditions and a smaller one that is capable of operating on much more demanding terrain. (Mostly mountain roads and jungles and such, I also have an amphibious light tank but that is not the issue here)
I was thinking of giving both these tanks a relatively low velocity gun in 128 mm or so which would also be able to launch missiles but while the larger tank would have room for a healthy number of these the much smaller medium would only have a few. The idea is that the medium would be operating on terrain for which most modern battle tanks would be too large and too heavy and therefor would be less likely having to deal with the heavier armored targets.
Opinions and or advice would be welcome.
by Albynau » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:41 am
by Austrasien » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:49 am
by Laritaia » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:51 am
Albynau wrote:My understanding on how close air support would operate during a Fulda Gap cold-war-gone-hot situation is low level aircraft making gun runs and dropping unguided cluster bombs on big columns of Soviet armor.
Given that technology has advanced a fair bit since these days, how different would CAS play out in a modern day Fulda Gap situation? Would it be more of a standoff with LGBs, Mavericks, Hellfires and the like? Does this still put them inside the threat envelope from most SHORAD units? Is the conventional gun run with unguided ordnance more or less suicide in such a situation?
Or failing that can someone point me to some resources where I could look into these sort of thing? I have Modern Air Combat by Bill Gunston which is great, except it's also like thirty years old.
Thank you.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:53 am
Albynau wrote:My understanding on how close air support would operate during a Fulda Gap cold-war-gone-hot situation is low level aircraft making gun runs and dropping unguided cluster bombs on big columns of Soviet armor.
Given that technology has advanced a fair bit since these days, how different would CAS play out in a modern day Fulda Gap situation? Would it be more of a standoff with LGBs, Mavericks, Hellfires and the like?
Does this still put them inside the threat envelope from most SHORAD units?
Is the conventional gun run with unguided ordnance more or less suicide in such a situation?
Or failing that can someone point me to some resources where I could look into these sort of thing? I have Modern Air Combat by Bill Gunston which is great, except it's also like thirty years old.
by Stahn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:24 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Albynau wrote:I think I might understand it better, in the sense that the development process goes something like:
1) Find a thing that meets our needs
2) License the manufacture of the thing, assembling the thing from imported parts
3) Develop local substitutes for non-complex imported parts
4) Develop local substitutes for complex imported parts
5) Improve local substitute parts that they provide better performance than imported parts, resulting in a better thing
6) Take all the accumulated knowledge of the process to design new thing
I would say that "providing better performance than imported parts" is a rather tall order for cutting edge weapons. It would not be difficult to develop better components than those on, say, the old M60 Patton or first-run F-15s. It would be quite a challenge to develop better components than those on the K2 Black Panther or F-35, however. And it is unlikely that simply slapping together a bunch of individually good components will automatically result in a superior product without accumulated experience in actually designing that product. The most important goal is simply to design something that works as a substitute, it doesn't have to be "better" unless the original is obsolete or something.
For instance, lots of countries produce their own rifles domestically. By and large, none of these are better than each other overall, they're used because the purchasing nations want to help support their local firearm industry and ensure a steady supply of rifles. Japan developed the Type 64 to replace the M1 Garands they got from the United States and while it was better than the M1s, it wasn't better than the M14 they could have also purchased from the US.I guess my intention behind being militarily self sufficient was having the capability to manufacture most of what it might need should a crisis materialize, even if it is just older equipment, or at the very least, its own munitions. It would be difficult to maintain an independent foreign policy should a nation be reliant upon arms imports should a war start.
Intellectual property is one of those imports.Stahn wrote:So, I am doing a new line of vehicles for a new nation. This nations would have a lot of mountain ranges, swamps and river deltas so a lot of the equipment is relatively small, light and/or amphibious.
I was thinking of having two types of main battle tanks. A larger and more powerful one to be able to take other main battle tanks on under normal conditions and a smaller one that is capable of operating on much more demanding terrain. (Mostly mountain roads and jungles and such, I also have an amphibious light tank but that is not the issue here)
Medium tanks (and even light tanks) aren't really that much smaller than full MBTs. The biggest consumer of internal volume in a vehicle is the crew, and obviously the crew don't get smaller when the vehicle gets lighter. Other major components get a bit smaller but not by all that much. At least, not without sacrificing actual capability.
It's probably worth noting that mountainous nations or nations expecting to engage in extensive mountain combat like South Korea and Japan have both fielded 50+ tonne main battle tanks as their preferred combat vehicles, without any accompanying medium tanks. Given the breadth of their possible areas of operation, it is hard to believe the US and USSR found their MBTs deficient in mountain combat, either. And countries with plenty of jungle or expecting to fight in jungle like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore field heavy MBTs for this terrain as well.
The most important factor is simply ensuring that troops are properly trained for that type of combat. And perhaps ensuring that your tanks have increased gun elevation/depression and good roof/flank protection.I was thinking of giving both these tanks a relatively low velocity gun in 128 mm or so which would also be able to launch missiles but while the larger tank would have room for a healthy number of these the much smaller medium would only have a few. The idea is that the medium would be operating on terrain for which most modern battle tanks would be too large and too heavy and therefor would be less likely having to deal with the heavier armored targets.
Gun-launched missiles have never really lived up to their promise. The biggest problem these days is that a gun-launching system places significant constraints on missile size (especially diameter) which thus limits penetration. A 128 mm HEAT missile would be unable to penetrate an enemy tank from the front and would likely be reasonably easy to defeat from the flanks with a bit of ERA or passive applique. The engagement cycle would also be unfavorable vs. other tanks unless you used something like a hypervelocity missile, but these tend to be fairly large; even CKEM was 152 mm.
A conventional HV 120 mm gun would be superior.
Theodosiya wrote:Stahn wrote:So, I am doing a new line of vehicles for a new nation. This nations would have a lot of mountain ranges, swamps and river deltas so a lot of the equipment is relatively small, light and/or amphibious.
I was thinking of having two types of main battle tanks. A larger and more powerful one to be able to take other main battle tanks on under normal conditions and a smaller one that is capable of operating on much more demanding terrain. (Mostly mountain roads and jungles and such, I also have an amphibious light tank but that is not the issue here)
I was thinking of giving both these tanks a relatively low velocity gun in 128 mm or so which would also be able to launch missiles but while the larger tank would have room for a healthy number of these the much smaller medium would only have a few. The idea is that the medium would be operating on terrain for which most modern battle tanks would be too large and too heavy and therefor would be less likely having to deal with the heavier armored targets.
Opinions and or advice would be welcome.
O boi...
Did you know, TNI AD/Indonesian Army actually looks into buying more Leopard 2? Yes, yes, the Kaplan MT/Harimau Hitam/Black Tiger. There's plan to develop it into different configurations. Also, they supplement, not replace the MBT. Probably for territorial commands.
by DnalweN acilbupeR » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:35 pm
Great New England Confederation wrote:Hello, I am interested in adopting a tilt-rotor aircraft into my armed forces for use with airborne cavalry divisions in supplement to conventional helicopters, as well as in use for logistical and humanitarian roles aboard ships, but i am not interested in the V22 osprey, would the Augusta AW609 be a good alternative or should I look somewhere else?
(Image)
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:49 pm
Stahn wrote:Thanks. I had no idea gun launched missiles were so ineffective. The specs of something like the LAHAT looks quite promising to me. A tandem warhead, top attack.
Do you perhaps have a link for me so I can read more on the ineffectiveness of gun launched missiles?
by Stahn » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:01 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Stahn wrote:Thanks. I had no idea gun launched missiles were so ineffective. The specs of something like the LAHAT looks quite promising to me. A tandem warhead, top attack.
Do you perhaps have a link for me so I can read more on the ineffectiveness of gun launched missiles?
I don't know of any particular links that would help aside from just looking at the history and use of gun-launched ATGMs and how they have failed to pan out. Rather notably, the entire Western world has turned their back on the technology and has not looked back. LAHAT is a rare exception but even it has not been very successful despite having nearly the entire market to itself. More broadly, it is a result of the drawbacks of anti-tank missiles in general and the reasons why they have not displaced gun-armed tanks despite having been around for decades.
LAHAT itself demonstrates the problems with the technology: it is excruciatingly slow compared to conventional APFSDS, at 300 m/s at most compared to ~1,700 m/s for an LRP from a 120 mm HV gun. This means it takes 14 seconds to reach a range of 4,000 meters while a kinetic energy penetrator can cover that distance in under three seconds. Because it is laser-guided, the launch vehicle (or another platform) has to illuminate the vehicle continuously during that 14-second flight and hope the target doesn't notice and take action, which is becoming increasingly unlikely as laser warning systems and softkill protection systems proliferate more widely. In fact, 14 seconds is probably enough for the target to realize it is being engaged and even shoot back and either spook or outright destroy the launch vehicle.
Beyond this, LAHAT's penetration is pretty low as would be expected of a missile with a diameter of just 105 mm. The penetration of a HEAT warhead is directly related to its diameter, which is why serious ATGMs tend to be in the 150+ mm range (TOW is 152 mm, Hellfire is 178 mm), or at least in the 120-130 mm range (like Javelin) if portability is a priority. Beyond this, protection from shaped charges is pretty easy and modern vehicles are increasingly protected from top-attack munitions.
A better middle ground are the guided shells the US Army experimented with like MRM-KE that combine the speed of a conventional tank gun with the accuracy of a guided weapon. Hypervelocity missiles are also an option but they tend to be quite large (their powerful rocket motors are not small) and have big firing signatures.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:05 pm
Stahn wrote:Thank you. I did have a much larger missile in mind.
by North Arkana » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:18 pm
by Kassaran » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:12 am
Zarkenis Ultima wrote:Tristan noticed footsteps behind him and looked there, only to see Eric approaching and then pointing his sword at the girl. He just blinked a few times at this before speaking.
"Put that down, Mr. Eric." He said. "She's obviously not a chicken."
by Allanea » Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:25 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Stahn wrote:Thank you. I did have a much larger missile in mind.
It would have to be much larger indeed; even 152 mm ATGMs are generally insufficient to reliably penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBTs. And this caliber becomes impractical to have as a main gun caliber. And it would need a way to address the engagement cycle issues.
by Mazujotai » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:20 am
by Taihei Tengoku » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:47 am
Mazujotai wrote:Is OWL ammunition current field viable for military operations? That is on a squad level where specific highly trained units would be using them for evaluation.
by Theodosiya » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:21 am
by Laritaia » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:15 am
Theodosiya wrote:Taihei Tengoku wrote:Probably sometime in the next twelve months.
And the next 12 months after, and after and after...
Serious question, though. What if a guy got hit by 5 7.62x39 rounds? While wearing a Warrior DCS plate carrier with level 4 plate, and 4 out of 5 rounds striking the area protected by the plate, one hit in non fatal torso area.
by Puzikas » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:02 am
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Theodosiya » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:27 am
by Puzikas » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:28 am
Puzikas wrote:might
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;
by Theodosiya » Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:34 am
by Gallia- » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:01 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Istastioner, MauzerX, Sempi Archipelago
Advertisement