NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Stahn]

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.

[Puzikas]

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.

I've read that last one.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

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]

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.

[Albynau]

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.

[Austrasien]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Corr ... _Dispenser

The assumption in the Cold War that long range radar guided SAMs were the most lethal AD threat was wrong, it is actually SHORADs, so aircraft generally fly above MANPADS/AAA range. Whether or not the aircraft are attacking from standoff range they will be attacking from altitude with various guided bombs and missiles. Aircraft would only descend to low altitude in exceptional situations, generally when a target in very close proximity to friendly forces needs to attacked with carefully aimed gunfire.

[Laritaia]

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.

basically the same as during the Cold war but less effective.

Brimstone was the only in service PGM that came close to the effectiveness of cluster munitions at blunting Armoured attacks, but the war on terror meant that Its swarm attack capability had to be sacrificed on the alter of "Low Intensity Conflict"

[The Akasha Colony]

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?

This is the modern CAS bird:

Does this still put them inside the threat envelope from most SHORAD units?

No, the whole point is to fly above them.

Is the conventional gun run with unguided ordnance more or less suicide in such a situation?

Yes.

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.

No one's fought a high-intensity conflict between peer or near-peer forces for quite some time. The observations made during ODS though are not wrong: SHORADS are much harder to suppress than was believed in the era of low-altitude penetration and very common, perhaps only increasingly so now that drones are becoming a thing and suddenly everyone's scrambling to counter them.

This means that in order to survive, the easiest way is for CAS aircraft to fly higher and use PGMs to attack targets. Whether they have to remain at standoff distances depends on their ability to defend themselves. Aircraft like F-35 designed for LO or VLO and with a good ECM suite can come much closer to their targets than older, more vulnerable aircraft.

[Stahn]

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.

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.

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?

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.

Interesting. Thank you.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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)

From my understanding a compound helicopter / compound gyroplane / gyrodyne or whatever you want to call it, with basically a "normal" helicopter rotor and then a fixed rear propeller (or other kind of propulsion device) slapped on the back (imagine a normal helicopter basically but with an additional tail rotor placed along the long axis of the helicopter, directly facing backwards) could offer at least some of the advantages of tiltrotor/tiltwing designs at lower cost and should also be easier/cheaper to R&D out of an existing helicopter design. If anything, it could simply be a middle ground before you can get your new "main" VTOL technology matured and cheap enough .

my 2 cents doe.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

[Stahn]

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.

Thank you. I did have a much larger missile in mind.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

[North Arkana]

The limitations of size on caliber are why top-attack exists. You could probably make a rather small version missile with top-attack profile entirely capable of killing most of the common ex-Soviet tank models you'll find out and about. Though once you get "back in time" far enough to any sort of steel armored vehicles direct attack works again.

[Kassaran]

Alright folks, going again for the rewrite. This time just focusing on what I want the MT nation of Kassaran to look like, and that is a triple alliance of nations acting in the same region called IATO. There's a few other supporting countries, but they generally have no real place in the history books and serve just to act as additional consumers of the goods of the 'Big Three' from Kassaran history:

First up, Phyrus, big on production and consumer sales, it has a massive export market centering primarily on household appliances and electronics, but also it dabbles in automotive manufacturing and some arms manufacturing. It has little farmland and is comparable to the nations of Korea (South) and Japan in terms of Geography, but also pulling comparisons to Italy is fair.

Next up, we get to Arhk, the shining 'jewel' and primary exporter in agriculture, entertainment, automotive manufacturing, and information technology products, it holds a parallel to United States, Canada, and Australia, being a massive exporter of most goods required to sustain large populations, it has a hand in most of the other nations in its general region, but it has priorities primarily centered on its border with the third nation in question.

Last up is Puruhk, a large imperial power in the region and one of the oldest to date. It is comparable to China, Russia, and Spain (colonial-era) in terms of militaristic expansion. It is well known for making sudden feints into territories of interest to Arhk and Phyrus, to get their attentions centered on more overt actions while it orchestrates mostly backdoor deals with financially struggling nations to increase the power of its political machine. It uses the distrust of Arhk and Phyrus to its advantage, often acting in ways to raise their suspicions and pull attentions away from locations of interest while smaller more covert intelligence gathering operations and political espionage tasks are carried out by local supporters.

I'm seeing Puruhk as having been aggressively expansionist at the development of most modern combat techniques, having discovered and implemented the strategies and tactics needed to take over many other nations around it. The only thing that eventually stopped it was the Federal Republic of Arhk with Phyran backing. Phyrus, which is unable to really fight any wars, instead switched over to an exclusively war-time economy, relying on Arhk to protect it and finance it during the multiple wars in their !not20thCentury. Coalitions of many other smaller nations banded together, but as the influx of refugees got to be too much for Arhk, it too began to struggle to remain combat viable, so it began orchestrating nuclear testing first. It's plan was to pretty much bomb out many of the satellite countries around Puruhk before Puruhkese infantry could begin to mobilize for a final assault.

Total war unfolded when Arhk engaged in an outright preemptive attack on satellite nations bordering Puruhk in the 1950s which of course started an even bigger conflagration. Puruhk, having already developed nuclear weaponry, took to engaging forward Arhkese elements with bomber raids utilizing multiple high-yield nuclear devices in massed bombing raids. By the 1960's, most of the areas between these two major powers that could be hit, were hit. Meanwhile, homeland infrastructure was already taking a massive toll and neither side really could keep up the endless fighting. Ultimately, around 1967, the fighting ended and the two sides declared a cessation of hostilities, followed by the signing of a declaration of military alliance. Not wanting to bring about another world-wide conflagration like the one previously brought on, they developed the IATO (International Arms Treaty Organization), an international peace-keeping organization on the scale of the UN, but with a NATO bent.

This organization, which finally was ratified in the early 1970's, dissolved the majority of both sides nuclear arms, and established a series of centralized military forces built to keep the peace both domestically and abroad. While tensions still sit heavy in the hearts of many, by the 1990's, the big three: Phyrus, Arhk, and Puruhk, had become a close-knit force for world domin- peace. The majority of modern-day combat operations do not stray far from our own, with many smaller nations housing bitterness and contempt towards the Big Three, but generally having no say in what happens internationally. There are a couple of major players present, Akiri and Va'Akiri being a duo of nations with their own nuclear arms and strifes going on, they fortunately were not included in the fighting that lead to the creation of the IATO, but likewise they house no need to reduce their nuclear arms, something that IATO has a problem with.

The Tolan Confederation is another nation of interest, which is actually made up of a series of nineteen smaller nationstates that were devastate in the fighting during the 20th Century. Since the creation of IATO, they have endlessly petitioned the governments of Arhk and Puruhk for war reparations and sued for unjust killings of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the wars. Additionally, they are known for funding terrorist organizations the world round and have been known to threaten to develop their own nuclear weapon's program in order to avenge their dead in a war against IATO. While publicly all nations agree that indeed the disasters that were the wars were wrong, and that something must be done, the Tolan Confederation has yet to see any money paid out to their member governments. Additionally, the confederation knows that the payments are being made to some as wealthy business owners and industry moguls are known to be on the pay roll of IATO and more importantly millions of Standards (IATO common currency) have been reported going into infrastructure rebuilding and development in Tolan, but Humanitarian Aid Groups working in the affected regions of the Confederation report they have yet to see any major operations to begin, leading many to believe that widespread corruption of the Tolan government on the behalf of IATO goodwill gestures only makes matters worse.

Anyways, I guess I need to start anywhere, so as I've been asking around, what's a good ranking structure to look into for a force of roughly 80,000-160,000 in regards to branch size? There's the IATO Naval Corps, the IATO Guard Corps (essentially Marines, but without amphibious duties), the IATO Army Corps, and the IATO Air Corps. Each is roughly sized within the number scale given, but need to share a similar base ranking system, developed likely in the wake of the 1960's. I'm drawing inspiration primarily from European ranking systems, so I understand the Officers are going to be numerous, but my number one question has been, and will remain, what-do with the NCO's?

[Allanea]

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.

Fire 152mm STAFF or other similar munitions at your fellow man.

[Mazujotai]

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.

[Taihei Tengoku]

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.

Probably sometime in the next twelve months.

[Theodosiya]

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.

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.

[Laritaia]

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.

he would have to go to hospital.

i mean the armour will stop 5 rounds just fine, but being shot in the torso isn't something that you just walk off

[Puzikas]

Depending on the proximity of impact and the type of rounds they might go through.

[Theodosiya]

Regular ball, 50 meters. Between thigh aand lungs, but a bit far from intestines

[Puzikas]

I mean how close together they individually strike the vest.

I'm not going to be able to answer the question exactly. Hence

might

[Theodosiya]

1st hit right side, below lungs but not hit intestines. 2-5th hit the plate diagonally from low to high, right to left.

[Gallia-]

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.

Probably sometime in the next twelve months.

I thought the demonstration were supposed to be 2019?

Or am I conflating this with ADVAP?