NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Manokan Republic]

The advantage of a mortar is it's payload for the size of weapon that fires it, which is what I keep saying. I'm not saying I want to use it for ideal direct fire attacks only that it can be used for that. At close range, indirect fire is also still possible since you can just fire up at a higher angle. A 20mm autocannon isn't going to provide the payload of a 60mm mortar for example, and is also much larger and harder to mount. Direct fire capability isn't the goal, it's just a possibility. Again I've never said that I want to use it instead of an autocannon for the same role, I just want the same loading mechanism to be used to automatically load a mortar instead.

And I've explained why that isn't used. Mortars and Autocannons are used in very different ways and the difference in employment results in a difference in how the autoloading systems work. A mortar uses separate propellent charges to adjust the range they travel to. An autocannon doesn't. As such, an autoloading mortar HAS to adjust to the separate propellent charges and be able to alter the number of propellent charges to meet the requisite range requirement. An autocannon doesn't. You can't make an autocannon style mortar without loosing the range versatility of the mortar.

Not all mortars use different propellant loads, some mortars have rounds that are prepackaged. Again, your insistence that mortars can only do one thing and function in one highly specific way is ridiculous. Mortars can operate in a lot of different ways, and you don't need to change propellant loads when you can just angle the weapon differently, such as with the 60mm Brandt mortar.

The idea that it would be impossible to have an autoloading mortar because you somehow have to use varying levels of propellant is absurd. Nowhere written in stone was this ever a requirement of what a mortar is or how it works. It's essentially just a gun that shoots a low velocity high payload round.

[Manokan Republic]

Mortar autoloaders don't adjust the propellant. It's done by the crew before the rounds are placed in the feeding system.

He's just proposing something like the Vasilek or AGS-57.

The AGS-57 is pretty close to something that would be ideal, although if it was electrically automated I figure it could be smaller. Which brings me back to my original question, which is that if such things more or less already exist, why are autoloading mortars always such crap? o.o

Is it just the idea of wanting to change propellants, share compatibility with ground munitions or achieve true "fully automatic" fire? Do they just not care? xP

[Purpelia]

The future is clearly liquid propellant injection.

[Kassaran]

Hey purp, can you tell me more on that topic, because I think it's the first time I've ever heard of it and it gave me a semi.

[Gallia-]

Hey purp, can you tell me more on that topic, because I think it's the first time I've ever heard of it and it gave me a semi.

Purp must've found a stack of crusty Infantry magazines from the early '60s.

Liquid propellant died 30 years ago as a serious solution for propellant of artillery guns. After 40 years of on-off research.

[The Corparation]

Hey purp, can you tell me more on that topic, because I think it's the first time I've ever heard of it and it gave me a semi.

The idea is that you replace the propellant of your artillery with one or more liquids. In theory this allows more precise control of the propellant load, higher power, greater safety as the liquids could be inert until mixed, possibly even a lighter and less complex gun. After decades of various levels of development pretty much none of those theoretical benifits ever appeared and the idea has sorta died out.

[Gallia-]

Monopropellants have all the benefits claimed, most of which is precise control of interior ballistics, and having a higher energy density (a tank could carry more main gun rounds, or a howitzer more shells), and readily adjustable charge levels (this is a benefit solely for howitzers, but tanks benefit from interior ballistic and volume advantages as well), with the downside of liquid propellant being a bit temperamental to work with. ETC has similar benefits for solid propellants but solid propellants are more annoying energy requirements (higher than ordinary solid propellant) but flatter pressure curve, like liquid propellant. It's the worst of both worlds.

None are serious contenders for future main gun technology, which seems to be evolving in much the same direction that it did 40 years ago: bigger is better.

[Purpelia]

Hey purp, can you tell me more on that topic, because I think it's the first time I've ever heard of it and it gave me a semi.

It's a cold war era meme idea like ETC and caseless rounds. Only worse because it just is. From what I understand its like so out of touch with reality that it does not even get floated around NS any more. And NS made caseless rounds and 6 inch ETC tang guns work and sell. So yea.

It's one of those things that is just so out there that I couldn't but not mention it.

[New Vihenia]

will re-gun my tank to 158mm

[Purpelia]

Separately loading sacks of binary propellant fired by a giant needle or bust.

[Manokan Republic]

On a somewhat jokey note, hydrogen gas propellant is probably more reasonable than a liquid propellant gun. Other than the insanely high energy density of hydrogen, the highest of all forms of chemical energy, it has pretty good properties for rapid conflagration and actually has been successfully used in a lot of large gun designs. Notably, a space cannon design has been used which theoretically can achieve the velocity needed to launch stuff in to space and overcome escape velocity. One big advantage other than the energy density is the detonation velocity, which in it's natural state is over 3500 m/s, which is more than gunpowder at around 1000-2000 m/s, and it's more ideal than a liquid propellant as it burns faster and it fills it's container predictably given that it expands, also meaning it rapidly mixes with oxygen. Your propellant weight theoretically is lighter if you absorb most of your oxygen from your environment, such as sucking it in to your gun barrel before hand to burn the hydrogen, or using some other kind of injection and obtainment method like from an air compressor.

This does not diminish the fact it would be substantially more complex, but maybe for big guns to augment their power, such as to augment the power of railguns, like to boost the injection-velocity (I understand they use electricity) it could be useful. A multistage gun makes a lot of sense, or using artillery propellant, a railgun etc. in addition to hydrogen and so on for a super boost of power. A ram accelerator can achieve even higher velocities by burning the fuel when it's already traveling faster than the speed of sound. So high velocities and good energy density as well as an easier time storing and mixing the hydrogen gas with oxygen sound like the makings of a useful gun design.

[Kassaran]

>Mfw Space Elevators should be the only way people think about getting things to orbit in the future.

So I know this isn't something usually talked about here as SciFi is generally beyond the purview of the thread, though it's not expressly verboten. On that note, I'm currently writing a book series in which during the 22nd Century, Humans built an entire network of interconnected space elevators during an event know as Exodus.

Now, the question I have, is what would be the futuresignoficance for elevators to military Operations.

[Austrasien]

>Mfw Space Elevators should be the only way people think about getting things to orbit in the future.

So I know this isn't something usually talked about here as SciFi is generally beyond the purview of the thread, though it's not expressly verboten. On that note, I'm currently writing a book series in which during the 22nd Century, Humans built an entire network of interconnected space elevators during an event know as Exodus.

Now, the question I have, is what would be the futuresignoficance for elevators to military Operations.

The most significant thing in the world in FT probably.

With a space elevator nobody without one could possibly compete with your launch efficiency. Unless they owned the moon...

[Crookfur]

Then there are the fun effects of bringing one down. Are there any other book series that deal with a space elevator failure that isn't Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?

[Kassaran]

Then there are the fun effects of bringing one down. Are there any other book series that deal with a space elevator failure that isn't Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?

Horribly inaccurate given how the models of actually effective space elevators have to be designed to not do anything like what he's probably detailed. Let me guess, catastrophic failure, combined with some sort of Kessler effect debris field being generated?

The designs currently in circulation deal with a thick ribbon of carbon-nanotubules, being set as the main tether, and then a 'climber' ascends the tethers to the orbital station. It takes a day or two, maybe three depending on load, torque, and how much power you need, but in all the tethers themselves are incredibly safe upon failure. The only major issue is the counterweight stations you'd likely have, and the actual platform that the elevator connects to, floating off into space, and the climber likely falling back into the atmosphere. It's simple enough though to prep for that, and a series of countermeasures have been proposed to combat catastrophic failure of the tether or the climber.

In the end, Space Elevators might also be remarkably inexpensive once they're set up, as resources get incredibly more plentiful as you send more ships into orbit via it. No harmful pollution, no smoke trails, no burning fuel, just good, clean, ascension to the heavens above. Nevertheless, I was thinking about having Earth in Nobis Pacem, be surrounded by the massive geo-stationary habitats that connect via space-elevator to the recovering planet below. For the Martians in Nobis Pacem, it's how they managed to secretly launch an entire fleet, by maintaining the guise that they didn't have the heavy-duty lift capabilities to assemble ships in orbit rather than on the ground.

[New Vihenia]

a doodle about LO cargo aircraft.





Basically something between C-27 and C-130. With 2 CFM-56 or equivalent engine. S-duct. It will fly high, using low RCS to penetrate and drop stuff or finding a flat land, land and drop payload. and special operations.

[Crookfur]

Then there are the fun effects of bringing one down. Are there any other book series that deal with a space elevator failure that isn't Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?

Horribly inaccurate given how the models of actually effective space elevators have to be designed to not do anything like what he's probably detailed. Let me guess, catastrophic failure, combined with some sort of Kessler effect debris field being generated?

The designs currently in circulation deal with a thick ribbon of carbon-nanotubules, being set as the main tether, and then a 'climber' ascends the tethers to the orbital station. It takes a day or two, maybe three depending on load, torque, and how much power you need, but in all the tethers themselves are incredibly safe upon failure. The only major issue is the counterweight stations you'd likely have, and the actual platform that the elevator connects to, floating off into space, and the climber likely falling back into the atmosphere. It's simple enough though to prep for that, and a series of countermeasures have been proposed to combat catastrophic failure of the tether or the climber.

In the end, Space Elevators might also be remarkably inexpensive once they're set up, as resources get incredibly more plentiful as you send more ships into orbit via it. No harmful pollution, no smoke trails, no burning fuel, just good, clean, ascension to the heavens above. Nevertheless, I was thinking about having Earth in Nobis Pacem, be surrounded by the massive geo-stationary habitats that connect via space-elevator to the recovering planet below. For the Martians in Nobis Pacem, it's how they managed to secretly launch an entire fleet, by maintaining the guise that they didn't have the heavy-duty lift capabilities to assemble ships in orbit rather than on the ground.

From what I can remember it was an deliberate big boom seperating the tether from the asteroid/moon serving as the orbital end point.

Basically big rock goes flying off into space and the cable falls to the surface, wrapping round the equator.

[Theodosiya]

Why USA and PRC interested in pursuing light/med tank project?

[Imperializt Russia]

You've spent thousands of words, most of them irrelevant, inventing the grenade launcher.

Try being concise.

This is really more so the difficulty of Manticore to understand basic things than my inability to be concise. As well, it's not really an invention, my question is why there aren't more chaingun style mortars around given they could be rather small and have a large amount of firepower. Instead of needing a whole separate vehicle to fire mortar rounds more slowly, you could just put it on an existing vehicle and not have this problem to deal with. As far as it goes, grenade launchers are perfect examples as to why something like this could easily work.

Autocannon, grenade launchers and mortars exist to fill certain roles. The return of the mortar in the twentieth century was partly influenced by its (relative) mobility, and low cost compared to a high-pressure howitzer or field gun. After all, howitzers used to be defined by only being capable of high-angle fire, so (large) mortars and howitzers have a small overlap in their utility.

Given the mechanisation of most modern forces, the lightweight infantry mortar (50-60mm) is becoming less common, with 81/82mm and 120mm mortars being transferred to vehicles either for transport, or transport and firing-under-armour and the humble 75/76mm field mortar becoming rarer still.

Remember that the Vasilek-Humvee wasn't developed for its combat firepower, it was built for EOD teams to engage IEDs/ordnance without having to send over the dude from Hurt Locker and risk him getting sent to the hurt locker.

If you want lightweight automatic vehicle-mount explosive firepower, what you want is an automatic grenade launcher. The way mortars and their ammunition are designed does not lend itself to automatic weapons, especially not under-armour weapons. See Vasilek, which is a hand-fed, clip weapon. You could redesign the mortar and mortar ammunition to fit your preferred role, but the effect of this will be designing an oversized 80mm grenade launcher.

---

Why are you focusing on the mortar as a base, rather than a grenade launcher? Why are you not relying on the artillery that will be present within other echelons of a unit? Novel grenade launchers and the like?

[Imperializt Russia]

>Mfw Space Elevators should be the only way people think about getting things to orbit in the future.

So I know this isn't something usually talked about here as SciFi is generally beyond the purview of the thread, though it's not expressly verboten. On that note, I'm currently writing a book series in which during the 22nd Century, Humans built an entire network of interconnected space elevators during an event know as Exodus.

Now, the question I have, is what would be the futuresignoficance for elevators to military Operations.

Interconnected elevators sounds very complex. I mean, remember that the distance to connect two elevator complexes is going to be even larger than their physical separation on the earth's surface.

A more reasonable suggestion (from my non-expert opinion) would have been a network of space elevator/shipyards that constructed space stations stand off from the elevator hubs themselves, and "connected" by free-flight shuttles.

[Manokan Republic]

Why USA and PRC interested in pursuing light/med tank project?

Price, maneuverability and logistics. They not only can be cheaper to produce, easier to maneuver with in the field (functioning sort of as a tank killer, which were common in WWII), but also are easy to get to location. A 35 ton tank for example would be easily transported by a C-130, which is a cheap and prolific aircraft, and of course the smaller it is the easier it is to bring to location, especially quickly like in airborne assaults. Something like 50% of U.S. causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan were also from logistics convoys, largely from fuel, and so a reduction in fuel consumption means saving lives. Even if the tank itself is more likely to be defeated, reducing how many logistics troops you have in the field will likely save more lives than a better armored tank. Better to occasionally lose a cheap tank and have 1-2 crew members die than lose 20 logistics troops. Often times you don't lose any crew when a tank is defeated, or they are just injured, and in WWII for example tank crews had far lower causality rates than infantry even after being attacked.

Finally I would say that with the rise of active defense system that can shoot down missiles, Bradley's and other tank destroyers which rely on rocket launchers are going to sort of become a thing of the past. While kinetic missiles may still hold some promise, basically you will need a tank gun to fight another tank. So instead of deploying a Bradley, you will deploy a mini-tank instead which fulfills the same role. Ideally these would also chainguns on them for infantry fighting, but this is surprisingly easy to do in the modern day without a large turret (a 30mm chaingun like on the JLTV comes to mind). The Bradley for example killed more tanks in Iraq than the M1 Abrams, and eventually sheer numbers and speed, that is actually being in the right place at the right time, become important to defeating the enemy. What is the point of a heavily armored abrams that can't actually get to the destination in time, be it due to constraints of fuel trucks, delivery by aircraft and so on?

Also the Bradley proved to be uniquely vulnerable ot IED's and mines in the war, so a new vehicle is desired even if it's not an exact replacement. Slapping on an infantry-fighting chaingun to such a tank would also make a lot of sense but time will tell if this is done or what it's exact use is for. It may very well augment rather than replace IFV's as support vehicles for tanks.

[Iceland-Norway-Denmark]

So I thought i'd put up some ideas about the potential structure of the army. It blends three main forms of soldier, draftees with a national service that can be bolstered by additional conscription, reservists and professional soldiers.

Generally national service members or conscripts will make up the majority of the OR-1s and OR-2s. OR-3s serve as fire team commanders, if a full conscription hasn't been called many of these will be professionals but the more experienced draftees take up some of this rank if larger scale conscription is necessary due to the increased number of section commanders being needed. OR-4s will be section/squad commanders, these and all higher ranking NCOs will be professional soldiers, promotion to these ranks as a national service soldier or conscript is possible but they will be considered professionals from that point onwards. Generally Reservists of the rank OR-4 or greater be former professional NCOs or at least have had served full time in the national service previously. Officer ranks are pretty similar to the standard nato structure noting than that 2nd lieutenants/OF-1b serve as the second in command of a platoon under a 1st lieutenant/ OF-1a unless there are insufficient 1st Lieutenants to command all platoons due to conscription pressures.

[Manokan Republic]

This is really more so the difficulty of Manticore to understand basic things than my inability to be concise. As well, it's not really an invention, my question is why there aren't more chaingun style mortars around given they could be rather small and have a large amount of firepower. Instead of needing a whole separate vehicle to fire mortar rounds more slowly, you could just put it on an existing vehicle and not have this problem to deal with. As far as it goes, grenade launchers are perfect examples as to why something like this could easily work.

Autocannon, grenade launchers and mortars exist to fill certain roles. The return of the mortar in the twentieth century was partly influenced by its (relative) mobility, and low cost compared to a high-pressure howitzer or field gun. After all, howitzers used to be defined by only being capable of high-angle fire, so (large) mortars and howitzers have a small overlap in their utility.

Given the mechanisation of most modern forces, the lightweight infantry mortar (50-60mm) is becoming less common, with 81/82mm and 120mm mortars being transferred to vehicles either for transport, or transport and firing-under-armour and the humble 75/76mm field mortar becoming rarer still.

Remember that the Vasilek-Humvee wasn't developed for its combat firepower, it was built for EOD teams to engage IEDs/ordnance without having to send over the dude from Hurt Locker and risk him getting sent to the hurt locker.

If you want lightweight automatic vehicle-mount explosive firepower, what you want is an automatic grenade launcher. The way mortars and their ammunition are designed does not lend itself to automatic weapons, especially not under-armour weapons. See Vasilek, which is a hand-fed, clip weapon. You could redesign the mortar and mortar ammunition to fit your preferred role, but the effect of this will be designing an oversized 80mm grenade launcher.

---

Why are you focusing on the mortar as a base, rather than a grenade launcher? Why are you not relying on the artillery that will be present within other echelons of a unit? Novel grenade launchers and the like?

Where does anybody get the idea that weapon designs can only fulfill specific roles? An autocannon loading mechanism can be used for a mortar round, just as effectively as it can be used for a *typical* autocannon round. A long stroke gas piston is used in the M240 machine gun, the Dragnuv sniper rifle, Ak-47, and even some pistols (notably the desert eagle), and it doesn't matter what the intended role is as the basic fundamental principle of the design works the same. An autocannon or chaingun loading system can be used to load a mortar or mortar-like round as easily as a high velocity chaingun round or a grenade or whatever projectile you are launching. The same firing mechanism in a gun can be used to fire a variety of different rounds, so the idea that somehow we must keep the mortar, autocannon, grenade launcher etc. all as if they are completely separate weapons is kind of silly. It's the reason why most rifles are autoloading these days, and the battle rifle replaced the bolt action. As time moves you, you learn to fire the same rounds faster.

The main goal of mortars is essentially for the use as pocket artillery which is, allowed by their smaller weight and size. As far as it goes modern mortar systems are rarely cheaper than howitzers, but price really isn't the biggest issue. A lot of the autoloading systems, like amos, or the autoloading 81mm mortar are more expensive than low grade field artillery, and typically around the same as your average artillery unit. They are predominately used due to their relatively small size in comparison to howitzers, which makes them easier to deploy, such as on vehicles, carried by infantry or even by themselves (such as when air dropped), as they tend to be lighter weight. A 120mm mortar on average uses 10,000 dollar rounds, which is actually more expensive than the 155mm howitzer, but a 120mm mortar is only about 300 pounds, or the wheeled versions 1100 pounds vs. 12,000 to 15,000 for a 155mm Howitzer. The lightest weight 155mm howitzers are like 8000-10,000 pounds, and made of titanium and naturally hideously expensive, making them impractical for mass production. You also have massive recoil forces, which means you need a very large turret for something like a self propelled artillery cannon to work. A mortar has far lower recoil forces and size, and yet can fire a similarly sized round in the same role, just with a shorter range. The advantage is it's small size, weight, and recoil, as opposed to it necessarily being cheaper, although in many cases it can be.

As for why use a mortar over artillery, the main reason is that you can't always depend upon artillery to be there exactly when you need it, as there is a limited amount available at any given time in the field. The same is true for airstrikes, which is why we use artillery ironically. It's not only more expensive to have self propelled artillery but there is a naturally limited amount of them, and so for them to keep up with your infantry forces, you either need a ton of them, or to use a smaller amount of infantry. A mortar being embedded within an infantry unit can fire immediately as it sees a threat instead of waiting for a radio operator and playing a guessing game of if they hit or not, while also being ready to go at any moment rather than having a delay like calling in artillery fire has. You can't just expect immediate return fire from artillery at your beck and call, naturally there is a delay, and from a limited amount of artillery that even if available, may be helping another group of soldiers. Mortars allow for fire support at the platoon level or in some cases even in a squad (particularly the french with knee mortars), without having to wait for artillery to show up, as being much smaller it's easier to carry with the men, mount on vehicles and so on. Instead of waiting for artillery, the mortars are already right there with you and can be called upon immediately for use. The advantage over a grenade launcher is raw firepower and range, as well as better indirect fire capability, although air bursting grenade launchers can replace indirect fire to a degree. There's also somewhat better utility although conceivably smoke rounds and flares can be fired from a grenade launcher. The advantage for having them on every vehicle is that they are rather small in comparison to artillery, and so if you had a mortar in say, every stryker, on every Humvee etc. it would be a large firepower increase without the burdensome size and recoil constraints of a 155mm howitzer. The main goal is essentially to have the use of "pocket artillery", immediate use, on-demand firepower to be used at the squad or platoon level without requiring a largely immobile 155mm howitzer weapon, or a large self propelled artillery cannon.

The idea of just waiting for artillery sounds nice until you need it and are killed before it shows up. Being able to take the role of artillery, at least at short ranges, without relying on artillery is nice for strategic purposes. Being smaller and lighter it can also be used in harder to reach places like mountains or rough terrain. While an autoloading mortar is bound to be heavier than a single fire one, it still is likely to be smaller than artillery, by a fairly wide margin. All this being said, I do think that in some roles an automatic grenade launcher can replace a mortar, particularly at the platoon level. The 30mm AGS-30 by russia seems pretty awesome, in how small it is for it's firepower.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Then there are the fun effects of bringing one down. Are there any other book series that deal with a space elevator failure that isn't Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?

Fountains of paradise discusses space elevator failure in some depth.

[Triplebaconation]

Losing a space elevator would be an economic disaster but do very little physical damage.