NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Manticoran Empire]

Greenland has a bigger army than Iceland lol.

So does Luxembourg.

[Spearos]

Does anyone know how to write a military white paper? I'm interested in doing one for my fact book.

[Great Nortend]

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

[Crookfur]

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Why make it longer? You would be adding roughly 8" which if it all went on the barrel would give you a 24" barrel which seems a bit unnecessary.

Rechambering is theoretically possible. Not knowing the dimensions of your round I have no idea how much work would be involved though.

[United Earthlings]

Greenland has a bigger army than Iceland lol.

So does Luxembourg.

Hence, one of the reasons I picked Greenland, another being I was hedging my bets in that most people actually know where Greenland is. Wasn't sure how many people who read this thread have as an extensive knowledge of Geography as I do, one would hope for all, but one can never be certain beforehand.

Location wise, Athelland's nation is basically where the Faroe Islands are and the military forces stationed on them is well....Island Command Faroes

Does anyone know how to write a military white paper? I'm interested in doing one for my fact book.

Step 1: Find a Defense White Paper on a similar subject you intend to write about.
Step 2: Copy its tone and format
Step 3: Edit or modify the thesis and subject material as you deem necessary.
Step 4: Post it here so we the denizens of NSMRCT can critique it mercilessly
Step 5: A Reference Guide

[Gallia-]

No, the reason you picked Greenland is because you don't understand that Iceland and Greenland are the same thing in regards to their defense: it's provided entirely by a bigger country that colonizes them. Lol.

[Athelland]

Hello,

I’d like to request some suggestions on what structure Athelland’s military should use (branches, etc), and what area of warfare or defence the state should focus on. Athelland is an island nation in the North Atlantic, southeast of Iceland and northwest of the UK, roughly four fifths the size of the Republic of Ireland.

Thanks.

You might as well have said your nation is Iceland or an AU version because that's basically what it is, only smaller roughly by half in size land area wise.

Now the question becomes, politically, are you exactly like Iceland I.E. an independent nation or more like Greenland, an autonomous territory of some European nation?

If its the latter which is probably more than likely, then the answer is easy, you have no military.

Athelland is a completely independent sovereign state.

Unless the world is radically different there's no realistic military threat to such a country, so there's no need for a strong navy or bombers(!).

The navy and any air force would probably focus on things like patrolling territorial waters and search and rescue. If you bother with an army it would probably support peacekeeping operations abroad.

Athelland’s society (education, civil life, etc) is somewhat militarised and military service is lauded by the general population. It does have an army, but it primarily focuses on its own protection and is really there to deter any invasion (the state is rather paranoid to say the least).

[Taihei Tengoku]

The DPRK is a good example of a country that doesn't fight any wars (ok it sends people to coach Africans/Syrians/Iranians) but still remains militarized.

[Iltica]

Does anyone know if the X-32's weapon bay layout had any significant drawbacks compared to the one on the F-35?
Having a ventral intake doesn't leave much room for the latter.

[New Vihenia]

Does anyone know if the X-32's weapon bay layout had any significant drawbacks compared to the one on the F-35?
Having a ventral intake doesn't leave much room for the latter.

The layout probably force you to put the engine forward. Thus the bulkiest part namely the engine accessories gearbox wont get in the way. Thus you can get the volume you need for the weapon bay. This could complicate maintenance in the manner of Harrier where any large maintenance may force opening of wing box which requires heavy cranes.

Other than that however i see no real weaknesses. Internal weapon bay will always put severe constraint of what can be carried regardless of layout. The solution is thus to actually make the weapon smaller. Thus can fit or just put it outside and make it long ranged.

[Iltica]

Not sure I follow, if the gearbox and weapons bays have to be kept apart, wouldn't that move the engine rearwards, or perhaps upwards?

[Manokan Republic]

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

It's possible but I think a 16 inch barrel would be fine, especially if you used the same propellant. The 7.62mm x 39mm has a 16 inch barrel and generates 2200 joules of energy so, if going by that case, it's possible to make it have the same barrel length and yet still have quite a bit of power. This is the better bet, as it has more power from a shorter barrel and is easier to go down than up. The difference in size between the 5.45mm and 7.62mm case is also quite small, but enough to make the powder difference substantial. Imo that's the way to go. Neck down a 7.62mm case.

Some good examples of this are the .220 russian, 6mm PPC, and 6.5mm Grendel, although the grendel case is slightly malformed so it will fit in an AR-15 magazine better. Nonetheless it uses the same parent case, which is roughly the same as the 7.62mm case, and you can see how in comparison it can generate similiar levels of energy. Going down is usually easier than going up. At least with retaining the same level of power. The 7.62mm case is actually a good base case, given it's low weight for powder capacity, higher reliability given the broader casehead and curved shape, and also the fact the powder seems to burn pretty quickly in the barrel. A 10 inch barrel Ak still generates like 1600 joules, which is quite a lot. Granted the ballistics will change a bit switching to 6mm, but not by much. Given that the 6mm PPC is already a thing and has been chambered in a number of Ak's, and it's always easier to work off of real life figures, this may be the way to go, or some rendition of it.

My advice if you want a REALLY long barreled gun is to make it bullpup. This is where bullpups really shine. The Tavor is essentially a bullpup ak and generally a very good gun, but the OTS-14 Groza is the best example of a direct bullpup ak, and it's quite small despite the barrel length, or 25 inches with a 16 inch barrel, the same length or slightly shorter than an MP5 or 10.5 inch barrel HK416. With a 24 inch barrel, it would thus only be 33 inches long, or still the length of an M4 carbine or Ak. There are versions with longer barrels/suppressor added, to give a rough idea of what it would look like. It's better to keep the barrel length short though in my opinion.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Manokan if you were in charge we would still be in the 1914 mindset of assuming 2,000 meter combat ranges, and have some 10 by 70 mm in a bullpup by now whose ballistics are superb ballistically but utterly useless tactically.

[Manokan Republic]

Manokan if you were in charge we would still be in the 1914 mindset of assuming 2,000 meter combat ranges, and have some 10 by 70 mm in a bullpup by now whose ballistics are superb ballistically but utterly useless tactically.

My whole concept has always been to have those capabilities while still retaining sufficient CQB ability. The advantages of bullpups is the weapon is short so it's still maneuverable in close quarters combat, and using some slightly overpowered intermediate cartridge gives you something marginally heavier than a 5.56mm and slightly lighter than a 7.62mm x 39mm, while also having good long range capabilities. If you take the Grendel for example, it produces 2600 joules with an 8 gram bullet, which is slightly higher energy than an Ak with the same sized bullet, and it tends to have roughly similiar, if not slightly better barrier penetration and stopping power, while having as long of a range as a 7.62mm NATO, which is further than that of a 5.56mm. As a result there's not much of a drawback. The 6mm SAW round, 6mm PPC, 6.5mm PPC etc. are all good examples of moderately sized calibers with a really long range and good accuracy, that would still be smol enough for CQB.

If you want to go crazy, caseless/aluminum cases allow for even smaller bullets, and a recoil reducing system of some kind, like a stoner 63 or Ak-108, allow for even more powerful rounds. I'm not advocating for bolt actions or anything, just really good semiautomatics. These weapons should in theory function just fine in CQB, while also being viable at long range. The advantage being you don't get pinned down at 600 yards by some random person with a bolt action rifle or PKM machine gun or something, can fullfill more roles with the same gun, and generally just don't get outgunned. It does more things. They also tend to be slightly more powerful than the 5.56mm and thus compensate for those deficiencies.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Absolutely nobody but the gun enthusiasts and the bureaucrats, least of all actual infantrymen gives a fuck about how many joules their gewher produces at the muzzle.

[Manokan Republic]

Absolutely nobody but the gun enthusiasts and the bureaucrats, least of all actual infantrymen gives a fuck about how many joules their gewher produces at the muzzle.

That's why the M240 is not a thing, or the .50 caliber machine gun, or the 25mm chaingun and so on and so forth. xP

Of course they do, that is the entire idea. The entire idea of switching down from the 7.62mm NATO to the 5.56mm has always been about energy. And what's less important is energy generated at the muzzle, and instead energy at 300-600 yards. At long ranges it's not like getting hit by a piece of shrapnel, it does some real damage and can still penetrate armor. That's really where a key advantage is when it comes to aerodynamics and ballistics. A 6.5mm grendel at 600 yards will have more energy than the 7.62mm NATO, despite the fact the energy at the muzzle is 3500 vs. 2600 for the grendel. And a 6mm round could be even more aerodynamic and thus have an even longer range. The idea is the ability for the GPMG guy to share the same ammunition as the average soldier, carry more ammunition, and for the average soldier to benefit from it as well. One key advantage is range, and that can be compensated for in a smaller cartridge with better aerodynamics.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.
Edit: Martini-Henry > 21st century 6.5 memes.
Edit 2:

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Нет. Rifle is fine. If you absolutely must then 5.8x42 mm.

[Manokan Republic]

I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.
Edit: Martini-Henry > 21st century 6.5 memes.
Edit 2:

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Нет. Rifle is fine. If you absolutely must then 5.8x42 mm.

800 meters were the technical specifications. 1000+ meters is just icing on the cake.

6mm SAW: "During the 1970s, the U.S. Army was looking to develop a new squad automatic weapon (SAW) that was lighter than the M60 machine gun with an effective range out to 800 m. The 7.62 mm cartridge was too heavy and the 5.56 mm cartridge could not provide effective performance at that range. Research led to the development of the 6×45mm SAW cartridge. Its 105 gr (6.8 g) bullet had a muzzle velocity of 2,520 feet per second (770 m/s) and muzzle energy of 1,488 ft⋅lb (2,017 J). The relatively heavy bullet combined with a moderate velocity had optimum long-range performance. A light-alloy cased version of the round was also produced". Obviously this is just one study and one project, but, the general idea is there. One big advantage of heavier GPMG over lighter machine guns is range, and if this can be achieved with lighter weight ammunition, this means the ability to carry more bullets, which is always an advantage, and particularly useful for machine guns.

[Gallia-]

Manokan

>arguing with manokan

I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.

yeah it was closer to 3,000 or so

muzzle energy of 1,488 ft⋅lb (2,017 J)

it's ya boi big lssahlle

[Austrasien]

Calibre doesn't have a significant effect on the drag of a bullet. All things being equal in fact, larger calibres will always have lower drag coefficients because of the square-cube relationship.

The only reason 6.5 and 6 mm rounds tend to stand out is they generally permit longer bullets to be loaded into the case than common service cartridges. Which is in part an accident of history and part a reflection of the fact the 6mm intermediates are simply newer. Comparably low drag bullets for 7.62mm and 5.56mm and everything else already exist, they just can't be loaded in the normally permissible dimensions for the cartridge.

But a clean-slate SCHV cartridge with an appropriate low-drag bullet loaded retains its basic advantage over 6 and 6.5mm as well as larger calibres: More for a given weight. In fact, in some ways it makes even smaller calibres like 5 or 4.5 begin to look more compelling.

[Gallia-]

haha this guy over here shilling for 4.92x33mm ACR lmao

more like 4.92x39mm lmao

[Hypron]

Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))

[Austrasien]

Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))

No.

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos

[Hypron]

Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))

No.

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos

That'll work just fine. Thank you.

[Manokan Republic]

Calibre doesn't have a significant effect on the drag of a bullet. All things being equal in fact, larger calibres will always have lower drag coefficients because of the square-cube relationship.

The only reason 6.5 and 6 mm rounds tend to stand out is they generally permit longer bullets to be loaded into the case than common service cartridges. Which is in part an accident of history and part a reflection of the fact the 6mm intermediates are simply newer. Comparably low drag bullets for 7.62mm and 5.56mm and everything else already exist, they just can't be loaded in the normally permissible dimensions for the cartridge.

But a clean-slate SCHV cartridge with an appropriate low-drag bullet loaded retains its basic advantage over 6 and 6.5mm as well as larger calibres: More for a given weight. In fact, in some ways it makes even smaller calibres like 5 or 4.5 begin to look more compelling.

Bullets that are too long or have too low of a sectional density tend to be unstable in flight. In theory, a super heavy 5.56mm has a smaller aerodynamic profile, but given the lower sectional density and very long bullet, wouldn't really be stable enough in flight. It's just not really going to lend itself to a practical design. With something that small, when you get below a certain level you just start to lose certain features. The 5.56mm is about the same weight as a rain drop, and is notorious for bouncing off of windows and being stopped by very small amounts of sand. The reason why 6mm to 6.5mm work better is for practical reasons with barrel twist and that sort of thing. They are options that already exist and work well within existing chamberings and rifle designs, so it's the more practical choice to go with, rather than inventing a new round that doesn't exist yet. At least that's the reason why I tend to go with them, it's not about the most extreme thing possible, it's about something realistically available, or a close comparison to that.

To stabilize something that long and skinny, you basically end up with fins, like an arrow or sabot. Going absolutely crazy means creating something akin to a flechette or dart, essentially a saboted round like in a tank, as the fins are needed to stabilize the round. This may be very well 3-4mm in diameter, but it would be a bigger barrel just with a plastic sabot to fill in the gap of the barrel to absorb all the energy/not scratch up the barrel/not have the round bounce around too much. These rounds in smaller designs have always been problematic for the same reasons, as well as very expensive, but in theory they could do pretty well. The main issue is that optimization for armor penetration is not really needed for such small caliber weapons, and so you tend to get ice pick through and through injuries in people, as opposed to expansion or greater energy transfer, I.E. better stopping power, from say lead. You wouldn't hunt a moose with a .22, or a deer, so it makes a difference with people if they get hit with a .22 sized projectile or not. There's a reason why shotguns, 7.62 guns and so on are a thing, as opposed to just the 5.56mm.

My idea is just something realistic and practical like a 6mm PPC or 6.5mm grendel, that has already been out for many years and is well received. But sure you can go crazy. The .224 valkyrie is cool looking, although I'd prefer a different case over the 6.8mm remington case but, it seems to do alright. The 6mm Grendel is also pretty neat. The purpose of 6mm and 6.5mm bullets typically is that their accuracy and aerodynamics are good while not going overboard. They're a more practical choice. But I'm all for hyper aerodynamic darts, that's just uh, well it's kind of not really a thing right now. Despite the notion I'm all about super long ranges at expense of anything else, the reason for the 6mm and 6.5mm bullets is more so practicality. The 6.5mm creedmoor is being used by special forces right now, and honestly imo it's the right move. It just have superior ballistics and less recoil. You can get higher BC bullets with the 7.62mm, but it's too heavy to be practical, with a .71 BC 6.5mm round being 10 grams, vs. about 15 grams for a .8 BC 7.62mm bullet. It's just too heavy to be reasonable, you'd need the energy of a .300 wing mag or more to get a decent velocity. And you can get a decent BC with a .223 round, but then it tends to be too small, or hard to stabilize. They're really long, too long. The 6mm and 6.5mm are about the right size for most guns without making too much of an impact, being very long bullets but not too long. For the power levels you want, they tend to fill the niche pretty well.