NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Pentaga Giudici]

For some reason, when I click "View your posts", this thread doesn't appear.

Did my posts get deleted?

[Gallia-]

The threads move around there depending on who posts last IIRC.

[Pentaga Giudici]

The threads move around there depending on who posts last IIRC.

I know, I've been here like ten years. I was just wondering why it said I never posted here, when it shows all the threads I ever posted in.

[Danternoust]

For some reason, when I click "View your posts", this thread doesn't appear.

Did my posts get deleted?

PhpBB takes a few hours to add your most recent post to "View your posts"

---

this is how i worked out dumbla's training schedules

Did you ironicly make this really hard to read?

I use unix, the development system for 80s mainframes.

Use wget, and then the fold command.

WSL might also have it.

[Pentaga Giudici]

Does anyone remember how big an ECT gun has to be, to have comparable performance to a 120mm Smoothbore gun?

Talking against tanks and KEPs, I know smaller bores means less HE against infantry and smaller HEAT shells.

EDIT:

Is there anything stopping people from milling AKs using CNC machines? I think there are AKs out there that use alumium or have polymer receivers too.

[Gallia-]

Formally called the Sd85 (Stridsdraekt m/85) battlesuit, it is codenamed "Satyr" by the Papal States and "Faun" by the Oumeian Department of Defense, due to its unusual, ostrich-like gait and the pilot's semi-prone seating position. Gallan troops call it the "Rovfogel", after a popular syndicated cartoon, of which the suit resembles a character of the same name.

Designed to replace the Sd50 and Sd69 battlesuits, the former dating from before the Dorestad Incident and the latter from the mid-2060's, the most noticeable feature of the Sd85 is that it is much larger than either of those. Despite this, protection level of the Sd85 remains comparable to the older battlesuits (.60" (~15mm) armor piercing on the thorax, identical to pre-war National Police Bureau SAT Sd50s and Sd69) but the pilot is completely encased within the chest and upper legs of the suit, seated jockey-style, which reduces the necessary armored volume of the suit significantly. The Sd85 incorporates a pair of "jump jets" letting it fly across or over short obstacles for a brief period. Approximately loaded mass of the suit is 1,200 pounds, triple that of the Sd50 and -69 battlesuits, and it is capable of running at speeds up to 50 miles per hour for long periods.

Care was taken to incorporate ballistically protected ammunition storage, giving the onboard rockets and cannon rounds protection against flying artillery splinters and small arms fire, as both the Sd50 and Sd69 were found to be vulnerable to "stripping" of their armaments by sustained artillery, mortar, or machine gun fire in the Alarian War and subsequent conflicts.

A pair of active protection radars and interceptor magazines (four on each side) is mounted on the "pauldrons", along with laser-warning receivers, smoke grenade dischargers, and a sextuple canister of 3" diameter anti-personnel/anti-armor missiles. High energy density gelled propellants are used for both the rockets and jump jets, giving the missiles a range in excess of 2.5 miles, and the pilot the ability to fly for up to 15 minutes at altitudes up to 4,000 feet (do not do this you will fall to your death). Normal practice is to use the jumpjets to provide either short range mobility or to traverse obstacles (rivers, canyons, atomic craters, etc.) rather than fly though.

A wing kit has been developed for the Sd85 allowing it to be deployed from aircraft and perform a long-range (>100 kilometers) powered glide to a target zone using drop tanks. The longest range glide in an Sd85 was performed by Lieutenant Olof Jansson in 2087, when he flew 150 miles to a marked landing zone, after jumping from a Tp.48 transport aircraft at 30,000 feet, accidentally overshooting the landing area by nearly 1,500 feet. However, this jump required the use of both drop tanks and the maximum internal fuel load of the Sd85. Motive power is provided by a combination of artificial muscle actuators and onboard hydrogen fuel cells.

A highly modified Sd85 was used for the "long range assault/strike suit" experiment in 2088: the robotic arms were removed, the missile mounting pauldrons were replaced with a pair of pods incorporating large turbine engine and fuel tanks, and a folding wing-kit replaced the back mounted jump jets. Ground effect flight on the North Arctic Ice Sheet showed that the LRA/SS could fly for nearly 50 minutes at max continuous power. Maximum operating altitude was nearly 800 feet, and the suit was able to attain a peak forward flight speed of 120 miles an hour. Rapid lateral and vertical movements were possible with thrust vectoring, thanks to the much larger size of the engines mounted in the shoulders, while good ground flight characteristics were noted due to the use of a reverse delta wing. Due to its lack of arms, the LRA/SS had to use ordinary infantry rifles, normally an Ak21 or Ak75 automatic rifle, although it could use any handheld weapon that the operator was trained with.

Six 3" diameter missile tubes were placed on the upper portion of each of the pods, with room for a dozen missiles total, while the self-defense radar was moved from the top of the pod to the waist, where the storage pods normally are. Underneath each of the pods is single a mounting point for a LW cannon/HMG, packing either 300 rounds of 1" cannon rounds or 900 rounds of .50" machine gun ammo in a linkless feed ammo drum. The laser warning receivers were moved to the upper torso area, providing similar cover arcs, albeit limited in the aft quarter. Overall loaded mass went from 1,200 pounds to nearly 1,800 pounds. The Royal Army expressed interest in the LRA/SS for special forces use.

The "head" of the battlesuit is capable of "craning" itself above the pauldrons to see to the sides, and rear, of the battlesuit. The "eye" is a thermal imaging hyperspectral sight, providing images in 1440p for the operator, with a range of 8 miles for detection of vehicles and 4 miles for detection of humans. The smaller lenses are visual and ultraviolet sensors, which provide warning to the operator of incoming threats. The "ears" are high gain ESM antennae, which extend down into the "cheeks" and provide full HF/DF and the ability to transmit cybernetic attack algorithms. The battlesuit, lightly loaded and at maximally erect posture, is 2.75 meters. Ordinary posture is 2.54 meters. Higher postures are used for observation above obstacles such as walls, or slow walking. A millimeter wave radar is included, giving the suit the ability to track moving targets such as trucks or tanks.

The artificial limbs of the battlesuit are ballistically rated, and resistant to small arms fire and splinter with little additional protection. As shown, applique can be applied to the limbs to improve their protection against larger threats (155mm splinter, light cannon rounds), but this reduces the flight speed and airborne range of the battlesuit considerably. Shown, the battlesuit is wearing footguards and forearm protectors, which provide protection against .30" armor piercing and .50" ball machine gun rounds, respectively.

In combat, Sd85 pilots can use the high powered jets to "dash" around at altitudes as low as a few inches off the ground, as well as being able to jump up to 10 feet in the air, giving them startling agility where terrain allows.

Standard onboard armament is 10x 3.5" multi-purpose guided missiles or 4x 5" anti-tank missiles, 8x anti-missile interceptors, 12x 2.5" smoke launchers, 4x close combat cutting torches, 1x 1"/50 automatic cannon and 480 rounds of 25mm. Additional ammunition for the cannon can be carried in external mounting brackets on the legs or arms of the battlesuit. For police purposes, the battlesuit can mount rubber ball dischargers on the thighs, carry riot shields, and carry arm-mounted less-lethal automatic shotguns.

Besides these onboard weapons, both the protector arms (thorax) and robotic limbs are substantial weapons. The robotic limbs are strong enough to dismember an adult human with relative ease and the protectors' robotic hands can crush a man's skull (provided the pressure detection safeties are turned off or poorly tuned).

The Sd85 has only seen combat action in minor colonial wars and proxy conflicts, but has proven itself a deadly opponent to most forms of conventional troops, including anti-battlesuit snipers and robotic-cybernetic armors. The Gallan Army has been keen to replace almost all infantry battalions with Sd85s, but lack of funding, much of which over the past 30 years has gone to the Aerospace Defense Command (combination of Air Defense and Celestial Commands) and Royal Navy satellite and shipbuilding budgets, serves a suitable obstacle to this. Currently only three battalions of the 513th (Prince's Own) Ranger Regiment are fully equipped with Sd85, which stands at a production number of around 420 suits total.

A tactical battalion of Sd85s comprises 130 battlesuits, with 9 platoons (13 suits), 9 cybernetic warfare suits, and 4 battle nodes (company commander, typically a Major, rarely a LTC). Spare suits, and the 513th Operational Conversion Unit (513.TEN "Oaendligheterna"), are stored centrally at regimental level.

It is believed by that a small number of LRA/SS suits are used by the Office of Special Collections' Special Duties Section 9, which is allegedly responsible for foreign/overseas direct action, technology espionage, and assassinations, with an emphasis on using cybernetically augmented soldiers.

[Gallia-]

Does anyone remember how big an ECT gun has to be, to have comparable performance to a 120mm Smoothbore gun?

120mm.

Is there anything stopping people from milling AKs using CNC machines? I think there are AKs out there that use alumium or have polymer receivers too.

No, but there are better weapons to produce on a mill than a AK.

[Austrasien]

(Image)

bring back the round bois V:

[Gallia-]

Given it has two turbine engines that can probably be described as "the t in turbine means titanium" and would make F135 blush, I imagine the roundbois are gonna be around for plenty of years to come.

[Austrasien]

Given it has two turbine engines that can probably be described as "the t in turbine means titanium" and would make F135 blush, I imagine the roundbois are gonna be around for plenty of years to come.

im glad you picked up on my shilling artificial muscles tho <3

[Gallia-]

SADLY I was just trying think of something that will fail safe instead of lock your arms up or need mechanical chonkers to keep the robolimb from tearing joints apart.

I don't remember if it came from you or one of a zillion pop sci phys.org articles I was reading at this point. I do remember you saying something along the lines of artificial muscles failing gracefully by ripping fibers instead of a total motor failure all at once, I just don't remember if that was before or after the roundbois.

The bulging bicep baby mecha probably came from phys.org and Trap Shrine tho. And Sweden. Truly how do they keep getting away with it?

[Manokan Republic]

I actually hate these sorts of debates, but for some reason people like to dredge it back up. So I'll just cite my same sources again and let people decide what they think. Whatever the case, speed and mobility are extremely important in modern warfare, and out-maneuvering the enemy is extremely important, which is why rocket launchers mounted on lightly armored vehicles has proven to be so useful (in the persian gulf for example, the Bradley's killed more enemy armored vehicles than the Abrams, largely due to this).

Uh...the article you link to says nothing about kills aside from a broad claim with limited substantiation. The only source for the Wikipedia claim is an article on Global Security that has no sources listed. Furthermore, attributing kills to one system or another with definitive accuracy is a difficult thing to accomplish. While the claim may be true, there is no evidence presented to indicate that it is.

Most of these sources are primary sources, but the point is to show that the general consensus is that Toyota trucks with MILAN rocket launchers on the back of them were used, rather than it being some kind of crazy idea of mine. Tons of sources say it, so even if it's wrong, there is ample reason to believe it's the case. There is not much evidence they primarily jumped off the back of their Toyota trucks and used M72 LAW'S and RPG-7's at 100 meters on a regular basis, in fact, the only source that says that happened also says they used MILAN's at their maximum range possible in the open desert more frequently. This is a pretty asinine argument since there is no definitive way to prove anything and we are relying on first hand accounts of what happened, and first hand accounts of people who were there are notoriously unreliable, but it's not crazy for me to say it probably happened based on the available information. WWII has the same problem, with many personal accounts of what happened often times being wrong or showing things from a certain perspective, such as the story which band of brothers is based on, including a guy dying who, didn't actually die, but the commanding officer at that time thought he did. The entire movie was based on his memoirs, and so it actually gets a lot wrong.

It is pretty dumb to squabble over the exact methodology, my point is only that there is good evidence to back up my argument, not that there is 100% solid proof I am right. That is how I stand in contrast to TrippleBacon. It is generally inferred that Toyota trucks fired MILAN missiles, so if for some reason every major source got it right and the infographic book technicals got it right, we really can't know for certain, but I'm not aggressively insisting either one, in fact part of my argument is to show the absurdity of Triple aggressively insisting he is right based on minimal evidence.

[Purpelia]

Am I the only one seeing the torpedo boat vs battleship analogy in using a Toyota pickup with a missile on the back to hunt tanks?

[Manokan Republic]

I read the replies to your comments and the comments you replied to, and you are making bad faith arguments are misread what they said.

They said that many battles of the conflict involve T-55s, which had very bad vision and situational awareness, being flanked from multiple directions. Many dictatorships such as the USSR, had this problem of not having dismounted infantry around tanks or BMPs to provide extra eyes, and if they did, radios were in short supply, and tanks are loud enough that you can't talk over the engine, ect ect.

So what they mention is lots of close range ambushes from brush, hills, or hidden areas, into the sides or rear of tanks, or from below or above where the tanks is pointed. On top of that, I have read many books about T-55s being very cramped and having terrible fire-rates, and many problems.

I have read more then one source that says the Chad's would dismount the ATGM systems, fire them, and then move again. According to what I read, the system can point in more directions, has less risk of tipping a truck over, and is easier to hide. Many users of the AT-3, would hide in bushes behind the system and remotely operate it, and the same goes for other systems like the Milan I believe.

I'm not saying it never happened, I'm saying it was rare. It was frequently fired from the back of the vehicle at long range to avoid return fire. I also have cited numerous sources saying the opposite, so at best, this is a conflict of who to believe, not that one side is definitively right or wrong. Here is his original post:

The original post: "Toyotas would then charge the opposite side and drop off fighters with RPGs and LAWs. These tactics were only possible because the Libyans almost never scouted."- Other than the fact that there isn't much evidence for this specifically, it would be a really bad idea. M72 laws and RPG-7's have terrible range, at best 200 meters, and it's questionable if the round would even penetrate through the armor of many of the tanks. Slowly walking towards a tank with a handful of rockets is a suicide mission, as the machine guns would just gun you and the Toyotas down before this was possible. Getting off and going in on foot against armored vehicles is a terrible idea, as you will likely get gunned down before you can even get within range. When you have a fast moving Toyota truck that can race over the sandy deserts, it makes more sense to move in, fire from the vehicle, and leave quickly. The SAS did this in WWII, for example. The entire goal of hit and run tactics is to attack the enemy before they can return fire; there is no rea logical reason to get off and slowly move 3 mph on foot towards a target under a hail of machine gun fire if you could just close the gap in a matter of minutes with a fast moving Truck. However, vehicles like the 90mm Ratel IFV, the Hellcat Tank Destroyer, most IFV's like the Bradley and so on all fired rounds from the vehicle rather than dismounting, for the simple reason that it takes more time to get off and go on foot than just, firing it from the relative safety of being inside the vehicle which can also be used to quickly aim the weapon on a hydraulic or electric powered turret.

The average "Armored" unit the US military has, is like 2/3rds or more Bradleys and 1/3rd or less Abrams.

This is also why the largest killer of tanks during WW2 for Germany, was towed AT guns, followed by StuGs

Actually no, believe it or not in the persian gulf war there were roughly 1730 Bradley's despite roughly 2000 M1 Abrams deployed in the field, [1][2][3], and 2200 Bradley's total vs. about 3000 M1 abrams tanks, although many were held in reserves (meaning, there was actually a higher total number of tanks than Bradley's). The high mobility of the Bradley combined with the fact it frequently served as a scout vehicle, so, it more frequently found itself in engagements with enemy forces, let to the higher armored vehicle kill count. Although the plan is that Bradley's should be used with M1 abrams 2 to 1, there are more M1 Abrams in the U.S. military than Bradley vehicles. It's actually not commonly used that way, despite it being considered the ideal arrangement. There are only about 3000 or so Bradley's vs. 6000 M1 abrams in the U.S. military as of currently, for example, or the inverse 2 to 1 ratio. So despite there being a comparable amount of Bradley's and M1 Abrams in the field, it still destroyed more armored vehicles. The point of this is to demonstrate what lightly armored vehicles can do, and to show that IFV's even though they can be used for infantry transport still have a pretty good role to play against tanks and other armored vehicles. The U.S. marines for example recently abandoned all their tanks, probably for this reason, although I tend to be against it.

Page 5-6: "As of February 26, 1991, a total of 2,200 Bradley Fighting Vehicles were in the Persian Gulf area. Of these, a total of 1,730 were assigned to the deployed units, and the remaining 470 Bradleys were held in reserve. Of the 1,730 Bradleys assigned to the deployed units, 834 were the newest mode1 Bradley-the A2 high survivability model. Some Army units that did not have the A2 model Bradley vehicle prior to deploying deployed with older models but were provided the A2 models as they became available. At the same time, a total of 3,113 Abrams tanks were in the Persian Gulf area. Of these, 2,024 tanks were assigned to deployed units, and the Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-92-94 Performance of Bradley and Abrams B-247224 remaining 1,089 tanks were held in reserve. "

I've read what both of you said and it didn't make sense to me, or line up with anything I know.

I know the powder used in the M855A1 is faster burning then the powder used in the M855, and is designed for shorter barrels. This is why it has enough chamber pressure to seriously decrease the lifespan of bolts.

I also know that there is a super heavy bullet for the 9x19mm caliber, which is deeply seated and has high pressures.

I would assume faster burning powders, higher energy powders, and deeply seated bullets mean more pressure.

On top of that, the .45 has more muzzle energy then most handgun calibers, but has less chamber pressure, which is why the casings are kinda weak. I don't know if this is because of the large .45ish hole the powder detoates and moves through, or because of how slow the bullets move.

I know that narrowed blood vessels means more blood pressure, so necking down could be more chamber pressure.

"The .300 black-out, despite being larger, doesn't really produce significantly larger amounts of energy than the standard .223 or 5.56mm NATO, despite the pressure being the same, and the same holds true in the reverse for necked down cartridges"

Muzzle energy is about Mass x Speed squared, if I recall correctly. .300 Blackout bullets are way heavier the 62 grains, which means more mass and less speed.

Yes, .300 blackout has more surface area, but is also a lot heavier. I've read and seen that .45 ACP is heavier then 5.56, which is about the same weight as 9x19mm. Lead is heavy, hallow brass is not.

The point I was making was that bullet diameter does not have much impact on chamber pressure.

If a bullet is half the diameter, it doesn't mean it will have double the pressure, or vice versa. This is the point I was trying to make. The .45 ACP and 9mm both have different pressure levels, but that's due to the type of powder the .45 uses, it has nearly twice the powder of a 9mm, at around 26 grains vs. 13 grains, and so the pressure is a little under half due to it using lower pressure powder, rather than the size of the bullet. Similarly the .300 black out and .223 have the same pressure, despite the .300 black out being bigger. The bullet size does not determine chamber pressure, but the type of powder you are using, and the total diameter of the cartridge case-head. There are a few other minor things like the type of rifling have an impact on chamber pressure, such a smoothbore barrels with no rifling having lower pressure or polygonal or gain twist barrels, and the exact shape of the chamber among other things, but the bullet diameter is not directly related. My only point is to show he refused to drop this argument too, despite how obviously ludicrous it is, which is why I brought it up. He keeps saying I'm a bad faith debator and to ignore everything I say, but I've been right multiple times now so that's just him being overly aggressive. Since you are just coming back to the forum I thought I'd inform you that you're just getting, his opinion on the issue.

[Manokan Republic]

Am I the only one seeing the torpedo boat vs battleship analogy in using a Toyota pickup with a missile on the back to hunt tanks?

That's basically the idea. The exact method of how this was done is being debated over but, nonetheless, like with most IFV's it's at least better to fire from the back of a vehicle and maneuver away quickly than stick around and get shot at. Hit and run, fire and maneuver, "shoot and scoot", not get out and slowly dig a foxhole while the tank is less than 2 miles away and can drive that distance in less than 4 minutes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.

[Manokan Republic]

Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.

I'm not the one who brought it up again, but it is what it is. What is more interesting to talk about is the rise of maneuverable light anti-tank vehicles. The U.S. marines recently abandoned all their tanks so, light speed-boat tactics seem to be the new in-thing everyone is doing.

[Purpelia]

Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.

I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.

[Manokan Republic]

Nobody fucking cares about the toybotas now move on.

I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.

Well! You can use a sterling generator with uranium, and sterling generators are like 10-20 times more efficient than most RTG's, so you get what is essentially an electric tank with a nuclear reactor and a big battery. All the reactor has to do is produce heat, and with a high enough percentage of uranium, such as 1.2-8% or whatever, it will produce enough heat to run the sterling engine. It would be really big, but probably around the same size as the tank engine. Danger of nuclear radiation, aside. You see this engine could be heavily embedded inside the tank so the tank armor itself acts as radiation shielding. The thick steel and depleted uranium armor would easily act as a radiation shield, and provide protection. The only problem is if it blows up, but with a nuclear powered tank, how likely is that really? Sometimes you must sacrifice for progress.

Plus, with the emergence of unmanned vehicles, tons of drones, including ground drones, could be used to launch missiles, basically tiny vehicles that zip around the battlefield shooting at other armored vehicles. You could even think of them of fancy, mobile anti-tank mines. So you could have thousands of unmanned vehicle even, which would increase your numbers and allow them to be more easily suicided. They also could be even smaller.

[Purpelia]

I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.

Well! You can use a sterling generator with uranium, and sterling generators are like 10-20 times more efficient than most RTG's, so you get what is essentially an electric tank with a nuclear reactor and a big battery. All the reactor has to do is produce heat, and with a high enough percentage of uranium, such as 8% or whatever, it will produce enough heat to run the sterling engine. It would be really big, but probably around the same size as the tank engine. Danger of nuclear radiation, aside. You see this engine could be heavily embedded inside the tank so the tank armor itself acts as radiation shielding. The thick steel and depleted uranium armor would easily act as a radiation shield, and provide protection. The only problem is if it blows up, but with a nuclear powered tank, how likely is that really? Sometimes you must sacrifice for progress.

Plus, with the emergence of unmanned vehicles, tons of drones, including ground drones, could be used to launch missiles, basically tiny vehicles that zip around the battlefield shooting at other armored vehicles. You could even think of them of fancy, mobile anti-tank mines.

How much radiation protection would I really need anyway? I mean, most of the stuff on the field will be drones anyway so there is no need to protect anything but the crew compartment. And I can shove that into a box at the front. And with the heat this thing would be putting out anyway it's not like I need to care about anti radiation missiles too much. While we are at it what's the smallest useful size for an atomic bomb anyway?

[Manokan Republic]

Well! You can use a sterling generator with uranium, and sterling generators are like 10-20 times more efficient than most RTG's, so you get what is essentially an electric tank with a nuclear reactor and a big battery. All the reactor has to do is produce heat, and with a high enough percentage of uranium, such as 8% or whatever, it will produce enough heat to run the sterling engine. It would be really big, but probably around the same size as the tank engine. Danger of nuclear radiation, aside. You see this engine could be heavily embedded inside the tank so the tank armor itself acts as radiation shielding. The thick steel and depleted uranium armor would easily act as a radiation shield, and provide protection. The only problem is if it blows up, but with a nuclear powered tank, how likely is that really? Sometimes you must sacrifice for progress.

Plus, with the emergence of unmanned vehicles, tons of drones, including ground drones, could be used to launch missiles, basically tiny vehicles that zip around the battlefield shooting at other armored vehicles. You could even think of them of fancy, mobile anti-tank mines.

How much radiation protection would I really need anyway? I mean, most of the stuff on the field will be drones anyway so there is no need to protect anything but the crew compartment. And I can shove that into a box at the front. And with the heat this thing would be putting out anyway it's not like I need to care about anti radiation missiles too much. While we are at it what's the smallest useful size for an atomic bomb anyway?

51 pounds (23 kg) approximately, if going by the U.S. military Davy Crockett Mk-54 warhead, although it was rumored the soviets might have 30 pound or so suitcase nukes, although this was never actually proven. At the time, the Davy Crockett was fired from a recoilless rifle and had too short a range to be useful, but considered the warhead size is only marginally larger than a javelin missile that is well outside the range needed, a man portable rocket using a javelin launching system, well outside the range needed of several miles, may actually be viable. That also being said rockets have developed a lot since then so, it would be pretty easy to launch the 51 pound device from a relatively small vehicle mounted rocket that has fairly good accuracy, despite it's small size. At that time small precision guided missiles were rare and expensive, today it's not really the case, and even laser guidance for a relatively cheap guided missile is available, among other things like inertial guidance. A cruise missile has a 2000 pound payload, so 50 pounds is pretty easy to field in the modern day.

I'll even put it to you another way. The 155mm howitzer uses 100 pound (45 kilogram shells). So in theory, with a warhead that weight, although perhaps not that shape, you could launch it from a 155mm howitzer. So nuclear artillery is a possibility.

[Purpelia]

How much radiation protection would I really need anyway? I mean, most of the stuff on the field will be drones anyway so there is no need to protect anything but the crew compartment. And I can shove that into a box at the front. And with the heat this thing would be putting out anyway it's not like I need to care about anti radiation missiles too much. While we are at it what's the smallest useful size for an atomic bomb anyway?

51 pounds (23 kg) approximately, if going by the U.S. military Davy Crockett Mk-54 warhead, although it was rumored the soviets might have 30 pound or so suitcase nukes, although this was never actually proven. At the time, the Davy Crockett was fired from a recoilless rifle and had too short a range to be useful, but considered the warhead size is only marginally larger than a javelin missile that is well outside the range needed, a man portable rocket using a javelin launching system, well outside the range needed of several miles, may actually be viable. That also being said rockets have developed a lot since then so, it would be pretty easy to launch the 51 pound device from a relatively small vehicle mounted rocket that has fairly good accuracy, despite it's small size. At that time small precision guided missiles were rare and expensive, today it's not really the case, and even laser guidance for a relatively cheap guided missile is available, among other things like inertial guidance. A cruise missile has a 2000 pound payload, so 50 pounds is pretty easy to field in the modern day.

I'll even put it to you another way. The 155mm howitzer uses 100 pound (45 kilogram shells). So in theory, with a warhead that weight, although perhaps not that shape, you could launch it from a 155mm howitzer. So nuclear artillery is a possibility.

Ok, so to sum up what we have so far. A tank using an atomic fueled sterling generator with uranium armor around the crew cab and only the crew cab (It's green, just not in the traditional sense ) and a 155mm main gun firing guided atomic shels escorted by swarms of medium sized destroyer drones aimed at hunting down enemy torpedodrones. Hm... we are going to need some sort of carrier tank for those drones. Probably something largeish in size, but still not too large so that it can maneuver. Like a medium sized truck sized maybe. And with like AA machineguns to shoot at incoming torpedodrones. Or is that maybe better left for an escort tank that just gets lots of AA or is that AD now?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Can you two like... not circlejerk in my thread?

[Austrasien]

I do. Now we just need to figure out how to apply that style of fighting to all warfare eventually producing Jeune École for ground warfare where swarms of light vehicles overwhelm enemy armies and stuff. And than we can build multi turret predreadnaught tanks to counter the swarms of light vehicles. And than someone can build a dreadnaught tank with just one big gun to fight the other tanks and... Now I just got to figure out how to power a tank using a RTG.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/09/t ... abakh.html
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/02/t ... n-and.html

The world has already moved on.

[Purpelia]

Can you two like... not circlejerk in my thread?

Ill have you know that the atomic battlefleet of tomorrow, on land is perfectly within the realms of a military realism discussion. Speaking of which I imagine I'd also have to establish some sort of harbor facilities. Airtight of course to keep the radiation away and likely buried underground and under concrete to keep the nukes out. And probably with limited repair and even manufacturing capability to keep the fleets running. So like you'll have these concrete exits dotting the irradiated countryside hiding fleets of atomic landships and their swarms of drones waiting for the right time to emerge like a swarm of roaches to engage one another in a brief and violent struggle to the death before retreating back to port to count their corpses and lick their wounds.