NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Crookfur]

Is a carbine just a sawn-off rifle

Well yes but also no.

Historically it just meant a longarm for cavalry/mounted infantry use. Generally this meant shorter and lighter but it some times just meant no bayonet mount and a side bar.

Today it generally means a short firearm that uses rifle ammunition, often a shorter barreled version of military rifle however it can mean any short and handy rifled weapon designed to be used with two hands that isn't an SMG(and in the US meets requirements to not be classed as an NFA item)

[Husseinarti]

It's tit for tat.

ha

tit

[Sevvania]

Considering I don't have a 100+ yard range to go to. Would installing and practicing on ARMA help with multi target multi distance engagement with my real life counterpart.

No because the video game does everything for you except pull the trigger.

[Miku the Based]

Considering I don't have a 100+ yard range to go to. Would installing and practicing on ARMA help with multi target multi distance engagement with my real life counterpart.

No because the video game does everything for you except pull the trigger.

So, it doesn't have turret adjustement, ballistic physics, wind as a factor of bullet deviation, and so on? Like just line up craosshairs and it will always hit? I thought it was classified as a military simulator.
In that case is there a game or program to do what I'm talking about? Shooting on a 100 yard range gets boring.

[The Manticoran Empire]

No because the video game does everything for you except pull the trigger.

So, it doesn't have turret adjustement, ballistic physics, wind as a factor of bullet deviation, and so on? Like just line up craosshairs and it will always hit? I thought it was classified as a military simulator.
In that case is there a game or program to do what I'm talking about? Shooting on a 100 yard range gets boring.

Well, you could try to build yourself an EST.

[Triplebaconation]

hello is mario 2 a good way to practice harvesting radishes

[Miku the Based]

So, it doesn't have turret adjustement, ballistic physics, wind as a factor of bullet deviation, and so on? Like just line up craosshairs and it will always hit? I thought it was classified as a military simulator.
In that case is there a game or program to do what I'm talking about? Shooting on a 100 yard range gets boring.

Well, you could try to build yourself an EST.

Yeah, I wonder how that works. Would be really great if I could actually use the iron in the locker as a controller. Have any pointers? A free est program, where to start etc.
Edit: just looking at some pictures, seems to be expensive and the majority of it is standard 25 yard range used for basic marksmanship.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well, you could try to build yourself an EST.

Yeah, I wonder how that works. Would be really great if I could actually use the iron in the locker as a controller. Have any pointers? A free est program, where to start etc.

The Engagement Skills Trainer is more than just software. It includes hardware that allows for soldier familiarization with the weapons (including recoil) and is primarily employed to train soldiers ahead of weapons qualification. In theory, though, slight changes to the software could turn it into a combat simulator and I've seen a few systems like that. However, it's also not cheap, since you do need to have a heavily modified version of whatever weapon you are going to be using as well as a complicated (and also probably classified) computer program.

[Miku the Based]

Yeah, I wonder how that works. Would be really great if I could actually use the iron in the locker as a controller. Have any pointers? A free est program, where to start etc.

The Engagement Skills Trainer is more than just software. It includes hardware that allows for soldier familiarization with the weapons (including recoil) and is primarily employed to train soldiers ahead of weapons qualification. In theory, though, slight changes to the software could turn it into a combat simulator and I've seen a few systems like that. However, it's also not cheap, since you do need to have a heavily modified version of whatever weapon you are going to be using as well as a complicated (and also probably classified) computer program.

Alright, well thanks for the unrealistic suggestion. I guess I'll travel 150 miles (and a couple hundred dollars) for a suitable range instead.

[Hinachi]

Is it plausible that an army never develops attack helicopters because it 1) lacks significant experience of using transport helicopters under fire (i.e. US in Vietnam War), 2) has air support from either an air arm with fixed-wing aircraft or a 'tactical air force' (i.e. Soviet Frontal Aviation), and 3) does not face the threat of massed armour attack?

Instead the closest it gets is the evolution of reconnaissance helicopters into armed ones (in the 4k, later 6k MTOW weight class) so that they can attack targets of opportunity or defend themselves. They probably emphasise survivability and looked like Cobras (the earlier single-engine ones) with narrow frontal profiles, while later versions bury their engine deep in the fuselage to minimise infrared signature, among other things.

This is how basically any non first or second rate power operates tbh

like the list of countries that actually operate dedicated attack helicopters is pretty low, like maybe 30-ish nations operate actual attack helicopter frames. The Mi-24 and MI-8TV/TVK/TBK/AMTSh notwithstanding.

O: To be fair, I meant that the army doctrinally considers helicopters too expensive and vulnerable to be used against massed or prepared enemies (i.e. interdiction and close air support), even though its armed reconnaissance helicopter is comparable to lighter attack helicopters. The most combat it expects helicopters to do would be fighting enemy reconnaissance or infiltrating light infantry, and electronic warfare.

In retrospect, how does a single engine that can be concealed along with its exhaust in a relatively narrow fuselage compare to two engines that necessitate a wider fuselage in terms of survivability? I.e. is it more valuable to have a narrower fuselage or to have two engines so that the helicopter can survive losing one?

[Triplebaconation]

You can buy a virtual range for certain values of cheap. (Although if you can't figure out whether Arma has wind or not I imagine something like this would be a bit too sophisticated.)

I wouldn't give personal shooting advice to anyone in this thread though.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The Engagement Skills Trainer is more than just software. It includes hardware that allows for soldier familiarization with the weapons (including recoil) and is primarily employed to train soldiers ahead of weapons qualification. In theory, though, slight changes to the software could turn it into a combat simulator and I've seen a few systems like that. However, it's also not cheap, since you do need to have a heavily modified version of whatever weapon you are going to be using as well as a complicated (and also probably classified) computer program.

Alright, well thanks for the unrealistic suggestion. I guess I'll travel 150 miles (and a couple hundred dollars) for a suitable range instead.

Well all the factors that are involved in distance shooting are complicated to simulate.

[Miku the Based]

Alright, well thanks for the unrealistic suggestion. I guess I'll travel 150 miles (and a couple hundred dollars) for a suitable range instead.

Well all the factors that are involved in distance shooting are complicated to simulate.

Well, most of it not really. Only large unpredictable factor is wind which can simply be randomized in a computer program. Tricks like looking at mirages and tree sway as hints for wind speed would be tricky to animate but more complex things have been done before. Sniper ghost warrior managed to do it and so did sniper elite but nearly everything is holdoffs and you can't actually judge distance from your reticle since they don't tell you the specs of the reticle. I just want a game or program that mimics my specific reticle and scope so I can quickly determine distance and identifying things. Heck the shooting doesn't actually matter because you can't perfectly mimic it anyways. Also doing so with animals and not humans is also pretty useful, same with determining distance using common everyday outdoor objects like signs, telephone poles, windows, doors etc. Also shooting at High angles.
I rather get away from the theroretical calculations of ELR shooting and start pressuring myself to make these basic arithmatric calculations under pressure in a sort of game.

[Gallia-]

This is how basically any non first or second rate power operates tbh

like the list of countries that actually operate dedicated attack helicopters is pretty low, like maybe 30-ish nations operate actual attack helicopter frames. The Mi-24 and MI-8TV/TVK/TBK/AMTSh notwithstanding.

O: To be fair, I meant that the army doctrinally considers helicopters too expensive and vulnerable to be used against massed or prepared enemies (i.e. interdiction and close air support), even though its armed reconnaissance helicopter is comparable to lighter attack helicopters. The most combat it expects helicopters to do would be fighting enemy reconnaissance or infiltrating light infantry, and electronic warfare.

In retrospect, how does a single engine that can be concealed along with its exhaust in a relatively narrow fuselage compare to two engines that necessitate a wider fuselage in terms of survivability? I.e. is it more valuable to have a narrower fuselage or to have two engines so that the helicopter can survive losing one?

Cobra is a single engine design because it was built to strafe machine guns with its rocket pods (and also because it was built from a single engine drivetrain to begin with). Apache is a twin engine design because it needed a lot of hover performance to fly from hide to hide and pop up to attack tanks. Single engines are fine and narrow fuselages are fine but they're usually because it makes it slightly harder to hit with a machine gun in a head-on shallow angle dive. This is an antiquated method of attacking with a gunship (I suppose it would have still been common-ish to do in the '80's) though. Losing an engine isn't a particularly serious concern. If you're attracting enough machine gun fire to actually get to the point where that becomes a question then whatever you do doesn't matter, your gunship(s) (assuming it isn't shot down) will be down for a week or so anyway.

The main reason you want two engines is because it's not actually much wider than a single engine design (no twin engine gunship has its nacelles protruding past the wings AFAIK) and being able to move quickly at low altitudes is the only thing helicopters have going for them (even then it's not great). Any modern gunship (80's and onwards) wants a twin engine design. Eliminating the wings and storing ordnance internally would also be a potential thing you could do, because this would also improve hover performance.

Future helicopters might be trending towards higher altitudes, faster forward flight speeds, assuming FARA doesn't fail completely and the US Army is told to buy more Chinooks, Apaches, and Blackhawks for the foreseeable future. Or they might go extinct in favor of turboprop drones and loitering anti-tank munitions. Or they might be "whatever can carry a radio" and a guy in the back to fly said drones, which could mean AH-64E turns into a glorified drone command post.

Honestly the best bet for someone who "doesn't want a gunship but also kinda wants one" is probably an OH-1 with a chaingun on the nose like the Tiger. If it needs to bulk up its gunshippyness it can carry a radar on the rotor hub and 8 Hellfires I guess.

[Hinachi]

Cobra is a single engine design because it was built to strafe machine guns with its rocket pods (and also because it was built from a single engine drivetrain to begin with). Apache is a twin engine design because it needed a lot of hover performance to fly from hide to hide and pop up to attack tanks. Single engines are fine and narrow fuselages are fine but they're usually because it makes it slightly harder to hit with a machine gun in a head-on shallow angle dive. This is an antiquated method of attacking with a gunship (I suppose it would have still been common-ish to do in the '80's) though. Losing an engine isn't a particularly serious concern. If you're attracting enough machine gun fire to actually get to the point where that becomes a question then whatever you do doesn't matter, your gunship(s) (assuming it isn't shot down) will be down for a week or so anyway.

The main reason you want two engines is because it's not actually much wider than a single engine design (no twin engine gunship has its nacelles protruding past the wings AFAIK) and being able to move quickly at low altitudes is the only thing helicopters have going for them (even then it's not great). Any modern gunship (80's and onwards) wants a twin engine design. Eliminating the wings and storing ordnance internally would also be a potential thing you could do, because this would also improve hover performance.

I see, I did notice SuperCobra isn't much fatter than Cobra, but the Comanche is pretty fat (IDK if its because of the twin engines with their exhausts concealed in the tail, or the internal weapon bays, or both). An armed reconnaissance helicopter would definitely want good hover performance, though, so the evolution of Hinachi armed reconnaissance helicopters will probably go like this: Cobra alike derived from the single engine transport helicopter to save money -> Tiger alike after the advent of missiles and electronic warfare -> Comanche alike.

Future helicopters might be trending towards higher altitudes, faster forward flight speeds, assuming FARA doesn't fail completely and the US Army is told to buy more Chinooks, Apaches, and Blackhawks for the foreseeable future. Or they might go extinct in favor of turboprop drones and loitering anti-tank munitions. Or they might be "whatever can carry a radio" and a guy in the back to fly said drones, which could mean AH-64E turns into a glorified drone command post.

Honestly the best bet for someone who "doesn't want a gunship but also kinda wants one" is probably an OH-1 with a chaingun on the nose like the Tiger. If it needs to bulk up its gunshippyness it can carry a radar on the rotor hub and 8 Hellfires I guess.

Could it be the real niche of the attack helicopter is that of a combat aircraft that armies can own? I think teaming with drones could alleviate the cost and survivability issues of attack helicopters and keep them viable, though.

[Gallia-]

That sounds fine but Tiger is a bit of a redundant step IMO. Some of the original Tiger ideas were almost AH-1Z.

[Hinachi]

O: I forgot to specify a timeframe - Hinachi isn't as advanced as the US, so the Cobra alike was probably introduced in the early 70s, the Tiger alike in the late 80s, and the Comanche in...the early 10s? IDK when the Comanche could have entered service IRL even.

That gives a gap of 40 years or so between single engine Cobra and Comanche, and since a new helicopter would have to be made it would upgrade to twin engine, especially as the method of attacking shifts from gun and rocket runs to pop-up attacks with missiles.

[Crookfur]

O: I forgot to specify a timeframe - Hinachi isn't as advanced as the US, so the Cobra alike was probably introduced in the early 70s, the Tiger alike in the late 80s, and the Comanche in...the early 10s? IDK when the Comanche could have entered service IRL even.

That gives a gap of 40 years or so between single engine Cobra and Comanche, and since a new helicopter would have to be made it would upgrade to twin engine, especially as the method of attacking shifts from gun and rocket runs to pop-up attacks with missiles.

Honestly a tiger alike wouldn't be a thing until the 90s and likely entering service at the turn of the millennium.

[Gallia-]

O: I forgot to specify a timeframe - Hinachi isn't as advanced as the US, so the Cobra alike was probably introduced in the early 70s, the Tiger alike in the late 80s, and the Comanche in...the early 10s? IDK when the Comanche could have entered service IRL even.

That gives a gap of 40 years or so between single engine Cobra and Comanche, and since a new helicopter would have to be made it would upgrade to twin engine, especially as the method of attacking shifts from gun and rocket runs to pop-up attacks with missiles.

AH-1 is from the 70's, at least the twin engines are. Tiger is more like a 90's or 00's helicopter, but it's really a competitor to AH-1 in the "baby's first gunship" category.

Comanche is the same era as Tiger. As I said, a good helicopter to look at is the OH-1 Ninja. It's modest in armament and general capabilities, unlike the Tiger, which is so expensive to operate and produce that it's being replaced by AH-64s by the Australians. Comanche was so expensive that America couldn't even afford it at the zenith of its economic and military power. OTOH OH-1 seems to be quite cheap and alright and has a good position for its FLIR (above the cockpit) for scouting purposes. The alternative is Kiowa Warriors I suppose?

You can maybe staple a gun to the nose of a OH-1 and end up with something "like" a Tiger but obviously lacking the expensive hyper ATGW aka TRIGAT.

[Hinachi]

Ooh looks like I underestimated how sophisticated Tiger is, didn't realise it had quite a lot of signature reduction too. That and weapons aside what expensive capabilities did the Tiger have, really?

Anyway, the early 70s Cobra alike is single engine (whereas IRL that was 1967) and the 'Tiger alike' is meant to be similar in weight class (i.e. 6k MTOW). I do quite like the OH-1 so assuming there isn't anything particularly sophisticated on it the late 80s helicopter could be a bigger OH-1. Its most advanced weapon is probably something like Vikhr (which is adequate for anything short of a tank and can double as a helicopter killer).

Oh and isn't the mast a better place to mount optics than the top of the cockpit since it allows more of the helicopter to remain behind cover while observing?

Edit: In retrospect I might pass on the Comanche and settle for incorporating some of its more cost-effective features in the latest armed reconnaissance helicopter - exhausts buried in the fuselage and internal weapon bays, maybe?

[Gallia-]

Those aren't "cost effective" because they required the composite body to be useful. The downwards facing exhaust (even if it's cooled or whatever) is also somewhat questionable but I suppose it's better than a hot stovepipe like literally every other chopper. Internal weapons are mostly a drag reduction and rotor disc increase thing. Reducing the wing size makes the hover performance better and the forward flight speed higher. Substantially, in some cases.

Tiger is expensive enough that Australia is replacing them with AH-64s and they were always intended to be more gunship than reconnaissance anyway. There's nothing especially high performing in Tiger itself (TRIGAT is just an expensive missile for dumb reasons like two thirds of the backers (France, Britain) walking away and leaving Germany alone to foot the bill) or whatever, but it's comparable to AH-1Z more than OH-1 or OH-58. It's a pure gunship, one built to kill tanks and stuff, and not really an armed recce 'copter. Australia just calls it that for weird reasons. OH-1 Ninja and maybe the Chinese equivalent are the only serious contenders for actually cost effective armed recce copter. OH-58 is the other serious option but it's a bit long in the tooth. None of them are flashy but OH-1 Ninja has the most sensible layout (optics above cockpit, which leaves the rotor hub potentially free for a radar, and a tandem layout with twin engine design for good low altitude flight performance) and seems to be quite cheap.

The real killer for Tiger's price tag (almost double AH-64E's is what it cost Australia, but that was a raw deal; Tigers cost France/Germany as much as Apaches cost America more or less) might just be its defensive aids suite though which, judging from pictures of the helicopter, seems to be pretty extensive.

The other option is to go full povertymode and start strapping TOWs and Hellfires to the sides of Puma or Lynx, but OH-1 seems to be a decent middle ground between "AH-64E is a reconnaissance helicopter" and "we strapped 16 TOWs to a Lynx and complained about induced drag".

FWIW what I did for Galla is OH-58 --> RAH-66-but-pared-down-in-all-regards and AH-1 --> YAH-63. They probably fly at roughly 2:1 ratios with the YAH-63 being a tank buster battalion in the division and AH-1/OH-58 or pure RAH-66 battalions for reconnaissance/direct support in a separate aviation regt (along with some UAVs (maybe truck launched Firebees or maybe some giant AAI Aerosonde idr) and medium and GP (H-47 and H-60) lift).

Kampala being Galla's poorer and more sensible Igbo counterpart that isn't suffering from a poverty of riches just uses OH-1 Ninjas, perhaps with a M230 cannon strapped to the nose, or maybe a 12.7mm GAU-19 or something. IDK. Maybe one out of a dozen has a mmW radar for finding targets in foggy weather, or maybe that's just the Navy ones since they need to operate from corvettes and naval helicopter stations, and there's no real attack helicopter. Probably comes from a Atlas XH-1 style prototype that produces an OH-1 style production airframe based on Puma I guess.

[Hinachi]

Sooo I did a bit of reading up on the OH-1, and I found that 1) in its last year of production (2010) it cost about 21.6 million USD, 2) it has a range of 550km on internal fuel and 720km with 2 external fuel tanks, 3) the transmission and rotor hub is protected against 20mm and the rotor against 12.7mm, 4) it has RWRs and infrared jammers, 5) the only weapons it has been equipped with are Type 91 missiles (MANPADS class) with a typical loadout being 4 missiles and 2 235L fuel tanks, and 6) based on the aforementioned loadout it has an estimated payload of 600-700kg.

All in all I don't think its particularly cheap for what it provides, and if you put a M230 on it with say 300 rounds (at a guess nearing 200 kg?) you don't have much payload left. For Hinachi I'd prefer something with bit more range on internal fuel, a gun, and at least 4 missiles like Vikhr.

The manufacturer Kawasaki did plan to develop OH-1 into a light attack helicopter called AH-2, in the 5k MTOW class with laser designator, bigger wings, 20mm gun, and more powerful engines, but that never left the drawing board and I can't find anymore on it.

[Dayganistan]

Around when does the Ratel stop being useful as a frontline vehicle? This is assuming you've given it some upgrades (modern FCS, ATGM capability, maybe uparmour package) and any conventional wars you're expecting are likely to be in terrain where wheeled IFVs can use their speed and mobility to their advantage. If my military adopted the Ratel in the 80s would they likely still be using them in 2021 with upgrades or would a replacement probably have been adopted in the mid to late 2010s? Take into consideration my nation is not a major global power, but a middle income nation that competes with several other regional powers (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) in the Middle East/Central Asia.

[Crookfur]

Sooo I did a bit of reading up on the OH-1, and I found that 1) in its last year of production (2010) it cost about 21.6 million USD, 2) it has a range of 550km on internal fuel and 720km with 2 external fuel tanks, 3) the transmission and rotor hub is protected against 20mm and the rotor against 12.7mm, 4) it has RWRs and infrared jammers, 5) the only weapons it has been equipped with are Type 91 missiles (MANPADS class) with a typical loadout being 4 missiles and 2 235L fuel tanks, and 6) based on the aforementioned loadout it has an estimated payload of 600-700kg.

All in all I don't think its particularly cheap for what it provides, and if you put a M230 on it with say 300 rounds (at a guess nearing 200 kg?) you don't have much payload left. For Hinachi I'd prefer something with bit more range on internal fuel, a gun, and at least 4 missiles like Vikhr.

The manufacturer Kawasaki did plan to develop OH-1 into a light attack helicopter called AH-2, in the 5k MTOW class with laser designator, bigger wings, 20mm gun, and more powerful engines, but that never left the drawing board and I can't find anymore on it.

If it helps the late 80s/early 90s "competitor" to the cobra would be the A129 Mangusta. Its later A129 international form is still in the $20mil region and has similar range to the OH-1 but a bigger payload.

The super cheap version is IAR airfox (an alouette 3 gunship) but it never went beyond a prototype, albeit a sexy one.

[Austrasien]

Around when does the Ratel stop being useful as a frontline vehicle? This is assuming you've given it some upgrades (modern FCS, ATGM capability, maybe uparmour package) and any conventional wars you're expecting are likely to be in terrain where wheeled IFVs can use their speed and mobility to their advantage. If my military adopted the Ratel in the 80s would they likely still be using them in 2021 with upgrades or would a replacement probably have been adopted in the mid to late 2010s? Take into consideration my nation is not a major global power, but a middle income nation that competes with several other regional powers (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) in the Middle East/Central Asia.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium ... l_gun.html
https://johncockerill.com/en/defense/we ... lcts-90mp/

It would benefit a lot from a new turret, new weapon system.