|
EDIT: gently caress, brutal page snipe Valtonen posted:APC One side comment to the above worth mentioning is in the last decade or so we’ve started seeing a lot more unmanned turrets, really just bigger versions of the CROWS style stuff you saw on top of every US vehicle in recent pointless conflicts. These are 20-30mm (and/or ATGM) armed turrets that don’t penetrate into the hull, allowing APCs to have IFV style weapon laodouts without losing troop capacity or internal volume to the large complicated turret assemblies most IFVs have. Look up the Stryker Dragoon as the most obvious example but it’s a concept that is popping up all over. The line between IFV and APC is likely to blur a lot more on armament front, and probably fall even more on things like weight / air transportability, something that is already kind of a good dividing line. Fitting into a 130J or A400M vs a C-17 is often a big deal in the long run. Mazz fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 19, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
I think a large part of that comes from irregular conflicts now being the expectation rather than WW3 scenarios. Any military vehicle is now expected to be a target that can be attacked by irregular forces at any time, rather than a concept of a front line behind which vehicles don't need to be well armed or armored to do their job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:And the definition of HMG/autocannon is the bore. Autocannon is anything past 20mm (14.5 KPV Im BTR-70 is heavy machinegun, 20mm Vulcan in F-16 is a cannon) Oh, how I wish it were that simple. The 15mm MG-151/15 is defined as an autocannon. The 14.5mm KPV is defined as a heavy machinegun. The FN BRG-15, unsuccessful as it may have been, was an attempt to make a NATOfied KPV so it's a heavy machine gun too, but it's 15.5mm. So someone is wrong and it's up to you whether that's FN or Mauser. LatwPIAT posted:Additionally, a lot of IFVs and better-protected APCs shared the design principle of "can ride into combat and unload troops while under fire or fight with troops inside". It seems pretty clear to me that receiving direct fire was expected for these vehicles, not something that happens because someone hosed up somewhere. The Schützenpanzer HS.30 was built with this in mind, and that design philosophy eventually ends up in APCs like the AIFV-B-.50. Even the terribly protected APCs were expected to ride into combat alongside their troops. Look at the M113 ACAV or the FV432 with the Peak Engineering turret or the OT-62 recoilless rifle mod. Even the Mark IX tank, the first ever APC, had a pair of machine guns in the front with which it was supposed to support its dismounts while taking fire in their stead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
It's amazing and almost comical how heavily armed the late generation BMPs and BMDs are lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:There had been a few vehicles like it before Im pretty sure but BMP was Russian- not a niche expensive sidenote but a vehicle that would be given to a poo poo ton of WP formations. The BMP-1 was itself partly a response to the West German Schützenpanzer HS.30. The HS.30 inspired the US to make the designs that would turn into the Bradley, because they liked the idea of an APC that could do more than just taxi troops into battle. The CV90 is just a development of the Pbv 301, a vehicle the predates the BMP-1 by several years. The appearance of the BMP-1 probably hastened a few projects but the concept was already in full swing at that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I think a large part of that comes from irregular conflicts now being the expectation rather than WW3 scenarios. Any military vehicle is now expected to be a target that can be attacked by irregular forces at any time, rather than a concept of a front line behind which vehicles don't need to be well armed or armored to do their job. Partly, but AMPV is the M113 replacement and has no hard requirement for heavier weapons mounts. It’s really just that technology has shown you can make these heavier RWS feasible and fit them on top of the APC hull without interfering with the internal volume, which was really the big issue as every inch you eat into the troop compartment hurts troop capacity or adds drastically to size/wieght. It’s the singular reason you can’t fit a 9 man squad into a Bradley. The Dragoon was a proof of concept to the army but there’s pretty good indication that it’s going to become a much more regular part of SBCTs in the future, and the idea is showing up lot of other places. EDIT: I think a significant element to it is or will be the miniaturization of stuff like smart fuzing; you can fit a fuze onto a 25mm or 30mm round that can be set to airburst at specific ranges or even guided, but that doesn't translate well down to .50. Giving SBCTs organic 30mm elements is a big plus to their firepower that previously required M1128s, and furthering down that line means things like hiding behind a small berm or in a shallow ditch is basically not cover at all. It's a pretty serious capability jump from just shooting .50 at things. The big reason for the original Dragoon concept was fighting potential MRBs in Europe again, which is why the 2nd ID got the first Dragoons, but it will filter down into much more than that in the future IMO. Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Sure. That's not the same as being shot at being a gently caress-up, though. That's generally how the world's maneuver forces view it but ymmv Mazz posted:The line between IFV and APC is likely to blur a lot more on armament front, and probably fall even more on things like weight / air transportability, something that is already kind of a good dividing line. Fitting into a 130J or A400M vs a C-17 is often a big deal in the long run. This exact issue is literally causing shouting matches among G2 system folks and it is hilarious. Like, the PLAA has an APC, that they clearly use in an APC role, that weighs significantly more than several of their IFV subtypes, that they clearly use in IFV roles. This makes taxonomic-minded folks very uncomfortable. The intel community at large has more or less landed on the sensor and targeting package as the best way to assess a vehicle's intended role. APCs generally still have unsophisticated mounts, while IFVs have mounts with advanced optics, stabilizers, and so on. This sounds silly at first -- like, an uparmored huvmee with a crows nest can be categorized as an IFV -- but it also mirrors how they're used operationally in a lot of cases. bewbies fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Plus the M3 Lee wasn't half bad as a Babby's First Medium Tank. It's also worth noting the rapid timeline of US tank development: 1936: Rock Island Arsenal begins working on the T5 Medium Tank. 1939: April: Medium Tank T5E2 begins testing at Aberdeen, it's a M2 Medium Tank prototype with a 75mm gun in a sponson. June: Rock Island finalizes the design of the T5 as the M2 Medium Tank and builds 18 of them. 1940: June-July: The design of the M3 Lee is finalized. August: The specifications for what would become the M4 Sherman are issued on the last day of the month. A wooden mock-up of the M3 Lee is delivered. The ordinance board orders the M3 into full-scale production. Despite the design being obsolete, Chrysler is contracted to deliver 100 M2A1 Medium tanks a month between then and August 1942 because the army needs tanks now and they'll just swap the order to M3s or M4s as production comes on line. 1941: February: M4 Sherman design work starts. March: First M3 Lee prototype is finished and begins testing at Aberdeen. May: Factories begin delivering the first pilot prototypes of the M3 Lee. August: M3 Lee enters production. M2 Medium tank production is halted at 94 units. September: M4 Sherman prototype T6 is finished. First 20 M3s reach the UK. 1942: February: The cast hull M4A1 Sherman enters production. July: The welded hull M4 Sherman enters production. C.M. Kruger fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Huh. I read one of the assessments of the LVTP-7A1 that was part of the lead up to the new weapons station, and it mentioned that the vehicle was only armoured against .30 cal from any angle. There's no exact line here. "Armored" at very close ranges, or typical engagement ranges, etc? LatwPIAT posted:Sure. That's not the same as being shot at being a gently caress-up, though. I didn't say it was. But this is a real dilemma for APCs/IFVs - they want to be able to shoot up an enemy as "fire support" for the grunts they carry, but they don't really have the ability to take punishment in return.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
BMP was also designed in the middle of the nuclear era with the objective that it could ride through a nuclear or chemical wasteland with its passengers safe inside the overpressured hull. While enemy infantry would have to fight in clumsy hazmat suits or get exposed, Soviet mechanized rifle infantry could do drivebys through their rifle ports (they even have a fume suction system for this). Or more likely, provide defensive fire while the vehicles were stationary, as spotting anything from the peep holes while moving is unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
Can anyone do an effort posts about Toyota Landcruisers and Hiluxes in war? How the gently caress do ISIS get so many 75 series land cruisers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Wasn't there a dedicated thread for wargames, especially the PC variety. I don't have search 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wasn't there a dedicated thread for wargames, especially the PC variety. I don't have search Here's the thread for computer wargames: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3543909 Funnily enough over the years I feel like I've lost my taste for tactical-level wargaming as I've gotten older and more aware of what war entails. Anyways can anybody comment on if the Rikugun/Kangzhan books about the IJA/IJN and Chinese military forces by Leland Ness worth checking out? Asking since the Kindle editions are on sale for a few bucks each on Amazon right now. There seems to be a general sale on WWII stuff by Glantz and other authors too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
Well I'm pretty good at wc3 which I'd say is way more tactics than strategy for the most part. I'm also good at Advance Wars which is like an ultra watered down TBS game. Sometimes I would like to play on some huge hex style ACW or Napoleonic sim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Big Willy Style posted:Can anyone do an effort posts about Toyota Landcruisers and Hiluxes in war? How the gently caress do ISIS get so many 75 series land cruisers? Nearly every single car in the Middle East is a Toyota of some kind. When I was in North Jordan and Syria I didn’t see anything other than Toyota pickups of various kinds for two months. They’re just around and about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Well I'm pretty good at wc3 which I'd say is way more tactics than strategy for the most part. I'm also good at Advance Wars which is like an ultra watered down TBS game. Sometimes I would like to play on some huge hex style ACW or Napoleonic sim. Sorry, I meant "tactical level" in the sense of the scale. Abstracted strategic/operational level Hearts of Iron/TOAW/CMANO stuff is fine, it's just I've somewhat lost my taste for Advanced Squad Leader/Steel Panthers level stuff where your mistakes get individuals killed. Though partially due to this, Burden of Command is one game I'm really looking forwards to. https://store.steampowered.com/app/887490/Burden_of_Command/ There's also a thread for more generalist strategy games too: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3869771
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Where does that troop carrying MBT the Israelis have fit into the IFV /APC discussion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Big Willy Style posted:Can anyone do an effort posts about Toyota Landcruisers and Hiluxes in war? How the gently caress do ISIS get so many 75 series land cruisers? Coots have been scouring New Zealand for five or ten years, shipping off hiluxes to Dubai. As to where they go from there, I couldn't say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:Where does that troop carrying MBT the Israelis have fit into the IFV /APC discussion? It's also a mortar carrier
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:Where does that troop carrying MBT the Israelis have fit into the IFV /APC discussion? It's a capability, but afaik not used much because it means sacrificing main gun ammo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
can anyone identify this SAM?  from this article https://ops.group/blog/the-risks-posed-to-civil-aircraft-by-surface-to-air-missiles/ I'm assuming they are Chinese soldiers
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 11:18
|
|
|
I don't think that's a SAM at all, it looks a lot like like an AA2 atoll, the Soviet sidewinder clone
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:Where does that troop carrying MBT the Israelis have fit into the IFV /APC discussion? Generally they fall outside it. The Merkava's ability to a small number of troops is very secondary to its role as a tank. Though one thing to keep in mind in a discussion like this is that there's no ISO-standard for armoured fighting vehicles that authoritatively determines whether something is or isn't a tank, APC, IFV, or similar. Different organizations use different classifications to meet their taxonomic needs. A lot of the time you'll see people use the definition from the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, which asserted that "armoured personnel carriers" were armoured, cross-country personnel transports armed with cannons less than 20 mm in calibre, and "armoured infantry fighting vehicles" were cross-country personnel transports armed with cannons of 20 mm calibre or more. Cessna posted:I didn't say it was. But this is a real dilemma for APCs/IFVs - they want to be able to shoot up an enemy as "fire support" for the grunts they carry, but they don't really have the ability to take punishment in return. I know you didn't say that, but I'm also trying to respond in the context of bewbies statements and his purported knowledge of the doctrine behind every APC design in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
isnt bewbies like, a professional doctrine guy at leavenworth or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I'm pretty sure pole charges weren't standardized, but made by the unit. How are they fashioned? I'm assuming gammon/satchel on a stick with glue, but I'd love to hear more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:can anyone identify this SAM? Looks like Taiwanese MIM-72 Chapparral.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
I only learned who they were after someone used Byzantine as an adjective and I looked the word up
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:isnt bewbies like, a professional doctrine guy at leavenworth or some poo poo Clearly Leavenworth needs to spend more time considering the doctrine behind the Pbv 301, then. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:Where does that troop carrying MBT the Israelis have fit into the IFV /APC discussion? Merkava is the only MBT in the world with engine in the front. This means that Merkava has troop doors and some space for extra stuff behind the fighting compartment. Usually Its reserved for ammo but it can house like 4 dismounts or 2 stretchers- the Israeli have designed, not sure If fielded, a ”tankbulance” Merkava with 120mm gun. This is a hilariously offending breach of conventions *if* they were to actually paint red crosses on the sides and still operate it as a tank. If they ever actually did so I havent heard. Then there is Namer, which is basically uparmored, turretless Merkava- a superheavy APC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Merkava is the only MBT in the world with engine in the front. This means that Merkava has troop doors and some space for extra stuff behind the fighting compartment. Usually Its reserved for ammo but it can house like 4 dismounts or 2 stretchers- the Israeli have designed, not sure If fielded, a ”tankbulance” Merkava with 120mm gun. This is a hilariously offending breach of conventions *if* they were to actually paint red crosses on the sides and still operate it as a tank. If they ever actually did so I havent heard. Then there is Namer, which is basically uparmored, turretless Merkava- a superheavy APC? Here is the Namer:  As for the tankbulance. Yes, they are out there. They still have the weapon systems. And it is NOT protected by the Conventions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
The israeli military and political leadership is.. less than interested in playing fair, so they probably could skirt the conventions and paint a cross on it if it occurred to them. Still would be pretty unsporting though, that is some dystopian cityfight poo poo right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:(they even have a fume suction system for this). While it is a cool idea in practice those those things are a mess. There's a little aluminum fitting that clips over the AK; it also acts as a brass deflector, making the ejected brass drop down - straight into the shooter's crotch. There's a green hose that attaches to this for the fume extractor that seems like it would pinch on anything in the area. You don't just stick a rifle through the port. There's a ball-mount that you have to take out of the hull, clamp over the end of your rifle, then you stick the rifle back in a mount so it pokes out of the hull. Doing this would open the hull to any chemical agent you're trying to keep out. I'm not saying that there's a good solution here, but opening and closing the hull lets in the stuff you're trying to keep out. (You can see why they went with those silly firing-port weapons for the early Bradleys.) And the viewport is a tiny (maybe 1" x 3") block of wavy yellow-ish glass that doesn't line up with the sights of the rifle. I doubt you'd be able to hit a target 10 yards away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
None of those tanks have a cross on them - it’s a red Star of David. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
I'm running a Fallout civ quest set in the UK. https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/fallout-britain.51618/ Does anyone have any info on UK civil defense plans from the Cold War? I'd rather not watch Threads again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
War Plan UK might be a good place to start! It’s also very fallout because it really really focuses on the continuation of government and unapologetically spins it to be a gently caress you got mine narrative. Not the most objective book on the purpose of civil defence but it goes through the plans well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:can anyone identify this SAM? Taiwanese Sky Sword I missile from the Antelope SHORAD system:  Points of identification relative to Chaparral are the two part curve of the leading edge and the shallowly swept trailing edge of the forward fins, similar to those of an AIM-9L/M.  Points of identification relative to the air launched Sky Sword I are the fact that it's green. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Taiwanese Sky Sword I missile from the Antelope SHORAD system: Note they are also dummy missiles. Blue band means training round. Also note the tailfins don't have the rollerons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
All short range IR missiles look too similar. Field must be open for disruption. Something something plasma? 3D vector thrust? I'll call some techbros and see what we can get together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Does anyone have any info on UK civil defense plans from the Cold War? I'd rather not watch Threads again. Hey, there's also When the Wind Blows for a light-hearted pick-me-up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
Cessna posted:Hey, there's also When the Wind Blows for a light-hearted pick-me-up. Hah, just about to post that. Honestly it hosed me up way worse than Threads ever did. I think it's because Brigg's art style is so instantly recognisable and comforting, until everything peters out in total nihilistic despair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 17:10
|
|
