Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[Max_Killjoy]

At the time of the Greco-Persian Wars, the Phoenicians still had a monopoly on their knowledge of stellar navigation. By the Hellenistic and Roman era, it was no longer a secret and many others likely did. That didn't mean even captains who knew how would take the risk, though.

For gaming and fiction, it makes a good element -- a sea voyage into the unknown, a captain skilled and daring enough to plot his course across open seas by stars and sun and reckoning.

[Kaptin Keen]

As for it’s effectiveness as an APC, VietNam veterans I’ve spoken to said it’s armor only slowed a bullet down enough so it could ricochet around the inside.

What I heard when I did my soldier thing was that point blank, our old 7,62 FMJ HK rifles could penetrate side armor - barely. An LMG could punch through with better results at longer range, but still side armor. By comparison, 5,56 would just flatten against it. I know in principle 5,56 should have greater penetration, but ... well, that's what I heard. They didn't issue me an APC to test it on =)

I stress that that's what I heard. No official source on any of it. Just soldiers running their mouths.

[Brother Oni]

Nothing else brings that gun, no chopper, no jet.

The AC-130 disagrees.

What really struck me was how close to the ground the pilots are willing to get to make sure they're getting the fire in the right spot -- how many times did the altitude alert go off while they were firing?

It says at the very start of the video that fire was being called 'danger close' - that means the pilot was engaging targets less than 600m away from friendlies. It may sounds like a lot, but if I understand this document correctly (link), the A-10's LASTE system can provide a bombing solution to an error margin of 310 mils (17 degrees), which at a 2 km engagement range is approximately +/- 296 m of the target (if I've done my math right).

I can't find any information on the system used to provide a firing solution for the 30mm, but I presume it has at least the same level of accuracy as the LASTE, so when you're being called onto targets that close to friendlies, you want to be damn sure you're shooting at the right target.

Additionally, would the T72M still be viable as an MBT...

Definitely not, unless the opposing side has no anti-armour weaponry of any sort.

As example of how a T-72 would fare against a modern MBT, at the Battle of 73 Easting in Gulf War 1, American forces destroyed 37 Iraqi T-72s for the cost of 1 Bradley AFV. The Battle of Norfolk went even worse for the Iraqis.

[Max_Killjoy]

The AC-130 disagrees.

They mounted the Avenger on AC-130s?

It says at the very start of the video that fire was being called 'danger close' - that means the pilot was engaging targets less than 600m away from friendlies. It may sounds like a lot, but if I understand this document correctly (link), the A-10's LASTE system can provide a bombing solution to an error margin of 310 mils (17 degrees), which at a 2 km engagement range is approximately +/- 296 m of the target (if I've done my math right).

I can't find any information on the system used to provide a firing solution for the 30mm, but I presume it has at least the same level of accuracy as the LASTE, so when you're being called onto targets that close to friendlies, you want to be damn sure you're shooting at the right target.

No, I get that, it's just the total lack of hesitation from the pilots to ignore "b****ing betty" and do what needs to be done that struck me as noteworthy.

I'll see if I can dig up the gun aiming system tonight when I get home, but within its normal range the drop is minimal enough that it can almost be "deadeyed" -- point and shoot.

[hymer]

5) when you see per-unit prices, you need to check the years of those prices. A A10 cost $20m in when? 1975? 2000? 2018? Inflation means that depending on when the two prices are form, it could be the 20 million A 10 costs more than the 35 million apache, once you adjust for inflation.

Just to settle that one: those prices were a year apart. 2014 and 2015 IIRC. It makes sense if you think about the sophistication of the apache and the rugged simplicity of the warthog.

Thanks to everyone who helped with the egg-beater vs. frisbee uses!

[Brother Oni]

They mounted the Avenger on AC-130s?

The current AC-130U (Spooky) is a 25mm GAU-12 (the Avenger's baby brother), a 40mm Bofors and a M102 105mm howitzer.
The proposed AC-130J (Ghostrider) has a 30mm GAU-23/A (Avenger equivalent), a M102 105mm howitzer and a metric [redacted]ton of launch tubes and hardpoints for missiles, rockets and bombs.

So you're correct that they haven't mounted it yet, but they're planning to.

I'll see if I can dig up the gun aiming system tonight when I get home, but within its normal range the drop is minimal enough that it can almost be "deadeyed" -- point and shoot.

I don't think it's the drop that's the issue, it's the vibration of the weapon and movement of the aircraft that contributes to a natural spread of where its rounds land.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think it's the drop that's the issue, it's the vibration of the weapon and movement of the aircraft that contributes to a natural spread of where its rounds land.

The factoid that sticks in my mind is that at just under a mile, 40 of 70 rounds will reliably hit inside an area the size of a tank (a one-second burst at the original 4200 rpm ROF).

[Protato]

What would the cheapest options for vehicles/artillery that're still effective versus contemporary vehicles be? Also note that the fictional country's military I'm designing is not an official NATO member, nor were they ever a Warsaw member and so I imagine they source from all over, or try to make original designs, though I don't know how to design original vehicles and I lack artistic skill.

[gkathellar]

What would the cheapest options for vehicles/artillery that're still effective versus contemporary vehicles be? Also note that the fictional country's military I'm designing is not an official NATO member, nor were they ever a Warsaw member and so I imagine they source from all over, or try to make original designs, though I don't know how to design original vehicles and I lack artistic skill.

What sort of vehicles? A jeep is not an MRAP truck is not a tank. Fully modernized armies employ a wide variety of "weight classes," as it were, in different roles, and non-state actors have made even pickup trucks into staples of the modern battlefield.

If you're specifically looking at non-NATO, non-Warsaw countries, Finland might be a good starting point, especially given their military is pretty well-developed.

[Protato]

I'm looking specifically at APC/IFVs, MBTs, transport and gunship helicopters, and fighter planes. The nation would be fighting a mostly defensive war, with counterattacks mounted later on, so I doubt they would have much room for things like a B52. Additionally, antiair batteries and SAMs would be important to have I would think, along with artillery generally.

[Pauly]

I'm looking specifically at APC/IFVs, MBTs, transport and gunship helicopters, and fighter planes. The nation would be fighting a mostly defensive war, with counterattacks mounted later on, so I doubt they would have much room for things like a B52. Additionally, antiair batteries and SAMs would be important to have I would think, along with artillery generally.

Maybe try looking at off the shelf Chinese designs. That probably gives you a pkausible source of armaments and keeps itvsimple for you

[Mike_G]

I'm looking specifically at APC/IFVs, MBTs, transport and gunship helicopters, and fighter planes. The nation would be fighting a mostly defensive war, with counterattacks mounted later on, so I doubt they would have much room for things like a B52. Additionally, antiair batteries and SAMs would be important to have I would think, along with artillery generally.

In a defensive fight, you can get away with cheaper equipment. It's easier to position you stuff to take advantage of terrain and use chokepoints than if you have to attack. If you are in Europe, you can have plenty of canals, dykes, bridges etc that you can use to funnel enemy attacks into ambushes.

So older tanks that would be obsolete can take advantage of prepared ambushes and dug in positions to make up for worse guns and armor. You can even make a lot of use of man portable ATGMs and light vehicles to ambush armor and then get away. You can buy a whole lot of Humvees with TOW launchers for the price of one MBT. That's useless in the attack, but not so much in defense.

I'd look at the Russian wars in Chechnya for examples, as well as the recent fighting in Iraq and Syria to see how insurgents with second hand or improvised equipment can make life miserable for a modern army.

[Brother Oni]

The factoid that sticks in my mind is that at just under a mile, 40 of 70 rounds will reliably hit inside an area the size of a tank (a one-second burst at the original 4200 rpm ROF).

That's a nice factoid. *Steals for later use*

What would the cheapest options for vehicles/artillery that're still effective versus contemporary vehicles be? Also note that the fictional country's military I'm designing is not an official NATO member, nor were they ever a Warsaw member and so I imagine they source from all over, or try to make original designs, though I don't know how to design original vehicles and I lack artistic skill.

As Mike_G said definitely look at how things are going in the current conflicts and feel free to get as inventive as possible:

Spoiler: Improvised DShK MG mount spotted in Libya

Show

In Chechnya, there are reports of both sides using commercial drones as spotters for artillery strikes and by attaching an explosive device to them, turn them into either suicide drones or improvised bombers (eg a primed grenade attached to the drop mechanism)

As both a non-NATO and non-Warsaw Pact country, they're going to be limited to buying knock-off stuff from other countries, unless you set it up like Rhodesia and have near unrestricted warfare (unlikely as this sort of war on Europe's doorstep would escalate rapidly into intervention by the big boys), resulting in rapidly development of new kit - in Rhodesia, they had MRAP vehicles like the Hippo APC and Casspir IMV before they were re-invented again for Iraq.

[Pauly]

What I heard when I did my soldier thing was that point blank, our old 7,62 FMJ HK rifles could penetrate side armor - barely. An LMG could punch through with better results at longer range, but still side armor. By comparison, 5,56 would just flatten against it. I know in principle 5,56 should have greater penetration, but ... well, that's what I heard. They didn't issue me an APC to test it on =)

I stress that that's what I heard. No official source on any of it. Just soldiers running their mouths.

One thing I’ve noticed over many years of reading military history.

Peacetime soldier: My armor is invincible and will protect me from any possible enemy.

Wartime soldier: My armor is made of wet tissue paper and won”t protect me from an angry 4 year old with a pointy stick.

[Kaptin Keen]

One thing I’ve noticed over many years of reading military history.

Peacetime soldier: My armor is invincible and will protect me from any possible enemy.

Wartime soldier: My armor is made of wet tissue paper and won”t protect me from an angry 4 year old with a pointy stick.

There's also a third type, the type who never goes anywhere near actual combat, but says things like: Projections show that this type of protective gear yield a 4,21% increase in overall troop combat viability.

[snowblizz]

One thing I’ve noticed over many years of reading military history.

Peacetime soldier: My armor is invincible and will protect me from any possible enemy.

Wartime soldier: My armor is made of wet tissue paper and won”t protect me from an angry 4 year old with a pointy stick.

The M113 was a bit thinly armoured. During Vietnam they (I beleive the Marine Corps but not sure) developed armour kits in theatre that was cycled through the military hiarchy Stateside before coming back as official upgrade kits, prefitted on stuff subsequently sent over.

If you're specifically looking at non-NATO, non-Warsaw countries, Finland might be a good starting point, especially given their military is pretty well-developed.

Who actually use a mix of NATO and Soviet stuff.

There are very few countries not using stuff from either "block". Even the Cinese items are overwhelmingly knock-off Soviet stuff.

You get occasional things homegrown, but military ahrdware is expensive so usually it means someone else needds to pick it up to to share the cost. Another good example to look at is Swedihs kit since they tried to make as much of their own as possible. Which is why Sweden is the largest per capita arms-dealer today. Or some such.
They eg at one point developed a tank (tank destroyer or assaultgun really, had no turret) but are now using hande-me-down NATO tanks.

[rs2excelsior]

Speaking of modern militaries outside of the NATO or Soviet spheres, South Africa is another to look at. They were under arms embargoes for a while and produced some modifications for imported vehicles and some home-grown AFVs. Also Israel has several examples of locally modified or built armor, having extensively modified imported Centurion and M60 tanks as well as producing the Merkava.

Another good example to look at is Swedihs kit since they tried to make as much of their own as possible. Which is why Sweden is the largest per capita arms-dealer today. Or some such.
They eg at one point developed a tank (tank destroyer or assaultgun really, had no turret) but are now using hande-me-down NATO tanks.

Yeah, the S-tanks were odd. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that they were developed for a very specific environment--defensive battles in hilly Swedish terrain, where they could sit on a reverse slope, attack an invading force from ambush, then rapidly reverse and fall back to another position. Rinse and repeat. Thus the ability to switch driving controls to a rear-facing crewmember and the reverse speed basically equal to forward speed. I don't know how well they would have fared in offensive operations, or more open terrain.

[Protato]

When/where might a counterattack against a more powerful nation's occupying military installations occur without being a complete suicide mission? I'm thinking of having the first mission in a tabletop Savage Worlds modern military game be a counterattack by a much weaker nation against Russian invaders into their nation, but modernized Cold War equipment instead of properly modern vehicles and weapons, no heavy bomber support whatsoever, and overall lesser size of military make that difficult, bordering on unrealistic I imagine. But, if there was a way to say, attack a fortified military base in order to make headway in the war and not just be pushed back constantly, how might it be done? Air support is on the table, as is MBT/APC/Artillery/ground-based antiair.

As for the player characters, I know at least one player wants to be a rifleman and one wants to be a medic, and other roles like tank commander/engineer/sniper are on the table. I imagine that doesn't correspond to any squad structure I know of though, so would this mongrel of a fireteam have any chance of existing, or would it make more sense for them to have survived an attack and grouped up later because of safety in numbers?

[Vinyadan]

You can look into Swiss tanks, at least because they are entertaining.

During the summer of 1979, the Weltwoche, then a highly regarded Swiss weekly, published an article regarding the shortcomings of the Panzer 68 that led to a scandal and, allegedly, to the resignation of the minister of defence, Rudolf Gnägi. In this article, the then chief of armoured forces of the Swiss army came to the conclusion that the Panzer 68 was "not fit for combat". A group of experts that was commissioned to produce a report on the matter listed dozens of technical problems. Among others, the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection was found to be insufficient, forcing the crews to wear protective masks inside their tanks, thus greatly reducing the crews' performance. The experts also found that the gearbox did not allow for shifting into reverse while the vehicle was moving, forcing the crew to stop the tank before reversing. To make things even worse, the radios used in the tank tended to interfere with the turret control system, resulting in uncontrolled turret movements whenever the radios were used at full power.

A year before the Weltwoche article, another very dangerous fault was found. Switching on the heating system could lead to the main gun firing the round in the gun. This problem was caused by the fact that some systems shared the same electrical circuits. This problem never led to any accidents. In a sarcastic headline, Swiss tabloid Blick commented: "The Panzer 68 is much more dangerous than it seems!" (Wikipedia)

[Pauly]

When/where might a counterattack against a more powerful nation's occupying military installations occur without being a complete suicide mission? I'm thinking of having the first mission in a tabletop Savage Worlds modern military game be a counterattack by a much weaker nation against Russian invaders into their nation, but modernized Cold War equipment instead of properly modern vehicles and weapons, no heavy bomber support whatsoever, and overall lesser size of military make that difficult, bordering on unrealistic I imagine. But, if there was a way to say, attack a fortified military base in order to make headway in the war and not just be pushed back constantly, how might it be done? Air support is on the table, as is MBT/APC/Artillery/ground-based antiair.

Success in this situation will depend on surprise.
Tactical surprise, by carelessness, lack of security through overconfidence in their equipment by the moderns.
Operatial surprise, by putting their forces into pkaces where the modern army did not think it would ho
Operational aggressive/tactical defensive. Putting the attacker deep into the modern forces back area and compelling the modern forces to attack, but fight the battle defensively.

Overall the technological inferior force willbshoukd avoid emplaced fortifications. Read any account of the Viet Cong attacking a US firebase. Even Dien Bien aphu only happened because the Viet Minh outnumbered the French and the French were over confident and the Viet Minh had a lot of time for the siege to work.

[Pauly]

The Japanese have developed a lot of home grown war tech, but there is precisely a zero chance any of it gets exported.

[Jeivar]

So, can someone tell me what the effective difference is between curved swords and straight-bladed European ones? I'm thinking of writing a story from the perspective of a classic Tolkienesque elf, and I want to make their weapons distinctive from the humans.

[Kiero]

So, can someone tell me what the effective difference is between curved swords and straight-bladed European ones? I'm thinking of writing a story from the perspective of a classic Tolkienesque elf, and I want to make their weapons distinctive from the humans.

Curved blades make cuts more easily, particularly when elevated. That's why curved swords were popular with cavalry. Do your elves ride a lot?

[Kaptin Keen]

Success in this situation will depend on surprise.

That's by no means a given - Vietnam did not surprise the US, they just trounced them resoundingly with a way superior will to fight. And numbers. That too, of course.

To win against a larger force you need some sort of advantage you can leverage to it's greatest possible effect. My proud home nation of Denmark has a national guard - which is an utter joke, but exists for a kinda-sorta rational reason: Go underground and perform 5th column operations behind enemy lines as they progress. So our plan is basically to lose early but win late. Actually, our real plan is for Nato to come save us should the need ever arise.

Other options exist. If you have cheap gear that will knock out more expensive gear, then you're basically golden, if you can keep fighting long enough. The mujahideen never actually beat the Soviets, they just never surrendered either, and eventually it just became too painful for the occupying forces to remain. Though frankly it might have been better overall for Afghanistan to remain a dusty Soviet province. Point is, cheap US anti-armor and anti-air cost the Soviets more than they were willing to keep paying.

I believe the WW2 Soviet invasion of Finland is another example. Well, no it isn't - the Finn's never counter attacked. Just hunkered down, fought back with enormous will, and sent the Soviets packing. But they were outnumbered, badly.

I'm not any sort of expert, so apologies for any inaccuracies in all this.

[Brother Oni]

The Japanese have developed a lot of home grown war tech, but there is precisely a zero chance any of it gets exported.

Japan is also a G7 country, making them much more capable of developing and manufacturing their own tech, even with the additional hoops they have to jump through to get around Article 9 of their constitution.

[snowblizz]

I believe the WW2 Soviet invasion of Finland is another example. Well, no it isn't - the Finn's never counter attacked. Just hunkered down, fought back with enormous will, and sent the Soviets packing. But they were outnumbered, badly.

That's not true at all. The Finnish army during the Winter War defintiely counter-attacked. Often. Some of the famous battles were counterattacks on blunted or overpenetrating Soviet attacks. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

It just didn't happen in the strength of entire armies.

The strategy would be to let the enemy expend thier strength in manpower and machines and then hit individual targets where local superiority* could be achieved.

*not necessarily in mapower

[The Jack]

What techniques did people use to protect mail from rust.

I might have asked this a long time ago, but there was a mount and blade mode that had 'brass' mail mittens. Would this be a clever coating for rust prevention/asthetics or is it fiction (or could tyou generally try to make mail with brass)

[Jeivar]

Curved blades make cuts more easily, particularly when elevated. That's why curved swords were popular with cavalry. Do your elves ride a lot?

No, not really. I think of that as more of a human thing. The elves I have in mind have generally withdrawn from the world, and rarely fight anything other than unarmoured demons.

And of course they mostly use polearms whenever possible, but you can't wear one on your belt wherever you go.

[gkathellar]

So, can someone tell me what the effective difference is between curved swords and straight-bladed European ones? I'm thinking of writing a story from the perspective of a classic Tolkienesque elf, and I want to make their weapons distinctive from the humans.

That's a pretty broad question. The very short version is that a double-edged sword is generally stronger on the thrust and has access to a greater variety of cutting techniques including attacks with the back of the sword (generally referred to as the "false edge"). Curved blades are usually stronger on the chop, and for certain types of slash depending on the particulars of the design. As Kiero says, this means that curved swords are generally favored by cavalry, and distinctly disfavored for heavily armored combat where slashing techniques are frequently ineffective.

That said, how much any of this matters varies a lot by design. The Japanese and European longswords, for instance, have a very similar body of techniques despite being single and double-edged, respectively. Certainly they have more in common than the Japanese longsword does with the short chopping blades seen all over the world, which are generally easier to use and better in close-quarters but less reliable in a duel. Even within a given "type" of swords, variations will see dramatic differences in efficacy - the Chinese saber has relatively more and less curved variations and they handle quite differently and are respectively better on the cut and on the thrust.

It's also worth noting that some straight-bladed swords are single-edged (many dueling sabers in particular have little or no curve). Straight-bladed single-edged swords tend to occupy a liminal space between double-edged and curved. These straighter cutting swords are often superb on the defense, for reasons that are difficult to quantify, much less explain.

The reasons that different cultures use varied swords is typically a function of (a) what type of circumstances the swords are likely to be employed in, and in a military setting specifically the ubiquity and reliability of armor, (b) access to metal and forging techniques appropriate for the construction of different designs, and (c) the geographic drift of technology. The Japanese longsword in particular is a great study in this: very roughly, it evolved from continental Asian sabers, took on design characteristics suitable for the iron available on the islands, and tended towards a slender, "artistic" design during the lengthy peace of the Edo period.

Given all this, if you want humans and elves to plausibly use different weapons, you should think about what sort of variations in their lifestyles would prompt those differences. For instance, you could say that the elves haven't conducted large-scale warfare in a long time, and so prefer rapiers, longswords, and other straight dueling blades that require lengthy training and perform excellently in a civilian context. The humans, on the other hand, live on open plains crisscrossed by mighty rivers, and so have taken to a variety of heavy single-edged blades handy on horseback and in shipboard combat.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's a pretty broad question. The very short version is that a double-edged sword is generally stronger on the thrust and has access to a greater variety of cutting techniques including attacks with the back of the sword (generally referred to as the "false edge"). Curved blades are usually stronger on the chop, and for certain types of slash depending on the particulars of the design. As Kiero says, this means that curved swords are generally favored by cavalry, and distinctly disfavored for heavily armored combat where slashing techniques are frequently ineffective.

That said, how much any of this matters varies a lot by design. The Japanese and European longswords, for instance, have a very similar body of techniques despite being single and double-edged, respectively. Certainly they have more in common than the Japanese longsword does with the short chopping blades seen all over the world, which are generally easier to use and better in close-quarters but less reliable in a duel. Even within a given "type" of swords, variations will see dramatic differences in efficacy - the Chinese saber has relatively more and less curved variations and they handle quite differently and are respectively better on the cut and on the thrust.

It's also worth noting that some straight-bladed swords are single-edged (many dueling sabers in particular have little or no curve). Straight-bladed single-edged swords tend to occupy a liminal space between double-edged and curved. These straighter cutting swords are often superb on the defense, for reasons that are difficult to quantify, much less explain.

The reasons that different cultures use varied swords is typically a function of (a) what type of circumstances the swords are likely to be employed in, and in a military setting specifically the ubiquity and reliability of armor, (b) access to metal and forging techniques appropriate for the construction of different designs, and (c) the geographic drift of technology. The Japanese longsword in particular is a great study in this: very roughly, it evolved from continental Asian sabers, took on design characteristics suitable for the iron available on the islands, and tended towards a slender, "artistic" design during the lengthy peace of the Edo period.

Given all this, if you want humans and elves to plausibly use different weapons, you should think about what sort of variations in their lifestyles would prompt those differences. For instance, you could say that the elves haven't conducted large-scale warfare in a long time, and so prefer rapiers, longswords, and other straight dueling blades that require lengthy training and perform excellently in a civilian context. The humans, on the other hand, live on open plains crisscrossed by mighty rivers, and so have taken to a variety of heavy single-edged blades handy on horseback and in shipboard combat.

If the elves are forest-dwellers, straight blades that are good in the thrust might also work better than something that demands big swinging motions to be effective.