Subtleknifewielder Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 For what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 For ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 Hey, I was wondering what you guys think about an updated and redesigned M551 Sheridan. Design is the same but rebuilt with steel instead of aluminum and getting rid of that terrible 152mm gun/missile launcher and outfit it with a conventional 105mm cannon and possibly a TOW missile launcher? My goal is to retain the Sheridan's mobility (airborne and amphibious capabilities) so the steel armor may not work but if so would it be possible to use (on the front and turret at least) composites to enhance its protection. I don't expect the armor to withstand tank guns but at the very least offer protection against light AT weapons and possibly low caliber cannon fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 Any specific reason for using steel instead of aluminum? Protection issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 As I understand aluminum armor has a tendency to burn (or at least melt easier than steel) when hit by high explosives and it was a problem for the Sheridan in Vietnam (along with its crappy gun ammunition). I've also seen studies in the past that claims that steel performs better against higher caliber ballistic weapons like HMGs and cannons although I'm honestly not sure as to how accurate that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 My overall thought is that the weight of the M81 gun/missile launcher would equal the extra weight gained from changing to steel and a 105 mm gun. If we look at the M60s, the M60A2 gained about 7 tonnes from the M60A1 when the switch from the 105 mm gun to the 152 mm system happened. Therefore, I think you can use the extra 7 tonnes to change from aluminum to steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 [quote name='Altarian Republic' timestamp='1334730767' post='2955233'] Hey, I was wondering what you guys think about an updated and redesigned M551 Sheridan. Design is the same but rebuilt with steel instead of aluminum and getting rid of that terrible 152mm gun/missile launcher and outfit it with a conventional 105mm cannon and possibly a TOW missile launcher? My goal is to retain the Sheridan's mobility (airborne and amphibious capabilities) so the steel armor may not work but if so would it be possible to use (on the front and turret at least) composites to enhance its protection. I don't expect the armor to withstand tank guns but at the very least offer protection against light AT weapons and possibly low caliber cannon fire. [/quote] I use a modernized M-48 for my Marines for the size factor, but that's more or less just using the basic design for a dumping ground for a big pile of modern electronics, weapons, and armor. M-551 is airborne capable due to a large part of it's aluminum construction. Steel would add to the weight considerably. If I were you I'd consider some sort of gun platform design instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1334737216' post='2955263'] If I were you I'd consider some sort of gun platform design instead. [/quote] RL example would be the M1128 Mobile Gun System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335304765' post='2958631'] Using ground penetrating radar, magnetic anomaly detectors, and synthetic aperture radar [/quote] I don't think these work the way you think they work. Ground penetrating radar has short range, and for best preformance must be done on site, on the ground. Magnetic Anomaly Detectors would mark ore deposits, buildings, and anything else iron. Synthetic aperature radar: does this even work underground? Finally, even if you could survey 10 square kilometers per minute, it would still take 54 days to search all of Grand Papua. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure Triyun was looking only at the neck, so the last part is unnecessary. The more important question: Wouldn't such scanning require at least a spy roll, even if it's scientifically possible? Edited April 25, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1335323363' post='2958829'] I'm pretty sure Triyun was looking only at the neck, so the last part is unnecessary. The more important question: Wouldn't such scanning require at least a spy roll, even if it's scientifically possible? [/quote] Ah, retract the last point then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1336580729' post='2965488']Additionally two rear line rail gun battalions were amassed, bringing a total of twenty operational batteries, amassed for ranging 450 kilos into enemy lines.[/quote] Hey Triyun, can you link me to your source that supports the deployment of non-ship-mounted railguns within the next twenty years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 It is simply an issue of power sources. There is nothing inherently necessary about putting it on a ship, the main thing is the power output created by a warship to power the rail gun. Its certainly not that mobile, however when your talking about this range and you've suppressed the enemies strikers you don't necessarily need to have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1336611223' post='2965619'] It is simply an issue of power sources. There is nothing inherently necessary about putting it on a ship, the main thing is the power output created by a warship to power the rail gun. Its certainly not that mobile, however when your talking about this range and you've suppressed the enemies strikers you don't necessarily need to have it. [/quote] You can't plug a rail gun into a wall outlet, though. A railgun on a ship has access to the ship's generators, but off of a ship I would ask for a link to a power source under development that is mobile and able to supply enough power for a rail gun. Edited May 10, 2012 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Yes BIIIG trucks with large generators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) According to [url="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4231461"]this[/url] page, a 64 megajoule railgun requires 16 megawatts of power generation to fire 6 rounds per minute. (And for comparison power consumption is not linear: a 9MJ railgun draws 3M amps, while a 64MJ railgun draws 6M amps.) [url="http://www.infrastructures.com/0811/copco.htm"]Here[/url] is a 1MW, container-mounted generator that can be pulled by a semitruck. Each of the 20 railguns needs 16 of these plus fuel and supports trucks? Forgive me, but that does not seem like a standard issue setup. Edited May 10, 2012 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 I don't see why you're acting surprised when I said two battalions had 20 guns total. Also these trucks are much bigger than semis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 The last time I tried putting railguns on a vehicle, I was !@#$%*ed at for it being unrealistic. :V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Lol, I remember laughing at you for it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Those were mobile large armored vehicles were they not? The ones I remember banning of others were like tanks and 155 mm self propelled artillery size and carried their own power source. These are things with wheel bases like such http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/npre201/npre201fall06studentwebs/npre201sp07studentwebsources/aaronbergman/truck.jpg that house their generator on another vehicle. Edited May 10, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 ergo, extremely vulnerable to attack right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Depends in a sight to sight battle the batteries would be highly vulnerable to attack but I am guessing that due to the rail guns range that Triyun would be using them as a form of artillery support so you would have to counter with very long range artillery/missile strikes or air strikes all of which you can defend against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1336611223' post='2965619'] It is simply an issue of power sources. There is nothing inherently necessary about putting it on a ship, the main thing is the power output created by a warship to power the rail gun. [b]Its certainly not that mobile, however when your talking about this range and you've suppressed the enemies strikers you don't necessarily need to have it.[/b] [/quote] [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1336683738' post='2966055'] ergo, extremely vulnerable to attack right? [/quote] I think the above statement answers that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 ergo, it would be vulnerable to attacks, but here it is used in a fashion where counter-battery or other attacks on the battery were deemed highly unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Maybe, maybe not, depends on how he deploys and protects them. Further, it depends on how well he's armored the generators. There is nothing saying he can't dig them in deep or mount a serious defense of them via armor and active counter-measures. Though, to be honest, if it was me I'd be running cable and using a ship mounted nuke reactor to power the things, or at least setting that up as a contingency. Though, whole thing seems odd to me given he controls the sea and has a navy full of rail cannons to call on in support of his units, but everyone has different ideas. Could well be a right hand/left hand situation, which is how I'd use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.