Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

Is it possible for all of an tank's shells to be in a barrel-like clip to allow faster reloading by cutting down the time spent between reaching into the ammunition storage, carrying it, and loading it? I am RPing close-combat tanks with 85mm cannons, they need a high rate of fire to compensate for their small shells' size and being highly useful in taking down multiple enemy tanks within a short time period at close range. Any wasted time would give enemy tanks time to adjust their turret and larger cannon and fire at the close combat tank at point-blank range.

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281741081' post='2414983']
Is it possible for all of an tank's shells to be in a barrel-like clip to allow faster reloading by cutting down the time spent between reaching into the ammunition storage, carrying it, and loading it? I am RPing close-combat tanks with 85mm cannons, they need a high rate of fire to compensate for their small shells' size and being highly useful in taking down multiple enemy tanks within a short time period at close range. Any wasted time would give enemy tanks time to adjust their turret and larger cannon and fire at the close combat tank at point-blank range.
[/quote]
What you have described is a little, baby, impossible to use Autoloader.

A "Clip" for tank shells would be massive, requiring some sort of machinery to lift and load them. They would have to use very heavy metal, or use a complex system of breeches and loading mechanisms to operate properly. To even use it, it would require that you have enough room in the turret to fit a loader, gun operator, and a big, long clip, which is all pretty much impossible.

All in all, you get better worth out of an autoloader.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Actually ITDA, it would depend on how it was implemented. One possibility may be to use Rotating barrels on tank and to have them use the metal storm system and pre-load the shells in each barrel. Unlike traditional tank cannons, the shells would be detonated electronically. The weight of the barrels would be extremely heavy and they would have to be preloaded. As each barrels contents are expended a new barrel would be primed to fire. I'm not familiar with the length of tank shells relative to the length of their barrels, but I would assume if the same ratio is kept you might be able to sustain a 3-4 shell/barrel in a form of clip. The firing rate could be exponentially greater than a mechanized system because the detonations are timed electronically meaning each sell could fire the moment the first has cleared the barrel. Look up more on metal storm technology. They're already deploying this technology in a variety of size of guns.

You might just replace the entire barrel system with a box of metal storm shells aimed in a given direction and computer aimed and fire coordinated. You need probably at least 2009 tech for this.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Il Terra Di Agea' timestamp='1281741761' post='2415000']
What you have described is a little, baby, impossible to use Autoloader.

A "Clip" for tank shells would be massive, requiring some sort of machinery to lift and load them. They would have to use very heavy metal, or use a complex system of breeches and loading mechanisms to operate properly. To even use it, it would require that you have enough room in the turret to fit a loader, gun operator, and a big, long clip, which is all pretty much impossible.

All in all, you get better worth out of an autoloader.
[/quote]
I thought human operators were more efficient than autoloaders when it comes to shells that are smaller than 125mm.

The type of ammunition clips that I plan on using in my close combat tanks (which one would be most realistic?):
[img]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9417/30180571.png[/img]

1. Rotary ammunition clip
2. Box ammunition clip
3. Belt connected ammunition clip (all shells are held together with two belts), requires a mechanism to pull the belt as the shells in it is expended.

I am preferring the 3rd option since that allows a very high rate of fire, limited by how fast the mechanism can pull the belt and how much overpressure the barrel can withstand.

Edited August 13, 2010 by HHAYD

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1281742597' post='2415022']
Actually ITDA, it would depend on how it was implemented. One possibility may be to use Rotating barrels on tank and to have them use the metal storm system and pre-load the shells in each barrel. Unlike traditional tank cannons, the shells would be detonated electronically. The weight of the barrels would be extremely heavy and they would have to be preloaded. As each barrels contents are expended a new barrel would be primed to fire. I'm not familiar with the length of tank shells relative to the length of their barrels, but I would assume if the same ratio is kept you might be able to sustain a 3-4 shell/barrel in a form of clip. The firing rate could be exponentially greater than a mechanized system because the detonations are timed electronically meaning each sell could fire the moment the first has cleared the barrel. Look up more on metal storm technology. They're already deploying this technology in a variety of size of guns.[/quote]

Metal storm technology can't do half of what people think it can, that's the problem with the only large source of information on it being the website of the people desperately trying to sell it. A tank shell rigged in such a way would destroy the shell behind it (Unless it was a KE penetrator), you would loose accuracy because you are effectively operating without the majority of your barrel for most of your shots, and the recoil of firing that quickly would turn a tank to scrap metal. Then, reloading also needs to be factored in.Due to the nature of reloading such a weapon, you have to essentially replace the entire gun every time you fire a couple of shots.

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1281743230' post='2415039']
I thought human operators were more efficient than autoloaders when it comes to shells that are smaller than 125mm.[/quote]
I haven't actually heard that before...

Could you give me a link to where you heard that? My interest is piqued.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Il Terra Di Agea

[Executive Minister]

I'm pretty sure its the other way around...

[Executive Minister]

Sorry for the double post, but I am enquiring the CNRP 'Navy people' on my first two capital ships of the Paragon-class Aircraft Carrier designation.

[img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/mofailla/NoNParagon-classStealthAircraftCarrier.jpg?t=1281762912[/img]

First will be the 'NMC Apotheosis' the second the 'NMC Quintessence'. I am wondering, would the specifications of the WWII era [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin"]Graf Zeppelin[/url] notable for its 'battleship-esque' armoring and structural integrity as well as its long and narrow design be suitable for my covered aircraft carrier? Essentially, the main runways exit the visible 'mouth' you see here, they re-enter through the rear. If these specs are not up to spec, would you care to give me your own? Keep in mind that all advanced technologies and features are doable as im a first worlder- I have some ideas of my own, but also want other's input.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Executive Minister

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

I'm going to go with my gut here and say that a covered aircraft carrier is a very bad idea. Armored aircraft carriers to the extent of the ones in the World Wars really shouldn't exist. Naval tactics have been built around aircraft carriers avoiding a hit, rather than being able to sustain one. That is why you have a dozen ships surrounding carriers and they are bristling with close in weapons systems. Just go with a conventional design, it will make everything so much easier.

Edited August 14, 2010 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1281763297' post='2415425']
Sorry for the double post, but I am enquiring the CNRP 'Navy people' on my first two capital ships of the Paragon-class Aircraft Carrier designation.



First will be the 'NMC Apotheosis' the second the 'NMC Quintessence'. I am wondering, would the specifications of the WWII era [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin"]Graf Zeppelin[/url] notable for its 'battleship-esque' armoring and structural integrity as well as its long and narrow design be suitable for my covered aircraft carrier? Essentially, the main runways exit the visible 'mouth' you see here, they re-enter through the rear. If these specs are not up to spec, would you care to give me your own? Keep in mind that all advanced technologies and features are doable as im a first worlder- I have some ideas of my own, but also want other's input.
[/quote]

The Graf Zeppelin from what the wiki shows seems to have armoring but even that does not have an enclosed flight deck. An enclosed flight deck is an insanely dangerous flight hazard. An aircraft carrier faces threats from damages not just from external attacks, but also from routine accidents. In an open flight deck, if an aircraft, missing the retractor cables, out of control and out of power to lift up and try landing again thus becomes a hazard, it can just go overboard without causing destruction to the ship and other aircraft on the deck. However in the class you are specifying any such accident would be insanely fatal. No amount of drill and discipline would ensure that such a thing would never happen.

There is no harm in adding passive armor to an aircraft carriers, indeed the first aircraft carriers were heavily armored cruisers and battleships rigged with flight decks. You can also give greater armoring to the flight deck itself, keeping in mind the over all weight of the ship. But having a covered flight deck would be silly. A covered runway is possibly only with respect to ground installations where vagaries like the roll and pitch of the ship does not come into play. The degree of error would be too narrow, making it unusable for a ship that is intended for combat conditions.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1281769058' post='2415524']
I'm going to go with my gut here and say that a covered aircraft carrier is a very bad idea. Armored aircraft carriers to the extent of the ones in the World Wars really shouldn't exist. Naval tactics have been built around aircraft carriers avoiding a hit, rather than being able to sustain one. That is why you have a dozen ships surrounding carriers and they are bristling with close in weapons systems. Just go with a conventional design, it will make everything so much easier.
[/quote]

Cochin of all people knows that I generally refuse to go with the conventional, especially just to make things easier

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1281773987' post='2415557']
The Graf Zeppelin from what the wiki shows seems to have armoring but even that does not have an enclosed flight deck. An enclosed flight deck is an insanely dangerous flight hazard. An aircraft carrier faces threats from damages not just from external attacks, but also from routine accidents. In an open flight deck, if an aircraft, missing the retractor cables, out of control and out of power to lift up and try landing again thus becomes a hazard, it can just go overboard without causing destruction to the ship and other aircraft on the deck. However in the class you are specifying any such accident would be insanely fatal. No amount of drill and discipline would ensure that such a thing would never happen.

There is no harm in adding passive armor to an aircraft carriers, indeed the first aircraft carriers were heavily armored cruisers and battleships rigged with flight decks. You can also give greater armoring to the flight deck itself, keeping in mind the over all weight of the ship. But having a covered flight deck would be silly. A covered runway is possibly only with respect to ground installations where vagaries like the roll and pitch of the ship does not come into play. The degree of error would be too narrow, making it unusable for a ship that is intended for combat conditions.
[/quote]

1. The aircraft missing its retractor cables was one of the first things that came to my mind when I thought of 'things cochin or SOM or Vektor might say'... basically I planned on having the carrier follow an 'in-and-out' routine where debarking planes exit from the 'mouth' while embarking planes enter from the rear. After the designated positions where the planes were permitted to land, the entirety of the enclosure would have an arresting net or aircraft barricade effectively cutting the continuous runway in half.

2. For ordinance or other mishaps, automated fire suppression systems and ejection ports would line the interior of the runway.

3. The covering isn't for armoring per se... mostly its cuz the whole ship looks damned sexy... maybe i'd play the encovering off as stealth shroud that can be retracted when flights and take offs are required.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1281838679' post='2416240']
1. The aircraft missing its retractor cables was one of the first things that came to my mind when I thought of 'things cochin or SOM or Vektor might say'... basically I planned on having the carrier follow an 'in-and-out' routine where debarking planes exit from the 'mouth' while embarking planes enter from the rear. After the designated positions where the planes were permitted to land, the entirety of the enclosure would have an arresting net or aircraft barricade effectively cutting the continuous runway in half.

2. For ordinance or other mishaps, automated fire suppression systems and ejection ports would line the interior of the runway.

3. The covering isn't for armoring per se... mostly its cuz the whole ship looks damned sexy... maybe i'd play the encovering off as stealth shroud that can be retracted when flights and take offs are required.
[/quote]

As regards the points:
1. The "in and out" routine is standard operating procedure for every aircraft carrier. Even in the normal "uncovered" carriers, there is only one way for planes to land, and one way for planes to take off. It is usually a single strip operation, unidirectional too. So you would need some far far more stringent operating protocols which would not be effective for a combat duty warship. Also the arresting net and aircraft barricade as you suggest only exacerbates the issue as I said earlier, the possibility of explosions within that could cripple the ship.

2. Automated fire suppression and ejection mechanism are already in existence in current carriers, so you would need something more to offset the capabilities offered by an open runway.

3. I know it looks cool, but the covering makes it a death trap. For an easier analogy, let me refer to the movie "Armageddon", . You may remember how Jason Isaacs as the NASA engineer said about the difference of a firecracker exploding on your palm and within your closed fist. While in open palm, it would only burn you, albeit severely, but if it explodes within your closed fist, you would risk mutilation, permanent mutilation.

Aircraft carriers are in anyway a high hazard operational area. An aircraft with even 1/10th its fuel tank having any sort of fire on the deck would be catastrophic. There would be inadequate smoke venting, pressure dispersal, then of course the explosion. This is all apart from the dangers posed when fighters land and take off, a small degree of error and the pilot and aircraft is toast also causing extreme structural damage to the ship which would close down flight operations.

Another risk would be that of flying in and out. Visibility. A plane on standby waiting for take off in a carrier has sufficient time to acclimatise for the weather outside. He knows what he is facing, he knows the measures to take immediately after clearing the flight deck. Flying is not an easy job, definitely not so in a carrier, even lesser in adverse weather conditions. The risk is even greater during landing operations as the pilot would not have a clear vision of the landing strip, and I assure you most pilots would rather ditch their aircraft rather than land in a runway they cant see properly.

Aviation is anyway a hazardous business, combat aviation even more so, why do you want to shoot up the insurance premium for your aviators and sailors by commissioning such death machine?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1281839578' post='2416251']
As regards the points:
1. The "in and out" routine is standard operating procedure for every aircraft carrier. Even in the normal "uncovered" carriers, there is only one way for planes to land, and one way for planes to take off. It is usually a single strip operation, unidirectional too. So you would need some far far more stringent operating protocols which would not be effective for a combat duty warship. Also the arresting net and aircraft barricade as you suggest only exacerbates the issue as I said earlier, the possibility of explosions within that could cripple the ship.

2. Automated fire suppression and ejection mechanism are already in existence in current carriers, so you would need something more to offset the capabilities offered by an open runway.

3. I know it looks cool, but the covering makes it a death trap. For an easier analogy, let me refer to the movie "Armageddon", . You may remember how Jason Isaacs as the NASA engineer said about the difference of a firecracker exploding on your palm and within your closed fist. While in open palm, it would only burn you, albeit severely, but if it explodes within your closed fist, you would risk mutilation, permanent mutilation.

Aircraft carriers are in anyway a high hazard operational area. An aircraft with even 1/10th its fuel tank having any sort of fire on the deck would be catastrophic. There would be inadequate smoke venting, pressure dispersal, then of course the explosion. This is all apart from the dangers posed when fighters land and take off, a small degree of error and the pilot and aircraft is toast also causing extreme structural damage to the ship which would close down flight operations.

Another risk would be that of flying in and out. Visibility. A plane on standby waiting for take off in a carrier has sufficient time to acclimatise for the weather outside. He knows what he is facing, he knows the measures to take immediately after clearing the flight deck. Flying is not an easy job, definitely not so in a carrier, even lesser in adverse weather conditions. The risk is even greater during landing operations as the pilot would not have a clear vision of the landing strip, and I assure you most pilots would rather ditch their aircraft rather than land in a runway they cant see properly.

Aviation is anyway a hazardous business, combat aviation even more so, why do you want to shoot up the insurance premium for your aviators and sailors by commissioning such death machine?
[/quote]

Perhaps the jagged looking ceiling portion is a retractable stealth shroud? Think the Torontonian 'Sky Dome's retractable roof.

[Zoot Zoot]

Why dont you just have a roof which moves?
Like a football stadium roof.

Its highly impractical but if you want a covered carrier it could work.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1281843415' post='2416288']
Why dont you just have a roof which moves?
Like a football stadium roof.

Its highly impractical but if you want a covered carrier it could work.
[/quote]

Beat you to the punch about five minutes ago. But oh well... Cochin managed to seduce me out of railgun AM systems, systems that were used in the HOI thread but i won't let his charms work on this carrier. I'm dead set on it .

[Sargun II]

That's the most dangerous aircraft carrier I've ever seen. Possibly the most retarded, too.

that's all I got

[Triyun]

Judging by Nod's hostile statements to my nations, I would encourage EM to build this.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1281855127' post='2416484']
Judging by Nod's hostile statements to my nations, I would encourage EM to build this.
[/quote]

Setting aside all of this reverse psychology, Nod is hostile to pretty much everyone, Triyun... no need to feel special <3.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1281855127' post='2416484']
Judging by Nod's hostile statements to my nations, I would encourage EM to build this.
[/quote]
[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1281897679' post='2416832']
Setting aside all of this reverse psychology, Nod is hostile to pretty much everyone, Triyun... no need to feel special <3.
[/quote]
OOOOOO!! BUURNNNNNN!

Lol, it's true enough anyway. You speak your mind no matter who it is.

[Sargun II]

That's not a burn at all. I don't think you understand the meaning behind the term "burn".

[Executive Minister]

Ugh, fine... against my better judgement, i'm reneging the previous pic i posted. This shall be my new carrier.

[img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/mofailla/Stealth_5.jpg?t=1281908832[/img]

So far I'm looking at 1 main CATOBAR runway, twin secondary STOVL or V/STOL runways and a complement of maybe 40 aircraft? Reduced radar profile aside, what would be a similar sized ship I could take stats off of?

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1281905145' post='2416945']
That's not a burn at all. I don't think you understand the meaning behind the term "burn".
[/quote]
Oh, I do. he's Calling Triyun, in essence, egotistical, but that's oversimplified.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Il Terra Di Agea' timestamp='1281757634' post='2415330']
Metal storm technology can't do half of what people think it can, that's the problem with the only large source of information on it being the website of the people desperately trying to sell it. A tank shell rigged in such a way would destroy the shell behind it (Unless it was a KE penetrator), you would loose accuracy because you are effectively operating without the majority of your barrel for most of your shots, and the recoil of firing that quickly would turn a tank to scrap metal. Then, reloading also needs to be factored in.Due to the nature of reloading such a weapon, you have to essentially replace the entire gun every time you fire a couple of shots.


I haven't actually heard that before...

Could you give me a link to where you heard that? My interest is piqued.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader#Rate_of_fire

[quote]A modern autoloader for a 120–125 mm caliber weapon in good condition can achieve about 10–12 rounds per minute. This rating may or may not include the time required to bring the gun to the appropriate loading angle (if required) and then bringing it back up to firing angle after loading. This is fast, but not quite as fast as a human loader, for which claims of 15 rounds per minute (at least for a short time) are made.[citation needed]

On the other hand, the very newest autoloaders claim to match this rate of fire.[3] Furthermore, it is considered atypical to engage more than a few targets per minute in a tank. The autoloader may also have an advantage over rough terrain that may jar the human loader enough to disrupt his loading cycle.

For weapons above 125 mm, the increased weight of the round pushes this issue decisively in favor of the autoloader. For 6-inch self-propelled artillery, for example, autoloaders can typically achieve 8–12 rounds per minute, while humans typically achieve 4 rounds per minute. For sustained bombardments, this may not be so important for sustained firing rates for artillery is typically only 1–2 rounds per minute, but the rapid-fire capability is vital to shoot-and-scoot tactics to deliver enough fire and then avoid the rapid counterbattery response provided by modern counterbattery systems.[/quote]
Would it be possible to use the revolver or box based ammunition clips?

Edited August 16, 2010 by HHAYD

[Captain Enema]

Make sure your complicated geegaw that is loading 125 mm rounds into a revolver style mechanism only has a high rate of fire after having the revolver gadget manually reloaded. Further, throw in a Murphy's Law factor for not following Occam's Razor and keeping to something that uses a proven design rather than something that is a disaster waiting to happen in combat.

There is a reason why most MBTs keep the majority of their onboard main gun round munitions stored away..

[loannes]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1281909616' post='2417025']
Oh, I do. he's Calling Triyun, in essence, egotistical, but that's oversimplified.
[/quote]

That's still not a burn.

The definition of burn is:
To be thoroughly humiliated or insulted to the point where you cannot return with a comeback.

courtesy of urban dictionary.

In response to EM's carrier...that thing looks like a toy.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1281769058' post='2415524']I'm going to go with my gut here and say that a covered aircraft carrier is a very bad idea. Armored aircraft carriers to the extent of the ones in the World Wars really shouldn't exist. . .[/quote]Except that the armored aircraft carriers of the World Wars do exist. . . the easiest way to operate armored aircraft carriers is to play retrofitted World War designs.

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1281942462' post='2417695']. . . throw in a Murphy's Law factor for not following Occam's Razor and keeping to something that uses a proven design rather than something that is a disaster waiting to happen in combat.

There is a reason why most MBTs keep the majority of their onboard main gun round munitions stored away. . .[/quote] A revolver style mechanism provides an initially high rate of fire in exchange for having to wait for reloads – that and any vehicle mounting it wouldn’t be very safe.
Just because it creates a variable deathtrap, HHAYD’s idea shouldn’t be discounted.

The initial barrage of fire would be overpowering, but reloading would leave the tank completely hapless, and in a close-combat vehicle that’s guaranteed death if the opposition wasn’t outright destroyed in the initial attack. It’s bad enough without accounting for the hazards of exposed munitions.

I can image, in character, soldier’s reactions to something so suicidal.
Any ground doctrine utilizing these weapons acknowledges the absolute expendability of the operators.

I you choose to use this weapon, remember to play it as a one-strike wonder, good for the opening volley but absolute rubbish against an enemy response.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Generalissimo