Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) Railway warfare can be incredibly modern; consider the Soviet RT-23 Molodets or equivalent US Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Car which are both modern railway ICMB platforms http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/RT-23_ICBM_complex_in_Saint_Petersburg_museum.jpg RT-23 Molodet, rails of death. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Yes, and their numbers are anyway determined by the RP nuke numbers debate currently going on, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1295666123' post='2590549']This is a tricky one. I think that they shouldn't have a limit simply because of how useless they are on the battlefield. They're extremely slow-moving, and can only go where the rail lines are. Plus, since you're probably the only one who's going to RP it, it really shouldn't be a problem.[/quote] Just because I’m the only one who’s going to be doing it, with ridiculously obsolete variants, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t preemptively establish a precedence. Even 1915 variants of Austro-Hungarian armoured trains would be menacing in numbers exceeding 500,000. Anything without a number limit could be abused ruthlessly in CNRP. [center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Wagon_pancerny_s.jpg[/img] WW1 Austro-Hungarian armoured train, without any limit I could deploy hundreds of thousands of them.[/center] Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295675239' post='2591193'] Just because I’m the only one who’s going to be doing it, with ridiculously obsolete variants, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t preemptively establish a precedence. Even 1915 variants of Austro-Hungarian armoured trains would be menacing in numbers exceeding 500,000. Anything without a number limit could be abused ruthlessly in CNRP. [center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Wagon_pancerny_s.jpg[/img] WW1 Austro-Hungarian armoured train, without any limit I could deploy hundreds of thousands of them.[/center] [/quote] Which is why we GMs have been appointed. I know where you are going with this, though, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295673051' post='2590921'] Limits in CNRP has generally been placed on weapon systems that have tactical applications in CNRP war. Railway artillery like those fall into the realm of the obsolete, but still present some real challenges in design, construction and operation. In today's world of satellite reconnaissance, you just cannot hide such a weapon or the special tracks required by them. If someone forgoes these liabilities and wants to use them, I see no reason why not for the flavor of RP it brings, so long as the number is reasonable. I dont think any sort of calculation would be needed for such a thing.[/quote]Is railway artillery really obsolete? Most modern rocket artillery, anti-aircraft, or cruise missiles could easily be deployed from trains suitable for the task. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 More imaginatively helicopters or jump jet fighters could be deployed from trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295676079' post='2591275'] Is railway artillery really obsolete? Most modern rocket artillery, anti-aircraft, or cruise missiles could easily be deployed from trains suitable for the task. [/quote] Sort of. Its easier to stop railway artillery units from being deployed by blowing the tracks into pieces and it would require time and resources to lay down tracks for the railway artillery to reach the battlefield. From there, counter-artillery barrages can Swiss-cheese your rail lines, making it hard to move artillery units around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295676079' post='2591275'] Is railway artillery really obsolete? Most modern rocket artillery, anti-aircraft, or cruise missiles could easily be deployed from trains suitable for the task. [/quote] Railway guns of the ones you mentioned earlier, ie, tubed artillery guns with immense range and calibre mounted on rails are obsolete. Rocket Arty, AAA and CMs could of course be deployed on rails, but then the usage of rails is only as a platform and the governing guidelines on the arty and CMs which are already existing would apply. Also dont forget the primary target in any sustained campaign - logistics. Take out any principal railway chokepoint, tunnels or bridges, and these railway deployed weapons would be rendered immobile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295676267' post='2591286'] More imaginatively helicopters or jump jet fighters could be deployed from trains. [/quote] In that context you already have regulations on number of jet fighters! So where does the need for regulation on trains as platforms arise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295676465' post='2591303']In that context you already have regulations on number of jet fighters! So where does the need for regulation on trains as platforms arise? [/quote] A mobile ground launch platfrom bristling with defenses! It's like a mobile airfield with SAMs and anti-tank guns! Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295676882' post='2591324'] A mobile ground launch platfrom bristling with defenses! It's like a mobile airfield with SAMs and anti-tank guns! [/quote] Idea is good, but then again you do have to worry about spoilsports like myself who would bring out points like weight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295677062' post='2591335']Idea is good, but then again you do have to worry about spoilsports like myself who would bring out points like weight! [/quote]Modern trains can move ridiculous weight at moderate speeds, I have personally seen two locomotive trains [i]miles[/i] long, weight is not an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 200 freight cars at 75 mph is average these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295677253' post='2591347'] Modern trains can move ridiculous weight at moderate speeds, I have personally seen two locomotive trains [i]miles[/i] long, weight is not an issue. [/quote] Weight is actually an issue when you are using it as a platform to fire/launch weapons. The body of the train has to be reconfigured for sustaining the recoil impulses. Ballistic Missile carriers in existence today do not actually fire from their rolling stocks. They fire in the manner of the MRLS and SPGs, ie immense hydraulic jacks take the weight of the train from the rails and thus stabilizing it. Only after that is the missile fired. If you fire something heavy from a moving train, it could derail the train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295677468' post='2591358']Weight is actually an issue when you are using it as a platform to fire/launch weapons. The body of the train has to be reconfigured for sustaining the recoil impulses. Ballistic Missile carriers in existence today do not actually fire from their rolling stocks. They fire in the manner of the MRLS and SPGs, ie immense hydraulic jacks take the weight of the train from the rails and thus stabilizing it. Only after that is the missile fired. If you fire something heavy from a moving train, it could derail the train.[/quote]It follows that the train wouldn’t be moving to fire. Still, a hundred railcars worth of modern weapons systems seems impressive – on paper. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295677585' post='2591362'] It follows that the train wouldn’t be moving to fire. Still, a hundred railcars worth of modern weapons systems seems impressive – on paper. [/quote] But of course they are!! Just remember that they would still be rendered immobile by a couple of blown out bridges or blocked tunnels, Hell even a saboteur who blows up a few meters of the rail can stop this force for a few hours!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295677718' post='2591365']But of course they are!! Just remember that they would still be rendered immobile by a couple of blown out bridges or blocked tunnels, Hell even a saboteur who blows up a few meters of the rail can stop this force for a few hours!![/quote]This has traditionally been the problem with war trains. . . I blame T. E. Lawrence, what did the Hijaz railway do to him? Yet this minor setback is not going to dissuade me. Im going to build a formidable force of intentionally outdated armoured trains. To do this I need to know how many how many war trains I can deploy in CNRP. This is where the framework needs to be laid down before I begin. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1295678140' post='2591388'] This has traditionally been the problem with war trains. . . I blame T. E. Lawrence, what did the Hijaz railway do to him? Yet this “minor” setback is not going to dissuade me. I’m going to build a formidable force of intentionally outdated armoured trains. To do this I need to know how many how many war trains I can deploy in CNRP. This is where the framework needs to be laid down before I begin. [/quote] Tell me what all you want to cram into one train and I could give you a number on how many trains you might be able to RP, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295678240' post='2591394']Tell me what all you want to cram into one train and I could give you a number on how many trains you might be able to RP, [/quote] Definitely the 1944 Soviet Hurban Armoured Train Definitely the 1915 Austro-Hungarian Armoured Train I’m looking at Polish interwar armoured trains but cannot decide on a particular variant. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I guess 50 each of those trains could not hurt. Anybody, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295678747' post='2591425']I guess 50 each of those trains could not hurt. Anybody, [/quote]And improvised Armoured Streetcars like in October Revolution and Slovak Uprising. What could I do, hypothetically, with a less improvised Armoured Streetcar? I'm not going to do it, but something like a streetcar trolley with Chobham Armour. Edited January 22, 2011 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 How much would the muzzle velocity/energy increase if I was to double a 120mm shells' length and fill the extra space with additional propellents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html you'll need a longer barrel to make a real difference. smokeless powder does not simultaneously burn all at once. Therefore if the shell leaves the barrel prior to all of it being consume the excess will be expelled out the end of the weapon and provide no overall increase of velocity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 The real question is, what would happen if you released millions of enraged African killer bees over an enemy army? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 [quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1295837234' post='2595220'] The real question is, what would happen if you released millions of enraged African killer bees over an enemy army? [/quote] You'd have a recreation of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tanga"]Battle of Tanga[/url]. 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.