Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295838785' post='2595292']
You'd have a recreation of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tanga"]Battle of Tanga[/url].
[/quote]
If the enemy's infantry all had full body suits (no skin exposed), the bees would only annoy them.

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1295836823' post='2595198']
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]
What if the weapon was firing a rocket assisted shell or a shell assisted missile (missile is propelled at high speed instead of gradually increasing speed)? Or what if the propellents had small amount of compressed oxygen added in to speed the burning?

Edited January 24, 2011 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

EDIT: Double post

Edited January 24, 2011 by HHAYD

[Captain Enema]

Go with the killer bees, more practical.

[Fizzydog]

Full infrantry body suits are impratical. Unless you want your troops to move as slow as statues and incredibly easy targets for artillery, airstikes, ambushes and snipers. And yet CNRP spams them. :/

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1295913260' post='2597339']
Full infrantry body suits are impratical. Unless you want your troops to move as slow as statues and incredibly easy targets for artillery, airstikes, ambushes and snipers. And yet CNRP spams them. :/
[/quote]
US fields almost-full body armor on their soldiers. They only need full helmets (cover entire face) and voila, no exposed skin.

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1295922110' post='2597654']
US fields almost-full body armor on their soldiers. They only need full helmets (cover entire face) and voila, no exposed skin.
[/quote]
And voila, easy targets.

[Zoot Zoot]

Don't know if your aware hhayd but American casualties are up to around 6000 in Iraq and afgan. The wounded? Tens of thousands.

In 2010 alone 3666 Americans were wounded just by IEDs in afganistan alone.
Fizzys right.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Zoot Zoot

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1295923106' post='2597692']
Don't know if your aware hhayd but American casualties are up to around 6000 in Iraq and afgan. The wounded? Tens of thousands.

In 2010 alone 3666 Americans were wounded just by IEDs in afganistan alone.
Fizzys right.
[/quote]
Their body armor were only meant to protect against low caliber bullets (from mid-long range), small shock, shrapnel and bees. Giving them body armor that is sufficient to protect against close-range AK-47 burst and IEDs is too expensive and heavy.

[Generalissimo]

Another question concerning exotic technology in CNRP. . .

Would a military hovercraft count as an aircraft, naval ship, or tank in CNRP.
It’s a vehicle capable of operating on land and sea yet hovering on a cushion of air.
I’m thinking of something like the Russian manufactured Zubr vessel.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/MDK-57%28DN-ST-89-10315%29.jpg[/img]
Zubr class LCAC (Pomornik)

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1297199994' post='2626032']
Another question concerning exotic technology in CNRP. . .

Would a military hovercraft count as an aircraft, naval ship, or tank in CNRP.
It’s a vehicle capable of operating on land and sea yet hovering on a cushion of air.
I’m thinking of something like the Russian manufactured Zubr vessel.

Zubr class LCAC (Pomornik)
[/quote]

In my opinion hovercrafts would not come under any IG numbers, governed strictly on the basis of common sense. For one thing it is hardly an offensive platform as potent as a fighter/bomber aircraft, less firepower than the weakest corvette and ultimately a tank transporter not a tank in itself. It would be part of support vehicles so go ahead and RP them, but do you use them in only reasonable numbers.

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297218589' post='2626438']In my opinion hovercrafts would not come under any IG numbers, governed strictly on the basis of common sense. For one thing it is hardly an offensive platform as potent as a fighter/bomber aircraft, less firepower than the weakest corvette and ultimately a tank transporter not a tank in itself. It would be part of support vehicles so go ahead and RP them, but do you use them in only reasonable numbers.[/quote]Are you trying to say that the Finnish Tuuli-class hovercraft missile boat doesn’t have the offensive capability equivalent to a corvette? Wasn’t the Soviet Bora-class hovercraft an actual corvette. In spirit of you point I’ll be the first to admit that both Bora and Tuuli are strictly naval vessels.

What I was talking a Zubr class LCAC equipped as land and sea capable offensive platform.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Zoot Zoot]

I would class it as a tank personally. Wouldnt open ocean sink a hovercraft of this class?

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297274703' post='2627110']Wouldnt open ocean sink a hovercraft of this class?[/quote]The Russians say it's seaworthy, but I wouldn't trust it in a Bering Sea storm.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Zoot Zoot]

I wouldn't trust it because it's Russian.
Open water situations such as lakes and what not, Coastal areas, should be fine.
But open ocean? I'm not so sure.

[Generalissimo]

Only on a really clear day.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Generalissimo

[Generalissimo]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297274703' post='2627110']I would class it as a tank personally.[/quote]Too deadly for a mere support craft, yet maybe too big to be considered a single tank.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1297277454' post='2627133']
The Russians say it's seaworthy, but I wouldn't trust it in a Bering Sea storm.
[/quote]


[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1297277821' post='2627139']
I wouldn't trust it because it's Russian.
Open water situations such as lakes and what not, Coastal areas, should be fine.
But open ocean? I'm not so sure.
[/quote]

It's sea worthy up to sea state 4, or waves between 1.25 to 2.5 meters in height. But you'd never see one of these operating in the open ocean by itself. These things are what would typically be used to ferry armor and boots to the coast from amphibious assault carriers.

[HHAYD]

If I needed a mini-super computer (loaded on a vehicle) that could encrypt/package outgoing network traffic, decrypt/unpack incoming network traffic, analyze video feeds and use object recognition, make decisions without human assistance, communicate with other computers or humans, and operate weapons with minimum latency; would I want a single-core processor or multiple-core processor to manage the tasks?

Edited February 18, 2011 by HHAYD

[King Timmy]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1298070078' post='2637797']
If I needed a mini-super computer (loaded on a vehicle) that could encrypt/package outgoing network traffic, decrypt/unpack incoming network traffic, analyze video feeds and use object recognition, make decisions without human assistance, communicate with other computers or humans, and operate weapons with minimum latency; would I want a single-core processor or multiple-core processor to manage the tasks?
[/quote]
Yes, you would.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1298082473' post='2637941']
Yes, you would.
[/quote]
Which processor, singe or multiple core?

[King Timmy]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1298082633' post='2637946']
Which processor, singe or multiple core?
[/quote]
I would think multiple cores would be better.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1298082633' post='2637946']
Which processor, singe or multiple core?
[/quote]

More cores is better if you're doing multiple things at the same time.

In reality though, you'd have multiple discreet systems handling each area (communications, weapon management, video processing, etc.) Communications and video processing would probably be the most computationally-intensive areas, but a lot could be done with dedicated hardware so you don't need a super-CPU with 200 cores or w/e.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1298083102' post='2637949']
More cores is better if you're doing multiple things at the same time.

In reality though, you'd have multiple discreet systems handling each area (communications, weapon management, video processing, etc.) Communications and video processing would probably be the most computationally-intensive areas, but a lot could be done with dedicated hardware so you don't need a super-CPU with 200 cores or w/e.
[/quote]
There's still object identification and decision making, both require massive computing power, and I had been debating with myself if a dual core processor would be sufficient or a processor running on thousands of much smaller (and slower) parallel cores would be more efficient.

CUDA, a graphic architecture being used in GeForce 400 and 500 Seris graphic cards, has 512 cores built in, though the architecture can be edited to turn it into a general purpose CPU that allows decision making (operation of algorithms).

Another question, is it a good idea to get rid of system memory and increase all of the components' cache size? The benefit I see is reduced latency since data can travel over a much shorter distance.

Edited February 19, 2011 by HHAYD

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1298085090' post='2637964']
There's still object identification and decision making, both require massive computing power, and I had been debating with myself if a dual core processor would be sufficient or a processor running on thousands of much smaller (and slower) parallel cores would be more efficient.

CUDA, a graphic architecture being used in GeForce 400 and 500 Seris graphic cards, has 512 cores built in, though the architecture can be edited to turn it into a general purpose CPU that allows decision making (operation of algorithms).

Another question, is it a good idea to get rid of system memory and increase all of the components' cache size? The benefit I see is reduced latency since data can travel over a much shorter distance.
[/quote]

A graphics card is discreet hardware, not a CPU. While maybe it could be used as a CPU, it wouldn't be nearly as good as a CPU in the same way a CPU used as a graphics card is inferior to a graphics card.

As for memory: I have no clue.

Edited February 19, 2011 by iKrolm

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Good luck finding a generator to power your supercomputer, making your transport method inconspicuous, and making it so one missile can't wipe out all your hard work. Occam's razor HHAYD, keep it simple. Your lolteching does nothing to help your nation in any way, and just seems to put too much stress on you and annoy the rest of us.