Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About holoween

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Which concepts are those and why would it prevent anyone from buying pumas?
  2. So either your radar detecting the rounds stays vulnerable or it cant tell when it has to reopen. To me this seems like its working perfectly fine since either the APS stays open, then the autocannon rounds destroy it, or it stays closed in which case the APS cant defeat the KEP.
  3. Yet 99% of combat troops dont carry pistols. seriously though this analogy really starts breaking down and the is a pistol usefull is an entirely different debate to be had. The problem i have with your argument is that youre arguing under the premise that the APS has to be destroyed to be rendered ineffective. With that premise i doubt anyone drastically disagrees with the idea of autocannons as APS killer. But noone accepts the premise that APS are infallable and there are a lot of easier ways of defeating non perfect (read: real) APS than adding an autocannon to an MBT.
  4. the argument is more the soldier already has a rifle why give him a pistol.
  5. Yea and this is where you can save a huge ammount of manpower. Theoretically you could get away with one human to crew an entire artillery battery. There are a lot of problems in an automated system like that. Even our best facial recognition software has problems with simple balaclavas and if you go further than that they are entirely useless. And even then those factial recognition softwares run on larger servers which defeats the point of saving space by having an ai gunner. Even if you dont particularly care about ethics you want to make sure that your ai doesnt shoot friendly vehicles (or infantry for that matter). For that to be possible the ai has to positively identify the target. This is simply not possible as soon as you add larger quantities of camouflage. at that point a tank may look more like a moving bush. A human will simply shoot without knowing exactly what vehicle it is because he can make an educated guess that its hostile and be right almost every time. Ai cant do that unless you feed it significant extra information about where all other friendly vehicles in the area are at which point your gunner stops working well as soon as there is a lot of jamming around to block such information. So between the lower situational awareness and the potential unreliability of the system it currently doesnt really make sense. A RC tank would make far more sense from a crew protection and internal volume point of view. It could be made far better armoured and still smaller and if one tank gets destroyed the crew simply takes controll of the next RC tank.
  6. If the gunner spots a targtet he will call it out and the tc gives order to engage. If the tc spots a target he will give the command to engage and the gun is automatically alligned with the tcs sight. From there on the gunner engages. Usually the tc never pulls the trigger but after assigning a target immediately goes back to looking for more targets. Machine learning needs a shitton of rated attempts to be even somewhat reliable. so its something that would have to be done before any conflict and it might immediately break down once the opponent camoflages their vehicles. or installs some sheet metal to change the vehicles silouhette. If the FCS needs ot ask permission from the tc after its aleady assigned a target it will be simply slower to engage than a human gunner and on top take the tcs awareness away from finding new targets. So at that point the tc might aswell simply engage on his own. this also leaves the issoew of half the eyes looking for targets compared to having a gunner. Hit registration is notoriously difficult since the projectile will be at the target before the muzzle blast is cleared enough to allow observation of the projectile unless the shot is at long range. On top of that you need your FCS to judge when a target has beeen destroyed since otherwise it will waste shots at a wreck or take the tcs attention away even more by forcing him to check the engaged target to make sure it has been destroyed.
  7. If it works it would be the best solution. When i was doing my military service back in 2012 i did read a document where this approach was considered for the PzF3 to defeat APS so nothing really new. Seems like a better alternative especially considering that outside of an active engagement the driver is by far the most busy position. Though i wouldnt trust an ai with either at the moment. this seems more something for the generation after the next. Though at that point might aswell make it a drone.
  8. For defeating APS a coaxial autocannon would be the last resort. The first and if workable ideal choice would be to simply coat the KE penetrator and maybe reshape it to make detection of it as hard as possible and bypass the APS that way. The second choice would be to cut down the penetrator and add a decoy on top that can be fired ahead of the actual penetrator and absorbs the APS. The fourth choice would be to try to somehow jam the APS before firing. The fifth choice would be to get quick data sharing between nearby tanks to allow both tanks to fire almost at the same time at the same target to defeat the APS that way. Only as a sixth choice would i put an autocannon into my MBT. Problems with using an auto cannon It needs a lot of space The time between lasing a target to the KE shell actually hitting will be a few seconds more which gives the opponent time to react IFVs can already do just that except with an ATGM instead of KE penetrators reducing the crew size to 2 will not happen unless the gunner can be completely replaced with an ai. Each tank would loose half its situational awareness just from losing half the eyes scanning for threats. On top of that the TC now has to also gun so his attention goes down aswell. That loss just isnt worth the gains in armour or internal volume.
  9. these statements arent mutually exclusive
  10. if the basis of evaluation is on how it would perform in afghanistan then yea i dont see a big problem. however id say that taking afghanistan as a basis for how to organise anything is a bad idea. nothing you say is directly wrong yet id argue your idea is bad. however to do that properly i need some time so for now ill quickly answer the points you brought up and then get to writing up what i think is wrong with your idea. if every sl wants a gpmg just give them one? the us has the only military that doesnt have gpmg organic to its squads. a cg can be substituted with other weapons on the squad level but i do ike the idea of a dedicated cg team for every platoon blowing up platoons to such a size has a tendency to overload the pl taking away company level assets wastes the cc simply doing company level training would have similar effects.
  11. The arms room concept is terrible if you start looking at more than just the platoon level. worst case scenario your platoon has 6 cg, 6 60mm mortars, 3gpmg, 3 m27 and 2 60mm mortars with tripods + associated ammo to carry extra. at that point you might aswell simply add a few m4s and you have yourself a new platoon and simply equip all platoons for a specific role. additionaly all your grenadiers now have to be trained on 3 special weapons rather than 1 and your mortar teams on 2 rather than one. so youre increasing your training requirements quite a bit for no real benefit. and lastly it messes with logistics. there is no way for logistics to predict what ammo you will use because it could be lots of 7.62 and 5.56, some 40mm and cg rounds or it could be loads of 5.56 and 60mm mortar rounds.
  12. the m240 ran out of ammo so i wouldnt exactly call it going tits up. and the m249 is supposed to be able to change barrels so you can actually keep cyclic up longer but for some reason it wasnt done here.
  13. notes on supression from the document - lmg effective at supression in attack and defense and even gets better with range - grenadier effective at area supression on the attack worse on the defense - rifles effective at supression against short range point targets (my assumption with modern optics probably also at longer ones) notes on squad organisation - 5 men are easy to controll for most 7 hard - squads ineffective below 5 men - squads routinely operate at 80% strength average in ww2, korea, vietnam - more support weapons dont mean a more effective squad - 4 man fireteams are pointless since with any casualties they simply fall back to working as a whole large squad so if we want to take this document for recomendation squads should be 9men with 1lmg and 1 grenadier as the most balanced squad 6 man squads with 1lmg and 1 grenaadier also wouldnt be bad compared to 9 man easier to control but less staying power
  14. According to Augen Geradeaus rumor has it the F35 didnt fly at the ILA in berlin because itt may be possible to detect it with passive radar.
  • Create New...