NationStates Jolt Archive

The design thread.

Clan Smoke Jaguar
Dark Terror
East Islandia
Calarca

Please check in.

If your name wasn't mentioned above refrain from posting please.

Hi.

Sorry about that
i was sleeping
i gotta go to SAT class in an hour,and then i'll be bak at like twelve after classes and hanging out is done.

untile then, im good.

Lets discuss. 155mm as this will be a main artillery weapon which will be able to be transported by chopper. So advaced ceramics and titanium as opposed to steel in most cases. Right? We could advance the shells to give us better range. The South African G-5 used projectiles with stub wings (based on the theories of Dr. Gerald Bull) to extend range. Closer fit between shells and barrels to increase muzzle velocity (which in turn should increase range). I've been thinking that if we used certain chemicals on shells so that when they are propelled the heat from the firing increases the volume of the shell while in the barrel ever so slightly. They should cool and shrink back when in the air. It might work. Off to find out more about artillery.

Yeah, and 155mm has a greater export potential than 152 or 122mm.


Maybe a cluster munition with stub wings?

I wouldn't use a cluster but we could include one for export for those who want it. We'll get into rounds after we get the basics down cause I pretty well have a list of advanced munitions. My main round would likely be HE.

*Post*

Sorry, but I couldn't hold it in any longer. It was bugging me. Feel free to continue :)

so i take it we're doing 155mm. So now, should we also create a round that can be used specially for an anti tank purpose? it seems that 155mm guns excel at not just taking out infantry and fortified positions, but also at destroying advanced tanks like Abrams or Challenger IIs.

Sean Connery project? WTF? And to think you were calling other people's ideas stupid, Hole.

Post +1

maybe its supposed to sound stupid
but i dont see wut sean connery has to do with artillery

(shrugs)

Hole likes to use "different" names for his joint project threads, after all the Gilgamesh was known as project hay baler for most of its early life.

It is actually a good idea both IC (i mean who actually goes around calling thier tank dev: Project mega tank? most projects get obscure names) and OOC:(keeps those blantantly looking for dev threads out and is mysterious enough to be interesting for the browser).

haha i guess ur rite then
making artillery is tough work
hell designing anything new and revolutionary is

Yeah, I know the M.E.R.G project was tough, and revolutionary.

wutd u guys do with the MERG?

Sean Connery project? WTF? And to think you were calling other people's ideas stupid, Hole.

Post +1

Yes I do call other people's ideas stupid. Thank you for noticing. Other peoples ideas are stupid though. Man whats this like 4 people who aren't designers posting? I guess I was asking for it with a name like Sean Connery though. Crookfurs alright (he knows the naming game).

Anyway, back to the gun. I don't know about a flat trajectory gun + artillery weapon in one. It could be alright. I don't want to make major decisions like this until we're sure we can keep its weight down. We might need to add certain things to make flat trajectory work equally well. For purposes of adding the gun onto a self propelled system which can be helicopter transported (which will be designed afterward) I want to keep the weight as low as possible.

Ok, finally checking in.
I think that we shouldn't be too concerned about direct fire (flat trajectory) applications just yet. The gun will, by nature, have a degree of capabiilty there, and we can always look into improving that later, but right now, we should be looking more into primary requirements, like weight, range, and accuracy.

wutd u guys do with the MERG?

Sorta fell though, I used the hull design (My bit) to build a super VLS launching platform crossed with a Carrier for Ell. Ell's calling it a dreadnaught. which is pretty accurate. lots of SM-2 SAMs a SPY-1D and two SPY-1F radars, lots of SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles, and a MITHEL system from somewhere else. in additon to a lot of standard 12"/50 and smaller guns.

As to guns, look at the old german 88mm gun, dual AA and AT gun, and by using another shell, the south africans after the war used a bunch of them as Artillery to replace a lot of old french 75mm arty.

Besides materials what can we do to decrease weight? Are there any things that we could do without on the gun?

We should make a truck mounted version as well IMO.

Using titanium and ceramics on most of the gun should reduce enough weight... as long as a couple of these fit in a Mi-26, Im happy :)

Self propelled will be designed later. Anyone else know something we can drop from it.

How is the artillery going guys?

I can see through your wonky names....

And yes, i did see project hay baler.

Drop the ground floatattion plates.

If you look at a RL Arty gun, they have plates under the chassis of the frame which spread the weight of the gun and the recoil force out so it doesn't get driven into the ground when fired, and the wheels lift up off the ground out of the way.

Instaed, put the wheels on a swivel joint so they can be placed flat on the ground to produce floatation effects.

Like your ideas. Thanks man.

Wheels, Suspersion, Spades, Brakes, Dampers, and Trails are what we need for the lower part of the gun.

wut about guidance systems and protection for the crew?

Protection against up to .50 now can be provided by Kevlar and synthetic fibre panels at 1/4 or less the weight of titanium. and a 155 shouldn't need to be armoured against more than a .50, the escort of troopers with LAWs hiding in the bushes should take out anything with larger before it gets a shot. you only need shrapnel protection.

Guidnece systems only weigh about 5Kg now anyway with computerisation. the US Special forces in fort Bragg are trialling a Palm Pilot based system now. so 1Kg max for sights/computers.

Crew protection isn't really necessary, as this is a towed piece and protection would be extremely limted at best. Plus, it would add weight.
Fire control is important, but with todays computers, we can use a good system without too much trouble, so it's not too much of an issue.

Also, for design objectives, if we're looking for deployment via UH-60L Black Hawk, the requirement is 4000 kg (9000 lbs), and preferably less. That's the limit for its external load. This is most certainly achievable, but we might have to leave things out that we might otherwise want. These include an APU for mobility, and possibly the assisted loading device as well. Of course, these could still be options that could be integrated into the base gun upon request.

And finally, a note on the self-propelled unit:
This will easily be the most difficult and revolutionary undertaking in the project. The lightest current systems are the Caesar truck-mounted unit (15,800 kg), and the Rascal (18,000 kg). The carrying capacity of current helicopters is 14,500 kg (CH-53E), 12,500 kg (CH-47). In short, we're looking for a 25-35% decrease over the lightest current systems. That's going to be a major undertaking.

If I were you I'd look at the M-113 as a chassis, rather than a truck or otherwise. the M113 is about 11,000Kg with the armour, cut the walls and roof off just above the tracks and replace the bottom anti-mine armour with half the thickness and you have about a 6,000Kg chassis to mount your 6000Kg (estimated) gun on.

wutd u guys do with the MERG?

Sorta fell though, I used the hull design (My bit) to build a super VLS launching platform crossed with a Carrier for Ell. Ell's calling it a dreadnaught. which is pretty accurate. lots of SM-2 SAMs a SPY-1D and two SPY-1F radars, lots of SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles, and a MITHEL system from somewhere else. in additon to a lot of standard 12"/50 and smaller guns.

As to guns, look at the old german 88mm gun, dual AA and AT gun, and by using another shell, the south africans after the war used a bunch of them as Artillery to replace a lot of old french 75mm arty.

OOC: MTHEL system, probably from me.

BTW, you guys might be interested in Skepticism's 155mm artillery/Direct Fire combo tank (For reference). Massive thing.

Also, check out Israeli SPA units.

Lot of guys suppoting the design. I should have gotten Calarca on the project. Should we accept a new member to the team now? I'm just throwing that out there. Let me know what you think fellas.

Alternate propulsion unit (or whatever its called) I'd like to keep in the design if possible (when the SP is made we'll keep in mind that it can be removed from the weight total). How light a propulsion unit can we get? We could put in a very small generator which we can charge from another vehicle (we could even put solar pannels on ammo vehicles to charge em). The lighter the gun is the smaller the engine we can have and thus it would be even lighter overall.

Go Calarca...

No not M11A3! MT-LB!


Uh...basically same thing except its russian.

Aye or nay (for Calarca on the team)?

I say yes.
He sounds smart and i kno for a fact that his sense is tactically sound.

Aye.

Go Calarca...

No not M11A3! MT-LB!

Uh...basically same thing except its russian.

Lol, sounds like this Party-Crasher has fans... Thanks for the vote of confidence fellas.

As to the MT-LB, I'll have to bone up a bit, but as I recall it's a steel skinned rather than Alu skinned vehicle, but where it is better is having tracks 40% wider and 20% longer. so cut the top and side armour off to produce an open platform for the gun, and the ground pressure will be so low that they may not even set off Anti-tank mines... a useful protection scheme.
I'd replace the engine with a western unit however, the russian engines have a bad rep and low power to weight and fuel economy. A MAN or Detroit diesel would be the choice IMHO. lol.

Your vote Clan Smoke Jag?

For the towed one, any new ideas? What about the alternate propulsion unit?

Your vote Clan Smoke Jag?

For the towed one, any new ideas? What about the alternate propulsion unit?
I say aye.

For the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit), we could work with a smaller and lighter one. If it were to be a light battery for maybe a few km range, that would mean it would need to have the battery recharged after each use, but would keep the weight down and still provide the increased survivability. We'd merely need to have a generator handy to recharge the battery, which could be done as it's performing the fire support mission. This would detail a slightly larger crew and support section, but should work.

I'm also thinking about barrels right now. One of the most important things is what we go with here. Current lengths are 39, 45, 52, and 56 calibres. The longer the barrel, the better the range, but the higher the weight. We could get the G5s range of 40+ km with the specialized projectiles and a 45 calibre barrel, but that would require the special ammunition. A 52 calibre would provide the same range, but using NATO standard rounds, allowing for more common existing ammunition to be effectively utilized. A 56 calibre weapon would manage 50 km with some NATO rounds, but would again weigh a bit more.

double post, see below, it's got a lot of maths... lol.

You need metal for some parts of the frame, and Nickel and Cadmium are Metal.... so why not use NiCad batteries as parts of the frame, mor the better NiMH batteries, while not so strong can be made into things such as the wheels, think of having your wheels, instead of standard steel or alloys with a tire on, as batteries with a tyre on.

for calibers, you need 7 more sets of 155mm for a 52 over a 45. the barrel of a 155mm near the muzzle is about 3/4 of an inch thick. call it 20mm.

Math is:

155mx7=1085mm extra length of 52mm over 45mm...

Pi x Radius Squared = area of circle. so we want to find the area of a circle with diameter of 155mm, and one with radius of 20mm more than that. then subtract the smaller from the larger, to give the area of the muzzle wall. then multiply the result by 1085mm to obtain the volume of the muzzle wall. then multiply the sum by the specific weight per cubic mm of steel to give the weight of the longer barrel.

3.14159 x (77.5)2 = 18869.2mm squared. Rounded to 1 decimal place.
3.14159 x (97.5)2 = 29864.8mm squared. Rounded to 1 decimal place.

29864.8 - 18869.2 = 10995.6mm squared area of muzzle wall.

10995.6 x 1085 = 11930226mm Cubed in the walls of the muzzle.

A cubic centimetre has 10x10x10mm or 1000mm cubed. so we have 11930.2 cubic centimetres of steel in the extra barrel length.

who knows how much a cubic centimeter of iron weighs? Steel is .5% to 2% lighter, having alloyed lighter metals and carbon.

A cubic centimeter of iron weighs 0.258 pounds.

OOOOOOOOOOOOO DAMN!!! I can only hold it back for so long. TEEHEEHEE! I'm naughty!

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55467)
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

A cubic centimeter of iron weighs 0.258 pounds.

Ok, for 11930.2 cubic centimeters, thats 3077.9916 pounds. that extra barrel length on the 52 over the 45 means it's going to weight over a ton and a bit more. about 1390Kg or so if a pound is about 2.2lb per Kg.

It's been so long since we did pounds in school. It's all Kgs here. lol.

I can use both systems... ah the joys of being russian but living in America.

1 Kilo=2.2 pounds.. but you remember that I see.

Heres Gvodzika which is an SP 122mm gun on the MT-Lb chassis:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/2s1.htm

I can use both systems... ah the joys of being russian but living in America.

1 Kilo=2.2 pounds.. but you remember that I see.
I prefer being a little more precise: 1 kg = 2.205 lbs

should we include rocket assissted munitions?
im not sure how that works, but i think i heard of it somewhere.

should we include rocket assissted munitions?
im not sure how that works, but i think i heard of it somewhere.
Basically uses a rocket to extend its range.

Yeah. Also for the barrel. We need not have that extra weight from the barrel. What you need in a barrel is strength. If you have a stronger alloy you can afford to put a less thick barrel. Certain titanium alloys are harder and lighter than steel and don't fracture (as regular titanium usually does with a lot of breakage). I'll find out its formula later.

Lighter artillery howitzers these days use fibreglass (sometimes strengthened with graphite reinforcement) between two metal outer layers (which prevent damage from the impact of the gun [recoil etc] on the artillery weapon itself). More expensive though (especially when laced with graphite or Kevlar).

i heard carbon fiber is very strong and a hot new material on the market, as well as advanced ceramix (i think some1 mentioned that earlier). Kevlar and mayb boron would be good too; i think i heard about boron being used in high temperatures, and how everyone said it was supposed to work well under high duress.

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/rha.Montgomery-9705.html

There's a nice titanium link. We'd likely use them on the barrel. I wouldn't nessisarily use these titanium alloys for the rest of the artillery system considering that we could likely get high strength really light ceramics.

This is the titanium alloy: Ti-6Al-4V

*gives thumbs up*

Eh... what I reaslly ment to say was now I have another website to study :lol: :wink:

I've been doing some research, browsing here and there and so on. What I would look at is, 4mm of Platinum Ceramide, a mettalic ceramic, as the barrel liner. heavier than steel but so very much stronger. it's a Japanese high temperature, hight strength research project from the early 90's to develop an armour for their new tanks that could outdo the chobham armour that the US wouldn't let them have. wrap that with 7mm of kevlar and carbon fiber for extra strength and then 2-3mm of Aluminum to take the bumps and sctraches that would otherwise cut or scar the fiber. this would apparently give a combined strength equivalent to 30mm + of high strength steel. at 5/8th the weight of the 20mm barrel.

Are we for sure on the weight of the extra barrel length? Let me get this straight, a ton of weight for about 7 calibres of iron? If that's the case we should make the artillery out of cardboard. We could go for something lighter because we don't nessisarily need anything that strong but we'll see. We should calculate how much harder it is and then figure out how much less we'll have to use. Then we can figure out how much we're actually reducing weight by.

What about tianium?

Titanium you mean. That depends on how much stronger it is and how much lighter.

Dont mind my spelling... apart from typing quickly but not accurately, my comps acting up and often gobbles up part of what Im typing.

'Montgomery' seems to be fairly light....



...and cheap.

considering that we could likely get high strength really light ceramics

Sorry for butting in but, might I attempt to help?

UD-CCM CMT Composite Armour

University of Delaware, Center for Composite Materials

It's easily maintanable, the main feature of the armour, as well as lightweight and durable. I don't know the exact composition nor it's capabilities but I have, at the very least, what the researchers had to do. If you're good at either deduction or composite armour manufacture, you can probably gleam information from it.

The researchers who developed it took into account:

-Characterization of Advanced Organic Fibers
-Stress Wave Prediction and Management in Functionally Graded Materials
-Friction Effects on Fabric Structures
-Application of Genetic Algorithms to Composite Analysis and Design
-Carbides as Hard Coating Materials for Polymers, Metals and Ceramics
-Composite Damage Mechanisms
-Armor Model Mechanisms
-Repair of Hybrid Composite Structures
-Photonic Bandgap Materials for Controlled Emissivity Surfaces
-Frequency-Dependent Damping Charateristics of Composites
-Hybrid Materials
-Flexible Polymeric Light-Emitting Diodes
-Nanoparticulate Composite Liquid Shear-Thickening

I'm affraid I'm too stupid to make much of it. I don't believe that composites would be able to stand up to the wear of the gun on its barrel. Its possible that it may be good enough to withstand this stress but until I'm sure I'd rather be safe than sorry. A stong metalic compound is likely what we're looking for. Lighter and stronger.

Montgomery titanium sounds like it fits that, and its cheaper, though titanium cant be welded. How this immediately affects us, Im too stupid to figure out.

That doesn't sound right.
*Thinks back to grade 10 chemistry.
'What is the melting point of titanium?'

Where's Calarca? I'm too dumb to understand this barrel weight formula (etc and whatever).

-Ah-hyuk
Later

On a side note more people have now seen the Sean Connery Project than the T-7 Gilgamesh. Perhaps I should change its name to that. Anyway check out the tank because its awesome (rather off-topic ain't I).

Finally back, been off in the boonies trying to set up a friends computer since her modem was fried. anyhow, finally got her online and now back home with my much faster University Bradband system... lol.

the formula for the barrel weight is simple. use high school maths to caluculate the volume of a cylinder as long as the length under discussion, and as wide as the diameter of the caliber plus the barrel thickness, then subtract from that a cylinder as long as before, but only the diameter of the caliber. so you have the volume of a hollow cylinderical tube that is the same diamensions as your barrel under discussion. then multiply that volume by the specific weight of metal for that volume.

as to composite barrels. my above post suggested a thin Platimum alloy liner, wrapped with high temperature, high stress-resistant composites, and covered by a thin layer of aluminum to absorb the dings and nicks things in the military get, without cuttign the compsite fibres.


The Japanese were investigating Platinum Ceramide for two purposes, Very High Temperature and High Sheer force resistance. in other words, very strong stuff that doesn't melt. with it in mind for two purposes, their fledgling space program, and as an armour for their MBT.

It's heavier than iron, but far stronger weight for weight. a 3mm belt covered with 7mm of composites should withstand the same as 30mm of steel while weighing a lot less. and with the wear witstrants of the Ceramide, a barrel will last longer too.

Montgomery titanium sounds like it fits that, and its cheaper, though titanium cant be welded. How this immediately affects us, Im too stupid to figure out.

IF Ti can't be welded, would you please go tell the russians that their Submarines are impossible? They have one high speed hunter killer SSN type out there made with a hull made entirely of welded Titanium. What it needs is a TIG welder with inert gas buffer.

I'd go with Rh or Ir base ceramics as a liner, covered with Composite, and covered again with a sacrifical metal to take the bumps.

http://sakimori.nims.go.jp/oneday2000/proc.html

http://sakimori.nims.go.jp/oneday2000/cerapaper.html

I can't find the actual info I used to base my A-1000 Taniwhas Platinum Cerimide strengthednd composite skin on. I'll have to keep looking

I know a little about high school math. Pi (3.141592654etc,etc) times radius squared of the barrel and then subtract the same for inside the barrel multiply that by length. What I actually wanted to know was its equivilancy in strength of the material to iron. I'm not entirely clear. 7mm of this material is equal to 30mm of iron (in strength)? I haven't been able to do that much research as of lately because I've been busy. I should get some good info by the weekend. We also need some info on its weight ratio to iron. Then we can be sure exactly how much lighter it will make the barrel. I'll see if I can't find any info on this material too once I get a little surfing time.

Actually 10 mm. 3 mm of the ceramide liner plus 7 mm composite.
the combination about a 3 to 1 strength ratio vs Iron/Steel.

The Ceramic plates mounted on M113s over the aluminum base armour plate are supposed to have a 4 to 1 advantage over Steel interms of penetration resistance, but I havn't been able to confirm that, all I can find is "Details Classified" from the military sources. not even Janes Defence can help there.

Aluminum has certain properties which have different effects on projectiles than steel would. It is very flexible and will bend when hit which I believe should disperse the projectiles kinetic energy or something like that. Not as useful in our case (since we're not making armor).

Ceramides are good. I've actually seen a very good one. Experiments are being conducted on Titanium Ceramide to develope a very light metal alloy with microstructure built so that it is incredibly strong. It is 2-2.5 times lighter than similar strong steels. It is being built for applications in space (rocket nozzles, etc), and the war on terror, among others. Not sure how much stronger it is but I'm sure it must be a lot stronger.

Hmmm... well I might as well post again if no one else is gonna start. I've been having a little trouble finding info on platinum ceramide and titanium ceramide. Either sounds good to me really. I'd prefer to have the info and know which is better but if we can't then we'll have to just pick one (the project must continue some time). I'll see if I can find the mohs hardness of platinum. This info probably won't help us all that much but it'll give me an idea of what to pick if we end up just having to decide. Just because I found this out I'll mention it (may be somewhat useful), this is that platinum is more resistant to heat than titanium (they're close though). So see if you can't dig up info on platinum ceramides and titanium ceramides.
-Later.

Damit we gotta keep this project moving. Its platinum ceramide unless anyone else found some info. No stats on its weight relative to iron? If not then lets move on. Body is likely gonna be fibreglass with inner and outer layers of metal (likely a titanium alloy). Graphite insertion on the parts that definately need more strength. Agreed? One more thing before we get into the projectiles and such. That is what about stabilization? Hydro-pneumatic, spring or what? What's lightest? Post soon or you're getting telegrams fellows.

Sry been involved in other RPs
I think Platinum ceramide is a good idea.. unless we decide to bring titanium into this. Also, I think one of my guns uses hydro-pneumatic.. cant remember tho.

What caliber will we make our gun?

155mm. For length that depends on the weight we have at the end. I'd say between 39 and 59 or so.

Back, Been held offline by a lack of funds in my University Internet account.

Yep Platinums better heat resistance, they use it sometimes when Titanium is a bit too close to melting. Also more mallable, not as brittle.
I vote Platinum.

As to stabilisers, Hydro for my vote, made of kevlar/graphite composite sleeved with Aluminium. they use compressed air, and that is lighter than springs, and with an air compressor/resuvoir, they can be selectively adjusted. Useful in rapid fire situations where springs can have oscillating vibrations in the mettalic matrix. Springs have been known to fail catastrophically.

If we all agree then lets move on to increasing range. Projectiles? I've got a lot of ideas but I'll see what you fellas has got. Also we can't forget loading systems. Where the heck are Clan Smoke and DT?

for extending range of projectiles, definitely use rocket assissted munitions.

ANd mayb submunitions for use against tanks also.

If we all agree then lets move on to increasing range. Projectiles? I've got a lot of ideas but I'll see what you fellas has got. Also we can't forget loading systems. Where the heck are Clan Smoke and DT?With rocket-assisted projectiles we should be able to get a range of 30,000 metres. Cluster munitions are your friend.

If we all agree then lets move on to increasing range. Projectiles? I've got a lot of ideas but I'll see what you fellas has got. Also we can't forget loading systems. Where the heck are Clan Smoke and DT?
Increasing range is not that difficult. Rocket assistance and base bleed can be combined to provide some rather long range rounds (50 km in a 56 cal barrel), and we have the full range of NATO munitions to work with, or we could go with the South African design. Really, the primary factor here will be back to the barrel. The longer the barrel, the greater the range, but the greater the weight as well. Another idea, which has been considered for 16" shells, would be to have a sub-caliber projectiles (like a sabot). This would be difficult with a round this size, but could be done, and while it would significantly reduce the payload, you could get a phenominal range.

An assisted loading device would increase weight a bit. However, we might be able to help keep that down with lighter composites and a slightly downgraded system, though it would still retain an impressive rate of fire.

Also, we might want to think about having two variants with different barrel lengths, as has been done with some other lightweight guns. The light one would be a 39 or 45 calibre barrel, and could get a range of 30-40 km without too much difficulty. A heavier one would have a 52 or 56 calibre barrel, and could easily reach 40-50 km or more. The heavier one, without the tight weight limits, would also be able to have things like a larger APU and better loading mechanism.

Hmm... in other words, an Air-Mech-Strike variant and a regular force variant based on the same base chassis? sounds good. I'd go with NATO standard rounds but make a few of our own too.
The A-M-S light gun I'd make without the need ofr extended range ammo, it's to be dropped within range anyway, anything further out can be taken on my airstrikes. just use the basic rounds, but the heavier gun, sure I'd like to see some extended range systems. Rocket assisted would be my choice.with a copperhead type sight in the nose since the longer range would cause more probability of errors due to wind and cumulative errors. etc.

Both models will innately be able to fire ER rounds, as litterally any gun can use them. It's all in the shell, so even if you don't desire it, the capability will naturally be there, especially with NATO standard. Both guns would fire the same ammunition, with the difference in range and accuracy being entirely due to the difference in barrel length.

Guided munitions are a good thing, and if we go NATO standard, rounds I'm already working on or have available could be used. An ER Copperhead is not a bad idea, but it still reqiures a laser designator to paint the target, greatly limiting its ability. An inertially guided round similar to the SAGP for the navy's 6.1" AGS would be quite useful though, and would not be too hard to develop, as a similar round already exists. A CEP of 40-50m could easily be achieved that way.

"Suck it Trabeck" oh good old sean. "ill take famous tittys for $400" hes so funny

Theres rumours of a copperhead using a modified seeker head from a cluster giuded anti-tank smart bomb, you know the things on CNN which look like a 1000 pounder on the plane but split into dozens of smart beer cans with a copper slug and aiming system?
theres also the posibility of MAD detection systems, since armour and engines are steel. (usually)

You spelt Jonny Bravo wrong.

Anyway back to rounds. For greatly increased range I'd go with rocket assisted and stub wings (South African idea I think). Lots of good NATO rounds. An important round I feel nessisary to mention about is air burst. It is very important to use air burst when firing a chemical weapon as the impact of hitting the ground would blow all those useful chemical gases away. All so a Napalm round with some sort of toxent so that we can choke out AFVs in their intake systems (they'd likely end up stalling if we had a good enough agent). Air burst napalm would be one of the cruelest weapons ever but I supose could be atractive to most dictators (like myself, -Hit the center of forest, difficult to put out, causes forst fire, nation diverts resources and loses vast amounts of land and possibly food). Cluster is okay (I'm not too sure how these clusters work, like bomblets or what), frag bomblets are good, anti-tank mines, mine dispensers (antipersonel or whatever). Submunitions like sabots could work. Good solution against mechanised units from long range. Mmmmm....... munitions.

PS: I'd keep the rocket assisted munitions on her (light version). We can pretty well go nuts on the heavier one.

Ah yes... Forgot...

What are ER rounds?

What is MAD?

ER = Extended Range.
Any method of making something go further. such as strapping a rocket onto the prjectiles rear to push it further, or adding pop-out wings to allow it to glide further.

MAD = Magnetic Anomaly Detection
Steel and Iron are magnetic and cause distortions int he earths magnetic field. just try using a compass next to an iron block, the needle points to the iron, not the north. MAD uses this to point a projectile at a steel/iron/magnetic target.
Originally developed as a submarine hunting tool.

More rounds?

What else am I forgeting?

I think we should allow for the firing of sabot rounds from the artillery piece, just in case we need it to act in an Anti-tank mode. ANd i think we should use the chassis for a field artillery version, probably something based on an APC or so. Unless that, of course, has just been mentioned.

yeah, M113 and MT-LB were discussed prior to musing over the barrel length.

Or maybe we can design both and sell to both russian and eastern tech countries.

russian tech nations wouldn't use 155, warsaw pact has 122 or 152mm

Important note here. If we make the gun capable of firing at flat trajectory (not a bad idea) the gun will likely be more a field gun than a howitzer. Not that there's a huge difference and not that I care but just so you know artillery guns fire at a flatter trajectory than howitzers which are a little more like mortars. I don't think we'd need to make that big an adjustment. The biggest change would be in fire control. Might want to put a designator on her. Also for receiving target data. This is another issue. The guns are likely going to require ammo transportation. How about a short distance radio signal of some kind capable of receiving data from the ammo transport, which will likely have a long range receiver (taking data from various reconasense sources). Thoughts?

russian tech nations wouldn't use 155, warsaw pact has 122 or 152mmYes I know, which is why Im making a 152mm version for myself and other ET users.


Important note here. If we make the gun capable of firing at flat trajectory (not a bad idea) the gun will likely be more a field gun than a howitzer. Not that there's a huge difference and not that I care but just so you know artillery guns fire at a flatter trajectory than howitzers which are a little more like mortars. I don't think we'd need to make that big an adjustment. The biggest change would be in fire control. Might want to put a designator on her. Also for receiving target data. This is another issue. The guns are likely going to require ammo transportation. How about a short distance radio signal of some kind capable of receiving data from the ammo transport, which will likely have a long range receiver (taking data from various reconasense sources). Thoughts?
Leave the anti-tank capabilities to ATGM's like Javelin, Kornet, metis-M, milan, etc., and let thise be a howitzer.

OK, Ill start contributing now that youve decided barrel length down to the last millimeter and have the exact weight figured out. THis provides an OK anti-tank capability methinks:
Russia has developed the Krasnopol-M 155mm guided artillery round, which has a 7km laser designator range and a range of 17km.
Basic Characteristics


KRASNOPOL-M
Calibre, mm 1 155
Weight, kg:
complete projectile 43
warhead 20
explosive 6
Length, m 0.955
Range, m 3,000 ... 17,000
Laser designator range (tank type targets), m 7,000
Operating temperature range, °C -40 ... +50
Hit probability 0.9
Firing systems M109, G6,
etc.(MSTA-SE-155)

http://www.rusarm.ru/Images/KRASNOPOL.JPG

So we oppose the anti tank or are for it DT? Nice round. Is the warhead and explosive in kg or what?

Later.

So we oppose the anti tank or are for it DT? Nice round. Is the warhead and explosive in kg or what?

Later.
I'm against the anti-tank ability here. We would really want a howitzer over a field gun, as that has better arc, allowing it to hit enemy troops a field gun can't (behind obsacles and such), and it will have a better minimum range, which is rather important for airborne forces. Besides, the gun won't exactly have the fastest traverse, and the only ranges where a Sabot round would be useful are better served by separate units with more mobility. If you want decent anti-tank capability, put a LOSAT launcher or similar vehicle or infantry ATGM with the guns in your TO&E.

And yes, the warhead and explosive in that are in kg. It only says it once, but that's for all the weights.

a few men with Javelins hidden on the crest of the hill the gun is behind should do anti tank stuff.

Sounds a good round.

Its a good round to upgrade anyway, and since it's designed to be fired from MSTA series howitzers among others, it's howitzer compatible.

All you ever wanted to know about Kransopol:

KRASNOPOL and KRASNOPOL-M
Guided Artillery Systems





KRASNOPOL Guided Projectile
The 152 mm KRASNOPOL and 155 mm KRASNOPOL-M guided arttillery systems are intended for use against armoured targets. They may also be used to destroy fortifications and for counter-battery and coastal defence anti-ship missions.

Each system comprises a guided artillery projectile, 1D15(1D22) laser target designator-range finder, 1A35 synchronisation unit, an artillery system.

The KRASNOPOL/KRASNOPOL-M uses a semi-active laser guidance system during the latter part of its trajectory. Once a target has been detected by a forward observer, the target information coordinates are transmitted to the battery command post. The gun barrel angle and elevation data are transmitted to the gun position and the forward observer is alerted. The projectile is then fired and the initial part of the trajectory is carried out using a normal ballistic trajectory. As the projectile approaches the target, the forward observer illuminates the target using a tripod-mounted 1D22 Laser Target Designator - Range finder. The designation range for tank-type targets is 7,000 m. Following a mid-trajectory period controlled by inertial navigation, the seeker in the nose of the projectile locks onto the illuminated target and the projectile guidance system makes the necessary flight corrections to guide the projectile towards the target. Shortly before impact, the projectile makes a top attack on the target's upper armour, at an angle between +35 ° and +45 °. The nose-mounted seeker has a footprint of about 1,000 m. Use of the guided projectile reduced ammunition expenditure by 10 ... 15 times, mission accomplishment time is reduced by 3 .. 4 times.



Basically, with forward observers this can kill tanks at 17km.


Looky, another guided round:
SANTIMETR
152mm Laser-Guided Artillery System with Projectile's Trajectory Correction





SANTIMETR Guided Artillery System
The SANTIMETR Laser-Guided Artillery System is designed for destruction with 1 - 3 shots of the following targets: stationary and moving armoured vehicles, firing points, control and communication posts, defence installations in fortified areas, bridges, crossings, floating facilities, etc.

The system employs the unique Concept of Impulse Correction for Smart Weapons to ensure automatic guidance of 1 ... 6 shells to the laser illuminated target at the terminal leg of the ballistic trajectory in 1... 3 sec.

The SANTIMETR system is serviced by permanent crew of artillery unit armed with 152 mm systems. It can be adapted to 155 mm howitzers and 160 mm mortars. The 30F38 HE Frag Guided Projectile used in the SANTIMETR system does not require inspection and maintenance support while in storage and operation.



Basic Characteristics:


Type of guidance system laser, semi-active homing
Firing range, km 0.5 ... 18.0
Laser target designation range, km 0.3 ... 7.0
Number of projectiles required to kill target 1 ... 3
Time of homing guidance, s 0.5 ... 3.0
Time of target illumination by laser, s 3.0
Types of 152 mm artillery systems to be used: D20 Gun-Howitzer, 2S19
2S3, 2S5 Self-propelled Guns
Weight of 1D22 laser target designator/range finder, kg 45
Weight of 1A35K synchronizer unit, kg 4.3
Weight of 1A35I synchronizer unit, kg 1.5


30F38 HE Frag Guided Projectile


Calibre, mm 152
Weight, kg 49.5
Length, mm 1,195
Warhead TNT equivalent, kg 8.5
Trajectory correction system pulse type

Gives thumbs up*

More stuff to read.

Oh well... Anyway I'd also say we should go for a howitzer then. Guided anti-tanks may still work. We can give these to the countries too cheap to support their artillery units with anti-tank infantry units (or with a few tanks as I would prefer). Its pretty difficult to hit a target like a tank with any form of artillery so we'll likely want to fire up a shell way high and then have it fall onto the tank using some sort of guidance (GPS, target aquisition, radar, laser, a combination, I really don't care, what do you think's best?) and then it should hit rather nastily as a top attack round with increased force of impact (on the already weak top armor) due to gravity and rocket assistance to blow it away. That's if it hits accurately enough. Even if it doesn't it should mess the tank up pretty good. Forgive me for overlooking the 'kg' on that there post. I am wondering what it really means though. Explosive (weight of explosives or a measure of explosive force), and warhead (same problem).

Stupid brain... Learn more better.

For a new country, they can get an ancient helicopter for their armed forces, put a laser designator on it, and voila. All my older helos are used for this.

Also, whos up to putting the fold-out wing thingies (too lazy to go and research them when you lot already have) onto Santmetr (adapted to 155mm caliber) and Krasnopol-M?

Aye (that means yes).

I really don't know all that much about the stub wings but I'll do some research soon.

Excellent, anyway how hard is it to make a rocket-assisted version?

For self-propelled, how about sticking it onto a 6 wheeled 3T omnirole APC?
http://www.minotor-service.com/gfx/3-3.jpg
http://www.minotor-service.com/index.php?page=3t&lang=en

Wait now we're not even concerned with self propelled yet. I'd like to add rocket propelled projectiles to the standard one. The rocket assistance is mostly provided by the projectile itself although we would have to make accomodations. Anyone have any idea what we'd have to change on the gun to make her able to fire them.

No need to change the gun, the change is in the projectile. the shell is usually slightly longer and in the base is a short bit of solid rocket fuel set off by the propellant charge of the cartridge, this burns during flight, providing extra thrust, hence extra distance.

OOC:
Excellent, so now we just strap SANTIMETR and Kransopol to rockets (over-simplification)?

OOC:
Excellent, so now we just strap SANTIMETR and Kransopol to rockets (over-simplification)?

Yup, over siplification, But we forgive you, it's more a matter of building a new shell casing to fir the rocket base as well as the rest of the shell... fairly simple once you have the technology needed to make a case to hold all that technology.

So we fire it from the gun with the usual solid propellent shell and use the rocket (attached to the payload for lack of better word) to thrust the shell after its been fired? When is the best time to kick in the rockets? Right after it leaves the barrel or near highest altitude of round (or something else)? DT if you wanna see a nice little rocket launcher whose payload (once again for lack of a better word) is an artiller shell, check out the Land Mattress developed by the UK during WW2. Basicly just a 127mm naval artillery shell on a 76mm AA rocket with a crappy fuse.

an artillery shell is the projectile (the shell itself) and a case (the Cartridge) filled with flaked propellant (Gunpowder, now usually cordite or nitrocelluose based stuff) and the shell wedged in the opening of the cartridge.

make a shell with a rocket built into the base, buy or make a lot of standard NATO cases to hold the propellant (Or Warsaw Pact standard cases) fill them with powedr of some sort (theres plenty of brands out there) and jam in the shell. hey presto, a new shell for our weapon.

As to the rocket, i'd make it at about 60% of the way up the curve, before it starts tipping over, if it fires at the top, it isn't as stable, and if it fires after coming out the muzzle, theres the fact it's already going fast and to accellerate a fast thing dfaster takes more effort given friction and drag than to speed up something going slower.

I always get case and shell confused.

We almost finished do you think? Anyone got anything to bring up?

eh.. not really. U guys actually handled that very well.

My nation will mass produce them. We're thrifty and cheap and make things quickly.

Also, we have a firing range to test them on if we so require.

Basic recap of what the last few pages have on the Gun.

Wheeled, electric self propelling motors for short distance travel built into the wheel hubs, wheels hing so gun can be jacked up in road mode and let down on wheels lying flat to provide ground floatation, saving weight of a separate floatation plate. Batteries for motors to be made of NICAD or NIMH and to take the form of any structural compodents in non-strees areas capable of being shaped from same materials. Tender vehicle carries ammo and generator. Barrels are to be of a ceramic liner, wrapped with composite fibers and sleeved with light metal to protect said fibers. Gun length to be approx 40 calibres in light gun, 55 in long gun. Gun Caliber to be either 155 NATO or 152 Warsaw Pact, Projectiles to be NATO standard or WP standard, some projectiles to be developed especially for this weapon.
Second gun model to be as above but on light tracked chassis as a SPG rather than wheeled. NATO type to use the lightened M113 chassis, WP type to use the MT-LB chassis.


So basicly 6 types:
short barreled wheeled NATO. medium/light transport helo, light airborne forces gun.
short barreled wheeled WP. medium/light transport helo, light airborne forces gun.
long barreled wheeled NATO. heavy transport helo, standard forces gun.
long barreled wheeled WP. heavy transport helo, standard forces gun.
long barrel tracked NATO. m113, armoured forces gun.
long barrel tracked WP. mt-lb, armoured forces gun.

Again I suggest using 3T Omnirole for the SP chassis instead of MT-LB or M113.

Actually it would be more like light barreled tracked. Remember that one of the goals of the project would be to have the sp version transportable by large helicopter (chinhook style). We should probably make our own vehicle for this as there ain't many around light enough. Or we could modify one. I would suggest making one incorporating both NATO and WP ideas to keep customers happy and to have a light tracked, super deployable, large artillery piece. Also for the heavier version what else should we include on it? Like a bigger auto propulsion unit and improved loading system, etc, etc.

3T Omnirole combat weight: 2.8 tons

Gimme a link for this vehicle. I still say we could build our own. Designs in RL have political factors taken into their design. For example the west overlooks inovative technologies in survivability and just beefs up armor. But I'd like to see this vehicle.

For self-propelled, how about sticking it onto a 6 wheeled 3T omnirole APC?
http://www.minotor-service.com/gfx/3-3.jpg
http://www.minotor-service.com/index.php?page=3t&lang=en
That was the last post on page 5

It's something to base it on, at least.

Do you know if the stats and weight is for the 4, 5 or 6 wheeled?
and .9 tons payload is a bit low, tweak it to 2 to 3 tons payload and yep that'd do.

12,000 Lb is about 5,500Kg (I think) can't be stuffed finding my calculator.

Do you know if the stats and weight is for the 4, 5 or 6 wheeled?
and .9 tons payload is a bit low, tweak it to 2 to 3 tons payload and yep that'd do.

12,000 Lb is about 5,500Kg (I think) can't be stuffed finding my calculator.
The payload can be tweaked up a bit with a bigger engine (low profile not needed in an SP gun), how much will this thing weigh anyways?

Might be good. The vehicle is supposed to be an armored fighting vehicle but it could be big enough. Little adjustments to the body maybe. How about the turret style? Obviously we're not going to have a ammo storage. Simple auto-load system by pulling rounds into a simple device which loads them quickly into the chamber. Rounds will likely be around the ring of the turret. I'm thinking of a Rascal style mostly. Simple loading system however using as little assistance as possible from complicated devices using force to move them (ie: use mostly springs and such and utilises recoil, like a gun). What about recoil reduction? Muzzle brakes, etc? I've had an idea for a dozer blade like device which is fixed to the turret and lowered when a firing position is taken (there would likely have to be one on the front end as well). Might add to much weight though. We might be able to compensate with various anti recoil devices (compensators, brakes, etc, etc).

Hold on... maybe we should use MT-LB with a better engine as the chassis, but use a modified 3T Omnirole for the ressuply vehicle?

For ultimate lightness we could scrap a turret idea all together.

For ultimate lightness we could scrap a turret idea all together.
Or make an uncovered turret sorta like on ww2 tank destroyers?

That's what I assumed we'd do. You know I've been thinking that it may be a good idea to have another team to design the body. Then it could be adapted to use as an AFV, etc. I've been thinking of making a series of super deployable vehicles. I want you guys to think about the use of these SPs. They're likely gonna be used as a part of the first attack force which will Blitzkrieg into enemy terrain before they're prepared. Able to strike quickly, and so capable of quickly responding to emergencies. With a team designing the hull we could get an expert design for armor and weight. But we could use a modified RL AFV too. I'm just sayin...

Oppinions?

Check in guys, this is getting annoying. I need to know what you guys think. Make a separate vehicle with a different team (possibly including several of our team) or use an existing vehicle (or some other idea I couldn't possibly comprehend)?

(forum ate it last time I tried to post)
I oppose super-rapid deployment, gogogogo then watch a 14.5mm KPV MG turn it into a few spare parts and some scrap metal.

Heres my “light” airdroppable tank, BTW:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80069&highlight=

If you mean helicopter dropable its a godmod vehicle. I'll explain: it has a 135mm gun. Anyway, I'm for.

If you mean helicopter dropable its a godmod vehicle. I'll explain: it has a 135mm gun. Anyway, I'm for.Mi-26 is not your regular helicopter, agreed? But I dont use it from helos anyway... probably cant, but then again if sprut can (too lazy to go check), this is just Sprut with a gun 10mm bigger.

(forum ate it last time I tried to post)
I oppose super-rapid deployment, gogogogo then watch a 14.5mm KPV MG turn it into a few spare parts and some scrap metal.

Heres my “light” airdroppable tank, BTW:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80069&highlight=
The idea of rapid deployment is sound, and so long as it isn't deployed until an area is secured, it won't be likely to come into much contact with enemy forces. With the rapid nature of airmobile assaults, this wouldn't be too difficult.

The light tank idea is sound, but you've put a bit much on that. I don't see how it can have that gun, that armor, and those systems, and still be under 20 tons. The weight should be at least 50% more than you listed. It's also a bit much for it to be airdroppable, especially with an ETC gun. Those are a bit less resistant to shock than normal ones.

Sorry for the lack of posts, I've been shifting house.

As to AMS (AirMechStrike), much of the effectiveness arises from dropping behind enemy lines where the troops deployed are inferior in either equipment or numbers. and clearing a route for larger, heavier and more survivable combat vehicles to arrive.

AMG 8 gun vehicles and M-113's can be parachuted down near an airfield remote from the front lines, capture it, and clear the runway so larger planes carrying tanks that can't be parachuted can land. these heavier tanks/AFVs can then punch through the enemy lines in a hammer/anvil manuver to provide a corridor through the lines and roll back the flanks of the enemy defnsive lines.

not so nessesary now in an age of manuver battles as opposed to line battles, but still a very useful ability.

In the new rapid dominence strategy of war they could be far more useful. Inferior forces (armor wize at least) could have a very powerful effect on enemy forces particularly ground forces which have no support from other units (artillery, air, etc) or contact with command. Quick deployment is especially useful in this case while you still have this shock and awe effect.

Also we gotta finish up soon. Are we making the SP or having a separate team make one or are we using an existing chasis? Everyone on the team's votes. Now.

The wheeled one seems decided and finished.

My vote on SPG is existing M-113 and MT-LB chassí for gun itself, and OT-3 omnirole 4 roadwheel for ammo carriage

i say we use MT-LB or mayb a Chinese Type 86 wheeled vehicle.

developing our own chassis may take too much time.

The wheeled one seems decided and finished.

My vote on SPG is existing M-113 and MT-LB chassí for gun itself, and OT-3 omnirole 4 roadwheel for ammo carriage
Agreed.

Also, Sprut-SDM is too heavy for Mi-26 because I uparmored it a bit. I can drop regular Spruts with their 125mm guns from it. In general, I dislike sacrificing quality for deployment time- I use Sprut-SDM's mainly in marine units, rather than airborne units (though a few hundred are used in that role as well).

I'll agree here as well. We might as well do the vehicle. After all, we've discussed most of it already.

Fine... But I'm modifying it for one of my own vehicles in the future (won't be for export) if that's all right with yous. So are we going to have a turret or just mount the gun on?

i say we use turrets; wouldnt that add to crew protection as well as allow the gun to fire in several directions?

A turret will add too much weight. The light unit is to be helicopter transportable, so that's a definate no. Also, a turret reduces protection rather than increasing it. A fixed turret structure offers better protection, but we'd want to sacrifice that to keep weight down as well.
A heavier version could be turreted without any trouble, but not the airmobile one.

I believe you are correct that a turret would weigh too much. Especially since we're using the M113 we need as much lightness as possible. DT I'd like you to check the BMD as opposed to MT-LB for warsaw pact. BMD is based on the origional BMP. We could simply strip the BMP down to her chasis and a bit of the hull. It will be lighter. M113 is a little heavy too. Doesn't seem to be many alternatives to that though so we'll probably just have to stip out her whole hull and replace it with lightweight ceramics. For the ammo vehicle we might want to consider a go between vehicle which is neither western nor russian like a high performance European vehicle (just think about that one). Open gun, open rounds, no turret, simple loader. Good? I'll leave armor for last because it'll probably take longest and I've got ideas. Anyway what are we gonna do for recoil lowering? Muzzle brake, dozer blade, compensator, complicated system?

3T Omnirole will be good with a better engine.


A BMD? Hadn't though of that... possible since Sprut has a 125mm gun and BMD-3M has a 100mm gun.

You really don't need a six+ wheeled APC conversion that could hold 13 guys as an APC. Take a look at a MK F3 155mm. This is what we're going for. Big gun connected to a small chasis simply. For us we'll want about a max crew of 4 and a simple autoloader. MT-LB is way overweight and only has a 7.62mm MG while the BMD (what I'm lookin at) has a 73mm gun and better armor than the MT-LB. I'm just saying why go with the heavier one. Up to you though cause I don't care for warsaw pact tech (for the most part).

Well, and the BMD-3M has a 100mm gun. Sounds good anyways.

Protection against up to .50 now can be provided by Kevlar and synthetic fibre panels at 1/4 or less the weight of titanium. and a 155 shouldn't need to be armoured against more than a .50, the escort of troopers with LAWs hiding in the bushes should take out anything with larger before it gets a shot. you only need shrapnel protection.

Guidnece systems only weigh about 5Kg now anyway with computerisation. the US Special forces in fort Bragg are trialling a Palm Pilot based system now. so 1Kg max for sights/computers.

You lazy bums. From what I know the best thing to go with is kevlar and high strength ceramics (anywhere between alumina and fibreglass) followed by a high strength metal. In our case we need it light so it will probably be a titanium alloy that is thin. From what I know of the properties of aluminum it would increase the effectiveness of this design if we placed a thin layer in front. So thin aluminum, then 50-70 layers (going from Kevlar to a high strength ceramics) followed by a thin titanium plate. Should give up to .50 cal protection.

No turret. Rounds on track which pulls ammo into simple autoloader.

Would anyone like to contribute something please.

My contributions (ressuply vehicle and guided munitions) have been posted...

Looks fine to me so far.
Still, Clan Smoke Jaguar will probably design an unarmored truck-mounted unit on their own, using a modified 5-ton chassis, which will be an alternative to the armored unit.

Also, something to think about on this:
As this is a joint project, should each of us produce certain components? This is much easier than having everyone produce all components themselves, and will also ensure that everyone profits whenever a unit is sold.

Everything needed has already been posted somewhere or other in the thread. So sounds good to me.

If we produce compodents, I bags the barrel and composite armour panels, I already have production facilities in Calarca for composites and Ceramides for use in the A-1000 Taniwha, they can be used to produce the barrels and armour as well.

Yes. I'd produce the loading devices and auxiliary power units for the towed units, and a 5-ton truck carriage as an alternative for the self-propelled unit. Also, I have a range of advanced munitions to offer, including some that can reach almost 40 km even from a 39 cal barrel (that's over 50 km with a 52 cal).

Other things we'd need include carriage, hydraulics system, and final assembly.

Sure so lets get the specs done up. Firing rate, weight, speed (I don't know to much about the M113 or the warsaw version AFV). Consider power to weight ratio in looking at speed. Etc, etc. What about a pic? Anyone got ideas of at least what to start with? I don't care what I produce. We could just have someone produce an export version and split the profits (20% to everyone). I would also like to say that anyone applying the gun to a vehicle must give 10% to each of the gun designers and can keep the rest for himself.

Ill produce the ressuply vehicles and guided rounds (we can sell them in the store of this like I sell them in the Bisonic Artillery Storefront (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86283) )

If u guys want, i'll produce the guidance systems and we can test it out on my firing range (quite dense and confusing jungle, perfect for trying out accuracy)

Well, here's a start on the stats:

Light TH
Combat Weight: <4000 kg
Crew: 8 (optimum), 5 (minimum)
Speed: 10 km/h (road), 2 km/h (cross-country)
Range: 50 km
Emplacement Time: 5 min
Displacement Time: 3 min
Barrel: 155mm/39 cal
Rate of Fire: 8 rpm burst, 3 rpm normal, 2 rpm sustained
Range: 40 km w/ extended rounds, 30 km w/ assisted rounds, 24 km w/ unassisted rounds

Heavy TH
Combat Weight: 13,000 kg
Crew: 8 (optimum), 5 (minimum)
Speed: 18 km/h (road), 4 km/h (cross-country)
Range: 100 km
Emplacement Time: 4 min
Displacement Time: 2 min
Barrel: 155mm/52 cal
Rate of Fire: 12 rpm burst, 6 rpm normal, 2 rpm sustained
Range: 50+ km w/ extended rounds, 40+ km w/ assisted rounds, 30+ km w/ unassisted rounds

Notes:
1) On towed howitzers, the burst rate can't be sustained very long, so these can't maintain maximum rate of fire for more than, say, 30-40 seconds. Sustained rate is what they use for bombadments lasting more than 10 minutes or so.
2) Extended rounds refers to Base-Bleed/Rocket Assisted hybrid rounds, which provide extreme range. Clan Smoke Jaguar produces both unitary (M795E1) and DPICM (Excalibur series) rounds using this.

We're gonna strip armor from M113 so could someone tell me about what the weight is when stripped. Also for the warsaw pact vehicle. Your speed is pretty far from accurate considersing the power to weight ratio and I'll try to find out stuff.

The heavy unit is a heavier version of the towed howitzer, with a longer barrel, larger APU, and better loading device. It's not the self-propelled unit. That would be quite a bit faster.


Also, I have these now

Truck-mounted units:
Light:
Crew: 6
Weight: 10,400 kg (travel), 12,000 kg (combat)
Speed: 110 km/h (road), 50 km/h (cross-country)
Range: 600 km
Emplacement Time: 60 seconds
Displacment Time: 30 seconds
Barrel: 155mm/39 cal
Rate of Fire: 8 rpm burst, 3 rpm normal, 2 rpm sustained
Range: 40 km w/ extended rounds, 30 km w/ assisted rounds, 24 km w/ unassisted rounds
Ammunition: 12 rounds on-board

Heavy:
Crew: 6
Weight: 17,000 kg (travel), 19,500 kg (combat)
Speed: 100 km/h (road), 45 km/h (cross-country)
Range: 500 km
Emplacement Time: 60 seconds
Displacment Time: 30 secon
Rate of Fire: 12 rpm burst, 6 rpm normal, 3 rpm sustained
Range: 50+ km w/ extended rounds, 40+ km w/ assisted rounds, 30+ km w/ unassisted rounds
Ammunition: 20 rounds on-board

How are you? I've been out the past few days but here I am. I didn't notice that one is the towed. We likely want the SPs under 10 tons as that is about what can be lifted by modern transport choppers. So given the power to weight ratio of 240/10 equals 24hp/ton then it should have between 70 and 80km/h top speed (depending on how light we can make the vehicle). This is for the tracked. I don't have that much time so I can't get into rate of fire.

Eh so long as a Mi-26 can lug one around...

Notes on transportability:
Light TH can be carried by: UH-60 Black Hawk, AS.332 Super Puma, CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Sea Stallion, CH-53E Super Stallion, CH-54 Tarhe, MV-22 Osprey, EH-101 Merlin/Cormorant, Mi-8/17 (some versions), Mi-6, Mi-26

Heavy TH can be carried by: CH-53 Sea Stallion, CH-53E Super Stallion, Mi-26

Light SPH (truck) can be carried by: Ch-47C/D/F Chinook, CH-53 Sea Stallion, CH-53E Super Stallion, Mi-6, Mi-26

Heavy SPH (truck) can be carried by: Mi-26

Excellent. Now for the warsaw vehicle what are we using (DT I need to know so that I can get weight and definate speed). Also I think it was already mentioned how much we can reduce the weight of a M113A2 and I'ld like to know again so I can apply the weight of our selected armor's weight to the stripped vehicle's weight (I could just go back in the thread and get it but I'm lazy, well maybe not that lazy).

If I were you I'd look at the M-113 as a chassis, rather than a truck or otherwise. the M113 is about 11,000Kg with the armour, cut the walls and roof off just above the tracks and replace the bottom anti-mine armour with half the thickness and you have about a 6,000Kg chassis to mount your 6000Kg (estimated) gun on.

As we can remove ALL armor and replace it with this better lighter stronger (but thinner thereby making it less strong) we can lower this weight by a bit. We'll likely want to make accomodations for a crew of 4 (which won't be too hard considering its being built out of an APC). The fire control CPU will be as small as a palm pilot as was recomended before (perhaps we can afford to make that a little larger). So about 11 tons. The light gun is <4000kg but we can drop the alternate propulsion unit, wheels, the wheel ground floatation unit, and a lot else. We will have to add the simple auto loader but that is well crossed out by the dropping of all the wheel ideas for the towed gun. Considering the accomodations for 4 and the little extra armor from adding an armored crew area to the otherwise completely stipped vehicle and we bump that up by about 500kg to 6500kg chasis for a total vehicle weight of 10500kg or 23100lbs (11.55 imperial tons). Now what can that be carried by? Also I've been thinking that we could lower crew to three (gunner, commander, and driver). One could operate fire control computer (gunner) and one could handle information on fire sources and give orders (commander). Tell me what you guys think of that. Still no time to check on rate of fire but we'll see.

There's no real point to having it that low. If you were to drop it by 100 kg, you would add only one helicopter (CH-47C), though dropping it 1000 kg would add a CH-54 to the list as well. Yet, if you were to increase it by almost 1500 kg, the same helicopters that carry the 10,500 kg unit would all still be able to carry it, so you're better off just adding the weight and making it a better unit.

The helicopters that could carry a 10,500 kg unit are: Ch-47D/F Chinook, CH-53 Sea Stallion, CH-53E Super Stallion, Mi-6, and Mi-26

Yeah Im happy with my Mi-26's being able to lug around 2 BMD's.
Pic of a truck based ressuply vehicle?
http://www.jed.simonides.org/artillery/oscar/ondava_series/brams-mv/bramsmv_001.jpg

Ill build all the ressuply vehicles....




And how are these for the actual SP gun?
http://www.jed.simonides.org/artillery/golf/g6_series/g6/g6-archive.html


Hmm, a 7 ton wheeled SP 155mm gun:
http://www.jed.simonides.org/artillery/lima/misc/lwsph/lwsph-intro.html
http://www.jed.simonides.org/artillery/lima/misc/lwsph/lwsph_001.jpg

Hmmmm. Never considered stripping that much off . . .
We could definately pull something like that. It could be carried by all versions of the Ch-47 Chinook, as well as the CH-53 Sea Stallion, CH-53E Super Stallion, CH-54 Tarhe, Mi-6, and Mi-26
The disadvantage is that it provides absolutely nothing but the gun and an engine, and will not have that good a rate of fire (no room for a loading device). Plus, imagine getting stuck driving that in a thunderstorm :P

You can look at the French Ceaser or the russian MSTA-K line of guns for another idea..



..maybe we can have a superlight (that 7 ton thing), a light (ceaser), and then the heavier one?

Well we're just replacing armor pretty well. We could have room for an armored cab for 3 and if you simplify the loader enough it shouldn't increase weight too much. We have ammo just around the gun on a track pulled by something as simple as a garage door puller which also pops em onto a simple loader also opperated the same device.

You can look at the French Ceaser or the russian MSTA-K line of guns for another idea..



..maybe we can have a superlight (that 7 ton thing), a light (ceaser), and then the heavier one?
My self-propelled ones are based on the Caesar. The light one is just downsizing it, and the heavy one is a little better, but heavier, so we have those. Add to that a heavier tracked unit, and we'd have the full range of weapons we want.
I really don't see too much point in striving for an ultralight tracked unit, as that's far more difficult than a wheeled unit, and we already have pretty much what we need in those. Still, if you really want to . . .

As far as loading goes, use the breech pinch method.

As the gun fires, it's entilre barrel and breech assembly slides back on the dampers/springs, at the rearmost travel a latch activates and grips the breech, the barrel slides forward leaving an open breech, no need to open the breech, saving time, and the latch can be part of the guide rail/recoil apparatus, when the shell is loaded, kick or shove a level to disengage the latch and it shuts under the influence of a spring, rather than having to be pushed shut, more time saved.

and quite light too.

Tracked units have various advantages over wheeled units and seem more applicable in the situations which will require a ultralight sp artilery system. So yes to answer your question I really want to (wasn't even a question really). I suppose we could bump up the weight but its likely going to go into armor and crew section. There is a difference between max load and a safe load also so I'd rather be safe then sorry.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lw155.htm

Useful link for a light artillery system that's towed.

k the forum devoured this last time I tried to post:
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/blindobedience.htm

Nice link on both why the US army sucks and why we should use MT-LB with a better engine as our chassis.

Russian light arty systems, BTW (gotta love ability to fire 360°)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/2a6t.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/m-389.htm

The second has a weight of 1300kg. XM77 weight is over 4000kg. Hard choice isnt it?

k the forum devoured this last time I tried to post:
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/blindobedience.htm

Nice link on both why the US army sucks and why we should use MT-LB with a better engine as our chassis.

Russian light arty systems, BTW (gotta love ability to fire 360°)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/2a6t.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/m-389.htm

The second has a weight of 1300kg. XM77 weight is over 4000kg. Hard choice isnt it?
Note the range on that 1300kg gun. I get the distinct impression that a great deal of weight savings came from a shorter-than-average barrel, and many 105mm guns can do better. The gun we have right now has twice that range.

Ever heard of rocket-assisted rounds?

We could always give it a longer barrel (albeit bringing the weight up.... oh well) and keep the 360° fire ability.

DT the warsaw vehicle is up to you pretty well. I know little about the vehicle and what kind of armor or whatever you would want. If you want the same armor as the western then its likely gonna weigh a lot more than the western vehicle. The MT-LB is over twice as long as the M113. So either you choose a smaller vehicle or redesign the armor (a lot less protective). Its up to you man.

Yeah it also has a lower profile, and fits into a Mi-26 (my only requirement). But hey we can take off the armor and make it unprotected.. as it is it only protects against 7,62mm rounds.

A little "western engineering" (just kidding) would give it up to .50 cal AP protection without increasing weight. Problem is: we've still got to add on a 155mm gun onto it. Problem also is: even without increasing weight and not including the gun's weight it is over 12 tonnes. So we'd have to strip most all of her (we might be able to add a small bit of armor to the crew's area but only enough for taking 7.62mm non-AP rounds at the most). For best fit into a Mi-26 you'll want to make the gun have a low elevation option and not too long a gun. Well once you decide on the armor and designate a good weight I'll figure out the power to weight ratio and give it a speed (if you tell me how much horse power you'll have on its engine).

arty systems dont need too much armor IMO.

So decide DT. Hurry up man. How much armor? How much weight? Keep in mind as Russia would (just kidding) that this will likely be for export?

Screw the armor, only reason for it I can think of is to protect from shrapnel during counter-battery fire. If they get blown to bits by enemy stormtroops: Dont send your paratroops against a well equipped army next time!

Weight:
Well, however much your gun weighs (lets say 3,500 kg, its buried somewhere on page 4 or something), plus somehting like 9 tons for our stripped down MT-LB.

Weight:
Well, however much your gun weighs (lets say 3,500 kg, its buried somewhere on page 4 or something), plus somehting like 9 tons for our stripped down MT-LB.

Given the full weight MT-LB is 11 tons or so, stripping all topside armour so it's down to a flatdeck transporter would be more like 6.5 ton for the stripped MT-LB
The armour would be more than 2 tons, so you're losing more than two tons taking it off.

I was being too modest eh? :oops:

Is the warsaw pact vehicle cancelled. Lets post the guns. Lets get some pics too.

How about these?

Heavy Truck-mounted unit
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar4.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar6.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/caesar7.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/images/Caesar_11.jpg

Light Truck-mounted unit
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/fh77bgun.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/fh77bfr.jpg
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-82613/army/thumbs/fh77ad_2.gif
http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-82613/army/thumbs/fh77ad_1.gif

Heavy TH
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/trf1_cat1g.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/trf1_cat3g.jpg
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Bremse/FH-70.jpg

Light TH
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/images/ufh1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ufh/images/ufh4.jpg

Like the towed pics. The trucks go either way (either could be lighter). I've been quite precoccupied a bit recently but I'll see if I can come up with a tracked pic. On a side note you can't go wrong with line drawings either since they're so easy to edit on PSP. On another side note I don't have PSP and I'm not very good with it (so that's just as well).

Holy Shid. I've got a lot of projects all due at nearly the same time so I'll try to come up with specs by Thursday.

If you find some line drawings just email them to me and I'll do the alterations. I'm a pretty fair Faker.

insane_at_large@hotmail.com

Man I'm lazy. I want to get some line drawings of an M113, a gun (like the one on the Mk F3), and maybe some Rascal pics to put the rounds on the side of her. Maybe we can get a thread up within the next month or so. Man I'm lazy.

http://www.freewebs.com/myimagesforme/
Theres the link to the western sp artillery and here's the pic
http://www.freewebs.com/myimagesforme/
I'll TG you some time to make sure you get it and I'll try to come up with the full specs maybe (they're all on the thread anyway).

DAMN!