Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

:geno: Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

While making my rounds on the internet this morning, I came across a very interesting Cold War spy game. Might be the most realistic espionage game I've ever played.


Goddamn the Onion is in a golden age right now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ArchangeI
Jul 15, 2010

Koesj posted:

Khmers rouges, the only sufficiently revolutionary movement ever to have existed.

I think you mean revolting movement. They were very revolting.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

PittTheElder posted:

While making my rounds on the internet this morning, I came across a very interesting Cold War spy game. Might be the most realistic espionage game I've ever played.


Goddamn the Onion is in a golden age right now.

I became an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant and part-time electrician. That game is amazing.

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

I was reading a different forum, and some guys were cumming all over the place about the MSTA-S SPG's rate of fire compared to the M109's. The M109's is slower, so thus the M109 sucks dick etc etc.

It made me wonder though how important pure RoF is nowadays for gun artillery. Is the Paladin's rate of fire a hindrance in actual field use? Or are most fire missions executed with enough guns/short enough duration that it doesnt really matter.

There are several European programs that can get the Paladin's RoF way up, but the US just seems sort of content at firing slowly but with more a quicker reaction when called upon as the vehicle is upgraded progressively.

Throatwarbler
Nov 17, 2008

by vyelkin
I think the barrel would wear a lot more quickly if you tried to raise the RoF.

Bacarruda
Mar 30, 2011

Mutiny!?! More like "reinterpreted orders"

Dandywalken posted:

I was reading a different forum, and some guys were cumming all over the place about the MSTA-S SPG's rate of fire compared to the M109's. The M109's is slower, so thus the M109 sucks dick etc etc.

It made me wonder though how important pure RoF is nowadays for gun artillery. Is the Paladin's rate of fire a hindrance in actual field use? Or are most fire missions executed with enough guns/short enough duration that it doesnt really matter.

There are several European programs that can get the Paladin's RoF way up, but the US just seems sort of content at firing slowly but with more a quicker reaction when called upon as the vehicle is upgraded progressively.

The US has made a big push towards deploying guided artillery munitions like Excalibur or the M712 Copperhea. Rate of fire (and thus volume of fire) is still important, but being able to get first or second round hits at long ranges mitigates the need to just saturate a target with heavy fire.

bewbies would be the best person to ask about this.

Scratch Monkey
Oct 25, 2010

👰Proč bychom se netěšili🥰když nám Pán Bůh🙌🏻zdraví dá💪?
I went to a WWII themed show at a public park yesterday. There were lots of guys in those "Veteran" hats, mostly Korea and Vietnam at this point, but I also saw a guy in a "Cold War Veteran" hat. That was a new one to me

Arishtat
Jan 2, 2011

Dandywalken posted:

I was reading a different forum, and some guys were cumming all over the place about the MSTA-S SPG's rate of fire compared to the M109's. The M109's is slower, so thus the M109 sucks dick etc etc.

It made me wonder though how important pure RoF is nowadays for gun artillery. Is the Paladin's rate of fire a hindrance in actual field use? Or are most fire missions executed with enough guns/short enough duration that it doesnt really matter.

There are several European programs that can get the Paladin's RoF way up, but the US just seems sort of content at firing slowly but with more a quicker reaction when called upon as the vehicle is upgraded progressively.

Rate of fire is indeed an important attribute. But then so is set up and tear down time (so you're not there when the counter battery fire lands). However I would say that the guided rounds in the M109 give it a big edge on other SPGs simply because you have to fire far fewer rounds to knock out your target.

My experience was all from the observing and directing end of things and at the time (2003) the guided rounds were mostly (all?) M898 SADARMs which were used to kill armor, particularly in and around Karbala. What that actually means is that my crew and I sat parked facing three batteries of M109s providing overwatch in case the Fedayeen assholes decided to get frisky and come try to shoot at them while they did their artillery thing. The "observing and directing" thing was all probably done via UAV. No big deal because we got a front seat for a 3am fireworks show the likes of which I have never seen since. Oh did I mention that a half mile behind the tube artillery was the 3rd ID's MLRS battalion? Yeah.

Arishtat fucked around with this message at 13:56 on May 3, 2015

MrYenko
Jun 18, 2012

#2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Dandywalken posted:

I was reading a different forum, and some guys were cumming all over the place about the MSTA-S SPG's rate of fire compared to the M109's. The M109's is slower, so thus the M109 sucks dick etc etc.

It made me wonder though how important pure RoF is nowadays for gun artillery. Is the Paladin's rate of fire a hindrance in actual field use? Or are most fire missions executed with enough guns/short enough duration that it doesnt really matter.

There are several European programs that can get the Paladin's RoF way up, but the US just seems sort of content at firing slowly but with more a quicker reaction when called upon as the vehicle is upgraded progressively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcTUpvX8tQ

So good, we didn't even buy any. :colbert:

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE
if you can't get off one round every three seconds you're not even beating 60's tech
it had some downsides

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrYFUokLMmk&t=136s







e: This might be the thread and the time to mention that Bofors made an even crazier autocannon back in the 50's. A 12 cm towed AA gun that could fire 47 rounds in 40 seconds, which is pretty bananas considering each round weighs 35 kg.

When it was being developed in 1954, a lot of people doubted it'd be effective against modern aircraft, but the commander of the army didn't want to cancel it because "it is dangerous to go to war with antiquated weapons, but it is equally dangerous to go to war with weapons so modern that they do not yet exist". In other words it was intended as a hedge against missile technology turning out to be unworkable. In the end though that did not turn out to be the case and the single prototype gun was quietly stuffed into a barn somewhere. It was on the equipment list of a special AAA company until 1973, and it survives to this day at the air defense museum in Halmstad. Unfortunately it's not on display.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 3, 2015

B4Ctom1
Oct 5, 2003

OVERWORKED COCK
Slippery Tilde
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065726/Russian-nuclear-bombers-intrude-U-S-defense-airspace.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

The ADIZ extends beyond U.S. Territorial airspace so it's really "optional" if you don't intend to actually enter US airspace. See also China's Sea of Japan ADIZ.

B4Ctom1
Oct 5, 2003

OVERWORKED COCK
Slippery Tilde
Aviation related http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/A-crazy-photo-of-private-jets-flooding-the-Las-6238914.php

Kemper Boyd
Aug 6, 2007

no kings, no gods, no masters but a comfy chair and no socks

TheFluff posted:

When it was being developed in 1954, a lot of people doubted it'd be effective against modern aircraft, but the commander of the army didn't want to cancel it because "it is dangerous to go to war with antiquated weapons, but it is equally dangerous to go to war with weapons so modern that they do not yet exist". In other words it was intended as a hedge against missile technology turning out to be unworkable. In the end though that did not turn out to be the case and the single prototype gun was quietly stuffed into a barn somewhere. It was on the equipment list of a special AAA company until 1973, and it survives to this day at the air defense museum in Halmstad. Unfortunately it's not on display.

I had to check, and the same gun was later mounted on the two gunboats of the Finnish Navy, the Karjala and the [link]Turunmaa. The surviving one is now a museum at Forum Marinum in Turku, which I recommend for anyone visiting Turku.

My dad served on the Turunmaa for a while and absolutely hated it because it has got an open navigation deck up to and surprise, in the Baltic it means actually being posted on the navigation deck is utter rear end for most of the year.

bewbies
Sep 23, 2003

Fun Shoe

Dandywalken posted:

I was reading a different forum, and some guys were cumming all over the place about the MSTA-S SPG's rate of fire compared to the M109's. The M109's is slower, so thus the M109 sucks dick etc etc.

It made me wonder though how important pure RoF is nowadays for gun artillery. Is the Paladin's rate of fire a hindrance in actual field use? Or are most fire missions executed with enough guns/short enough duration that it doesnt really matter.

There are several European programs that can get the Paladin's RoF way up, but the US just seems sort of content at firing slowly but with more a quicker reaction when called upon as the vehicle is upgraded progressively.

ROF for a howitzer, especially max ROF, is pretty irrelevant. The three things that really matter for modern howitzers are 1) do you have PGMs and 2) how accurate is your target grid as sent to the gun, and 3) how quickly does your gun get said grid. The new PIM/A7 Paladin variant actually has a significantly reduced ROF compared to even the Vietnam era base model 109 (4 rpm vs 6 rpm). Mobility/survivability and whatnot are good things to have, but consider the US has bought nearly four times as many 777s (with their 2 rpm ROF) as they will A7s if you want to figure out where priorities are. Basically, precision is such a big thing that almost nothing else matters if you don't have it. I can get into the math if anyone cares, but a single gun firing Excalibur is around twice as effective versus typical targets as an entire battery of tubes shooting dumb rounds. Howitzers run out of ammunition in a big drat hurry, and being able to burn through said ammo more quickly isn't much of an advantage.

Regarding this MSTA-S argument, I would assume that, like ours, any Russian PGMs can't be autoloaded from a magazine, so the max theoretical ROF is even less relevant. You might also bring up that the Russian army almost certainly can't almost instantly digitially transfer a mensurated 10 digit grid to its guns.

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE
Why would you not be able to autoload PGM's? Our much-delayed, expensive and controversial Archer is Excalibur compatible and does not have any provisions for manual loading at all. We should probably just have kept our towed FH 77's instead but now we have to live with the boondoggle.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:42 on May 4, 2015

bewbies
Sep 23, 2003

Fun Shoe

TheFluff posted:

Why would you not be able to autoload PGM's? Our much-delayed, expensive and controversial Archer is Excalibur compatible and does not have any provisions for manual loading at all. We should probably just have kept our towed FH 77's instead but now we have to live with the boondoggle.

They're typically transported separate from the gun (they're kind of fragile) and require some preparation before they're used. The next increment will also make the guidance system "selectable" which will require the crew to put in the appropriate guidance mechanism prior to use. The other thing to consider is that PGM rounds are pretty expensive and pretty rare, and it isn't likely you'll be able to (or maybe even want to) stock a whole magazine with them. I'm not really familiar with the Archer but unless it has something like multiple magazines or the ability to load specially configured rounds separately then it is going to be kind of a pain to deal with.

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE
It uses two-piece ammunition (rounds and charges kept separately). You tell the computer what round is in what slot in the magazine when you load it up, and then you can fire them in (AFAIK) any order with any charge, so there's nothing stopping you from loading almost a full magazine of regular rounds with three or four PGM's mixed in somewhere. If you tell the gun to only fire regular rounds, it will. Of course this is nowhere near as fast as the simple system with one-piece ammunition used on the bandkanon back in the 60's, but you also don't have to reload the entire magazine if you want a different powder charge.

I see your point though and I don't know what the MSTA-S does.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 4, 2015

Groda
Mar 17, 2005

Hair Elf

TheFluff posted:

When it was being developed in 1954, a lot of people doubted it'd be effective against modern aircraft, but the commander of the army didn't want to cancel it because "it is dangerous to go to war with antiquated weapons, but it is equally dangerous to go to war with weapons so modern that they do not yet exist". In other words it was intended as a hedge against missile technology turning out to be unworkable. In the end though that did not turn out to be the case and the single prototype gun was quietly stuffed into a barn somewhere. It was on the equipment list of a special AAA company until 1973, and it survives to this day at the air defense museum in Halmstad. Unfortunately it's not on display.

Would you recommend that air defense museum?

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

Groda posted:

Would you recommend that air defense museum?

I haven't been there yet so I don't know!

Back Hack
Jan 17, 2010


Is weird that I'm getting bigger semi from artillery talk then airplane talk?

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Back Hack posted:

Is weird that I'm getting bigger semi from artillery talk then airplane talk?

Why not both?

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

Thanks for the info, bewbies! That more or less seems to explain things perfectly.

On another note, the Armata has been fully revealed.





APS supposedly is some sort of Quick-Kill analogue, in that the intercepting projectile/bomblet things maneuver into intercept positions. Supposedly effective versus top-attack munitions, rumor has it. Gun may be the new 2A82?

Tank is also immune to all Western tanks by virtue of farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttt

Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 4, 2015

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010

I am stupid
Listening to nationalist Russian teenagers prattle on about their Potemkin village army will never not be funny.

Back Hack
Jan 17, 2010


It looks like the first prototype T99 MBT, except it has an even bigger high profile turret. :psyduck:

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

Back Hack posted:

It looks like the first prototype T99 MBT, except it has an even bigger high profile turret. :psyduck:

Unmanned turret, supposedly. Idk, the tank looks good visually I think. But that loving new Russian emblem looks like something you'd find on a god drat Micromachine in the 90's, not a loving modern military emblem. Shits awful looking.

Arrath
Apr 14, 2011


Dandywalken posted:

Unmanned turret, supposedly. Idk, the tank looks good visually I think. But that loving new Russian emblem looks like something you'd find on a god drat Micromachine in the 90's, not a loving modern military emblem. Shits awful looking.

I thought unmanned turrets were, in part, to bring the size down so there was a smaller target.

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003

Isn't half the volume ERA or some poo poo?

Kafouille
Nov 5, 2004

Think Fast !
Given how low the gun looks to be on the turret there is probably a substantial thickness of something, probably ERA, on top of the whole turret yeah. Makes a lot of sense given the proliferation of top attack weapons. Still the thing looks like a bad sci-fi VISMOD on a T-72.

Also yeah the turret is unmanned, there are no hatches or periscopes on it and you can see a periscope on the center of the glacis that indicates there is another crewmember down there along with the 2 we can see.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

evil_bunnY posted:

Isn't half the volume ERA or some poo poo?

Oh please let that be true. I want to see one get hit by an EFP and watch the turret facings separate in six different directions like a reverse Voltron.

Communist Zombie
Nov 1, 2011

Scratch Monkey posted:

I went to a WWII themed show at a public park yesterday. There were lots of guys in those "Veteran" hats, mostly Korea and Vietnam at this point, but I also saw a guy in a "Cold War Veteran" hat. That was a new one to me

Well the DoD officially recognizes Cold War veterans, and several veteran organizations (and two state's national guard) also recognize/hand out Cold War Victory medals.

MrYenko
Jun 18, 2012

#2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

TheFluff posted:

It uses two-piece ammunition (rounds and charges kept separately). You tell the computer what round is in what slot in the magazine when you load it up, and then you can fire them in (AFAIK) any order with any charge, so there's nothing stopping you from loading almost a full magazine of regular rounds with three or four PGM's mixed in somewhere. If you tell the gun to only fire regular rounds, it will. Of course this is nowhere near as fast as the simple system with one-piece ammunition used on the bandkanon back in the 60's, but you also don't have to reload the entire magazine if you want a different powder charge.

IIRC, all NATO 155mm guns use inter-service compatible non-fixed (projectile and charge) ammunition.

PhotoKirk
Jul 2, 2007

insert witty text here

Back Hack posted:

It looks like the first prototype T99 MBT, except it has an even bigger high profile turret. :psyduck:

It's like a modern KV-2. :vince:

Mazz
Dec 12, 2012

Orion, this is Sperglord Actual.
Come on home.
Kinda curious how the crew layout and sighting works, and what all that extra goofy poo poo around the tank does, like those panels on the turret. Assuming they have something to do with the APS.

The APC and IFVs will be interesting to see as well.

Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 5, 2015

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006

Relatively small size of the turret probably means the ammo is still stored in either in the rear or bottom of the hull. Wonder if it'll still explode or cook the crew ala the T-64/72/80.


I appreciate that the response was to ignore them.

Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 5, 2015

xthetenth
Dec 30, 2012

Mario wasn't sure if this Jeb guy was a good influence on Yoshi.

I think it's rear autoloader and a separate compartment for the whole crew up front.

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010

I am stupid
I wonder how fast Bear pilots lose their hearing.

White Phosphorus
Sep 12, 2000

That's not a KV-2, this is a KV-2

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t95.htm

The T-14 looks ugly as hell. Just "wrong" somehow.

MrChips
Jun 10, 2005

FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first


Two thoughts; first, how many of those laser turret thingys are going to get fouled in stuff/broken off under low things? Second, there's three of those tanks in the picture...what percentage of the total production run do you think we're looking at? I'm going to say 25%

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kafouille
Nov 5, 2004

Think Fast !

MrChips posted:

Two thoughts; first, how many of those laser turret thingys are going to get fouled in stuff/broken off under low things? Second, there's three of those tanks in the picture...what percentage of the total production run do you think we're looking at? I'm going to say 25%

The sensor pod mounted on the turret roof is pretty much universal these days on MBTs. I'm guessing the panels on the turret are sensors for the APS, probably AESA radar. There are also a pair of obvious cameras on the edges. The thing looks wrong but i think that's mainly because we are used to tanks with manned turrets, if the hull is comparable to a T-72 that thing is tiny as hell.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5