0bf7bd99
From: AKWolffan@gmail.com
On 2017 Jan 02, Thomas Koenig wrote
(in article ):
> Wolffanschrieb:
> > German AFVs encountered severe problems due to mud in the autumn of 1942
and
> > snow in the winter of 1942. Older vehicles (PzKw III and IV, and any
> > vehicles
>
> I assume you mean 1941.
yep. my error.
>
>
> > basic vehicle: 5-10 tonne, six-eight wheels, armor good enough to stop
small
> > arms and machine gun to 15mm,
>
> I don't think you can do that within the mass limitation.
>
> Wikipedia tells me that there is a round for the 12.7 mm machine gun
> (Saboted Light Armor Penetrator) which can penetrate 19 mm of armor
> at 1500 yards (~ 1350 m). I will assume that this is at 90°.
> Sloped armor will give you less penetration, but you will need
> more than 20 mm to be safe from heavy MGs.
>
> So, at least 200 kg per square meter of armor.
>
> With the capabilities you describe, you are closer to 20 tons.
handwaveum armor, (‘creamic-iririum-steel foam sandwich, made in vacuum and
microgravity in low orbit, give protection against high-velocity projectiles
and armor-defeating explosives at the same time’) precisely to try to keep
the weight down. If the weight goes up too much, then there’ll be problems
with bridges, given the primitive roads. And with fords. And some rivers,
swamps, lakes might require that the vehicle swims, which means keeping it
light. Wading to 3-5 meters is doable. Wading more than 10 meters would be a
bad idea. Wading 50 meters or more is not going to happen.
>
>
> > Limited anti-vehicle/anti-personnel capability.
>
> A 20 mm gun will do that quite efficiently, I think.
depends on the vehicle and if the infantry is wearing body armor. Body armor
capable of standing up toto direct hits from a 20mm isn’t practical, but
stoping fragments and doing something about the concussion could be done. And
man-sized targets aren’t that easy to hit from a moving vehicle, especially
if those targets are evading and making proper use of cover and concealment.
>
>
> > Rifle-caliber machine gun co-axial with main armament. One/two additional
> > machine guns, hand operated, on external mounts.
>
> Not very good if you have to stick your head outside to fight.
there for the dismounts to use. by definition the dismounts aren’t behind
the the armor most of the time. that’s why the external guns can be
removed.
>
>
> > Crew of four: commander/main
> > armament gunner,
>
> The commander of the vehicle should not be the gunner. This is a lesson
> learned in WW2.
keep the crew down. he’d be mostly telling the computer ‘no, don’t
shoot there’ and ‘yes, anything in that area is a target’.
>
>
> > driver/tactical navigator,
>
> You need that, I agree.
>
> > electronic systems/air defence
> > operator (laser gunner),
>
> Really necessary? German tanks had a radio guy in WWII, but I
> think the laser systems should be automated. It is not possible
> to attack incoming anti-tank missiles with human reaction time.
electronic systems guy would be taking care of the computers, the radars and
other sensors, and the comms, particularly the satcomms. he’d authorize the
laser to fire on slower targets such as fixed installations, other vehicles,
infantry, UAVs, satellites. anti-missile would be automatic for the reaso you
state.
>
>
> > mechanical systems/loader.
>
> Not necessary for an auto-fired cannon.
someone’s gotta change magazines. And he’s there mostly to take care of
mechanical systems: the engine, the suspension, the weapons positions
>
>
> So, a crew of three: Commander, driver, gunner.
>
> > Four-six dismounts.
> > Dismounts operate the hand-held machine guns, which can be removed from the
> > external mounts.
>
> Depending on the threat scenario (do the other guys have APCs
> or tanks, too?) a squad with the functions of squad leader,
> machine gunner, sniper, RPG guy, radio operator (unless that is
> not needed due to miniaturized radios). If your main opposition
> is infantry, you might take one small-caliber machine gun (to be
> able to carry a lot of ammunition) and a large-caliber MG.
As I read it, the opposition is mostly infantry, with perhaps a few modified
civilian vehicles fitted with machine guns and light guns/rocket launchers
(the equivalent of a Carl Gustav, say). this means carrying a lot of
firepower and a really serious amount of ammo.
>
>
> Support from mortars should come from other APCs.
that’s why I spec a mortar vehicle.
>
>
> > A line platoon would
> > need five-seven, probably six.
>
> Nothing wrong with four armored fighting vehicles per company.
except you just cut your mobility and load-carrying capability. you’re
going to need the cannon on the vehicles. you’re going to need the anti-air
capability to suppress/destroy inbound rockets, mortars, etc. but mostly
you’re going to need the ammunition the vehicles can carry, and you’re
going to need the mobility that they give you. and the comms and computer
support they can provide, particularly if they fly UAVs off the scouts. The
UAVs don’t have to be armed; in fact a UAV big enough to carry enough
armament to matter would be way too big to haul around on a light vehicle,
they’d be brigade assets fling out of main base. No, any organic UAVs would
be fitted with cameras and other sensors, reporting back to the vehicle in
real time, the data being run through the on-board computers. This is one
reason why the crew would have to have a dedicated electronics systems guy.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
