Historical, Alternate History, Modern Era or Future Tech, Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment and Tactics

Thanks for the quick reply. Sounds good for what I have planned with the story.

What happens when the people in the story realize the error with the armor and start making a variant where the discs are stitched in place? Could we get a situation where the second generation of the armor starts to survive triple round burst from these shotgun shells (if that sounds like a huge amount of recoil the weapon doing the shooting has to be set up like a heavy machine gun)? What if titanium is introduced into the back of each scale? The thickness would be roughly the same as the amount of steel at the back of the vests currently used by the IOTV. I'm guessing that even if the armor survives the people wearing it would be quite badly hurt.

edited 3rd Aug '17 6:33:54 AM by zepv

Bel; There is actually good reason to believe that never happened. Repeated tests by 3rd parties have consistently contradicted that claim, later 6 year certification tests were all successful, and the fact the armor contract program was literally overseen by their competitions leadership and some of the military involved wound up working with some of the companies after the fact. They barred the armies actual trained engineer and testing expert on body armor design and testing from the test Dragon Skin was supposedly penetrated in. When he objected to being excluded from the test he was fired by request of John Norwood a Colonel who upon retiring went to work for Interceptor the competition. There were several 3rd party investigations after the fact that found the claims made the armor failed in the manner described as questionable at best. It got even worse when the competitive armor, Interceptor, was discovered to have lead to the death and injury of numerous service members due to several overt design flaws that were somehow "over looked" during testing and the armor platform was dropped and replaced. The US Marines led that charge. There is more but it would literally turn into an essay about the piles of evidence and how it ties into corrupt acquisition programs and pet politicians bought off by corporate lobbying.

As for penetration by slugs, not likely from a direct hit. The disks are ceramic and titanium and are pretty tough even individually. Other vests can stop a slug without the fancy kit or high end hard plate inserts but by all accounts the experience is distinctly unpleasant. A hit would likely slow the person down and knock the wind out of them, possibly break some ribs, cause some serious shallow tissue tearing and bruising , and in general be a bad day. A shot from under would have to be at a very steep angle unlikely to be encountered outside of someone getting on top of the armored person and angling the gun in such a way. It would have a good chance of working but you could also jam the barrel under the edge of vest, which would work for all vests, and injure or kill them that way.

Dragon Skin and many other armors by design also only cover the torso and require additional armor pieces to protect limbs, neck, face, and head. You can see an example of that in "Gunner Armor" used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Increasingly shooters who are trained to deal with armored opponents do so by shooting limbs, the pelvic cradle, or the head/neck region to take out or disable the threat. There is the now famous Mozambique or Failure Drill. Which is two quick shots to center mass which can stagger or stun a target followed up by a quick aimed center of the head-head shot. It was created specifically to deal with body armor wearing opponents or individuals who may be harder to put down than expected due to unforeseen circumstances.

In my timeline we're got two instances where somebody does something stupid under stress.

In the first someone faced with no alternative and who is in rather a zany situation tries using Chinese paper armor against an enemy wielding an M16 rifle. Of course this ends badly but roughly how badly would this end?

A WW 2 era naval group in their base is surrounded and needs to make a break for freedom or starve to death. They have intelligence that when they do so the enemy will come after them primarily with aircraft as the defenders have no aircraft or anti aircraft ships (such as the Atlanta-Class Cruiser). All they have are 3 dreadnoughts. Out of desperation and a desire to at least take as many enemies as they can with them, they modify some shells for the dreadnought's main cannons into air burst shells for use against the oncoming aircraft (there just so happens to be the parts and expertise available). How badly would this end? Would the dreadnoughts be able to kill any of the oncoming aircraft with their modified shells?

edited 21st Aug '17 6:12:55 AM by zepv

The paper armor might actually work if only for a shot or a two though only with the common ball ammo. I have doubts against Green tip, Steel Tip, or Black Tip AP.

When it does fail though. AP ammo going through. Non-AP going through might break up or fragment inside the target dragging bits of armor and carrier into the victim.

The air burst big shells were tried against aircraft in WWII. They really weren't all that effective at all. They have tagged a couple planes in a lucky burst but overall not very effective. If they manage a hit with the burst, anything on the outer edges would be like getting shredded by flak. Anything closer to the center would likely be pulverized. The larger caliber AA guns could knock whole wing sections off of large aircraft with a single hit. For the sake of argument lets say your hypothetical big gun lands a hit. It might look like this.

edited 21st Aug '17 9:44:15 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Would a cannon chariot ever be practical? It would have to be smaller than some field guns seen during the American Civil war but even a small cannon can out range an infantryman. They could be used for harassment, attacking infantry from outside their effective range.

Zepv: Well at various points in history there horse drawn wagons mounting things like swivel guns and similar artillery pieces drawn by a team of horses. Then there is traditional horse drawn artillery. There are even guns mounted on camels via a saddle. Though horses are usually detached and backed up from guns.

Let's assume that due to technological advances grenades are able to be created with progressively greater yields. How large can the blast radius of hand tossed grenades get before they become impractical?

That depends on how far you can throw it. As long as you can possibly throw it far enough and it isn't too bulky it could be useful. Though there are other considerations.

Like considering the general difference in frag grenades as offensive vs defensive.

Defensive hand grenades are grenades meant to be used from cover and tend to have very large areas of effect. The offensive grenades are typically smaller and lighter with smaller areas of affect allowing a lot more to be carried and used in say assaulting buildings and bunkers without endangering their users overly much.

I've heard that Russia in investing in a Battalion orientated around fighting with Technicals. They are supposed to be effective in places with low troop densities and open terrain.

I've got a setting in which there is a war between nations on an alternate Australian landmass. It takes place west of the Great Dividing Range and Blue Mountains. Would it be plausible for the factions to create armies dominated by Humvee like vehicles and technicals? The main anti tank duties could be done by Humvees with anti tank missiles. They could be supported by Humvees with mounted heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers. Technicals could be mounted with other weapons that couldn't be mounted on a Humvee such as mortars, automatic canons and multiple rocket launchers. APCs would be the heaviest armored vehicle used. Towed Howitzers would be included.

This takes place in a Schizo tech 1940's so there's weapons such as guided anti tank missiles that can be mounted on a Humvee and modern Chobham Armor but planes are still what you'd expect from the 1940's.

Where else could such warfare work (other than the Middle East, North Africa and East Africa)? Could they be involved in a war in North America (perhaps the great plains)?

edited 8th Sep '17 2:12:33 AM by zepv

Those types of vehicles really work best in areas with open spaces in general. Plains land, deserts, and even tundra would be good places for those vehicles. They should be decent in hilly terrain as well given they are generally meant for off-roading. Even the US has vehicles like this kicking around. The US is basically looking at laying hands on similar vehicles and has done so in the past in a less formal manner.

Thanks for that.

If you're running against a time limit and need to take a large, heavily forested, sparsely populated and defended region would this type of army still work?

One scenario involves Russia collapsing and a state based in Kamchatka attempting to grab as much of Siberia as possible. There's a new power rising in Eastern Europe from the fragments of old Russia so the Kamchatkan state wants to grab as much of Siberia while it still can before the new power can conquer it. The isolated Slavic colonists in Siberia can't put up too much of a fight. Too little population and too small an industrial capacity. They are also divided into more than 25 different states. How might the Humvee army fare against the more conventional armies of the Russian Siberian colonists?

The other scenario is in Canada and Alaska. They use the cheap army from before to overrun the sparsely populated Alaska (no USA or Canada in this timeline), then move onto the Great Plains through Alberta. The population of the region we'd know as Canada is roughly the same as OTL 1940's but is divided into two states (one east of and including OTL Nunavut and Saskatchewan and the other west of this). How might the army fare here? After the campaigns in Siberia would it be better to take the time to convert their army back into a more conventional army or just use the one they have?

edited 9th Sep '17 1:33:21 AM by zepv

The army might be highly mobile. It could cover the large distances required across Canada much quicker than a conventional army. The masses of thick Taiga forest might present an obstacle though.

Densely forested regions are notoriously unfriendly to vehicles. They provide both cover and concealment for your enemies and offer a lot of different ambush opportunities. Not as bad say fighting in towns or cities but still constraining enough to be difficult. Also in the winter time in those more northern regions your going to need something with broader off road capabilities as the snows can easily obstruct even the larger 4 x 4 trucks and the harsh cold makes it difficult to operate.

Right, good point.

What military composition would you recommend for the Siberian and Canadian campaigns?

Most winter traversal in regions like that tend to use specialized systems or heavily rely on lighter weight tracked vehicles. There are also relatively cheap bolt on modifications these days that are basically tire mounted tracks. A quick and simple commercial example would be the Track N Go. Some parts of Alaska for example are only accessible via air, boat, or hover craft which is the specialized transportation. There is no practical way to build a road through the region in question because of marshy terrain and its remote locations. Vehicles with very large tires to give high surface area are also sometimes used.

When traversing a forest your engineering units will be a huge benefit in creating high traffic military roads. That includes carving paths with bulldozers, laying down road surfaces, clearing obstructions etc. The only fast way to traverse a forest is one that has a path beaten through it already. If you need to make a hasty passage your going to have contend with irregular routes and needing to change directions to circumvent obstacles.

There are large portions of heavily forested areas through out Alaska and Canada and around the mountain ranges you would have to pass through so basically be prepared to slog through the woods.

edited 9th Sep '17 7:13:58 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Alright, that seems pretty comprehensive for the campaign in the north. A hard fought slog with the composition you mentioned.

How about battles in South East Asia? What would the optimal force be to fight there? I would assume a strong navy would be key. Given the distances between islands swarms of torpedo or missile boats could be useful. For ground operations what would we use? An army focusing heavily in infantry supported by medium tanks and artillery?

edited 9th Sep '17 9:27:39 PM by zepv

Does your setting have helicopters? Those would be useful to quickly ferry troops and supplies across difficult terrain. The limited road and rail system will be a bottleneck for troop movements, and the mountainous◊ terrain will play merry hell with logistics. Assuming your combatants are all fully motorised, you'll want to give them a lot of durable, fuel-efficient light off-road vehicles - which means that Technicals get to hit the road again, yay!

On that note, consider the role of bicycles, motorcycles and ATVs. The Japanese Army historically rolled up British resistance in Malaya by using bicycle troops to storm across jungle roads. And today, practically every single person in the region owns a scooter. You can have roving commandos and scout-sniper teams on bikes, riding across a hilly front to carry out recce missions and ambushes, maybe even carrying light missiles like the ERYX. On top of that, you'll see a lot of troops commandeering civilian bikes (and cars, and buses...) behind the frontline to free up proper military vehicles.

That said, the light vehicles can only do so much. Trucks will still form the backbone of your armies, since you'll need them to carry reinforcements and tow artillery weapons to the highlands where they'll be useful. Again, hardy and compact models are preferable, so beasts like the American HEMTT will be restricted to the lowlands.

Armour is obviously essential, but their use will be heavily dictated by terrain. Contrary to what Vietnam War movies think, there are stretches of lowland◊ plains◊ and highways◊ in Southeast Asia. These tend to be pretty narrow, however, and you can expect every inch to be marked for an artillery strike. For most parts, you won't be carrying out clever flanking and envelopment maneuvers like in the Australian mainland, or the historical North Africa and Eastern Front campaigns. Your armies will have to force their way through every city and major road. So - main battle tanks are useful for leading the main armoured spearhead through highways and urban outskirts, but they'll wreck smaller bridges and rural roads, clogging up your whole advance. Plus, they'll be deathly vulnerable in anything resembling constricted terrain. If you have close-combat vehicles with tank-level armour like the Russian BMPT, have them accompany the tanks - otherwise, use autocannon-armed IFVs to guard against ambushes. These IFVs, along with other forms of light armour, will likely be your main form of mobile firepower outside of major roads. In all cases, motorcycle and Technical-borne infantry will be invaluable to scout their routes and spot enemy ambushes, as well as covering the terrain that your armour can't reach.

Once the fighting enters city◊ limits◊, foot infantry will obviously take the lead. Do note that the urban landscape can vary widely, even within the same◊ district.

Another important element: amphibious forces. The region is chock full of complex river systems - think the Irrawaddy, Chao Phraya and the Mekong. Large bridges are few and likely to be defended, and the sheer extent of immersion creates a lot of loose alluvial soil that heavy vehicles will struggle with. When fighting in the wetlands (which easily makes up most of the region's lowlands), your Amtracks and AAVs will be king. Having a lot of troops in amphibious carriers allows you to cross rivers without seizing a bridge or waiting for an engineering unit, which is a serious advantage. Thin-skinned amphibious "trucks" like the DUKW or LARC-V can ferry supplies without getting bottlenecked at bridges. If you have light amphibious tanks, this is where they'll truly shine - an armoured flanking attack may catch the enemy forces defending a bridge off-guard, allowing your heavy armour to roll through. There's a reason they're still popular among Southeast Asian armies to this day.

Naval warfare is tricky, but essential. The fight may be decided in the sea long before the armies encounter each other on land. Torpedo boats are definitely useful for coastal patrol, but probably less so for offensive actions - I can't imagine a competent modern navy getting caught off-guard by a torpedo boat attack. There's some space for large fleet actions in the South China and Andaman Seas, but once you get into the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos, the fighting will be a lot more littoral/green-water in nature. Also, watch out for air attacks from land bases, since your radars are less effective and you won't have much room for maneuver. Once you've gotten rid of the enemy navy, though, you pretty much have a free rein over the whole theatre :P

edited 10th Sep '17 4:47:53 AM by eagleoftheninth

This thread's title is about vehicles so I may as well include it here.

I'm going with an Alternate History and considering trying to change things for General Motors in this scenario, but how to work with Alternate History for this sort of subject matter is the main issue here - it's more like For Want Of A Nail.

The timeline starts around 1994, and Canadian-only brand Asuna doesn't get axed unlike in Real Life, but becomes its own individual brand that's different from Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Geo, GMC, Holden, Opel, Pontiac, Saturn or Vauxhall. In short, it's trying to sell on individuality, not badge-engineering (although there is some Early-Installment Weirdness during the 1990s).

They also expand to the U.S., Mexico and Europe as GM's "style" brand.

In this scenario, the 2007-2013 Great Recession didn't happen, and Saturn and Pontiac didn't get deep-sixed, nor was there a bankruptcy of General Motors.

I'm writing some articles as an In-Universe news piece, how should I change the history to make it seem "realistic" using the Sliding Scale of Alternate History Plausibility?

edited 13th Sep '17 3:11:48 PM by Merseyuser1

In Authority Equals Asskicking settings where one has characters like The Emperor or Vader or Frieza around, how would you use them in armed conflict. (Or I suppose, with them being rulers or the dragon, how would they sensibly deploy themselves?)

Or is still nonsensical to use them anywhere but behind a desk?

edited 9th Oct '17 4:46:25 PM by CenturyEye

Merse - why didn't the Recession happen?

Century - In-field motivation.

Challenging the enemy commanders to a fight.

In the cases of some of those examples they are forces of destruction unto themselves and capable of cutting vast swathes through the enemy. In WH 40k leader units are pretty devastating and powerful. Vader is well, Vader. Frieza can destroy a planet all alone.

If you are talking that kind of power levels in your leaders most of those give a good reason to field them for their abilities alone.

In more traditional history it was often one of the responsibilities of a leader to take the field or at least be able to fight or have proven they can.

Roughly how high a fire rate would a gun firing .22 LR ammunition be able to achieve before its ammunition didn't have the power to load the next round?

Could a gun such as the American 180 be invented as early as the 1910s? Although the gun itself wouldn't exist for a few decades a full auto pistol was created in limited amounts in 1916. Perhaps in an alternate timeline the tools and capabilities used to create such a weapon could be used for an American 180 like weapon?

Assuming up to that point most of technological development was the same in the timeline how long would the weapon, with its small caliber remain useful on the battlefield?

edited 26th Dec '17 6:04:18 PM by zepv

The problem with the .22 is lack of range compared to the .30 cal sized ammo they were using in those days. It might have been useful as an early model SMG.

The 22 .LR is a fairly weak round and has a very short effective range. It really is just plinking and small game round. Sure you can kill with it but your chances are a lot better if you something with more mass and muzzle velocity.

You could just look to existing weapon systems and crib a rough design description from them. Such as the various light machine guns. There were several magazine fed and pan fed versions. Fully automatic weapons existed as early as 1886 in the now historically famous Maxim Gun. There was a Swiss design that intended to use black powder but fouling sank it as a viable option until it's design was altered to fire smokeless powered in the 1907. The machine pistols, select fire capable hand guns, more or less used principals already developed in their creation and conversions. One of the earliest rifle/carbine designs the Cei-Rigotti which reportedly came about around 1900's. It was plagued with design flaws and used ammo way to powerful for its design.

So using say something akin to pistol ammo you get the MP-18 possibly 10-15 years early. It is plausible given the MP-18 which is considered the first purpose built SMG used a open bolt blow back action. That particular design is fairly simple in the big picture. It uses recoil forces to cycle the action which simplifies a lot of things.

edited 26th Dec '17 6:59:47 PM by TuefelHundenIV