The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes) [Archive] - Page 2

StainlessSteelCynic

03-10-2019, 07:18 PM

They announced they'd start doing them back in November or December, but AFAIK this was the first one (with the exception of a couple videos where English-language channels visited the Panzermuseum).

In theory, one can set up English subtitles (click CC, then click the gear, then Subtitles, then Autotranslate, then English), but Youtube is terrible at translating German to English. I've tried it with a couple videos, and it's bad.

Oh yeah, I've used the auto"translate" feature a few times and while sometimes it's a little annoying, other times it's completely nonsensical (and if you're lucky, maybe somewhat amusing, but mostly not!) And it's not just German to English that's badly done, I've had pretty much the same experience with Russian, Korean, French, Vietnamese and Chinese to English.

As for the Panzermuseum, that video on the Leopard was their first tank vid in English, the only other English language vids I've seen from them are messages saying "Hey we're going to be making videos in English" but 2019 should see a good number become available (given their posting rate is about one video per month for their German language vids).

Vespers War

05-23-2019, 09:22 PM

Ian's videos are still a great source of weird stuff, and today I saw for the first time his video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg0RdhFnTd0) on the SSK .950 rifle. Using shortened and necked-out 20mm Vulcan cases, it's effectively a 24.1x70mm centerfire round fired from an 85.1cm barrel. Only three of these rifles were made and ammunition is accordingly rare, but if you really need to reach out and touch a light armored vehicle, this is the rifle with which to do it. These rifles were built in 2006 and cost $4,000, with each round of ammunition priced at $40. No ammunition has been made since 2014.

SSK .950 JDJ
Wt 50.0 kg, SS, Dam 16, Pen 2-2-2, Blk 15, Mag 1i, Rcl 4 (7 without the 8.2 kg muzzle brake), Rng 278

The prototype has the following changes: Wt 23.0 kg, Rcl 5/8.

This is one of those situations where it might actually make more sense in Traveller as a marksman's rifle for powered armor troopers just because of the sheer mass of the rifle, even the prototype.

StainlessSteelCynic

05-24-2019, 07:43 PM

Although this is all just idle speculation on my part, I think there's a use for the SSK .950 in alternate T2k timelines, say 2030+ due to the potential for exo-skeletons becoming a possible military item as well as the possibility of greater use of armoured robots by the military.
The 12.7mm and 14.5mm anti-material rifles in current use might not be enough if exo-skeletons and robots get the benefit of more advanced types of armour. The obvious step would be to go up to 20mm but the .950 may well be just as suitable.

And there's a high likelihood of its use in Dark Conspiracy!

Legbreaker

05-24-2019, 10:37 PM

And there's a high likelihood of its use in Dark Conspiracy!

You mean the Storm Gun won't cut it? :o

StainlessSteelCynic

05-24-2019, 10:59 PM

You mean the Storm Gun won't cut it? :o
:D

As much as I like the idea of the Storm Gun for a big "boom stick", I really hated the image they made for it so I never much used it in any games I ran. I ditched it in favour of things like the 14.5mm anti-materiel rifles. Some time later I read about some of the attempts to make 20-25mm man-portable weapons like the PAW-20 and the Barrett XM109 and I used them instead.

In regards to the image they used, if you're going to draw up something based on the Barrett M82, why bother messing with all the other crap to make it look different and just make a 20mm version of the Barrett? If I was really pushed for an image for a fictional 20mm then I'd rather go with the Panther Assault Cannon from Shadowrun, it has a way better picture!

Vespers War

05-24-2019, 11:35 PM

One I just found enough information for after seeing it six months ago, the Winchester-Pugsley Anti-Tank Rifle (https://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-winchester-ww1-50-cal-antitank-rifle/), patented in 1919. It uses a 1911 pistol grip for both the trigger assembly and the bolt; rotating the pistol grip counter-clockwise and pulling back is how the bolt is drawn back. A 10-round box magazine feeds .50 BMG into the rifle, and the grip is pushed forward and rotated back down to lock the bolt. As Ian mentions, the only known survivor is cracked through the receiver, and I only have information on the barrel length and total length, so the weight is probably not accurate (according to the Cody Museum, it's "stupid heavy").

Winchester-Pugsley Anti-Tank Rifle (12.7x99mm)
Wt 19.76 kg, BA, Dam 8, Pen 2-3-4, Blk 11, Mag 10, Rcl 5, Rng 186

While it wouldn't be much today, it would be effective against most WW1 tanks at some range. Beutepanzer were more common than A7V, and the Mk IV was 2/1/1 for HF/HS/HR and the Mk V 3/2/2. The A7V would be immune to frontal shots, but the 5/2/3 armor would be vulnerable to flank shots.

StainlessSteelCynic

05-25-2019, 04:19 AM

Vespers War

05-25-2019, 03:49 PM

I have a question for you regarding the Winchester AT rifle, how did you determine the magazine was 10 rounds?
In the video Ian says "apparently five rounds" and he mentioned single stacked but that box looks plenty big to hold more than five rounds. Without the internals for the magazine it's impossibe to see if it was designed for single or double stacked but it also appears wide enough to be double stacked.
However he does mention that the early versions of the cartridge were rimmed and the design was built around that rimmed cartridge so I'm wondering if there's some confusion on his part because of that?

The few websites I checked that had any details all state 10 round but aside from Historical Firearms site, none had any reference sources so I'm also wondering if you got access to better info that what's on the web? From what you wrote it sounds like you made inquiries at the Cody Museum?

Regardless of all that, thanks for bringing another obscure piece of kit to our attention :)

No, no better sources. I used Gun Wiki for as much as possible, and the Cody Museum's collections page for the rifle (https://collections.centerofthewest.org/treasures/view/firearm_rifle_winchester_repeating_arms_company_ne w_haven_ct_1918_prototy) lists the barrel length and overall length, which were the key bits of data I didn't already have. If I was doing something more professional, I would inquire regarding the weight, but I'm happy enough with the ballpark figure that FF&S kicks out to not feel the need to take up museum staff time.

With regards to the ammo, I agree with the general consensus that the magazine looks too large to only hold five rounds, especially for a gravity-feed that doesn't have extensive springs.

Vespers War

05-25-2019, 05:22 PM

One more because I'm bored - the Cei-Rigotti automatic rifle of the late 1890s.

Allegedly chambered for 6.5mm Carcano, all the surviving rifles are in 7.65mm Argentine Mauser. Rifles were equipped with 10, 20, or 50 round fixed magazines fed by 5-round stripper clips; the rifle has to be partially disassembled to change the magazine. Its relative lightness would probably make it difficult to control under automatic fire, as indicated by the recoil rating. The gun had some tendency to overheat, as it seized during a test after firing 300 rounds on full automatic.

Cei-Rigotti 7.65mm Automatic Rifle
Wt 4.3 kg, ROF 5, Dam 4, Pen 2-3-Nil, Blk 7, Mag 10c5/20c5/50c5, Rcl 4/10, Rng 73

The "c5" for the Mag entry designates that a 5 round clip can be loaded for each action used to reload the gun.

If there was a 6.5mm Carcano version, it would have the following changes to its statistics:
Dam 3, Pen 2-Nil, Rcl 3/7, Rng 63

Honestly, the Carcano version isn't a half-bad automatic weapon for the early 20th century. The recoil's a bit high for a shoulder-fired weapon and I can see why it wasn't accepted during the era of the Cult of Slow Accurate Long Range Marksmanship, but for trench warfare (either attacking or defending), it would have been extremely useful.

pmulcahy11b

05-30-2019, 10:40 PM

You mean the Storm Gun won't cut it? :o

And what about the Splat Gun? (from an issue of Space Gamer, for Traveler) It's an 8-chamber grenade launcher (can't remember what caliber) that fires one chamber at a time -- or all once, in a tight group...

StainlessSteelCynic

06-01-2019, 08:44 PM

@ Vespers War.
Here's one that may interest you (assuming you don't already know about it!), the Faucon Fusil Équilibré or in English, the Faucon Balanced Rifle.
https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/136635613428/faucon-balanced-rifle-lieutenant-colonel
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/culture/early-bullpup-rifle-designs/

Brief mentions in these articles: -
https://armourersbench.com/tag/francis-bannerman/
https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1822

And just to pique people's interests, a picture of the beastie in question...
https://66.media.tumblr.com/6593529054d59bfc67c7942c36962956/tumblr_o08mvfTfNG1s57vgxo1_1280.jpg

Vespers War

06-02-2019, 08:06 AM

I hadn't seen the Faucon before, so thanks for posting it. Assuming it is using a 6.5mm round, then the statistics are:

Wt 5.5 kg, SA, Dam 3, Pen 2-Nil, Blk 7, Mag 6(c)6, SS 4, Rng 93.

According to the 1910/11 patent (filed 1910, issued 1911), the barrel was 120 calibers in length (my French is just good enough to glean that), so the bullet diameter matters for calculating the barrel length.

Unsurprisingly for an early bullpup, it had issues with the trigger system when tested after the war.

For logistical reasons, this was never going to win out over an RSC using 8mm Lebel. An RSC 1918 was .7 kilos lighter and had the same range, bulk, and recoil, with a more powerful cartridge out of a shorter barrel and similar overall length, and only 1 less round per clip. If the Faucon could get at least two out of the three of lighter weight, a 10-round capacity, and using 8mm Lebel, it might have had some chance of adoption if it was also made mechanically reliable.

copeab

06-03-2019, 04:09 AM

For logistical reasons, this was never going to win out over an RSC using 8mm Lebel. An RSC 1918 was .7 kilos lighter and had the same range, bulk, and recoil, with a more powerful cartridge out of a shorter barrel and similar overall length, and only 1 less round per clip. If the Faucon could get at least two out of the three of lighter weight, a 10-round capacity, and using 8mm Lebel, it might have had some chance of adoption if it was also made mechanically reliable.

The 8mm Lebel was an obsolete cartridge based on the old 11mm Gras black powder cartridge. It was rimmed with a severe taper, making it a poor choice for self-loading weapons (look at the magazine of the Chauchat).

Vespers War

06-03-2019, 06:14 PM

The 8mm Lebel was an obsolete cartridge based on the old 11mm Gras black powder cartridge. It was rimmed with a severe taper, making it a poor choice for self-loading weapons (look at the magazine of the Chauchat).

8mm Lebel didn't start being replaced until 1936, and was only slightly more obsolete than .303 British (which was also a rimmed cartridge converted from black powder to smokeless that didn't work well in self-loading actions). The taper wasn't an issue if ammunition capacities were kept reasonable (by contemporary standards, not modern ones). The RSC 1918 used the same Mle 16 5-round en bloc clip as late bolt-action Berthier rifles. During the Occupation, they were used by Vichy and Volksturm troops under the name Selbstlade-Gewehr 310(f).

copeab

06-03-2019, 11:25 PM

8mm Lebel didn't start being replaced until 1936, and was only slightly more obsolete than .303 British (which was also a rimmed cartridge converted from black powder to smokeless that didn't work well in self-loading actions).

The French started replacing 8mm Lebel in machine guns in the mid 1920's with a new 7.5mm round that worked much better in autoloading weapons.

The Bren had a larger magazine than the Chauchat but wasn't nearly as curved, a clear indication the .303 wasn't nearly as obsolete as the 8mm.

I know the flaws of the cartridge (and the Lebel rifle) weren't the fault of the French designers; they were given an incredibly short amount of time to come up with a working rifle (as it was feared that if development took too long, France would quickly lose it's edge of smokeless powder). It only gained them a few years, as in 1889 the superior Mauser rifle was released.

StainlessSteelCynic

06-04-2019, 04:53 AM

I think the British did view the .303 as obsolete but with the size of the British Empire at the time, they probably considered it far too expensive to change plus there was still the concept of single, well-aimed shots and the ability of most British soldiers to lay down a decent amount of fire from their SMLEs, (plus it was quite robust, able to take a lot of abuse, so why change something that works and works well)
I think they believed the financial cost probably wasn't worth the effort when they felt there wasn't any imminent need to change.

Vespers War

06-07-2019, 06:03 PM

And now for something completely different - a vehicle, rather than a weapon.

Before the Great War and before Henry Ford pinched every penny he could on the cost of the Model T, automobiles were expensive things. A number of inventors, hobbyists, and industrialists had the idea of combining a motorcycle engine with a light (and cheap) chassis and frame to create a contraption known as a cyclecar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecar). One of these was the 1914 O-We-Go (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-We-Go), manufactured (appropriately enough) in Owego, New York, and sold for $385. With a top speed around 50 miles per hour, a 4 gallon tank of gasoline, and a range of roughly 45 miles per gallon, it was a potentially useful cheap vehicle. Estimated production during the company's one year of existence is 300 vehicles. One example survives today in a museum.

O-We-Go Cyclecar
10 hp V-2 engine
Fuel Type G
Load 150 kg, Veh Wt 276 kg, Crew 1+1, Mnt 1, Night Vision None, Radiological Open

Tr Mov 164/17, Com Mov 38/4, Fuel Cap 15, Fuel Cons 8, Config Stnd, Susp W(1), HF0, HS0, HR0

pmulcahy11b

06-09-2019, 09:57 AM

Before the Great War and before Henry Ford pinched every penny he could on the cost of the Model T, automobiles were expensive things. A number of inventors, hobbyists, and industrialists had the idea of combining a motorcycle engine with a light (and cheap) chassis and frame to create a contraption known as a cyclecar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclecar).

Oh good god, I'm not even going to bother with that one...

Vespers War

06-09-2019, 10:55 PM

Oh good god, I'm not even going to bother with that one...

It sort of made sense at the time, since some jurisdictions taxed vehicles based on horsepower. Illinois and Georgia did so in the US (and IIRC Missouri still does), and most of Europe had some sort of horsepower-based tax, so a small car with a very low-powered engine was economical. It also drove oddities in engine design, because the calculated horsepower was based on bore size, but stroke length didn't matter. That incentivized small-bore, long-stroke engines, which tend to run at low RPM and have high torque and low power for their displacement.

A fair number of early British cars will have their taxable horsepower and actual horsepower in their name - the Talbot 14/45 was taxed at 14 horsepower, but the engine delivered 45 horsepower, while Alvis had a 12/50 that did well in racing and MG developed the long-stroke engine all the way to an 18/80. If the Model T had had a similar name, it would have been a Ford 22/20, equaled in actual power by the lower-taxed Triumph 10/20.

Most cyclecar manufacturers lasted only a handful of years (something true of a lot of Brass Era car makers), but there were a few marques that stuck around either on their own or by being acquired, such as Frazer Nash, AC Cars Ltd, and Scripps-Booth (which was acquired by Chevrolet early in that marque's history).

cawest

06-17-2019, 06:45 PM

How about the F-18L I cut his from a wiki page

From a strict technical point of view the F-18L (the Northrop version) was the better aircraft for the NFA project, with performance roughly equal to the F-16, Sparrow capability, and the twin-engine design that the Canadian Forces favored. Compared to the F/A-18A (the McDonnel-Douglas version), its lower weight and resulting better range would also be very useful in the air defence role over Canada. The F-18L was also offered with a lucrative industrial program; Northrop agreed to move major portions of the F-18L project to Canada

StainlessSteelCynic

06-17-2019, 06:59 PM

Although the following site is Brazilian so the language is Brazilian Portuguese, there's a lot of useful images for the F-18L including some data sheets for those inclined to do the stats.
https://www.cavok.com.br/blog/a-versao-f-18l-hornet-da-northrop/

Vespers War

06-17-2019, 09:51 PM

StainlessSteelCynic

06-17-2019, 10:00 PM

Speaking of the Canadian New Fighter Aircraft, it's worth noting that before the "Canadian Caper" in Iran (popularized in Argo), Canada was in negotiations to acquire Iran's F-14 Tomcats as their replacement for the Voodoo and Starfighter. It would take only a very mild historical tweak for Canada to be flying Tomcats in the 1980s and 90s.
Very interesting! Are there any websites - in preference to books - that go into any detail about this ? (I'm interested in reading more about this but not so interested in laying out money for a book that may have only a few paragraphs on the subject!)

Vespers War

06-17-2019, 11:01 PM

Very interesting! Are there any websites - in preference to books - that go into any detail about this ? (I'm interested in reading more about this but not so interested in laying out money for a book that may have only a few paragraphs on the subject!)

Tacairnet has a small piece about the CF-14-Eh (https://tacairnet.com/2015/02/15/the-cf-14-eh-tomcat/).

StainlessSteelCynic

06-18-2019, 12:07 AM

Tacairnet has a small piece about the CF-14-Eh (https://tacairnet.com/2015/02/15/the-cf-14-eh-tomcat/).
Very interesting indeed, thanks for the link.
And to think the Canadians practically had it all in the bag until the Iranians found out about the "Caper".
Would have made a very different Cold War landscape in North America if the Canadians were flying Tomcats but I'm left to wonder how they would have made nice with Grumman (I'm presuming Grumman would have remained unhappy with the Canadian's lower cost purchase and also that Canada would eventually have to get new spares etc. etc. from Grumman at some point in time).

Vespers War

06-18-2019, 07:05 PM

Very interesting indeed, thanks for the link.
And to think the Canadians practically had it all in the bag until the Iranians found out about the "Caper".
Would have made a very different Cold War landscape in North America if the Canadians were flying Tomcats but I'm left to wonder how they would have made nice with Grumman (I'm presuming Grumman would have remained unhappy with the Canadian's lower cost purchase and also that Canada would eventually have to get new spares etc. etc. from Grumman at some point in time).

In a non-Twilight scenario, it also makes me wonder if the Canadian use of the Tomcat would have prevented Cheney from having the tooling scrapped in the early 90s and left an updated Tomcat as a potential candidate for the fleet defense role on US carriers instead of the Super Hornet. The longer-ranged AMRAAM makes the Phoenix mostly obsolete, but the F-14's track-while-scan capability is (to the best of my knowledge) still unmatched by carrier-capable aircraft.

Vespers War

07-08-2019, 07:44 PM

Here's one that's more forgotten than never was.

In 1923, Poland started a competition for a new light machinegun. The next year, the Ministry of War purchased a dozen each of the Benet-Mercie, Lewis, and the eventual winner, the BAR. Guns were bought from Belgium starting in 1927, chambered in 7.92mm Mauser instead of .30-06, to the tune of 10,000. License production in Poland then began, and another 14,000 were built before 1939. They saw use not just with the Polish Army (and partisans during WW2), but captured units were used by both the Soviets and the Germans, and earlier some had been shipped to the Spanish Republic, Greece, China, and Palestine.

Wt 5.9 kg, ROF 5, Dam 4, Pen 2-3-Nil, Blk 7, Mag 20, SS 4, Brst 9, Rng 93.

Compared to the original M1918, a little bit of weight has been shaved off and the burst recoil has increased from 8 to 9 as a result, while an extra 10 meters of short range has been added (due to a longer barrel). The Polish BAR also had a pistol grip. While produced in decent numbers, it's been overshadowed by the far more common American BAR.

Vespers War

07-23-2019, 10:07 PM

An 18th-century best that never was is the infamous Puckle Gun. An early manual repeater, it was a 32mm smoothbore black powder revolver mounted on a tripod with a 3 foot barrel. It has a nine-shot cylinder. A crank at the rear cams a cylinder to or from the breech, and when cammed back the cylinder can be manually rotated. A flintlock fire mechanism at the top of the frame will drop sparks into a priming pan and fire the top-most chamber. Rotating the crank all the way back allows the cylinder to be removed and replaced. A single shot can be fired per 5-second round, and replacing a cylinder requires three rounds, so a cylinder can be fired and replaced in one minute for an average rate of fire of 9 rounds per minute.

A grand total of two Puckle Guns were purchased for an expedition to the West Indies. The expedition was a failure and it's not known if the Puckle Guns were ever fired in anger.

Puckle Gun (3.2 cm L/28)
Gun Weight: 40 kg
Tripod Weight: 10 kg
SAR, Mag 9, Rld 3, Bulk 8, SS 2, Rng 90 (SS and Rng include tripod bonus)

Shot: Dam: 7 Pen: 2-Nil
Canister: B: 45 Dam 2/1 Pen: 1-Nil

Each loaded cylinder is approximately 5 kilograms. Loading a single chamber takes 2 actions, so it requires 18 actions to fully reload a cylinder. Three cylinders and a crew of 3 (1 gunner, 2 loaders) should be able to keep a Puckle Gun firing at its maximum rate, though extra cylinders may be desirable to maintain flexibility between shot and canister. Explosive shell was not developed due to a lack of reliable detonator; if it was developed it would be B: 4, C: -1, Pen: Nil. If an effective shrapnel shell was developed, it would be B: 8, Dam: 2/1, Pen: 1-Nil.

cawest

09-26-2019, 06:03 PM

something bigger than the latest round. MD-17

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-aims-for-md-17-launch-33860/

Vespers War

09-26-2019, 07:09 PM

something bigger than the latest round. MD-17

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-aims-for-md-17-launch-33860/

They were still at it a decade later (with a designation change to get rid of the McDonnell-Douglas prefix):

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-close-to-launching-bc-17-214156/

One reason it never really caught on is that it had 3/4 of the fuel consumption but only 1/2 the cargo capacity of a 747-400. Unless you absolutely needed the rough field capability, it was an economic stinker.

mpipes

09-26-2019, 09:58 PM

Maybe, but loading cargo on a 747-400 is VERY time consuming compared to a C-17. A C-17 can be downloaded and uploaded with a full load of cargo, including rolling stock, in a bit more than three hours. A 747-400 will take at least twice as long and no rolling stock. Ground time cost money, so in the long run my bet is that a BC-17 will generate more revenue, because you can get more ton-mileage per day compared to a 747-400.

cawest

09-27-2019, 09:33 AM

Vespers War

04-24-2020, 07:41 PM

It's been far too long since a Best That Never Was, and I've been watching some of Ian's videos again while waiting for new C&Rsenal videos.

The Colt-Franklin is a historical oddity as a black powder bolt-action magazine-fed rifle. The magazine is a 9-round box mounted above and to the left of the receiver. And it is a box. A square box, with the rounds in a 3x3 grid and feeding in a serpentine pattern to a Krag-like loading tray on the left side of the chamber. There's no spring in the magazine; the shaking of the rifle's recoil is sufficient to feed rounds. It also has 9 small holes, 1 behind each of the cartridge slots, as an easy method of checking how many rounds are left in the magazine.

Chambered for .45-70 Government, 50 rifles were manufactured and were tested by both the Navy and Army in 1887. They were not accepted for service, but did pass all the tests they were subjected to and would make an interesting weapon either for a black powder enthusiast in the Twilight era or for a Space: 1889 campaign. I only have caliber, barrel length, and overall length for the rifle's physical characteristics, so weight is as-calculated in FF&S.

Colt Franklin Bolt-Action Rifle
Wt 5.35 kg, ROF BA, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Blk 9, Mag 9, Rcl 2, Rng 112

StainlessSteelCynic

04-24-2020, 08:56 PM

For those wanting some visuals of the Colt-Franklin, check out the following from (no surprises here) Forgotten Weapons: -
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/colt-franklin-detachable-9-round-magazine-of-45-70-in-1884/

pmulcahy11b

04-24-2020, 09:51 PM

An 18th-century best that never was is the infamous Puckle Gun...

I have that one on my site, under blackpowder rifles, but I had the impression more were built?

Vespers War

04-24-2020, 11:36 PM

I have that one on my site, under blackpowder rifles, but I had the impression more were built?

It's likely there were at least three - the prototype and the two purchased by Montagu probably weren't the same guns. Two definitely exist today, as Boughton House and the Palace of Beaulieu each have an original. Boughton and Beaulieu were Montagu estates, so they're probably Montagu's two guns from the West Indies expedition. There are no records of any other sales. The Royal Armouries Museum at Leeds is alleged to have an original, but I can find no such claim by the Museum itself. Buckler's Hard has a replica, and there are other replicas that have been made as well. However, they definitely weren't built in large quantities by Puckle.

pmulcahy11b

04-25-2020, 11:59 AM

Eeeeeeventually I'll do a Blackpowder Cannon page, and the Puckle Gun will be moved to there. Just don't hold your breath.

Vespers War

04-25-2020, 07:37 PM

Another one that's closer to my main period of interest right now (i.e. the First World War) is the Grand Browning. Development was interrupted by the start of the war, but it's very close to being a slightly smaller M1911 chambered for a 9.65x23mm round, with an 8 round magazine. It's not exactly a scaled down Colt, but both were developed from the same Browning patents and drawings and the major differences are in the details (magazine design, grip retention, different sights, etc). Colt tried a very similar pistol in their 9.8x23mm M1910, which would have essentially the same stats as the Grand Browning.

FN Grand Browning (9.65x23mm)
Wt 1.0 kg, ROF SA, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Blk 1, Mag 8, Rcl 4, Rng 21

And yes, as usual, there's a Forgotten Weapons (https://www.forgottenweapons.com/fn-grand-browning-the-european-1911-that-never-happened/) episode for that.

Vespers War

04-25-2020, 08:27 PM

I have that one on my site, under blackpowder rifles, but I had the impression more were built?

I went back and re-examined your page, and we came up with very different specs (which I think is a good thing, since it gives people different options depending on how they feel about it). I like being able to compare my stats with yours, since trying to understand why they're different and how that affects gameplay (hopefully) makes me better at doing conversions.

We're close on damage (I have it at 7, yours is at 8).

Pen isn't as close (2-Nil vs. 2-3-4), but the World Tamer's Handbook tends to have low penetration for black powder weapons, which is what I'm following. I think part of that is that FF&S assumes hard jacketed bullets at higher tech levels and soft lead in the black powder era, so the bullets tend to deform more on hitting hard targets and not penetrate as well.

Bulk is slightly different (8 vs. 10), but probably not very relevant to a tripod-mounted weapon.

We're very different on range (90 for mine, 157 for yours). I think this is another artifact of me using WTH, since it's pretty short-ranged for black powder smoothbores.

Mass is very different between our write-ups. Working off other writers' write-ups, I guesstimated the total mass of the system at 50 kilos, 40 for the gun and 10 for the tripod, where your total mass is 11.22 kilos. That probably also explains why your SS recoil is much higher than mine (not that either are likely to matter, since both are capable of 1 shot in a round at most). I went heavier because an 11.22 kilo weight is about the same as an M1922 BAR. At that mass, someone will try to shoulder-fire one in a game, which I don't want.

I'm not sure I agree with the ROF 1/2. With 5 second rounds, that only gives 6 shots per minute instead of the 9 the gun was alleged to be capable of. For that one stat I prefer the solution I came up with, giving it one shot per round, a 9 round magazine, and a reload of 3 so that it takes 12 rounds (one minute) for a gunner to shoot the magazine and reload with a new cassette. It's consistent with Puckle's designs, which had various cassettes ranging in size from 6 to 11 shots (and the rebuilt/replica one that Ian looked at a few years ago had 9 shot cassettes).

The cartridge shot is from a report about one of the tests where it fired a round containing 16 musket balls.

The cassette weight is the last thing to touch on. Loaded cassettes should be relatively heavy. At 0.85kg unloaded and 0.92kg loaded, each shot would have to be less than 6 grams (since powder weight also needs to be part of that). A 32mm lead ball is 195 grams (194.6), and 11 of them would mass 2.14 kilograms without powder. Even if they were very undersized and only 30mm, 11 of them would mass 1.76 kilos. A 6 gram lead ball would be roughly 10mm.

pmulcahy11b

04-26-2020, 11:30 AM

I went back and re-examined your page, and we came up with very different specs...

What Tech Level are you working from? Blackpowder weapons I generally use 2-4 (for weapon and ammo) depending upon the historical period being simulated (pre-American Revolution 2, American Revolution-1840s 3, 1840s-post Civil War period 4).

Vespers War

04-26-2020, 01:59 PM

What Tech Level are you working from? Blackpowder weapons I generally use 2-4 (for weapon and ammo) depending upon the historical period being simulated (pre-American Revolution 2, American Revolution-1840s 3, 1840s-post Civil War period 4).

I lost the original worksheet, but I think I used TL 3, based on the burst radius I got for the shell and hypothetical shrapnel. TL 2 would only have B:3 for shell instead of the B:4 that I have, and TL 4 shrapnel would be B:10 where I have B:8. Honestly, I'm wondering now if I did it as artillery and then backed into the Pen using muzzle energy and just screwed up the range calculation. Plugging in a 3.2 cm, 28 caliber gun for TL 3, I get 154m short range, which is much closer to your 157 than my 90, and all the damages match my write-up.

pmulcahy11b

04-27-2020, 10:18 AM

I lost the original worksheet, but I think I used TL 3, based on the burst radius I got for the shell and hypothetical shrapnel. TL 2 would only have B:3 for shell instead of the B:4 that I have, and TL 4 shrapnel would be B:10 where I have B:8. Honestly, I'm wondering now if I did it as artillery and then backed into the Pen using muzzle energy and just screwed up the range calculation. Plugging in a 3.2 cm, 28 caliber gun for TL 3, I get 154m short range, which is much closer to your 157 than my 90, and all the damages match my write-up.

That may be; I did it as a rifle. Plus, of course, I have some fudges, like all good GMs do:D

cawest

04-27-2020, 11:25 AM

what about a homemade Hotchkiss 37mm gatling black powered cannon vs. APCs or a something like old moses vs m113. I could see them using darts or shells and not iron balls.

Vespers War

04-27-2020, 06:12 PM

That may be; I did it as a rifle. Plus, of course, I have some fudges, like all good GMs do:D

I went with artillery because FF&S says the small arms calculations are only intended for calibers of 20mm or smaller, but I probably back-figured the Pen like a small arm because it was intended for anti-personnel use.

Lurken

04-28-2020, 01:06 AM

what about a homemade Hotchkiss 37mm gatling black powered cannon vs. APCs or a something like old moses vs m113. I could see them using darts or shells and not iron balls.

There is a lot of kinetic energy in a fast moving heavy and solid iron ball. Modern armor isn't really made to deal with that kind of projectiles. And a "well placed" shot on the drive wheels would surely immobilize the vehicle.

Against soft armored targets, the iron ball would definitely do real damage.

StainlessSteelCynic

04-28-2020, 01:15 AM

... something like old moses vs m113...
I just have to ask because the meaning of a word or phrase might be readily apparent in one country and completely meaningless in another, so, what is "old moses"?

Legbreaker

04-28-2020, 03:28 AM

It's a civil war era cannon. Not sure if it's a 6 or 40 pounder. It's been on a few episodes of mythbusters.

StainlessSteelCynic

04-28-2020, 05:03 AM

Cheers,
I don't watch Mythbusters often enough to know all the things they do or gear they've used so "Old Moses" was completely unknown to me!
It's a civil war era cannon. Not sure if it's a 6 or 40 pounder. It's been on a few episodes of mythbusters.

Legbreaker

04-28-2020, 05:48 AM

Yeah. I tended to skip it myself when it was still on, but I did catch one episode where they'd mentioned it - enough to recognise the name given to the gun.
If I hadn't seen it, I'd have been as in the dark as you.

Vespers War

04-28-2020, 02:55 PM

Old Moses is a 6-pdr, Model of 1841. It's a 9.3cm L/15.7 TL3 cannon. Short range is 135 meters. Shot is Dam 20, Pen 2/2/1/1, while shell is C:3 B:11 Pen: 2C. Canister has a burst radius of 68 meters.

pmulcahy11b

04-28-2020, 03:14 PM

Just offhand, I think that Old Moses vs M113 would produce only a medium-sized dent.

StainlessSteelCynic

04-28-2020, 08:57 PM

I agree, I don't think a 6-pounder ball propelled by blackpowder will have enough energy to penetrate the aluminium armour of the M113 - but will surely scare the living daylights out of anyone inside when it hits! :D

If you can score a hit on the tracks though you might achieve a mobility kill?
Just offhand, I think that Old Moses vs M113 would produce only a medium-sized dent.

CDAT

04-28-2020, 09:19 PM

The armor on the 113 is a lot tougher than most give it credit for.

pmulcahy11b

04-29-2020, 09:32 AM

Olefin

04-29-2020, 10:29 AM

BONNNNGGGG!!

Have a feeling it would scare the living hell out of anyone and make them back off until they figure out what the heck just hit them

cawest

04-29-2020, 11:34 PM

I agree, I don't think a 6-pounder ball propelled by blackpowder will have enough energy to penetrate the aluminium armour of the M113 - but will surely scare the living daylights out of anyone inside when it hits! :D

If you can score a hit on the tracks though you might achieve a mobility kill?

What about an arrow? APFSDS but black powder powered. :D

StainlessSteelCynic

04-30-2020, 04:00 AM

What about an arrow? APFSDS but black powder powered. :D

Well... maybe? But I'm thinking there still would not be enough energy for the projectile to do any real damage. I can imagine it getting embedded in the armour but not actually getting all the way through and still be capable of causing damage to the internals.

When I first joined the Aussie Army Reserve, my first unit was Armoured Recce (using the M113). The entrance to the vehicle compound had a crew door (from the rear ramp) mounted to the left of the gate. It had been damaged at some point and written off so somebody decided to take it to the range and test it against the small arms we were issued.

Specifically 9x19mm, 5.56mm, 7.62x51mm but as I recall it, only the 7.62 had the energy to penetrate and that was I believe at reasonably close range (somewhere below 300m). So based on that very hazy recollection, I figure you're going to need to get that arrow up to at least 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) muzzle velocity with at least 3,470 J (2,559 ft⋅lbf) of energy. Black powder is a low explosive, is it going to generate enough force to give any projectile those levels of velocity and energy?

CDAT

04-30-2020, 04:07 PM

...

Specifically 9x19mm, 5.56mm, 7.62x51mm but as I recall it, only the 7.62 had the energy to penetrate and that was I believe at reasonably close range (somewhere below 300m). So based on that very hazy recollection, I figure you're going to need to get that arrow up to at least 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) muzzle velocity with at least 3,470 J (2,559 ft⋅lbf) of energy. Black powder is a low explosive, is it going to generate enough force to give any projectile those levels of velocity and energy?

This is interesting, back about twenty years or so now, we had a chance to do a live fire (mock assault breach) with war stock (AP, API and such) for my unit and most of the hard targets we got to shoot at were old M901's. After it was done we were had to go and police up the range where we had been, this gave us time to look at the vehicles. I do not know how long they had been out there, but do know that there was a British unit that went before us (their warriors were just leaving as we showed up). When we looked at the vehicles there was no penetrations that I or anyone I talked with saw. We were using M16A4, M249, M240, and M2HB's. I do not know what the warriors used but as they did not penetrate (we were guessing that the VERY LARGE dents were from their TP ammo) that it was not AP, and no HE was allowed on the range so know it was not that. This makes me wounder, we only shot the sides, my guess was that the front/back would be at least as tough (the door that I know is not solid) looked at least as much. But is it, or did they make changes to the metal of the armor as time went on, so one from 1960 is not a tough as one from 1970? I do not know, but makes me think as you could penetrate with things that we could not.

StainlessSteelCynic

05-01-2020, 02:56 AM

In an effort to refresh my hazy recollections, I spoke to one of the guys I joined the unit with and yes the passage of time does dull my memory far too much!
The inside section of the door was facing outwards, as in, the inner section was shot up. I believe the inner part of the door is steel and not the aluminium alloy armour plate of the outer hull. Wish I had taken a damned photograph of it now.
I thought it was the outer section but my mate has said it was the inner section - his recollection makes more sense.

Plus, they didn't just shoot it with 7.62x51, they also gunned it up with the .30cal L3 MGs (British version of the Browning M1919) that are normal armament on our M113A1) so what I thought were 7.62NATO holes are just as likely to have been .30-06. Not that that makes any difference in regard to the armour plate which a web search states for the M113A3, the armour can withstand up to 14.5mm (although I don't think there's that much difference between the armour on the A1 and the A3.)
He's pretty sure there were no penetrations of the outer section.

Note:
For anyone not familiar with the M113, the crew door in the rear ramp is a two piece affair with the outer section made of armour plate and the inner section made to withstand troopies pounding on it has they disembark when the ramp is down.
This photo from Vietnam shows what I mean.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/04/87/90/04879015ce75bad4e5236eaa803dceeb--vietnam-tour-military-units.jpg

Legbreaker

05-01-2020, 06:33 AM

WSo based on that very hazy recollection, I figure you're going to need to get that arrow up to at least 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) muzzle velocity with at least 3,470 J (2,559 ft⋅lbf) of energy. Black powder is a low explosive, is it going to generate enough force to give any projectile those levels of velocity and energy?

The simple answer is no, it's not going to get up to the required speed. https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/gunsmithing/velocity-limit-black-powder-325903/

rcaf_777

05-23-2020, 08:06 PM

The EX 41 grenade launcher, also called the Shoulder-Fired Weapon (SFW), was a prototype multi-shot grenade launcher that was never adopted by the United States military. nstead of the standard low-velocity 40×46mm grenade used by the M203 and M79 grenade launchers or the standard high-velocity 40×53mm grenade used by the Mk 19, the EX 41 used a hybrid of the two developed by Indiana Ordnance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EX_41_grenade_launcher

http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1995/11(November)/02-Nov-1995/55sol001.htm

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

Vespers War

05-25-2020, 02:35 PM

A case of taking two old weapons systems and mashing them together was the Yugoslavian SO-122. In the 1950s, Yugoslavia received 599 M4A3E4 and 1 M4A3E8 (which makes page 39 of the Soviet Combat Vehicle Handbook hilarious in hindsight). In 1956, they began looking at how to replace the 76mm gun, which was rapidly becoming obsolescent. Their solution was a number of M1931 (A-19) cannon that Yugoslavian partisans had captured from German forces during WW2 (which had in turn captured the guns during the invasion of the Soviet Union). They built a new turret and shoehorned the same 122mm gun used on the IS-2 and IS-3 heavy tanks into a Sherman. The prototype also replaced the M4's engine with the engine from the T-34-85, but this was not planned for production models in order to keep the conversion quick.

The prototype was ready by 1965. Its weight had increased to 33.5 tons, but the overall performance was similar - acceleration had dropped slightly, maximum speed increased slightly to 50 km/h, and fuel consumption was roughly halved by using the V-2R engine. 100 of these were supposed to be built, but the retirement of the M4 hull in 1966 put an end to those plans.

The SO-122 in-game:
Use the M4A3E8 on page 39 of the Soviet Combat Vehicle Handbook. Replace the 76mm with the following:

122mm A-19 (Rng 400 for all shells)
AP Dam 27, Pen 55/47/40/26
HVAP Dam 27, Pen 71/62/52/34
HE C:15 B:27, Pen 11C
HEAT C:10 B:22, Pen 42C

Ammo load should probably be around 40 shells. The tank appears to have kept both internal machine gun mounts, though they would likely have taken something like a PK/PKT rather than the M1919A4.

With their lack of armor and big, slow-firing gun (Rld 1), this falls into the "eggshell with a sledgehammer" category of armored vehicles. Working as a tank destroyer from ambush would likely be their best strategy.

Vespers War

05-29-2020, 07:50 PM

When a Nock Gun just isn't enough volleying for you:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/perdition-to-conspirators-magnificent-14-barrel-flintlock/

StainlessSteelCynic

05-30-2020, 12:09 AM

And from the same museum in Liege, there's this interesting piece: -
https://www.grandcurtius.be/en/museums-collections/weapons/7-barrel-flint-machine-gun-superimposed-loads

Vespers War

05-30-2020, 05:38 PM

The museum website has some information Ian didn't cover (most notably barrel length), so here's a rough guesstimate at the 14-barrel rifle's stats:

7.5x30mm Conical Black Powder
Mass 6.09 kg
Magazine 2(14), Rld 2 per barrel (14 per lock, 28 total), Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 6, ROF 7, Recoil 2, Range 50

The weight of 14 barrels plus 2 locks plus 1 stock plus ammunition comes to 24.4 kilograms, but I divided it by 4 to get something closer to how the gun's mass appears when Ian handled it. Range is maximized at 52 meters if it's a 31mm black powder charge, but I rounded both because I could. I used a conical round rather than ball because of the polygonal rifling. It's not very powerful, but it is intimidating.

The Chambers machine gun is terrifying because of the potential for flashback detonating multiple rounds at once.

StainlessSteelCynic

08-03-2020, 05:58 AM

Has anyone had any thoughts about the Abrams TTB (Tank Test Bed) demonstrator and how it might have developed into an operational vehicle?
It seems GDW might have used the TTB and how it would be as a production vehicle with their Abrams "Giraffe" (which is essentially a refined version of the concept).

I haven't seen much online about the TTB but as it was a demonstrator, it's not like it had a huge presence anyway.
Here's a few pages about it: -
https://tankandafvnews.com/2016/03/15/from-the-vault-ammo-loading-systems-for-future-tanks/
http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2015/05/m1-tank-test-bed-ttb-with-unmanned.html
https://soapbox.manywords.press/2017/11/29/m1-ttb/
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10260-m1-based-ttb-and-cattb/

Raellus

08-03-2020, 09:54 AM

Aircraft don't make it into most T2k campaigns, and Romania probably isn't a setting many (if any) most ref's/players have any experience using, but here's an attack helicopter that almost was.

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/iar-317.php

It's featured in Modern Fighting Helicopters by Gunston & Spick (1988)- they thought it was a promising platform that would see a lot of interest/orders from developing nations, given its price-point and tried-and-true engine (it's based on the Alouette III) but, after the Romanian revolution, the project was cancelled. AFAIK, only a couple of prototype/demonstrators were built.

swaghauler

08-11-2020, 06:34 PM

Vespers War

08-15-2020, 11:03 PM

A mix-and-match firearm this time, the LeMat Carbine. Yes, the carbine, not the revolver. Well, sort of the revolver...it's complicated.

You see, Doctor Colonel Jean Alexandre LeMat wanted to produce long arms in addition to his 9-shot revolvers with shotgun goodness in the center. So he produced 9-shot revolving carbines with either shotgun or rifle goodness in the center. Around 200 of these were made, and the handful of survivors vary in caliber for both the central barrel and the surrounding revolver. All have 20" barrels and I estimate the weight at 4.5 kilograms (seriously, if anyone can find an actual weight, I'd appreciate it, because Google is failing me on that point of research).

Revolver options:
Original (10.668x47mmBP Conical)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 9i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 74
Pinfire (11mm French Ordnance)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 9R, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 59

Center options:
.56 rifled (14.224x31mmBP Conical)
Dam 3, Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 3, Rng 98
.58 rifled (14.732x31mmBP Conical)
Dam 3, Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 3, Rng 102
20 gauge shotgun
Dam 9 (close)/1x11 (medium), Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 12

The powder charge is probably a little high for the original revolver load (it's roughly 63 grains), but I was trying to maximize range. The .56 rifled is a 74 grain load and .58 rifled is a 79 grain load. Again, they were calculated to maximize range using FF&S.

The 9i for reload on the first option is because it's a lead bullet loaded over loose powder, so it's slower to reload than the self-contained pinfire cartridges. The shotgun range I'm not 100% sure on, because I'm terrible at using FF&S to generate shotgun stats. For the shotgun beyond close range, treat it as a 5-round burst and two 3-round bursts.

While the carbine was apparently made into the centerfire era, I haven't seen any records of what calibers were manufactured, and I'm not sure any of them are among the 18 known survivors.

swaghauler

08-17-2020, 03:40 PM

ChalkLine

08-18-2020, 04:22 AM

On my quest to make the perfect Twilight 2000 Sheridan I think I've finally found it.

Believe it or not but way back in 1967 there was already concerns that the M81 (as it was then) Gun/Launcher may not be a good idea. As such Rock Island Arsenal did a crash program of four other weapon systems to fit in the M551 turret should the M81 develop problems.

Of the four only two were recommended mainly due to space problems, although it was mentioned that if serious redesign work was done all four would fit in the turret. The two weapon systems were:

- M32 76mm Cannon, the same as was on the M41 Walker Bulldog
- XM180 105mm Gun/Howitzer from the XM104 super mobile lightweight howitze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM104)r (which really should have gone into service)

Of the two the XM180 was the preferred weapon system as it coupled low pressure and trunnion loading with high damage output and ammunition that was still largely in service.
This weapon fired much faster than the existing M81 because it didn't need a compressed air purge to blow out the bore so the combustible cartridge cases wouldn't ignite prematurely. It's likely that by the time of the Twilight War an A1 version of the gun/howitzer would have been developed with a bore evacuator for even faster firing. Notably the XM108 could fire any 105mm howitzer ammunition in US stocks and new racks for the vehicle gave a stowage of 50 Rounds. (I note the UK ammo has a squash head round)

If the M551A1 is the M81-armed standard version with vision upgrades and a minor modernisation package that would make the M32 76mm the M551A2A1 and the XM108 105mm the M551A3A1

Here's an image of the gun way back in 1967
https://i.redd.it/gznrgk1x00w31.jpg

Raellus

08-18-2020, 10:43 AM

micromachine

08-18-2020, 03:10 PM

Seem to recall the M101 howitzer having a HEAT round. While not a sabot round, it can have a decent punch if used in the correct way.

Vespers War

08-18-2020, 03:52 PM

I know you do good work... but these formulas in FF&S and WTG are STILL driving me crazy. Here are weapons with a fairly low sectional density and TERRIBLE Ballistic Coefficient being driven by [low velocity] BLACK POWDER to boot. Yet when I even run the formulas you get SHORT RANGES around a hundred meters in a game where high-velocity smokeless powder loads with excellent Ballistic Coefficients are hitting 75m to 80m max. The Range formula seems off by at least 1/3 too much. I noticed this in your entries on the Primitive Weapons Thread too. I think the Forum needs to brainstorm the modification of those formulas.

I think the problem is with smokeless more than BP. The Springfield Model 1855 rifle-musket was noted to be effective to 500 meters and deadly to 1 kilometer, firing 14.7x23.5mm BP Conical (.58 with 60 grains of powder) from a 101.6 cm barrel. Arguably the range should be around 125 so that it has 125/250/500/1000 as its range bands, using long as effective range and extreme as the range at which it can (with major luck) inflict casualties. Actual calculated range is 89, which is 28.8% low. I know from tests a while back that the formulas really have problems with the Whitworth, which hit targets at 1.8 kilometers in trials.

The GDW rules also don't have a good way to simulate the trajectory problems of black powder that required better range estimation than with high-velocity small-caliber smokeless powder. Black powder rifles had plenty of accurate range, but they needed accurate range estimation to be of any use, and that's something that could probably use a house rule.

I think the problem for the LeMat specifically is that I went for the powder charge that maximized range, which is almost certainly heavier than what was used, since the .58 BP exceeds the service charge for the rifle-musket. I don't know what charges were actually used, and lighter charges would reduce range.

ChalkLine

08-18-2020, 07:11 PM

That's an interesting concept, Chalk. The XM180 would make a great light assault gun for MOUT*, but it kind of loses the Sheridan's raison d'etre as an AT-capable light tank for Airborne forces.

Was there ever an AT round developed for 105mm howitzers? Something that could be used when the SHTF?

*And with "Beehive" rounds, it would be deadly against infantry in the open.

Seem to recall the M101 howitzer having a HEAT round. While not a sabot round, it can have a decent punch if used in the correct way.

(A lot of this is cut-and-pasted from the FB page)

Importantly this whole process was reversible. You could swap guns and racks in a few hours.

The way I see this thing going down is that the ammo for the M81E1 is going to get used up and they simply don't make it anymore. At that point these weapons and racks are shipped out to divisional workshops and the systems swapped over. M81E1s in still good condition are shipped back up the chain to where the few remaining M551 units are that are near supply chains that have the ammo as spares.
Yes, it does lose tank-killing ability but hey, TOWs are everywhere. If the crew really want to go tank hunting they can keep a MILAN in the bustle rack :)

Otherwise they have two jobs; the first is skirmishing with other recon assets. Now the flyboys and the satellites are gone it's back to going-out-and-having-a-look. This means you'll be meeting PT-76s (which, as I posted earlier on a long micro-essay, isn't actually a scout vehicle but something entirely else), BRDMs and the odd BMP.
The second is infantry support. Unlike IFVs the big honking gun can drop entire buildings and break open bunkers. They were actually used like this in Panama.

The "beehive" rounds were the famous APERS-T. It was used extensively in Vietnam in anything that used a low recoil barrel.
It's been replaced with a special airbust setting on the various fuzes that lets you use standard shells, this is the mechanical time–super quick (MTSQ) fuze. With this you can set the shell to blast nearby targets but it also gets those in trenches, crawling or otherwise in cover.
Who'd be an infantryman?
I'd still put one or two APERS-Ts in the rack if I had a chance for targets of opportunity.

Elsewhere we've done some discussion on what the range and rate of fire would be.
Now, obviously the default information for this would be Paul's standard NATO 105mm howitzer. However I don't know which gun Paul based this on, and if it was a semi-automatic breech as is on the XM180 mentioned or the manual interrupted screw on the M103 105 mm Howitzer off the M108 (they tried to fit this originally and it would have meant moving traverse gear, something they didn't want to do). Also howitzer fire rates are based on "sustained fire" shooting, whereas direct fire rates are usually much higher as you're essentially in a shit-has-hit-the-fan situation. I'm not sure what if the direct fire range listed in Paul's rules are the same as something with a dinky little barrel like the XM180. I'll leave that answer for the specialist cannon-cockers here.

Vespers War

08-18-2020, 08:32 PM

On my quest to make the perfect Twilight 2000 Sheridan I think I've finally found it.

Believe it or not but way back in 1967 there was already concerns that the M81 (as it was then) Gun/Launcher may not be a good idea. As such Rock Island Arsenal did a crash program of four other weapon systems to fit in the M551 turret should the M81 develop problems.

Of the four only two were recommended mainly due to space problems, although it was mentioned that if serious redesign work was done all four would fit in the turret. The two weapon systems were:

- M32 76mm Cannon, the same as was on the M41 Walker Bulldog
- XM180 105mm Gun/Howitzer from the XM104 super mobile lightweight howitze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM104)r (which really should have gone into service)

Of the two the XM180 was the preferred weapon system as it coupled low pressure and trunnion loading with high damage output and ammunition that was still largely in service.
This weapon fired much faster than the existing M81 because it didn't need a compressed air purge to blow out the bore so the combustible cartridge cases wouldn't ignite prematurely. It's likely that by the time of the Twilight War an A1 version of the gun/howitzer would have been developed with a bore evacuator for even faster firing. Notably the XM108 could fire any 105mm howitzer ammunition in US stocks and new racks for the vehicle gave a stowage of 50 Rounds. (I note the UK ammo has a squash head round)

If the M551A1 is the M81-armed standard version with vision upgrades and a minor modernisation package that would make the M32 76mm the M551A2A1 and the XM108 105mm the M551A3A1

I believe there were only three different weapons tested. Two of the four were the M32 76mm, one with the M76 recoil system (from the M41) and the other using an adapted M81E12 recoil system (from the M551).

Assuming the XM180 uses the same ammunition as the M101 howitzer, the M327 HESH/HEP round would be available, with an 80% chance of spalling 5 inches of armor at 60 degrees obliquity. If any M67 HEAT was still around, it would also be usable, but IIRC it was replaced by the M327 pretty quickly in the late 50s.

StainlessSteelCynic

08-18-2020, 08:51 PM

Another benefit of Beehive rounds is that because they don't use HE, they are often quite effective for creating entry points into buildings or through walls (without the risk of explosive throwing its blast or debris back onto the vehicle or accompanying troops).

ChalkLine

08-18-2020, 09:21 PM

I believe there were only three different weapons tested. Two of the four were the M32 76mm, one with the M76 recoil system (from the M41) and the other using an adapted M81E12 recoil system (from the M551).

Assuming the XM180 uses the same ammunition as the M101 howitzer, the M327 HESH/HEP round would be available, with an 80% chance of spalling 5 inches of armor at 60 degrees obliquity. If any M67 HEAT was still around, it would also be usable, but IIRC it was replaced by the M327 pretty quickly in the late 50s.

Yeah, the 76mm was tested twice; once with it's own recoil system and once with the M81 recoil system.

Vespers War

08-19-2020, 10:05 PM

I've recalculated the numbers for the LeMat using best guesstimates of powder charges. The decimal measurements are caliber and grains of powder (i.e. .42-16 is a .42" ball and 16 grains of powder). The shotgun has two statlines for ball and for shot.

The 60 grain load for the .56 is the midpoint of what was used in Civil War carbines (Merrill's used 50 grains, Colt's 60 grains, and Burnside's 75 grains), while the 75 grain load for the .58 matches the rifle-musket. Barrel lengths are 19.687" (50cm) for the revolver and 17.375" (44.1325cm) for the center.

Pinfire and centerfire carbines would tend to have the shotgun barrel, while the muzzle-loader might have any of the center barrels. The 9R calibers will still be slow to load, since they require single ejection of spent cases with a non-spring-loaded punch and single loading of new rounds through a gate.

LeMat Carbine
Revolver loads
.42-16 (10.668x12mmBP Ball)
Dam 1, Pen Nil, Ammo 9i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 35
12mm Perrin Pinfire (12x15mmR BP Conical)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 9R, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Range 62
11mm French Ordnance Centerfire (11.47x17mm BP Conical)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 9R, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Range 63

Center barrel loads
.56-60 Rifled (14.224x25.2mmBP Conical)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 2, Rng 87
.58-75 Rifled (14.732x29.35mmBP Conical)
Dam 3, Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 2, Rng 81
20-gauge slug (15.75x13.7mmBP Ball)
Dam 2, Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 23
20-gauge shot
Dam 11 (close)/1x15 (medium), Pen Nil, Ammo 1i, ROF SAR, Bulk 6, SS 1, Rng 12

swaghauler

08-19-2020, 10:34 PM

I think the problem is with smokeless more than BP. The Springfield Model 1855 rifle-musket was noted to be effective to 500 meters and deadly to 1 kilometer, firing 14.7x23.5mm BP Conical (.58 with 60 grains of powder) from a 101.6 cm barrel. Arguably the range should be around 125 so that it has 125/250/500/1000 as its range bands, using long as effective range and extreme as the range at which it can (with major luck) inflict casualties. Actual calculated range is 89, which is 28.8% low. I know from tests a while back that the formulas really have problems with the Whitworth, which hit targets at 1.8 kilometers in trials.

The GDW rules also don't have a good way to simulate the trajectory problems of black powder that required better range estimation than with high-velocity small-caliber smokeless powder. Black powder rifles had plenty of accurate range, but they needed accurate range estimation to be of any use, and that's something that could probably use a house rule.

I think the problem for the LeMat specifically is that I went for the powder charge that maximized range, which is almost certainly heavier than what was used, since the .58 BP exceeds the service charge for the rifle-musket. I don't know what charges were actually used, and lighter charges would reduce range.

GDW went with what is termed "practical accuracy" which is what the average shooter could pull off "in the field." What you are modeling would be called "mechanical accuracy" or "benchrested accuracy" for expert shooter or shooters using controlled conditions. My issue with changing the four range band model of RAW is that you will break the practical accuracy of both pistols and SMGs if you change the formula to properly address the maximum "mechanical" or benchrested range of rifles using the four range bands.

I agree with you that GDW needed to take into account the effective long-ranged accuracy but I think they just needed to add one more Range Band. The Maximum Effective Range band. This would allow those spectacular shots that are legendary today. I also agree with optics, bipods, and tripods adding to the Base Range. I just think they didn't go far enough with scopes. Why do I add another Range Band? Just look at what happens with the M16A2

Short Range = 55m, Snap Shot: Average (Skill), Aimed Shot: Easy (Skillx2)
Medium Range = 110m, Snap Shot: Difficult (1/2Skill), Aimed Shot: Average
Long Range = 220m, Snap Shot: Formidible (1/4Skill), Aimed Shot: Difficult
Extreme Range = 440m, Snap Shot: Impossible (1/10Skill), Aimed Shot: Formidable

And finally my Maximum Effective Range...
Maximum Effective Range = 880m, Snap Shot: NO, Aimed Shot: Impossible

This allows that impressive one in a million shooter WITHOUT compromising the fairly accurate practical accuracy in the RAW game. It also allows for the positive effects of things like optics and bipods with an easy to apply mechanical advantage by simply adding range.

Legbreaker

08-19-2020, 11:28 PM

I agree with you that GDW needed to take into account the effective long-ranged accuracy but I think they just needed to add one more Range Band. The Maximum Effective Range band. This would allow those spectacular shots that are legendary today.

I LIKE it!
I'd be inclined to consider a max possible range also much like GURPS and their 1/2 Damage stat - anything beyond that has penalties to both accuracy and damage.
Knowing the max possible range allows for using tripod mounted machineguns in the indirect roll, something which has been done for well over a hundred years for suppressive fire and in some circles known as the poor mans artillery (unless you're the one paying the ammo bill!).

StainlessSteelCynic

08-20-2020, 02:15 AM

I like it too. :)
My gaming group has always had a bit of a liking for the idea of adding items to gear to improve them e.g. putting better tyres on a vehicle, putting a better scope on a rifle and so on. Basically a way to let a Character improve their chances with a Skill check, especially if they are not particularly good in that Skill.

If I can con my group into any game using the 2.2 rules, I'm very much inclined to use your idea Swaghauler :cool:

swaghauler

08-23-2020, 04:04 PM

I LIKE it!
I'd be inclined to consider a max possible range also much like GURPS and their 1/2 Damage stat - anything beyond that has penalties to both accuracy and damage.
Knowing the max possible range allows for using tripod mounted machineguns in the indirect roll, something which has been done for well over a hundred years for suppressive fire and in some circles known as the poor mans artillery (unless you're the one paying the ammo bill!).

I used to give a bonus of 1 to a roll for any tripod that had Traverse and Elevation gear on it. Now I'll probably give a BOON (The Mongoose Traveller version of ADVANTAGE) because it does make a big difference in accurate fire from a tripod.

StainlessSteelCynic

08-23-2020, 08:57 PM

swaghauler

08-24-2020, 09:13 PM

It's an interesting idea. I like the advantage/disadvantage idea for certain circumstances but I'm not sure I like it for equipment that gives you a mechanical advantage e.g. the tripod.
The ad/disad system generally gives you an equal chance of scoring good or bad so I figure this means that if you get two lousy results for the skill check the tripod hasn't really done anything extra for you when it should.
However if it adds to your skill check in some way then the percentage chance of success is somewhat better all the time making it worthwhile to use whenever you can.
Players want to stack the odds in their favour, it's natural, they want their characters to survive & thrive. The ad/disad system feels like it completely negates the ability to shift the odds a little more in your favour when using something like the tripod in this example.

One of the options I have been considering is a Skill Level based bonus. My players are REALLY ENJOYING my [RAW] skill-based rules for Outstanding and Exceptional Success*, so I have been considering:

Skill Level 0 = No bonus as you are not knowledgable enough to gain a bonus.
Skill Level 1 thru 6 = A bonus of 1 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 7 thru 9 = A bonus of 2 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 10 = A bonus of 3 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.

This will give more skilled gunners a better bonus (as befits their higher experience).

* My Skill Level based bonus is designed to reward high Skill Levels (training) over high Characteristics (natural talent) and it works like this. You get an Outstanding Success if you roll under your RAW base Skill Level on an AVERAGE Task. To get an Exceptional Success, you must roll under HALF of your RAW Skill Level on 1D20. So, in practice, it looks like this:

A PC with an Attribute score of 7 and a Skill Level of 3 would succeed at an AVERAGE task on a roll of 10 or less. They would score an Outstanding Success IF they rolled a 3 or less. They would score an Exceptional Success on a roll of 1.

A PC with an Attribute score of 3 and a Skill Level of 7 would also succeed on a roll of 10. HOWEVER, they would achieve an Outstanding Success on a roll of 7 or less. They would achieve an Exceptional Success on a roll of 3 or less on an AVERAGE Task.

On an Outstanding or Exceptional Success, you score a Special Manuever. My players have a great affinity for this new system and I have LOTS of positive feedback on Skill-based Success.

StainlessSteelCynic

08-25-2020, 01:10 AM

One of the options I have been considering is a Skill Level based bonus. My players are REALLY ENJOYING my [RAW] skill-based rules for Outstanding and Exceptional Success*, so I have been considering:

Skill Level 0 = No bonus as you are not knowledgable enough to gain a bonus.
Skill Level 1 thru 6 = A bonus of 1 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 7 thru 9 = A bonus of 2 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.
Skill Level 10 = A bonus of 3 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear.

This will give more skilled gunners a better bonus (as befits their higher experience).

* My Skill Level based bonus is designed to reward high Skill Levels (training) over high Characteristics (natural talent) and it works like this. You get an Outstanding Success if you roll under your RAW base Skill Level on an AVERAGE Task. To get an Exceptional Success, you must roll under HALF of your RAW Skill Level on 1D20. So, in practice, it looks like this:

A PC with an Attribute score of 7 and a Skill Level of 3 would succeed at an AVERAGE task on a roll of 10 or less. They would score an Outstanding Success IF they rolled a 3 or less. They would score an Exceptional Success on a roll of 1.

A PC with an Attribute score of 3 and a Skill Level of 7 would also succeed on a roll of 10. HOWEVER, they would achieve an Outstanding Success on a roll of 7 or less. They would achieve an Exceptional Success on a roll of 3 or less on an AVERAGE Task.

On an Outstanding or Exceptional Success, you score a Special Manuever. My players have a great affinity for this new system and I have LOTS of positive feedback on Skill-based Success.

This I really like. Do you have a doc with all these rules on them, I'd love to read it?
Edit: Read it? I'd love to use them!

ChalkLine

08-25-2020, 10:11 AM

I do love vehicles that, to put it bluntly, were no good.

If it was that they lost their raison d'être due to technological advances, if they were good ideas that were ahead of their time or in case of the vehicle coming up, they were simply a crap boondoggle, I do love my failures.

The M247 Sergeant York SPAAG could have been awesome. It's one of those vehicles that simply "looks right". It was an utter failure, but the failure was mainly due to its design criteria as much as dodgy corporate swindling and corruption.

What the US Army wanted: A ZSU-23-4 with bigger guns and a fast engine.
What the US Army asked for: an SPAAG using two heavy guns and a heavy radar on an out of date chassis that still had to keep up with the M1 Abrams, one of the world's fastest tanks.

They specified the M48A5 chassis because they had lots and they were very reliable. They also stated that it had to use off-the-shelf equipment so the radar was a repurposed air-to-air radar, not even a ground attack radar. Now, Ford Aerospace seemed to have been thinking if they got the contract the could simply deal with the issues later. Issues like making it work.
Really, the whole sorry tale is too long to go into here. I do recommend you look it up now that 35 years have passed.

What I want to do is suggest that the M247 didn't ignominiously end its days being blown to pieces on live-fire ranges but that the 50 that were made in our alternate universe languished in a boneyard simply because everyone was too embarrassed to talk about them. There they sat, essentially useless and incapable of even defending themselves until the final phase of resupply for the European campaign. By this time the Mil-24 Hinds were all gone and the USA is desperate to send its troops ground fighting vehicles. They looked at the M247s sitting there and gave them the ZSU-23-4M2 "Afghan" treatment.

The hypothetical M247A2 is purely a ground support vehicle. It has had its radar stripped out and the AN/PPS-15A(V)1 ground search radar (1,500m for personnel, 3,000m for vehicles) placed in the forward radar nacelle.

The ammunition is increased from 580 to 650 rounds.

The turret armour is given applique panels that bring it up from STANAG 4569 level 3 to level 4 armour protection, capable of resisting the KPV 14.5mm. A sliding mantlet is provided to protect the crew from direct fire of the same level. The rear of the turret is kept the same and the hull is of course the basic robust M48A5. In the European theatre ERA blocks and wire/bar armour were occasionally used by some units. This extra armour drops the road speed to a slow 40kmh, a speed demon it is not.
The turret had a large bustle rack at the rear and is still roomy after the removal of the large radar even when the extra ammunition is fitted.

The commander's cupola from the LAV-25 was fitted and has a NATO heavy mount capable of accepting the M240E1 GPMG (spade grip version), the M2HB HMG or the Mk19 AGL. Many were equipped with gunshields at various times.

The sights are upgraded. The optical sights are retained and light intensification added. The commander has no override for the gun. At least one of these vehicles was fitted with thermal sights during its war service.

Note that the 40mm twin autocannon are belt-fed, a huge improvement over the crew-intensive five round clips normally used. Its crew remains three with commander, gunner and driver, making it something of a bear for maintenance and an endurance test when keeping watch.

Vespers War

08-25-2020, 04:06 PM

Another one that I know Ian has done videos on in the past is the Volcanic pistol and carbine. In particular, the ones I have information for are the later ones produced by the New Haven Arms Company (the post-S&W one with B. Tyler Henry running the factory for Oliver Winchester). The firearms produced came in seven models, a pair of pistols firing Rocket Ball #1 (.31 caliber), and a pair of pistols and three carbines firing Rocket Ball #2 (.41 caliber).

The Rocket Ball was an early self-contained caseless cartridge, using a Burton ball with the cavity at the base filled with gunpowder and a percussion cap, sealed with a brass disc to keep out moisture. They were notably anemic due to the lack of space for powder. I don't have good information on the powder charges for these guns, but I calculated them at 4.5 grains of black powder for #1 and 8 grains for #2. I do have the prices for each of these late-1850s firearms and the ammunition. Weights are calculated per Fire, Fusion & Steel since technical data are somewhat hard to come by.

Pocket Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.64kg loaded weight, Ammo 6i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 7. $12.00

Target Pistol - Rocket Ball #1 (.31") - 0.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 8. $13.50

Short Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 0.91 kg loaded weight, Ammo 8i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Navy Pistol - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 1.07 kg loaded weight, Ammo 10i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 2, Lever-Action, Range 11. $18.00

Carbine (16" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.01 kg loaded weight, Ammo 20i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 5, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $30.00

Carbine (20" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.33 kg loaded weight, Ammo 25i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 6, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $35.00

Carbine (24" barrel) - Rocket Ball #2 (.41") - 3.66 kg loaded weight, Ammo 30i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 7, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 35. $40.00

Rocket Ball #1 - $10 per 1,000 rounds, 130 rounds per pound.
Rocket Ball #2 - $12 per 1,000 rounds, 66 rounds per pound.

Edit: on further thought, I'm not sure this is the best of anything, but it's a fascinating predecessor to the Henry and Winchester rifles.

Ian just did a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7J5IvMCrnw) with Rocket Ball ammunition, and #2 (.41") had 6.5 grains of black powder rather than the 8 I calculated it as. This reduces the range on the Navy Pistols to 10 (instead of 11) and on all the longarms from 35 to 31.

The 16" pistol-carbine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nErlM62lc&feature=emb_title) from today's video has the same stats as the carbine when the butt stock is attached. Detached, it's 1.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 16i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 10.

swaghauler

08-28-2020, 10:56 PM

This I really like. Do you have a doc with all these rules on them, I'd love to read it?
Edit: Read it? I'd love to use them!

I need to organize my rules a little better. They are currently HANDWRITTEN in a 3-ring binder. If you're interested in the Skill-Based Outstanding and Exceptional Success rules, I've posted them in the thread: Optional New House Rule I'm Using.

rcaf_777

09-08-2020, 04:53 PM

Good Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuDYOVAQYs&list=TLPQMDgwOTIwMjAdaVhJJY19RA&index=1

pmulcahy11b

09-09-2020, 01:06 PM

Good Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuDYOVAQYs&list=TLPQMDgwOTIwMjAdaVhJJY19RA&index=1

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

Legbreaker

09-09-2020, 10:11 PM

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?"

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted. :(

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

Vespers War

09-10-2020, 01:00 AM

I actually got to go to the range with the Flash when I was in the National Guard, once in 1984, and then once in 1986. The Cowhouse IRL up in Ft Hood has an old concrete bunker filled with bats at the far end of the range, and it was fun seeing flaming bats flap their way out of the bunker.

Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations.

While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training.

The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use.

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

There was also a CS gas rocket trialed for use with the M202, but it wasn't approved either.

CDAT

09-10-2020, 04:57 AM

I was on the first Assault Pioneer course (1993) after Australia stopped teaching flame warfare (predominantly with the M2 but other expedients such as fougasse too). I at least got to do all the theory, etc but the hands on practical never happened. #Absolutelygutted. :(

A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.

I can not say about Australia, but for the US Army they were still in the inventory as of 2004, with two MOS's listed as being able to draw them Combat Engineer and NBC, found this out when I was the NBC NCO for a Combat Engineer unit in Iraq and told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

Legbreaker

09-10-2020, 05:56 AM

...told my supply sergeant to order us one to clear brush with.

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

CDAT

09-10-2020, 03:53 PM

Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!

Both, the justification for the flame thrower was to clear the brush so we could see any obstacles that we might run into with the dozers before we leveled the bunkers and such.

rcaf_777

09-10-2020, 04:34 PM

Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.

U.S. Denies Incendiary Weapon Use in Afghanistan

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-revealed/

If you look at the video and read this article you see a weapon that may or may exist. Mentioned in a lot of publications and plenty of info on its development but the weapon is never seen. So draw your own conclusions.

Legbreaker

09-10-2020, 10:11 PM

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

rcaf_777

09-13-2020, 12:25 PM

That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.

ok this is info draw your own conclusions

Legbreaker

09-13-2020, 12:49 PM

Yes it is. Credible, unbiased info though it is not.

rcaf_777

09-13-2020, 01:06 PM

again draw your own conclusions

pmulcahy11b

09-15-2020, 06:07 PM

One thing about the article -- it states that the M202 uses a napalm-like filler. The Flash uses a combination of aluminum-derived powder and a WP initiator for the aluminum.

StainlessSteelCynic

09-15-2020, 08:42 PM

pmulcahy11b

09-16-2020, 01:07 PM

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m74rocket.html

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.

StainlessSteelCynic

09-16-2020, 07:07 PM

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.
Apparently it was developed for use in South-East Asia, Vietnam specifically.
Read into that what you will but I'll jump to the assumption that that implies use against rioters who are potential Viet Cong

CDAT

09-18-2020, 07:57 AM

Well, for huge riots it might be useful, it's definitely not a "less-than-lethal" round. Someone could die if they get hit by the rocket.
There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.

Vespers War

09-18-2020, 03:17 PM

There are a fair amount of "less lethal" rounds that have the possibility of killing.
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal.
Even if used as designed, the various baton rounds can be lethal because their irregular shapes mean they can't reliably be targeted when skipped. The BMJ published a study in 2017 looking at 25 years of incident results that calculated rubber bullets are lethal roughly 3% of the time. Another 15.5% suffered serious injuries such as ruptured organs or permanent blindness.

swaghauler

09-21-2020, 07:28 PM

As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m74rocket.html

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

pmulcahy11b

09-21-2020, 08:07 PM

According to what I learned during my Special Weapons training, the M202's CS rocket had a truly fatal flaw. In the right concentrations, CS gas can become flammable. The first rocket fired could effectively deliver its payload but follow-on rockets' exhaust had a habit of igniting a good spread of CS gas. Nobody in the Army wanted to be the guy who set a crowd of protestors on fire. Thus the rocket was never officially adopted.

The incendiary round itself also had a fatal flaw. A clip had to be handled, let's say, carefully. the nose end had a tendency to crack if mishandled and cause the gunner to immolate himself. We always kept that in mind at the range. I can't see the Army fielding a weapon that fragile and I've seen a clip dropped and it didn't crack (though we put it in the dud pit).

StainlessSteelCynic

09-21-2020, 08:43 PM

Vespers War

09-22-2020, 05:00 PM

All of which makes me wonder about that article supposing that the M202 was used in Afghanistan.
Given the delicate nature of the rockets, I wonder if US forces were actually using 40mm thermobaric rounds (they started to be available from 2003) and the article writer not being familiar with military tech jumped on the M202 as the explanation?

It's from an inventory listing. A leaked 2007 list of inventory in Afghanistan states that there's quantity 3 of NSN 1055000213909 in-country. That's the NSN for the M202A1 Flash. I didn't find any of the three NSNs I know of for M74 rockets, so I'm thinking it's possible someone made a typo somewhere.

StainlessSteelCynic

09-22-2020, 07:32 PM

It's from an inventory listing. A leaked 2007 list of inventory in Afghanistan states that there's quantity 3 of NSN 1055000213909 in-country. That's the NSN for the M202A1 Flash. I didn't find any of the three NSNs I know of for M74 rockets, so I'm thinking it's possible someone made a typo somewhere.

Given the size of that stock number, a typo would be pretty easy to make!

pansarskott

09-23-2020, 08:58 AM

I just learned that it's not WP in the ammo, it's burning metal. But it seems to behave like WP, so I guess the rule books can be excused :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

FLASH = "Flame Assault Shoulder.", nice backronym if it's true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuDYOVAQYs

https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/M202_FLASH

rcaf_777

12-18-2020, 08:30 PM

https://en.topwar.ru/61787-proekt-zenitnoy-samohodnoy-ustanovki-oerlikon-escorter-35-shveycariya.html

StainlessSteelCynic

12-19-2020, 06:11 AM

Another system using 35mm Oerlikon cannon that didn't get produced was a Czech vehicle called Styx from what I can understand from bad online translation. Based on the same vehicle as the Dana SPG.
https://www.valka.cz/topic/view/12561
https://www.armadninoviny.cz/protivzdusna-obrana-armady-cr-ucme-se-z-minulosti.html

https://www.valka.cz/files/thumbs/t_styx_i1.jpg

Vespers War

12-19-2020, 09:33 AM

On the barely-produced side, Finland has 7 Marksman systems, which are twin 35mm Oerlikons mounted originally on surplus T-55 tanks and now mounted on Leopard 2A4 tanks. They look a lot like Gepard turrets. For the T-55AM, weight increased from 36 tons to 41 tons, while the Leopard 2A4 sees its weight reduced to around 49 tons. The T-55AM Marksman entered service in 1990, so they could theoretically exist in the Twilight War.

pmulcahy11b

12-19-2020, 10:20 AM

They look a lot like Gepard turrets.

They are actually Gepard turrets, modified as necessary to fit the receiving hull and things like instruments and suchlike in the language of the receiving country, plus any upgrades the receiving country might request.

Vespers War

12-25-2020, 02:09 AM

The Royal Armouries has a lovely 17th-century flintlock revolver (https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-1534.html) that is quite fascinating in its design and appears at least moderately practical, although quite expensive and rather heavy. The stats below use a 15 grain charge of black powder, but it's not significantly changed by having charges anywhere from 10-30 grains. It never moves from Dam 1, Rng 4 until the powder charge gets too heavy to burn completely in the barrel and Rng starts dropping.

Dafte(?) Flintlock Revolver, circa 1780 (12.6x8.0mm BP Ball)
Wt 2.83 kg, Mag 6, ROF SAR, Reload 1/chamber*, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 4, SS 1, Rng 4.

*loading with loose powder increases reload time to 2/chamber.

It's heavy, an awkward bulk for a pistol, slow to reload, and short-ranged. It's also far better than other pistols of the time.

rcaf_777

12-30-2020, 07:45 PM

MGM-105 Aquila (Eagle) TADAR (Target Acquisition, Designation and Aerial Reconnaissance)

A cost-effective system (LOL seriously) of small size able to provide the US Army with real-time aerial reconnaissance, target acquisition, artillery observation and laser designation. Target acquisition was to used for the
AGM-114 Hellfire and M712 Copperhead. Although the program was developed for the Artillery Branch, if the system had been fielded, it would have fallen under the Intelligence Branch. The Army began to push for new variants of Aquila such as Aquila Lite which attempted to redesign the ground systems to be carried on HMMWV's instead of 5 ton trucks. The original fielding plans called for 780 air vehicles and 72 Launcher/Recovery System/Ground Control Station combinations. The project was canceled in 1987.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=376

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_MQM-105_Aquila

Legbreaker

12-30-2020, 09:10 PM

Vespers War

12-30-2020, 11:02 PM

The one thing I miss that was in 1st ed is the PzF-11-1 disposable AT rocket. Was probably the best LAW in the 1st ed of the game, and although it's featured on the cover of the 2nd ed Heavy Weapons book, there's no stats for it.
Paul hasn't done it either. :(

I took a quick look at it, and here's how I'd approach a quick and dirty conversion of the PzF-11-1:

Things get wonky when looking at some of the changes in AT weapons. The two weapons with the same damage in v1 aren't in v2 (Dragon and TOW I, replaced by Dragon PIP and TOW II).

Looking at the 1st edition stats, it should be stronger than:
LAW-80 (100C in v2)
Armbrust (55C)
AT-4/M136 (70C)
RPG-75 (55C)
APILAS (60C)
Eryx (60C)

But weaker than:
Tank Breaker (90C)
RBS-56 BILL (30C)
AT-3 Sagger (75C)

I'm willing to overlook BILL as an outlier, since it may have gotten knocked down for being top attack (although then Tank Breaker should have been knocked down also, but whatever). If we also ignore LAW 80 for having gotten a major boost in v2, we end up with a PzF-11-1 that should be somewhere around 70-75C, with something like C:5, B:5 (give or take 1 point on either stat) and the same range, weight, and price as v1.

pansarskott

12-31-2020, 04:01 AM

RBS 56 BILL is really weak in v2. I think they forgot to increase the values from v1, it stayed at 30C. For comparison, a HEAT rifle grenade in v2 has 30C.
Tank Breaker increased from x30C to 90C (might be a bit weak as well, but that was a fictional weapon at the time).

Even though RBS-56 was designed for top attack, it was still a modern powerful HEAT warhead designed to defeat ERA (by using explosives that had higher detonation velocity than what was expected to be used in ERA tiles)

I tried to find info on warhead diameter, but only found for BILL 2 (110 mm main warhead)

The picture is wrong as well. That's not how the tripod looks. Even in 1989 (v1 HWG) there should have been pics available. Big disappointment for me who did military service using the RBS-56 in 1989.

Sorry for the rant! :D

For comparison or adding new weapons, I would use warhead diameter and "generation" to make up stats. I.e a 100 mm warhead from 1988 has higher penetration than a same diameter warhead from 1973.

Vespers War

12-31-2020, 02:18 PM

Tank Breaker is what became Javelin, which has a 127mm warhead, just to provide a point of comparison for BILL.

(edit to add: Tank Breaker was started by DARPA in 1978. In 1986 the Army asked for proposals to replace Dragon. The Tank Breaker developers provided the proposals. TI proposed a missile with an IR seeker, Hughes went for fiber optic wire guidance, and Ford Aerospace a laser beam-rider. The competition shoot-off between TI and Hughes was in 1987-88, and full development of the Advanced Anti-armor Weapon System-Medium that the Army named Javelin commenced in 1989, with the contract going to a joint venture between TI and Martin Marietta. Full-scale production of Javelin started in 1997).

Sagger is 125mm, but an older generation of missile.

For RHA penetration, Sagger-C was 520mm in its improved version (460mm in the original 1969 configuration), and the 1992-era Sagger-D was 800mm. Javelin is "750+" normally, and ~600mm if the target has ERA thanks to the tandem warhead.

I've seen numbers everywhere between 500 and 900 for BILL, so I have no idea what its actual penetration was. Those may be two generations of BILL or based on whether the target has ERA or not, but it wasn't clear from what I was able to find.

pmulcahy11b

12-31-2020, 05:26 PM

Legbreaker

12-31-2020, 08:21 PM

Look again, it's there -- but it's listed on the page as "Panzerfaust 11-1"

Well, that would explain a lot then. Same beast, different name. :p

cawest

01-11-2021, 12:01 PM

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38621/this-stretched-super-fb-111-was-a-low-cost-challenger-to-the-b-1-bomber

pmulcahy11b

01-11-2021, 06:37 PM

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38621/this-stretched-super-fb-111-was-a-low-cost-challenger-to-the-b-1-bomber

That really helps right about now, since I'm updating my US Bombers page.

Vespers War

02-18-2021, 05:46 PM

Another one for Paul to possibly update when he's doing work on the corresponding page, C&Rsenal got around to doing the Webley-Fosbery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqRaRTIee2w) automatic revolver. A few things they touch on:

1. There were three barrel lengths - 4", 6", and 7.5".
2. The only military buy was 66 revolvers for the Royal Naval Air Service, all chambered for .455, 60 with 6" barrels and 6 with 7.5" barrels.
3. The .38 ACP Model 1902 had an 8-shot cylinder.
4. The .38 and some .455s were the "small frame" version. There was also a "large frame" .455 that was around half a pound heavier.

They're fascinating guns, but the complicated mechanics and tendency to jam on mud or sand easily explain why they barely saw service.

Vespers War

02-26-2021, 09:43 PM

And now for something completely...well, OK, it's a weird gun, and that's pretty much my oeuvre, so here we go...

How small can a gun be and still fire .45 ACP from a grip magazine? How about less than 4" overall length and about 1.25 pounds fully loaded. That's how small the Semmerling LM4 is. It's an odd duck, sacrificing everything for a combination of large cartridge and concealed carry. Originally intended for government use as a last-ditch concealed firearm, it never sold for that purpose, and around 600 made by Semmerling entered the civilian market before the tooling was sold. It's a striker-fired .45 ACP feeding from a 4-round magazine. There's no recoil system at all, and it's a manually operated autoloading pistol (I almost called it a manually operating semi-automatic, which would be oxymoronic).

After firing, the barrel is pulled forward. A projection on the left side of the barrel assembly strikes the fired cartridge and ejects it out the right side of the pistol. The next round is drawn forward out of the magazine and tipped upward; sliding the barrel back noses the round into the barrel and returns the gun to battery. The first part of the trigger pull causes a locking lever to seal the action.

In essence, it's a single-action pistol. Everything about it is dedicated to minimal size and high quality - other than the spring, all of the metal parts were S-7 tool steel, and each gun was X-rayed multiple times as part of the assembly process. The tooling was sold to American Derringer, which makes a stainless steel version rather than the original tool steel.

Semmerling LM4 (.45 ACP)
Wt 0.56 kg, ROF SAR*, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Bulk 1, Mag 4, SS 6, Rng 19
*The gun reloads with a single action like an SA, but the manual ejection/reloading action reduces the rate of fire to that of a single-action revolver.

As a normal carry piece, it's terrible. As something small, concealable, and quick in close quarters, it's functional. The original Semmerling-produced tool steel ones should also be more resistant to wear due to the very high-quality materials and manufacturing process.

Legbreaker

02-26-2021, 10:28 PM

Range 19 seems a bit long?

Vespers War

02-26-2021, 11:14 PM

Possibly, but that's what FF&S gave it using TL4 11.5x22.8mm ammunition. It does have a surprisingly long barrel for its size (8.8 cm out of a total length of 13.2 cm) - the more modern Boberg XR45-S is 14.7 cm long with a 9.5 cm barrel.

Paul put the Boberg XR-9 at Rng 10 for a 9mm round, so I suspect the very slightly shorter LM4 with a .45 would be around Rng 11 or 12 if he were to write it up, since a .45 usually gets 2 or 3 extra Rng but a point would be knocked off for the shorter barrel.

pmulcahy11b

02-27-2021, 04:15 PM

(edit to add: Tank Breaker was started by DARPA in 1978. In 1986 the Army asked for proposals to replace Dragon. The Tank Breaker developers provided the proposals. TI proposed a missile with an IR seeker, Hughes went for fiber optic wire guidance, and Ford Aerospace a laser beam-rider. The competition shoot-off between TI and Hughes was in 1987-88, and full development of the Advanced Anti-armor Weapon System-Medium that the Army named Javelin commenced in 1989, with the contract going to a joint venture between TI and Martin Marietta. Full-scale production of Javelin started in 1997).

So your average missile gunner in the beginning of the Twilight war would be issued earlier iterations of what came out of the Tank Breaker program, like the Tank Breaker in the BYB (though I'm guessing Dragons would still be common, perhaps even upgraded variants). Special ops might have limited numbers of Javelin they receive before things break down entirely.

Raellus

02-27-2021, 05:16 PM

I'm not sure why, but I'd assumed that the IRL Javelin was what T2k's Tank Breaker was supposed to be (i.e. the game designers anticipated the weapon system's technological development but didn't correctly predict its name).

-

Raellus

04-12-2021, 03:24 PM

Worth an entry, Paul M?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37631/the-army-tried-to-turn-nerf-footballs-into-hand-grenades

So that scene in Three Kings wasn't so outlandish after all... :rolleyes:

-

StainlessSteelCynic

04-12-2021, 08:10 PM

Vespers War

04-12-2021, 08:56 PM

And another one found on War Is Boring, the US M25 repeater rocket launcher.
However, being about three times heavier than the M20 Bazooka, it needed a tripod mount and at a time when it really needed a more capable warhead to counter the more heavily armoured Soviet tanks then being fielded, it fired the same round as the M20. So naturally enough, the US Army declined the weapon.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-had-a-lever-action-rocket-launcher-44fafb5b47f5

It only had a 2 round magazine (plus 1 in the tube), so it's arguably worse than having 3 M20s, since they're the same weight, easier to transport since the load can be split, and can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

The technical manual for the M25 is TM 9-297A. According to the manual the front barrel of the M20, M20B, and M25 were interchangeable. A tripod was designed for it, but it could also fit on an M1917A1 tripod or an M74 mount.
Weights:
Launcher w/o front barrel or magazine: 43.5 pounds
Front barrel: 3.5 pounds
Magazine: 11.5 pounds
Cradle: 9.0 pounds
Tripod: 13.25 pounds
Total: 80.75 pounds

That's unloaded, and since each rocket weighed 8.9 pounds, a fully loaded M25 weighed 107.05 pounds.

Also, now I know where the game Heavy Gear got its Repeating Bazooka design. It's very visually similar, and I'd never been able to place its inspiration.

Legbreaker

04-12-2021, 10:51 PM

So that scene in Three Kings wasn't so outlandish after all... :rolleyes:

-
With the tiny amount of explosives on that thing in the movie there should barely have been a puff of smoke!
And then there's the small issue of the apparent lack of a detonating mechanism of any shape or form.
So. Much. Bullshit.

shrike6

04-16-2021, 05:10 PM

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-we-really-build-a-b-1b-gunship/

pmulcahy11b

04-16-2021, 05:32 PM

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-we-really-build-a-b-1b-gunship/

The B-1B is just too fast to make an effective gunship.

shrike6

04-16-2021, 05:52 PM

The B-1B is just too fast to make an effective gunship.

I agree. The maintenance costs of a Lancer vs a Hercules has got to be significantly different as well. With that being said Boeing IRL has patents on retractable B-1B bombbay cannons. I find the concept interesting in a teenage fan boy way.

https://www.sandboxx.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ajaj01313-1-1333x750-1.jpeg

StainlessSteelCynic

04-16-2021, 06:16 PM

pmulcahy11b

04-16-2021, 07:36 PM

I have to wonder if Boeing was asked by the USAF to come up with that particular idea?
With all the talk from the last few decades from the top brass of the air force of getting rid of the A-10 because they believe that fast moving fighter jets can do the CAS role, this proposal from Boeing seems to be a case of "Look, just look! Our sexy fast movers CAN do the ground support role!"

As a side topic, when they come up with a CAS aircraft that's as effective as an A-10, I'll be the first one to say, "Time to retire the Warthog." The simple fact is that they broke the mold with the Warthog and no one's come up with anything as good at CAS as an A-10.

Vespers War

04-19-2021, 04:25 PM

During the Interwar Period, there was a lot of experimentation into what made a tank good. Walter Christie thought it was paper-thin armor and a lot of speed. His M1931 was adopted as the T3 Medium Tank and used for a few years before being retired as too difficult to use, too hard to maintain, and generally inadequate. In large part this was due to Christie's refusal to modify the tanks per the Army's wishes and the subsequent poor relationship leading to parts shortages. Some of the stats will be speculative due to a lack of information. Some information is doubled up because this was one of Christie's convertible tanks that could run on wheels or treads.

Christie T3 Medium Tank
Fire Control: 0
Armament: 37mm M1916, .30 M1919 (both in turret)
Ammo: 240x37mm, 1500x7.62mm
Fuel Type: G
Veh Wt: 10 tonnes
Crew: 2 (driver, commander/gunner)
Mnt: 5
Night Vision: None
(Tracked)
Tr Mov: 96/77
Com Mov: 19/15
(Wheeled)
Tr Mov: 128/26
Com Mov: 30/6
Fuel Cap: 340
Fuel Cons: 100
Config: Veh
Susp: T:2/W:2
HF: 5
HS: 3
HR: 3
TF: 4
TS: 4
TR: 4

37mm L/21 M1916
Rld: 1 Rng: 220
HE: C:1 B:7 Pen: Nil
KE: Dam: 8 Pen: 2/2/1/1

The armament is known, but the ammunition load is speculative. I gave it the same amount of 37mm ammunition as the Renault FT (the M1916 is the American version of the Puteaux SA 18) and assumed 6 belts for the coaxial machine gun. Reported speeds vary, so I picked from among them. Fuel capacity was given as 89 gallons (albeit from a non-authoratative source), which I converted and rounded, and the range was such that I estimated it could run for ~3.5 4-hour periods assuming maximum range was achieved at half of the top speed. The hull armor is based on data, while the turret armor is a guesstimate.

So, you end up with a fast tank that can be penetrated by heavy machine guns and has a pretty pathetic armament. It is fast, though, and its use of a 338-horsepower Liberty V-12 gives it a high power/weight ratio.

shrike6

04-28-2021, 02:05 AM

4596

Vespers War

05-06-2021, 07:08 PM

It's me again, in this thread again. If you guessed that means something absurd, you're right! A few years ago, Ian posted a video about an early 20th-century French light punt gun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBwU7_5qAmI), a rather large shotgun meant for commercial hunting of waterfowl. At .920" caliber and with a 48" barrel, it's a big gun, but a (relatively) modest black powder load and a weight of 14 lbs, 4 oz means it can be shoulder-fired. A cartridge with 216 grains of black powder and 8 ounces of shot is what Ian mentions the gun using, which I converted to 68 pellets of FF (the largest waterfowling shot) and a very roughly guesstimated 40mm long case. As far as I know, there was no slug round, but you know some player's going to want one for the hell of it, so I included its stats.

Darne Canardiere Portatif (23.4x40mm black powder shotgun)
Ammo: 23.4x40mm shell
Wt: 6.46 kg
Mag: 1 round, loaded individually

Slug: ROF SS, Dam 9, Pen 2-4-6, Blk 11, Mag 1i, SS 7, Rng 30
Shot close: ROF SS, Dam 51, Pen Nil, Blk 11, Mag 1i, SS 7, Rng 30
Shot med: ROF 5x13/1x3, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Blk 11, Mag 1i, SS 7, Rng 30

This is actually not as absurd as the gun could be - with the smallest shot for waterfowl, T, it would have roughly 102-103 pellets per cartridge and still have enough energy for each to be Dam 1, so at close range it would be Dam 68 and at medium range the ROF would be 5x20/1x3.

Vespers War

05-14-2021, 04:43 PM

I've got another weapon Gun Jesus has done videos on that I don't think Paul's got on his website. It's a submachine gun, chambered for 9mm Parabellum, developed just after World War 2 to use surplus Sten magazines. So far, so conventional.

It's a simplified Sten. With a bullpup design. And a wood body. No foregrip. No semi-automatic fire. No trigger guard. No sights. Yes, it's the wacky and WTF-inducing Viper Mark I (https://www.forgottenweapons.com/viper-mki-a-simplified-steampunk-sten/).

Because of the utterly bizarre firing method, I went with a range halfway between a bullpup and a pistol of otherwise identical configurations. The buttstock under the shoulder should give a more solid anchor than a pistol, but the lack of a handgrip for a third point of contact and the complete lack of sights make it less effective than a rifle. Also, this gun can only take Quick Shots, not Aimed Shots. It uses a shortened Sten magazine because the full-length magazine was unwieldy with this design, but as far as I know there's no physical reason it can't use the 32-round magazine.

Viper Mk.I (9x19mm Parabellum)
Wt 2.1 kg, ROF 5 (no SA), Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Blk 4, Mag 20, SS N/A, Brst 5, Rng 40

The Viper Mk.III (https://www.forgottenweapons.com/britains-experimental-viper-no-3-smg-pdw/) is somewhat more conventional, with a metal body, normal buttstock, and sights. It also switched from a Sten magazine to an MP40 magazine. A push-through lever/button takes the gun from safe through semi-auto to automatic fire. It had screw-off barrels in 4.7", 6", and 7.5" lengths. The stats below are with the 7.5" barrel.

Viper Mk.III (9x19mm Parabellum)
Wt 2.21 kg, ROF 5, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Blk 4, Mag 32, SS 2, Brst 5, Rng 60

ETA: I think these work particularly well as examples of things that might be produced during the fragmented years when isolated areas are trying to produce firearms for self defense, particularly the Mark I. What's essential (the receiver; the barrel; the trigger system) is simple but effective, and what's not essential (the shell; sights; safeties; selective fire) use non-strategic materials or are simply eliminated. It's almost a real-world equivalent of the M-16EZ, using spare parts to create a gun that's crude but better than nothing.

shrike6

05-16-2021, 02:41 PM

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4492.html
https://tanknutdave.com/brazilian-eet4-ogum/

Raellus

06-14-2021, 11:38 AM

Check out this jumbo hydrofoil.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41048/the-soviet-era-hurricane-high-speed-missile-boat-had-absolutely-gargantuan-hydrofoils

-

Vespers War

07-04-2021, 03:12 PM

During these plague times, the Royal Armouries has started up a few video series on YouTube, including one with Jonathan Ferguson, the Master of Firearms and Artillery. Back in March, he took a look (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI-jWltuSyA) at a Treeby Chain Rifle, a .50 caliber rifle that used a chain of 14 chambers revolving around sprockets instead of a conventional revolver cylinder. It didn't have quite enough information to go on, but way back in the 1950s one had been test-fired for its centennial and written about in Guns magazine (https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G0558.pdf). This had enough information to put together a rough set of statistics for the gun.

The most interesting feature is that it seals the gap between chamber and barrel by moving the barrel using a threaded sleeve controlled by a handle. This means the firing procedure is slightly more complex than usual. The lever is rotated so the barrel moves forward. Cocking the hammer then rotates a chamber into battery. The lever is then rotated back so the barrel slides over the tapered front of the chamber, and the gun can be fired. This added complication is likely why it was never ordered by the military, despite the weapon apparently working flawlessly in trials. Reloading is slightly slow because it uses loose powder and a ball inserted from the front and a cap placed on the back of the chamber, similar to an Agar (Coffee Mill) machine gun or the earliest Gatlings. Tests were done with a 30-chamber Treeby that apparently also worked well. It was able to fire all 30 shots in a minute, so the seemingly awkward barrel action didn't slow it significantly, albeit with a practiced shooter. In Tommy's hands, it likely would have had significant issues with firing without sealing.

Treeby Chain Rifle (12.7x44.5mm BP Ball)
Wt 4.8 kg, ROF SAR, Rld 2 per chamber, Mag 14, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 7, SS 1, Rng 75

Raellus

09-24-2021, 01:47 PM

Sounds like this was more like the worst than the best, but maybe an improved version might find it's way into the Twilight War.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42472/the-army-acquired-its-own-hovercraft-in-the-1980s-it-didnt-go-well

On a slightly related side note, as a kid, I really wanted the G.I. Joe hovercraft. That thing was so boss.

-

cawest

09-25-2021, 10:43 AM

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRY3ZCbWoQDsIaXxHFnhO_wYxx-Jycv5Q7ZXvBOpEsz8nCXLHA_g

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRt0_LiUY3lrBGjPjKxvt2jiI98w_1w_ VHg7MMQRvIT_v-wuHEJ

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJ97XTJMCOnzFJARV_PXpE-mzWpOXEXXWOwKPJnNic9x-ssBXg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUZguFY8P9wUROCiC0ra3TUF5KJaGhI d3CN5eGUkBaCXH-hv_S

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/4871.jpg

http://i60.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/d3/bf75059b385750643371cb0a65b3c7d3.jpg

http://i58.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/ef/9e8f5c41d5c34ab62479533ffefa58ef.jpg

http://i60.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/4a/b023bae74dd951b961610a72691ad14a.jpg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffas.org%2Fman%2Fdod-101%2Fsys%2Fland%2Fgrizzly.htm&ei=G4oLVc6OHca1sQSi_ILYDg&bvm=bv.88528373,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNEWtBhHye2_oTFy4Irh0N_7hk8-AA&ust=1426905999546238

The Chieftain just did a Youtube on this tank.

cawest

09-25-2021, 10:44 AM

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/t-54m3-and-t-55m3/?fbclid=IwAR3dGf40YTgoD5VhyA0WtL77DoqiYHWNvIf4LUTX 5qko4UWAfrEU-HhVkVY

shrike6

09-26-2021, 03:56 AM

Air Defense Vulcan Bomber
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/meet-britain%E2%80%99s-bomber-killing-bomber-wasnt-meant-be-193904

pmulcahy11b

09-26-2021, 07:38 AM

You know, I have figured out that, in the 17 years (by averages) of life that I have left, I will never finish my web site.

Vespers War

09-26-2021, 09:17 PM

One I've only found some information on, so it's a bit tentative:

In the early 2000's, McCann Industries manufactured an M1 Garand in .458 Winchester Magnum, using a muzzle brake and a mercury cylinder in the stock to control recoil. Weight is an estimate, everything is calculated using FF&S.

.458 Win Mag Garand
Wt. 5.30 kg, ROF SA, Mag 8(c)8, Dam 6, Pen 2-4-6, Bulk 7, SS 4, Rng 109

Without the brake, SS increases to 6.

It's certainly not a light rifle, but for sentry duty or similar work it puts a higher-powered round into action while still potentially being in a familiar form.

Vespers War

10-18-2021, 08:42 PM

I could have sworn I had written about these, but I can't find a post about it now, so apologies if this is mostly a rehash (and now that I think on it some more, I may have only posted it on a Dark Conspiracy message thread elsewhere).

Back in 2018, Gun Jesus did a video (https://www.forgottenweapons.com/szescei-fuchs-double-barrel-bolt-action-dangerous-game-rifle/) on a Szescei & Fuchs double-barrel bolt-action rifle. Intended for dangerous game hunting, it provides a quicker follow-up shot than a conventional bolt-action with higher ammunition capacity than a tradition double-barrel. Poking around on their website, I found they fall into 7 cartridge sizes: varmint rounds (.17-.22), .30-06, 8x68mm S, .375 H&H Magnum, 9.3x62mm Mauser, .416 Remington Magnum, and .470 Capstick. The Remington Magnum has both side-by-side and over-under configurations, the 8x68mm S is only an over-under, and all the others are only side-by-side. For the Hummingbird in small calibers, I only figured stats for .22 Hornet, which is the most powerful of the available rounds. These are absolute show pieces with engraving and plating and all sorts of decoration, so possibly appropriate for a very rich character to have. While marked as BA for rate of fire, they should be allowed 2 fire actions at SA before having to reload; if only 1 shot is fired before reloading it will eject a live round, since the bolt cycles both barrels' actions simultaneously. The magazine numbers all have "+2" to indicate that both barrels can be carried loaded along with a full magazine.

Hummingbird (5.6x35mm, .22 Hornet)
Wt 3.5 kg, ROF BA, Dam 3, Pen 1-Nil, Blk 7, Mag 8+2, SS 3, Rng 63

Lion’s Dream (7.8x63.1mm Springfield .30-06)
Wt 4.4 kg, ROF BA, Dam 5, Pen 2-3-Nil, Blk 8, Mag 6+2, SS 4, Rng 69

Blue Boy (8x68mm S)
Wt 5.2 kg, ROF BA, Dam 5, Pen 2-4-6, Blk 8, Mag 4+2, SS 5, Rng 75

Elephant’s Life (9.6x72.4mm .375 H&H Magnum)
Wt 5.2 kg, ROF BA, Dam 6, Pen 2-4-6, Blk 9, Mag 6+2, SS 6, Rng 82

Russian Five (9.3x62mm Mauser)
Wt 4.3 kg, ROF BA, Dam 6, Pen 2-4-6, Blk 9, Mag 6+2, SS 6, Rng 83

Big Five Royal Blue / White Tiger / African Queen (10.6x72.4mm .416 Remington Magnum)
Wt 5.2 kg, ROF BA, Dam 7, Pen 2-3-4, Blk 9, Mag 6+2, SS 7, Rng 90

Mokume / Celtic (12.1x72mm .470 Capstick)
Wt 5.4 kg, ROF BA, Dam 8, Pen 2-3-4, Blk 10, Mag 6+2, SS 7, Rng 103

pmulcahy11b

10-19-2021, 01:07 PM

Back in 2018, Gun Jesus did a on a Szescei & Fuchs double-barrel bolt-action rifle.

That's too juicy to ignore! You mind if I do some research on it and come up with stats on my own?

Vespers War

10-19-2021, 06:34 PM

That's too juicy to ignore! You mind if I do some research on it and come up with stats on my own?

Please do. Their own website (http://fuchsfineguns.com/index.php/fine-guns/) is where I got the gun weights and barrel lengths; those plus the bullet diameter and case length are the main numerical variables for the spreadsheet I built based on the FF&S construction system.

ChalkLine

10-27-2021, 07:53 AM

FV721 Fox Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Wheeled) (CVR(W)) Variants

Some of these are well known but I'll put them all here in the one place for ease of reference. Note that at least one of each of these vehicles exists today.

The FV721 FOX CVR(W) is a well known vehicle with a 30mm RARDEN autocannon firing from a three round clip. One of the nice things about the RARDEN is that once the clip is inside the weapon is sealed and no gasses escape into the turret. A conversion kit was made for the FV101 Scorpion CVR(T) creating the FV107 Scimitar CVR(T) but the Fox turret¹ also was fitted to the FV423 (issued to the Berlin Brigade), the M113 and the Alvis Saladin.

Note that some FV721 FOX CVR(W) were fitted with a ZB298 ground search radar but these never had a specialised typology. The FV432 conversion mentioned above had this as standard.

While the 30mm RARDEN was good Alvis also tried out some other variations for niche roles, and all but a few were simply turret swaps:

Fox Scout 7.62mm chaingun or GPMG²
Fox MILAN 7.62mm chaingun or GPMG and twin MILAN post²
Fox AA Oerlikon 20mm
Panga FT700 7.62x2
Panga FT800 12.7/7.62
Panga GKN 7.62x1
Stoat/Pole Cat GKN 7.62 turret (as used on the standard FV432)
Night Fox w/thermal instead or radar²
Fox Blow/Jav 7.62mm chaingun or GPMG (replace MILAN with other missile)²
Thunder Fox 7.62mm chaingun or GPMG and HVM missile
Fox "Glow" NBC reconnaissance (no weapon). This little guy is massively sealed and the interior has a nuclear spall liner.

While none of the turrets fitted to the FV101 Scorpion CVR(T) could be fitted to the FV721 FOX CVR(W), all the turrets on the Fox could be fitted to the Scorpion. This means you can have some really weird and whacky Scorps in your game.

¹I can't find its designation
²This is the same turret and the systems are interchangeable

Vespers War

10-28-2021, 07:44 PM

There was also an experimental Fox shown at the 1982 British Army Equipment Exhibition with the one-person FMC turret equipped with a 25mm Bushmaster M242 chain gun and a coaxial 7.62mm.

As far as I know that one doesn't exist anymore, but the Vixen does, the unarmed variant with a turret blank carrying the smoke grenade launchers.

Brit

10-29-2021, 03:16 AM

In this month's, well the November 2021 issue of, Military Modelcraft International, there is a 1/72 model build of Obiekt 195. (Object 195? Or is it "Ob’yct"?):

https://pocketmags.com/military-modelcraft-international-magazine/november-2021/articles/1054613/obiekt-195

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/w-model-wb109-object-195-russian-mbt-prototype-with-152mm-gun--1347074

Crewless turret with a 152mm gun and "auxilliary cannon". Looks wile the latter can be used an an AA gun (?)

Is this James Langham's "T95 (Ob'yct 1321)" in his 'The Last Soviet Tanks'?

pmulcahy11b

10-29-2021, 01:49 PM

Ob'yekt or Ob'jekt. I've seen both. English translation, Object or in this context, Prototype.

ChalkLine

10-29-2021, 06:29 PM

cawest

11-09-2021, 07:41 PM

pmulcahy11b

11-10-2021, 09:26 AM

just found this and thought it would fit here. the key is production cost at less than 50 dollars. it would be good for truck crews or ship's crews kind of like M3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQK9JNsrq_8

Got that -- though I don't remember where I put it. (I think Best Shotguns That Never Were.) However, the T2K cost is significantly more than $50.

cawest

11-10-2021, 06:18 PM

Got that -- though I don't remember where I put it. (I think Best Shotguns That Never Were.) However, the T2K cost is significantly more than $50.

i think i am going to make it fire darts underwater. the russians have a pistol with 4 barrels (4.5mm) for underwater use.

Vespers War

11-10-2021, 10:15 PM

i think i am going to make it fire darts underwater. the russians have a pistol with 4 barrels (4.5mm) for underwater use.

The Russians also have a pair of amphibious longarms (they're smoothbore, so technically not rifles) - the 5.66x39mm APS and 5.45x39mm ASM-DT, plus the rifled amphibious bullpup 5.45x39mm ADS. Only the APS would be available in most T2K timelines, with the ASM-DT accepted for service in 2000 and the ADS in 2013.

Brit

11-15-2021, 11:39 AM

Duxford Tanks. Chieftain Marksman. 17/06/2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CWeino-wu0

Brit

11-26-2021, 10:37 AM

Some "never was" and / or Frankentanks here: 'Alternate AFVs for the '70s'. - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alternate-afvs-for-the-70s.424117/

Plus a M551 Sheridan Low Altitude Parachute drop from youtube (?) part way down the third page.

Tegyrius

11-26-2021, 04:45 PM

Some "never was" and / or Frankentanks here: 'Alternate AFVs for the '70s'. - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alternate-afvs-for-the-70s.424117/

Nice find!

I have highly inappropriate feelings toward that Israeli upgrade of the M60A2 on the second page of that thread.

- C.

Vespers War

11-26-2021, 06:42 PM

At least one of the frankentanks might be a bit problematic:

The Roetz (Panther hull with a T-54 turret) will run into diameter issues, since the Panther has a 165cm ring and the T-54 a 182.5cm ring.

Brit

11-28-2021, 03:22 AM

ChalkLine

11-28-2021, 05:35 AM

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs? 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

I'm no rivet counter but I have to have logical builds. Like I get an eye-twitch when I see desert vehicles with crap festooned over the air intakes.

The beauty of T2K conversions is that you seriously can drape tonnes of stowage all over a vehicle and it's absolutely right!

Vespers War

11-28-2021, 04:37 PM

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs? 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

However, when I found that a model (?) T34/76 turret would fit exactly on a (Revell 1/72) M2 Bradley kit, i.e. the model's turret 'rings' were the same... well, it could have happened...

Just wish someone did a 1/72 Starship turret / kit. There is / was a 1/72 kit of it but it is now seemingly 'collectable' / out of production / v. expensive. Even when there were lots of LMSs (Local Model Shops) I never saw one on the shelf.

I have seen photos of M60 Starships, or one as a test, with the trad. gun swopped for a non-missile firing 105mm (?) main gun.

I think IIRC Antenna photoshopped the real turret onto an Abrams.

The M60A1E3 was a prototype that tested the M68 105mm cannon with the Starship turret (on an M60A1 hull, as this was part of the testing to develop the M60A2). It was about 1700 pounds heavier than the M60A2 ended up being. AFAIK, it was an M68 (the M60's cannon), not the M68E1 used on the A1 and A3 tanks.

Edit to add: I'm usually OK with small differences in turret ring size or other equipment carriage mounts - the T-34/76 is pushing it on being too small for a Bradley (the 1942 turret is 1.38 meters, while the Bradley is 1.50). The T-34/85 would almost be a better match at 1.56 meters, or a bit over 2" larger than the Bradley. The Panther/T-54 difference is almost 7", which is enough volume that I can't imagine there wouldn't be something important being impinged on.

cawest

11-28-2021, 07:35 PM

The M60A1E3 was a prototype that tested the M68 105mm cannon with the Starship turret (on an M60A1 hull, as this was part of the testing to develop the M60A2). It was about 1700 pounds heavier than the M60A2 ended up being. AFAIK, it was an M68 (the M60's cannon), not the M68E1 used on the A1 and A3 tanks.

Edit to add: I'm usually OK with small differences in turret ring size or other equipment carriage mounts - the T-34/76 is pushing it on being too small for a Bradley (the 1942 turret is 1.38 meters, while the Bradley is 1.50). The T-34/85 would almost be a better match at 1.56 meters, or a bit over 2" larger than the Bradley. The Panther/T-54 difference is almost 7", which is enough volume that I can't imagine there wouldn't be something important being impinged on.

if the new turret is wider then it should not be an issue of making a "step" that acts as an adapter between old hull and new turret. it would have to have armored skin or maybe just ERA covering that area.

Brit

11-29-2021, 11:41 AM

To be honest I put the T72/76 turret on as a) it was available / left over and b) looked 'ok'. I am interested that the T34/85 has a similar turret ring size but it seems like too much turret and too much gun. However having seen photos of the what has been put on M113s in the real world... I suppose it depends on how much stress the firing puts on the chassis / whatever?

PS. I did stick a Bradley turret on a standard M113... hence why I had a Bradley chassis spare.

shrike6

01-04-2022, 06:42 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

ChalkLine

01-09-2022, 04:50 PM

I'm not sure if this has been posted, I couldn't find it.

Vickers Mark 11 6x6 Armoured Car

A failed bid for the Australian Bushranger contact, the Mk11 is a lightly armoured wheeled personnel carrier with surprisingly heavy armament. Development began in 1993 and the result is as follows:

Crew: 4+8
Mass: 20,000kg
Max speed (road): 105km/h
Max speed (water): 8km/h
Range: 1,000km
Armour: Proof vs mall arms (7.62AP) and shell fragments
Fuel cap: 500L
Armament:
L7 105mm cannon, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax, 12.7mm M2 (loader)
or
120mm mortar or 81mm mortar, 12.7mm M2
or
20mm AA gun (unspecified), 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax
or
12.7mm M2, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax (APC variant)

as well as the usual command, ambulance, fitter and so on variants.

Extra equipment: 350L water tank, centralized tyre pressure regulation system.

http://zonwar.ru/images/tank/sovr_btr/Vickers_Mk_11_2.jpg

http://zonwar.ru/images/tank/sovr_btr/Vickers_Mk_11_3.jpg

Ursus Maior

01-10-2022, 02:22 AM

Oh, wow, can't remember I ever read about this one before. With a complement of 4+8 people and a 105 mm gun, this sure sounds cramped for a 6x6. Though this link speaks only of 7 dismounts, which would still be a regular number for armored infantry: http://www.military-today.com/artillery/vickers_mk11.htm

Any knowledge as to why it failed the bid?

Targan

01-10-2022, 06:18 PM

Any knowledge as to why it failed the bid?

I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was out of contention early in the process. The prototypes the Australian Army ended up evaluating were the ADI Bushmaster (based on the Irish MP44) and the ASVS Taipan (based on the South African Mamba). It seems like the Vickers was out of contention by 1995 in the Bushranger Project tender process. If I had to guess, it probably didn't meet the 70% threshold for the requirement to be manufactured and built in Australia.

Ursus Maior

01-11-2022, 02:25 AM

I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was out of contention early in the process. The prototypes the Australian Army ended up evaluating were the ADI Bushmaster (based on the Irish MP44) and the ASVS Taipan (based on the South African Mamba). It seems like the Vickers was out of contention by 1995 in the Bushranger Project tender process. If I had to guess, it probably didn't meet the 70% threshold for the requirement to be manufactured and built in Australia.

Ah, yes, that all sounds very likely, thanks.

Vespers War

03-19-2022, 05:02 PM

The Royal Armouries released a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt2jFOteIco) a few days ago on the BSA 28P. Rather unsurprisingly, Paul already has it in his Best Assault Rifles That Never Were (http://pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_asr_that_never_were.htm), but the video mentions that the earliest prototypes did not include the cyclical rate inhibitor of the rifle that was written up. For serial number 1 (and an unknown number after, but probably no more than 6 because SN 7 has the inhibitor):

Change ROF from 5 to 10
Change burst recoil from 9 to 19

Yes, it's going to spit bullets everywhere but where it is aimed. Based on trials results, that seems to be historically accurate.

The write-up also mentions that it used rifle grenades. Per the video, the one it was designed around was the British anti-tank grenade No. 85, which was equivalent to the American M9/M9A1. It used a scaled-down bazooka-like shaped-charge warhead capable of penetrating 2" (~51mm) of armor.

Raellus

03-30-2022, 07:18 PM

Pretty sure we've discussed this one already, but it's an interesting piece. It includes a bit about the "never-really-was" IT-1 Missile Tank as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44989/unique-soviet-monster-tank-designed-to-survive-a-nuclear-blast-has-roared-back-to-life

-

pmulcahy11b

03-31-2022, 11:54 AM

Vespers War

03-31-2022, 04:58 PM

I just checked my site; I can't believe I didn't do that one!

I also checked your site earlier today to see if you'd done it. There's some very basic information here (https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Tanks/Russian_Missile_Tanks.htm) on various missile tanks, and I might pull together more information, since some of these are beautifully weird vehicles.

Object 757 was an IS-3 with a 125mm launcher for 9K112/AT-8 "Songster" missiles.

Object 775 was a new hull with the same launcher.

Object 282 was built on a T-10 chassis with a pop-up launcher firing either 152mm anti-tank rockets (22 carried) or 132mm anti-tank rockets (30 carried).

Object 287 is a weird little thing with a pair of the 73mm gun-launchers from the BMP-1 (and a pair of coaxial PKT machine guns) and a pop-up launcher with 15 of the 9M15 Taifun radio-guided anti-tank missile.

And, of course, the IT-1 that saw service with two tank destroyer battalions.

By the way, on the "Best Tanks That Never Were," I think the ammo loadouts for the M1A4 and M60 Modernization Package have been reversed - the M1A4 is carrying 105mm rounds despite being armed with a 140mm gun, and the M60 has 140mm and 30mm rounds. Also, the M60-2000 has 120mm ammo despite having a 105mm M68.

pmulcahy11b

03-31-2022, 08:10 PM

By the way, on the "Best Tanks That Never Were," I think the ammo loadouts for the M1A4 and M60 Modernization Package have been reversed - the M1A4 is carrying 105mm rounds despite being armed with a 140mm gun, and the M60 has 140mm and 30mm rounds. Also, the M60-2000 has 120mm ammo despite having a 105mm M68.

All I can say is Oops! Thanks for the catch!

pmulcahy11b

03-31-2022, 08:13 PM

Object 757 was an IS-3 with a 125mm launcher for 9K112/AT-8 "Songster" missiles.

Object 282 was built on a T-10 chassis with a pop-up launcher firing either 152mm anti-tank rockets (22 carried) or 132mm anti-tank rockets (30 carried).

IS-3? T-10? What did the Soviets do, raid a boneyard?

Vespers War

03-31-2022, 11:02 PM

IS-3? T-10? What did the Soviets do, raid a boneyard?

Object 757 dates to 1959 and Object 282 to 1961, so when they were built their hull types had been introduced 15 and 9 years earlier respectively. They were probably trying to find a use for the old heavy tank hulls after the introduction of the T-54/55.

pmulcahy11b

04-01-2022, 05:21 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a31zPv5bljg

It's about the MiG-31 - but not the one you think.

While you're watching it, remember the date today...

stilleto69

04-02-2022, 02:02 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a31zPv5bljg

It's about the MiG-31 - but not the one you think.

While you're watching it, remember the date today...

Didn't Mitchell Gant steal one for us. :)

shrike6

04-03-2022, 03:30 PM

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/646359/20181760MN000117.pdf
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/646358/20181760MN000116.pdf
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/1048554/20181815MN009930.pdf

shrike6

04-03-2022, 06:24 PM

Here's the prototype

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-m113-hellfire

Vespers War

04-04-2022, 09:00 PM

Going for something a bit older, Jonathan at the Royal Armouries did a video last week (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HeztkQ9WNE) about efforts to attach an external magazine to the Martini-Henry rifle to make it a manual repeater and thus not completely obsolete in the late 1880s. It's actually a pretty ingenious little device with a feed arm that pushes a round out of the box magazine and into the chamber of the rifle when it functions properly. There were versions for both the .577/450 round and the .402 that was never officially adopted because .303 was picked instead. The follower has a little catch at the bottom of the magazine so it can be locked down while rounds are being loaded, then released once the magazine is closed. In theory it could be dump loaded in probably two actions (one to lock the follower and open the mag, one to dump rounds and close the magazine and release the follower), but with the rimmed ammunition in use that might increase the risk of rim lock, so careful loading (one action per loaded round) is more likely except in case of emergency.

Martini-Henry with Harston device, .577/450
Wt 3.96 kg, Ammo 5+1, ROF LA, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 3, Rng 101

Martini-Henry with Harston device, .402
Wt 4.02 kg, Ammo 7+1, ROF LA, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Rng 78

Fire, Fusion & Steel wants a longer barrel for the .402 round, which only drops from 85 grains of black powder to 80 - at 105 cm (instead of the actual 84.4 cm), the range would be back up to 101 with Dam 3 and SS 3.

Probably not many of these were made as they were never adopted, but like an Alofs device they could make an interesting little bit of kit for a PC with eclectic tastes.

Vespers War

05-03-2022, 04:06 PM

I ran across a reference to a tank that apparently never got built, but was proposed in the 1990s. The recently reunified Germany had a lot of incompatible tanks, and when Malaysia was looking for something better than what they had, Germany proposed taking the hull of a Leopard 1 and putting the turret from a T-72 on it. While the hull would be rather underarmored, it wasn't much worse than a T-72 and was considered mechanically better (particularly for cross-country mobility), while the 125mm gun provided a firepower upgrade over the 105mm mounted in the Leopard's turret. Most Twilight timelines would never see this exist, but in Merc it might end up being produced for export - with over 2,000 Leopard 1 hulls available and 549 T-72 turrets, a decent number could be manufactured even if they didn't acquire more turrets.

pmulcahy11b

05-04-2022, 11:21 AM

Arrrrggghhh...where are you guys finding all this stuff?

Vespers War

05-04-2022, 09:22 PM

Arrrrggghhh...where are you guys finding all this stuff?

When Rheinmetall mentioned wanting to send Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, I went over to Google to look up information on them because I couldn't remember how modernized they were. Looking through links about Leopard 1 modifications, I ran across mention of the whatever-the-hell-this-is-called on Reddit's TankPorn channel and then a few mentions here and there across the rest of the internet. I think it was involved in the competition where Malaysia selected the PT-91 Twardy over the K1, T-90, and T-84, but finding solid references to that competition is beyond my skills.

swaghauler

05-09-2022, 08:08 PM

One proposed modification which was never implemented was mounting an M102 Howitzer on the back of a dual cab (seats 4 or 5) M548 cargo track. The gun could be fired through about 270 degrees and the carrier would mount a plow at the rear to dig in the track (just like an M110 does). An ideal tool for a shoot-n-scoot mechanized artillery unit.

Today, for Ukraine's urgent need, I'd postulate mounting our now surplus M198 Towed howitzers on a lowboy connected to a HEMTT heavy haul. Mount the gun on a 360-degree plate and equip the lowboy with hydraulic outriggers. The gun could be manned from ground level and would provide a heavy shoo-n-scoot capability with lower maintenance costs and high movement speeds.

Vespers War

05-19-2022, 10:44 PM

Have I got a doozy for you guys this time! Jonathan Ferguson at the Royal Armouries did a video on the Kretz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd-5JBwypQs) Rifle, a Pattern 13 modified to use a Mannlicher straight-pull bolt, then further modified to be an automatic rifle (note in that era a machine rifle did automatic fire and an automatic rifle did semi-automatic fire).

The mechanism is a wonderfully bizarre blow-forward chain-driven repeater. When the barrel shroud is pulled forward by gas pressure, it pulls a chain on the left side of the rifle that's connected to a pulley on the left side of the butt. That winds up a spring and also rotates a pulley on the right side of the butt. When the gas pressure declines, the spring returns to its normal state, pulling the left chain back and also rotating the right pulley, which now pulls back on the right chain that's attached to the bolt, opening the bolt and ejecting the spent cartridge, and disengaging from the left pulley. That also winds up a second spring attached to the right pulley, which releases when the trigger is released, driving the right chain in the opposite direction and closing the bolt on a fresh round.

It's specifically called out for being excessively heavy, and I'm trying to find out just how much weight that chain drive added to the rifle. It's a terrible design that couldn't work as built and wouldn't work well even if the fundamental flaws were corrected, but I can't help but love the Rube Goldberg-esque effort that went into making this armorer's nightmare.

pmulcahy11b

05-20-2022, 09:50 AM

Well, that's properly...weird. Wouldn't want to go into combat with one.

Is a "Bicycle chain rifle" what we call "Frankenweapons" in the US?

cawest

05-20-2022, 10:58 PM

lav 75 that the Chieftain found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XWKYKu9q9o&list=PLYgipOCaRI02K8nhcCBLCL4fOEymXECda

Vespers War

05-27-2022, 09:32 PM

For a late Soviet supertank, there's Object 195 (sometimes referred to as T-95, but that was never an actual designation). This was Uralvagonzavod's competitor against the Black Eagle for post-T-90 tank development, and probably a direct ancestor of the T-14. Even though it started development in 1988 and was canceled for the last time in 2010, details are still sketchy, but here's what I've been able to pick up:

Mass: somewhere around 55 tonnes
Crew: 2. Uncrewed turret, hull has just driver and gunner/commander
Armament: 152mm L/55 2A83, coaxial 30mm 2A42, and Kord 12.7mm
Engine: 1500+ horsepower
Estimated top speed: 80 km/h
Defenses: Relikt ERA, Shtora-2 jammer, Standard* active protection system
Sensors: thermal, infrared, laser designator**, radar gunsight for use with HE-Frag rounds

*This might be Arena, or it might have changed to Arena at some point. Pictures imply four or five launchers on each side of the turret, mounted just above the ring. No ability to engage Tank Breaker/Javelin.
**There was consideration that it could fire laser-guided shells developed for the 152mm Msta SPG, and even if it couldn't, it could guide them on target.

Vespers War

09-26-2022, 04:45 PM

Once again I'm introducing something that was closer to the worst that ever was, but it's a system whose promise looked good until the contractor couldn't deliver on those promises.

During the Vietnam War, the US Army was impressed by the RPG-7 and Army Missile Command was ordered to reverse-engineer it and see if the LAW could be improved. Fast-forward a number of years, and General Dynamics received a contract to build an improved version, the FGR-17 Viper, at a price of $78 a pop. At that price, the Army expected to buy 1.7 million launchers and issue them widely, with "as common as hand grenades" being mentioned in some proposals.

Then reality set in. Between the technical requirements for it to be light and low-noise (relatively - < 180 dB launch, which is still pretty damn loud), and some utterly baffling decisions to use water-soluble propellant and a magneforming process that had failed previously in the LAW's development, the Viper quickly became a boondoggle. By the time it was canceled in 1983, tens of millions of dollars had been spent on R&D and the per-unit cost had ballooned from $78 to $1,310. When the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued an ultimatum to get the unit price down to $400, GD balked and Congress canceled the program, then ordered the Army to test off-the-shelf systems, leading to the adoption of the AT4.

If it had seen service, the Viper would have been somewhere around these stats:
Wt 4 kg, ROF 1, Rld *, Rng 60, Round HEAT, Damage C:4 B:5, Pen 60C

It's not a terribly good system even with fairly optimistic stats, being twice the weight of a LAW for an extra 10 meters of range and 5 points of Pen. The big advantage would have been the price if it could have been made at the original $78 each, and a universe where that happened likely would see extremely widespread deployment of the weapon, even if it was mostly useful against light armored vehicles and unlikely to do much more than piss off a tank (as the USMC used as justification for backing out of the program).

Vespers War

10-25-2022, 07:03 PM

I think I have managed to work out information for most of the Soviet missile tanks that pre-date the dual-use gun-missile launchers of the mid-70s and later. I still need to work out the exact stats, but here's the history I've found for the ones that actually had prototypes built as opposed to just being paper designs.

The development of missile tanks came around for a few reasons. Krushchev was opposed to heavy tanks and there were concerns that the D-10T on the T-54/55 couldn't penetrate the M60 from the front at reasonable combat ranges. So, various attempts were made to create a tank with missiles as the primary weapon.

The first of these was Object 757, a Chelyabinsk project in 1958 or 1959. It used the hull from a T-10M, with the engine upgraded to 850 horsepower and crew reduced from 4 to 3. The removal of the turret and replacement with a missile launcher reduced the mass to 44 tonnes. The original armament was a launcher for the KL-8 Sprut. This was a long (1.7 meter) 130mm missile with a 5 kilometer range. It was radio-guided until its IR seeker picked up the target for terminal maneuvers. 18 missiles were carried along with a coaxial PKVT and a SGMT. Around 1963 this would be refitted with the turret from Object 775, which is how it has been preserved to this day. The failure of the original version is the same problem that bedeviled pretty much all of these - the missile technology was insufficiently mature.

Next was Object 282, which also used a T-10M hull, but managed to fit a 1000 horsepower engine while also lightening the frontal armor since it was intended to fight at range. The intended armament was a 170mm Salamandra launcher with 16 missiles and a range of 3 kilometers. Salamandra failed quickly and the vehicle was modified to Object 282T.

Object 282T replaced the Salamandra with a pair of pop-up unguided anti-tank rocket launchers, one at each rear corner of the hull. There were two choices of rocket, the 132mm TRS-132 or the 152mm TRS-152. Each launcher could have either 15 of the former or 11 of the latter, for a total of 30 or 22 (or one launcher with each).

In 1964, Object 287 was introduced on a T-64 hull. This has one of the more interesting weapons layouts. In the center of the very flat turret is a pop-up launcher for the 9M15 Taifun radio-guided ATGM, with 15 of the missiles in the hull. On either side of the launcher is a weapons station, each of which has a 73mm 2A25 Molniya with 16 rounds and a PKT with 1500 rounds. The Molniya is similar to the 2A28 Grom on the BMP-1, possibly with a slightly shorter barrel. The Taifun was intended to have a 4 kilometer range but, once again, lack of maturity in missile technology left this as just a prototype.

Also in 1964, Chelyabinsk got back into the missile tank business with Object 775, also on a T-64 hull. Much like the MBT-70, this put the crew in the turret, with a driver/commander in a counter-rotating cupola to always face forward, with just a gunner for company. It had a fairly stubby 125mm rifled tube rocket launcher and the ability to carry 24 Rubin ATGMs, 48 Bur rockets, or 15 Rubin and 22 Bur. Rubin was another radio-guided missile with a 5 kilometer range, while Bur was a high explosive (not HEAT) rocket with a 9 kilometer range and higher speed (650 to 750 m/s compared to Rubin's 550 m/s). The turret also had a PKT coaxially mounted. This turret would be trialed on Object 757 as well. This apparently did not enter service because Rubin underperformed on armor penetration.

1968 would see the only missile tank to enter production, the Object 150/IT-1, which was built on a T-62 hull and used the 3M7 Drakon missile and a coaxial PKT.

ToughOmbres

11-22-2022, 01:39 PM

I know this is a somewhat older thread; however my vote today is my favorite from when the game was originally published: The LAV-75.

Raellus

11-24-2022, 10:54 AM

I know this is a somewhat older thread; however my vote today is my favorite from when the game was originally published: The LAV-75.

Right there with you, TO. This thread might be of interest,

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1043&highlight=Ridgeway

-

ToughOmbres

11-24-2022, 06:23 PM

Right there with you, TO. This thread might be of interest,

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1043&highlight=Ridgeway

-

Thank you. Absolutely-most of the observations were spot on. Great concept and just plain neat.

shrike6

11-25-2022, 06:53 AM

Cheetah/Hum-Vee prototype
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-us-mti-teledyne-continental-cheetah-hmmwv-prototype/

Vespers War

12-08-2022, 04:30 PM

As far as I know, this gun never received an actual name, but in the 1950s Winchester was working on a cheap and simple submachine gun in 9mm Parabellum. It fired from an open bolt, and had a folding stock that could be used as a forward handgrip in its stowed position, clipping to a bolt under the muzzle. It used leftover MP 40 magazines, although I imagine if it had been adopted an early update would have seen it adapted for use with Uzi magazines. The Armourer's Bench (https://armourersbench.com/2018/09/06/winchester-experimental-submachine-gun/) noted it has a 7.5" barrel, which is the only measurement I could find for the gun, so everything else is calculated by FF&S based on being a light automatic firearm using 9mm Para from a 7.5" barrel.

Winchester "Burp Gun"
Wt 1.85 kg, ROF 5, Mag 32, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Bulk 4, SS 2, Burst 5, Range 70

I'd probably adjust the range down to around 50 or so, since FF&S is very enthusiastic about the range of pistol-caliber firearms with shoulder stocks. As a one-handed weapon range would drop to 21, which I'd increase to 25 considering the availability of the front grip.

shrike6

12-23-2022, 04:59 AM

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-military-aircraft-america-almost-bought-iceberg/

Brit

01-13-2023, 11:32 AM

pmulcahy11b

01-13-2023, 12:27 PM

I have a 140mm-armed Abrams on my Best Tanks that Never Were page, as the GDLS M1A4 Abrams V:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_that_never_was/best_tanks_that_never_were.htm

The gun is here under 140mm NATO:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/lgcal_guns.htm

Vespers War

01-13-2023, 04:08 PM

I was Googling "Abrams 140mm"... I know... :) and found this:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/abramsx-general-dynamics-released-the-first-footage-of-the-prototype-of-the-prospective-tank/

Is it the 140mm version? Unusual 'camo'/

Still, could be found in warehouse somewhere and put into use...

:(

Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/tanks-of-2022-old-dogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

The real-world 140mm Abrams was the CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed), which was fitted with the XM291 Advanced Tank Cannon. Its special deal was that the caliber could be changed in the field in an hour by swapping barrels, being either a 120mm L/55 or a 140mm L/47. There were 17 rounds in the turret either way, with the hull carrying either 22 of the 140mm rounds or 33 of the 120mm rounds. A bustle-mounted autoloader gave the tank an 8-10 round per minute fire rate. Armor was upgraded as well so that the turret front was 1250-1300mm RHAe and the turret sides were around 520mm RHAe.

The gun was tested in 1987-88, the overall tank (fitted with a Cummins diesel) was tested in 1990, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 killed the project.

pmulcahy11b

01-13-2023, 08:32 PM

Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/tanks-of-2022-old-dogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

Thanks for turning me on to that site!

Brit

01-15-2023, 07:24 AM

Paul, that's OK. Certainly seeing how your site has helped me over the years.

Vespers War

03-11-2023, 05:02 AM

One interesting concept that was trialed but never entered service was the US Army's siliceous cored armor. It was a sandwich with two layers of steel around a layer of fused silica. Now-declassified reports state that it replaced an inch of steel in the original armor layout with four inches of silica. A four inch thick plate of silica was the same weight as a one inch plate of steel, so the only weight growth was because thicker armor meant slightly larger plates were needed. Against kinetic rounds, the silica was roughly equal to steel on a mass basis, so the four inches of silica were equal to the one inch of steel they replaced. Conversely, silica was about 50% more effective against chemical warheads (HE/HEAT) on a thickness basis, so the four inches of silica were equivalent to replacing one inch of steel with six inches.

The siliceous cored armor was trialed on the T95 medium tank of 1955 and the XM60 prototypes. The XM60's glacis and turret front were found to be completely immune to 120mm HEAT rounds.

However, there were downsides. The armor was expensive and difficult to produce, although that likely could have been improved over time - experimental armors are nearly always expensive and difficult to produce at first. More concerningly, an AP round that struck the armor but didn't penetrate could still pulverize the silica core, leaving the tank vulnerable to follow-up shots from either AP or HE/HEAT rounds. This did not hold for HE or HEAT rounds, where the silica's "elastic rebound" meant that armor would expand back into the hole made by the explosive (this would also happen as the HEAT jet was penetrating, which was the source of its ability to smother HEAT attacks). Unless perfectly aligned to fire down the same path as the first shell, a second chemical warhead hitting the armor would have no penetration advantage.

The easiest way to simulate an M60 with this armor is probably just to add Cp to the armor figures for HF and TF, and add some weight to account for the increased volume of armor. I haven't seen any estimates of how much weight the armor added, but 0.5 tonnes seems reasonable. This ignores the pulverization issue and simplifies the effect against HE/HEAT, but has the upside of being easy to implement.

Raellus

04-05-2023, 08:36 PM

https://www.hotcars.com/weirdest-top-secret-soviet-military-vehicles-that-we-know-about/#t-55-progrev-t

-

Raellus

06-01-2023, 01:26 PM

Just when I think that I've discovered every exotic Cold War-era Polish weapon system, I stumble upon something new.

Apparently, the Poles were working on a modular rifle system. It would have been able to fire multiple calibers (but mainly a proprietary 7x41mm round) with a few parts swaps, and could be configured as an assault rifle, mag-fed SAW, carbine, and battle rifle. The Soviets put the kabash on it, as they wanted the Poles to pay for the AK-74 license. Those clever Poles still figured out a way to do their own thing, developing, adopting, and producing the just-different-enough wz. 88 Tantal instead.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/project-lantan-poland-designs-a-modular-ak-in-7x41mm/

-

Ursus Maior

06-01-2023, 03:58 PM

Many envision the Warsaw Pact to be to monolithic entity the Soviets always wanted and claimed it to be. In fact, the Poles and Czechoslovakians used their increasing strength in domestic industry to develop as much as they could for themselves, the Romanians did so too and had essentially left the Pact during the 1970s. Meanwhile, the Hungarians and Bulgarians barely fielded effective armies, the former were even more an occupied country then the rest and didn't move without order and consent of their Kremlin masters. Bulgaria had active T-34 regiments (as did Romania) in its hardly mechanized army.

The Polish had really amazing projects during the late days of the Cold War. No wonder the Soviets were relatively sure that, come push to shove, the Polish were likely not to follow orders to attack the West.

Vespers War

06-16-2023, 05:09 PM

In 1961, Japan began replacing their Chaffee light tanks with Walker Bulldogs, and were curious if they could find a continued use for the old Chaffees. With a 75mm main gun and less than 40mm of armor at its thickest, they weren't exactly a threat to newer tanks rolling off the assembly lines. Their solution was to fit a quartet of Type 64 MAT (http://pmulcahy.com/atgm/japanese_atgm.htm) (Paul lists it as Type 65) in individual box launchers on the turret. Each rear corner of the turret had a box, while the other two were attached to the sides of the turret.

The thinking was that even as the M24 was being replaced as a combat tank, its gun was still useful against soft or light-armored vehicles (APCs), and the ATGMs would give it a punch if it ran across something the gun couldn't handle.

At least one prototype was built and tested, but it was felt that given the relatively slow and underpowered nature of the missile, mounting it on something that couldn't hide wasn't a good use of resources. It would also be expensive to maintain compared to a jeep or APC-mounted launcher, since there wasn't parts commonality with any other vehicles.

Raellus

06-25-2023, 03:00 PM

Most of these never made it past the trial stage. One never made it past the non-firing prototype state. According to the article, a small number of Sergey Simonov’s AG-043 saw service with the KGB.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/27/krinks-never-aksu-trial-rifles/

-

Vespers War

09-12-2023, 06:10 PM

Based on last week's announcement (https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_moderniz ation) regarding Abrams tank development, we can add the M1A2 SEPv4 to the Best That Never Was...

.45cultist

09-13-2023, 04:53 AM

Raellus

10-14-2023, 12:30 PM

The BTR-90 was first displayed publicly in 1994, and several early production models found their way into the hands of internal security units in the early 2000s. Based on that IRL info, it's quite possible that additional units would have been produced and deployed in the T2k timelines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/10/13/the-russian-army-dragged-old-experimental-btr-90-vehicles-from-a-test-site-and-sent-them-to-ukraine/?sh=6df0134a1560

https://tank-afv.com/modern/Russia/BTR-90.php

-

Vespers War

10-16-2023, 09:16 PM

Ursus Maior

10-21-2023, 08:08 AM

It feels like the ideal would have been for mechanized infantry to be mounted in the BMP-3 and motorized infantry in the BTR-90 in the ready divisions, with cadre divisions having units with older equipment until the ready divisions are fully equipped with the new vehicles and additional production can flow down to the cadre. Mobilisation units would get the cadre's cast-offs (old BMP-1 and BMP-2 for mechanized, BTR-70 and BTR-80 for motorized) as cadre got new vehicles (and production might not ever be high enough to reach mobilisation units until their replacements start entering service).

There likely wouldn't be enough time for production to even reach all the ready divisions in any of the existing Twilight timelines, but maybe Naval Infantry or other elite units might be equipped with them.

That would be a theoretic model at best, but the most propable. Production of BMP-3 was low with BMP-2 production being only phased out during the 1990s. Simultaneously there would be pressure to upgrade the thousands of BTR-60s and BMP-1Ps in service. Soviet equipment would be at least as diverse, colorful and improvised in the Twilight War as Russian equipment is now.

Which is fine, it adds flavor.

Vespers War

11-27-2023, 09:11 PM

After looking at some of the Aggressor documents, I got curious what was being worked on around the end of World War 2, and one of the more interesting vehicles is the T30 heavy tank. According to R. P. Hunnicutt's Firepower it was actually slightly heavier than the T28 superheavy tank, despite only having around half the armor. It was that heavy because instead of the T28's 105mm gun, the T30 mounted a 155mm L/41 monster. It was intended to take on a King Tiger or Jagdtiger (or IS-2) with odds in its favor. Muzzle velocity was somewhat lethargic at only 700 meters/second, but 155mm of HEAT was found to have an impressive effect on pretty much anything it hit.

Fire Control: 0
Armament: 155mm L/41 T7 (34 rds), 2x 12.7mm M2HB (coax & pintle, 1500 rds), 2x 7.62mm M1919 (coax & bow, 2500 rds)
Fuel Type: G, A
Veh Wt: 86.5 tonnes
Crew: 6 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/assistant driver/bow gunner, 2 loaders)
Mnt: 29
Night Vision: None
Tr Mov: 112/56
Com Mov: 19/9
Fuel Cap: 1300
Fuel Cons: 650
Config: Veh
Susp: T: 4
HF: 53
HS: 23
HR: 15
TF: 61
TS: 48
TR: 31

T7 155mm L/41
Rng: 380 Rld: 4
HE: C: 30 B: 38 Pen: 16
KE: Dam: 34 Pen: 69/60/51/33
HEAT: C: 20 B: 31 Pen: 86

The gun has an extremely low rate of fire because its two-part ammunition is still heavy and difficult to handle, with the shell being almost 100 pounds without the powder charge. The T30E1 added loader assist systems (a power rammer and systems to align the gun with the rammer and return it to battery), but not a full autoloader, which would improve Rld to 2.

Raellus

12-13-2023, 01:54 PM

Like many Gen-X'ers, when I saw that footage of F-14 Tomcats taking off and landing at dawn in the opening credits of Top Gun, it was love at first sight. I was sad to see the Tomcat replaced by the multirole Super Hornet in the early 1990s, and quite surprised that a few D versions held on long enough to drop bombs (!?!) during the early days of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Apparently, a multirole Super Tomcat was proposed to continue the F-14's USN legacy, in lieu of the Super Hornet that eventually won the job IRL. Anyway, the Super Tomcat sounds pretty flippin' awesome.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like

-

Homer

12-14-2023, 08:50 AM

Vespers War

12-14-2023, 09:21 PM

It might have made Goose turn in his grave, but the F-14 was a much better CAS/Strike platform than the legacy F-18. It had the same podded sensor capabilities as the hornet, can carry more practical weight further/stay on station longer, and most importantly came with two sets of eyes/ears/brains. That let the F-14 function as an airborne FAC for other strikes in addition to being a strike aircraft- having a FAC overhead takes some work off the guys in the ground in terms of airspace management and deconfliction.

Yeah, but its logistical tail was much, much worse. The F-14 required 40 to 60 hours of maintenance for each flight hour, where the F-18 only needed 20 (and the F-18E only 10 to 15). Between that and operational costs (where the Super Hornet was 45-50% as expensive as the Tomcat), you could pretty much literally operate 2 F-18Es for the cost of 1 F-14. It can't do the FAC role as effectively, but now you've got more weight, two sets of sensors looking at things, two sets of eyes/ears/brains, and the ability to split that payload if it needs to go in multiple directions, for a lower per-hour cost and half the work for your ground crews.

Vespers War

12-14-2023, 10:27 PM

Tying in to the prototypes theme that this thread originally had, has anyone done any work creating stats for the modern batch of light tanks that in some cases are starting to enter service? I'm thinking of things like the Sabrah, Kaplan/Harimau, Type 15/VT-5, arguably the Sprut-SD, the K21-105, the CV90105 and CV90120-T, and M10 Booker. Regardless of whether they end up being genius or boondoggle in real life, I think they could be interesting in the game as vehicles with firepower roughly on par with an MBT, but with a lighter logistical footprint (less fuel and maintenance) and less protection.

Raellus

12-28-2023, 12:20 PM

This beast is too recent to fit in any but the 2013 T2k continuity, but how can we not speculate at this Russian double-barreled SPAG?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-nearly-fielded-a-double-barreled-self-propelled-artillery-gun

-

Vespers War

02-25-2024, 09:59 PM

C&Rsenal did an episode last week on the Gehendra Rifle. It was a late 1890s Nepalese rifle based on the Martini-Henry with modifications for domestic production. The action was modified to run on flat springs instead of a coil spring, and rifles were hand-fitted rather than machined. There was also a carbine version that's exceedingly rare - Nepal had little cavalry and it's not clear who the carbines were intended for. It's worth noting these post-date the introduction of smokeless powder and bolt-action rifles. Britain didn't want Nepal to have the most modern equipment, but did want Nepal to be better equipped than China in order to serve as a buffer state between India and China.

Gehendra Rifle
Wt 4.20 kg, Mag 1i, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Blk 8, SS 2, Rng 90

Gehendra Carbine
Wt 3.50 kg, Mag 1i, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Blk 6, SS 2, Rng 60

One other firearm developed in the late 1890s was the Bira, a manually cranked machine gun using an action similar to the Gardner but reversed so that the crank was rotated counter-clockwise instead of clockwise, as the inventor felt a pulling motion could be sustained longer than a pushing motion. It was twin-barreled and used a pan magazine that visually resembles the later Lewis magazine, loaded with 120 rounds of .577/450 Martini. They are incredibly heavy, at roughly 900 pounds for the gun, and each magazine weighs 30 pounds empty with the ammunition adding another 10 pounds when loaded. They were intended for use in defensive positions, so the tradeoff of massive weight in exchange for more reliability was viewed as a positive. Like the rifles, parts were hand-fitted to each gun, so most pieces are not interchangeable without shims or other modifications.

Recoil is negligible since the gun is so heavy and is mounted on what's basically a light artillery carriage. Rate of Fire is based on Royal Navy tests of the Gardner, which fired 236 rounds in 30 seconds in its 2-barrel configuration. Since this is less than 700 RPM, ROF is 5 rather than 10 based on the guidelines in Infantry Weapons of the World.

Bira Manual Repeater
Wt 410 kg, ROF 5, Mag 120, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Blk 10, Rng 115

Raellus

03-12-2024, 02:48 PM

A massive, ramjet-powered nuclear-tipped cruise missile with a range of around 4,000 miles.

https://www.twz.com/38188/the-soviet-unions-burya-cruise-missile-was-a-little-known-cold-war-monster

-

Tegyrius

04-02-2024, 08:54 PM

It looks like the M2A3 Bradley Hellfire and 1e's M920 Hellfire AT Vehicle may have had some factual basis. According to this, ground-launched Hellfires were trialed on HMMWVs and an M901 in 1990-91:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/m998-glh-l/

- C.

Homer

04-02-2024, 10:23 PM

Not sure if it was ever live fire tested, but the AUSA Greenbook circa 1983-4 had a picture of an 880 pickup with a twin hellfire mounted in the back reportedly being used as a surrogate by the “high tech test bed”. It’s been a minute, but I think the article was pretty heavily focused on the DIV 86 structures, especially the light and motorized divisions and the divisional aviation brigades.

That’s about the time were on the cusp of fielding tactical UAVs (Aquila), bringing in no-shine combat boots, and getting rid of the Dragon…

That may have been the same issue/year with the CAWS as a developmental weapons system, the M247 DIVAD test battery being fielded, and the add for the Ares 75mm automatic cannon mounted on the AAI high survivability test vehicle-lightweight- “In the time it takes to read this sentence, the ares 75mm cannon has put five rounds on target”.

Raellus

04-03-2024, 09:44 AM

From the Technicals thread.

-

Homer

04-03-2024, 03:13 PM

Similar type vehicle. I think the picture I saw was taken out west, it was a little drier.

Lots of weird stuff got tested in that period.

Raellus

05-28-2024, 02:33 PM

Vespers War

05-28-2024, 07:19 PM

Please forgive me if this one's been posted before.

The Object 287 Taifun was a tank-destroyer (?) based on the T-64 chassis. It had a super-low-profile turret with two low-pressure 73mm guns on either side of a pop-up ATGM launcher.

-

I don't think it's shown up in this thread previously, but it was the last vehicle I statted out in my Soviet Missile Tanks (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=93448&postcount=15) thread.

Raellus

06-19-2024, 10:19 AM

I don't think it's shown up in this thread previously, but it was the last vehicle I statted out in my Soviet Missile Tanks (https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=93448&postcount=15) thread.

Thanks, VW.

Here's a strange one- probably too late for the Twilight War, but not outside the realm of possibility. In the 1990s, perhaps taking a page from Israel's Merkava MBT, the Ukrainians experimented with a heavy IFV based on the T-72. The BMT-72 featured a stretched hull (see image below) to accommodate a five-man troop compartment between the turret (from the T-80, with reduced ammo capacity) and the engine block. Entrance and egress is affected via a trio of roof hatches (see image).

Information is sparse. The following link is the most comprehensive source I've managed to find.

https://en.topwar.ru/142484-tyazhelaya-boevaya-mashina-pehoty-bmt-72-ukraina.html

I'm not surprised that this design didn't enter production. A five-person infantry squad is underpowered, and exiting the vehicle under fire from roof hatches makes the dismounting under fire extremely hazardous.

The Ukrainians also experimented with a version based on their T-84 MBT, the BTMP-84 (2001). The concept and design was similar to the BMT-72, but the engine was offset from center to allow the five troops to dismount via a door in the rear of the tank (like the Merkava). This, no doubt, would have improved survivability for the dismounted infantry, but the project, offered for export, attracted no customers.

-

Vespers War

06-20-2024, 11:11 PM

There was also a Heavy APC program, the BMP-55. It converted a T-55 to an APC with a 3 person crew and 10 infantry passengers. They swapped the machine end for end so the engine would be at the front and the old front could be fitted with doors to avoid the ingress/egress issues of the BMT-72. They also swapped out the original engine for a 5TDF from a T-64. Armament was an RWS with a 12.7mm machine gun with the potential to mount a pair of ATGMs.

As an effort to find some use for obsolete T-54/55 hulls, it made sense. Unfortunately, it was proposed during the Peace Dividend era, and was probably relatively expensive given the extensive conversion being performed.

Additionally, 2005 saw the BMPV-64 prototype built. Shockingly, it was a T-64 conversion. 3 crew and up to 12 passengers, again swapped end-for-end to clear the rear for a clamshell door. The RWS for this one had a 30mm autocannon and a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun. Defenses were augmented with Nozh ERA and Zaslon active defense systems. Again, no sales were made.

Raellus

06-21-2024, 10:44 AM

There was also a Heavy APC program, the BMP-55. It converted a T-55 to an APC with a 3 person crew and 10 infantry passengers. They swapped the machine end for end so the engine would be at the front and the old front could be fitted with doors to avoid the ingress/egress issues of the BMT-72. They also swapped out the original engine for a 5TDF from a T-64. Armament was an RWS with a 12.7mm machine gun with the potential to mount a pair of ATGMs.

Interesting. Sounds very much like the IDF's Achzarit heavy APC (also based on the T-54/55). It first entered service in 1988, so perhaps the Achzarit was an inspiration for the USSR's BMP-55.

As an effort to find some use for obsolete T-54/55 hulls, it made sense. Unfortunately, it was proposed during the Peace Dividend era, and was probably relatively expensive given the extensive conversion being performed.

Given that most of the T2k timelines eliminate or tone down the Peace Dividend drawdowns, BMP-55 seems a likely candidate for at least partial-scale production and, therefore, would have made an appearance on the battlefields of the Twilight War. Dang, it's kind of a looker.

Raellus

07-02-2024, 10:07 AM

A prototype mockup from our very own Chalkline mating a former East German 122mm howitzer to a West German Jaguar 2 Raketenjagdpanzer.

To me, this marriage makes perfect sense. HOT and TOW missiles are going to be used up quickly (plus, there are better platforms to use them). On the other hand, stockpiles of DDR 122mm rounds would probably last considerably longer.

Vespers War

07-03-2024, 07:37 PM

ChalkLine

07-04-2024, 03:55 AM

Weight's likely going to be an issue with that conversion. The Raketenjagdpanzer 4 Jaguar 2 carried a TOW launcher and 20 missiles, which would be around 500 kilograms total. A 122mm howitzer is about 3 tonnes on its own, and the lightest shell is ~17.5 kilograms, so 47 of those will add another 822 kilograms. There will probably need to be some internal reinforcements because the hull's designed for recoilless systems, so I wouldn't be surprised if the overall vehicle weight went from 25 tons to 30 tons. That's still not a heavy vehicle, but the engine's sized for the original vehicle, and the horsepower per ton is going to drop from 20 to 16.67. That's roughly on par with a Swiss Panzer 58 and only slightly better than an M60 Main Battle Tank.

The howitzer is not that weight, it's 40kg lighter than the 90mm of the kanone. I suspect you are including the weight of the ground system.
That's why the amount of shells has decreased because 90mm shells are lighter than 122mm shells.

Here's the numbers:

Barrel: 4.27m
Hull: 6.61m

47x 122mm rounds.
27.5 tons.
70km/h.

122mm Howitzer: 990.65kg (21.7kg/shell) 122 x 447mmR
90mm Cannon: 1,030.00kg (19.2kg/shell) 90 x 600-615mmR
+1,800.0kg armour applique (included)

Vespers War

07-05-2024, 09:39 PM

990.65 kilograms is the mass of just the barrel and breech added together and ignores things like the muzzle brake and recoil system. On the Gvozdika, the recoiling mass of the 122mm howitzer is 1,440 kilograms, and this excludes the stationary components like the gun cradle, loading assistance device (which could be eliminated), and recoil guard.

Raellus

07-06-2024, 10:27 AM

Speaking of German prototype turretless AFVs, check out this oddity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank

From the article: "The idea was that the tank would close in on the enemy on a zig-zag course (Wedelfahrt, much like a skier wedeling downhill). The target would be locked into the aiming computer, the gunner would hold the trigger and the gun would fire automatically in the moment when the muzzle was on the target during the next change of direction."

The two guns aspect of the design was intended to increase the chances of a first-hit, I suppose? Or do the barrels alternate firing between directional changes (i.e. one fires on the zig, the other fires on the zag)?

Raellus

07-15-2024, 06:45 PM

Just stumbled across this oddity- Chrysler's TV-8 medium, nuclear-powered tank. It looks like something one might encounter in the Fallout universe, not the real world (or T2k, really), but here it is.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-story-behind-chrysler-s-nuclear-tank-that-never-was/ar-AA1gLsOm?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6ee719a3b1e24b1381053802ddc96233&ei=45

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/chrysler-tv-8/

Vespers War

07-15-2024, 08:03 PM

I ran across the TV-8 in one of R. P. Hunnicutt's books that my local library had. The plan was to build prototypes with a petrol-electric drive (powered by a 300 horsepower engine) and then figure out whether to switch to another powerplant, with nuclear as one of the options and a gas turbine as another. The design also had a waterjet at the bottom rear of the turret, because it was supposed to be amphibious.

The main gun was the 90mm T208, which had also been fitted to the T95 medium tank, with a pair of coaxial .30 calibre machineguns and a remote turret with a .50 cal AA gun on top.

The hull had only 20mm of armor, while the turret had frontal armor of 70mm at 68 degrees (effective thickness 187mm) and sides of 80mm at 45 degrees (effective thickness 113mm), plus an outer shell of ~10mm to act as spaced armor against HEAT warheads.

Vespers War

10-02-2024, 09:03 PM

Ian released a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYrg92ENvQY) earlier today with a firearm preserved in Prague, the early 1920s Samostril Netsch. It's basically a Czech BAR, chambered for 7.92mm Mauser. The museum has a webpage with enough information on the gun to put together its stats.

Wt 7.82 kg, ROF 5, Mag 20, Dam 5, Pen 2-3-Nil, Bulk 9, SS 3, Brst 8, Range 100

The one trials it took part in, the gun broke after 23 shots, so there were some robustness issues. It does have some interesting features where the safety seals the rear of the action when engaged, and the front handguard can slide back to block the magazine well if there's no magazine loaded, both presumably efforts by a Great War survivor to keep mud out of the action. As the same sort of proto-SAW that the BAR could have been, it's an interesting what-if weapon.