The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

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]

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]

https://en.topwar.ru/61787-proekt-ze...veycariya.html

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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/protivz...minulosti.html

[Vespers War]

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]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

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]

The Royal Armouries has a lovely 17th-century flintlock revolver 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]

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/airc...ircraft_id=376

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

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

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!

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[cawest]

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...the-b-1-bomber

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by cawest

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...the-b-1-bomber

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

[Vespers War]

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 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]

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]

Range 19 seems a bit long?

[Vespers War]

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]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

(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]

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]

Worth an entry, Paul M?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-hand-grenades

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

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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...r-44fafb5b47f5

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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...r-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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

-

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]

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-w...-b-1b-gunship/

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by shrike6

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-w...-b-1b-gunship/

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

[shrike6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.