Armageddon???? (Part Fifty Up)

[R011]

We don't need modern combat avionics on these fighters; they're being built purely to get up there and slaughter masses of harpies.

Do they still make the gauges and vacuum tubes for the electronics of that time? Do we want any kind of all weather attack capability? Do we want a better nav system than a hand-held GPS? The ability to fire current AAM's?

[Robo Jesus]

I don't know if we can conclude that urban fighting will be rare. There's no reason, once the demons know a thing or two about geography, that they can't open up a portal as big as the Iraqi one in, say, Central Park, or Red Square, or under the Arc de Triomphe. If that ever happens, the city in question is going to be a total loss.

There seems to be the issue of actually finding where to open the portal. As the daemons are using Nephilim as homing beacons for most of their portals (especially the big ones), it seems to me the reason they chose Iraq is due to high numbers of people with Nephilim ancestry in the immediate region. Get enough Nephilim or Nephilim descendants together in one of the larger metropolitan areas outside of the Middle East, and the daemons will have a much easier time opening an portal near those cities. And as we have no ways or knowing where else such large concentrations of Nephilim blood would be (though I think we can discount the areas of where Ancient Rome and Greece used to be, as the old Greek and Roman cultures saw the 'angels' as being just another form of daemon to begin with), it would make finding which areas beyond the Iraqi region that are more in danger of random portals opening up a major pain in the ass for the people in charge is preparing for those sorts of situations and eventualities.

Context. Don't you just love it?

[Jawawithagun]

There seems to be the issue of actually finding where to open the portal. As the daemons are using Nephilim as homing beacons for most of their portals (especially the big ones), it seems to me the reason they chose Iraq is due to high numbers of people with Nephilim ancestry in the immediate region. Get enough Nephilim or Nephilim descendants together in one of the larger metropolitan areas outside of the Middle East, and the daemons will have a much easier time opening an portal near those cities. And as we have no ways or knowing where else such large concentrations of Nephilim blood would be (though I think we can discount the areas of where Ancient Rome and Greece used to be, as the old Greek and Roman cultures saw the 'angels' as being just another form of daemon to begin with), it would make finding which areas beyond the Iraqi region that are more in danger of random portals opening up a major pain in the ass for the people in charge is preparing for those sorts of situations and eventualities.

Context. Don't you just love it?

As the story is based on judeo-christian mythology I would expect nephilim being particular prevalent in semitic populations. Which might hail doom for New York.

[Firethorn]

Why do you keep babbling about Cape Buffalo?

It's an example of a terran animal, that's regularly hunted, that has a durability at least approaching that of a baldrick? You could also substitute a rhinoceros.

Question, can you even polymer tip hollow points (seeing how they have a hole in the jacket at the tip of the bullet) and how would polymer tipped hollow points compare to just hollow points or just polymer tipped (honest question, not just for the sake of debate). Reliably at any range, what about at 10 km (I’m guessing you meant at rifle range)?

1. Yes. That's the original purpose of the polymer tips. Look up 'lever evolution' by Hornady.
2. Designed correctly, a polymer tip should have the ballistic performance of a FMJ while retaining the expansion(and therefore energy deposit) of a good hollowpoint.
3. 10KM is a bit far for rifle ammunition. 1k would be 'extreme range', thought 1.6-2 km has been known for .50 cal sniping.

Think of the polymer tip as a collapsing nosecone. It's durable enough to stand up to air resistance, providing a higher ballistic coefficient, meaning the bullet will go further with a flatter trajectory. Upon hitting something solid, it collapses allowing the hollowpoint part of the round to function, enlarging the round to make the biggest hole possible.

How about you list your requirements and I’ll list mine, so we can make this easier instead of you just replying “Dumbass, wrong requirements”.

Hmm... Keep in mind that everything is a balancing act.
1. Stopping Baldricks. We can use cape buffalo/rhino statistics as a starting point for now.
2. Reliability in combat
2a. Need for and ease of cleaning and maintenance in the field
3a. Ammunition weight for a useful amount
3b. Rifle weight - Relates to a soldier's loadout, which is already quite heavy
4. Recoil - if it breaks the soldier's shoulder when he fires it, it's less useful. Even bruising after a couple dozen shots isn't good - the pain will lead to reduced accuracy and mobility.
5. Shot report and flash - gives away position.
6. Cost/Ease of manufacture of rifle
7. Cost/Ease of manufacture of ammunition.

For example, Muzzle breaks can reduce recoil and help get the gun back on target by forcing the barrel down, but also tend to increase the noise of shooting - deafening the shooters in combat isn't necessarily a good thing.

Even on an emergency budget, I don't see a new BR reaching issue in less than six months, done correctly but quickly. Three months for prototype stage, limited issue.

[Beowulf]

We don't need modern combat avionics on these fighters; they're being built purely to get up there and slaughter masses of harpies.

Do they still make the gauges and vacuum tubes for the electronics of that time? Do we want any kind of all weather attack capability? Do we want a better nav system than a hand-held GPS? The ability to fire current AAM's?

Gauges? Yes. Congrats, that's half the avionics. We don't need much better of a nav system than air-rated GPS system (which doesn't cost much more than a handheld GPS anyway). Ability to fire current AAMs is not really a requirement for this craft. We won't have the capability to even equip them with any, anyway. Leave it to the F-15/16/22/35 to do that.

[R011]

Gauges? Yes. Congrats, that's half the avionics.

Assuming gauges in production today are, in fact, completely compatible with a 1940's aircraft. That only leaves the other half of the avionic and electronic systems.

Ability to fire current AAMs is not really a requirement for this craft/quote]

If we need nothing more than that, then a T-6A Texan 2 is more than enough.

[fb111a]

Gauges? Yes. Congrats, that's half the avionics.

Assuming gauges in production today are, in fact, compl;etely compatblew with a 1940's aircraft. That only leaves the other half of the avaionic and electronic systems.

Ability to fire current AAMs is not really a requirement for this craft/quote]

If we need nothing more than that, then a T-6A Texan 2 is more than enough.

Can a T-6A outrun harpies when it runs out of ammo?

An F-84 can. Jets are preferable in this case, especially if the Baldricks don't have any effective ground-based anti-aircraft assets. It is an effective interim solution - and I emphasize interim.

Getting the F-86H and/or FJ-4B (of F-1E/AF-1E) line reconstituted would probably be a better medium and long-term solution - the FJ-4B/F-1E was perhaps the best of the fighter-bomber variants of the F-86 (4 20mm cannon and 6,000 pounds of bombs), and it was designed for carrier operations. Standardize the USAF/USN/USMC on that, and a lot of the harpie problems would be solved.

[R011]

Can a T-6A outrun harpies when it runs out of ammo?

As far as I can tell, yes. Harpies seem to be just a bit faster than a Little Bird or about half the speed of a Harvard II. For that matter, a Hawk 115 compared to an F-84 is faster, probably more reliable, and has a better payload and armament selection. It's actually in production, the tools haven't been in storage for half a century, and is made using modern techniques that a modern workforce is used to employing.

[Academia Nut]

You know what I love about this thread? This thread demonstrates exactly how screwed the baldricks are. When confronted with an outside context problem like this, our first response is going to be to try and study the problem and obtain context, in this case how to kill as many motherfuckers as we possibly can. We're trying to work out the optimum cartridge and gun combination to arm our armies with, and how to get as many planes in the air as possible with the resources at hand.

Although a question for those of you suggesting using car factories to build planes. Wouldn't such things be better put towards building armoured vehicles? And somewhat tangentially, would this conflict be the sort of thing where tankettes might actually be useful for once? Would the ability to carry something like say a 20mm autocannon, the extra mobility, the armour, the Faraday cage protection against the lightning, and most of all the cheapness make them a good investment in resources? Also, with the overkill of a lot of modern main guns, and armour, against most baldricks and the need to put a lot of firepower downrange at once, could we see the return of sponsons? Part of the problems being faced will be getting enough equipment to fight the enemy because so much of our modern stuff is meant to take down equivalent equipment, not the unholy spawn of bronze age barbarians and gorillas, so many of our weapons are an inefficient use of resources against them and a more primitive approach may be necessary (where primitive means 50-60 years ago) to make effective and efficient use of resources on hand.

Just some thoughts for consideration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know what I love about this thread? This thread demonstrates exactly how screwed the baldricks are. When confronted with an outside context problem like this, our first response is going to be to try and study the problem and obtain context, in this case how to kill as many motherfuckers as we possibly can. We're trying to work out the optimum cartridge and gun combination to arm our armies with, and how to get as many planes in the air as possible with the resources at hand.

Although a question for those of you suggesting using car factories to build planes. Wouldn't such things be better put towards building armoured vehicles? And somewhat tangentially, would this conflict be the sort of thing where tankettes might actually be useful for once? Would the ability to carry something like say a 20mm autocannon, the extra mobility, the armour, the Faraday cage protection against the lightning, and most of all the cheapness make them a good investment in resources? Also, with the overkill of a lot of modern main guns, and armour, against most baldricks and the need to put a lot of firepower downrange at once, could we see the return of sponsons? Part of the problems being faced will be getting enough equipment to fight the enemy because so much of our modern stuff is meant to take down equivalent equipment, not the unholy spawn of bronze age barbarians and gorillas, so many of our weapons are an inefficient use of resources against them and a more primitive approach may be necessary (where primitive means 50-60 years ago) to make effective and efficient use of resources on hand.

Just some thoughts for consideration.

We need air dominance to properly defeat massed Baldrick formations. That, and the limitations in armour production mean that we can't use all of that capacity to churn out armoured vehicles, anyway.

However, mass-produced light tanks are a definite area of exploration. I say a smaller version of the Bradley without a troop compartment but with the 25mm would be perfect in such a role.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Can a T-6A outrun harpies when it runs out of ammo?

As far as I can tell, yes. Harpies seem to be just a bit faster than a Little Bird or about half the speed of a Harvard II. For that matter, a Hawk 115 compared to an F-84 is faster, probably more reliable, and has a better payload and armament selection. It's actually in production, the tools haven't been in storage for half a century, and is made using modern techniques that a modern workforce is used to employing.

By a T-6 you mean a Texan, right? I don't think they could, as Stuart stated that the Corsair and the P-51 would be marginal. The P-47 and the Spitfire and some of the faster Russian prop birds, along with the likes of the Bearcat, Tigercat and the Hellcat, are probably also acceptable.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that--and you can forget the F-86, please? We don't have tooling for it. Any we can restore to serviceability fly until lost or broken down, but it's a dead bird otherwise--we can probably build as many Hawk 115s--the F-45 in USAF service--as we absolutely possibly can, and still have both the need and the resources (since it's so simple even in comparison), to start production of the F-84K.

[PainRack]

Just out of interest Stuart, what is the scope of the mythology you're drawing upon? Is it mostly based upon the bible and Christian theology, or are you going to draw upon paranormal studies such as demonology and ghost hauntings, monster sightings such as Spring-heeled Jack?

[Gerald Tarrant]

I don't know if we can conclude that urban fighting will be rare. There's no reason, once the demons know a thing or two about geography, that they can't open up a portal as big as the Iraqi one in, say, Central Park, or Red Square, or under the Arc de Triomphe. If that ever happens, the city in question is going to be a total loss.

No it isn't. Direct-fire a 155mm with a nuclear shell straight down the iron sights into the portal.

I'm not so sure that's adequate. If the Baldricks are lucky enough to come in somewhere there's no Line of Sight, like a building, then things get nasty quickly. Or suppose the 155 battery is in Central Park and the Baldricks appear on Wall Street? Or in Paris, suppose the batteries are sited adequately all over the city, and the Baldricks appear in the catacombs? Local forces will still need to contain the Baldricks until armor, or mechanized infantry can push the incursion back to the portal so the battery can nuke the other side of the portal. The Hit experience suggests that infantry isn't up to the task of pushing Baldricks back.

I think the long term solution is to study portal creation to see if they can be detected while open, or while opening. Most cities will probably still need reaction forces of some kind to hold or slow the Baldricks until heavy forces can be brought to bear. Honestly most citizens may need to be armed, for the occasional rapid Hellish incursion.

[Beowulf]

Gauges? Yes. Congrats, that's half the avionics.

Assuming gauges in production today are, in fact, completely compatible with a 1940's aircraft. That only leaves the other half of the avionic and electronic systems.

That's mostly comm and firing controls, also dirt cheap. There's no radar, both due to expense, and the fact there's no where to stick the radome. At most there's a gunsight radar, so they can most effectively use their guns. Instead, you get a datalink from AWACS, that shows where you are, and the enemy is. From that, it's a fairly straight forward calculation to determine how to intercept with rockets.

By a T-6 you mean a Texan, right? I don't think they could, as Stuart stated that the Corsair and the P-51 would be marginal. The P-47 and the Spitfire and some of the faster Russian prop birds, along with the likes of the Bearcat, Tigercat and the Hellcat, are probably also acceptable.

T-6A Texan II. It's the new flight trainer. Named as such in large part due to having the same number, and being a prop. It's got a turboprop, and a top speed of about 300 knots. It may be marginal against the harpies.

[R011]

By a T-6 you mean a Texan, right?.

I mean the modern Hawker Beechcraft (formerly Raytheon) T-6A Texan II, a development of the Pilatus PC-9, not the original WWII vintage North American AT-6 / SNJ / T-6 Texan.

[Academia Nut]

I can sort of see a form of universal conscription going into place in a lot of places, and I do mean universal. Anyone over, say, the age of 16 up to the point where they can no longer shoot will be given a gun and ordered to train with it, once adequate supplies are available, as well as being given training on how to stay the fuck out of the way of the soldiers doing their jobs. Their jobs will be to force the baldricks to keep their heads down until the big boys can arrive. While this isn't exactly ideal, the second part of the proposed training will be vital to minimize civilian casualties, especially in places where gun ownership is already quite high, like in the states.

But yeah, until the resolution of the wars, there are going to be a lot of people being conscripted. Be interesting to see the changes in the ciriculums of schools. I would expect the arts segments to take a massive hit as sciences, physical education, and technical studies like shop, automotives, welding, etc become massively more important. Wouldn't surprise me if some places start implementing military training in public schools.

[JCady]

However, mass-produced light tanks are a definite area of exploration. I say a smaller version of the Bradley without a troop compartment but with the 25mm would be perfect in such a role.

The Rheinmetall Wiesel would work well for that role -- it's tiny and very low-cost, and it sports a 20mm autocannon.

[Sea Skimmer]

Although a question for those of you suggesting using car factories to build planes. Wouldn't such things be better put towards building armoured vehicles?

Most automotive plants are equipped to work with relatively thin pieces of aluminum and steel which are spot welded and bonded (modern glue is a big thing for car designers) together to make unibody construction cars and crossovers. That’s a form of construction suitable for an aircraft, but not a heavy off-road armored vehicle that in this case is literally going to be beaten and abused to hell and back.

Plants which currently build light trucks and various commercial trucks could and would be adapted to building simple AFVs, but AFV production will be limited for months by a shortage of armor quality steel and aluminum alloys.

And somewhat tangentially, would this conflict be the sort of thing where tankettes might actually be useful for once? Would the ability to carry something like say a 20mm autocannon, the extra mobility, the armour, the Faraday cage protection against the lightning, and most of all the cheapness make them a good investment in resources?

The US Army has some 14,000 M113 APCs in its reserve stocks, plus thousands upon thousands more already serving in combat units in support roles, and now in Iraq as APCs again. The M113 can easily be upgraded to carry a automatic cannon, or 120mm mortar or even a 105mm howitzer in a fixed assault gun style mount (proposed in real life but never built). That ought to cover anything you’d want a tankette for.

In terms of new built vehicles, a tankette really can’t do much that a properly designed armored truck can’t in the killing mass infantry role. Below about 10-12 tons gross weight wheeled vehicles are generally cheaper and easier to build then tracked ones.

I do expect the US will design and build a new simple sort of modular light tank, probably of around 25-30 tons, and perhaps directly based on the Bradley. On this weight you can mount just about any armament you could ever want including 155mm howitzers and 120mm tank guns.

Also, with the overkill of a lot of modern main guns, and armour, against most baldricks and the need to put a lot of firepower downrange at once, could we see the return of sponsons?

Sponsons bring an awful lot of problems. It would make more sense to simply carry more ammo and spare barrels for the existing machine gun armaments. You could also replace the existing roof machine gun mounts with ones for twin guns if more instantaneous firepower is required. Water cooled machine guns should also be making a BIG comeback.

[R011]

That's mostly comm and firing controls, also dirt cheap.

It isn't a matter of expense, it's a matter of integrating these new systems (some of which may need to be custom made for this aircraft) into an old design and manufacturing it with those mods using tooling intended for quite different kit. I won't say it can't be done, but I doubt it will be all that easy. Meanwhile, starting a new Hawk line is a matter of making tooling that is already current industrial equipment that needs few, if any modifications. You might get the one old F-84 line in service a couple of weeks before the second, third and fourth Hawk and Su-25 lines. I really can;t see any point but nostalgia for making more F-84 lines after the first one, if at all.

Instead, you get a datalink from AWACS, that shows where you are, and the enemy is.

Installing that datalink is not likely to be a non-trivial exercise.

Not to mention that there is a good sized cadre of qualified Hawk ground crews who can train other hawk ground crews as well as a logistics train in place to keep Hawk and Goshawk units flying. I'd rather have a crew chief who has worked on a T-45 before than one who hadn't heard of a now obscure early jet.

[R011]

I do expect the US will design and build a new simple sort of modular light tank, probably of around 25-30 tons, and perhaps directly based on the Bradley. On this weight you can mount just about any armament you could ever want including 155mm howitzers and 120mm tank guns.

I should think that ramping up Stryker production would do the job. A new AFV family would take years. The US could only do it in WWII because they had an AFV chassis, that of the Medium Tank M3, suitable for use as a medium tank (M4 Sherman), AP AT gun (M10 and M36), SP Howitzer (M7 Priest, Sexton, and several later ones), ARV, and APC (Kangaroo).

Besides the 105 mm MGS, and the .50 cal equipped APC, current LAV III are made with 25 mm gun turrets (Canadian Forces Infantry Section Carrier) and earlier 6x6 GM Piranha versions have been made with 76 mm Scorpion turrets (Cougar). A 120 mm direct-fire capable AMOS mortar system would fit nicely.

Even a heavy Hummer with a .50 cal GAU-19 like thiswould be quite useful and reasonably available

Another alternative would be a medium tank version of the Bradley sinilar to what the Swedes did when they made a 120 mm gun version of their CV90 MICV - or even just putting the CV90120 into world-wide production.

[JCady]

The Folland Gnat might be of some use. It's capable of mounting a pair of 30mm Aden-DEFA guns, and although it's out of production it was specifically designed to be built without requiring any specialized tools so that it could be manufactured in poorly industrialized nations.

Tiny, cheap, simple, short-ranged, yet packing considerable gun-power in the form of twin 30mm revolver-guns firing ammunition which is still in mass production today. Sounds like just the thing to go swatting Harpies with.

[Sea Skimmer]

I should think that ramping up Stryker production would do the job. A new AFV family would take years. The US could only do it in WWII because they had an AFV chassis, that of the Medium Tank M3, suitable for use as a medium tank (M4 Sherman), AP AT gun (M10 and M36), SP Howitzer (M7 Priest, Sexton, and several later ones), ARV, and APC (Kangaroo).

I’d intend to use the Bradley as my basis for new light tanks actually. Stryker production could and would be expanded, three factories already make the things, but the production rate is not overwhelming, several hundred per factory per year. We need more like ten thousand large AFVs being built per year for anything like a proper mobilization.

However, mass-produced light tanks are a definite area of exploration. I say a smaller version of the Bradley without a troop compartment but with the 25mm would be perfect in such a role.

If you shrink the Bradley into a single role vehicle you won’t save much, one pair of road wheels and suspension, in terms of complicated items to manufacture. The engine/transmission and turret/FCS/25mm gun barrel are your big ticket items and your still using them all.

I’d say make the thing longer as was done for the MLRS launcher and M8 command vehicle, while also building it out of steel rather then aluminum. The pretext of amphibious capability was abandon by the US Army 20 years ago, and the protection increase from a steel hull and turret would allow us to dispense with using so much appliqué armor. The extra volume in the rear could be used for expanding ammo storage while retaining some dismount space to pickup bailed out crews of disabled vehicles, in the case of a vehicle intended purely as a gun platform. When serving as an APC the extended length would let it carry more men, or alternative and importantly it would give the same number of dismounts space for larger heavier caliber personal guns and ammo.

This same extended hull would also be able to support larger turrets with weapons like 120mm tank guns for when the stronger Demons begin to appear in battle.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It isn't a matter of expense, it's a matter of integrating these new systems (some of which may need to be custom made for this aircraft) into an old design and manufacturing it with those mods using tooling intended for quite different kit. I won't say it can't be done, but I doubt it will be all that easy. Meanwhile, starting a new Hawk line is a matter of making tooling that is already current industrial equipment that needs few, if any modifications. You might get the one old F-84 line in service a couple of weeks before the second, third and fourth Hawk and Su-25 lines. I really can;t see any point but nostalgia for making more F-84 lines after the first one, if at all.

I don't disagree with you, but we've got the first one, so we might as well put it to use. There'd be no reasons to build more tooling, but we should maximize the use out of the existing tooling.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, could we start mass-producing the Buford as well? That would be rather useful.

[JBG]

I quite like Her Grace's idea of RPG regiments but rather than simple volley fire I would prefer more a rippling fire to make sure that each warhead was not just mashing already mortally wounded baldricks. Groups of hundreds of RPGs smashing into massed infantry would get their attention, wouldn't it? And the RPG round can take out the larger demons and rhinolobsters. The US way however would be more a line of Mk-19s pumping rounds into the approaching mass.

I'll stay out of the cartridge/rifle discussion as I know too little about forearms, compared to Her Grace or Stuart. I learnt that on HPCA. But the Cape Buffalo, here it would be the Asian water buffalo, is a good analogy. Tough and unbelievably hornery. There are any number of stories out of the NT about the fallacy of trying to hunt water buffalo. To shoot them merely means that their life's purpose is shifted from eating, shitting, breeding etc to KILLING THE SHOOTER. In this story we have demons without a baggage train who eat human flesh. For reasons of hunger alone they REALLY want to close with the enemy.

I think I posted about my opinion re military aircraft production ( unless I did it elsewhere such as HPCA where a poster almost immediately guessed that Stuart was looking at .50 beowulf conversions of M16s etc ) but the Hawk LIF and the T-45 seem very well suited - not an expensive front line type but more than fast and modern enough.

Jonathan