Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KFS Refit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Depends on if the KFS has access to prototypes or blueprints of cancelled DoD, DARPA, or defense contractor projects. The Crusader Howitzer was supposed to have a common powerpack with the M1A2, and that a V-12 diesel would be an optional. Now there is talk of the M1A3 and an optional V-12 powerpack for that. Afghanistan and Iraq taught us that there is a need for the turbine in the rapid offensive operations but, in low intensity, COIN, and even in some pure defensive postures the more conservative piston diesel is the better choice.

    I was certain there was an auxiliary sight for the M1 gunner but, I wasn't sure of the type, training, or how used. Thanks.
    The Gunner's Auxiliary Sight or GAS, requires significant training to master, the gunner has to compute target speed and the range, it most definitely NOT a "one round, one hit" system. Plan on two-four rounds for a moving target, one-three rounds to walk into a stationary target. The GAS depends on standard ammunition types, depending on what the KFS can build, they may even replace the sight with something similar to that used in world war two tanks (stereoscopic sights).
    The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

    Comment


    • #62




      General characteristics
      Crew: 10 - pilot, co-pilot, bow turret gunner, flight engineer, radio operator, navigator, radar operator, two waist gunners, ventral gunner
      Length: 63 ft 10 7/16 in (19.46 m)
      Wingspan: 104 ft 0 in (31.70 m)
      Height: 21 ft 1 in (6.15 m)
      Wing area: 1,400 ft2 (130 m2)
      Empty weight: 20,910 lb (9,485 kg)
      Max. takeoff weight: 35,420 lb (16,066 kg)
      Powerplant: 2 -- Pratt & Whitney R-1830-92 Twin Wasp radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW each) each
      Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0309
      Drag area: 43.26 ft2 (4.02 m2)
      Aspect ratio: 7.73

      Performance
      Maximum speed: 196 mph (314 km/h)
      Cruise speed: 125 mph (201 km/h)
      Range: 2,520 mi (4,030 km)
      Service ceiling: 15,800 ft (4,000 m)
      Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min (5.1 m/s)
      Wing loading: 25.3 lb/ft2 (123.6 kg/m2)
      Power/mass: 0.034 hp/lb (0.056 kW/kg)

      Lift-to-drag ratio: 11.9

      Armament

      3 .30 cal (7.62 mm) machine guns (two in nose turret, one in ventral hatch at tail)
      2 .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns (one in each waist blister)
      4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs or depth charges; torpedo racks were also available

      Salvaged from a coastal airfield in Mississippi are two PBY-5A by merchants of the Kentucky Free States. The merchants came back with one of the engines on a horse drawn cart and some crude sketches of the amphibious aircraft. Technicians, descendants of the Two Thousand, were glad to accept the engine and trade it for gold. The merchants were persuaded to escort a salvage operation to the area for gold and some New Manhattan real estate. These aircraft have been to badly damaged be exposure to UV light and salt air to ever fly again. The KFS is using them as templates along with plans and designs from library sources.

      In a year, the first model will be ready for test flights in preparation for an aerial reconnaissance unit of 12 aircraft to start. Once this unit has been operational and difficulties sorted out an additional number of exclusive civilian aircraft will serve the needs of the upper caste.
      Last edited by ArmySGT.; 09-03-2015, 03:41 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Just a nit pick really:

        Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
        These aircraft have been to badly damaged be exposure to UV light and salt air to ever fly again.
        These are metal skinned aircraft and UV should not be a problem, other than windscreens. Oxidation would be the problem here.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by mmartin798 View Post
          Just a nit pick really:



          These are metal skinned aircraft and UV should not be a problem, other than windscreens. Oxidation would be the problem here.
          There is enough rubber and plastic to make that a problem. Tires, seals, acrylic windows, the paint itself.

          Comment


          • #65


            KFS Militia Support Vehicle.pdf

            Comment


            • #66
              Stealth edit.


              Began adding .pdf attachments to some entries.

              Comment


              • #67
                A few thoughts on the KFS refit.

                The KFS are not what we would consider a modern military outfit. Where the aim would be generally to give a small body of professional soldiers the absolute maximum amount of effective fire power they can carry. And if need be reload them by helicopter or airdrop.
                Most rifle squads especially if mounted in an IFV or APC have by the standards of generation that came before a truly eye watering amount of fire power.

                The KFS are more like a colonial era paramilitary/military unit. At that point the emphasis is on reliability, small units covering large areas on horse back with limited resupply and command worried they'd blow most of their hunting for game or shooting irresponsibly.

                As such I think KFS would still be issuing Mini14s. But with a smaller clip of maybe as little as 10 round capacity and with a key lock on the selector to ensure it could only be set for semi or fully auto. Whereas Cetmes would be issued they would be specialised pieces of kit, for small units of highly trusted and reliable troops.

                Also I suspect the KFS would build manually guided ATGMs. They're a much lighter and efficient route to either building hefty artillery guns weighing hundreds of pounds of steel. Or having to build dozens of inaccurate rockets or mortar shells.

                It would be something like an early SS11 or Sagger. But radio guided (the technology is simple why waste all that copper on wire guidance wires) The idea being a KFS unit with a couple of units in a truck or one in a jeep could park a mile or two from the target such as enemy encampment. Take their time setting up and then pick off useful targets such as guard towers, parked vehicles etc.

                One unit doing the work of a dozen or so mortar tubes.

                I like this way the KFS has a sliding level of increasing threat. Morrow teams maybe able to jam or take control of primitive radio controlled ATGMs. KFS units with semi autos soon unlock the full auto setting and hand out 40 round magazines.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
                  If the Iowa tank plant and the Anniston Depot are under KFS control, the M1 makes sense as does the M2.

                  I figure the KFS and most anyone doing any fighting does so in the 18th to mid 19th century style. From the time after crops are planted up until crops need to be harvested. Agriculture being rather labor intensive. I would not doubt that any KFS units supplement their rations (in the corrupt KFS) by growing their own. KFS units might even place a premium on capturing pre-war farming equipment and healthy livestock.

                  Back to weapons. I think you're right on just using stock 1980's equipment without writing stats for something new. The M35 stats and the M151 stats are in "Liberation at Riverton".

                  I think that the KFS should be fielding M16s and M4s unless, those are worn out. If they are taking over M1 tanks, M2 IFVs, and M102 howitzers from former army and marine units then why don't they have the small arms too

                  So yeah, KFS should have M16A2s. I think it was writers bias. Someone on staff really hates the M16. No reason that the Rich Five can't have the resources and machinery to produce more. If you can make a fusion plant, what is an M16

                  I would have expected simpler vehicles even some WW2 and WW1 models, not even American ones at that. Those would be cheaper to make, cheaper to operate, simpler to repair, and easier to operate. The easier to operate would be a factor when you are intentionally limiting education to keep the masses controllable. To the point of fielding things like the Hetzer.
                  For commercial, emergency use, the partial wood trucks like the WWII Opel-Blitz would allow a rapid, cheap modern transport system.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                    A few thoughts on the KFS refit.

                    The KFS are not what we would consider a modern military outfit. Where the aim would be generally to give a small body of professional soldiers the absolute maximum amount of effective fire power they can carry. And if need be reload them by helicopter or airdrop.
                    Most rifle squads especially if mounted in an IFV or APC have by the standards of generation that came before a truly eye watering amount of fire power.

                    The KFS are more like a colonial era paramilitary/military unit. At that point the emphasis is on reliability, small units covering large areas on horse back with limited resupply and command worried they'd blow most of their hunting for game or shooting irresponsibly.

                    As such I think KFS would still be issuing Mini14s. But with a smaller clip of maybe as little as 10 round capacity and with a key lock on the selector to ensure it could only be set for semi or fully auto. Whereas Cetmes would be issued they would be specialised pieces of kit, for small units of highly trusted and reliable troops.

                    Also I suspect the KFS would build manually guided ATGMs. They're a much lighter and efficient route to either building hefty artillery guns weighing hundreds of pounds of steel. Or having to build dozens of inaccurate rockets or mortar shells.

                    It would be something like an early SS11 or Sagger. But radio guided (the technology is simple why waste all that copper on wire guidance wires) The idea being a KFS unit with a couple of units in a truck or one in a jeep could park a mile or two from the target such as enemy encampment. Take their time setting up and then pick off useful targets such as guard towers, parked vehicles etc.

                    One unit doing the work of a dozen or so mortar tubes.

                    I like this way the KFS has a sliding level of increasing threat. Morrow teams maybe able to jam or take control of primitive radio controlled ATGMs. KFS units with semi autos soon unlock the full auto setting and hand out 40 round magazines.
                    Or issue the AC556's to NCO's and Officers only, keeping Mini14's for average troops.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                      Also I suspect the KFS would build manually guided ATGMs. They're a much lighter and efficient route to either building hefty artillery guns weighing hundreds of pounds of steel. Or having to build dozens of inaccurate rockets or mortar shells.

                      It would be something like an early SS11 or Sagger. But radio guided (the technology is simple why waste all that copper on wire guidance wires) The idea being a KFS unit with a couple of units in a truck or one in a jeep could park a mile or two from the target such as enemy encampment. Take their time setting up and then pick off useful targets such as guard towers, parked vehicles etc.

                      One unit doing the work of a dozen or so mortar tubes.

                      I like this way the KFS has a sliding level of increasing threat. Morrow teams maybe able to jam or take control of primitive radio controlled ATGMs. KFS units with semi autos soon unlock the full auto setting and hand out 40 round magazines.
                      The early ATGMs would be launched from near but not too close to the operators. They would then fly a path which would intersect a line drawn from the operator's position to the targets. The missile would have a flare in the tail (seen only from behind) and the operator would keep the flare and target lined up until they hit. The operator's control would be a joy stick to guide the missile. This much I know.

                      Once the missile turns to track the target it would fly in a line which could be traced back to the operator. I believe this was how the Israilis determined where to shoot to surspress the operators and cause the missiles to loose control. They kept some tanks on over watch whose duty it was to engage the missile operators while the rest of the unit advanced.

                      Once the operator aquires the missile in their sites they become vulnerable to counter battery fire. I think to initially engage the missile there was a wider field of view on the sights which was switched, once the operator had control, to a higher magnification. In order to aquire and track the missiles could not go too fast giving time to react on long range shots, IF the defender is ready. Simple radio controls would be easy to make from discrete components. Based on your timeline (edition) of the game what level of manufacturing would be avaialable to make these components My assumption is the later the war the less likely anyone in North America could make these and the harder it would be to star and operation up. Lots of specialized components. Wire might be vauluable but it might be the only workable system.

                      Defenses could range from spaced armour plates, heavy forms of chain link fencing, rebar or slat armour. If we are talking an area close to a "hot" border a lot of methods of overcoming these missiles may already be in place. Mortars are a little harder to protect against.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by gamerguy View Post
                        The early ATGMs would be launched from near but not too close to the operators. They would then fly a path which would intersect a line drawn from the operator's position to the targets. The missile would have a flare in the tail (seen only from behind) and the operator would keep the flare and target lined up until they hit. The operator's control would be a joy stick to guide the missile. This much I know.

                        Once the missile turns to track the target it would fly in a line which could be traced back to the operator. I believe this was how the Israilis determined where to shoot to surspress the operators and cause the missiles to loose control. They kept some tanks on over watch whose duty it was to engage the missile operators while the rest of the unit advanced.

                        Once the operator aquires the missile in their sites they become vulnerable to counter battery fire. I think to initially engage the missile there was a wider field of view on the sights which was switched, once the operator had control, to a higher magnification. In order to aquire and track the missiles could not go too fast giving time to react on long range shots, IF the defender is ready. Simple radio controls would be easy to make from discrete components. Based on your timeline (edition) of the game what level of manufacturing would be avaialable to make these components My assumption is the later the war the less likely anyone in North America could make these and the harder it would be to star and operation up. Lots of specialized components. Wire might be vauluable but it might be the only workable system.

                        Defenses could range from spaced armour plates, heavy forms of chain link fencing, rebar or slat armour. If we are talking an area close to a "hot" border a lot of methods of overcoming these missiles may already be in place. Mortars are a little harder to protect against.
                        Pretty much my thought process. The KFS I think have always been the top level for technology development, so I guess if they're building their own radios, possibly old vacumn tube technology. Then it's not a huge leap to be building their own radio controlled aircraft or rockets.

                        As for the KFS most of the time they're up against enemies at a 19th century level of technology at best. It would be like wondering what would the results of a Korean/Vietnam era US army went head to head with say the British army in the Crimean War. The results being dare I say it messy for the less technological adapted one.

                        Something as simple as a biplane with an aimer with a radio and binoculars never mind an actual armed aeroplane could cause havoc when paired up with long range artillery.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Mind you probably the biggest advantage the KFS has it's an industrial society, including agriculture.

                          So it's soldiers are better fed, bigger, stronger more alert with better night vision than their foes.

                          I suppose it sounds silly. But a KFS unit on several thousand calories a day would be able to see better in the dark. Whilst a foe on subsistence rations would more than likely be struggling to stay awake on guard duty after dark.

                          Secondly most other forces are either handloading their ammunition (including making the gunpowder and caps), or using finite stocks. The KFS most likely has a factory or two churning out reliable 5.56 and 9mm all year round. Even a smallish one would be producing 100,000s if not 1,000,000s of rounds.

                          Meaning that even the most basic KFS grunt might have fired 200-300 rounds in training. Whilst his most elite foe might only fire 50-100 rounds a year.



                          KFS soldiers would not only be better shots, but more used to discipline under fire and fire and manoeuvre.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by .45cultist View Post
                            Or issue the AC556's to NCO's and Officers only, keeping Mini14's for average troops.
                            Yeh I could picture that. I was thinking how when the British army first distributed the Lee Metford bolt action, they included a little chain blocking the magazine release. So soldiers would have to load them more slowly and would only take them off in emergency circumstances. Similarly the old British Imperial shotgun was the bizarre Greener, a weapon with a single shot capacity and multiple safeties to make sure it couldn't be used if stolen without the right ammunition.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              the KFS is the Rih Five. Being Tech level A and able to produce or reproduce any technology up to the time of the War in either 3rd or 4th edition.

                              The Rich Five did have cryotube tech prior to the War and gained Fusion through taken TMP equipment in the chaos of the early war years.

                              Prior to the War they appear to have stockpiled Mini-14s, M59 pistols, CETME Machineguns, and rifle grenades. Post war added M102 105mm howitzers, M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley IFVs, M35 2 1/2 ton trucks, and M151 jeeps. The trucks and jeeps might have been stockpiled..... that is unclear. The big prize is the post war capture and reproduction of the P47 Thunderbolt fighters.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Project_Sardonicus View Post
                                Meaning that even the most basic KFS grunt might have fired 200-300 rounds in training. Whilst his most elite foe might only fire 50-100 rounds a year.



                                KFS soldiers would not only be better shots, but more used to discipline under fire and fire and manoeuvre.
                                That would be more than a non-Infantry soldier going through basic training today.
                                Last edited by ArmySGT.; 08-23-2017, 07:34 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X