AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Total Eclipse/Muv-Luv

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-11-15, 02:10   Link #61
Timsel
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose View Post
Well, yeah, but this is the first time where I see people arguing for ridiculously heavy weights and my lighter weight being dismissed due to logic, lol.
By the Qween-Logic
Well, if weight of 37-mm shell is about 0,7 kg and full cartrige must be about 1 kg (it is caseless), we can assume weight of full ammuniton. That gives us a good start - as Dragonkid11 showed to us.

Quote:
I'll just point out, gents, that logically, given the smaller wing area on TSFs, to achieve lift and flight while weighing 100 tons would be nigh-on impossible.
I don`t see there wings at all. It seems that TFS flying on the engine trust - if they can float as helicopter, and we have often seen that in MLA.
What I can say, that power of their hypothetical engines is truly ridiculous.

Quote:
At the end of the day, however, this is trivia - TSFs weigh as much as they need to. Nobody will actually really need the exact weight of a TSF.
Not so simple. When I try to translate Schwarzesmarken, for example, I see TSF fighting along conventional units as tanks, helis, planes (such as T-62, Ми-24, Ми-26 and Ту-95), and it is necesarry to know are TSF bigger or heavier or not.
Timsel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 05:04   Link #62
calubin_175
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Does anyone know the main differences between Naval TSFs and mainstream TSFs?
calubin_175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 05:35   Link #63
Dragonkid11
A random-man
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by calubin_175 View Post
Does anyone know the main differences between Naval TSFs and mainstream TSFs?
Lets see...the A-6 Intruder and its variant are the only naval TSF on the entire planet.

They do not have jump units.They have more guns than a normal TSF have.They are heavier because of armor and the number of guns

Basically,they are meant to pop out of the ocean and overwhelm everything with lots of firepower like a walking tank.

They are still screwed if Tank class get too close.
Dragonkid11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 07:20   Link #64
grevierr
The Lovable SuBiTA
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sleeping in Yokohama base, Section 9.
Technically, the A series are not TSF, but TSA (Tatical Surface Attacker)
The A-6's are submarine tethered as well, meaning they are attached to one sub per A-6. They also have shit loads of weapons, and are normally deployed as beach head clearer. They have claws for close in combat as well. In general they have enough dakka to turn any BETA into cream, especially up close.
http://muvluv.wikia.com/wiki/A-6_Intruder
__________________


When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt. Run in little circles, wave your arms and shout.
grevierr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 19:59   Link #65
calubin_175
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Okay thanks for that, but I was actually concerned about TSF used by the navy, i.e F-14 and F-18s. It was said that the F-14 was up-sized to 19m from the 17m F-4 Phantom. I wonder why the F-14 Tomcat navy TSF was designed earlier than the mainstream F-15 Eagle.

Attackers have a similar meaning to bombers or missile aircrafts.
calubin_175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 21:25   Link #66
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timsel View Post
By the Qween-Logic
Well, if weight of 37-mm shell is about 0,7 kg and full cartrige must be about 1 kg (it is caseless), we can assume weight of full ammuniton. That gives us a good start - as Dragonkid11 showed to us.
I can see that you're using the GAU-8's ammo as a starting point, but not all 30mm is equal. Given the sizes of the ammo, I'd think that the 36mm shells used by the TSFs would be closer to upsized 30 x 113mm (0.34 kg) used by the Apache's M230 chaingun, rather than the 30 x 173mm used by the A-10's GAU-8.

Assuming a weight of about 0.40 kg (ballpark estimate), a single mag of 2000 shells weighs 800kg; max load is 12 mags, which leads us to 9.6 metric tons of weight for ammo. This is a reasonable figure given stores carried by modern fighters.

Writers can't do math. Sadly, this is pretty much universal, particularly as I'm violating my own racial trait by being decent, instead of genius-level, at math.

Quote:
I don`t see there wings at all. It seems that TFS flying on the engine trust - if they can float as helicopter, and we have often seen that in MLA.
What I can say, that power of their hypothetical engines is truly ridiculous.
Well, you'll get no arguments from me there.

Quote:
Not so simple. When I try to translate Schwarzesmarken, for example, I see TSF fighting along conventional units as tanks, helis, planes (such as T-62, Ми-24, Ми-26 and Ту-95), and it is necesarry to know are TSF bigger or heavier or not.
True, but the narrative will state whether they're larger or smaller in the first place, and again, most of the time the narration will gloss over that stuff anyhow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonkid11 View Post
Lets see...the A-6 Intruder and its variant are the only naval TSF on the entire planet.

They do not have jump units.They have more guns than a normal TSF have.They are heavier because of armor and the number of guns

Basically,they are meant to pop out of the ocean and overwhelm everything with lots of firepower like a walking tank.

They are still screwed if Tank class get too close.
Not correct; Naval TSF means a TSF that is navalised, i.e. optimised for operation by a Navy from a carrier. The F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet and F-18E/F Super Hornets are correctly designated as naval TSFs as they designed to operate from carriers. The Intruder is a naval TSA, and is more specifically designated as a submersible TSA.

TSAs are analogous to attack aircraft in the modern world. They don't spam missiles or drop craptons of bombs; their idea is to bring targeted air support to attack ground targets. As such, attack aircraft will typically have lower performance figures than fighters, as they are oriented towards attacking things that aren't very good at running away. (There are exceptions: the A-4 Skyhawk had an insane roll rate and was a fast, agile little fucker, hence Top Gun and USN aggressors using it, and the modern A-10 can turn decently.)

Generally, little has been stated about the differences between navalised and standard TSFs. Generally, going by what has been done in the real world, navy TSFs probably can fold their jump jets for storage better (maybe) and ought to have additional corrosion protection measures.

As for the Tomcat being designed earlier, it's following our history; the Tomcat was the first of the Teen Fighters to be designed and deployed, as the Navy required an interceptor to take over the role fulfilled by the F-4 Phantom; the Air Force, with different needs, eventually went with the F-X and LWF programs to replace the F-4 in the air superiority and lightweight fighter roles.
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.


Last edited by Wild Goose; 2012-11-16 at 21:36.
Wild Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 21:47   Link #67
grevierr
The Lovable SuBiTA
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sleeping in Yokohama base, Section 9.
Essentially though, TSFs don't really take into account the size of the planes they are based off. eg the F-16, while IRL is an attacker aircraft half the size of other planes, as a TSF is the same size as other TSFs. Planes like the F-14 and F-18 that are Navy spec that are big sized have detachable or sweepback wings to maximize space for storage while keeping enough chassis to store fuel, carry bombs, wing lift etc, for missions. TSFs don't really follow that matrix, since they all are more or less around 18m... and they have specialized TSF carrier's in anycase, such as the Assault Class of ships.
Images
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
__________________


When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt. Run in little circles, wave your arms and shout.
grevierr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 23:49   Link #68
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
IIRC Muv-Luv wiki says that's an Osumi-class Amphibious Assault Ship (there's no quite ship class called Assault Class). Judging by the image, they used a standard commercial hull and modified it to hold 16 TSFs, as opposed to the American Wasp-class amphibs, which are essentially baby carriers.
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 08:32   Link #69
grevierr
The Lovable SuBiTA
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sleeping in Yokohama base, Section 9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose View Post
IIRC Muv-Luv wiki says that's an Osumi-class Amphibious Assault Ship (there's no quite ship class called Assault Class). Judging by the image, they used a standard commercial hull and modified it to hold 16 TSFs, as opposed to the American Wasp-class amphibs, which are essentially baby carriers.
Well, not class but type then? All the classes come under the Assault Ship header.

And I realize this is the TE thread, and since there are no nice boats in TE, might be better to shift discussion to the Mil thread for general stuff...
__________________


When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt. Run in little circles, wave your arms and shout.
grevierr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 14:12   Link #70
Esg
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Does anyone have any opinions or commentary on these calculations

http://www.narutoforums.com/blog.php...categoryid=956
Esg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-18, 01:38   Link #71
Timsel
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esg View Post
Does anyone have any opinions or commentary on these calculations

http://www.narutoforums.com/blog.php...categoryid=956
Heil for the science!!!
Happy to see so realistic calculations - I think it wasn`t possible to do better when we didn`t know the exact mass of BETA classes.
I must agree with your main point - of course S-1 isnt "convenience" - only nuclear device could give such power.
But looking at final megatonnes I feel that there is some principal miscalculation here.
From military point of view there isn`t necessary to waporise flesh of all 235000 BETA. And as for me I got a feeling that Chisuru`s S-1 device simply bloved off the attacking live mountains. And for this we needn`t megatonnes and fireball with 730 m radius. The main damage factor of nuclear explosion is blast wave and the only thing we must calculate - is the pressure of its front. We know that wave with pressure 8 kPa can destroy tough buildings, so we could estimate the mass of BETAs living wave to get S-1 tonnage.
I got a feeling that it would be not strategic (megatonnes) but tactical - 10-20 TNT kilotonnes equivalent.
Timsel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-18, 01:49   Link #72
Timsel
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose View Post
I can see that you're using the GAU-8's ammo as a starting point, but not all 30mm is equal. Given the sizes of the ammo, I'd think that the 36mm shells used by the TSFs would be closer to upsized 30 x 113mm (0.34 kg) used by the Apache's M230 chaingun, rather than the 30 x 173mm used by the A-10's GAU-8.

Assuming a weight of about 0.40 kg (ballpark estimate), a single mag of 2000 shells weighs 800kg; max load is 12 mags, which leads us to 9.6 metric tons of weight for ammo. This is a reasonable figure given stores carried by modern fighters.
I don`t understand why you discuss 30-mm projectiles - 36mm would be twice heavier.
If we look at soviet 37-mm cartrige for 37-mm cannon 61-K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_a...939_%2861-K%29

We can see that weight of the cartridge is about 1500 g and shell - 650-730 g.
MLA cartriges are caseless, but we must add the weight of the powder, so we could safely operate 900-1000 g weight for one cartrige.
That gives us about 20 tons (dont forget about weight of magasines).
Timsel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-18, 12:12   Link #73
Esg
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
They aren't really my own calcs but those of a friends
Esg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-18, 22:03   Link #74
Dragonkid11
A random-man
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esg View Post
They aren't really my own calcs but those of a friends
Well,congratulation to your friend then.

He might find out how screwed we are when alien attack as soon as the first wave came
Dragonkid11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 11:54   Link #75
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timsel View Post
I don`t understand why you discuss 30-mm projectiles - 36mm would be twice heavier.
If we look at soviet 37-mm cartrige for 37-mm cannon 61-K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_a...939_%2861-K%29

We can see that weight of the cartridge is about 1500 g and shell - 650-730 g.
MLA cartriges are caseless, but we must add the weight of the powder, so we could safely operate 900-1000 g weight for one cartrige.
That gives us about 20 tons (dont forget about weight of magasines).
While I agree with your Methodology (excellent use of the Fermi Method, btw), I must disagree with your assumptions. You're comparing apples to oranges. That 37mm shell is for an antiaircraft gun. It is a surface to air weapon. It is fired from the ground to the air. As such, it will be substantially heavier than aircraft gun shells, because it must carry more propellant as it is firing up, and it is meant to engage targets at significantly greater ranges than aircraft autocannons.

The 36mm chaingun, on the other hand, is a further development of an aircraft weapon. As aircraft shoot at other aircraft, and at ground targets, they carry lighter shells than antiaircraft guns.

My figure is not an accurate figure. I freely admit that. But despite being a ballpark figure, I'd guess that it's a tad closer to an actual figure, particularly as I've used the two main US 30mm shells (30x113 NATO and 30x173 A-10) to give me comparisons to allow my ballparking.
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-19, 18:25   Link #76
grylsyjaeger
Onani Master
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The girl's bathroom
Age: 24
Send a message via MSN to grylsyjaeger
Just letting you guys know that as a reloader you don't put anywhere near as much powder as the weight of the projectile into a loaded round.

So if you used the GAU-8's 30mm AP-I round as an example, it weighs 450grams and travels around 1050m/s.

I theorize it wouldn't have more than 160-170 grams of powder behind it. The data on the Russian 30x165 30mm (the GAU-8's opposition) can send a 400gram porjectile at 800m/s with 130grams of powder.

So even if the MLA 36mm porjectile weighed at most 550grams, it would still have round 200-250 grams of powder behind it for similar performace. So even if you said 800 grams per round you wouldn't be too far off IMO.
__________________

"It doesn't mean much, we never had a chance."
grylsyjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-20, 18:56   Link #77
calubin_175
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I just realised American TSF's knife compartments are shared with magazine clips. Does this mean the combat knives are entirely optional in their combat doctrine? The Japanese models have the clips stored in the hip armor and knives in their forearms, at least this is true for the Shiranui and probably the Takemi as well.

Do the vanguard positions employed by the Valkyries only apply to Japanese models?
calubin_175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-25, 13:08   Link #78
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Nah, the Vanguard positions are used by other national forces and the UN. TSF positioning is not reliant on the TSF model, but on your equipment loadout (and whether your pilot can hack it).

The American model, which favors high speed ranged attacks, more intuitively lends itself toward Gun Sweeper loadouts.

As for the knives... probably it's just to give an extra carrying option if you need it. As a general rule, US TSFs will deploy with knives for anti-Tank and short ranged work; note Horus Battalion fighting off a BETA horde with just knives, in order to save their ammo for Fort-classes. (Admittedly, this was an Egyptian force, albeit using American F-4E Phantoms.)
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-25, 23:07   Link #79
grevierr
The Lovable SuBiTA
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sleeping in Yokohama base, Section 9.
I would say that the CIWS-1 knife is the basic close combat weapon designed for the first TSF the F-4 Phantom. The CIWS-2A melee halberd was an optional weapon requested for by Japan and build based on their design during their request for their batch of F-4s which they did not really received until quite late, so its more of a one off release. When other countries started to design their own customized TSFs for use in their area of operations, they designed their own melee halberds as well. So only the US does not have melee halberds, since they reply on quick strike doctrine which has minimal close range BETA combat.

As a note, the Vanguard positions seem to be a UN terminology, and might not be used across all armies.
__________________


When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt. Run in little circles, wave your arms and shout.
grevierr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-27, 04:46   Link #80
calubin_175
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
If that's the case, would American assault guns be any different from that of the Japanese? I did not remember clearly, but was Stella Bremer using a longer ranged rifle or some American equivalent of the support assault gun?
calubin_175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.