Military vehicles vs anti-vehicle weapons, Delicious, delicious paydata Options

[Fatum]

>So chummers, there's been some interest as to the potency of modern-day anti-vehicle guns against the armoured vehicles of today. So I got into a certain General Staff node and got you this report:
>Fatum

>Accessing document...
>Standard GS-GOST-71 encryption found, decrypting...
>Decrypted, analyzing... Russian text (military jargon) found.
>Translated and adapted.

Report GS-74/1438: Weapon tests in Dmitrov testing area.

Summary
This document describes the results of weapon efficiency tests performed throughout 2073 in Dmitrov testing area.
The range of weapons tested covers everything from infantry support weapons to ship main guns.
The range of armour tested covers everything from infantry body armour to heavy tanks, but excludes naval vessels.
EVO LifeLike-18 mannequins were used to simulate infantry armour users, mannequin parameters used equivalent to that needed to use infantry armour without encumbrance.
Acquisition methods and sources of the equipment tested are beyond the scope of this report.

Methodology
Each armour piece was fired upon with each weapon type in two series of tests, first from a stationary position at the center of frontal projection, then from the most effective angle at the most vulnerable point by expert estimations.
Life ammo tests were complemented with VR simulations to estimate the precision required to penetrate each armour piece with each weapon type.

Detailed account
>I took it upon myself to separate this five-thousand line text into a file of its own. Here it is in proprietary format and transcoded to freely available one with slight bugs.
>Fatum

Conclusions
Infantry weapons
Automatic weapons tested have proven incapable of penetrating even lightly armoured targets other than using anti-vehicular rounds, which are prohibitively expensive for a massed force such as the Red Army.
The minigun tested has proved especially inadequate, showing subpar performance against armoured targets even with AV rounds used; minigun development or acquisition is thus estimated as undesirable.
On the contrary, the anti-matériel rifle tested has shown itself to be capable on par with an assault cannon, when used with AV rounds; it is thus recommendable to acquire large-bore sniper rifles for infantry divisions' designated marksmen, or develop a similar system based on Dragunov Drake sniper rifle family. [Ref - GS-74/1562: Drake-3 development project]
The assault cannon tested has shown inadequate penetration capabilities using standard or anti-vehicular shells, showing worse results than the anti-matériel rifle in several tests. Anti-tank shells compensate for that inadequacy, correcting both armour piercing and damage capabilities, and proving assault cannons a weapon effective against both armoured vehicles up to medium tanks and armoured CAS craft such as LAVs.
The gauss rifle tested has expectedly shown itself a capable and versatile weapon, offering the infantry a powerful tool against all but the heavy armoured targets. [Ref - GS-74/1549: Ares Vigorous and Ares Thunderstruck supply contracts]
Heavy infantry lasers have shown only marginally worse results, while rifle-sized weapons of the class do not appear to possess the advertised armour-piercing potency, performing even worse in that area than backpack flamer units.
Of the grenades tested, the white phosphorous ones were demonstrated to be capable of damaging or destroying lightly armoured vehicles, while the rest of the stock had obvious problems with modern combat vehicles.
Anti-tank rockets have performed admirably in the tests, penetrating all but the heaviest armour pieces. Acquiring them in bulk for battalion-level AT teams is advisable. [Ref - GS-74/1683: "Next Generation" RPG AT shots]

Vehicle weapons
Direct-fire vehicle artillery using chemical propellants has proven itself completely inadequate against current generation of armoured vehicles.
Of the direct-fire vehicle weapons, only the gauss cannon has been shown to be truly a universal weapon capable of penetrating all kinds of combat vehicles. Laser weapons' performance has been especially underwhelming. Gauss cannons can be recommended for adoption as soon as possible, despite the prohibitive costs involved. Laser weapons can only be considered for adoption on light armour. [Ref - GS-74/2457: 2074 Main Gauss Cannon Contest]
Indirect-fire artillery has once again been proved the Queen of Battlefield, penetrating all kinds of armour pieces with ease. Converting a certain number of previous generation light and main battle tanks into self-propelled howitzers can be advisable. [Ref - GS-74/1909: Nizhniy Tagil plant refit orders for 2074]
Launch weapons have been shown effective, both as anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry. However, no missile type capable of penetrating SOTA MBTs is known to exist, except for heavy cruise and anti-ship missiles. The alleged costs of SOTA MBTs being comparable to those of navy vessels make using those heavy weapons against them justified, which leads to the necessity of developing ground-based launch platforms and shorter-ranged models. [Ref - GS-74/2196: YNT ultra-heavy rocket artillery project]

Army tactics
The new generation of armoured vehicles necessitates rapid rearmament of the Red Army, as well of the rest of the Armed Forces, with weapons of vastly improved armour penetrating ability. Until then, infantry remains barely protected against attacks of heavier armour, while its traditionally armed armour support stays ineffective against that kind of opponent. [Ref - GS-74/3891: General Staff combined arms doctrine developments]

Testing team commander: Major Vikhr.

>And that's what they had there. Of course, I also got the documents they're referencing in the report. If you want them, I'm willing to sell.
>Fatum