NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Spirit of Hope]

Is there any certain place in the states you could call a military manufacturing hub? Like where they primarily construct/assemble Abrams battle tanks, is the Springfield Armoury still the 'big' US arms manufacturing company, etc?
I imagine any such place would be upon the receiving end of enough nuclear sunshine to give me a mild tan from way across the pond.

I know there is a town. in Virginia I think, that is where most/all Abrams are produced. Also their is Oak Ridge the town where nuclear weapons were produced/researched. Those are the two that jump to mind.
Springeifld and other US weapons manufactures tend to be distributed across multiple cities in the US for rather obvious reasons.
While not concentrated the Midwest would get lots of nuclear sunshine because that's where a lot of the silos where/are for US nuclear weapons.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Aaw, be a shame to see Oak Ridge go after all the work they put into the LFTR concept.

[Kouralia]

Is the Blackhawk a good option for an attack helicopter in MT?

I mean: it's fast, it can be heavily armed (some images show it looking like it's got more missiles than any other attack helicopter I've seen) and it can carry a full Kouralian Line Section.

[Galla-]

Is there any certain place in the states you could call a military manufacturing hub? Like where they primarily construct/assemble Abrams battle tanks, is the Springfield Armoury still the 'big' US arms manufacturing company, etc?
I imagine any such place would be upon the receiving end of enough nuclear sunshine to give me a mild tan from way across the pond.

I know there is a town. in Virginia I think, that is where most/all Abrams are produced. Also their is Oak Ridge the town where nuclear weapons were produced/researched. Those are the two that jump to mind.
Springeifld and other US weapons manufactures tend to be distributed across multiple cities in the US for rather obvious reasons.
While not concentrated the Midwest would get lots of nuclear sunshine because that's where a lot of the silos where/are for US nuclear weapons.

1) Lima, Ohio.

2) Midwest would be turned into glass and black rain.

http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mo.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/wy.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mt.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/nd.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/sd.jpg

Also these maps were vintage in 1995.

Is there any certain place in the states you could call a military manufacturing hub? Like where they primarily construct/assemble Abrams battle tanks, is the Springfield Armoury still the 'big' US arms manufacturing company, etc?
I imagine any such place would be upon the receiving end of enough nuclear sunshine to give me a mild tan from way across the pond.

There was DATP up until 1996, but now it's just LATP in Ohio.

Though General Motors is still the primary contractor for the Abrams iirc, so Detroit won't be doing too hot either way.

[Inutoland]

Is the Blackhawk a good option for an attack helicopter in MT?

I mean: it's fast, it can be heavily armed (some images show it looking like it's got more missiles than any other attack helicopter I've seen) and it can carry a full Kouralian Line Section.

It's a utility helicopter really, though, as I understand these things. Meaning that it can be armed enough to do the attack schtick, but whether it's a better option than a dedicated platform like the Tiger, Apache (Westland license-built version, for preference), Black Shark or Viper is doubtful.

Anyone with more knowledge of helicopters than me want to help out?

[Galla-]

Is the Blackhawk a good option for an attack helicopter in MT?

I mean: it's fast, it can be heavily armed (some images show it looking like it's got more missiles than any other attack helicopter I've seen) and it can carry a full Kouralian Line Section.

It's a utility helicopter really, though, as I understand these things. Meaning that it can be armed enough to do the attack schtick, but whether it's a better option than a dedicated platform like the Tiger, Apache (Westland license-built version, for preference), Black Shark or Viper is doubtful.

Anyone with more knowledge of helicopters than me want to help out?

S-67 was a dedicated gunship. Insert ad here

It was supposed to carry up to 24 TOW missiles for anti-armour missions, 8 LAU-19 rocket pods, or any combination of that, and could also mount wing-tip Sidewinders, a 30mm chaingun (or 40mm grenade launcher, or anything that would fit in the modular turret), but had an internal compartment with 8 seats for infantrymen.

Seems like a lot of weight, but the S-67 was derived from the S-61 Sea King, so it had a fair bit of lifting capacity with those two engines.

[Spirit of Hope]

Is the Blackhawk a good option for an attack helicopter in MT?

I mean: it's fast, it can be heavily armed (some images show it looking like it's got more missiles than any other attack helicopter I've seen) and it can carry a full Kouralian Line Section.

It's a utility helicopter really, though, as I understand these things. Meaning that it can be armed enough to do the attack schtick, but whether it's a better option than a dedicated platform like the Tiger, Apache (Westland license-built version, for preference), Black Shark or Viper is doubtful.

Anyone with more knowledge of helicopters than me want to help out?

What the above said is essentially correct. The black hawk is a utility helicopter, designed mainly to carry troops and supplies. Can it get covered in weapons to serve as an attack helicopter? Yes, will it be the best at this job? No a dedicated built/designed from the ground up attack helicopter will be better.

[Galla-]

It's a utility helicopter really, though, as I understand these things. Meaning that it can be armed enough to do the attack schtick, but whether it's a better option than a dedicated platform like the Tiger, Apache (Westland license-built version, for preference), Black Shark or Viper is doubtful.

Anyone with more knowledge of helicopters than me want to help out?

What the above said is essentially correct. The black hawk is a utility helicopter, designed mainly to carry troops and supplies. Can it get covered in weapons to serve as an attack helicopter? Yes, will it be the best at this job? No a dedicated built/designed from the ground up attack helicopter will be better.

S-67 is an attack helicopter derp derp

[Cresilia]

I know there is a town. in Virginia I think, that is where most/all Abrams are produced. Also their is Oak Ridge the town where nuclear weapons were produced/researched. Those are the two that jump to mind.
Springeifld and other US weapons manufactures tend to be distributed across multiple cities in the US for rather obvious reasons.
While not concentrated the Midwest would get lots of nuclear sunshine because that's where a lot of the silos where/are for US nuclear weapons.

1) Lima, Ohio.

2) Midwest would be turned into glass and black rain.

http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mo.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/wy.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mt.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/nd.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/sd.jpg

Also these maps were vintage in 1995.

Whats the point in expending that many nuclear weapons on presumably empty nuclear missile silos in the Midwest?

[Galla-]

1) Lima, Ohio.

2) Midwest would be turned into glass and black rain.

http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mo.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/wy.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/mt.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/nd.jpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/states/sd.jpg

Also these maps were vintage in 1995.

Whats the point in expending that many nuclear weapons on presumably empty nuclear missile silos in the Midwest?

Because silos are hardened.

And those maps are probably based on rough data sometime in the early 1990s, before most of the silos at Whiteman and stuff had been imploded.

[Spirit of Hope]

What the above said is essentially correct. The black hawk is a utility helicopter, designed mainly to carry troops and supplies. Can it get covered in weapons to serve as an attack helicopter? Yes, will it be the best at this job? No a dedicated built/designed from the ground up attack helicopter will be better.

S-67 is an attack helicopter derp derp

The Sikorsky UG-60 Black Hawk helicopter is a utility helicopter

[Cresilia]

Whats the point in expending that many nuclear weapons on presumably empty nuclear missile silos in the Midwest?

Because silos are hardened.

And those maps are probably based on rough data sometime in the early 1990s, before most of the silos at Whiteman and stuff had been imploded.

Yeah I understand they are hardened, but what is the point of destroying empty infrastructure in a full scale nuclear exchange? Its not like the US will restock them with missiles after WWIII is it?

[Galla-]

S-67 is an attack helicopter derp derp

The Sikorsky UG-60 Black Hawk helicopter is a utility helicopter

Too bad he wasn't talking about S-70.

[Amastol]

S-67 is a attack helicopter derp derp sexy beast

(Image)

Fix'd that for ya.

[Galla-]

S-67 is a attack helicopter derp derp sexy beast

(Image)

Fix'd that for ya.

Rly that's a given. >:

[Spirit of Hope]

Because silos are hardened.

And those maps are probably based on rough data sometime in the early 1990s, before most of the silos at Whiteman and stuff had been imploded.

Yeah I understand they are hardened, but what is the point of destroying empty infrastructure in a full scale nuclear exchange? Its not like the US will restock them with missiles after WWIII is it?

No you try and kill them before they launch, a nuclear war would last for at least a couple of days with missiles flying the entire time. And you would want to keep those silos from being used in the future, because you probably can't invade and hold the US forever, more likely force the US to give you consesions.

[Galla-]

Yeah I understand they are hardened, but what is the point of destroying empty infrastructure in a full scale nuclear exchange? Its not like the US will restock them with missiles after WWIII is it?

No you try and kill them before they launch, a nuclear war would last for at least a couple of days with missiles flying the entire time. And you would want to keep those silos from being used in the future, because you probably can't invade and hold the US forever, more likely force the US to give you consesions.

Nuclear war wouldn't be a missile duel.

It would last for years, probably, until one side conquered the other with tanks and troops landing on the beaches.

[Cresilia]

No you try and kill them before they launch, a nuclear war would last for at least a couple of days with missiles flying the entire time. And you would want to keep those silos from being used in the future, because you probably can't invade and hold the US forever, more likely force the US to give you consesions.

Nuclear war wouldn't be a missile duel.

It would last for years, probably, until one side conquered the other with tanks and troops landing on the beaches.

Ok but when if the Soviets were to have lobbed a few nukes at US missile silos in the Midwest, wouldn't the US have fired the nukes contained within those silos so as to prevent a total loss of the missiles?

[Spirit of Hope]

Nuclear war wouldn't be a missile duel.

It would last for years, probably, until one side conquered the other with tanks and troops landing on the beaches.

Ok but when if the Soviets were to have lobbed a few nukes at US missile silos in the Midwest, wouldn't the US have fired the nukes contained within those silos so as to prevent a total loss of the missiles?

They might try to but it wouldn't necessarily work, their is lag in finding out the missiles are coming, lag in ordering the launch, lag in those orders being distributed and then lag in the actual launch. The main thing is that both sides have nukes that are almost impossible for the opponent to reach in various forms, one of those being the submarines.

[Grand Britannia]

I wanna launch this from a really big amphibious assault ship.

[Cresilia]

Ok but when if the Soviets were to have lobbed a few nukes at US missile silos in the Midwest, wouldn't the US have fired the nukes contained within those silos so as to prevent a total loss of the missiles?

They might try to but it wouldn't necessarily work, their is lag in finding out the missiles are coming, lag in ordering the launch, lag in those orders being distributed and then lag in the actual launch. The main thing is that both sides have nukes that are almost impossible for the opponent to reach in various forms, one of those being the submarines.

So then why build/place those ICBM's in those nice bunkers in the Midwest in the first place?

[Spirit of Hope]

They might try to but it wouldn't necessarily work, their is lag in finding out the missiles are coming, lag in ordering the launch, lag in those orders being distributed and then lag in the actual launch. The main thing is that both sides have nukes that are almost impossible for the opponent to reach in various forms, one of those being the submarines.

So then why build/place those ICBM's in those nice bunkers in the Midwest in the first place?

Because they are easy to defend from a ground attack, and they aren't close to any cities which would hopeful reduce civilian casualties. Plus you would likely get some of the missiles off to attack an enemy.

[Transnapastain]

I wanna launch this from a really big amphibious assault ship.

I do in my Navy. IIRC (and I may not be, numbers aren't my strong suit) its dimentions were bigger, but not terribly bigger, than the well dock for a Wasp class. I imagine an assault ship could be built to carry it. As it stands, I only carry one, and half the usual amount of AAV's to compensate for its lolhuge size.

I'm pretty sure it can be loaded onto some kind of carrying craft (It looks like it might need to retract/remove its radar and antenna mast to fit properly)

[Grand Britannia]

I wanna launch this from a really big amphibious assault ship.

I do in my Navy. IIRC (and I may not be, numbers aren't my strong suit) its dimentions were bigger, but not terribly bigger, than the well dock for a Wasp class. I imagine an assault ship could be built to carry it. As it stands, I only carry one, and half the usual amount of AAV's to compensate for its lolhuge size.

I'm pretty sure it can be loaded onto some kind of carrying craft (It looks like it might need to retract/remove its radar and antenna mast to fit properly)

I think my huge Amphibious assault ships can carry at least 2.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Does anyone see any insurmountable mechanical issues with my rifles magazine well being canted ~120 degrees or so rearward?