NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Kampala-]

It's actually LEH-claire.

Lu-claire.

Semantics, they're pronounced the same.

Lu-claire.

The Lingua Franca strikes again with half the letters in the word silent, another few that aren't written down added in, and all of that slurred together into one confusing mess of a word unless you already know French.

French isn't the lingua franca and hasn't been for a very, very long time.

The international trade language is English, which is the only language you will ever need to know.

[Imperializt Russia]

Lu-claire.

The Lingua Franca strikes again with half the letters in the word silent, another few that aren't written down added in, and all of that slurred together into one confusing mess of a word unless you already know French.

When I was at school, I found it easy enough to just guess that the last letter of every word, unless stated otherwise, was silent and always spoken with a ridiculous tryhard accent.

[Oaledonia]

Lu-claire.

Semantics, they're pronounced the same.

I wasn't trying to seem rude, they look different phonetically.

[Kampala-]

Semantics, they're pronounced the same.

I wasn't trying to seem rude, they look different phonetically.

I didn't take offence. I was covering my behind.

[Velkanika]

That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. By being so expensive, it will inevitably be fielded in fewer numbers. Which means that it is responsible for making itself outnumbered in the first place.

How so? I simply don't have enough natural Chokepoints to justify having to field so very many. And then by having that many, dispersed, it wouldn't make sense. If I wanted it in number, it would be the mainstay of my armored fleet. I just want it to add another layer of tactical defense to very important points.

Snipers are outnumbered, but they serve a supporting, synergistic, role.

No, but your tanks sitting in the mountain pass you're trying to defend will be. Unless you withdraw from that pass, in which case you're no longer operating in the very specific terrain you claim to want to use these tanks in and the enemy has achieved his objective of dislodging you.

The attacker's objective will be to bombard your tanks, your artillery is a secondary objective at best. Firing from outside the constrained terrain, the attacker can evade counterbattery fire while pounding your tank force, which cannot evade without surrendering the objective. This is why static defense of mountain passes for anything more than the time required by the enemy to bring up artillery or air support is a rather moot point.

Static defense of mountain passes is a bad idea if the enemy has air parity and artillery?

They wouldn't be in the pass itself but somewhere away from where the initial battlefield would be had. Depending on preparation, into numerous pre-prepared positions many of which outfitted with decoys or nothing at all. Without them, these tank destroyers have a longer effective range than the tanks, and can pick them off while they engage a first and/or second echelon of regular battle tanks. They'd be firing from further, decreasing ATGM capabilities, C-RAM that could help defend your forward ranks as well. Then it peels off, into another tank ditch, or away as your FO gets the fire support call threw. I can move more freely from position to position, or out of the area simply because I am further away and hidden behind more layers of defense.

The incoming round/rocket is tracked during its initial upward/launch trajectory (i.e., the linear portion of its flight path) prior to reaching apogee. A computer program analyzes the track data and then extrapolates the round’s point of origin. This calculated point of origin is then reported to the operator with map coordinates, thus allowing friendly artillery to direct counterbattery fire towards the enemy artillery. The system has a reported range of up to 50 kilometers. The system may also be operated in a friendly fire mode to determine the accuracy of counterbattery return fire.

And what if this system had a surface-to-surface missile unit slaved to it, like an MLRS, with another separate (or attached) missile unit that has until yet fired.

I suppose your Aircraft would be just as liable to pick out decoy as real, "The United States Army has developed a modern dummy tank. It imitates the M1 Abrams tank not only in appearance, but also in its heat signature, in order to appear real to infrared detectors. One of these decoys can take fire from the enemy and still appear to be operational, thus delaying the enemy by as much as an hour, as they are forced to destroy the decoy. These M1 decoys cost only $3,300,[16] compared to $4.35 million for a real M1." It would cost more to make them maneuverable, but since they're so large and the actual dummy weight so small it'd require a small engine I believe. I wonder if someone would even want to put on a passive or active system, depending on the cost. I wouldn't be surprised if one could even get it to fire blanks.

And hell, if it costs so much wouldn't that make multiple decoys more efficient? It would be a sunken cost, the tanks, but the decoys could be bought 5 a piece. If you can trick your enemy with 5 different images, only one of which is fake and they expend a huge amount of ordinance on these calls, unknowingly expending their supplies on dummy targets, and this behemoth gets just another shot or two off for those five decoys (since it costs so much relative to the tank destroyer), wouldn't that be worth it? Assuming* (suspension of belief, yes, yes) you get 6 to 5 decoys per tank kill, having to constantly shoot and scoot even while MLRS fire counter-batteries, partly slaved (or fully, depending on the person. Though, while it'd react faster, I think it could lead to some pretty nasty problem like having to immediately reposition an entire MLRS battery while they're eating) and partly commanded using something better than an old counter-battery radar, that theoretically comes out to... 50-60,000 per enemy tank. Plus whatever ordinance you decide to lob. Get a positive I.D.? Kill. I don't claim them to be invulnerable I just think they could play a serious role as a tank 'sniper'.

And which of these features inherently requires a specialized vehicle? Why is this a role you cannot fill with conventional main battle tanks equipped with APS?

Nothing precludes this vehicle from being used aside from the fact that you already have a perfectly functional tank that should already have these capabilities. So why do you insist on having another?

Mitheldalond wants to use this tank as his standard tank. Not a fortress tank. Not a defensive tank. Not a heavy tank. As a main battle tank. It won't be operating at a 100:1 or 5:1 ratio in the tank force, it is the tank force.

The tank sniping role, for a critical strategic point.

I can't speak for what or how Mith plans to use this tank, just how I plan to. I've been very pleased with player-created material, like Anemos' Illusion.

I wouldn't care. This is where you make due with what you have on hand, rather than what you wish you had. Your existing tanks should already be of suitable quality in terms of tank-killing ability. If they aren't, then you don't need specialist defensive tanks, you need to upgrade or replace your conventional tanks. The only time this vehicle might have a use is if your normal tanks are insufficient for their job. But if they're insufficient, then the priority should be on improving them, not buying other tanks for other roles.

90% Preparation, 10% Execution.

Tank "sniping" doesn't exist as a valid tactic anymore. In the situations you envision using this tank in, the enemy will be capable of accurately returning fire at your tanks with weapons just as capable of killing your vehicles as you use to kill them. Using decoy positions won't exactly help you either, as they probably will assume they're all real threats and treat them as such, which will inflate their kill reports and expend some ammunition. These tanks are not capable of being Tank Destroyers, which lost most of their utility around 1950. ATGMs took over that role due to being more effective then gun fire most of the time.

[Kampala-]

ATGW are less effective than gunfire due to firing cycles.

They're very lightweight, though.

[Firmador]

Tank "sniping" doesn't exist as a valid tactic anymore. In the situations you envision using this tank in, the enemy will be capable of accurately returning fire at your tanks with weapons just as capable of killing your vehicles as you use to kill them. Using decoy positions won't exactly help you either, as they probably will assume they're all real threats and treat them as such, which will inflate their kill reports and expend some ammunition. These tanks are not capable of being Tank Destroyers, which lost most of their utility around 1950. ATGMs took over that role due to being more effective then gun fire most of the time.

We don't disagree, I don't see myself fighting most of my battles in mountains (and when I do, it tends to be offensively lol).

[Firmador]

ATGW are less effective than gunfire due to firing cycles.

They're very lightweight, though.

That's not to mention they're pushing range limitations when we start talking about a gun with a range of 3-6kms, even if it's just to disperse human concentration or a lucky mobility kill, like the Nag, costs 50 million (5 Leclercs [meh] seems excessive but its a random one that kept coming first page under anti-tank missile that wasn't something American) and its maximum range is supposedly 4kms land based.

[Kampala-]

ATGW are less effective than gunfire due to firing cycles.

They're very lightweight, though.

That's not to mention they're pushing range limitations when we start talking about a gun with a range of 3-6kms, even if it's just to disperse human concentration or a lucky mobility kill, like the Nag, costs 50 million (5 Leclercs [meh] seems excessive but its a random one that kept coming first page under anti-tank missile that wasn't something American) and its maximum range is supposedly 4kms land based.

ATGW are LOS weapons.

In typical scenarios, they might have 1-2 km line of sight on a tank before a tree or a building or something gets in the way, which means both can fire. If you're in a big desert or Kansas or something it's different, but that's the minority of places.

It's why fire-and-forget weapons like Javelin were/are being so heavily pursued: they keep you from being a fifteen second target for a tank platoon. ATGW have noticeable (not stupendous) launch signatures and are very slow (exceptions exist, but most aren't man portable) compared to tank shells.

[Imperializt Russia]

ATGW are less effective than gunfire due to firing cycles.

They're very lightweight, though.

Firing cycles?
Is this a statement of the higher RoF that can be achieved by gunfire?

[Firmador]

That's not to mention they're pushing range limitations when we start talking about a gun with a range of 3-6kms, even if it's just to disperse human concentration or a lucky mobility kill, like the Nag, costs 50 million (5 Leclercs [meh] seems excessive but its a random one that kept coming first page under anti-tank missile that wasn't something American) and its maximum range is supposedly 4kms land based.

ATGW are LOS weapons.

In typical scenarios, they might have 1-2 km line of sight on a tank, which means both can fire. It's why weapons like Javelin were/are being so heavily pursued.

Oh, thought it meant anti-tank guided weapon. But eitherway, this tank would have fun with enemy tanks 2kms out, while they're maybe more than 500ms from regular battle tanks in a vicious duel. While they themselves would lack such support.

[Kampala-]

ATGW are less effective than gunfire due to firing cycles.

They're very lightweight, though.

Firing cycles?
Is this a statement of the higher RoF that can be achieved by gunfire?

An ATGW takes about the same amount of time to acquire a tank as the latter does an infantryman, since they both have TIS.

The difference is that the typical ATGW requires the gunner to remain calm, seated, and guide his rocket to the target over the course of ten or fifteen seconds. Once that is done, he can reload and move to another target. A tank aims, fires, hits the target, and reloads and is searching for new targets or re-engaging in the time it takes the missile to fly to reach its target.

[Firmador]

Javelin- According to wiki $78,000 (missile)

That'd be like 5-10 decoys...

[Imperializt Russia]

It's also worth anywhere from a twentieth to a hundredth of an enemy battle tank, so it averages out quite nicely.

ATGW are LOS weapons.

In typical scenarios, they might have 1-2 km line of sight on a tank, which means both can fire. It's why weapons like Javelin were/are being so heavily pursued.

Oh, thought it meant anti-tank guided weapon. But eitherway, this tank would have fun with enemy tanks 2kms out, while they're maybe more than 500ms from regular battle tanks in a vicious duel. While they themselves would lack such support.

ATGW is Anti-Tank Guided Weapon. What did you think it meant?

ATGW are LoS weapons for both acquisition limitations and redundancy. An AT unit doesn't need to shoot over the horizon to kill enemy tanks. You have artillery and air for this.

[Kampala-]

It's also worth anywhere from a twentieth to a hundredth of an enemy battle tank, so it averages out quite nicely.

It doesn't. At all.

If you're only killing one tank with each ATGW team, you've lost and should probably just surrender before it gets any worse.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's also worth anywhere from a twentieth to a hundredth of an enemy battle tank, so it averages out quite nicely.

It doesn't. At all.

If you're only killing one tank with each ATGW team, you've lost and should probably just surrender before it gets any worse.

Mathematically speaking, you can't engage a tank with a fraction of one missile.

[Kampala-]

It doesn't. At all.

If you're only killing one tank with each ATGW team, you've lost and should probably just surrender before it gets any worse.

Mathematically speaking, you can't engage a tank with a fraction of one missile.

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

1) ATGW are less effective at trading shots with tanks because of firing cycles.
2) ATGW should be far more effective against heavy armour on defense.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Has anyone ever tried deploying "guided" chutes? As in, you know, automatically steerable?

E: Nevermind, they have, apparently.

100m CEP min, 10.000 lbs (~4500 kg) max

E2: JPADS

Up to 60000 pounds?? That's like what, 27T?

I'm wondering, how much more expensive is this than dumb airdropping .

[Gallia-]

Has anyone ever tried deploying "guided" chutes? As in, you know, automatically steerable?

Yes.

[Imperializt Russia]

Mathematically speaking, you can't engage a tank with a fraction of one missile.

What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

1) ATGW are less effective at trading shots with tanks because of firing cycles.
2) ATGW should be far more effective against heavy armour on defense.

Apparently, not what you think.
Firmador lamented the cost of a Javelin was approximate to five or ten decoy tanks. I countered that a tank is worth like twenty or even a hundred Javelin missiles.

If war were a balance sheet, then ATGW teams would probably be in the black by some margin, in terms of munitions spent. Even if for every six targets destroyed, five were decoys at a "loss" of a couple hundred grand (relative to cost of munitions versus cost of target), that one tank you kill gives you a "profit" of a couple million.

It was an unreasonable response to what I felt was an unreasonable point.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I'm tempted to link a bunch of decoy-tanks to a few actual tanks and just tank-rush through a minefield with it.

Linked-arms human wave attack + tanks + a decoy:target ratio of 50:1 = Just try and stop my nuclear-tanks now.

Lu-claire.

The Lingua Franca strikes again with half the letters in the word silent, another few that aren't written down added in, and all of that slurred together into one confusing mess of a word unless you already know French.

*cough*

[Inyourfaceistan]

I feel like I should pre-emptively ask this so I wont latter.

Is an air-to-ground missile such as the AGM-65 Maverick vulnerable to being shot down by surface-to-air missiles?

[Spirit of Hope]

I feel like I should pre-emptively ask this so I wont latter.

Is an air-to-ground missile such as the AGM-65 Maverick vulnerable to being shot down by surface-to-air missiles?

Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? No. The flight time would likely be to short for any reasonable placed air defense system to have time to acquire, launch and intercept. However if you launched at extreme range and the geometry worked out then maybe it could happen.

[Velkanika]

I'm tempted to link a bunch of decoy-tanks to a few actual tanks and just tank-rush through a minefield with it.

Linked-arms human wave attack + tanks + a decoy:target ratio of 50:1 = Just try and stop my nuclear-tanks now.

The Lingua Franca strikes again with half the letters in the word silent, another few that aren't written down added in, and all of that slurred together into one confusing mess of a word unless you already know French.

*cough*

Decoys usually can't move on their own due to the cost of building a suspension and engine for them.

[Rich and Corporations]

It's also worth anywhere from a twentieth to a hundredth of an enemy battle tank, so it averages out quite nicely.

It doesn't. At all.

If you're only killing one tank with each ATGW team, you've lost and should probably just surrender before it gets any worse.

the point of war isn't to destroy the enemy