NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Velkanika]

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

War is a political act where organized violence is used to obtain some political objective. The loosing side could very well have a stronger military then the victor when a peace treaty is signed, which actually happened a few times in Europe over the centuries.

[New Vihenia]

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?

Yes. Even some SAM's are designed to do so.

Missiles just like any other flying objects have observables, like RCS (In order of 0.01-0.5 Sqm depend on frequency) and IR signatures, which allow tracking and subsequent engagement. The challenge is of course to provide reaction time and accuracy to engage fast flying low RCS target which sometime pop from the horizon.

One SAM design the 9A331 (Tor and subsequent variants Tor-M1 and M2) Answered above challenge by use of automated computer controlled engagement and phased array engagement radar to allow engagement of missiles and guided bombs in flight. The reaction time is sufficiently fast for this system around 5-10 seconds and able to engage target moving at 700 m/s (M 2.05)

[Rich and Corporations]

the point of war isn't to destroy the enemy

War is a political act where organized violence is used to obtain some political objective. The loosing side could very well have a stronger military then the victor when a peace treaty is signed, which actually happened a few times in Europe over the centuries.

Or in the case of Afghanistan, for every thousand of us you kill, if we kill only one of yours, we still win.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

In general, "airborne-capable" (as opposed to "full-blown" paratroopers/ VDV for example) troops (e.g. some light infantry / elite but not really) , can they into high altitude drops or just plebian low altitude ones ? From what I understand HALO and HAHO carry with them certain risks and require special equipment (and logically special training?) compared to drops from lower altitudes .

And also can the entirety of "dedicated" airborne troops into HALO/HAHO or just some of them?

[Firmador]

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.

Yes, and these take time to fire. While a 155mm (still holding out for 166mm, I guess I'm the only one that think that number looks cooler) would still be able to get off a couple rounds, if not more. So with those couple rounds, he can down a tank or two... Well, paid for.

Plus your ATGW/Javelins would be going threw multiple layers of defensive, near the end of their effective range (if not outside of it), even for a decoy so that would increase the missiles required, which would generally increase the length of time said TD would have on the battlefield, increasing his likeliness of taking out additional tank(s) in that time.

[Gallia-]

If war were a balance sheet

Too bad it isn't.

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

If your objective is to destroy the enemy, then the point of war is to destroy the enemy.

[Firmador]

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*

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but artillery would probably deflate most of your decoys

[Firmador]

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.


*cough*

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

Just wanted to put this up for lulz: http://hackaday.com/2012/12/10/homemade ... -in-syria/

Anyways, don't they have remote mobile tank decoys already? Can't find them on the google, but I have the daftest feeling I've definitely seen one self-propelled before.....

[Imperializt Russia]

If war were a balance sheet

Too bad it isn't.

Hence "if" and the rest of that post.

[Gallia-]

Too bad it isn't.

Hence "if" and the rest of that post.

If the atmosphere were 85% methane instead of nitrogen, we wouldn't be alive. So what?

Just because Javelin is cheaper than a tank doesn't mean you'll have equal amounts of money to spend on your opponent, nor does it mean you should even consider spending equal amounts of money on ATGW for however much he spends on tanks. That's not sound.

[Velkanika]

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.

Yes, and these take time to fire. While a 155mm (still holding out for 166mm, I guess I'm the only one that think that number looks cooler) would still be able to get off a couple rounds, if not more. So with those couple rounds, he can down a tank or two... Well, paid for.

Plus your ATGW/Javelins would be going threw multiple layers of defensive, near the end of their effective range (if not outside of it), even for a decoy so that would increase the missiles required, which would generally increase the length of time said TD would have on the battlefield, increasing his likeliness of taking out additional tank(s) in that time.

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

[Firmador]

Yes, and these take time to fire. While a 155mm (still holding out for 166mm, I guess I'm the only one that think that number looks cooler) would still be able to get off a couple rounds, if not more. So with those couple rounds, he can down a tank or two... Well, paid for.

Plus your ATGW/Javelins would be going threw multiple layers of defensive, near the end of their effective range (if not outside of it), even for a decoy so that would increase the missiles required, which would generally increase the length of time said TD would have on the battlefield, increasing his likeliness of taking out additional tank(s) in that time.

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

[The New Lowlands]

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

Infantry w/ ATGMs- such as the Javelin- can be on the front line. Also handily in cover for those nasty surprises.

[Gallia-]

You can't get away with having idiots as infantrymen, it requires a fair amount of creativity. This is true for all branches of an armed force, but infantry especially as they're the ones who hold ground. Intelligent is a virtue to the infantrymen.

Not sure why you're even taking "semi-inept, uneducated, or below 100 IQ" soldiers into your military anyway. Perhaps the officers are looking company?

[Firmador]

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

Infantry w/ ATGMs- such as the Javelin- can be on the front line. Also handily in cover for those nasty surprises.

I'm not arguing against this.

In fact in this very same scenario, as I've said, I would be doing the exact same thing against whomever.

[The New Lowlands]

Infantry w/ ATGMs- such as the Javelin- can be on the front line. Also handily in cover for those nasty surprises.

I'm not arguing against this.

In fact in this very same scenario, as I've said, I would be doing the exact same thing against whomever.

Then why are you complaining about it not being a first-echelon unit?

[Firmador]

You can't get away with having idiots as infantrymen, it requires a fair amount of creativity. This is true for all branches of an armed force, but infantry especially as they're the ones who hold ground. Intelligent is a virtue to the infantrymen.

Not sure why you're even taking "semi-inept, uneducated, or below 100 IQ" soldiers into your military anyway. Perhaps the officers are looking company?

Okay. My fault, I should have included officers and NCOs, but I see your point. I guess more stringent initial requirements, better puddie, is the best option.

[Firmador]

I'm not arguing against this.

In fact in this very same scenario, as I've said, I would be doing the exact same thing against whomever.

Then why are you complaining about it not being a first-echelon unit?

?

I'm saying this Tank Destroyer would not be a first-echelon unit. Not that the Javelin wouldn't be.

[United States of PA]

If its not a "First echelon unit", chances are it will end up like the tank destroyers the USA used in WWII, almost always in the wrong spot.

[Gallia-]

You can't get away with having idiots as infantrymen, it requires a fair amount of creativity. This is true for all branches of an armed force, but infantry especially as they're the ones who hold ground. Intelligent is a virtue to the infantrymen.

Not sure why you're even taking "semi-inept, uneducated, or below 100 IQ" soldiers into your military anyway. Perhaps the officers are looking company?

Okay. My fault, I should have included officers and NCOs, but I see your point. I guess more stringent initial requirements, better puddie, is the best option.

Yes, quite.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, idiots tend to have lower morale and break more easily than educated, intelligent infantryman.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

This is stupid. You're either grossly misrepresenting infantry as something they're not or incorrectly perceiving grossly overestimating the number of pilots, crewmen and arty-men you need.

[The New Lowlands]

Then why are you complaining about it not being a first-echelon unit?

?

I'm saying this Tank Destroyer would not be a first-echelon unit. Not that the Javelin wouldn't be.

ATGW carrier on the left

I fail to see how it wouldn't be a frontline unit.

[San-Silvacian]

*ahem*

AMX-56 tank: 9,000,000USD
Ammunition: 180,000USD
Crew: 450,000USD (Initial investment)

Thats a single AMX-56 w/ ammunition and crew. 9,600,000USD

Javelin launcher unit: 126,000USD
Missile: 78,000USD
Crew: 300,000USD (Initial investment)

Single ATGM team. 504,000USD.

Give them 115 missiles now to make up for the rest of the 9,000,000 left.

Or make 5 more teams and give them 12 missiles each.

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

What the fuck are you going on about. Have you even looked up the ASVAB process?

Also if people have over 100+ IQs, I can fucking assure you there are better jobs they can get besides a fucking grunt job the military. Where they get treated like shit by shitty commanders, eat shitty food, and live in shitty places.

[Velkanika]

You're talking out of your ass again.

Why exactly would an AT gunner not shoot the threat closes to him, or engage at maximum range? Your entire argument falls apart if enemy soldiers remember their basic combat training in any way.

Closest?

Why does everyone keep saying closest? This is not a first echelon unit. It would be sniping from behind the first or second barrier of defenses (infantry and MBTs). When you talk about pounding the pass with artillery, I ignore it because I wouldn't have it sitting there like a duck, I would have my regular MBTs and Infantrymen doing that. And if you're talking about him shooting the closest threat, one of my first rank regular MBTs, that's just what happens with MBTs, and if its close enough this TD too.

Also been considering using alot of strict tests to put people into their military positions, so basically everyone semi-inept, uneducated or below 100 IQ goes to the infantry while the brightest goes to air, sea and artillery. I know they already do this, but I'm imagining to a very extreme extent.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Let's say you're defending a mountain pass against the US Army, and they don't have any air support available for some reason. As soon as they start taking direct fire from your "sniper tanks", they'll call in artillery on top of them and use smoke to mask their advance. As you have advanced optics that smoke would be WP, which is a legal use of the chemical under international law. Your tanks have now been destroyed outright or forced to reposition closer to the engagement in order to contribute significantly. Your entire reason for procuring them has just been defeated by an O-3 with a map, a radio, and binoculars. Your overpriced heavy tanks must now fight where they are well inside the range of ATGMs and other AT weapons or not at all.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

?

I'm saying this Tank Destroyer would not be a first-echelon unit. Not that the Javelin wouldn't be.

ATGW carrier on the left

I fail to see how it wouldn't be a frontline unit.

who did this.

Also , to be fair , TDs as they're known today (relatively heavily armed and lightly armored unless I'm missing something regarding the term's current usage) , could benefit their own health by being front-echelon but not actually "in the face" of the enemy . That role is best left for MBTs and other heavily armored vehicles. With TDs you want to do a lot of shoot and scoot and outmaneuvering the enemy as much as you can, and try to keep them more hidden , as they're pretty vulnerable to counter-fire .