NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Kouralia]

Worthless military that has accomplished nothing in its long history: Canada

Look at how much nothing these men have done not on Juno Beach because they weren't there.

And all the 'being fourth largest army and third largest navy in the world' they weren't doing in 1945.

And all the general not burning down the US capital and eating the president's dinner they did.

[Padnak]

Look at how much nothing these men have done not on Juno Beach because they weren't there.

And all the 'being fourth largest army and third largest navy in the world' they weren't doing in 1945.

And all the general not burning down the US capital and eating the president's dinner they did.

That bonfire was a real good time

I was being sarcastic about Canada sucking at military

We've gotten around :

[The IASM]

Look at how much nothing these men have done not on Juno Beach because they weren't there.

And all the 'being fourth largest army and third largest navy in the world' they weren't doing in 1945.

And all the general not burning down the US capital and eating the president's dinner they did.

That bonfire was a real good time

I was being sarcastic about Canada sucking at military

We've gotten around :

Canada, the land of apologising bad asses.

[Samahi]

How realistic/effective would it be to have a submarine that mounted torpedo tubes along its flank and fired them in a broadside? I'm envisioning a single sub obliterating a convoy in a single salvo, but no RL navy has done this, so maybe there's something I've missed...

[Novorden]

How realistic/effective would it be to have a submarine that mounted torpedo tubes along its flank and fired them in a broadside? I'm envisioning a single sub obliterating a convoy in a single salvo, but no RL navy has done this, so maybe there's something I've missed...

Not needed/overly complex. I mean come on, isn't 6 (reloadable) tubes enough?

[Samahi]

How realistic/effective would it be to have a submarine that mounted torpedo tubes along its flank and fired them in a broadside? I'm envisioning a single sub obliterating a convoy in a single salvo, but no RL navy has done this, so maybe there's something I've missed...

Not needed/overly complex. I mean come on, isn't 6 (reloadable) tubes enough?

Alpha strike capability. My nation has a low population density, so they anticipate being outnumbered a lot locally. Their solution is to have subs that can put a lot of torpedoes in the water very quickly, before their opponents can even get a decent firing solution.

[Connori Pilgrims]

How realistic/effective would it be to have a submarine that mounted torpedo tubes along its flank and fired them in a broadside? I'm envisioning a single sub obliterating a convoy in a single salvo, but no RL navy has done this, so maybe there's something I've missed...

Conceptually its not impossible (although with the size of modern torpedoes this calls for one fat submarine, especially if you're planning to use say Russian 25.6" torpedoes), and the system more simpler if the tubes were single shot.

But, that many apertures will make this thing very, very noisy especially if you plan full "broadside" with all tubes firing. And such a configuration is suicide if torpedoes used are wire-guided.

There is a safer and likely more-effective way of attacking convoys with one submarine: barrage of (preferably supersonic or hypersonic, even better with nuclear warheads) cruise missiles fired from extreme range.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not needed/overly complex. I mean come on, isn't 6 (reloadable) tubes enough?

Alpha strike capability. My nation has a low population density, so they anticipate being outnumbered a lot locally. Their solution is to have subs that can put a lot of torpedoes in the water very quickly, before their opponents can even get a decent firing solution.

If you have to sit with a broadside, you're going to lose subs very quickly.

Torpedoes are almost universally wire-guided, for a variety of reasons.

[Samahi]

How realistic/effective would it be to have a submarine that mounted torpedo tubes along its flank and fired them in a broadside? I'm envisioning a single sub obliterating a convoy in a single salvo, but no RL navy has done this, so maybe there's something I've missed...

Conceptually its not impossible (although with the size of modern torpedoes this calls for one fat submarine, especially if you're planning to use say Russian 25.6" torpedoes), and the system more simpler if the tubes were single shot.

But, that many apertures will make this thing very, very noisy especially if you plan full "broadside" with all tubes firing. And such a configuration is suicide if torpedoes used are wire-guided.

There is a safer and likely more-effective way of attacking convoys with one submarine: barrage of (preferably supersonic or hypersonic, even better with nuclear warheads) cruise missiles fired from extreme range.

Thank you. I think I might simply have more forward-facing torpedo tubes (say, 12), and have their subs operate in wolfpacks. And of course using cruise missiles to attack from a distance.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can think of no reason to install 12 front torpedo tubes. You'd probably need two separate torpedo decks, which would require a shitload of room in the front of your sub. You certainly won't be able to fire 12 at once or in quick succession, so why bother? Six is frankly quite a lot anyway, for the capabilities that it offers.

[Primordial Luxa]

Greetings can anyone give an opinion on my military doctrine?
Thanks in advance

• Luxan Military Objectives
o One of the most central objectives that Luxans attempt to achieve if they think they will be engaging in a prolonged military conflict is Enemy Force Isolation. This objective helps in extended conflicts by slowly but potently draining the enemy’s ability to fight. It relies on stopping troops, supplies and information from entering enemy held territory or contested space. To accomplish this Luxans will attempt to control enemy land borders with Ballistic Artillery and Air Support, blockade coasts with mines as well as air and sea patrols, and to monitor airspace with SAM’s, Sea based defenses and fighters.
o Luxans have found that the fast way to force surrender or cause disorientation in an enemy force is the complete destruction of their leadership and command infrastructure. Because of this the opening moves of a Luxan force will be to conduct powerful attack on enemy command positions either with a single ruthless and destructive attack to cut the enemies head off or several blows to command assets. This objective is also achieved in cyber space as well as Luxans target and destroy the enemy’s ability to communicate and function as a collective force further removing the abilities of the commanders. This type of attack is meant to be as equitable as possible by using small amount of force to cause a massive amount of strategic damage.
o Similar to force isolation is the destruction of the enemy’s logistics which is based around destroying the life blood of the enemy forces by removing what they need to fight. This is typically done in a series of harrowing attacks that destroy bases or convoys that contain vast amount of weapons, ammo, food, or raw materials.
• Typical Strategies
o Pre-emptive strikes
o Isolating enemy forces
o Shock and Awe assaults
o Mass air troop attack
o Simultaneous small attack on enemy infrastructure and key positions.
• Luxan Military Demographic
o The Luxan Empire spends nearly a third of its federal budget on its military and as such is more than likely that Luxan force will possess a vastly superior technological edge over their opponents. This will normally include higher generation air fighters, better equipped warships and more modernized electronics. While it is possible that enemies of Luxa may be equipped with their own high grade technology few nations prioritize defense like we do and as such having more advanced systems is a reasonable assumption.
o One weakness that Luxan Empire will typically will suffer from is a lack of manpower and most nations will possess an army larger than any expeditionary force launched. This is because the amount of money put into each Luxan soldiers will typically be more than their opponents allowing them to field more troops. While Luxans soldiers may be expensive they are typically better fighters than their enemies. In order to make up for this weakness Luxan forces must battle in ways that make their enemies size less useful or damaging as well as using technologies such as aircrafts and cruise missile to reduce reliance on basic infantry.
o The Luxan military rarely fights alone and with typically fight alongside the militaries of other nations who share similar interested in a scenario or other members of the Empire who are bound to do so. This is done mainly to show international support for Luxa’s goals but also to lessen the burden on Luxan troops and to make up for the Luxan armies small size. Because of this communication is essential and must be maintained. Typical strategies include using allied forces to attack second and third tier targets, having allies attack as a second wave, as well as having allies protect supply resources or previously conquered territory.
• Possible Variables
o If Luxa is without allies in a war or international conflict they will find themselves fighting a very difficult uphill battle that will require them to deploy extra troops to make up for the lack of allied support. If this happens it is important for Luxan forces to strike fast and hard with vast amounts of fire power in order to gain an early upper hand. This is believed to be the worst possible situation for the Luxan military to face.
o There is the very distinct possibility that members of the Luxan Empire might turn against the homeland. While it is fine for nations to leave and ignore certain policies a military attack against another nation in the empire will be met with swift and utter destruction. In this situation Luxan forces will attempt to cause complete and utter destruction of the enemy’s leadership, military, and government infrastructure.
• Luxan Specific Orders
o Cenobite
 An order commonly given in an occupied civilian area as a terror tactic, it allows Luxans soldiers to do as they please with no repercussions of any kind. Owning to Luxans sadistic demeanor this typically involves mass murder, torture, looting and defacement occurring on a city wide scale.
• Luxan Nuclear Doctrine
o Luxa will always strive to avoid nuclear war whenever possible and will never engage in a first strike unless our second strike capabilities are threated or destroyed.
o Luxa will declare a first strike if
 Luxan Nuclear armed submarines, Luxan Strategic Bombers or Luxan ICBM’s are attacked without provocation
 Luxan missile detection systems such as PAVE paws or radar satellites are attacked.
o Luxa will declare a second strike if
 A Nuclear weapon of 25 Kilotons or greater is aimed at Luxan civilian targets
 A Nuclear weapon of 50 Kilotons or greater is aimed at Luxan territory
 A Nuclear weapon of 100 Kilotons or greater is aimed at Luxan military targets

[Rich and Corporations]

BGM-109 Tomahawks have an operational range of 2,800km. NS-equivalent weapons (such as the LY589 Hellion or LA-1330 Contrado) get a whisker more, at about 3,000km.

Air-drop them, submarine or ship-launch them, or ground-launch them against anything stationary, or anything that can be reliably targeted. Bridges, communications centres, railway crossings, power stations, that sort of thing. Do so en-masse. Excellent way to get the ball rolling, from a combatant sense.

Erm.
No.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Range drops to hundreds of kilometers because you'll need to hug the Earth to evade enemy SAMs, and even then, your cruise missiles, unless designed with stealth shapes and paints, could still be hit by top-down interceptors.

Nobody has real knowledge of its range aside from the designers and they may be lying.

It has in fact been reported with the range I stated.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120926/176233341.html

Maybe it depends on the weather and flight plan.

[Lyras]

BGM-109 Tomahawks have an operational range of 2,800km. NS-equivalent weapons (such as the LY589 Hellion or LA-1330 Contrado) get a whisker more, at about 3,000km.

Air-drop them, submarine or ship-launch them, or ground-launch them against anything stationary, or anything that can be reliably targeted. Bridges, communications centres, railway crossings, power stations, that sort of thing. Do so en-masse. Excellent way to get the ball rolling, from a combatant sense.

Erm.
No.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Range drops to hundreds of kilometers because you'll need to hug the Earth to evade enemy SAMs, and even then, your cruise missiles, unless designed with stealth shapes and paints, could still be hit by top-down interceptors.

Nobody has real knowledge of its range aside from the designers and they may be lying.
It has in fact been reported with the range I stated.
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20120926/176233341.html

Maybe it depends on the weather and flight plan.

Not wrong, R&C. That you will want to adjust the flight plan to allow for things like enemy SAMs is fair enough... but the weapon still has a strike-range of the given distance.

Also, signature reduction on cruise missiles, along with variable engine power engines (such as the F107-402 of the block III Tomahawks), in-flight data exchange, long-loiter and lightweight, low-viscosity fuels makes for an MT-achievable significant performance and capability improvement.

[Rich and Corporations]

but the weapon still has a strike-range of the given distance.

my 7mm gun has a maximum range of 3000 meters.

[Lyras]

A disingenuous comment, and you know it.

EDIT: Although, having said that, a number of 7.62mm MMGs can be used at 2000m in the indirect-firing role with some decent C3 systems...

[Rich and Corporations]

A disingenuous comment, and you know it.

you're just upset that Rich and Corporations can be more wrong than you, if anything, Rich and Corporations is professionally wrong.

[Lyras]

A disingenuous comment, and you know it.

you're just upset that Rich and Corporations can be more wrong than you, if anything, Rich and Corporations is professionally wrong.

Hehehe. If I were wearing a hat, I'd doff it to you for that one.

[Allanea]

Range drops to hundreds of kilometers because you'll need to hug the Earth to evade enemy SAMs, and even then, your cruise missiles, unless designed with stealth shapes and paints, could still be hit by top-down interceptors.

I don't need to 'hug the earth to evade enemy SAMs', because losing missiles to enemy SAMs is preferable to losing aircraft to enemy SAMs.

Assume with me that my target is positioned on the enemy's coast or border. If I close to several hundred kilometers, I will put my bomber, and its pilots, in range of enemy SAMs and fighter aviation.

Why would I do that? No, thank you, I'd rather launch Hellion missiles (which are in fact designed with reduced RADAR observability in mind), which cost less than the planes. And less than the pilots, probably.

True many of them will be shot down.

This is not really a big deal.

[Rich and Corporations]

I don't need to 'hug the earth to evade enemy SAMs', because losing missiles to enemy SAMs is preferable to losing aircraft to enemy SAMs.

90% of the world's population lives within 300 km of a coastline. Only in NS can this sort of tomfoolery prevail.

Honestly, if you send aircraft in to close in within five hundred kilometers of the target and then fire missiles, you would be able to hit 75% of the enemy's stragegic targets.

And you seem to forgot that gun artillery is still adequate to deal with computer guided aircraft, which in cludes missiles.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Range drops to hundreds of kilometers because you'll need to hug the Earth to evade enemy SAMs, and even then, your cruise missiles, unless designed with stealth shapes and paints, could still be hit by top-down interceptors.

I don't need to 'hug the earth to evade enemy SAMs', because losing missiles to enemy SAMs is preferable to losing aircraft to enemy SAMs.

Assume with me that my target is positioned on the enemy's coast or border. If I close to several hundred kilometers, I will put my bomber, and its pilots, in range of enemy SAMs and fighter aviation.

Unless you are either playing PMT, your enemy is a wanker, or somehow already has S-500 which they take for face value I don't think most SAM's can do "Several hundred kilometers".

S-400 (and it's likely NS counter-parts) sets the record at 400km, and even then unless your cruise missile is a SLAM/ER or the original JASSM, you are still looking at firing almost any cruise missile with impunity from enemy SAM's.

Fighter aviation on the other hand, well that is a valid threat.

[Lyras]

I don't need to 'hug the earth to evade enemy SAMs', because losing missiles to enemy SAMs is preferable to losing aircraft to enemy SAMs.

90% of the world's population lives within 300 km of a coastline. Only in NS can this sort of tomfoolery prevail.

Honestly, if you send aircraft in to close in within five hundred kilometers of the target and then fire missiles, you would be able to hit 75% of the enemy's stragegic targets.

And you seem to forgot that gun artillery is still adequate to deal with computer guided aircraft, which includes missiles.

The issues of range are still more pressing when discussing anti-shipping operations. Range, in some senses, becomes paramount when close to a coastline.

A plane can be engaged (by, say, other planes...) at 500km from a target. Especially if the interceptor has good radar support or coverage. But it cannot be engaged from 3000km away.

[Allanea]

I don't need to 'hug the earth to evade enemy SAMs', because losing missiles to enemy SAMs is preferable to losing aircraft to enemy SAMs.

90% of the world's population lives within 300 km of a coastline. Only in NS can this sort of tomfoolery prevail.

Honestly, if you send aircraft in to close in within five hundred kilometers of the target and then fire missiles, you would be able to hit 75% of the enemy's stragegic targets.

And you seem to forgot that gun artillery is still adequate to deal with computer guided aircraft, which in cludes missiles.

Gun artillery very limited range. It's only a serious threat if SPAAGs are directly attached to, say, protect the factory I targeted.

[Rich and Corporations]

It's only a serious threat if SPAAGs are directly attached to, say, protect the factory I targeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicondu ... tion_plant

Fabs require many expensive devices to function. Estimates put the cost of building a new fab over one billion U.S. dollars with values as high as $3–4 billion not being uncommon. TSMC will be investing 9.3 billion dollars in its Fab15 300 mm wafer manufacturing facility in Taiwan to be operational in 2012.

Important factories will be underground, camouflaged, and protected by several million dollars in anti-aircraft equipment.

[Allanea]

So you will move your entire major industry underground?

[Lyras]

It's only a serious threat if SPAAGs are directly attached to, say, protect the factory I targeted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicondu ... tion_plant

Fabs require many expensive devices to function. Estimates put the cost of building a new fab over one billion U.S. dollars with values as high as $3–4 billion not being uncommon. TSMC will be investing 9.3 billion dollars in its Fab15 300 mm wafer manufacturing facility in Taiwan to be operational in 2012.

Important factories will be underground, camouflaged, and protected by several million dollars in anti-aircraft equipment.

And well worth spending a few more bunker-busting cruise missiles on.


That being said, factories as targets is a product of flawed strategic thinking. This is no longer WW2, where production during warfare is likely to be a meaningful contribution to the conflict. Once a war has begun, the factories are almost irrelevant.