NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[New Vihenia]

Wouldn't low flight be countered by any half-competent IADN?

How competent we are talking here ?

Ever imagine difficulty of tracking fast low flying target ?

[Spirit of Hope]

Fundamentally my thesis derives from the fact that the high-altitude death zone that it was imagined would force all aircraft only emerged once (during the Yom Kippur war) and was quickly countered with the introduction of up-to-date ECM equipment. Long range SAMs have simply never lived up to their promise and the extreme reaction they provoked is very difficult to justify. Or more precisely it cannot be justified because it is apparent now that there was another, better option for tackling the SAM threat: Electronic warfare, ARMs and eventually stealth. But it took a very long time for it to sink in that high altitude + EW was a better response to a modern AD environment than terrain hugging flight, even though it was true in a technical sense from the very introduction of SAMs.

This better options needs metric to define because i haven't seen Long range SAM's dead out.. They just spawn better engagement radar, even longer ranging missiles and more sophisticated ECCM techniques.

Terrain hugging flight and perhaps doppler notch maneuver however attack fundamental weaknesses of radar which somewhat not really countered to date, same goes for low altitude supersonic penetrator which make tracking difficult.

They didn't die out they still are very useful, they just did not create the effect that everyone thought they would create. A great example of this is Serbia, while they shot down relatively few NATO aircraft they did manage to force NATO to dedicate a large amount of resources to SEAD operations.

Additionally as part of a layered air defense long range SAMs help give the defender an advantage, by forcing attacking aircraft to maneuver out of optimal positions, break up formations and possibly kill a number of incoming aircraft.

Low altitude high speed penetrators died because of look down shoot down radar. Even a small number of patrolling aircraft with look down shoot down would be able to intercept and kill a large number of low flying bombers/other aircraft. In addition these low flying aircraft open themselves up to low level SAMs, which are partially more dangerous, but are also cheaper and more plentiful.

[New Vihenia]

Low altitude high speed penetrators died because of look down shoot down radar. Even a small number of patrolling aircraft with look down shoot down would be able to intercept and kill a large number of low flying bombers/other aircraft. In addition these low flying aircraft open themselves up to low level SAMs, which are partially more dangerous, but are also cheaper and more plentiful.

With assumption that those penetrator will always present forward aspect.Maybe yes, problem is when they notice your radar's emission and start doppler notch.. Problem start as they will suddenly disappear as they present zero doppler on the L/D Radar.

[Rich and Corporations]

I keep saying this, but the majority of fire in war isn't to kill. Ideally the fire would kill, but it has a suppressive effect and increases operational friction.

Bombsights were very useful in WWII... if your plane wasn't being targeted by anti-aircraft fire.

This is pretty much why my NS army of 2018 uses LSAT LMGs for every other soldier in low-level formations.

Even the snipers use LMGs.

[Aelarus]

How competent we are talking here ?

Ever imagine difficulty of tracking fast low flying target ?

Well, depending on the terrain, as long as the A/AA can keep sight of the plane, they should be able to get rounds off. As an example, Avengers were built specifically to target low flying fixed wings and helicopters.

---

Even the snipers use LMGs.

That sounds horrendously impractical...a primary goal of a sniper is to eliminate HVTs which is kind of hard to do with an LMG at range.

[New Vihenia]

Well, depending on the terrain, as long as the A/AA can keep sight of the plane, they should be able to get rounds off. As an example, Avengers were built specifically to target low flying fixed wings and helicopters.

And they won't. unless very large numbers are deployed and were happen to be in sight of the aircraft and it well within their launch envelope.

[Rich and Corporations]

That sounds horrendously impractical...a primary goal of a sniper is to eliminate HVTs which is kind of hard to do with an LMG at range.

The Bren had an effective range of around 600 yards (550 m) when fired from a prone position with a bipod. Initial versions of the weapon were sometimes considered too accurate because the cone or pattern of fire was extremely concentrated. Soldiers often expressed a preference for worn-out barrels in order to spread the cone of fire and increase suppressive effects. Later versions of the Bren addressed this issue by providing a wider cone of fire.

It's just a simple change of barrel..

[Triplebaconation]

This better options needs metric to define because i haven't seen Long range SAM's dead out.. They just spawn better engagement radar, even longer ranging missiles and more sophisticated ECCM techniques.

Terrain hugging flight and perhaps doppler notch maneuver however attack fundamental weaknesses of radar which somewhat not really countered to date, same goes for low altitude supersonic penetrator which make tracking difficult.

They didn't die out they still are very useful, they just did not create the effect that everyone thought they would create. A great example of this is Serbia, while they shot down relatively few NATO aircraft they did manage to force NATO to dedicate a large amount of resources to SEAD operations.

Additionally as part of a layered air defense long range SAMs help give the defender an advantage, by forcing attacking aircraft to maneuver out of optimal positions, break up formations and possibly kill a number of incoming aircraft.

Low altitude high speed penetrators died because of look down shoot down radar. Even a small number of patrolling aircraft with look down shoot down would be able to intercept and kill a large number of low flying bombers/other aircraft. In addition these low flying aircraft open themselves up to low level SAMs, which are partially more dangerous, but are also cheaper and more plentiful.

During the Cold War, a good deal of tactical missions had to be flown at low level.

Strategic and tactical nuclear low-level penetrators relied heavily on standoff techniques.

[Aelarus]

And they won't. unless very large numbers are deployed and were happen to be in sight of the aircraft and it well within their launch envelope.

Since the engagement range is relatively small and with the low altitude in account the pilot can't really do much so it really depends on the quality of the system and the positioning to properly exploit potential low flight pathways.

---

It's just a simple change of barrel..

It's not just that, a big part of modern sniper warfare (in current urban environment) is getting a few shots off and relocating before the enemy knows what's happening, an LMG is a bit unnecessary and clashes with what snipers do, with LMGs they sort of become detached fire support teams to roam and assist in firefights.

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

[Padnak]

And they won't. unless very large numbers are deployed and were happen to be in sight of the aircraft and it well within their launch envelope.

Since the engagement range is relatively small and with the low altitude in account the pilot can't really do much so it really depends on the quality of the system and the positioning to properly exploit potential low flight pathways.

---

It's just a simple change of barrel..

It's not just that, a big part of modern sniper warfare (in current urban environment) is getting a few shots off and relocating before the enemy knows what's happening, an LMG is a bit unnecessary and clashes with what snipers do, with LMGs they sort of become detached fire support teams to roam and assist in firefights.

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

[Organized States]

Since the engagement range is relatively small and with the low altitude in account the pilot can't really do much so it really depends on the quality of the system and the positioning to properly exploit potential low flight pathways.

---

It's not just that, a big part of modern sniper warfare (in current urban environment) is getting a few shots off and relocating before the enemy knows what's happening, an LMG is a bit unnecessary and clashes with what snipers do, with LMGs they sort of become detached fire support teams to roam and assist in firefights.

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

And I believe the US Marines want to use M27s as a DMR, as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

The same problems you run into with a 240mm self-propelled mortar? It's not meaningfully different.

Forgot that the Tyulpan existed

Now that I have rediscovered the glory of the Tyulpan, two questions:

-Could you mount a similar/ the same weapon on a T-55/62 chassis (for more third worldlyness)
-Whats the biggest calibre of gun/mortar you can get before it becomes impractical compared to rocket weapons?

Tyulpan is fitted to an MT-LB, a vehicle that's known as a "prime mover".
This is because, unlike vehicles like the Pion, Msta, Nona etc - the Tyulpan is transported by the vehicle it is mounted to, and then firing is conducted off the back, mounting a baseplate to the ground.

Third worlders tend to have a rightful shedload of MT-LBs lying around because they're cheap and hugely useful.
You could fit Tyulpan's mortar and mounting to a T-55 or anything else you fancy, it just wouldn't be purposeful.
Just expensive, pretty and damned awesome. And use up a T-55.

Is there any place in a modern army for an upgraded Blackburn Buccaneer?
What about a modern aircraft designed for the same role?

No and no.

Low altitude penetration won't be making a comeback anytime soon.

Isn't this what late-model B-52s and B-1Bs are for?

Out of curiosity why? I understand they performed well as strike aircraft during the last Iraq War. And there is something to be said about low altitude penetration being used as part of a preemptive atomic strike on ones enemies.

Look Down Shoot down radar doomed them. they were great because they were hard to detect, and even when detected hard to shoot down.

Look Down Shoot Down killed both of those advantages with one stone, a small number of patrolling air craft could catch and kill a number of intruding aircraft with ease. Making it worse the low altitude penetrator looses the ability to maneuver.

come at me bro i'll fkn reck u one

On one of the early Red Flag exercises a Buccaneer was intercepted by a particularly determined F5 pilot. The F5 hung on at low-level trying to get a ‘shot off’. The Buccaneer pilot decided to scare him off and dropped a practice bomb. Seeing something fall off the aircraft, the F5 broke off the attack. Subsequent analysis of the video showed that if the practice bomb had been a 1000 pound retard bomb, the F5 would have been blown out of the sky.

A 1000 pound bomb ejects debris and blast up to one thousand feet into the sky. A low-level pursuer would pass directly through this at significant risk of damage to airframe and engines. Even if the aircraft was undamaged the pilot would be rather reluctant to continue for a second helping.

It became standard practice for Buccaneers to carry four retard bombs in the bomb bay for air defence. This was called ‘Retard Defence’. This had the added advantage that these weapons could be used if additional ‘Targets of Opportunity’ were spotted on a mission.

Apparently, Buccaneers carried a pretty hefty ECM pod, too.

Some shipping companies IRL contract private security firms to protect their cargo ships from pirates. You can find numerous videos on the internet of security contractors fighting off pirates.

Oh, that's neat, I didn't know that. Now I want to see what it looks like for a wooden ship to get hit by an M72, RPG, or whatever the security contractors use (I'd look myself but Baidu sucks, I want Google back).

All sorts of nifty things. From infantry small arms, sometimes M134s and similar weapons - the British Civil Nuclear Constabulary fitted some cargo ships with 30mm cannons, because they were being charted to ship plutonium to Japan.

Ignore costly, the real problem is that sailships require regular and extremely hard physical work from the crew.

You have dozens of men, constantly working in the rigging with every wind change, tacking and re-tacking the sails.

Unless those men are some kind of wacky religious fanatic, it seems like a really far way to go just for style points.

Amish pirates

Why are we mounting MLRS on a boat, again?

Are we going to do amphibious landings?

To scare the shit out of the Shipping Vessels.

Also, cruiser? Nah. MM. Modern Man-O-War. It would look like this:


The MLRS would go where the cannons would go.

Enjoy tearing your ship asunder when you have rocket exhaust burning out the entire inside of the boat.

Since the engagement range is relatively small and with the low altitude in account the pilot can't really do much so it really depends on the quality of the system and the positioning to properly exploit potential low flight pathways.

---

It's not just that, a big part of modern sniper warfare (in current urban environment) is getting a few shots off and relocating before the enemy knows what's happening, an LMG is a bit unnecessary and clashes with what snipers do, with LMGs they sort of become detached fire support teams to roam and assist in firefights.

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

I honestly can't remember if it's developed from the RPK or the AK itself, but that does exist, the Tabuk.
The L86 was occasionally used as a DMR, as it was sometimes felt insufficient as a section-level machine gun.

[Krazakistan]

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

And I believe the US Marines want to use M27s as a DMR, as well.

The US Marines have used the M27 in a DMR role, yes, but on paper it's supposed to be a light support weapon.

[Rich and Corporations]

It's just a simple change of barrel..

It's not just that, a big part of modern sniper warfare (in current urban environment) is getting a few shots off and relocating before the enemy knows what's happening, an LMG is a bit unnecessary and clashes with what snipers do, with LMGs they sort of become detached fire support teams to roam and assist in firefights.

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

Yes, but if you arm IFVs with autocannons, the commander might get confused and think it's a TANK!
Surely you see the holes in your logic?

Besides, LSAT LMGs can accept mags, can't they?

[San-Silvacian]

Lots of bullets isn't the only answer to overpowering the enemy, it's much easier to use IFVs with autocannons that have superior suppressing ability than a few LMGs.

Depends on the situation, enemy you're fighting, etc.

[Aelarus]

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

And I believe the US Marines want to use M27s as a DMR, as well.

The designated marksman is not equivalent to a sniper, they're generally tied to fireteams and function with semi-auto rifles to pour lots of accurate fire downrange. Snipers are supposed to function outside of the enemies' awareness, to kill without being spotted and generally function in independent teams.

LMGs like the M27 IAR (which is praised for its accuracy) are suitable as DMRs due to being select fire and generally more accurate than standard infantry assault rifles. They cannot function as sniper rifles.

---

Yes, but if you arm IFVs with autocannons, the commander might get confused and think it's a TANK!
Surely you see the holes in your logic?

Besides, LSAT LMGs can accept mags, can't they?

While I appreciate the (I think it is anyway) Pentagon Wars reference, it's a bit nonsensical.

Can they? I wasn't aware there was a belt feed banana mag built for the LSAT.

---

Depends on the situation, enemy you're fighting, etc.

Sure, but vehicle supremacy is a big aspect of modern combat. Having something like a BMPT is a great help to infantry fighting in urban environments, that's partially what IFVs are made for.

[Imperializt Russia]

Didn't the Iraqi's use a modified RPK as a designated marksmen's rifle?

And I believe the US Marines want to use M27s as a DMR, as well.

The designated marksman is not equivalent to a sniper, they're generally tied to fireteams and function with semi-auto rifles to pour lots of accurate fire downrange. Snipers are supposed to function outside of the enemies' awareness, to kill without being spotted and generally function in independent teams.

LMGs like the M27 IAR (which is praised for its accuracy) are suitable as DMRs due to being select fire and generally more accurate than standard infantry assault rifles. They cannot function as sniper rifles.

Though you are broadly correct, I fear you are unreasonably romanticizing snipers and demeaning marksmen.

[Triplebaconation]

"Holy shit this isn't listed as a sniper rifle on Wikipedia I guess I can't use it since I am a sniper and I only use sniper rifles."

[The Akasha Colony]

Not if one takes out their quarry's engines/propellers with one's deck guns.

So you plan to take out the engines that are located in the middle of the hull? You know, behind all of the valuable cargo that you have to shoot through and which also provides at least some small modicum of protection?

Or more realistically, the target ship won't realize it's being attacked until it's too late. I mean really, who's going to suspect that a 19th century sailing ship is actually a genuine pirate ship about to attack them?

It doesn't have to know it's under attack. All it has to do is realize that "Hey, this ship is coming toward us, and it's strange."

More likely though, the ship doesn't even come toward them at all, since the quarry's speed will be much greater than the pursuer's velocity made good unless the quarry happens to be sailing dead downwind.

Presumably the same way Somali pirates were capturing ships. Most likely, the crew of the target ship will never even see the clipper; it'll be sitting back as the mothership, launching motorized skiffs or speed boats to go out with RPGs and AKs to raid the cargo ships.

In which case you completely missed the theoretical objective, which is to attempt to use a sailing vessel to act as a viable raider. Not a mothership, for which you could use pretty much anything that floats.

Ignore costly, the real problem is that sailships require regular and extremely hard physical work from the crew.

You have dozens of men, constantly working in the rigging with every wind change, tacking and re-tacking the sails.

Unless those men are some kind of wacky religious fanatic, it seems like a really far way to go just for style points.

inb4 junk rig.

(Yes, I know clippers do not have junk rigs.)

This better options needs metric to define because i haven't seen Long range SAM's dead out.. They just spawn better engagement radar, even longer ranging missiles and more sophisticated ECCM techniques.

Terrain hugging flight and perhaps doppler notch maneuver however attack fundamental weaknesses of radar which somewhat not really countered to date, same goes for low altitude supersonic penetrator which make tracking difficult.

An increasing part of their role however seems to be missile defense of some stripe, rather than pure air defense. And while they never lived up to their feared reputation as nigh-unstoppable sweepers of the skies to any foolish to so much as think of flying into their range, it doesn't mean they were totally ineffective. Indeed, the political effects of their mere presence, perhaps in excess of their actual effect as weapons, indicates that they have at least some intimidation use.

LMGs like the M27 IAR (which is praised for its accuracy) are suitable as DMRs due to being select fire and generally more accurate than standard infantry assault rifles. They cannot function as sniper rifles.

And what specific features happen to disqualify their use in such roles?

[San-Silvacian]

"Holy shit this isn't listed as a sniper rifle on Wikipedia I guess I can't use it since I am a sniper and I only use sniper rifles."

I guess all those snipers not using sniper rifles aren't snipers.

[Aelarus]

Though you are broadly correct, I fear you are unreasonably romanticizing snipers and demeaning marksmen.

I'm aware that current times have brought snipers ever closer to the front lines, which being as mobile as they are now tend to leave traditional snipers in the dust, but designated marksmen are meant to fill a different role from snipers. It's less distinct of a line in combat but LMGs like the LSAT aren't meant to perform in sniper roles, especially since snipers still have to engage at longer ranges. In general, it's a workable idea but rather odd especially given the original reason why his snipers got LMGs to begin with.

---

"Holy shit this isn't listed as a sniper rifle on Wikipedia I guess I can't use it since I am a sniper and I only use sniper rifles."

I'm not sure how this is meant to be a constructive post...

---

And what specific features happen to disqualify their use in such roles?

Their effective ranges versus point targets is generally around 500m which is around where designated marksman are supposed to be shooting compared to snipers who generally carry weapons capable of reliably hitting at twice that distance.

[Imperializt Russia]

The SVD "sniper rifle" is utilised in what we would today consider a "marksman role".
Many "snipers" in WWII, though acting as you consider "snipers" served primarily in what we would today consider a "marksman role".

It's almost as though terms can be flexible and are not rigidly defining soldiers.

[Aelarus]

The SVD "sniper rifle" is utilised in what we would today consider a "marksman role".
Many "snipers" in WWII, though acting as you consider "snipers" served primarily in what we would today consider a "marksman role".

It's almost as though terms can be flexible and are not rigidly defining soldiers.

The SVD was the first purpose built sniper rifle ever, all WW2 era snipers were simply rifles with adjustments such as high magnification optics. The SVD was always more of a DMR, the Soviets generally referred to designated marksmen as snipers due to doctrine inconsistencies with Western contemporaries.

Yes, the term sniper changes, as does all things in war.

[San-Silvacian]

Sniper rifle, just like the term sniper, is a loose term.

The SVD "sniper rifle" is utilised in what we would today consider a "marksman role".
Many "snipers" in WWII, though acting as you consider "snipers" served primarily in what we would today consider a "marksman role".

It's almost as though terms can be flexible and are not rigidly defining soldiers.

The SVD was the first purpose built sniper rifle ever, all WW2 era snipers were simply rifles with adjustments such as high magnification optics. The SVD was always more of a DMR, the Soviets generally referred to designated marksmen as snipers due to doctrine inconsistencies with Western contemporaries.

Yes, the term sniper changes, as does all things in war.

You just killed your own argument.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm aware that current times have brought snipers ever closer to the front lines, which being as mobile as they are now tend to leave traditional snipers in the dust, but designated marksmen are meant to fill a different role from snipers. It's less distinct of a line in combat but LMGs like the LSAT aren't meant to perform in sniper roles, especially since snipers still have to engage at longer ranges. In general, it's a workable idea but rather odd especially given the original reason why his snipers got LMGs to begin with.

The M2 Browning was never meant to perform in a "sniper" role. That was no obstacle to Carlos Hathcock.

"Holy shit this isn't listed as a sniper rifle on Wikipedia I guess I can't use it since I am a sniper and I only use sniper rifles."

I'm not sure how this is meant to be a constructive post...

The point is that any rifle with sufficient accuracy can function as a "sniper rifle," whether it's semi-automatic or select fire, or classified as a battle rifle, marksman's rifle, sniper rifle, LMG, GPMG, etc.

The point of a sniper is to be able to provide accurate, long-range fire. As long as the weapon he uses is suitably accurate, he can achieve this mission.

Their effective ranges versus point targets is generally around 500m which is around where designated marksman are supposed to be shooting compared to snipers who generally carry weapons capable of reliably hitting at twice that distance.

Properly sighted and used, M27 can hit targets at twice that distance as well. The AI AWM has a "listed" effective range of 1,500 m, but has recorded kills at nearly 2,500 m.

The SVD was the first purpose built sniper rifle ever, all WW2 era snipers were simply rifles with adjustments as high magnification optics. The SVD was always more of a DMR, the Soviets generally referred to designated marksmen as snipers due to doctrine inconsistencies with Western contemporaries.

Yes, the term sniper changes, as does all things in war.

And? Until relatively recently the standard sniper rifles for the US Army and USMC were modified versions of the civilian Remington 700. What does being purpose-built have to do with anything? The current SR-25 is a combination of the AR-10 and AR-15, both of which were assault rifles.

There is really nothing special that makes a rifle a sniper rifle aside from have reasonable accuracy, but even this is a rather fuzzy criterion. Reasonable accuracy depends on the expected mission at hand. If range were all that mattered, snipers would carry nothing but .50 BMG rifles, none of this weaksauce 7.62 NATO.