NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Dinale]

I get soldiers are overburdened but then why not use a Robotic Mule or just a regular Exoskeleton? why add armor?

Comfort, mostly. ITOVs are hot, cumbersome, and can weight upwards of 50lbs on their own, with full combat load (6 30rnd magazines, radios, grenades, first aid kit, water, the list goes on). If you could transfer the armor and load carrying from the person, to the exoskeleton, it's less stress on the soldiers.

And if you make a soldier stronger, well armored, and mobile, you increase their combat effectiveness by a shit ton. And if an armored exoskeleton soldier is as effective as, say, four soldiers without an exoskeleton, then you can reduce the amount of manpower you need. A squad can do the work of a platoon. A platoon can replace a company. A single battalion can be as combat effective as an entire brigade.

[Purpelia]

And if an armored exoskeleton soldier is as effective as, say, four soldiers without an exoskeleton, then you can reduce the amount of manpower you need. A squad can do the work of a platoon. A platoon can replace a company. A single battalion can be as combat effective as an entire brigade.

Except that they can't. A single soldier is still a single soldier and he can only be in one place at a time and cover so much ground on his own. A squad of troops will newer be able to cover the same ground as a company. And even if each and every one of them has the theoretical capability to kill one on his own your enemies can just walk through the gaps in your formation left by having too few. Furthermore, your enemies won't just stand back and watch you develop technology. They'll do it as well. So you'll be right back to square one.

[Rich and Corporations]

And if an armored exoskeleton soldier is as effective as, say, four soldiers without an exoskeleton, then you can reduce the amount of manpower you need. A squad can do the work of a platoon. A platoon can replace a company. A single battalion can be as combat effective as an entire brigade.

pretty sure that was the purpose of the gatling gun

and then there was wwi with millions of men standing abrest marching through belgium

[Mitheldalond]

So, you may recall that I've been working on designing an MT military using outdated equipment, for various reasons. I think I've got my Navy mostly figured out, but I'd like some feedback on the feasibility of the various upgrades and possibly how effective they'd be. This is just surface combatants for now, I'll get to the carriers and submarines later.

Iowa-class battleship: 4
Even 70 years after they entered service, these four ships are still the most powerful surface combatants in the Navy. They retain their 16" main battery - mostly because removing the massively heavy turrets is more effort than it's worth - but they aren't really expected to ever use them. The ships are much too valuable to risk them on shore bombardment. We have plenty of older battleships for that.

The Tomahawk ABLs have been replaced with 96 Mk 41 VLS tubes, as illustrated here. While I don't think that's a real proposal, it does seem fairly reasonable. The VLS will contain 32 RIM-66 SM-2s and 64 Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile' (TASMs). Two ABLs for 8 more TASMs will be put just aft of the stern-most VLS modules.

The remaining six 5"/38 turrets will be removed, and six Mk 22 GMLS for 16 SM-2s each will be installed in their place. The magazine of the Mk 22 is only 146 inches in diameter, so they should fit inside the 5"/38 turret rings. All the fire control radars for the 5" battery will be replaced with SPG-62s to guide both SM-2s and ESSMs. There will be at least 2 additional SPG-62s mounted somewhere.

There will be on-deck Mk 56 VLS launchers for 64 RIM-162 ESSMs between the two Mk 41 modules amidships. The four Mk 141 Harpoon launchers will remain as is, and the 4 Phalanxes will be replaced with 4 SeaRAMs.

In total, each Iowa has 128 SM-2s, 72 TASMs, 16 Harpoons, and 64 ESSMs. All radar and communications equipment has been replaced by modern equipment wherever possible.

Spruance-class destroyer: 14

These are easily the most capable and valuable warships in the Navy. They are the only Aegis-equipped ships I have, making them the only ships capable of ballistic missile and long range air defense with the RIM-161 SM-3 and RIM-174 Standard ERAM, respectively. They are also among the few VLS equipped ships I have, with the majority of my Navy still using arm launchers. As such, they are invaluable assets, even more so than most of my carriers (I have 19 spare Essexes lying around that I can modernize. There's no replacing the Spruances).

Modifications include the installation of a second 61-cell Mk 41 launcher in the stern. A typical missile load would be 88 RIM-174 Standard ERAMs, 10 SM-3s, and 24 SM-2s. As you can see, they're geared mostly towards long range AAW. This is because they're the only ships that can do so; none of the other ships can use/guide the RIM-174 or SM-3.

Other changes include the installation of a Mk 29 ESSM launcher in place of the aft 5" gun, and the use of the SeaRAM CIWS in place of the Phalanxes.

Des Moines/Albany-class cruiser: 14

Basically, the design of an Albany-class cruiser, but built from the larger Des Moines-class cruisers. These ships basically act as bodyguards for the Spruances. One of these ships (I need to figure out what to call them. Albany II maybe?) is permanently assigned to each Spruance, which it accompanies everywhere. Their primary objective is always to keep the Spruance safe, at any and all cost.

The two massive Mk 12 Talos launchers and their enormous radars are replaced by two smaller 80-round Mk 10 GMLS for the RIM-67 SM-2ER, making them the only other long range air defense platform in the navy. The two Mk 11 Tartar launchers are replaced with Mk 13 launchers for SM-2s and Harpoons. (According to Shipbucket, this substitution can take place on a 1-to-1 basis.) An additional two Mk 13 launchers are mounted aft of the second funnel, and a pair of smaller Mk 22 launchers are mounted amidships - one on either side of the ASROC launcher. Each Mk 13 launcher carrier 24 SM-2s and 16 Harpoons, and the Mk 22s carry 16 SM-2s each. The ASROC launcher itself is replaced with on-deck Mk 56 VLS launchers for 64 ESSMs.

All that is rather heavy, but losing the Talos launchers chops off pretty much everything forward of the tall bridge section above the main deck, and the same amount of crap from the rear. That's a lot of weight lost, and these are bigger ships than the real Albanys were, so I might be able to get away with it. Still, I have a feeling I've gone a bit overboard with this one.

The two 5" guns (directly on either side of the second funnel) are replaced by a pair of Phalanx CIWSs.

Boston-class cruiser: 24
The fully convertedversion.

The Mk 4 Terrier launchers are swapped out for 64-round Mk 26 GMLSs, which are actually slightly smaller than the Mk 4s. Each launcher holds 44 SM-2s and 20 Harpoons, for respective totals of 176 and 80 missiles. The aft pair of 5"/38 turrets are replaced by two Mk 29 ESSM launchers, and four Phalanxes are installed in place of the 3"/50 guns.

Cleveland- and Fargo-class cruisers: 65
Originally, I was planning or using the Galveston or Providence conversions, but their GMLSs can't be easily swapped out with something that can fire modern missiles. However, rather conveniently, the Mk 16 triple 6"/47 turrets on the Clevelands and Fargos have a 17ft diameter turret ring (204 inches), and the magazine of a Mk 13 GMLS is 203 inches in diameter. A fully loaded Mk 13 also weighs over 100,000 pounds less than a 6"/47 triple turret, so using 4 Mk 13 launchers should solve the hogging problem of the Galvestons and Providences. The fact that the Mk 13s are mounted down in the original turret rings instead of on top of the hull should also make the ships less top heavy. Missile capacity is 112 SM-2s and 48 Harpoons in total.

The fore- and aft-most 5"/38 turrets on the Clevelands and Fargos will be replaced with a pair of Phalanx CIWSs, and the aft two wing mounted turrets with Mk 29 ESSM launchers.

Don't know what I'll call this class yet.

Atlanta-class cruiser:

These are basically going to fill the role of destroyers. If they work, that is.

The two innermost centerline 5"/38 turrets will be replaced with Mk 29 ESSM launchers, and the outer four turrets with Mk 22 launchers with 16 SM-2s each. I have a feeling the Mk 22s might cause problems; I know that a fully loaded Mk 22 is ~10,000 pounds heavier than Atlantas' Mk 29 5"/38 turrets, and I'm not entirely certain that it will fit inside the turret ring either. I'm hoping that the Mk 29s might make up for the increase in weight, but I'm not sure.

The two wing 5"/38 turrets will be replaced by a pair of ASROC pepperbox launchers, without reload capability. Each one will have 4 ASROCs and 4 Harpoons. The 2 quad 40mm mounts will be replaced with 2 Phalanxes


Finally, I have about 77 Adelaide-class frigates, and 76 Brooke-class frigates, but they haven't been modified beyond updated electronics (all the other ships have updated electronics too. Forgot to mention that.)

All the hulls have been kept in good condition, since for the most part they've been in almost continuous service (it's entirely possible that some many have effectively been completely rebuilt, either all at once or one piece at a time as things wore out). Note that IC, this isn't by choice. Various political factors prevent us from building or buying modern ships/vehicles/etc. Kind of like being Germany after WWI, but don't think too hard about that or any other explanation.

Frankly, I can't come up with any logical explanation for how a military can get ahold of high tech modern weapons like the RIM-174 and SM-3, but can't replace its WWII ships with modern vessels. It certainly isn't cheaper, and a treaty that prohibits you from having modern ships, but allows you to have modern missiles and weapons systems makes no sense at all. So I'm not even going to bother trying to come up with an IC explanation. It is the way it is because that's the main concept I have for this military, any further explanation can just be handwaved away.

So how does it look?

[Laywenrania]

Hello guys and girls,

I would lvoe to hear some advice and thougts from you about my army so far.

Background: Island nation with about 6 more or less big inhabitated islands, rather isolated from other nations, timeframe about 2000+.
I would also appreciate advice on the navy. Are the vehicles appropriate? Advice on doctrine (so far my idea was to repel invasos before they can land via airforce and navy, coastal emplacements. Against a numerical superior enemy guerilla warfare)?

main page
Ground forces

[Divergia]

Would Powered Armor have any military uses outside of rescue/emergency operations and as riot police? Would it really have any point on the battlefield? I don't see any and was wondering if someone has managed to find one.

1. Support personnel of all kinds. Guys (or girls!) who can lift 200lbs without breaking a sweat would be hugely helpful for all kinds of tasks.
2. Combat engineers. For basically the same reason. The more each soldier can carry around the less they need to rely on machinery.
3. Artillery. Potentially powered exoskeletons could make field artillery crews many times more effective.

Reducing the amount of manpower needed to manhandle guns, build obstacles or move pallets is an all around win. And since these soldiers do have the same need to operate 'untethered' for extended periods of time the inherent limitations of powered exoskeletons are less problematic.

I get soldiers are overburdened but then why not use a Robotic Mule or just a regular Exoskeleton? why add armor?

A robotic mule would be problematic since any equipment on it isn't on the mule. A regular exoskeleton would be incredibly helpful, but once you have the exoskeleton it isn't that far of a stretch to attach some/most of the electronic or heavy gear to the exoskeleton for convenience/efficiency, at which point the exoskeleton becomes essentially powered armor.

All of these can be done without the armor, and just the exoskeleton. I get there are plenty of advantages to an Exoskeleton but why the armor?

[Padnak]

Hello guys and girls,

I would love to hear some advice and thoughts from you about my army so far.

Background: Island nation with about 6 more or less big inhabited islands, rather isolated from other nations, timeframe about 2000+.
I would also appreciate advice on the navy. Are the vehicles appropriate? Advice on doctrine (so far my idea was to repel invasions before they can land via airforce and navy, coastal emplacements. Against a numerical superior enemy guerrilla warfare)?

main page
Ground forces

Hello there!

Few things; what sort of enemies do you have? How much money are you willing to spend on your military?

[Ardavia]

1. Support personnel of all kinds. Guys (or girls!) who can lift 200lbs without breaking a sweat would be hugely helpful for all kinds of tasks.
2. Combat engineers. For basically the same reason. The more each soldier can carry around the less they need to rely on machinery.
3. Artillery. Potentially powered exoskeletons could make field artillery crews many times more effective.

Reducing the amount of manpower needed to manhandle guns, build obstacles or move pallets is an all around win. And since these soldiers do have the same need to operate 'untethered' for extended periods of time the inherent limitations of powered exoskeletons are less problematic.

A robotic mule would be problematic since any equipment on it isn't on the mule. A regular exoskeleton would be incredibly helpful, but once you have the exoskeleton it isn't that far of a stretch to attach some/most of the electronic or heavy gear to the exoskeleton for convenience/efficiency, at which point the exoskeleton becomes essentially powered armor.

All of these can be done without the armor, and just the exoskeleton. I get there are plenty of advantages to an Exoskeleton but why the armor?

For that added little bit of protection, since there's not really any reason not to add a little extra protection for the attached electronics and other gear, I'd presume.

Not like anything that would fit onto the armour would really stop anything like rifle fire, I guess, but it might provide some protection against shrapnel, perhaps?

[Laywenrania]

Hello there!

Few things; what sort of enemies do you have? How much money are you willing to spend on your military?

Currently there are no nations in the NWP hostile towards us, most nations have a neutral stance towards us.

According to my calculations we spend currently $30.070.052.107,2 on the military.

[Divergia]

All of these can be done without the armor, and just the exoskeleton. I get there are plenty of advantages to an Exoskeleton but why the armor?

For that added little bit of protection, since there's not really any reason not to add a little extra protection for the attached electronics and other gear, I'd presume.

Not like anything that would fit onto the armour would really stop anything like rifle fire, I guess, but it might provide some protection against shrapnel, perhaps?

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

[Spirit of Hope]

For that added little bit of protection, since there's not really any reason not to add a little extra protection for the attached electronics and other gear, I'd presume.

Not like anything that would fit onto the armour would really stop anything like rifle fire, I guess, but it might provide some protection against shrapnel, perhaps?

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

Yes, but since you have the ability to carry better equipment without any loss of mobility why not do it? Especially since the exoskeleton gives you an easy point to attack armor for the arms and legs, which are generally unprotected.

[Ardavia]

For that added little bit of protection, since there's not really any reason not to add a little extra protection for the attached electronics and other gear, I'd presume.

Not like anything that would fit onto the armour would really stop anything like rifle fire, I guess, but it might provide some protection against shrapnel, perhaps?

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

Probably, yes. Actual armour plates (like in commonly-portrayed power armour) probably wouldn't have any appreciable protective effect over exo-skeleton and flak jacket (unless they're very thick to protect from enemy fire, which makes them heavy), especially since the jacket would be far less of a load compared to attaching solid plates of thick steel for protection.

Especially if you're using them for rear-echelon maintenance and the like, since that allows the exoskeletons a higher lift load without having to support thick armour.

I could be wrong though.

[Divergia]

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

Yes, but since you have the ability to carry better equipment without any loss of mobility why not do it? Especially since the exoskeleton gives you an easy point to attack armor for the arms and legs, which are generally unprotected.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Armor probably wouldn't help much, if at all protect your arms and legs. The thin, curved armor needed to be effective in a suit of powered armor would hardly do anything against the actual shrapnel and armor, the only way it might be better in my eyes is by intimidating the enemy, and providing confidence to your soldiers.

[Mitheldalond]

Yes, but since you have the ability to carry better equipment without any loss of mobility why not do it? Especially since the exoskeleton gives you an easy point to attack armor for the arms and legs, which are generally unprotected.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Armor probably wouldn't help much, if at all protect your arms and legs. The thin, curved armor needed to be effective in a suit of powered armor would hardly do anything against the actual shrapnel and armor, the only way it might be better in my eyes is by intimidating the enemy, and providing confidence to your soldiers.

Interceptor body armor with SAPI plates can stop three rounds of 7.62mm rifle fire before it fails. It is not difficult to bolt an armor plate to a metal frame, and a powered exoskeleton can handle the weight.

[Divergia]

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

Probably, yes. Actual armour plates (like in commonly-portrayed power armour) probably wouldn't have any appreciable protective effect over exo-skeleton and flak jacket (unless they're very thick to protect from enemy fire, which makes them heavy), especially since the jacket would be far less of a load compared to attaching solid plates of thick steel for protection.

Especially if you're using them for rear-echelon maintenance and the like, since that allows the exoskeletons a higher lift load without having to support thick armour.

I could be wrong though.

I would think the same, a sort of Bullet-Proof Vest or Flak Jacket for your chest/back would be just as effective as the armor plating. However I could see the use of an air-tight full-body covering made of a strong enough material to not easily tear, but not all that strong to reduce mobility. A helmet system could be used as well(combined with a gas mask. This all in all could help defend against chemical weapons.

[Divergia]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Armor probably wouldn't help much, if at all protect your arms and legs. The thin, curved armor needed to be effective in a suit of powered armor would hardly do anything against the actual shrapnel and armor, the only way it might be better in my eyes is by intimidating the enemy, and providing confidence to your soldiers.

Interceptor body armor with SAPI plates can stop three rounds of 7.62mm rifle fire before it fails. It is not difficult to bolt an armor plate to a metal frame, and a powered exoskeleton can handle the weight.

The arms and legs, while I understand armor could protect your chest, it doesn't have to be anything like what's normally depicted(like your example). While your example does have additional coverings, they probably aren't the part that'll stop 3 rounds the 7.62mm rifle.

[Padnak]

Hello there!

Few things; what sort of enemies do you have? How much money are you willing to spend on your military?

Currently there are no nations in the NWP hostile towards us, most nations have a neutral stance towards us.

According to my calculations we spend currently $30.070.052.107,2 on the military.

I see

Being an island nation myself with allot of regional and international enemies, I've put allot of thought into defending myself

The first thing I would do away with is guerrilla warfare as a defense against a numerically superior foe. Guerrilla warfare is what you resort too once you've lost or if you have absolutely no way of standing up to a foreign power in open combat. There are a surprisingly large number of ways you can go about defending yourself from someone who at first you'd think could walk all over you, and in no particular order these are things you should should be looking into:

• Submarines
  Submarines are some of the most dangerous thing a hostile invasion force can face and the mere presence of them can stop a hostile navy in its tracks. Building up a very large fleet of attack submarines and a large number of bases, including hidden and hardened bases on distant islands, to operate them from provides your nation with an extremely portent defense when combined with some other things I'll get too later. Submarines can lay naval mines (extremely important, will be covered in detail in a second), launch torpedo attacks on hostile ships and attack hostile forces long before they are close enough to your nation to pose a significant threat to land based assets. Add onto this the ability for some attack submarines (I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, I'm sure someone will help me out here) to carry cruise missiles and you have yourself an extremely potent and hard to overcome defense against hostile battle groups. The downsides of submarines is that sending them against carriers and their escorts is more often then not a suicide mission without surface support, but its a small price to pay to destroy an invasion force.
• Naval Mines
  Naval mines are often overlooked in NS, but they are one of the easiest ways to stop a hostile battle group in its tracks. Mines can be laid by any surface vessel and by many submarines which makes them flexible and effective. A single hit from a naval mine can render almost any ship combat ineffective and their presence will massively slow or even stop a battle group. There are allot of different kinds of naval mines and they're extremely cost effective. Mines can be used to herd a hostile fleet in areas that are extremely favorable to your forces or can be used to cut off a hostile fleet entirely depending on the size of the area that needs to be defended. Something I'm a fan of doing is using converted fishing trawlers to lay mines covertly when submarines aren't available. Mines can be deployed almost anywhere there is sea.
• Fast Attack Craft (FACs)
  Fast attack craft or missile boats are cheep, can operate from pretty much anywhere and are devastatingly effective when used in massed groups and with external support (land based aircraft, submarines etc). Fast attack craft, especially stealth designs if you can afford them, give your military allot of flexibility when a hostile force is close enough to your islands that they can be used effectively. I use a large infrastructure of small bases located up rivers and in small coves to keep my fast attack craft supplied during the event of an invasion because a small barn beside a river under the cover of jungle is hard to pick out as a military target compared to a major naval base. Fast attack craft should be deployed to attack ships in conjunction with attack submarines and land based aviation.
• Land Based Aviation
  Land based aviation is extremely powerful and when not confined to easy to target airfields can be used to delivery devastating attacks on hostile battle groups. Land based strike aircraft, and any aircraft that can carry AShMs for that matter, should be able to be operated from highways and fields because established airfields are easy targets for hostile cruise missiles and carrier based aircraft (a threat that can be mitigated by land based aviation and air defenses if laid out intelligently). Land based AWACs and electronic warfare aircraft will give all of your forces a major edge by giving early warning and targeting assistance to air, land and naval forces.
• Air Defenses
  Air defenses are your last line of defense against a hostile carrier air wing and they must be set up to minimize the effects of hostile SEAD missions and cruise missile attacks. To do this you have to have a very large network of mobile SAMs that can be constantly relocated and, if you do it like I do, large numbers of decoy sites equiped with outdated radar equipment to give the impression that they're actually real. A multi-layered defense that includes everything from MANPADs and AA guns to strategic SAMs, when employed in a manor that makes it extremely hard for hostile SEAD missions to inflict major damage, is extremely effective. Because the anti-radiation missiles used in SEAD missions home in on a SAM sites radar, keeping radar turned off until absolutely necessary and relying on forward spotters to detect aircraft ahead of time (only using radar once hostile aircraft are right on top of a SAM site and unable to engage it) is effective. I use forward spotters dressed as fishermen in fishing boats to detect hostile aircraft far from shore-
• Road Mobile AShMs
  Road mobile AShMs, when combined with a purpose build civilian road network, are a very good line of defense against hostile ships close to the shore and when deployed in conjunction with FACs and aviation can reach out and touch hostile ships far from your islands shores. You're probably noticing a pattern, everything must be kept moving at all times or it will fall prey to hostile forces, and road mobile AShMs are no different.
• Mobile Land Forces
  Your land forces should be exceptionally mobile so that they can conduct a rapid counter attack on any hostile forces that manage to land. Hostile forces are at their weakest during a landing and this can be easily exploited by a swift attack on your behalf.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hello guys and girls,

I would lvoe to hear some advice and thougts from you about my army so far.

Background: Island nation with about 6 more or less big inhabitated islands, rather isolated from other nations, timeframe about 2000+.
I would also appreciate advice on the navy. Are the vehicles appropriate? Advice on doctrine (so far my idea was to repel invasos before they can land via airforce and navy, coastal emplacements. Against a numerical superior enemy guerilla warfare)?

Guerrilla warfare isn't a strategy in and of itself. You won't win a war with it. You can harass the enemy and make him waste resources but that won't defeat him militarily, you have to just hope and pray that his political will isn't greater than yours. Or you can hope that it draws enough of his combat resources away that you can launch a conventional assault to liberate your territory. But it's a last resort, used only against an enemy that you think is out to actually destroy you (rather than just a minor political conflict), since you will almost certainly take far greater casualties in the process, and practically all of the damage will be to your own infrastructure and population.

All of these can be done without the armor, and just the exoskeleton. I get there are plenty of advantages to an Exoskeleton but why the armor?

Rear line personnel don't need armor. Front line personnel may well find benefit to it.

So essentially an Exoskeleton and a Flak Jacket would do just fine?

It would defeat the point; it would be less protective than modern body armor, whereas the entire point of an exoskeleton is to increase carrying capacity.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Armor probably wouldn't help much, if at all protect your arms and legs. The thin, curved armor needed to be effective in a suit of powered armor would hardly do anything against the actual shrapnel and armor, the only way it might be better in my eyes is by intimidating the enemy, and providing confidence to your soldiers.

Modern body armor has increasingly evolved to cover the arms and legs. In most cases these attachments aren't worn because they're so heavy and cumbersome, but for special roles like the machine gunner in a Humvee (who doesn't need to move), they can get very extensive. EOD personnel wear similar full-body suits. Even if the arm and leg protectors do not shield against rifle rounds, protection from shrapnel is still a significant advantage, as explosive weapons (especially artillery) are often the deadliest on the battlefield.

It all depends on how the exoskeleton affects the soldier's mobility. If it reduces mobility to the point that the soldier is now more vulnerable to enemy fire, it's probably not worth it. Or if it's insufficiently reliable, or so expensive it requires cutting back on the number of personnel, etc.

[Laywenrania]

The first thing I would do away with is guerrilla warfare as a defense against a numerically superior foe. Guerrilla warfare is what you resort too once you've lost or if you have absolutely no way of standing up to a foreign power in open combat. There are a surprisingly large number of ways you can go about defending yourself from someone who at first you'd think could walk all over you, and in no particular order these are things you should should be looking into:

• Submarines Add onto this the ability for some attack submarines (I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, I'm sure someone will help me out here) to carry cruise missiles and you have yourself an extremely potent and hard to overcome defense against hostile battle groups.

*snip*

Thanks for the input. So I drop the idea of Guerilla warfare.

Maybe the Project 971?

[Padnak]

The first thing I would do away with is guerrilla warfare as a defense against a numerically superior foe. Guerrilla warfare is what you resort too once you've lost or if you have absolutely no way of standing up to a foreign power in open combat. There are a surprisingly large number of ways you can go about defending yourself from someone who at first you'd think could walk all over you, and in no particular order these are things you should should be looking into:

• Submarines Add onto this the ability for some attack submarines (I can't think of any specific examples at the moment, I'm sure someone will help me out here) to carry cruise missiles and you have yourself an extremely potent and hard to overcome defense against hostile battle groups.

*snip*

Thanks for the input. So I drop the idea of Guerilla warfare.

Maybe the Project 971?

If you have the infrastructure for nuclear powered subs, then it would be an excellent choice, although a conventionally powered sub like the Project 636 would be cheaper

[Atomic Utopia]

How much would creating a government run militia of about 2 million people with mandatory once bimonthly training cost if you do not buy the equipment for the militia members?

[Gallan Systems]

And your are banned for forever².

In fact I should probably ban everyone forever. This thread is terrible. Almost as bad as IDT.

...well maybe not that bad.

Comrade Kyiv beings to see the light.

[Padnak]

Are there any crippling disadvantages to blasting ride of the Valkyries out of the helicopters during an air assault against hostile forces that know you're there?

[Atomic Utopia]

Are there any crippling disadvantages to blasting ride of the Valkyries out of the helicopters during an air assault against hostile forces that know you're there?

The mass of the equipment is one, you could carry a few more bombs without that useless sound system

[Pharthan]

Are there any crippling disadvantages to blasting ride of the Valkyries out of the helicopters during an air assault against hostile forces that know you're there?

Being too awesome?