NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Imperializt Russia]

MXE with booze is apparently deadly. Worrying, I understand it's taking off in the UK.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Really?

w or w/o alcohol?

perhaps you had too much?

mixing it I mean. we got hold of some really pure stuff. anyway we were at the pub and I had a couple pints and we decided to go back and do some K. because I was drunk I guess I rolled a really fat line and shit got real from that point onwards.

oh shit when I heard K I automatically presumed IM lol

so vitamin alone was good?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

In any case we're kind of threadjacking guise

What's your take on a layered reserve force?

[Imperializt Russia]

In any case we're kind of threadjacking guise

What's your take on a layered reserve force?

In the sense of?
Soviet-style A, B, C-readiness formations but transferred over to reserves?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

In any case we're kind of threadjacking guise

What's your take on a layered reserve force?

In the sense of?
Soviet-style A, B, C-readiness formations but transferred over to reserves?

Training, readiness, equipment, requirements, deployment frequency inversely proportional to size.

[Erusuia]

This might be a stupid idea (it probably is) but would it be reasonable to equip the HQ sections in smaller tactical units units with towed MLRS systems? The idea being that the HQ section shouldn't be on the units direct front line where it would in direct contact with the enemy, but could tow a small number of light weight MLRS systems to support the units combat sections. It would be like having an artillery platoon in every battalion, so to speak, and from my understanding artillery is the main way an army kills the enemy so...

you can hopefully see my reasoning

[Laywenrania]

This might be a stupid idea (it probably is) but would it be reasonable to equip the HQ sections in smaller tactical units units with towed MLRS systems? The idea being that the HQ section shouldn't be on the units direct front line where it would in direct contact with the enemy, but could tow a small number of light weight MLRS systems to support the units combat sections. It would be like having an artillery platoon in every battalion, so to speak, and from my understanding artillery is the main way an army kills the enemy so...

you can hopefully see my reasoning

Why not making it just seperate?

Keeping the MLRS (and why towed btw?) with the HQ is a bad idea imho. MLRS are kicking up a lot of dust and attention, relocating after their salvos usually. Would be impractical for your HQ.

Edit: As Note: I'm having a grenade Launcher battery on battalion level.

[The Akasha Colony]

This might be a stupid idea (it probably is) but would it be reasonable to equip the HQ sections in smaller tactical units units with towed MLRS systems? The idea being that the HQ section shouldn't be on the units direct front line where it would in direct contact with the enemy, but could tow a small number of light weight MLRS systems to support the units combat sections. It would be like having an artillery platoon in every battalion, so to speak, and from my understanding artillery is the main way an army kills the enemy so...

you can hopefully see my reasoning

I see the reasoning, but this is something you use mortars for instead. They're more flexible and lighter, so it prevents the HQ from becoming overburdened with weapons or ammunition. Since a mortar is just a tube and requires relatively little maintenance or support, unlike an MLRS, which adds a host of personnel to operate and maintain it.

[Erusuia]

This might be a stupid idea (it probably is) but would it be reasonable to equip the HQ sections in smaller tactical units units with towed MLRS systems? The idea being that the HQ section shouldn't be on the units direct front line where it would in direct contact with the enemy, but could tow a small number of light weight MLRS systems to support the units combat sections. It would be like having an artillery platoon in every battalion, so to speak, and from my understanding artillery is the main way an army kills the enemy so...

you can hopefully see my reasoning

Why not making it just seperate?

Keeping the MLRS (and why towed btw?) with the HQ is a bad idea imho. MLRS are kicking up a lot of dust and attention, relocating after their salvos usually. Would be impractical for your HQ.

I was thinking a towed MLRS because it would be extremely simple and lightweight, not to mention cheep enough to just ditch after the HQ had expended its supply of rockets

I was thinking of something like this

[The Soodean Imperium]

Why not making it just seperate?

Keeping the MLRS (and why towed btw?) with the HQ is a bad idea imho. MLRS are kicking up a lot of dust and attention, relocating after their salvos usually. Would be impractical for your HQ.

I was thinking a towed MLRS because it would be extremely simple and lightweight, not to mention cheep enough to just ditch after the HQ had expended its supply of rockets

I was thinking of something like this

If you do insist on using Battalion-level MLRS units, why are you including them in the HQ section? It would be administratively and tactically more efficient to put them in their own squad or platoon.

[Laywenrania]

Why not making it just seperate?

Keeping the MLRS (and why towed btw?) with the HQ is a bad idea imho. MLRS are kicking up a lot of dust and attention, relocating after their salvos usually. Would be impractical for your HQ.

I was thinking a towed MLRS because it would be extremely simple and lightweight, not to mention cheep enough to just ditch after the HQ had expended its supply of rockets

I was thinking of something like this

I still think battalion level grenade launchers are more reasonable then letting your staff carry around MLRS, + ammunition + stuff (making them easier to trace and spot, larger besides the factor that I mentioned, that firing them gives away your position. Something you don't want for your HQ). If want give the battery MLRS instead of Grenade Launchers, but make them a seperate battery from HQ.

[Erusuia]

If you do insist on using Battalion-level MLRS units, why are you including them in the HQ section? It would be administratively and tactically more efficient to put them in their own squad or platoon.

My initial thinking was "why add another section when you could just give the HQ section the weapons instead", but you're right, I'll just add a platoon to the battalion equipped with towed light MLRS

I've been giving my doctrine a bunch of thought recently and one of its key tenets (at this point) is going to be extensive cooperation between lower level units, with special importance placed on the use of ludicrous amounts of artillery. The idea for giving battalions and other low level units (motorized infantry mainly) rocket artillery is that they are supposed to be deployed to protect the flanks of mechanized/armored units and being able to provide organic artillery support from their positions to the rear of said units seems like a viable way to improve combat effectiveness

[The Akasha Colony]

If you do insist on using Battalion-level MLRS units, why are you including them in the HQ section? It would be administratively and tactically more efficient to put them in their own squad or platoon.

My initial thinking was "why add another section when you could just give the HQ section the weapons instead", but you're right, I'll just add a platoon to the battalion equipped with towed light MLRS

I've been giving my doctrine a bunch of thought recently and one of its key tenets (at this point) is going to be extensive cooperation between lower level units, with special importance placed on the use of ludicrous amounts of artillery. The idea for giving battalions and other low level units (motorized infantry mainly) rocket artillery is that they are supposed to be deployed to protect the flanks of mechanized/armored units and being able to provide organic artillery support from their positions to the rear of said units seems like a viable way to improve combat effectiveness

The problem with MLRS at that level, or attached to a unit like an HQ, is that MLRS (especially cheap MLRS like that) has a very restricted firing range. Unlike a conventional artillery shell, you can't vary their propellant and can only slightly vary their elevation before running into serious wind drift and accuracy issues (even for an MLRS, which is a relatively inaccurate weapon). This means the battery must be very carefully positioned to engage a given target, it can't be easily used on the fly like regular artillery can (which is why regular artillery hasn't given way entirely to rockets). High-level MLRS batteries can do this because they're reserved for specific targets and have lots of space to maneuver behind the lines with freedom, but this isn't true of a battery that would be attached to a combat battalion, it would be too constrained in range flexibility to really be of use in most cases. Regular mortars or light artillery would fulfill most of the same role, and if you really need to saturate an area really badly with MLRS fire, just call for higher-level support.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I'm considering a revival of the idea of the "Tank Destroyer" role (either rapid anti-tank to prevent catastrophic breakthroughs, or as direct-fire infantry-support artillery) largely as a means to cheaply put wrecked/obsolete tanks back onto the front after their turrets have found the 'eject' button (also assuming their original electronics are burnt and ammo-racks torn-up).

So largely it would be some sort of easy way to mount a light and fairly quick manual-traverse gun where the turret used to be, possibly by way of slapping a superstructure onto the hull.

-As an example, lets say my forces brewed-up a few T-54/55s and possibly even a couple of Tunguskas to the point their barrels are badly warped... Any field-gun I could bolt-on behind/forward the ring and allow the breech to hang to the rear a-la AMX-F3 or Archer tank-destroyer?

In the event of the tank simply becoming obsolete, is it feasible to mount the turret in a fixed or railway-mounted fortification with several tons of armor added to them? Could I use them to cheaply arm merchant-ships? If so, how effective would their shells be at sinking a submarine?

I've got a bunch of old lightweight tanks that otherwise would be either scrapped or converted into heavy APCs and recovery-vehicles (maybe the occasional bridgelayer), I was wondering if there could be other uses for these hulls.

Stronk tonku

[Roski]

Sinking a submersed vehicle is difficult.

Tank Destroyer role is more a truck with a TOW missile.

[Lyras]

I'm considering a revival of the idea of the "Tank Destroyer" role (either rapid anti-tank to prevent catastrophic breakthroughs, or as direct-fire infantry-support artillery) largely as a means to cheaply put wrecked/obsolete tanks back onto the front after their turrets have found the 'eject' button (also assuming their original electronics are burnt and ammo-racks torn-up).

So largely it would be some sort of easy way to mount a light and fairly quick manual-traverse gun where the turret used to be, possibly by way of slapping a superstructure onto the hull.

-As an example, lets say my forces brewed-up a few T-54/55s and possibly even a couple of Tunguskas to the point their barrels are badly warped... Any field-gun I could bolt-on behind/forward the ring and allow the breech to hang to the rear a-la AMX-F3 or Archer tank-destroyer?

In the event of the tank simply becoming obsolete, is it feasible to mount the turret in a fixed or railway-mounted fortification with several tons of armor added to them? Could I use them to cheaply arm merchant-ships? If so, how effective would their shells be at sinking a submarine?

I've got a bunch of old lightweight tanks that otherwise would be either scrapped or converted into heavy APCs and recovery-vehicles (maybe the occasional bridgelayer), I was wondering if there could be other uses for these hulls.

HAPCs are a good idea. ARVs also not half bad. Merchant-ships for emergency self-defence (happened in WW2). But don't imagine any real submarine defence. Unless the thing is silly enough to surface next to you...

[Hurtful Thoughts]

HAPCs are a good idea. ARVs also not half bad. Merchant-ships for emergency self-defence (happened in WW2). But don't imagine any real submarine defence. Unless the thing is silly enough to surface next to you...

I'm pretty sure I can modify a TOS-1 or BM-21 to lob a couple of metric tons of nuclear depth-charges in order to persuade the crew to do something silly as that.

Blown-out T-34s and KV-1s (what about 2s?) often were re-employed as combat recovery vehicles.

But the tank I am having trouble with is more like a T-70, and I'm trying to make an Su-76 out of it... except with a 122mm howitzer.

Likewise, would it be a good idea to give such an aborted tank-destroyer a turret from an even more obsolete light tankette?

Ultimately, something like a Jagdpanzer 38t with a panzer II turret on top to make things a little less cramped for the commander.

[North Arkana]

My initial thinking was "why add another section when you could just give the HQ section the weapons instead", but you're right, I'll just add a platoon to the battalion equipped with towed light MLRS

I've been giving my doctrine a bunch of thought recently and one of its key tenets (at this point) is going to be extensive cooperation between lower level units, with special importance placed on the use of ludicrous amounts of artillery. The idea for giving battalions and other low level units (motorized infantry mainly) rocket artillery is that they are supposed to be deployed to protect the flanks of mechanized/armored units and being able to provide organic artillery support from their positions to the rear of said units seems like a viable way to improve combat effectiveness

The problem with MLRS at that level, or attached to a unit like an HQ, is that MLRS (especially cheap MLRS like that) has a very restricted firing range. Unlike a conventional artillery shell, you can't vary their propellant and can only slightly vary their elevation before running into serious wind drift and accuracy issues (even for an MLRS, which is a relatively inaccurate weapon). This means the battery must be very carefully positioned to engage a given target, it can't be easily used on the fly like regular artillery can (which is why regular artillery hasn't given way entirely to rockets). High-level MLRS batteries can do this because they're reserved for specific targets and have lots of space to maneuver behind the lines with freedom, but this isn't true of a battery that would be attached to a combat battalion, it would be too constrained in range flexibility to really be of use in most cases. Regular mortars or light artillery would fulfill most of the same role, and if you really need to saturate an area really badly with MLRS fire, just call for higher-level support.

Well, if you had a controlled burn function for the fuel system, where different amounts of fuel were expended depending upon the range, while still having the same base fuel load, you could get a wider variation in range while also having a bonus incendiary effect at shorter distances.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm considering a revival of the idea of the "Tank Destroyer" role (either rapid anti-tank to prevent catastrophic breakthroughs, or as direct-fire infantry-support artillery) largely as a means to cheaply put wrecked/obsolete tanks back onto the front after their turrets have found the 'eject' button (also assuming their original electronics are burnt and ammo-racks torn-up).

So largely it would be some sort of easy way to mount a light and fairly quick manual-traverse gun where the turret used to be, possibly by way of slapping a superstructure onto the hull.

-As an example, lets say my forces brewed-up a few T-54/55s and possibly even a couple of Tunguskas to the point their barrels are badly warped... Any field-gun I could bolt-on behind/forward the ring and allow the breech to hang to the rear a-la AMX-F3 or Archer tank-destroyer?

The vehicle might be cheap, but the manpower won't be. In all likelihood, you'll probably have tons of newer spare tanks in storage. Russia has more than enough T-72s and T-64s so it wouldn't have to resort to T-55s, just as the US has more than enough M1 variants such that it wouldn't need to go all the way back to the M60. Modern militaries aren't limited by the number of vehicles they can afford, they're mostly limited by manpower.

Even with reservist/conscript crews, you'll almost certainly have more advanced vehicles unless you are absolutely dirt poor (like Somalia poor), in which case it doesn't really matter what you field since any other military will roll over you anyway and a technical would be cheaper and easier to operate.

In the event of the tank simply becoming obsolete, is it feasible to mount the turret in a fixed or railway-mounted fortification with several tons of armor added to them? Could I use them to cheaply arm merchant-ships? If so, how effective would their shells be at sinking a submarine?

These are feasible inasmuch as they are physically possible, but the cost relative to the return almost certainly renders it not worthwhile.

I've got a bunch of old lightweight tanks that otherwise would be either scrapped or converted into heavy APCs and recovery-vehicles (maybe the occasional bridgelayer), I was wondering if there could be other uses for these hulls.

They should probably just be scrapped if you don't need them. You would at least get some cash out of them, rather than sinking more money into them instead through conversion into basically-just-as-useless other types.

Well, if you had a controlled burn function for the fuel system, where different amounts of fuel were expended depending upon the range, while still having the same base fuel load, you could get a wider variation in range while also having a bonus incendiary effect at shorter distances.

No simple thing in a solid-fuel rocket. And you start to also add complexity to the system (which also means adding complexity to the training). The shortcomings of MLRS can be overcome if you decide to use things like guidance packages and the like to allow them to guide their own path, but then you lose one of the fundamental advantages of MLRS: the ability to cheaply bombard a wide area target.

[Erusuia]

The problem with MLRS at that level, or attached to a unit like an HQ, is that MLRS (especially cheap MLRS like that) has a very restricted firing range. Unlike a conventional artillery shell, you can't vary their propellant and can only slightly vary their elevation before running into serious wind drift and accuracy issues (even for an MLRS, which is a relatively inaccurate weapon). This means the battery must be very carefully positioned to engage a given target, it can't be easily used on the fly like regular artillery can (which is why regular artillery hasn't given way entirely to rockets). High-level MLRS batteries can do this because they're reserved for specific targets and have lots of space to maneuver behind the lines with freedom, but this isn't true of a battery that would be attached to a combat battalion, it would be too constrained in range flexibility to really be of use in most cases. Regular mortars or light artillery would fulfill most of the same role, and if you really need to saturate an area really badly with MLRS fire, just call for higher-level support.

Ok, that makes sense. I'll stick with mortars

[The Kievan People]

I've got to ask... Why do you have a messianic image of JFC Fuller as your flag?

He is our lord and saviour.

[Gallia-]

praise fuller

[New Vihenia]

I've got to ask... Why do you have a messianic image of JFC Fuller as your flag?

He is our lord and saviour.

i wish i could find portrait of Sparky somewhere...

[GraySoap]

Any idea how much a TOW missile cost? edit: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 00471.html by that link it's about $52,000 each.

What is the russian equivalent? They have so many missiles I can't find what they use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K114_Shturm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M120_Ataka and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K121_Vikhr and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M123_Khrizantema and

typical russia. one missile for each design bureau. Which one do they actually use though?

[Rykshino]

Any idea how much a TOW missile cost? edit: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 00471.html by that link it's about $52,000 each.

What is the russian equivalent? They have so many missiles I can't find what they use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K114_Shturm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M120_Ataka and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K121_Vikhr and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M123_Khrizantema and

typical russia. one missile for each design bureau. Which one do they actually use though?

They use all of them. If your looking for the TOW equivalent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M113_Konkurs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet