NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Korouse]

Okay. If my nation suddenly came under attack and was immediately entered into a total-war status, how quickly could I have basic training done for new candidates, if I eliminated the unnecessary things and had the full intention of just getting battle-ready troops as quickly as possible?

All ya gotta do is teach point, shoot, reload, repeat.

Granted you will suffer heavy losses but hey you got cannon Fodder for the regular and reserves.

But seriously, it would still take weeks.

ya forgot to put "don't get shot" between them steps, thats why they dyin' prolly.

[Heicliffe]

All ya gotta do is teach point, shoot, reload, repeat.

Granted you will suffer heavy losses but hey you got cannon Fodder for the regular and reserves.

But seriously, it would still take weeks.

ya forgot to put "don't get shot" between them steps, thats why they dyin' prolly.

Guise plis don't walk into the MG's.
Guise, plis.

[Cascadeland]

Three universal chassis

1.) Light "Phalanx"- Airborne and amphibious capable, eight wheeled chassis. Default Level 1 protection, 12.7mm (level 1). Modular armor for Level 2 (14.5mm) and level 3 (30mm), forgoing amphibious capability (level 3) and C130J transportation (level 2 and 3). Lighter payload capacity, improved road mobility compared to tracks. Weight: 12-30 tons.
(Inspired by: Patria AMV, SEP modular armoured vehicle (Splitterskyddad enhetsplattform), 8x8 variant)

2.) Medium "Gladius"- Airborne and amphibious capable, band tracked chassis. Default level 1 protection, 12.7mm (level 1). Modular armor for Level 2 (14.5mm) and level 3 (30mm), forgoing amphibious capability (level 3) and C130J transportation (Level 2 and 3). Heavier payload capacity, improved cross country mobility compared to wheels. Weight: 12-30 tons.

(Inspired by: M113A4 MTLV, SEP modular armoured vehicle (Splitterskyddad enhetsplattform), tracked variant)

3.) Heavy "Chariot"- Heavy tracked chassis, 45 tons base, 70 ton maximum suspension/power plant capacity. Composite steel armor with additional accomodations for APS and/or NERA. No amphibious or airborne transport capability outside of LCAC or C17 Globemaster III. Heaviest payload capacity, superior protection against APFSDS, ATGM, IED.

(Inspired by: Merkava Mk IV, T90)

[The Corparation]

There is only one universal chassis.

[Cascadeland]

Ah yes. Sparky. "interesting" fellow. In my opinion, he has many great ideas (which are rehashed from Hackworth's reform concepts), some poor or questionable ones, although isn't exactly known for his gracefulness in handling criticism. I seldom venture into the defense or acquisition blogosphere, although, his name isn't exactly brought up with endearing terms the times I have seen him mentioned.

I actually have read General Gavin's literary work ("Airborne Warfare" and "War and Peace in the Space Age") and its the stuff of a genius.

I've been assigned to a M113 before. Its a elegant and simple vehicle that is either loved or hated, no in happy medium it seems like. Kind of like the Stryker. Or the MTLB in Russian circles.

[The Corparation]

Ah yes. Sparky. "interesting" fellow. In my opinion, he has many great ideas

I stopped reading right there. The only great things about Sparky's ideas is that they're great in number and great to make fun of.

[Atomic Utopia]

After my last comment was brushed off as Sci-Fi fantasy fluff, let me reword it. Would it be practical to field something like the Davy Crockett Nuclear Recoilless Rifle as a part of my army?

[Cascadeland]

I stopped reading right there. The only great things about Sparky's ideas is that they're great in number and great to make fun of.

Most of his ideas aren't his own creations. They come from a variety of sources and the "airborne armored force" concept came from General James Gavin. He was one of the greatest military commanders in US military history, and certainly, among the most influential.

So, learn to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article ... rrelevance (Sky Crane Concept, a well known Sparky idea)

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/02/c ... gle+Reader ("battle box concept")

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... =dod-bz.nl (Airborne light tank)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-in ... y_aircraft (title says it all. Another concept. simple, propped COIN aircraft)

So, in a nut shell, Mike wrote extensive articles (infinitum) about concepts/weapons that are currently being discussed and certainly implemented inside and outside the United States (especially Russia, i mean, christ, look at the equipment of the Russian VDV sometime; airborne IFVs and tanks, to include post-Soviet developments and acquisitions). Like I said, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. A persons craziness or eccentricity doesn't mean all of their points are immediately invalid.

"Postby Atomic Utopia
After my last comment was brushed off as Sci-Fi fantasy fluff, let me reword it. Would it be practical to field something like the Davy Crockett Nuclear Recoilless Rifle as a part of my army?"

Practical? of course its practical. It is a weapon that is easy to employ and would prove to be an immense force multiplier. Technical aspects of the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle were never problems. Recoiless rifles aren't particularly complicated weapons and neither are nukes.

The main problem that makes it NOT a good idea: Besides the crew essentially embarking upon a suicidal mission (via radiation poisoning), you are escalating to nuclear. Its immediate use would justify your adversary's retaliation with thermonuclear weapons. So, how far do you want to go with the means to deter an invasion/wage defensive warfare?

[Vancon]

I stopped reading right there. The only great things about Sparky's ideas is that they're great in number and great to make fun of.

Most of his ideas aren't his own creations. They come from a variety of sources and the "airborne armored force" concept came from General James Gavin. He was one of the greatest military commanders in US military history, and certainly, among the most influential.

So, learn to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article ... rrelevance (Sky Crane Concept, a well known Sparky idea)

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/02/c ... gle+Reader ("battle box concept")

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... =dod-bz.nl (Airborne light tank)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-in ... y_aircraft (title says it all. Another concept. simple, propped COIN aircraft)

So, in a nut shell, Mike wrote extensive articles (infinitum) about concepts/weapons that are currently being discussed and certainly implemented inside and outside the United States (especially Russia, i mean, christ, look at the equipment of the Russian VDV sometime; airborne IFVs and tanks, to include post-Soviet developments and acquisitions). Like I said, dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. A persons craziness or eccentricity doesn't mean all of their points are immediately invalid.

"Postby Atomic Utopia
After my last comment was brushed off as Sci-Fi fantasy fluff, let me reword it. Would it be practical to field something like the Davy Crockett Nuclear Recoilless Rifle as a part of my army?"

Practical? of course its practical. It is a weapon that is easy to employ and would prove to be an immense force multiplier. Technical aspects of the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle were never problems. Recoiless rifles aren't particularly complicated weapons and neither are nukes.

The main problem that makes it NOT a good idea: Besides the crew essentially embarking upon a suicidal mission (via radiation poisoning), you are escalating to nuclear. Its immediate use would justify your adversary's retaliation with thermonuclear weapons. So, how far do you want to go with the means to deter an invasion/wage defensive warfare?

[Rich and Corporations]

Sparks is a misunderstood armchair strategist, whose theories would revolutionize the very concept of warfare, and would ultimately lead America to a new era of dominance.

[Aelarus]

Mike Sparks is a nutter and will always be, a nutter. It's true a sizable portion of the flak he gets is a bit unwarranted, but he's still a nutter.

[Rich and Corporations]

He plays world of tanks and mostly german TDs. He's okay by me.

[Cascadeland]

Definitely armchair.

Many of his ideas are also outdated or impractical given modern innovations in equipment. The best example is the "combat light" post, which I can tell you as a former infantryman (light and mechanized), indicates that he was little real world experience. For example, fitting all of your necessary kit in a buttpack is not feasible. Light infantrymen are supposed to operate long-term without likely re-supply, or at least, inconsistent re-supply, which means ruck sacks aren't just "LOGPACKS", they're necessary evils. Soldiers carry heavy weight. There is no getting around this.

Also, his opinions against 5.56 and the M4 are now pretty much irrelevant, given recent innovations for the caliber and weapon that makes it equal to anything fielded in a modern, professional army. His love for 6.5-ish calibers is puzzling, given the fact that they create more problems than they solve (and if your "army" here is equipped with them, whatever, do as you please, im talking about real-life application).

Furthermore, he is also an adherent to the false dichotomy of "wheeled vs tracked" vehicles (this is ironic as hell, considering the paradigm that he claims to resist does the same exact thing!). Most countries just get/field both because they both have strengths and weaknesses.

whose theories would revolutionize the very concept of warfare

Those arent HIS, at least, not even most of them.

Like I said, many of them come from General James Gavin, David Hackworth, and notorious "fighter mafia" figures Tom Christie and Pierre Spay, and the hero James Burton to name a few. They were also known enemies of the US defense status quo, which brings up controversial political arguments that continue to this day.

[Doppio Giudici]

So if the F-15 is an air-superiority jet that turned into an everything jet and the F-14 is that only for carriers....what exactly is an F-16 even for?

[Gallia-]

So if the F-15 is an air-superiority jet that turned into an everything jet and the F-14 is that only for carriers....what exactly is an F-16 even for?

It was supposed to be a "gunfighter" like F-8, using AIM-9s and 20mm to kill jets and backed up by making literally thousands of airframes.

It ended up being a cheaper strike fighter compared to F-15, like F-18 to F-14.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Can't find it (and dare not look any more), but Sparky has an article on floatplanes somewhere in which he goes off on a tangent about how submarine-refueled flying saucers were instrumental to Hitler's war effort after the Nazis fled to Antarctica and made a pact with Satanic Aliens.

That's what makes Sparky such a fan-figure on NSRealism: he's not simply "crazy" in the sense that your average noob NSer is crazy. Nor is he "crazy" in the sense that discarded '60s fantasy projects were crazy. He takes it above and beyond to a level of insanity that even an imitator couldn't aspire to.

[Gallia-]

if i wasnt using a 2800 baud modem hooked up to a soda straw i'd be able to imitate sparky flawlessly sry

[Kouralia]

if i wasnt using a 2800 baud modem hooked up to a soda straw i'd be able to imitate sparky flawlessly sry

WHat colour straw is it? Very important question.

[Cascadeland]

So if the F-15 is an air-superiority jet that turned into an everything jet and the F-14 is that only for carriers....what exactly is an F-16 even for?

Air superiority. The F16 was intended to be a lower-cost solution to the US Air Force that was already spiraling out of control in terms of cost and complexity. This was exemplified by the immense problems from the earlier F105, F4, the F111, and the F-X program (which lead to the F15). John Boyd and Christie were the most prominent brain children of this aircraft; the design of the thing is an entirely other story I couldn't encompass in this thread.

The Air Force, especially the F-X lobby, held a low opinion of the F16 because it threatened the would-be F15 for the title of "air superiority fighter". That is why the F16 was shifted to the "multi-purpose aircraft role" (which conveniently made it more expensive) delegating it into a de facto light bomber/ground support aircraft, which was idiotic considering the F15 was technically superior for this task with its larger payload, and the F16s agility and aerodynamics making it the ideal "air superiority fighter" (keep in mind, the A10 is better than BOTH for close ground support). Ugly DOD politics. Israel figured this out though, and did the opposite of the USAF with the two aircraft.

I have always loved the F16. Its also among the most cost effective aircraft the USAF has ever adopted.

[Gallia-]

if i wasnt using a 2800 baud modem hooked up to a soda straw i'd be able to imitate sparky flawlessly sry

WHat colour straw is it? Very important question.

pink what else

[Kouralia]

WHat colour straw is it? Very important question.

pink what else

*sharp intake of breath*

Ooh, I would have personally gone for cyan - the pink may look like a good deal in the hardware store, but its longevity leaves a lot to be desired, and I can certainly understand why you're limited in your ability to be Sparky.

[The Kievan People]

Okay. If my nation suddenly came under attack and was immediately entered into a total-war status, how quickly could I have basic training done for new candidates, if I eliminated the unnecessary things and had the full intention of just getting battle-ready troops as quickly as possible?

You can do it in a few weeks if you cut the training process down to the bare essentials: Shooting, maneuver exercises.

Don't expect this to do wonders for cohesion or moral though.

[Gallia-]

IIRC the fastest basic training times were 4-5 weeks during WW2.

[The Kievan People]

IIRC the fastest basic training times were 4-5 weeks during WW2.

IIRC u r right!

The German army had a very interesting abbreviated training scheme they instituted late in WWII that, among other things, started with live-fire shooting on day one. It is described in the book Panzer Tactics by Wolfgang Schneider.

[Gallia-]

I was actually thinking of early war USMC, needing to kick start thousands of guys for Orange and everything.

Late war Germany is probably a bad idea to be copying tbh.