NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Gallia-]

Simpkin had a great thing re: Japanese/Korean armour development in Antitank.

[Purpelia]

Well, we can actually derive the conclusion that tactical organisation matters the least as long as the operational and strategic vision of the military is retained without significant blemish. While it isn't bad to focus on tactical level, it shouldn't come at the expense of other areas.

I won't disagree with you there.

Also, speaking of Japanese tanks. Isn't the Type 74 like the most absolute cutest tank of its era?

[Oaledonia]

Isn't the Type 74 like the most absolute cutest tank of its era?

Everyone in this thread should know to word their posts carefully when I'm lurking.

[Kouralia]

Yes.

The British Army regularly trains in Public Order prior to deploying to Cyprus or other places, such as these gents from The London Regiment.

Those other places being Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow I presume?

'Everywhere Not The South East'

[Cascadeland]

Aelarus

It's not even that great at A2A if you ask me, since it lacks in speed and power extension.

This is debatable to say the least. The Israelis definitely have a different opinion than this.

It's still better than the Russian equivalent

There was no Russian equivalent to the F16.

(this is with the newer engines, older model F-16s had piss poor engines)

Though LOWER wing loading in the A model. This gives it a maneuverability advantage.

Also, the A-10 isn't better than either the Viper or Eagle.

At close air support it is second to none. The Viper and Eagle dont even come close and neither will the Lightning.

It was used quite frequently for its prime purpose: close air support, especially in the conditions of afghanistan. Why do you suppose that is? its because of the attributes of the aircraft itself over other fixed wings in America's arsenal: very short turn radius, low speed, and the ability to maneuver through rugged terrain while flying under 1,000 feet. These attributes are the same reason why it was the most useful aircraft during the Kosovo War; the terrain of that country made the long turn radius and high speed fighters very vulnerable for multi-million dollar nose planting.

That is why the F16 and F15, AND the F35, will never be able to fill the A10s shoes. Not even close.

Frankly, it's only advantage is armor plating which only applies to <30mm.

23mm and resistance to MANPADS warheads.

The gun is another example of the America's fetish for externally powered rotary cannons and frankly isn't really used very often anymore on strike missions

The rotary cannon is also among the most accurate and cost effective weapons in America's aerial inventory. It is accurate, inexpensive, inexpensive to load (30mm costs about 17 dollars a cartridge), and is effective against pretty much anything that would warrant the need to call close air support. Low cost weapons > high cost weapons, when providing ground support. That and it is definitely safer to use in the vicinity of friendlies for danger close missions. With missiles and bombs? no way.

flying policies changed, all of the intended advantages of the A-10 like visual scanning basically vanish with new combat procedure

This is not even remotely true.

Without the ability to conduct visual scanning, close air support becomes utterly worthless. Like I said before, low speeds have their advantages for close air support, something the F16 and F15 and any other multi-purpose fighters arent suited for.

No amount of tech can replace human judgement and perception.

A matter of opinion for you all. SMAW or Pzf 3?

SMAW. hands down.

Your infantry will thank you for issuing them a lighter weapon. The Pzf 3 has a bit higher armor penetration, though shorter maximum effective range and weighs a lot more (double). Most importantly, the SMAW is a combat-proven weapon. They work.

[Rich and Corporations]

12.7mm rotary is best weapon for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle operations.

if you want anti-tank, drop a bomb or fire a missile.

personally I mount 12.7mm to the wings of my aircraft and mount a 57mm cannon to the nose.

[San-Silvacian]

The F-35 does the job of the modern A-10.

"Hey I need missiles on this tank right now."

"Okay here you go."

[Gallia-]

The real reason is that supporting dedicated airframes is too expensive for a fiscally focused (as opposed to effectiveness focused) military.

Even then, all the A-10s are only 4 or 5 F-35s tbh, they're still incredibly useful for a effectiveness focused military like the Cold War USAFE, and an F-35 isn't a real replacement sorry. Multiroles are objectively worse at a job than a dedicated airframe, just compare F-16C/D to F-15C/E. The USAF is suffering from hollow army syndrome, except the bottleneck is airframe numbers not manpower. It simply won't have enough airframes to perform all its duties in the future because of the high cost of new aircraft and the shrinking budgets, which means any serious regional conflicts will be in doubt at best.

This is also true for the entire US military, including the USN, which can't afford its own ship building plan and is having to constantly scale back (300 ship navy became 200 ship became 150 ship) its projections as a result of budget overruns. Burke requirement is still slated for 90, but they're receiving 70. The US Army will still be using ancient M2s and M1s in the 2040s instead of a modern replacement because it keeps canceling replacement programs like GCV and FCS, partly because of overruns caused by gold plating, and partly because of shrinking budgets.

It's all falling apart, and thankfully none of it is actually needed. F-35 will never be used as a replacement for A-10 because there won't be a big mechanised war in the future, because no one will be able to afford mechanised armies except the USA.

[Oaledonia]

Hey Galla can you link those nose rocket things? I want.

[Gallia-]

Hey Galla can you link those nose rocket things? I want.

what things? do you mean like f-94?

[Oaledonia]

Hey Galla can you link those nose rocket things? I want.

what things? do you mean like f-94?

Kinda.
The nose was littered with rockets.

[Gallia-]

what things? do you mean like f-94?

Kinda.
The nose was littered with rockets.

F-94 had rockets in the nose and F-89 had big huge rocket pods on the wingtips.

[The Corparation]

I'm not sure why people think that the only thing can replace an A-10 is an A-10 2.0. You don't need an A-10 2.0 You can cover the A-10s role easily using existing aircraft. The only thing you'll lose is the Gun of course, but if an A-10 closes to gun range against anyone with half shorad you're going to very quickly be down one A-10 And if the A-10 Lobs a missile from outside their shorad's range, why not launch from an F-15E or F-16? Which can carry the same weapons, have greater payloads. (Although I concede that the F-16 has fewer hard points), and are faster and more maneuverable than the A-10. But you might say, what about low altitude, low speed, small turn radius, and ability to fly through rugged terrain and go bang bang at soft targets with a nose gun. Well there's already a much better aircraft than the A-10 for that role. I am referring of course to the AH-64 Apache Gunship. Which has a can fly lower and slower than the A-10, turns on a dime, has a 30mm gun (Although addmitedly not as lol as the GAU-8). In addition the Apache can literally hide from enemies behind hills, rescue downed aircrew, and in the latest versions, remotely control UAVs. Also the Apache fleet is not made up primarily of airframes that are literally older than the many of the people that fly and maintain them.

[Gallia-]

A-10's primary weapon was never the gun, for one.

AH-64 is more vulnerable to SHORAD than any A-10, for two.

A-10 also hides behind hills, for three.

Having a series of dedicated platforms makes sense from an attrition standpoint. If you can afford it, there's no reason not to use it, because you won't be suffering the effects of attrition that plague multirole-based air forces operating on budgets with limited airframes. If you can dedicate CAS, that's always a benefit, because it frees up your F-35s or F-16s to perform more important missions like OCA/DCA or interdiction. A CAS aircraft isn't even expensive to operate, given that the early retirement of the A-10 will save the USAF a grand total of...$4bn dollars. This is the procurement cost of 12 F-35As.

Let's see...250 dedicated airframes...or 12 multiroles. I wonder what is more useful? For one, you're going need to allocate ~250 F-35s to CAS to replace that lost capability, or at least 100 for active duty USAF, which goes back to virtual attrition. However many A-10s you'd have used for CAS you'll need to replace with F-35s in a major war, which means they aren't doing anything better, and CAS is highly dangerous which greatly increases the risk of losing an aircraft. It's highly doubtful given a modern ECM suite that A-10 would be any more vulnerable than F-35 to radar guided SHORAD, so you might as well pick the cheapest airframe you can and bolt on some self-defence pods as opposed to picking the most expensive deep attack aircraft and shoehorning it into a role where its risk of loss is unnecessarily high.

Getting rid of A-10 is more to do with the USAF looking to shave as much money as possible without cutting into its next generation fighter pet program than the supposed obsolescence of dedicated airframes tbh.

[Oaledonia]

I use a Not!Futur!Buccaneer for ground attack :c

[Gallia-]

I use a Not!Futur!Buccaneer for ground attack :c

Baller as fuck.

[Rich and Corporations]

supposed obsolescence of dedicated airframes tbh.

maintenance costs naturally rise you know

[Gallia-]

supposed obsolescence of dedicated airframes tbh.

maintenance costs naturally rise you know

It's still not high enough to be as expensive as F-35, sorry.

[Oaledonia]

I use a Not!Futur!Buccaneer for ground attack :c

Baller as fuck.

Futur!this for maritime patrol
Futur!this for cheap COIN

[Gallia-]

Should use P-51 for cheap CAS/COIN.

[Oaledonia]

Should use P-51 for cheap CAS/COIN.

We never developed it.
We developed Skypirate because of our Long Lance Kai torpedoes. We never had a WW2, so we never developed a long range escort cuz lulz.

[Post War America]

So, I kind of need help with formulating a military doctrine, given that my military know-how is severely limited. I’m not much of a military guy, but I agreed to fight a war-to-the-death with, more or less, the three superpowers of my region. I will have some support, granted, but I do need to know how to prepare at least somewhat competently.

I’m a Communist nation, bordering a very large, angry, imperialistic USA analogue. His population, 9.8 billion, is larger than my own, 7.5 billion, and he has a powerful navy. His army is almost exclusively mechanized and he claims one of the finer air forces in the region. He fields about 130 million in mechanized infantry, armored personnel and support personnel. His entire army is a mobile force, which is EMP proof, and can respond quickly to emergency situations. His navy maintains 75 fleets, each fielding twelve carriers, and who knows how many aircraft he fields.

There is another nation, an Imperial Japanese Esque nation, with a massive island full of aircraft and naval assets right below my shores. He has about 80 million men, roughly the same spending as the former, and has one of the more professional armies on the region. Basically, his army is half the size, but more efficient and professional and crap, fielding some very complex technology (he runs a popular storefront.) He also has a very powerful elite light infantry force.

The third is less of a threat given his location, but maintains 24 million troops, each of which is a well toned fighting machine, and should not be ignored. I know little more about him, but his men are some of the finest winter soldiers in the region. There might be others, but these are the only immediate threats.

Now, I can count on quite a bit of aid, but in the assumption I were to fight alone, or were forced to fight alone, what are some steps I could take in my doctrine? How would I deal with these foes, and how could I attempt to defeat them. I understand that, in the first place, victory is rather unthinkable, but I’m concerned merely with survival. That is what my nation’s doctrine is. Any number of my citizens, and any amount of industrial damage can be endured, so long as the regime survives. Also, for OoC reasons, it’d be best if I didn’t use nuclear weapons, though I suppose other forms of WMD might be acceptable.

My manufacturing is good, and my infrastructure is decent, though better in some areas than others. In particular, in the immediate area bordering the US. esque nation, I was imagining small cities and villages dotted around in a vast region of forests, tundra and taiga, while my industrialized areas would be on the opposite land border/on the southern coasts. I would be willing to mobilize 5% of my entire population in a dire situation, though I’m leaving it at 1 or 2% until the war actually starts heating up. My population mostly dislikes the state, though will fight against invaders (because of xenophobia) all the same.

Anyways, thanks in advance for any assistance/insight on my situation.

If all of these nations are hostile you want to think defensively. If they are also hostile to each other you should definitely do as I do with Scandi Union in Vicky II and let them do all the dying for you (ie use diplomacy to play them off against each other, having them fight each other as much as fight you). In general, diplomacy will be your best course of action, try to make friends with at least one of the other regional powers, that way you don't have to worry too much about fighting a multi-front war.

As a communist, I suspect not:America will be your biggest threat. Ideally then, you should be putting up a large amount Air Defenses and Anti-Tank setups that will be perpetually manned or otherwise in a state where they can respond to a sudden surprise attack. Additionally, you should seriously look into the concept of deep defense, i.e trading land for enemy lives. Your borders are meaningless if you can deplete an invasion force's manpower. Then make use of strategic reserves to counter-attack or to harass supply lines and otherwise wear down your enemy, hopefully they will break before you do.

If not:Japan is your biggest threat then you should worry about destroying their navy before it even lands on your shores. Invest in lots and lots of long range patrol craft that are armed (think TU-95) as well as small heavily armed, fast missile corvettes (my favorite in this case is the Tarantul Class) and/or small diesel electric submarines as well as Air Superiority Fighters to swat down carrierborne hostile fighters. Destroy their navy, and a land invasion will be unlikely.

The third is less of a threat, but if you want to prepare against that primarily, I'd highly recommend that you prepare your own winter fighting cadre, as well as light attack aircraft (I am assuming infantry based threat here). Here deep defense could be an even better option, due to smaller numbers they CANNOT afford to take loses. Even if each soldier is a fine tuned engine of war, a bullet will still eliminate them just as much, a war of attrition will likely go in your favor.

IF you are seriously worried about being simultaneously invaded by all three. I would seriously consider adopting the Swiss model, in other words, conventional resistance will not be the focus here. You want everyone capable of fighting in the nation trained to do so (though not necessarily in the military), and properly equipped. Your conventional army will fight for a bit before melting away and forming the nuclei of popular resistance cells. There is a damn fine reason most COIN operations fail, a protracted guerrilla war is something very difficult for a conventional army to win.

[Gallia-]

Should use P-51 for cheap CAS/COIN.

We never developed it.
We developed Skypirate because of our Long Lance Kai torpedoes. We never had a WW2, so we never developed a long range escort cuz lulz.

gayhq

[Oaledonia]

We never developed it.
We developed Skypirate because of our Long Lance Kai torpedoes. We never had a WW2, so we never developed a long range escort cuz lulz.

gayhq

It's okay, we made up for it by going DARPA levels of insane after most of our factories became completely automated. We just entered into a cold war with another island nation, so imagine 1950s America with the culture of Japan set in Mid-PMT with a cute military.

[Gallia-]

gayhq

It's okay, we made up for it by going DARPA levels of insane after most of our factories became completely automated. We just entered into a cold war with another island nation, so imagine 1950s America with the culture of Japan set in Mid-PMT with a cute military.

1950s america was pretty primitive tbf

not even post industrial what a vassal state

vassal of galla ;> pls~