NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Doppio Giudici]

Who is on?

How would I do that?

[The United Remnants of America]

That's dumb, or smart.

it would require significantly less submarines then setting up a large screen and would more then likely be just as effective if the carrier is crippled

You could use the minefields to vector the carriers right into a couple attack subs. You would need a picket of subs, then.
EDIT. Better advice has been given.

[Imperializt Russia]

Who is on?

How would I do that?

Does this RP have an OOC thread? Direct the player there, and explain what he has and has not done.

At your own discretion, message a Mentor (identified, of course, by their lovely teal nametags), and bring him into that OOC thread too for discussion.

[Mitheldalond]

So I was in an RP with two inexperianced players and everything was fine with some slight bumps in the road.

Then this happened.

East Ukyenstein Airspace
123rd Guards Terror Bomber Air Battalion
Tu-160-3 escorted by KA-47’s
“We are on top of the biggest city of East Ukyenstein”
“Alright bombs away”
*3 Tu-160’s drop their massive payload on the city*
“Let us get out of here before they deploy their air force.”
“More like flying tin cans.”
BLOCKADE TERRITORY
1st decoy fleet
20xKA-47
"Enemy has gone in for the bait. close the distance between the AC-130, and attack it up top.
*The 5 KA-47 aircraft fly ontop of the AC-130, and started diving on its vulnerable top, shooting their canons at the large aircraft, and slow aircraft careful to keep in speed with it. The rest engaging with the enemy aircraft, (remember the KA 47 is a modified SU 47, a highly capable air craft)”

The player refuses to understand that the enemy fighters can't be snuck up on by a SU-47, as he swears his plane is. The other player is using F-16s and I know those aren't blind enough to fly right past without them detecting you.

I think they would both detect each other on radar and fire on each other.

Also, he said he modified the plane so that it can be deployed from a carrier, but he has no carriers and he didn't RP these planes taking off. There is no air-fields in the area.

SO....what do I do? The other player responded because he thought this was reasonable RPing and it's clearly not.

His bombers are all shot down by a SAM ambush that was just waiting for them to get close enough that they have literally zero chance of survival.

Also point out that the SU-47 is NOT a fighter aircraft. It's an unarmed technology demonstrator. Also point out the serious flaws with forward-swept wings — flaws that have prevented them from being used on any fighter that has seen actual service, or even had a production run of more than a single aircraft.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd like to temporarily revisit an older idea of mine that was brought up in the previous thread - using helicopters to send airborne and special forces behind the enemy's line in order to harass targets such as units in reserve, units defending flanks, anti-tank, artillery and air defence units and possibly headquarters.

I had posited this as a suggestion for the conflict giving Samoz its independence from a Soviet Union stand-in. Emulating what little I understood of the US special forces mission in northern Iraq in the 2003 conflict (as opposed to regular infantry, a series of special forces units were sent into northern Iraq with anti-tank equipment to bolster anti-Saddam militias there, tying up large portions of the Iraqi Army), the idea was to use helicopters to send special forces, and later regular airborne, behind the lines to harass critical formations such as tank units, artillery and search and destroy operations against heavy artillery (FROG, SRBM, DIVAD and equivalent) and headquarters.

The reasoning for this tactic could have been pliable depending on what made more sense. I had an idea that sounded interesting and tried to run with it. It was pretty much shot down. I was wondering if there was anything to salvage from it. Potentially, there could have been a perceived lack of mechanisation, and a need was seen to improve the mobility of Samoz independence forces, whilst also limiting the ability of SU-stand-in forces to respond in combat.
I suppose I'd also been partly inspired by Mat's use, in an older doctrine of his, of airborne (paratroop) forces to cause chaos and confusion behind the frontline of enemy units, allowing ground forces to break the line under fire and manoeuvre through the gap opened.

I'm mostly trying to spark a discussion here.
This independence conflict will occur in the early 1990s. The intention was then to continue using this as a strategy in a further, later conflict against the SU-stand-in in a joint campaign that sees the SU carved up between myself and the other combatants.

[Vancon]

I'd like to temporarily revisit an older idea of mine that was brought up in the previous thread - using helicopters to send airborne and special forces behind the enemy's line in order to harass targets such as units in reserve, units defending flanks, anti-tank, artillery and air defence units and possibly headquarters.

I had posited this as a suggestion for the conflict giving Samoz its independence from a Soviet Union stand-in. Emulating what little I understood of the US special forces mission in northern Iraq in the 2003 conflict (as opposed to regular infantry, a series of special forces units were sent into northern Iraq with anti-tank equipment to bolster anti-Saddam militias there, tying up large portions of the Iraqi Army), the idea was to use helicopters to send special forces, and later regular airborne, behind the lines to harass critical formations such as tank units, artillery and search and destroy operations against heavy artillery (FROG, SRBM, DIVAD and equivalent) and headquarters.

The reasoning for this tactic could have been pliable depending on what made more sense. I had an idea that sounded interesting and tried to run with it. It was pretty much shot down. I was wondering if there was anything to salvage from it. Potentially, there could have been a perceived lack of mechanisation, and a need was seen to improve the mobility of Samoz independence forces, whilst also limiting the ability of SU-stand-in forces to respond in combat.
I suppose I'd also been partly inspired by Mat's use, in an older doctrine of his, of airborne (paratroop) forces to cause chaos and confusion behind the frontline of enemy units, allowing ground forces to break the line under fire and manoeuvre through the gap opened.

I'm mostly trying to spark a discussion here.
This independence conflict will occur in the early 1990s. The intention was then to continue using this as a strategy in a further, later conflict against the SU-stand-in in a joint campaign that sees the SU carved up between myself and the other combatants.

From what I gather, it seems like a good idea. The main problem I see with this though is that helicopters aren't that stealthy (to my knowledge). Some smaller problems that I can think of is that the enemy could probably cause you a problem by shooting you down.

Now, if you mean that you'd do this as a battle is being fought, I can see how this would be useful.

[Imperializt Russia]

The idea would have been to keep the helicopters flying as low as possible, since any air defence system this side of like 1960 could deal with them at any altitude not treetop level, and many since at that altitude.

The intention is to be moving troops around as rapidly as possible to try and evade detection. Losses are to be expected if intelligence on positions and movements is off and it accidentally overflies the 6th Guards Tank Division, of course.

Like you pointed out, the critical difference between this and the special forces mission in Iraq is that these units are being moved as part of a battle between set-piece formations.

A Front on Soviet terms (or Army? Can't recall which) had a pretty hefty Spetsnaz formation on hand (Battalion strength?), not that I know what it was ever expected to do.

[New Oyashima]

I use a switchback like SU-47 for CAS, where is that god of yours?

[Imperializt Russia]

I use a switchback like SU-47 for CAS, where is that god of yours?

Fourteen miles behind the frontline, lobbing PGMs at you, catching your Su-47 in the fragment shower.

[New Oyashima]

I use a switchback like SU-47 for CAS, where is that god of yours?

Fourteen miles behind the frontline, lobbing PGMs at you, catching your Su-47 in the fragment shower.

But it's actually an anthropomorphized kimono wearing adorable trying her best :c

[Vancon]

The idea would have been to keep the helicopters flying as low as possible, since any air defence system this side of like 1960 could deal with them at any altitude not treetop level, and many since at that altitude.

The intention is to be moving troops around as rapidly as possible to try and evade detection. Losses are to be expected if intelligence on positions and movements is off and it accidentally overflies the 6th Guards Tank Division, of course.

Like you pointed out, the critical difference between this and the special forces mission in Iraq is that these units are being moved as part of a battle between set-piece formations.

A Front on Soviet terms (or Army? Can't recall which) had a pretty hefty Spetsnaz formation on hand (Battalion strength?), not that I know what it was ever expected to do.

What if these special forces are used like cavalry from the times of old? By using some large and wide flanks, they could potentially get around the OPFOR and then go on search and destroy mission.

[Korva]

I'd like to temporarily revisit an older idea of mine that was brought up in the previous thread - using helicopters to send airborne and special forces behind the enemy's line in order to harass targets such as units in reserve, units defending flanks, anti-tank, artillery and air defence units and possibly headquarters.

I had posited this as a suggestion for the conflict giving Samoz its independence from a Soviet Union stand-in. Emulating what little I understood of the US special forces mission in northern Iraq in the 2003 conflict (as opposed to regular infantry, a series of special forces units were sent into northern Iraq with anti-tank equipment to bolster anti-Saddam militias there, tying up large portions of the Iraqi Army), the idea was to use helicopters to send special forces, and later regular airborne, behind the lines to harass critical formations such as tank units, artillery and search and destroy operations against heavy artillery (FROG, SRBM, DIVAD and equivalent) and headquarters.

The reasoning for this tactic could have been pliable depending on what made more sense. I had an idea that sounded interesting and tried to run with it. It was pretty much shot down. I was wondering if there was anything to salvage from it. Potentially, there could have been a perceived lack of mechanisation, and a need was seen to improve the mobility of Samoz independence forces, whilst also limiting the ability of SU-stand-in forces to respond in combat.
I suppose I'd also been partly inspired by Mat's use, in an older doctrine of his, of airborne (paratroop) forces to cause chaos and confusion behind the frontline of enemy units, allowing ground forces to break the line under fire and manoeuvre through the gap opened.

I'm mostly trying to spark a discussion here.
This independence conflict will occur in the early 1990s. The intention was then to continue using this as a strategy in a further, later conflict against the SU-stand-in in a joint campaign that sees the SU carved up between myself and the other combatants.

It seems like a military that lacks sufficient mechanization for mobile warfare would also lack enough airframes to dedicate to air assault missions on a large scale.

Why use helicopters and not just paratroopers?

[Elan Valleys]

I've come to think that the best use of special forces is stay behind reconnaissance and sabotage/demolitions or long range reconnaissance patrols.


You're wasting their abilities in a full scale conventional war using them for direct action and their numbers will be worn down very quickly in that sort of thing.

[Calla]

Random thought: Viability of a liquid cooled machine gun for use in remote weapon stations/turrets?

I know liquid cooled barrels are completely, and utterly obsolete in infantry, and common tank roles, where they can be quickly, and easily accessed by the crew. But with RWS or crewless turrets, the barrels can no longer be changed easily, and when coax MGs typically have 3 spare barrels to cycle through...you can see where my thought process is going.

I know some MGs like the Pecheneg use the bolt movement and a finned/shrouded barrel to try and overcome the need to swap barrels, but is it effective enough?

Any thoughts?

[Korva]

Random thought: Viability of a liquid cooled machine gun for use in remote weapon stations/turrets?

I know liquid cooled barrels are completely, and utterly obsolete in infantry, and common tank roles, where they can be quickly, and easily accessed by the crew. But with RWS or crewless turrets, the barrels can no longer be changed easily, and when coax MGs typically have 3 spare barrels to cycle through...you can see where my thought process is going.

I know some MGs like the Pecheneg use the bolt movement and a finned/shrouded barrel to try and overcome the need to swap barrels, but is it effective enough?

Any thoughts?

RWS won't be reloaded enough to require it.

[United Marxist Nations]

I should have asked this back when I asked the original question, Korva, but you said that I should only spend the money to upgrade T-90's to T-90MS standard if they aren't competitive. Based on that, I am assuming that it would make the most since to, since I already have a fair number of the T-90MS to only upgrade part of my T-90 force (specifically, the ones in units that would be expected to fight against Western-style tanks), and then send the ones that aren't going to be upgraded to the Chinese border, since the Chinese armored force is kinda shit?

[Inyourfaceistan]

You're wasting their abilities in a full scale conventional war using them for direct action and their numbers will be worn down very quickly in that sort of thing.

Who here was advocating that?

I beleive Samoz was saying to use them to stir up and bolster local resistance behind the line, not directly throw them at the enemy's armored corps...

[Korva]

I should have asked this back when I asked the original question, Korva, but you said that I should only spend the money to upgrade T-90's to T-90MS standard if they aren't competitive. Based on that, I am assuming that it would make the most since to, since I already have a fair number of the T-90MS to only upgrade part of my T-90 force (specifically, the ones in units that would be expected to fight against Western-style tanks), and then send the ones that aren't going to be upgraded to the Chinese border, since the Chinese armored force is kinda shit?

Pretty much, you could also do it on the basis of high priority units regardless of location.

On the other hand you could do it Poland style, where their worst/oldest vehicles are on the Russian border while their Twardys and Leopards are based in the West.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I use a switchback like SU-47 for CAS, where is that god of yours?

I use Su-47's painted in patriotic colors to fly over air shows and military parades in the capital; while IEK-88's and Su-37's "Su-35's" do most of the fighting...

[Imperializt Russia]

You're wasting their abilities in a full scale conventional war using them for direct action and their numbers will be worn down very quickly in that sort of thing.

Who here was advocating that?

I beleive Samoz was saying to use them to stir up and bolster local resistance behind the line, not directly throw them at the enemy's armored corps...

No, Elan was right first time.

The idea was it was restricted to "special forces" (what little an insurgency could muster) at the beginning, then dedicated airborne units would basically take over soon after once they could be formed (the intended scenario by the second war).

[United Marxist Nations]

I should have asked this back when I asked the original question, Korva, but you said that I should only spend the money to upgrade T-90's to T-90MS standard if they aren't competitive. Based on that, I am assuming that it would make the most since to, since I already have a fair number of the T-90MS to only upgrade part of my T-90 force (specifically, the ones in units that would be expected to fight against Western-style tanks), and then send the ones that aren't going to be upgraded to the Chinese border, since the Chinese armored force is kinda shit?

Pretty much, you could also do it on the basis of high priority units regardless of location.

On the other hand you could do it Poland style, where their worst/oldest vehicles are on the Russian border while their Twardys and Leopards are based in the West.

Wait? Does Poland think it would have to fight Western forces?

Also, how would the Chinese MBT's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99 and its upgrades) stack up to my T-90's if it came down to it (taking into account my superiority in arty and airpower)?

[Imperializt Russia]

I assume the basis behind the Poles' siting of units is so that it has high-capability reserves out of range of tactical missiles and air power that it can shunt to the front line to bolster older tanks.

[United Marxist Nations]

I assume the basis behind the Poles' siting of units is so that it has high-capability reserves out of range of tactical missiles and air power that it can shunt to the front line to bolster older tanks.

That is a pretty good explanation; though, I would be worried that, if there was a real danger of Poland receiving an attack of that scale, that those newer tanks would be needed to defend Warsaw (though taking the city itself would involve a great effort, putting it under siege would be devastating).

[Korva]

Pretty much, you could also do it on the basis of high priority units regardless of location.

On the other hand you could do it Poland style, where their worst/oldest vehicles are on the Russian border while their Twardys and Leopards are based in the West.

Wait? Does Poland think it would have to fight Western forces?

Also, how would the Chinese MBT's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99 and its upgrades) stack up to my T-90's if it came down to it (taking into account my superiority in arty and airpower)?

1v1 tank comparisons don't really matter but Type 99's are roughly equivalent to early T-90s.

Polish high-capability units are kept westward because anything on the border is dead in case of war.

So they have Leopards and Rosomaks in the west, Twardys in central regions, and T-72M1's and BMP-1s on the border.

[Imperializt Russia]

Tanks aren't the only defensive force multiplier.

My post is made entirely on the basis of assuming Korva is correct in that Poland stations its newer tanks in the west with older units in the east, fyi.
I have no real knowledge of Poland's capabilities whatsoever.
It's like the second or third largest tank fleet in Europe excluding Russia though, I think.

Korva, Type-99s are probably worse than "early" T-90s, and are probably closer in capability to early T-72s. They don't even have muzzle reference sensors, which I assume the T-90 and later T-72s probably feature.