NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Allanea]

Did you unironically post that?

Yes.

But I also did not specify whether the goals were rational. Also politicians make the decisions not officers.

The notion of procuring main battle tanks from a country which Iraq was at the time at war with - and is to this day at war with, and which has a policy of not exporting the Merkava tank... is rational?

[Arcturus Novus]

Is having the standard military combat uniform of one's nation outfitted with Type III combat armor unreasonable?

[Gallia-]

Yes.

But I also did not specify whether the goals were rational. Also politicians make the decisions not officers.

The notion of procuring main battle tanks from a country which Iraq was at the time at war with - and is to this day at war with, and which has a policy of not exporting the Merkava tank... is rational?

It might be silly, but the cost:benefit analysis checks out.

Cost: No more holy war.
Benefit: Modern tanks that can roundly beat Chieftain.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is having the standard military combat uniform of one's nation outfitted with Type III combat armor unreasonable?

You mean NIJ level III plates?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Yes.

But I also did not specify whether the goals were rational. Also politicians make the decisions not officers.

The notion of procuring main battle tanks from a country which Iraq was at the time at war with - and is to this day at war with, and which has a policy of not exporting the Merkava tank... is rational?

There was a pretty strong push within the Iraqi military at the time to get buddy-buddy with Israel. They saw a very logical common enemy in Iran, and had the means to make it work.

Israel never had a policy of not exporting the Merkava. In fact it has tried to export it many times since the early 1980s. Nobody buys it though because the deal is not good enough.

[Allanea]

The notion of procuring main battle tanks from a country which Iraq was at the time at war with - and is to this day at war with, and which has a policy of not exporting the Merkava tank... is rational?

There was a pretty strong push within the Iraqi military at the time to get buddy-buddy with Israel. They saw a very logical common enemy in Iran, and had the means to make it work.

Israel never had a policy of not exporting the Merkava. In fact it has tried to export it many times since the early 1980s. Nobody buys it though because the deal is not good enough.

I have read in several sources that Israel had a policy of not exporting the Merkava (or at least not the newest Merkava) up until recently.

[Arcturus Novus]

Is having the standard military combat uniform of one's nation outfitted with Type III combat armor unreasonable?

You mean NIJ level III plates?

Yes. I'm RPing an MT/PMT nation with a fairly strong military, and I don't know if it would be considered OP or not.

[Allanea]

Educated, trained, officers don't let silly things get in the way of deciding what is best for their goals, they look at things rationally. Even in the most shithole of countries.

Do you want me to list all the incredibly irrational ideas, doctrines, and decisions, made by well-educated military officers, oh, in the past century? Because we're going to be here for a while.

[The Akasha Colony]

You mean NIJ level III plates?

Yes. I'm RPing an MT/PMT nation with a fairly strong military, and I don't know if it would be considered OP or not.

It's unnecessary.

Do note that by "standard military combat uniform" I had immediately presumed you were referring to something like your military's equivalent of the ACU, in which case there would be no reason to put body armor on a working uniform because your troops will spend most of their time out of immediate combat, where they don't need body armor.

In regards to using Level III plates, there is actually somewhat less of a need for them in high-intensity warfare as there is in a low-grade insurgency. It would more likely be used by mechanized infantry, who have the benefit of driving everywhere and not having to ruck everything around with them constantly.

[Arcturus Novus]

Yes. I'm RPing an MT/PMT nation with a fairly strong military, and I don't know if it would be considered OP or not.

It's unnecessary.

Do note that by "standard military combat uniform" I had immediately presumed you were referring to something like your military's equivalent of the ACU, in which case there would be no reason to put body armor on a working uniform because your troops will spend most of their time out of immediate combat, where they don't need body armor.

In regards to using Level III plates, there is actually somewhat less of a need for them in high-intensity warfare as there is in a low-grade insurgency. It would more likely be used by mechanized infantry, who have the benefit of driving everywhere and not having to ruck everything around with them constantly.

So what would you recommend, then? Something like what the USA uses now?

[The Akasha Colony]

So what would you recommend, then? Something like what the USA uses now?

Depends what you mean by "what the USA uses now." The US has fielded heavier and and more extensive body armor as a result of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to reduce casualties against insurgents armed with rifles and relatively light explosives like IEDs. Heavier than it planned to field when it was still planning for Fulda Gap.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Educated, trained, officers don't let silly things get in the way of deciding what is best for their goals, they look at things rationally. Even in the most shithole of countries.

Do you want me to list all the incredibly irrational ideas, doctrines, and decisions, made by well-educated military officers, oh, in the past century? Because we're going to be here for a while.

Irrational ideas/doctrines/decisions can be approached rationally.

That said, maybe I should have qualified with "in their given field".
Afterall, Sparkey is an educated, trained officer. Or so he claims.

There was a pretty strong push within the Iraqi military at the time to get buddy-buddy with Israel. They saw a very logical common enemy in Iran, and had the means to make it work.

Israel never had a policy of not exporting the Merkava. In fact it has tried to export it many times since the early 1980s. Nobody buys it though because the deal is not good enough.

I have read in several sources that Israel had a policy of not exporting the Merkava (or at least not the newest Merkava) up until recently.

I was never specific on model, but I have seen many attempts since 1982 to export it.
My understanding of the Iraqi consideration did not involve model. In fact the entirety of my information on it is "it was seriously proposed". We know from history where that went.

I also know at that time they were considering anybody that would give them an edge on the Iranians. They eventually went with the T-72, but they were playing with a lot of options. Leopard 1 was also strongly considered.

[Allanea]

Irrational ideas/doctrines/decisions can be approached rationally.

That said, maybe I should have qualified with "in their given field".

Should I tell you of the triumph of the Mortar Lobby?

[North Arkana]

Alright people.

Reasons why the claimed Russian jamming/shutting down the weapons of the USS Donald Cook by an SU-24 is bullshit.

Go.

I'll start with AEGIS having a total output of 5 MW or something compared to whatever the Russian jamming pod outputs, and it covering enough radar bands that a single aircraft wouldn't be able to cover all of them.

[Arkandros]

Alright people.

Reasons why the claimed Russian jamming/shutting down the weapons of the USS Donald Cook by an SU-24 is bullshit.

Go.

I'll start with AEGIS having a total output of 5 MW or something compared to whatever the Russian jamming pod outputs, and it covering enough radar bands that a single aircraft wouldn't be able to cover all of them.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476

[Dostanuot Loj]

Irrational ideas/doctrines/decisions can be approached rationally.

That said, maybe I should have qualified with "in their given field".

Should I tell you of the triumph of the Mortar Lobby?

I'm always up for a good story.
Especially when they involve idiocy in the military. So please do.

[North Arkana]

Alright people.

Reasons why the claimed Russian jamming/shutting down the weapons of the USS Donald Cook by an SU-24 is bullshit.

Go.

I'll start with AEGIS having a total output of 5 MW or something compared to whatever the Russian jamming pod outputs, and it covering enough radar bands that a single aircraft wouldn't be able to cover all of them.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476

It's a good source, but not enough to convince the individual I'm "discussing" this with.

[Allanea]

Should I tell you of the triumph of the Mortar Lobby?

I'm always up for a good story.
Especially when they involve idiocy in the military. So please do.

The Soviet Union in the 1930s had an officers' and designers lobby that demanded rush adoption of mortars on all levels of the infantry.

...despite the inability of the industry to produce proper mortars.

....including mortars on individual infantryman level.

37mm mortars that used an oversensitive shell that would sometimes go off in the bandolier. That were also shovels.

[Allanea]

Also Kurchevsky. I am always fond of the little bastard.

[The Akasha Colony]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476

It's a good source, but not enough to convince the individual I'm "discussing" this with.

The fundamental problem with those sorts of "discussions" is that they are prone to a whole range of logical fallacies, the most common being simply moving the goalposts.

Thus, before your "discussion" moves any further, you have to gently remind the claimant that as the affirmative party, the burden of proof falls on him to prove that the incident occurs as he claims. Only once that has been done is it the responsibility of the negative party to refute the claim. Once he's committed to the claim and you have firm statements from him as to his exact meaning and his sourcing, you can respond in earnest. Because right now, the biggest hole in the whole story is the lack of any solid proof it happened as claimed.

Otherwise this "discussion" will go nowhere, and is not worth wasting any more time on.

[North Arkana]

It's a good source, but not enough to convince the individual I'm "discussing" this with.

The fundamental problem with those sorts of "discussions" is that they are prone to a whole range of logical fallacies, the most common being simply moving the goalposts.

Thus, before your "discussion" moves any further, you have to gently remind the claimant that as the affirmative party, the burden of proof falls on him to prove that the incident occurs as he claims. Only once that has been done is it the responsibility of the negative party to refute the claim. Once he's committed to the claim and you have firm statements from him as to his exact meaning and his sourcing, you can respond in earnest. Because right now, the biggest hole in the whole story is the lack of any solid proof it happened as claimed.

Otherwise this "discussion" will go nowhere, and is not worth wasting any more time on.

Oh, I informed him of the burden of proof and that there is only one Russian government controlled source which has simply been parroted around the internet. He promptly informed me the burden was supposedly on me.

[The Akasha Colony]

Oh, I informed him of the burden of proof and that there is only one Russian government controlled source which has simply been parroted around the internet. He promptly informed me the burden was supposedly on me.

It isn't. There honestly isn't anything more to say about it. It's a fundamental point in the rules of argumentation. If a party is making a claim, they better be able to have some proof to support that claim, otherwise why should we accept their claim at face value?

To presume that a statement is true simply because it has been made and not proven false is a logical fallacy on its own. Thus, to avoid this fallacy, proof of veracity must be given by the affirmative party.

[The Kievan People]

Alright people.

Reasons why the claimed Russian jamming/shutting down the weapons of the USS Donald Cook by an SU-24 is bullshit.

http://kret.com/en/news/3669/

By the way, nowadays Khibiny is being installed on Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35, so the famous April attack in the Black sea on USS Donald Cook by Su-24 bomber jet allegedly using Khibiny complex is nothing but a newspaper hoax. The destroyer's buzzing did take place. This EW system can completely neutralise the enemy radar, but Khibiny are not installed on Su-24.

From the Russian manufacturers website.

The story was fabricated and then embellished by Kremlin propaganda drones (we turn AEGIS off like TV! 27 American sailors resign in fear! USN driven from Black Sea! glory to heroes!) and repeated by the usual useful idiots.

[New Vihenia]

Alright people.

Reasons why the claimed Russian jamming/shutting down the weapons of the USS Donald Cook by an SU-24 is bullshit.

Go.

I'll start with AEGIS having a total output of 5 MW or something compared to whatever the Russian jamming pod outputs, and it covering enough radar bands that a single aircraft wouldn't be able to cover all of them.

How about start from the fact that Khibniy was not designed to equip Su-24.

[Vadia]

So HESH is a really bad idea?

just use AMP

Goggle is confused.