NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Post War America]

The most failure prone part are no doubt the tracks, which require regular cleaning, maintenance, and replacement.

The tracks as in the track itself, the drive wheels, or the whole system, or what?

[Allanea]

Primarily the track itself, but the other parts too to some extent.

[Nachmere]

By far the most common thing to break to the point you can't continue driving is the track itself, and almost always what breaks are the pins connecting seperate track links to each other.

[Nachmere]

Drive wheels also fail but no where near as common. I hate changing drive wheels and I got to do it only twice. And one of those times the drive wheel only failed after everything else died.

[Laritaia]

replacing the entire running gear sounds less then fun.

[Nachmere]

replacing the entire running gear sounds less then fun.

Replacing the entire thing almost never happens. Unless you mean the engine and transmission and that is actually not so bad.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd have thought "running gear" meant tracks, drive/idler wheels, road wheels and suspension components.
Engine and transmission is drivetrain, though I have called it part of "running gear" before.

[Nachmere]

I was thinking maybe he is not 100% on the technical terms. I don't think I have ever done, seen or heard of anyone replacing the entire actual running gear. I once replaced a drive wheel, two return rollers, several road wheels and several track links, but that was an insane fuck up. We took a very hard turn in a deep mud puddle, and a rock came between a pair of roadwheels and the track. The track came off, tore away the drivewheel and two return rollers, and several roadwheels. That is as close as I remember to replacing an "entire" running gear.

[Laritaia]

"entire" was perhaps a bit far considering that as far as i understand loosing more then one or two roadwheels in one go is thankfully a somewhat rare occurance.

i meant in terms of having to put back together/ replace a significant portion of the running gear, which as you discribed sounds about as enjoyable as i imagined.

[Nachmere]

"entire" was perhaps a bit far considering that as far as i understand loosing more then one or two roadwheels in one go is thankfully a somewhat rare occurance.

i meant in terms of having to put back together/ replace a significant portion of the running gear, which as you discribed sounds about as enjoyable as i imagined.

If you violently lose your track and some of the other components, yes, it is p. horrible. The event I mentioned took place in the winter, In a place basically made of 99% mud. I had to crawl in a puddle of muddy water to retrieve my missing rollers and road wheels. Then I had to crawl in again twice to hook a tow cable from a M113 to my track and my drivewheel. The entire repair took close to 36 hours from the moment we got tracked to the moment we managed to put everything back together. Mostly because the track was so horribly mangled, and because the roadwheel was sheered off with the bolts still in it, so it took forever to get them out, had to cut some of them with a torch and weld some bits on the parts sheered inside the drive itself to screw them out. That took most of the time. The drive was p. fucked up and it took forever to tighten the bolts back on after wards, had to use an extender and several extremely bulky guys for that. The track itself was so fucked up we needed to use the M-113 to straighten it out. Also it took a good while of me swimming in the mud to find my return rollers, as I could not see them. It also rained most of the time.

[North Arkana]

"entire" was perhaps a bit far considering that as far as i understand loosing more then one or two roadwheels in one go is thankfully a somewhat rare occurance.

i meant in terms of having to put back together/ replace a significant portion of the running gear, which as you discribed sounds about as enjoyable as i imagined.

If you violently lose your track and some of the other components, yes, it is p. horrible. The event I mentioned took place in the winter, In a place basically made of 99% mud. I had to crawl in a puddle of muddy water to retrieve my missing rollers and road wheels. Then I had to crawl in again twice to hook a tow cable from a M113 to my track and my drivewheel. The entire repair took close to 36 hours from the moment we got tracked to the moment we managed to put everything back together. Mostly because the track was so horribly mangled, and because the roadwheel was sheered off with the bolts still in it, so it took forever to get them out, had to cut some of them with a torch and weld some bits on the parts sheered inside the drive itself to screw them out. That took most of the time. The drive was p. fucked up and it took forever to tighten the bolts back on after wards, had to use an extender and several extremely bulky guys for that. The track itself was so fucked up we needed to use the M-113 to straighten it out. Also it took a good while of me swimming in the mud to find my return rollers, as I could not see them. It also rained most of the time.

What sucks is when some dick removes and hides just one track pad while running maintenance in the motor pool. Lots of time spent readjusting the track tension, because some slack is still visible, so it must not be tight enough, or so we all thought...

[Nachmere]

If you violently lose your track and some of the other components, yes, it is p. horrible. The event I mentioned took place in the winter, In a place basically made of 99% mud. I had to crawl in a puddle of muddy water to retrieve my missing rollers and road wheels. Then I had to crawl in again twice to hook a tow cable from a M113 to my track and my drivewheel. The entire repair took close to 36 hours from the moment we got tracked to the moment we managed to put everything back together. Mostly because the track was so horribly mangled, and because the roadwheel was sheered off with the bolts still in it, so it took forever to get them out, had to cut some of them with a torch and weld some bits on the parts sheered inside the drive itself to screw them out. That took most of the time. The drive was p. fucked up and it took forever to tighten the bolts back on after wards, had to use an extender and several extremely bulky guys for that. The track itself was so fucked up we needed to use the M-113 to straighten it out. Also it took a good while of me swimming in the mud to find my return rollers, as I could not see them. It also rained most of the time.

What sucks is when some dick removes and hides just one track pad while running maintenance in the motor pool. Lots of time spent readjusting the track tension, because some slack is still visible, so it must not be tight enough, or so we all thought...

LOL who would be so evil though omg.

[North Arkana]

What sucks is when some dick removes and hides just one track pad while running maintenance in the motor pool. Lots of time spent readjusting the track tension, because some slack is still visible, so it must not be tight enough, or so we all thought...

LOL who would be so evil though omg.

The mechanics... Because it's funny for them when they get a day off when for the last week they'd been supposed to be fixing the idler wheel on the S2 track... Cue the S2 shop having to fix the track ourselves because we can't leave it broken for the RIP/TOA.

[Nachmere]

LOL who would be so evil though omg.

The mechanics... Because it's funny for them when they get a day off when for the last week they'd been supposed to be fixing the idler wheel on the S2 track... Cue the S2 shop having to fix the track ourselves because we can't leave it broken for the RIP/TOA.

never met any IDF mechanic who is not too lazy to remove a track just ot fuck with us. If they wanted to fuck with us they just sprayed more tracks with red paint and we would have to change them wasting our time anyhow. Than again, I did my fair share of fucking with them.

[Prosorusiya]

Should I divide my Air Force into separate bomber and fighter commands?

I know that the old Soviet Airfare had Frontal Aviation (VVS) and Air Defense Aivation (IV-PO), and would like to do something similar. I have been operating to the OOB of a Cold War Fighter Division, but now I am thinking of applying recent combat experiences in Iraq and the Middle East, and applying them to my Air Force.

This would entail shifting my frontal aviation to a doctrine of counter air, which mainly involves swapping out the use of a regiment of Mig-23s to establish air superiority in favor of using a Su-24 regiment to strike at air defense sites, air fields, and C&C in order to neutralize the enemy air force on the ground. This would of course be followed up by Su-22M4s and a few Su-25s striking at ground targets

I propose to use my Mig-23s as interceptors, supplemented by a limited number of either Mig-25 Foxbats for Su-15 Flagons. I think the Su-15 might be strictly too old for use, now days, but I think the Mig-25 Foxbat might have a takeoff distance too big for any of my air fields.

Also, realistically, how many aircraft could fly from a civilian airport without completely disrupting traffic\taking up too much ground space? I am running most of my airports as dual use right now, at a squadron (12 aircraft) a piece.

[The Corparation]

So I was doodling some PMT stealthy surface warships (I posted an early draft of one in CYOE awhile back), and I decided I might want to do more work on a weapons system I came up with for them (Although I'm doubtful I'm the first to think of the exact concept). The basic concept is Vertical Gun System but using a Rail Gun. The weapon would of course fire one of a series of guided rounds. Weapon would have a variety of rounds including Anti-air/Anti-missile and Anti-surface, as well as a glider-like munition for long range attacks against inland targets. Is this worth pursuing as a lulzy NS-weapons project(To be listed as currently under development with plans to field the weapon in the mid 2020s.) The main things I know would be issues are the guidance packages for each projectile (I'm unsure what guidance methods would/could/should be used) and rail life (To compensate for short rail lifes I'm wondering how plausible it would be to carry spare rails on some sort of carousel. The basic idea being that once a rail is too worn the carousel would rotate, moving a new rail into position. The carousel would carry somewhere between 3 -5 rails with each rail good for a few hundred shots. At the end of each mission the entire carousel would be removed and replaced)

[United Earthlings]

Photograph a page or two with your smartphone, if you do it right it'll be legible.

I have a scanner if I really need it, but sense I’m only typing out a couple of paragraphs its fine.

Assuming that the same general design principles apply to this tank as to most modern RL MBTs, you should be armed with a 140mm ETC gun or a 152mm conventional gun. Failing this, you should attempt to attack the enemy tank with roof-penetrating munitions.

The ETC guns would probably be the same type as the preceding conventional one it replaced, if said nation uses a 120mm logic dictates in all likelihood they would develop a 120mm ETC one if and when that happened. Now if their previous/current tank design uses a 140 or 152mm gun that would make sense they would develop it further. This also discounts the development of improved rounds as in what happen in the real world thereby negating the need for a larger gun.

Of course, this all applies only if said nation believes in economics.

I support your roof-penetrating munitions.

I can't believe I've been on NS for almost a decade.

My life could have been better. ;_;

Could be worse, it could be well over a decade.

Well, it’s been over a decade for me and it’s been just dandy. For the most part…

You asked what was the optimum number of carriers for your strategic situation, a situation which you described as "defensive-oriented", with "non-interventionist neutralist polices".

I think I have given you a correct answer to that question.

The US is a world hegemon and an interventionist expeditionary power, which faces no credible naval threat to its own territory. Your situation is completely unlike that of the US. The optimum number of carriers in your situation is not the same as the optimum number of carriers for the US.

If your position is that you want more carriers than optimal, because carriers are prestige objects, then that is your business but that isn't the question you asked.

You’ve given me one answer, doesn’t automatically make it the correct one.

Also, the US hasn’t always been a world hegemony and interventionist expeditionary power. The current geopolitical strategic situation my nation finds itself in would be more akin to that of the US/Japan/Britain during the 1920s/1930s and later the Cold War. There is no single world hyper or superpower in NS, so yes my situation is very much completely unlike that of the US hence why I figured my nation would have even more carriers than the US does now.

Even being "defensive-oriented" doesn’t preclude that my nation wouldn’t have a fleet of large Supercarriers.

This last bit should help further clarify: “The competitive nature of an arms race drives each nation to test the latest ideas at the first opportunity and to improve on them to their physical limits.”

practical air to ground warload for both the F-35 and F16 is a pair of 2000lb(1000lb on the F-35b) bombs or 4 1000lb bombs on the F-16 if it uses the BRU-55

Thats 2-4 bombs or in laymens terms 2-4 targets. now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.

swaping those bombs out for something like Brimstone or SDB only increases that to 6-8 stowed kills per sortie.

Your sauce is outdated on the second part…

For Modern F-16s [Bk 50/52/60]: 16 SDBs {4 per point} can be carried if the four inner wing hard points are used and 24 if all six wing hard points are used. If the centerline points aren’t in use the number goes up even higher. Probably rare one would put that many single bombs on the airframe at once, but it can theoretically be done.
F-35A/C: 22 SDBs when utilizing the outer wing hard points at the expense of stealth capability. Four in the enclosed weapons bay with the rest on the wings.
Eurofighter: 24 Brimstones {3 per hard point} if fully decked out with the 8 wing points. Probably more if the centerline stations were used.

Modern fighters especially twin engine ones can lift as much payload weight as a World War II bomber, we just don’t tend to see them do that as much for various reasons.

B-17G: Bombs: Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) and Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg).

---

Don't forget to vote for me, UE, for the tenth and final NSMRC Thread, because you know you want too.

[Scandinavian Nations]

I can lift 280 on my best day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to carry around any items that even come close to 200.

What weight it's possible to still take off with is very far from what payload a fighter will actually carry in combat.

[HMS Vanguard]

You asked what was the optimum number of carriers for your strategic situation, a situation which you described as "defensive-oriented", with "non-interventionist neutralist polices".

I think I have given you a correct answer to that question.

The US is a world hegemon and an interventionist expeditionary power, which faces no credible naval threat to its own territory. Your situation is completely unlike that of the US. The optimum number of carriers in your situation is not the same as the optimum number of carriers for the US.

If your position is that you want more carriers than optimal, because carriers are prestige objects, then that is your business but that isn't the question you asked.

You’ve given me one answer, doesn’t automatically make it the correct one.

Also, the US hasn’t always been a world hegemony and interventionist expeditionary power. The current geopolitical strategic situation my nation finds itself in would be more akin to that of the US/Japan/Britain during the 1920s/1930s and later the Cold War. There is no single world hyper or superpower in NS, so yes my situation is very much completely unlike that of the US hence why I figured my nation would have even more carriers than the US does now.

Even being "defensive-oriented" doesn’t preclude that my nation wouldn’t have a fleet of large Supercarriers.

This last bit should help further clarify: “The competitive nature of an arms race drives each nation to test the latest ideas at the first opportunity and to improve on them to their physical limits.”

The US has been an interventionist world hegemon for all the time carriers have been principally land attack weapons, which is roughly 1970 to now, that being the time at which SSNs were in service in large numbers with the major navies. Also the time in which the UK was scrapping its conventional carriers without replacement.

A power in tight competition with other powers for control of the seas would put its money primarily into submarines, not aircraft carriers. Look at the Soviet fleet around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union for a better idea of how it might look than the USN, though the Soviets weren't in your exact situation either. A handful of small carriers, no supercarriers, a lot of SSNs.

It is possible that I am wrong but you haven't engaged with the argument that carriers are no longer the most cost efficient ship type for winning naval battles. What you have done is assumed that they are that, and then acted outraged that your country wouldn't have the latest and greatest.

[HMS Vanguard]

I can lift 280 on my best day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to carry around any items that even come close to 200.

What weight it's possible to still take off with is very far from what payload a fighter will actually carry in combat.

To be fair the limit here is going to be identifiable targets, not weight, as SDB is not very taxing on the hardpoints or the aircraft.

But let's remember where this started: someone argued that tanks have superior firepower to planes, and I pointed out that, back of the envelope, a fighter-bomber hauls about 20x as much firepower as a tank.

There are many caveats to this statement, but if I can assume, for a back of the envelope comparison, that an average tank will fire off all its ammunition in a useful way without being destroyed in a comparable timespan to an aircraft carrying out and recovering from one sortie, it's no less fair to assume that a fighter-bomber can usefully employ its full payload.

[Nachmere]

Not to be a dick, but it really doesn't matter. What differentiates tanks from aircraft is not their firepower, its their role in the battlefield. There are very little roles that are common to both.

[Laritaia]

Your sauce is outdated on the second part…

For Modern F-16s [Bk 50/52/60]: 16 SDBs {4 per point} can be carried if the four inner wing hard points are used and 24 if all six wing hard points are used. If the centerline points aren’t in use the number goes up even higher. Probably rare one would put that many single bombs on the airframe at once, but it can theoretically be done.
F-35A/C: 22 SDBs when utilizing the outer wing hard points at the expense of stealth capability. Four in the enclosed weapons bay with the rest on the wings.
Eurofighter: 24 Brimstones {3 per hard point} if fully decked out with the 8 wing points. Probably more if the centerline stations were used.

Modern fighters especially twin engine ones can lift as much payload weight as a World War II bomber, we just don’t tend to see them do that as much for various reasons.

B-17G: Bombs: Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) and Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg).

---

Don't forget to vote for me, UE, for the tenth and final NSMRC Thread, because you know you want too.

So wrong it practically hurts me to read that.

lets start with the F-16.
First of all the outer wing pylons are limited to either AIM-9s or AIM-120s, normal configuration is to have the Sidewinders on the outer wing pylons and the AMRAAMs on the wingtip rails. This is because the F-16 wing design suffers from flutter and the heavier 120s help damp that down.

Second the inner wing pylons are in 99.999999999999999999999r% of mission profiles dedicated to carrying a pair of 600 gallon drop tanks, this is to allow the fuel hungry F-16 to go more then 5 feet before it needs to top up at the nearest flying cow.

Third the centerline hard point is similarly incumberd by a drop tank unless it's carrying a jamming or recce pod, those are iirc the only three stores cleared for use on the centerline station.

This just leaves the mid wing stations for the carriage of air to ground weapons or in laymans terms 2 to 4 bombs, or 8 SDB.

If the F-16 could mount a Brimstone rack(which it actually can't) it would be similarly limited to only two on the mid wing pylons.


Things are similar in the case of the Eurofighter.

Only 6 of it's wing hard points can carry air to ground weapons, the two outer pair being dedicated to the carriage of the aircraft's ASRAAMs and chaff dispensers.

Ontop of this we have the requirement to carry drop tanks to give it a useable combat radius, this takes away the mid wing station. And the centerline can only mount stores that will fit between the landing gear doors, Which so far appears to be limited to a third drop tank or a Litning targeting Pod, though a recce pod is probably in development to take over from the RAPTOR system when the Tornado bows out.

This just leaves the inner and outer A2G stations for the carriage of munitions, as things stand currently this means either 4 bombs or 12 Brimstone, however there is a program underway to develop a common weapons rack for the Typhoon which would bring this up to 8 bombs or 12 Brimstone.


Finally we come to the JSF, i will concede that it can carry a much larger number of weapons then the legacy aircraft due to it's excessivly fat nature, however you have annoyed me with your wrongness so i am forced to point out that 6x4 is 24 not 22.

As to your point about modern fighter aircraft being able to carry more warload then a WWII heavy bomber, while this is true modern aircraft weapon payloads have far more to do with range and what will actually fit on the aircraft then total carrying capacity.
The less crap you hang on an aircraft the further you can go for a given ammount of fuel, this is especially important in the case of the F-35 as it has no external drop tanks with which to extend it's range(some were planned at one point but there are other far more pressing issues that need the money far more)
And while the F-35 can reportedly lift a whoping 8,000+ kg of stores, a full load of SDBs and their bomb racks only comes out at 3,972kg. which is as i'm sure you can see far far less then the maximum payload, this is a good thing as at full payload the F-35 probably couldn't get off the ground without a 10 mile long take off run and would probably drink all it's fuel long before it reached the target.

tl;dr: don't just take the weapons capacity of an aircraft and divide that by the number of bombs you can possibly fit on to the avaible stations, aircraft stores are far far more complicated then that.


As to "voting" for you, i think not.

[Imperializt Russia]

Should I divide my Air Force into separate bomber and fighter commands?

I know that the old Soviet Airfare had Frontal Aviation (VVS) and Air Defense Aivation (IV-PO), and would like to do something similar. I have been operating to the OOB of a Cold War Fighter Division, but now I am thinking of applying recent combat experiences in Iraq and the Middle East, and applying them to my Air Force.

This would entail shifting my frontal aviation to a doctrine of counter air, which mainly involves swapping out the use of a regiment of Mig-23s to establish air superiority in favor of using a Su-24 regiment to strike at air defense sites, air fields, and C&C in order to neutralize the enemy air force on the ground. This would of course be followed up by Su-22M4s and a few Su-25s striking at ground targets

I propose to use my Mig-23s as interceptors, supplemented by a limited number of either Mig-25 Foxbats for Su-15 Flagons. I think the Su-15 might be strictly too old for use, now days, but I think the Mig-25 Foxbat might have a takeoff distance too big for any of my air fields.

Also, realistically, how many aircraft could fly from a civilian airport without completely disrupting traffic\taking up too much ground space? I am running most of my airports as dual use right now, at a squadron (12 aircraft) a piece.

VVS and PVO was not a split between fighter and "bomber" aircraft, both forces would have (probably) contained sizeable numbers of both broad aircraft types. Obviously the PVO would be more heavily built around fighter aircraft by necessity, but the VVS would still contain a very large proportion of fighter aircraft due to multiroles as strike aircraft and forwards air-to-air fighting.

The PVO also was home to the Soviet strategic air defences, ie SAM formations.

[Allanea]

The ETC guns would probably be the same type as the preceding conventional one it replaced, if said nation uses a 120mm logic dictates in all likelihood they would develop a 120mm ETC one if and when that happened. Now if their previous/current tank design uses a 140 or 152mm gun that would make sense they would develop it further. This also discounts the development of improved rounds as in what happen in the real world thereby negating the need for a larger gun.

Of course, this all applies only if said nation believes in economics.

140mm ETC guns were experimented with IRL. It only makes sense that in the sort of universe where ETC guns are mainstream, the adopted guns are a variant of those.

[Western Pacific Territories]

Does anyone here know the basics of Prussian military tactics circa. 1860-1870?