NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Allanea]

Well, technically speaking I can conceive of some dystopian scenario where there is a prolonged full-scale war. It would however be...


1. Mechanized war.
2. Both countries' economies collapse.
3. Horrifying fighting continues as the two armies devolve gradually into African-grade crappy militias trading violence and atrocities as they maneuver around the sad ruins of two once-great countries.


The Iran-Iraq war did last 8 years but everyone was incompetent.

[Husseinarti]

then the war ended when the US blew up a bunch of stuff on both sides for keks.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Think about an endless or very long war, or any war, like a boxing match. The more rounds you gobthe more tired you get. Unless it's the most passive boxing match ever, someone is going to collapse at some point.

[Adainia]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

Guessing from what your nation is, I'm going to assume that your allies are around the same tech level and would thus have a perpetual active war of such caliber. Something tells me that I won't be able to say anything that hasn't been said (I'm not an expert after all,) but I figure that throwing in my two cents won't hurt anyone. I'm going to make some basic assumptions here that may or may not apply.

• All involved nations are around the same MT/PMT tech level
• All involved nations are roughly around the same statistics wise (economic level, manpower, etc.) and are, for the most part, quite well off
• The populace is not entirely made up of warhawks that will dive at the opportunity of war

It's going to come down to a matter of economy and morale/public support from what I can tell.

A "perpetual" full scale war is going to last five-so years at tops, and that is implying no WMDs go flying. An economy can only support a war for so long, and the people are probably not going to support the war for much longer. The US, for example, has seen a fair amount of disdain for conflicts that have happened over the past half century. Contrary to popular belief, unanimous support for a war is going to wane overtime, especially if there are no worthwhile gains. The US has seen a general disappearance of support for being in the Middle East for, how long now? And keep in mind that's against an enemy much less equipped than the US. Imagine if the US was fighting against an enemy that wasn't far behind us in power for fifteen years. Something tells me that public outlook would be much, much worse than it is now. A perpetual war of that sort is also going to do a hefty amount of damage to the economies of everyone involved. Peace-time allows for nations to recover from damages dealt during combat. It allows for business to start and grow in an environment where they might not get blown up the next day. It also gives foreign nations a sense of trust; it's a lot harder to trust a business in a nation where it can literally burn up with no notice because of a shifting frontline. If your nation's in a perpetual war, you may as well kiss those benefits goodbye.

All of that is disregarding the possibilities of WMDs or the warcrimes and atrocities of your choice, implying those are somehow allowed. Throw those into the mix, and public support is bound to go down the drain much faster unless you run a dictatorship. No one likes to live in a perpetual state of fear. And something tells me I don't need to get into the details of the economic ramifications. If there's any bright side to that outcome, it's that everyone would be severely held back; everyone either stops fighting or they continue doing so with all they have left — sticks and stones.

In summary, a perpetual war is not going to be good for either side, with or without WMDs and atrocities. An economy is only capable of supporting a war for a little while, and having war on your turf will probably scare off anyone worth your money to do business with. And more importantly, your people will only continue to support a war for probably much less than the economy can. It would be quite the challenge to hold on to that support indefinitely without going Big Brother.

Again, I'm not an expert. Take all of that with a grain of salt.

By the way,

Think about an endless or very long war, or any war, like a boxing match. The more rounds you [go, the] more tired you get. Unless it's the most passive boxing match ever, someone is going to collapse at some point.

That seems to me pretty damn spot on, and with much less words.

[Eonstar]

You can have a rivalry that results in a series of wars spaced out over a very long period, as two powerful rivals keep fighting out their differences. Sporadic conflicts like those between India and Pakistan over Kashmir or the Hundred Years War (name says it all) come to mind.

[Ardoki]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

The longer a war goes on, the higher the costs (in both manpower, resources, and finances) are

As a war goes on, a nation loses manpower, natural resources, and finances. If there is a perpetual war, either two things will happen: the people will no longer accept the high losses and will demand and/or force a peace, or the country will collapse from the massive strain on its resources (financial, manpower, natural, etcetera).

It's a good way to get your government overthrown.

[Rich and Corporations]

Think about an endless or very long war, or any war, like a boxing match. The more rounds you gobthe more tired you get. Unless it's the most passive boxing match ever, someone is going to collapse at some point.

no, you just need less casualties than the birth rate rate, and maintain a high level of investment spending to continue economic growth

[Imperializt Russia]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

You just give people sets of fatigues in woodland and desert patterns, nbd

e: wow ODS vets are grandfathers now

Well if they had kids when they got home, they'd turn 25 this year.

[Confederation of the Equator]

So uh, guys, if your enemy were to somehow cover his aircraft in Super black and rendered your laser-guided SAMs useless, would there be any way to counter it?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So uh, guys, if your enemy were to somehow cover his aircraft in Super black and rendered your laser-guided SAMs useless, would there be any way to counter it?

A: What aircraft are you engaging and what altitude are they at.
B: For what purpose are you using the Starstreak for?

[Confederation of the Equator]

So uh, guys, if your enemy were to somehow cover his aircraft in Super black and rendered your laser-guided SAMs useless, would there be any way to counter it?

A: What aircraft are you engaging and what altitude are they at.
B: For what purpose are you using the Starstreak for?

Engaing something like this using this thing rite here

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

A: What aircraft are you engaging and what altitude are they at.
B: For what purpose are you using the Starstreak for?

Engaing something like this using this thing rite here

A: Yeah no. Any kind of radar guidance will be vastly more superior than trying to maintain a diffuse laser track at a target at those kinds of altitudes. In any case he's trying to move at mach 3, he's gonna tear himself apart with all those superfluous, overweight and drag-inducing things like a... 30 mm GAU-8, and a shitton of hardpoints.
B: Yeah no you're not launching a 30 ton object that compact to those kinds of speeds without a Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.

[The Akasha Colony]

A: What aircraft are you engaging and what altitude are they at.
B: For what purpose are you using the Starstreak for?

Engaing something like this using this thing rite here

This SAM system has been brought up in this thread before and a number of problems were pointed out with it, such as the complete lack of a radar system and the tremendous shortcomings of IR sensors when used in this capacity. It looks like nothing has actually been changed since then though.

The super black is honestly the least of your concerns, it won't really do anything to reduce detection or the effectiveness of most modern SAMs. SAMs designed to engage fast jets rely either on IR or more commonly on radar guidance, and super black does nothing against these (it doesn't even reduce visual detection!). However, against the SAM system you linked, even a simple layer of clouds between the sensor and the aircraft will be enough to blind the sensor.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh if you really need it being brought down (you probably won't have to because aforementioned reasons) use a S-200 battery with a Nebo radar attached.

[Confederation of the Equator]

Engaing something like this using this thing rite here

A: Yeah no. Any kind of radar guidance will be vastly more superior than trying to maintain a diffuse laser track at a target at those kinds of altitudes. In any case he's trying to move at mach 3, he's gonna tear himself apart with all those superfluous, overweight and drag-inducing things like a... 30 mm GAU-8, and a shitton of hardpoints.
B: Yeah no you're not launching a 30 ton object that compact to those kinds of speeds without a Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.

Engaing something like this using this thing rite here

This SAM system has been brought up in this thread before and a number of problems were pointed out with it, such as the complete lack of a radar system and the tremendous shortcomings of IR sensors when used in this capacity. It looks like nothing has actually been changed since then though.

The super black is honestly the least of your concerns, it won't really do anything to reduce detection or the effectiveness of most modern SAMs. SAMs designed to engage fast jets rely either on IR or more commonly on radar guidance, and super black does nothing against these (it doesn't even reduce visual detection!). However, against the SAM system you linked, even a simple layer of clouds between the sensor and the aircraft will be enough to blind the sensor.

Really thanks for the replies, guys, I'll see what I can do ^-^

Tbh if you really need it being brought down (you probably won't have to because aforementioned reasons) use a S-200 battery with a Nebo radar attached.

I had totally forgotten about strategic SAMs, thank you. Is it still worth it designing new ones?

[Roski]

A: Yeah no. Any kind of radar guidance will be vastly more superior than trying to maintain a diffuse laser track at a target at those kinds of altitudes. In any case he's trying to move at mach 3, he's gonna tear himself apart with all those superfluous, overweight and drag-inducing things like a... 30 mm GAU-8, and a shitton of hardpoints.
B: Yeah no you're not launching a 30 ton object that compact to those kinds of speeds without a Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.

This SAM system has been brought up in this thread before and a number of problems were pointed out with it, such as the complete lack of a radar system and the tremendous shortcomings of IR sensors when used in this capacity. It looks like nothing has actually been changed since then though.

The super black is honestly the least of your concerns, it won't really do anything to reduce detection or the effectiveness of most modern SAMs. SAMs designed to engage fast jets rely either on IR or more commonly on radar guidance, and super black does nothing against these (it doesn't even reduce visual detection!). However, against the SAM system you linked, even a simple layer of clouds between the sensor and the aircraft will be enough to blind the sensor.

Really thanks for the replies, guys, I'll see what I can do ^-^

Tbh if you really need it being brought down (you probably won't have to because aforementioned reasons) use a S-200 battery with a Nebo radar attached.

I had totally forgotten about strategic SAMs, thank you. Is it still worth it designing new ones?

Area Denial is a very important asset for any nation.

[Palmyrion]

*ballistic glass intensifies*

[Rich and Corporations]

*ballistic glass intensifies*

mmm

transparent aluminum

[New Chilokver]

What exactly are linked and linkless ammunition feed systems, and what's the difference?

[Imperializt Russia]

What exactly are linked and linkless ammunition feed systems, and what's the difference?

Linked ammunition has the cartridges held together by "links".
In most modern systems, this is "disintegrating link" ammunition. A metal band secures each cartridge, and this band (link) connects to another link on either side to make a "belt".

This is three links that have been connected. Note the uniform shape.

As the ammunition belt is drawn into the gun by the action of the weapon:
Here is a video of the M60's action operating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDSAMQLzvE&t=09m24s

The action strips the bullet from the link and chambers it, and the link is ejected.

A linkless feed is common for autocannon where the shells may too large to feasibly use links at high rates of fire. The ammunition feed is self-powered and uses some mechanism to force shells out of the magazine, and into the weapon.

[Husseinarti]

where is nachmere so we all can laugh at him.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

(Image)

where is nachmere so we all can laugh at him.

prepping for introduction on :wrd: ofc.

[Dostanuot Loj]

(Image)

where is nachmere so we all can laugh at him.

But the proto-Merkava is towing both an M-48 and a Centurion.
He may laugh at us instead!

[Allanea]

I have sent him a link.

[Prosorusiya]

Ok, so I am working on developing a SAM based air defense network for my nation. How many SAM site should be sited around the major cities I am trying to protect?

My plans are to use the relatively outdated SA-2 Guideline, SA-4 Ganef, or possibly the more modern SA-3 Goa for the sites, protected by large caliber KS-19 100 mm or KS-19 130mm AA Guns. I might include some faster firing S-60 or ZU-23-2s in there as well, but I am trying to keep everything fairly large and static to justify my AF being in charge of it.

My nation is based in Northern Caucuses and is MT-era, but still very much ex-Soviet in military organization and equipment. Naturally Putin is the biggest threat, there has already been an overflight of Grozny with a Tu-95 Bear we couldn't intercept, hence the effort to reactivate and relocate SAM sites.