NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Tule]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: The Kievan People

[The Akasha Colony]

yay.. we're still 30 pages away and voting already starts :3

Gonna cast mine later.

In the past the nominations usually open around page 450-460, but at least it's better than last time's abrupt rush.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd like to apologise again.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'd like to apologise again.

It's fine, it really doesn't matter which page so long as we get a few days for voting. It doesn't look like we'll suddenly get a huge burst of activity now that'll push us to page 500 really quickly, which is the only real reason to start it early. I'd have put it up myself but I don't want to become "that guy."

[Korva]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Roski

Gonna go ahead and say no to this

Thanks tho

I guess.

You cannot decline a birthright.

[Kazarogkai]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Korva

[Dostanuot Loj]

I just dumped a tonne of money into a pile of books and papers by J.F.C Fuller, B.H. Liddell-Hart, and Charles de Gaulle on tanks and mechanization.

Sadly, a translated English publication on Deep Operations by the man himself Mikhail Tukhachevsky was not in the budget.

This fall I may return to sperging.

[Gallia-]

>implying it is possible to leave

[Taihei Tengoku]

I just dumped a tonne of money into a pile of books and papers by J.F.C Fuller, B.H. Liddell-Hart, and Charles de Gaulle on tanks and mechanization.

Sadly, a translated English publication on Deep Operations by the man himself Mikhail Tukhachevsky was not in the budget.

This fall I may return to sperging.

I dumped $40 back in February on a new print run of Eeben Barlow's Composite Warfare, thinking it would arrive in April then

It got delayed once to today and now it's delayed again until January 2017 ((((((((((((((

[New Vihenia]

and finally i got myself 3rd edition of "Stimson : Introduction to Airborne Radar"

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm gonna call nominations done at p475, guys.

[Western Weyard]

I just dumped a tonne of money into a pile of books and papers by J.F.C Fuller, B.H. Liddell-Hart, and Charles de Gaulle on tanks and mechanization.

Sadly, a translated English publication on Deep Operations by the man himself Mikhail Tukhachevsky was not in the budget.

This fall I may return to sperging.

Any books you could recommend as a starting point on this topic?

[Minroz]

I've been wondering about this for a long time, has anyone already talked about EMP weapons?

I imagined they're pretty much expensive and not easy to make like any high-grade military hardwares. But worthy-enough weapon to use especially when coming up against a technologically-advanced opponent. Especially when talking about in the realm of MT to FT, EMP can be devastating when used properly.

Your thoughts?

[Haishan]

I've been wondering about this for a long time, has anyone already talked about EMP weapons?

I imagined they're pretty much expensive and not easy to make like any high-grade military hardwares. But worthy-enough weapon to use especially when coming up against a technologically-advanced opponent. Especially when talking about in the realm of MT to FT, EMP can be devastating when used properly.

Your thoughts?

inb4 GaAs/InGaAs 200% EMP-proof electronics. What people don't get however EMP can blind radars (how long depends on the make of the radar et al) and that's enough time to slip in a missile or something to take out the radar. EMP is great idea for side attacks however; rather than attacking the military, attack its support structures, civilian infrastructures and all. An army can only go for long without support from its greater civilian populace.

Protip,

http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/NSDraftroom/ ... opic=10143
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-e ... le_Project

There should be distinction between EMP and HPM; EMP generated by atomic weapons at particular altitude and HPM generated by exploding flux compression generators. EMP protection =/= HPM protection since they work at different time scales.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've been wondering about this for a long time, has anyone already talked about EMP weapons?

I imagined they're pretty much expensive and not easy to make like any high-grade military hardwares. But worthy-enough weapon to use especially when coming up against a technologically-advanced opponent. Especially when talking about in the realm of MT to FT, EMP can be devastating when used properly.

Your thoughts?

"EMP", or such effects of disabling systems are really point weapons and within short range of the emitter. So you can point a device at an enemy device and knock it out, or you can fire something like RF-EMP weapons in their direction which may disrupt their functions. Neither is likely to be permanent or particularly long-lived.

[Kassaran]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Gallia-

[Austrasien]

I've been wondering about this for a long time, has anyone already talked about EMP weapons?

I imagined they're pretty much expensive and not easy to make like any high-grade military hardwares. But worthy-enough weapon to use especially when coming up against a technologically-advanced opponent. Especially when talking about in the realm of MT to FT, EMP can be devastating when used properly.

Your thoughts?

"EMP weapons" is a fairly broad category of weapons. In common usage the effects of high altitude nuclear EMPs, low altitude nuclear EMPs (which are often forgotten entirely though historically they were the kind that generated the most concern), conventional RF weapons and conventional microwave weapons all tend to bleed together into a single generic super weapon.

High altitude EMPs are realistically only a major threat to things directly connected to some kind of wire grid, the charges they can build up in long wires and potentially in large ships are enormous, but are not a significant threat to portable electronics including vehicles because the very long wavelengths that contain most of the energy do not couple effectively to small objects. Because of the sheer massiveness of the charges that can accumulate in long unshielded power lines and telephone cables subjected to HEMP they are extremely effective against most fixed infrastructure though, very high levels of protection may still fail for things connected to a grid as the charges may develop the power to jump even physical air gaps.

Low altitude nuclear EMPs, which have nowhere near the range of the high altitude kind an only really matter within a few kilometers of the blast, can seriously damage everything both because the electrical currents generated are truly massive and because they can be generated directly on and even inside conductive objects by ionizing radiation. There is no practical way to avoid a charge of some kind. Though at these ranges it becomes difficult to separate the EMP effects on electronics from other TREE (transient radiation effects on electronics) effects, such as neutron bombardment which is not ionizing but highly destructive to microelectronics anyways, as well as the general destructive effects of the blast.

Conventional RF and Microwave weapons have only a tiny fraction of the power available. But unlike high altitude EMPs they are not fixed on specific (low) frequencies, it is possible to generate a variety of frequencies including the much higher microwave frequencies. On the plus side this means a very wide variety of targets can be attacked with the correct frequency. On the minus side means that you must tailor your EMP weapon to the targets you want to attack. Very broad spectrum conventional EMPs can also be created but this is generally inefficient. They can be quite effective against a target like a radar or command post, moderately effective against targets with many antennas like ships and aircraft, and mostly a waste of munitions against something like a tank.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I just dumped a tonne of money into a pile of books and papers by J.F.C Fuller, B.H. Liddell-Hart, and Charles de Gaulle on tanks and mechanization.

Sadly, a translated English publication on Deep Operations by the man himself Mikhail Tukhachevsky was not in the budget.

This fall I may return to sperging.

Any books you could recommend as a starting point on this topic?

Depends on how deep you want to go, and what your interest is.

Any generic "XX Tactics of X War" book from New Vanguard is a good basis for specifics. And the visualizations are usually excellent.

For modern general land-war, I highly recommend Modern Land Combat[/i[ by Christopher Foss and David Miller. It's a bit dated (1980s), and has a few errors in it, but it is an excellent overall primer for the subject for the amateur.

If you want to jump right in and get bogged down in the subject as if it's school, various FMs, Standing and Administrative orders, papers, and such published by various armed forces are also great. They will all have a slightly different, very national, approach, so I don't recommend it to beginners who want to get into the subject lightly. Better to have the background first.

[i]Achting-Panzer! by Guderian is very common, but surprisingly sparse on the subject. The book itself is written more to get officers who are not familiar with mechanization to think about it, not to teach or conceptualize theory on it. So it's great for beginners as an introduction. Follow it with Panzer Leader and you can get a good idea how Guderian approached the subject, and how he tried to apply it within the German army.

On the flip side, for WW1, Christie Campbell's Band of Brigands: The First Men in Tanks is pretty good. It's history, not theory, but it does touch into theory somewhat.

Otherwise, the reality is for my interests (WW1-Interwar) you pretty much need a solid basis in overall strategy and tactics before you can jump right in. Books like Machine Warfare or Lectures on F.S.R III by J.F.C Fuller are excellent theoretical explorations of the subject of mechanization, and are readily available, but are also like jumping off the deep end into a shark infested pool if you don't have a solid grounding on the basics first.

So, I can recommend three lines of approach.

1: Modern: Start with some modern-era New Vanguard style books, work into larger but still basic tomes like Modern Land Combat, and eventually start reading the dry FMs and military specific publications of your military of choice. By the time you get to the FMs you should have an understanding of the basics enough to follow along.

2: WW2/Early Cold War: New Vanguard is great here too, especially with the popularity of WW2. In fact there are so many soft resources on this subject that you can grab almost any well known or popular book and go into it. Plus there is a lot of internet research going on with this subject as well.

3: WW1/Intermediate: This is the hardest group because it is not all that popular. If you are just interested a bit, you can always get a basic grounding in the concepts of modern land warfare, then peruse soft resources like general books on the subject (Band of Brigands, for example). You will find one book leads to another and down the path you go. If you want to take a serious study on the subject, you need to get a solid grounding in infantry, artillery, and cavalary tactics and strategy from about the 1870s through to the 1930s. From there start moving into the basics. English sources from anyone but Fuller are hard to find, but his Lectures on F.S.R III are pretty much the basis of everything. It helps to have read F.S.R I and F.S.R II pre-1932's versions, and understand that Lectures on F.S.R III is not the same, but instead an aid to how to teach a fictional F.S.R III. Otherwise B.H. Liddell-Hart and Giffard Le Quesne Martel have sources on the subject, and were as directly involved as Fuller. The three of them constitute the trifecta of British theory, and also did not get along. So if you start reading the three keep in mind they disagreed for various reasons (mostly Fuller is a prima donna), but were all working from the same basis, with the same basic result.

Outside of English sources for the WW1-Interwar period are hard. I have been academically at this for more then a decade now and the only time a direct source from, say, Tuhkachevsky, has come my way was yesterday, and I didn't buy it because it cost a lot of money.

If you want to follow lineages of theoretical development from WW1-ish to WW2, here is a rough guide by nation for the basics.

Britian: J.F.C Fuller > B.H Liddell-Hart/G.LeQ. Martel
France: Jean Baptiste Estienne > Charles de Gaulle
USSR/Russia: Mikhail Tukhachevsky > Georgy Zhukov

USA and Germany are a little more odd. The US took a lot from both the Brits and French, and then mixed it all around with a cavalry tradition.It's a confusing endeavor to get into. Germany is just too easy as you have limited Interwar sources to work with, and significantly more limited WW1 sources, to the point of it is likely beyond the realm of an amateur to get into WW1-era German tank-theory beyond what you can get in basic New Vanguard like books unless you live in Germany and can access archives. But WW2 and pre-WW2 information is plentiful.

[Western Weyard]

Depends on how deep you want to go, and what your interest is.

Primarily, I'm interested in the post-WW2 era western approach, but Deep Operations is something I also wanted to take a look at.

For modern general land-war, I highly recommend Modern Land Combat by Christopher Foss and David Miller. It's a bit dated (1980s), and has a few errors in it, but it is an excellent overall primer for the subject for the amateur.

Thanks for the tip. After my next paycheck, I'll order it from Amazon.
Actually, I did go looking for Achtung-Panzer! a while ago - and it seems to be unavailable in German...

unless you live in Germany and can access archives.

Lucky me.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Primarily, I'm interested in the post-WW2 era western approach, but Deep Operations is something I also wanted to take a look at.

Well, because :Zhukov: DO is pretty much universal to Soviet doctrine post-war. The original theoretical framework and such is much much harder to find (even in the former USSR, but especially in the West), but most of it is in Soviet sources from the post-war era anyway.

Otherwise, you need to look at WW2 German stuff, because the US and Germany were obsessed with it. For British approaches consider Liddell-Hart, for French consider de Gaulle.

Thanks for the tip. After my next paycheck, I'll order it from Amazon.

I've owned it since the late 1980s. In fact I think it was the book that got me into the subject. It really is a good basis.

Actually, I did go looking for Achtung-Panzer! a while ago - and it seems to be unavailable in German...

Then get an English version!

Lucky me.

Have fun!

[Western Weyard]

Then get an English version!

That would be the logical solution, yes. I guess I'll order it and Panzer Leader together with Modern Land Combat to get started.

Have fun!

Thanks, I hope I will.

[Gallia-]

This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Gallan Systems

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Let's talk war crime weapons for the last 18 pages. :v
When and where is it preferable to use blistering agents instead of nerve agents?

[Kassaran]

Where you don't want to kill your enemy en masse, but rather would make them suffer?

[Imperializt Russia]

Let's talk war crime weapons for the last 18 pages. :v
When and where is it preferable to use blistering agents instead of nerve agents?

Cost, obviously. Non-persistent (though there are plenty of non-persistent nerve agents). Relatively easy to protect against and contamination is unlikely to result in something lethal.

Though most enemies will probably consider the two equal anyway so there's not a lot to gain, I guess?