NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Spirit of Hope]

I'm in a situation that I'm assaulting a fortified town.

How can I rapidly clear areas full of mines?

What time period? Modern times? Use a Mine Clearance Line Charge.

[Gran La Plata]

What would be the best way to keep a really freaking big navy away from an specific island long enough for me to reinforce said island enough to survive an amphibious attack? A shitload of submarines and maybe?

[Azenyanistan]

What would be the best way to keep a really freaking big navy away from an specific island long enough for me to reinforce said island enough to survive an amphibious attack? A shitload of submarines and maybe?

Use a shitload of anti ship weapons times seven hundred coastal guns times the number of subs you can get

[Spirit of Hope]

What would be the best way to keep a really freaking big navy away from an specific island long enough for me to reinforce said island enough to survive an amphibious attack? A shitload of submarines and maybe?

depends on where the fleet is and what it is doing. If it has already left and headed towards the island, their isn't much you can do short of attacking and disabling the fleet. I'm assuming you don't have this capability by the wording of the question.

You could try and slow them down by deploying submarines, mines, and attacks upon the fleet.

Submarine attacks, either torpedoes or missiles, probably won't do much to slow the enemy fleet. Some escorts may be detached to hunt down the submarines but the main bulk will continue on. When the subs do attack you want them to focus on the elements of the fleet that most concern you, in this case probably transports and amphibious assault ships.

Mines can be placed by aircraft, warship, or submarine. While this has a better capability to slow them down, as they have to deploy mine sweepers it is hard to pull of any meaningful mine fields on short notice. Especially if they don't have to navigate through channels or other obstructions because the ocean is big.

Attacks upon the fleet can take multiple forms. Unless you have a fleet to match the one headed at you, your surface fleet probably isn't going to be able to do much here though. You would be better off carrying out air attacks, trying to aim at the ships that will most help the invasion. Again transports or amphibious assault ships.

If the fleet hasn't launched yet the strategy's are basically the same but where they are aimed is different. Mine fields can be placed around enemy ports, both those the fleet may head from and where elements may leave to join the fleet. Submarines can attack the fleet in port, or elements as they go to join the fleet. Air attacks against the harbor, or the troops that will join in the amphibious, etc.

[Arkandros]

Largely a question regarding gun loading systems on ships: If one were to field a railgun, how would you incorporate loading mechanisms? I was thinking about using a twin gun design, and was thinking that because the railgun shells are so much lighter than similarly sized shells and their propellants, you could reduce the size of the loading mechanisms and use some of the gained space either for ammunition stowage or capacitors. Any thoughts?

[Korouse]

Largely a question regarding gun loading systems on ships: If one were to field a railgun, how would you incorporate loading mechanisms? I was thinking about using a twin gun design, and was thinking that because the railgun shells are so much lighter than similarly sized shells and their propellants, you could reduce the size of the loading mechanisms and use some of the gained space either for ammunition stowage or capacitors. Any thoughts?

Wouldn't two barrels use a lot of energy? And what's the upper edge of using two barrels?

legitimate questions, not critiques.

[The Akasha Colony]

Largely a question regarding gun loading systems on ships: If one were to field a railgun, how would you incorporate loading mechanisms? I was thinking about using a twin gun design, and was thinking that because the railgun shells are so much lighter than similarly sized shells and their propellants, you could reduce the size of the loading mechanisms and use some of the gained space either for ammunition stowage or capacitors. Any thoughts?

The space difference for the loading system itself would not be noteworthy. Not compared to the space the system and its ammunition stowage already takes up. You could fit more rounds by eliminating the need for separate propellant charges which would also normally be stored in the magazine, but the actual loading system will not be much smaller.

[EsToVnIa]

What would be the best way to keep a really freaking big navy away from an specific island long enough for me to reinforce said island enough to survive an amphibious attack? A shitload of submarines and maybe?

this isn't how argentina is going to get the falklands back

[The Akasha Colony]

What would be the best way to keep a really freaking big navy away from an specific island long enough for me to reinforce said island enough to survive an amphibious attack? A shitload of submarines and maybe?

How long do you need to keep it away?

Minefields are cheap, easy, and fairly quick to establish, while potentially taking a long time for the enemy to sweep.

That aside, the rest of the battle will probably already be over reasonably quickly; you either win or lose if the enemy decides to commit.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Is the D9 Caterpillar bulldozer heli-portable?

[Imperializt Russia]

It weighs fifty tonnes and it pretty huge, so no. I kind of doubt you'd be able to fit it on a cargo aircraft either. Heavy equipment like this and tanks are what you use shipping for.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

It weighs fifty tonnes and it pretty huge, so no. I kind of doubt you'd be able to fit it on a cargo aircraft either. Heavy equipment like this and tanks are what you use shipping for.

I see. What about the HMEE? From what I've read, the weight of that vehicle is around 11.9 tonnes, much lighter than the D9.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say it's possible, if you were to sling-load it beneath something maybe. The question is why. Guns and light tanks have a need to be airmobile - they are forward assets that can be moved around rapidly to respond or prepare responses. Engineer excavators are perfectly happy at a more sedate pace.

[Questers]

>discovers RMA
>doesnt believe in it
>galla.tif

I'm not convinced RMA exists irl tbh, or if it does it isn't a universal panacea or anything. It seems it was a strange attempt to blend the result of good training and improvements in technology as being almost solely the result of high technology systems and their relative effectiveness over older systems.

It seems "supported" by narrow techno-historical interpretations of wars, like the idea that the tank or airplane won WW1, or that the "Blitzkrieg" existed/won 1940, rather than it being essentially a well led armoured force outmaneuvering a likewise modern, mobile army which had misjudged the disposition of the former and was too slow/indecisive to react to the penetration when it was still within the window of opportunity.
I suppose we can also blame it on the lack of the Entente to fully grasp the importance of reserve formations and defense in depth during the WW1, but that's probably wrong.

Additionally, the cited examples typically used to point out "revolutions" are often, if not perhaps exclusively, the losers of these conflicts. Napoleon, Germany, etc. Where was the USSR's revolution in military affairs when it destroyed the German 6th Army, or defeated the Japanese in the Nomohan Incident; or Tuchachevsky's revolution in military affairs when he articulated the idea of the operational level of war?

It seems to be an attempt to present Desert Storm as some sort of "new normal" for war enabled by high technology, and that Future Wars will be similarly fast and easy if you just have enough advanced technologies.

I am not completely uninclined to disagree (a truly great sentence for you to break up there), but:

I view it in essentially this way. Throughout history, some things have sometimes fundamentally changed how wars are waged. These inventions were not military: they were civilian, and I mean the train, the combustion engine, and the aeroplane. The revolution in military affairs is just an extension of these only now we have a funny :staff college: name for it, and it is the development of, basically, computers, or more accurately, microchips.

Within war itself you do have revolutionary concepts which change everything -- in the realm of tactics and technology. Like you said, Tukhachevsky had revolutionary idea. And here you are wrong that these revolutionary ideas are usually from losers. There are a few that came from winners, some that you point out:
the dreadnought, invented by Britain in 1906
motor transport for infantry, first employed by Joffre in 1914
the tank, first employed by Britain in 1916 (and subsequently the French turreted tank)
the operational level, hypothesised by Tukhachevsky in 1930s
combined arms - the same, and practiced first by Zhukov in Nomonhan
radar, first employed in battle by Britain in 1940
the self-loading rifle, really first used in real scale by USA in WW2
the APC, first employed by Canada & Britain in 1944

and these between 1901-1944 only. there are other revolutionary inventions that have come from 'winning nations', like Britain's torpedo or America's machinegun.

some of these are more revolutionary and have wider impacts than others, but they all fundamentally changed something or other. These aren't really revolutionary though (''Blitzkrieg' especially not -- a simple rehash of ancient principles of warfare). I don't mean that they enabled one side to win more easily, I mean that they changed the nature of how war is fought. With one machinegun in a well situated position, a few men can hold up a whole battalion, for instance.

I agree on the narrow technological interpretation, though, so I wouldn't make too much of those examples. They did what I said they did -- they changed the way wars were fought (although really, they changed the way battles were fought, which is an entirely different thing).

So what is really revolutionary is when the nature of war itself is changed, rather than the nature of battles. The reason why the 'RMA' aka information age is 'revolutionary' is because of a step-change in ability that changes the nature of wars. like I said before, the train and combustion engine really changed so many things about war. The RMA changes things, too. Modern life without computers is unimaginable, and computers have changed so much of warfare, too. (I would say that RMA may even began with the first US fire control computers in WWII).

'RMA-advocates' aren't really claiming that NET CENTRIC WARFARE will make one country beat another, they are noting that there has been a step-change in the nature of warfare brought about by the computer. They are advocating that by investment, training and research, we stay on top of this trend. Opposing it is just like saying that the train changed nothing about warfare and we don't need to think about how trains or other forms of strategic transport change our ability to do things that we need to do to beat the other side.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

I'd say it's possible, if you were to sling-load it beneath something maybe. The question is why. Guns and light tanks have a need to be airmobile - they are forward assets that can be moved around rapidly to respond or prepare responses. Engineer excavators are perfectly happy at a more sedate pace.

Well yes, the reason lies in air-mobility. I'm still trying to thresh out my proposed airmobile division (The TOE of which I posted on this thread awhile back) and some of the feedback I received highlighted that my engineering vehicles (ARVs, combat dozers and etc.) were too heavy so I'm trying to see if I could find lighter vehicle models like the M105 instead.

The alternative to not fielding lighter engineering vehicles I feel, would be to have my CEVs airlifted by cargo aircraft or travel with the main body of my ground forces.

[Imperializt Russia]

Does a heavy engineering vehicle need to be airmobile in an airmobile division though?
This is a question that I am asking because I don't know either.

In an airmobile division, all of its combat elements must be airmobile. I feel this is a critical requirement of airmobility. If your teeth can't fly, what's the point. Engineering vehicles aren't part of the teeth. They can truck along to whatever needs doing.
I could be wrong, maybe there are needs I'm not seeing.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Does a heavy engineering vehicle need to be airmobile in an airmobile division though?
This is a question that I am asking because I don't know either.

In an airmobile division, all of its combat elements must be airmobile. I feel this is a critical requirement of airmobility. If your teeth can't fly, what's the point. Engineering vehicles aren't part of the teeth. They can truck along to whatever needs doing.
I could be wrong, maybe there are needs I'm not seeing.

Well, my combat elements are for the most part, airmobile (The SPz Puma, which serves as the primary supporting AFV for my air assault infantry, is transportable by the Airbus A400M while the ESK Mungo and Wiesel 1/2 are both heliportable). It's the divisional units like the motor maintenance and engineer battalions which have the heavier vehicles in my case.

Of course, I could just put the combat engineers on helicopters together with my air assault infantry but that would leave them without their CEVs. Ideally, I'd prefer to keep all elements of my airmobile division airmobile and thus, within close support of each other. But your guess is as good as mine, my understanding of airmobile units stems mainly from reading on US air cavalry during the Vietnam War.

[Questers]

did US air cav carry combat tractors? idts.

you don't need them. for what airmobile troops are doing, it's not a requirement.

fwiw, i think a whole airmobile division is overkill tbh.

[Laywenrania]

No 1st world professional military uses the T-90 or any variant of it.

Why?

[Imperializt Russia]

No 1st world professional military uses the T-90 or any variant of it.

Why?

Because the T-90 is a descendant of the T-72 which does not fulfil most reasonable interpretations of either "first world" or "professional military".
T-72 and T-90 are perfectly sufficient main battle tanks that, with appropriate equipment, are competitive contemporary tanks today.
T-14 reflects a change in design direction on Russia's part that better reflects "1st world professional military".

[Laywenrania]

Why?

Because the T-90 is a descendant of the T-72 which does not fulfil most reasonable interpretations of either "first world" or "professional military".
T-72 and T-90 are perfectly sufficient main battle tanks that, with appropriate equipment, are competitive contemporary tanks today.
T-14 reflects a change in design direction on Russia's part that better reflects "1st world professional military".

Which would be differences for/characteristics of a "1st world professional military" tank?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because the T-90 is a descendant of the T-72 which does not fulfil most reasonable interpretations of either "first world" or "professional military".
T-72 and T-90 are perfectly sufficient main battle tanks that, with appropriate equipment, are competitive contemporary tanks today.
T-14 reflects a change in design direction on Russia's part that better reflects "1st world professional military".

Which would be differences for a "1st world professional military" tank?

Emphasis on crew protection and digitisation. T-series before T-14 does not have this, T-14 does. Upgrade packages to older vehicles and elements of T-90 reflect the understanding of this.

[Questers]

because it has poor crew protection/survivability which 1st world professional armies love

not rly but yes also there are loads of other reasons:

1. they develop their own tankus
2. they buy leopards because leopards are mega cheap
3. they dont buy russian things because they're in NATO

those are the actual answers, the first answer is why no NS 1st world professional army should use it

[Laywenrania]

because it has poor crew protection/survivability which 1st world professional armies love

not rly but yes also there are loads of other reasons:

1. they develop their own tankus
2. they buy leopards because leopards are mega cheap
3. they dont buy russian things because they're in NATO

those are the actual answers, the first answer is why no NS 1st world professional army should use it

As in 1st world = everything capitalist/NATO, 2nd world every socialist warsaw treaty thingy and third world the rest?^^

[Imperializt Russia]

because it has poor crew protection/survivability which 1st world professional armies love

not rly but yes also there are loads of other reasons:

1. they develop their own tankus
2. they buy leopards because leopards are mega cheap
3. they dont buy russian things because they're in NATO

those are the actual answers, the first answer is why no NS 1st world professional army should use it

As in 1st world = everything capitalist/NATO, 2nd world every socialist warsaw treaty thingy and third world the rest?^^

That used to be the actual definition of first, second and third world.

It has since been butchered slightly to refer to economic standard.