NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[HMS Vanguard]

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

Sure, and in the Gulf very few Abrams fired all 42 rounds each day for several days on end, or sometimes even twice per day, while many aircraft did exactly the equivalent.

It doesn't much help that a tank costs 1/10 as much as an aircraft if you need 10x as many.

I don't think any country in the world has ten times as many tanks as they do jet aircraft, though. It's closer to 1:1. Canada, Germany, Britain, Australia, France, etc. all have comparable numbers of fighter jets in service to tanks anyway. Perhaps even the US Army and USAF are comparable.

That might be true of expeditionary powers, which are limited by logistics. The Russian army has 5x as many tanks as the Russian air force has aircraft in total.

[The Corparation]

Aren't most of those tanks only in technically in service and in actuality are rotting in the tank equivalent of a bone yard?

[Laritaia]

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

Sure, and in the Gulf very few Abrams fired all 42 rounds each day for several days on end, or sometimes even twice per day, while many aircraft did exactly the equivalent.

kinda my point.

now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.
So best case you will be able to kill 4 things super dead before having to leave

yes you can come back again in a few hours(i forget what the average turn around time is but tbh it's not overly important) with another 4 bombs and render another 4 things super dead.

but the tanks have been there since the begining, all day. tanks have staying power that aircraft can only dream of. if they have to stay and fight to the last round for some reason they can, aircraft have their four(average) bombs then they're done.

This is getting away from the point slightly, tanks have more combat capability per dollar spent then planes. This is not to say that planes are worthless, they can do things tanks cannot. But airpower is by it's very nature insubstantial, more often then not it's very flashy and looks impressive but then it's gone.

[HMS Vanguard]

Sure, and in the Gulf very few Abrams fired all 42 rounds each day for several days on end, or sometimes even twice per day, while many aircraft did exactly the equivalent.

kinda my point.

now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.
So best case you will be able to kill 4 things super dead before having to leave

yes you can come back again in a few hours(i forget what the average turn around time is but tbh it's not overly important) with another 4 bombs and render another 4 things super dead.

but the tanks have been there since the begining, all day. tanks have staying power that aircraft can only dream of. if they have to stay and fight to the last round for some reason they can, aircraft have their four(average) bombs then they're done.

I agree tanks have superior staying power, but you said they had superior firepower. By the most obvious metric (weight of munitions carriageable) one aircraft of the most common types not optimised for bombing has the same firepower as about twenty tanks.

This is getting away from the point slightly, tanks have more combat capability per dollar spent then planes. This is not to say that planes are worthless, they can do things tanks cannot. But airpower is by it's very nature insubstantial, more often then not it's very flashy and looks impressive but then it's gone.

That's a situational judgement. If you need staying power rather than firepower, or range, or speed, or reaction time, then tanks may well be better. If you need one of air power's strengths instead, the opposite can be true. So what? That's true of any weapon system when compared to any other.

[Laritaia]

weight of munition does not equal firepower.

[Auroya]

I remember a good forum post about about why the F-35 is a good aircraft linked somewhere around here a while ago; does anybody have that link?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Just as a generalization what are your opinions on the Stingray Light Tank and the XM2001 crusader?

One works and is in service.
One didn't work and is not in service.

One is cheaper than the other.

[Allanea]

now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.
So best case you will be able to kill 4 things super dead before having to leave

Yes, but the same aircraft can carry cluster munitions, or some manner of Brimstone missile equivalent.

[Laritaia]

now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.
So best case you will be able to kill 4 things super dead before having to leave

Yes, but the same aircraft can carry cluster munitions, or some manner of Brimstone missile equivalent.

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

[The Kievan People]

AFAIK 2000lb bombs are much loved.

It is often forgotten that small missiles like the Brimstone and DPICMs are relatively ineffective against targets dug-in or in buildings with overhead cover. A laser or GPS guided 2000lb bomb is effective against basically every target except the toughest bunkers. The moral and physical effects of shock from large explosives should not be underestimated either.

[Nachmere]

I just want to say, they dropped a 2000lbs bomb 900 meters away from me once. and I can see why they are loved. I thought WWIII started.

[The Kievan People]

Just as a generalization what are your opinions on the Stingray Light Tank and the XM2001 crusader?

Stingray is... alright.

It's a small vehicle densely packed with unprotected ammunition in the crew compartment and covered by very little armor. It wouldn't be very survivable in the face of RPGs and ATGMs. But I wouldn't say its significantly better or worse than other similar vehicles.

Crusader seemed like a very high performance vehicle.

[Prosorusiya]

1. Does my current ground forces fact book make sense, visa vi cost savings for a small country that still wants to be ready for most eventualities?
Link:http://www.nationstates.net/nation=prosorusiya/detail=factbook/id=510479


2. As a small ex-soivet country, is maintaining the separation between Frontal Aviation and Air Defense command worth it? I am thinking Air Defense (IVPO) would mainly guard my country with interceptors, and be defensive in nature, while frontal aviation would consist of all bombers, and practice counter air tactics and interdiction. It might also subsume army aviation as well. Thoughts?

3. Considering a D-20 replacement with an SPG. Would this be a good idea, and if so what Soviet\Russian spg would you recommend to replace it.

[Gallia-]

Just as a generalization what are your opinions on the Stingray Light Tank and the XM2001 crusader?

Worse than M8.

God's Gift to the United States Army Artillery Branch.

[HMS Vanguard]

now 1000lb bombs are massive overkill against most things in this age of PGMs.
So best case you will be able to kill 4 things super dead before having to leave

Yes, but the same aircraft can carry cluster munitions, or some manner of Brimstone missile equivalent.

It's not the most powerful situational rebuttal. The most powerful situational rebuttal is that the aircraft is likely to destroy four targets with those four bombs with each sortie (or for F35 using SBD, eight targets with just internal stores, plus potentially another 24 with external stores, but giving benefit of the doubt), because of its vastly superior area of coverage and situational awareness, while a tank can easily go through a whole campaign without even expending all its ammunition.

Now I find situational rebuttals largely uninteresting, because the real situational answer is, "They're different, and it depends on the situation.", which is why I didn't make one. A general statement that tanks have superior firepower to planes, which is what he made, is untrue. Planes have other disadvantages, for sure, but vastly superior firepower.

[Lamoni]

In my nation's history, a war between a mixed Russian-Aleut population in the Far West of Russian Alaska broke out in the 1780s when the trapping companies continued to make several attacks on their property. By the time the war broke out, the people who had "gone native" had established a modestly-sized community and garnered the support of many of the local tribes. What kind of odds would they face, and how could they win? Would Imperial Russia send in proper military forces to push down the revolution? Any help on the matter would be great.

Since no one else has tried to answer your questions yet, i'll try to provide an answer.

How big of a population are we talking about in the Russian-Aleut/tribal group? How many effective fighters would they have? How are they armed and equipped? I would imagine that they live off the land, though that would be very tough in those parts in winter.

The odds that they would face would depend on just what was thrown at them, in terms of enemy manpower and tactics. It would be hard to determine without knowing the numbers on both sides, as well as more information on the situation in general. Your base strategy is likely going to be guerrilla warfare, especially if you want your people to get firearms and ammo for said firearms.

Why would the trapping companies be attacking these people? Who fired the first shots, and why? Do the trapping companies have some sort of legal mandate to rule the area? If not, then it is far less likely that Russia would send in combat troops, except maybe as peacekeepers. The key thing for all parties involved in this situation would be logistics, and it all ultimately comes from European Russia (unless one or more parties make deals with foreign powers).

[Prosorusiya]

Would it be possible to pack 2 An-2 or Mi-8 disassembled into the hold of a An-12? I am looking to forward base them for humanitarian missions, and want to know the feasibility of doing so. Also, for said kind of mission, would you send the An-2 or the Mi-8s?

[Crookfur]

Would it be possible to pack 2 An-2 or Mi-8 disassembled into the hold of a An-12? I am looking to forward base them for humanitarian missions, and want to know the feasibility of doing so. Also, for said kind of mission, would you send the An-2 or the Mi-8s?

IIRc for aid missions in udner developed regions helicopters are generally the number 1 in demand bit of kit as they cna reach just about anywhere. The likes of AN-2s would be more useful for wider area stuff/operations in larger countries where dirt strips are plentiful and resupply by light aircraft is already the norm.

edit: looking at the An-12 cargo dimensions here: http://www.brinkley.cc/AC/an12.htm I can't see anyway of getting even a stripped down Mi-8 in there, the same with the AN-2.

[Prosorusiya]

Yeah, I had a look myself and quickly realized that was the case. I guess I'll charter a Il-76 or C-17 or something from the UN and deploy some Mi-8 helicopters then. Idk how many they will carry, but they should be able to do at least two. I might send the An-12 and An-26 as well, so that at least most of my transport squadron is deployed. I'll likely use some of my civil An-26 freighters as well, to send cargo to the base, then use my Mi-8's to distribute supplies in country.

[Post War America]

So I have a question for those experienced in the world of tanks/armored fighting vehicles.

Which parts of a tank, or armored fighting vehicle tend to break down, wear out, and need replacement quickly?

[Allanea]

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

[New Vihenia]

AFAIK 2000lb bombs are much loved.

It is often forgotten that small missiles like the Brimstone and DPICMs are relatively ineffective against targets dug-in or in buildings with overhead cover. A laser or GPS guided 2000lb bomb is effective against basically every target except the toughest bunkers. The moral and physical effects of shock from large explosives should not be underestimated either.

hmm reminds me of General Purpose HE somewhat

[Neo Philippine Empire]

I have a question, what are the advantages of having a Naval-Aerial based military?

[Nachmere]

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

This.

[Imperializt Russia]

I have a question, what are the advantages of having a Naval-Aerial based military?

What do you mean by that? A military that focuses on its air force and naval forces, while having a relatively small land force?

The major reason one would have a military set up in that manner would be a nation in an island chain that doesn't get along with its neighbours, which is a very niche position, or just wants to posture, which is a slightly less niche position.