NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Jagalonia]

Would it be feasible to have these specifications in a capital ship (Large battleship based on the Yamato-Class)


Displacement: 65,000 tons, 70,000 tons (full)

Length: 256 metres (waterline), 263 metres (overall)

Beam: 38.9 metres

Draft: 11 metres

Installed power: BB1M 260,000 shaft horsepower (190,000 kW)

Propulsion: 2 Nuclear Power plants driving Four 3-bladed propellers.

Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)

Range: unlimited

Crew: 2,800

Armament:
Main: 9 × 460 mm cannons housed in three-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Nuclear)(All shells are rocket assisted)
Secondary: 6 × 155 mm cannons housed in two-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Anti-Torpedo)(AP and HE are rocket assisted)
CIWS systems: 6 x Goalkeeper Close In Weapons System. (7x30mm GAU-8 Gatling)
Other: 2 x THAAD anti-ballistic missile system, 4 x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, 6 x Type 1 610mm Torpedo Tubes (based on Type 93 Torpedos of WW2), 4 x Type 1 Armoured Box Launcher (Based on Mk 143 ABL for Tomahawks)

Armour:
650 mm on face of main turrets
410 mm side armour
200 mm central (75%) armoured deck
225 mm outer (25%) armoured deck

Are you suggesting that this ship carries 5000 tonnes of ammunition?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Too much or too little? Don't forget, that includes water and food for several months, plus a few thousand seamen.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Too much or too little? Don't forget, that includes water and food for several months, plus a few thousand seamen.

Ha. He typed seamen.

[Jagalonia]

Too much or too little? Don't forget, that includes water and food for several months, plus a few thousand seamen.

I wouldn't include the weight of your troops in the full load.
They could all be 150 pound midgets, or 300 pound fatasses. lol.

The number seems a bit much. You could just have it as a maximum "Combat load", but I wouldn't say "THIS IS WHAT IT WEIGHS!!!"

[Jagalonia]

Too much or too little? Don't forget, that includes water and food for several months, plus a few thousand seamen.

Ha. He typed seamen.

.....Children....>.>
lol....he did type it....

[The Reliquary]

Would it be feasible to have these specifications in a capital ship (Large battleship based on the Yamato-Class)


Displacement: 65,000 tons, 70,000 tons (full)

Length: 256 metres (waterline), 263 metres (overall)

Beam: 38.9 metres

Draft: 11 metres

Installed power: BB1M 260,000 shaft horsepower (190,000 kW)

Propulsion: 2 Nuclear Power plants driving Four 3-bladed propellers.

Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)

Range: unlimited

Crew: 2,800

Armament:
Main: 9 × 460 mm cannons housed in three-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Nuclear)(All shells are rocket assisted)
Secondary: 6 × 155 mm cannons housed in two-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Anti-Torpedo)(AP and HE are rocket assisted)
CIWS systems: 6 x Goalkeeper Close In Weapons System. (7x30mm GAU-8 Gatling)
Other: 2 x THAAD anti-ballistic missile system, 4 x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, 6 x Type 1 610mm Torpedo Tubes (based on Type 93 Torpedos of WW2), 4 x Type 1 Armoured Box Launcher (Based on Mk 143 ABL for Tomahawks)

Armour:
650 mm on face of main turrets
410 mm side armour
200 mm central (75%) armoured deck
225 mm outer (25%) armoured deck

Are you suggesting that this ship carries 5000 tonnes of ammunition?

Fuel is heavy.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Not for a reactor.

[Hittanryan]

Got another question. I'm looking for a service rifle for my MT army, but I'm not sure what to look for and I don't want to just copy-and-paste the US military. My nation fights frequent wars with its neighbors, one of whom uses huge numbers of poorly-trained conscripts, the other uses more typical modern professional soldiers (modern rifles, body armor, etc.). I've never fired a gun before, and I claim no knowledge of firearms.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

If you're having to deal with body-armoured foes, you'll want to use battle rifle cartridges, like the 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition, or the Russian 7.62x54mmR as examples. Against unarmoured/underequipped enemies, ammunition like 5.56mm NATO would suffice, just remember that its combat range is limited compared to the much more powerful battle rifle cartridges.

You will also want to consider bullpup vs traditional (M16 being traditional, SA80 L85 being bullpup). Bullpups allow for a longer barrel length in the same size rifle, increasing ranged accuracy, or for the same barrel in a much shorter rifle, improving handling in close quarters. They're also more balanced to hold, as there isn't the entirety of the weapon held in both your hands, much of the weight is cradled directly in your shoulder.
However, they aren't as effective for use with bayonets due to a shorter reach (though can obviously still be used), and traditional rifles are typically simpler to reload.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Not for a reactor.

There is still food and crew and clothes and other consumables.

[Crookfur]

Got another question. I'm looking for a service rifle for my MT army, but I'm not sure what to look for and I don't want to just copy-and-paste the US military. My nation fights frequent wars with its neighbors, one of whom uses huge numbers of poorly-trained conscripts, the other uses more typical modern professional soldiers (modern rifles, body armor, etc.). I've never fired a gun before, and I claim no knowledge of firearms.

Just use a RIS equipped AR-18, it gives you the balance of size and weight, all the fightability you coudlw ant whsilt beign cheap and simple to maintain. if you want more bang, use the AR-16(the 7.62mm NATO version), if you want fancy furniture use the G-36 (its the AR-18 with cloths by kraftwerk) or if you wan it bullpup there is the SA80 and the tavor. if you want it super ultra modern with every tacticool fucntion you coudl want, chambered in any obscure or custom cartridge you desire and illustrated witha distinctly unique manner Crookfur Arms (i.e. me) can help

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Not for a reactor.

There is still food and crew and clothes and other consumables.

I mentioned those earlier. I was referring specifically to the fuel point in that post.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Got another question. I'm looking for a service rifle for my MT army, but I'm not sure what to look for and I don't want to just copy-and-paste the US military. My nation fights frequent wars with its neighbors, one of whom uses huge numbers of poorly-trained conscripts, the other uses more typical modern professional soldiers (modern rifles, body armor, etc.). I've never fired a gun before, and I claim no knowledge of firearms.

Just use a RIS equipped AR-18, it gives you the balance of size and weight, all the fightability you coudlw ant whsilt beign cheap and simple to maintain. if you want more bang, use the AR-16(the 7.62mm NATO version), if you want fancy furniture use the G-36 (its the AR-18 with cloths by kraftwerk) or if you wan it bullpup there is the SA80 and the tavor. if you want it super ultra modern with every tacticool fucntion you coudl want, chambered in any obscure or custom cartridge you desire and illustrated witha distinctly unique manner Crookfur Arms (i.e. me) can help

Oh, Crooky, you so shameless.

[Crookfur]

Cool…I guess the answer is no-no in MT. From what I see, artillery and mortars are better than bayonet charges.

Artillery and mortars + bayonet charges = win for you.

Unless the enemy wins.

To further the "bayonets are still useful in a modern battle" point, they were used extensively in the falklands, particularly in the battle for Port Stanley where both sides hadplentiful artillery mortars and machien guns. Sometimes you have to take a strongly held enemy position and that requires infantry to get into stabbing and grenading range so why hobble them by preventing them sticking thier incredibly useful utility knives onto thier rifles for that extra bit of advantage and callign them bayonets.

[Crookfur]

Or choose a smaller weapon. Katanas are bloody huge.

Use a Gunblade. dwi.

Also, Katanas can cut through Chobham?

Not likely. if you don't belive me its a simpel enough thing to test: buy a decenly thick bit of steel from your local junk/breakers yard, ideally a 0.5-1" think plate of stainless or hardened steel but an old school engine block or other simialr lump will do. Now try strikign it with katana and watch as your balde gets fecked and you put some not terribly impressive sratches in the metal that represents the outermost layer of a chobham style armour scheme.

[Crookfur]

Just use a RIS equipped AR-18, it gives you the balance of size and weight, all the fightability you coudlw ant whsilt beign cheap and simple to maintain. if you want more bang, use the AR-16(the 7.62mm NATO version), if you want fancy furniture use the G-36 (its the AR-18 with cloths by kraftwerk) or if you wan it bullpup there is the SA80 and the tavor. if you want it super ultra modern with every tacticool fucntion you coudl want, chambered in any obscure or custom cartridge you desire and illustrated witha distinctly unique manner Crookfur Arms (i.e. me) can help

Oh, Crooky, you so shameless.

Someone has to be

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I would be, if I weren't lolprocrastinating over my new storefront.

On invisionfree boards, is there a way so that the 'thread date cutoff' defaultA t 'the beginning' for everyone?

[Hittanryan]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of any rifle the US uses, good thing I didn't do the copy-and-paste thing. Any reason for that? Also, something I just found out, remember that one nation I mentioned I RP with who uses conscripts? He says some generals issue body armor to more experienced, veteran units, the ones most likely to engage us in direct combat. The green recruits, the ones with no armor whatsoever, are likely to break and run at the first sign of a stand-up fight.

So my infantry will probably be fighting mostly armored soldiers at longer ranges. Does that mean 7.62mm is the way to go? If so, then I'm having a hell of a time finding a modern rifle that uses 7.62mm. All of NATO is on 5.56mm, which seems to make sense because they're mostly focused on unarmored insurgents, guerrillas, militias, terrorists, etc. Thoughts from any gun nuts in the thread?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of any rifle the US uses, good thing I didn't do the copy-and-paste thing. Any reason for that? Also, something I just found out, remember that one nation I mentioned I RP with who uses conscripts? He says some generals issue body armor to more experienced, veteran units, the ones most likely to engage us in direct combat. The green recruits, the ones with no armor whatsoever, are likely to break and run at the first sign of a stand-up fight.

So my infantry will probably be fighting mostly armored soldiers at longer ranges. Does that mean 7.62mm is the way to go? If so, then I'm having a hell of a time finding a modern rifle that uses 7.62mm. All of NATO is on 5.56mm, which seems to make sense because they're mostly focused on unarmored insurgents, guerrillas, militias, terrorists, etc. Thoughts from any gun nuts in the thread?

Kel Tec RFB?

[Crookfur]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of any rifle the US uses, good thing I didn't do the copy-and-paste thing. Any reason for that? Also, something I just found out, remember that one nation I mentioned I RP with who uses conscripts? He says some generals issue body armor to more experienced, veteran units, the ones most likely to engage us in direct combat. The green recruits, the ones with no armor whatsoever, are likely to break and run at the first sign of a stand-up fight.

So my infantry will probably be fighting mostly armored soldiers at longer ranges. Does that mean 7.62mm is the way to go? If so, then I'm having a hell of a time finding a modern rifle that uses 7.62mm. All of NATO is on 5.56mm, which seems to make sense because they're mostly focused on unarmored insurgents, guerrillas, militias, terrorists, etc. Thoughts from any gun nuts in the thread?

The curent state of the firearms inventories of NATO nations and the calibres they use is the result a very long, convulted and rage inducing story.

There is nothing wrong with the M16 or its derivatives (which include the AR-18) it just that most of us prefer something different. Most honest gun lovers would, if pushed, concur and point out some of the M16s outstanding features (in terms of ergonomics is has pretty much everything else beat).

NATO usage of 5.56mm has nothing to do with fighting insurgents. The actual NATO standard for 5.56mm round, the SS109/M855 round, is pretty decent against armour and was selected because it would prenetrate projected soviet body armour at useful ranges. Its just that the round is simply too handy and has such a MASSIVE logistical momentum behind it that to repalce it will take a round that does a truely astoundingly better job and so far nobody has gotten clsoe to such a round. 7.62mm NATO is still around its just used by heavier support weapons.

Any modern firearm intended for the US market will in all lieklyhood have a 7.62mm version with both the current uber cool platforms having such versions i.e. the HK417 and SCAR-H.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of any rifle the US uses, good thing I didn't do the copy-and-paste thing. Any reason for that? Also, something I just found out, remember that one nation I mentioned I RP with who uses conscripts? He says some generals issue body armor to more experienced, veteran units, the ones most likely to engage us in direct combat. The green recruits, the ones with no armor whatsoever, are likely to break and run at the first sign of a stand-up fight.

So my infantry will probably be fighting mostly armored soldiers at longer ranges. Does that mean 7.62mm is the way to go? If so, then I'm having a hell of a time finding a modern rifle that uses 7.62mm. All of NATO is on 5.56mm, which seems to make sense because they're mostly focused on unarmored insurgents, guerrillas, militias, terrorists, etc. Thoughts from any gun nuts in the thread?

FN FAL, SCAR-H, HK417.
Or, the Samozniy Arms Assault Rifle Type 1 "Doberman" battle rifle.
Shameless self-promotion contained within.
In this album are the various modifications available to the AR-1 platform, not including its 9mm SMG conversion.

I actually genuinely can't think of any modern, automatic 7.62 NATO rifles. Kel-Tec is good, but is semi-automatic only.

[Hittanryan]

Well, based on feedback here and a bit of Wikipedia browsing, looks like my army's service rifle will be the HK417. Any last feedback? Thoughts on this gun vs. others?

[Kazomal]

I'm noticing a distinct lack of any rifle the US uses, good thing I didn't do the copy-and-paste thing. Any reason for that? Also, something I just found out, remember that one nation I mentioned I RP with who uses conscripts? He says some generals issue body armor to more experienced, veteran units, the ones most likely to engage us in direct combat. The green recruits, the ones with no armor whatsoever, are likely to break and run at the first sign of a stand-up fight.

So my infantry will probably be fighting mostly armored soldiers at longer ranges. Does that mean 7.62mm is the way to go? If so, then I'm having a hell of a time finding a modern rifle that uses 7.62mm. All of NATO is on 5.56mm, which seems to make sense because they're mostly focused on unarmored insurgents, guerrillas, militias, terrorists, etc. Thoughts from any gun nuts in the thread?

FN FAL, SCAR-H, HK417.

Right on.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The bayonet is not only useful for bayonet charges. Had that been the only use of a bayonet it'd be of limited use indeed.

A modern bayonet is effectively a military survival knife that happens to attach to a rifle. A soldier has a dozen uses for a knife. Opening tin cans with food? KNIFE. Cutting barbed wire obstacles? KNIFE. Slashing the throat of an enemy? KNIFE. Cut off some 550 cord? KNIFE.

In any situation where you may run the risk of fighting in close combat – and every single military in the world trains its troops for that possibility – having a sharp blade at the tip of your gun is very useful. So instead of issuing a long blade that's basically only useful as a bayonet, issue a knife that's useful for all of the stuff knives are good for, and also attaches to your rifle.

Doesn't that typically mean you end up with a blade shorter than a specialised bayonet?

Allanea seems to be misunderstanding the definition of 'bayonet'. The term is not mutually exclusive with 'knife'. Sword bayonets have existed for a long time. Knife bayonets are a more recent phenomenon, but still in keeping with the traditional idea of 'put a bladed item on the end of your gun'.

Interestingly, sword bayonets were actually first popularized in the 18th century (although they only really reached their height in the 19th and 20th) for use by light infantry who were expected to operate either in wide open formation or in small groups where a traditional bayonet was less useful. Employing a sword bayonet (sometimes an actual shortened saber) gave them flexibility. Issuing every man with a sword bayonet in place of a regular bayonet would have been rather expensive, of course.

Although I know the Russians actually issued every soldier with a smallsword for some time up until after the Napoleonic Wars. But those tended to be rather cheap weapons, basically elongated bayonets made of bad steel.

[Krilo]

Well, based on feedback here and a bit of Wikipedia browsing, looks like my army's service rifle will be the HK417. Any last feedback? Thoughts on this gun vs. others?

As long as your using HK. You could also give the G36C a look. Its my favorite gun for multiple reasons.