NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The UK in Exile]

what would be a logical kit for a specialized Naval Infantryman with specializations in boarding actions.

a cutlass, grappling hook and an eyepatch.


Yaarrr!

[The Akasha Colony]

what would be a logical kit for a specialized Naval Infantryman with specializations in boarding actions.

a cutlass, grappling hook and an eyepatch.


Yaarrr!

You forgot your blunderbuss!

[Krumbia]

a cutlass, grappling hook and an eyepatch.


Yaarrr!

You forgot your blunderbuss!

And the parrot.

[Ragnarum]

Would an assault rifle work with a level action loading mechanism? Also, could you fit a rather large drum magazine on a bull-pup rifle?

[Yes Im Biop]

Would an assault rifle work with a level action loading mechanism? Also, could you fit a rather large drum magazine on a bull-pup rifle?

I dont see why not. As for the drum. You mean like the round Mags and not Box's right? That should work quite well up to about 100 rounds, perhaps more depending on size

[Crookfur]

Would an assault rifle work with a level action loading mechanism? Also, could you fit a rather large drum magazine on a bull-pup rifle?

main issue with large capacity magazines, particularly drums, on bullpups is that they tend to make holding the rifle in against the shoulder uncomfortable and possibly impossible.
The obvious solution is an off set snail magazine designed to sit against the user's body and not interfer with thier arm as so:



its not ideal but it works.

As for lever action a resonable definition of an assault rifle is to quote Tony William:

A standard military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres

it's the automatic fire (or select fire) capability that really scrupers the possibility of a lever action assault rifle. Of couese modernised tactical lever actions do exist, mossberg will even sell you a special zombie hunting one:

[Crookfur]

what would be a logical kit for a specialized Naval Infantryman with specializations in boarding actions.

I'm sure if you work through these photos of Royal AMrine teams you'll work out what might be needed:
http://www.eliteukforces.info/gallery/f ... ion-group/

i.e. long arm, side arm, life vest, tacticool helmet, torch and flexi cuffs.

[The Kievan People]

Someone mentioned a few pages back that there were a lot of things in modern militaries which don't make immediate sense any more and are generally just hangovers from historical organisation. If an army was being designed from the ground up, a lot of the organisation would be different.

I'm wondering if one of those things would be the difference between officers and enlisted. Historically, this emerged as part of the class structure existing during such times, where the wealthy bought themselves commissions and the poor just made up the rank and file. If an army were being designed today, how likely would it be that the gulf between the two would be much closer, with promotion from enlisted to officer occurring more often? I ask because it seems like there's so much overlap between the duties of a senior enlisted (e.g. Warrant Officers) and junior commissioned (e.g. Lieutenants) that the roles could probably be merged?

You see such a layout in a lot of Sci-Fi. In Starship Troopers (the book; not the film blasphemy) everyone starts out as enlisted and commissions only come after proving strategic ability in the battlefield. I was thinking about taking the same approach; eliminating many senior enlisted ranks and just having sufficiently capable soldiers packed off to Officer Training Academy. This would have the advantage that more junior officers would have combat experience, although it would also be possible to go straight to Officer Training after completing basic if the individual was considered sufficiently qualified.

Thoughts?

How would this work in a conscripted army though? Four years to General?

In all seriousness though if your enlisted are conscripts and your officers are professionals it's a perfectly rational distinction.

[Ularn]

Someone mentioned a few pages back that there were a lot of things in modern militaries which don't make immediate sense any more and are generally just hangovers from historical organisation. If an army was being designed from the ground up, a lot of the organisation would be different.

I'm wondering if one of those things would be the difference between officers and enlisted. Historically, this emerged as part of the class structure existing during such times, where the wealthy bought themselves commissions and the poor just made up the rank and file. If an army were being designed today, how likely would it be that the gulf between the two would be much closer, with promotion from enlisted to officer occurring more often? I ask because it seems like there's so much overlap between the duties of a senior enlisted (e.g. Warrant Officers) and junior commissioned (e.g. Lieutenants) that the roles could probably be merged?

You see such a layout in a lot of Sci-Fi. In Starship Troopers (the book; not the film blasphemy) everyone starts out as enlisted and commissions only come after proving strategic ability in the battlefield. I was thinking about taking the same approach; eliminating many senior enlisted ranks and just having sufficiently capable soldiers packed off to Officer Training Academy. This would have the advantage that more junior officers would have combat experience, although it would also be possible to go straight to Officer Training after completing basic if the individual was considered sufficiently qualified.

Thoughts?

How would this work in a conscripted army though? Four years to General?

In all seriousness though if your enlisted are conscripts and your officers are professionals it's a perfectly rational distinction.

And in any of the other, far more common methods of recruitment?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Would an assault rifle work with a level action loading mechanism? Also, could you fit a rather large drum magazine on a bull-pup rifle?

main issue with large capacity magazines, particularly drums, on bullpups is that they tend to make holding the rifle in against the shoulder uncomfortable and possibly impossible.
The obvious solution is an off set snail magazine designed to sit against the user's body and not interfer with thier arm as so:



its not ideal but it works.

As for lever action a resonable definition of an assault rifle is to quote Tony William:

A standard military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres

it's the automatic fire (or select fire) capability that really scrupers the possibility of a lever action assault rifle. Of couese modernised tactical lever actions do exist, mossberg will even sell you a special zombie hunting one:

Tacticool lever action. Because you're too cool for wood furniture.

[The Akasha Colony]

How would this work in a conscripted army though? Four years to General?

In all seriousness though if your enlisted are conscripts and your officers are professionals it's a perfectly rational distinction.

And in any of the other, far more common methods of recruitment?

In those, people pick either through choice or by their aptitude whether to go into the officer or enlisted trees. Both are full careers, with different specialties and full rank structures. They needn't be segregated by tradition so much as they are now, but there's a good reason why the tiers are separate.

[Registug]

I said this a couple pages ago, didn't get an answer...

Hiyah, me again. I'm asking a question in regard to my anarchist-terrorist puppet (because switching on an iPod is silly), how well would a home-made thermite bomb do in a terrorist attack operating during a riot? Thermite bomb as an anti-vehicle weapons, say against police cars or police APCs and the like. Home-made like home-made thermite in a closed cylinder with a magnesium sparkler sticking out of the top.

Would it be better using the ol' anarchist petrol bomb?

[The Kievan People]

How would this work in a conscripted army though? Four years to General?

In all seriousness though if your enlisted are conscripts and your officers are professionals it's a perfectly rational distinction.

And in any of the other, far more common methods of recruitment?

I don't understand the question?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Laws of physics dictate that an object containing 1000kgm/s will have a profound effect on any other objects it crashes into. When you shoot a horse, it isn't going to just drop and lie still instantaneously obviously nor will any other but a few horses be impeded by a dead one on the ground.

IF the infantry were more numerous in number, you would have a point but they aren't for this situation so you don't. There simply aren't enough soldiers to constantly fill gaps and reform posistions to prevent from being seperated and overwhelmed by the cavalry.

What the dead horse will do is fall and tumble, likely right as it is shot. This dead horse will then block other horses who will attempt to leap it, or move around it.

Unless they are shot in the heart or in the brain, they aren't going to fall over instantaneously. This is no different to hunting big game. Shoot a buck in the heart, it drops dead. Shoot it anywhere else, it bolts for 100 yards and drops dead.

This breaks up the formation, reducing its power and slowing it down, also the horses that leap might break their legs when they land at which point they just add to the pile up.

Bro... they're horses. They're built to jump stuff.

Remember the infantry have rifles, getting off a couple of shots as the calvary charge. Plus rifle range extends to, and beyond, calvary charge distance (300 yards) meaning as the cavalry form up they will be under at least harassing fire.

This is irrelevant, it is near impossible to hit anything beyond 70 metres away. Iron sites, no bipods or other support, sustaining a ridiculous rate of fire of 12 rounds perr minute. It would be a complete waste of ammunition.

An injured/crazy/whatever horse will attempt to flee away from the infantry formation because of the sound of firing, which again will brake up the calvary formation.

Here is where you are going to have to go back to history. Horses have been used to charge and trample infantry formations for a very long time in the past. The problems you are describing (Horses don't like charging heavily armed infantry, horses don't like noise) do not apply like you might think. Horses have few problems running into infantry formations because brainless animals don't comprehend the damage that a sharp pointy thing will do. The sound of firing will not spook a properly trained horse.

[Xyborgs]

Have you ever shot a rifle or rode the horse.

[The UK in Exile]

Have you ever shot a rifle or rode the horse.

or both at once.

[Spirit of Hope]

Have you ever shot a rifle or rode the horse.

or both at once.

or even been around a horse? I have, I have helped take care of horses. They are some of the stupidest animals in the world, also in many ways one of the worlds most fragile animals. Horses get spooked by almost anything, do you know why horses that pull carriages had blinders? So they don' see anything and thus don't get spooked.

-snip-

A heavily injured horse will likely collapse, this includes a horse that gets shot baldly but non fatally. Second even if it is injured lightly that horse will spook, which means it ill try and run away from the noise and smoke (aka the infantry formation) which destroys your tight calvary charge, make it much less efficient.

Horses are not meant to jump stuff, they survive by running really fast over short distances then slowing down o slower than a walk. While they can jump, just because you can do something doesn't mean its a good idea. Horse jumping competitions take place on carefully taken care of fields to make sure nothing bad happens. Horses can break their legs galloping over a empty field, its not common but it does happen.

Doesn't matter that the infantry formations can't fire accurately at that range (though they can to an extent) harassing fire, as soon as the calvary start to consolidate the infantry begin harassing fire.

While horses have been trained to charge infantry formations, this training takes years beginning at the horses birth, and makes that horse so much more expensive. Even with this training horses have to be handled well or they will spook and run, meaning the rider has to have training, preferably with the horse he will be riding so he understands it. This means more training more expense, and the horse will still be unlikely to throw its self on spikes, pikes, spears, or anything sharp. Historically horses would shy away from a pike formation, trying not to throw themselves on it.

[San-Silvacian]

I said this a couple pages ago, didn't get an answer...

Hiyah, me again. I'm asking a question in regard to my anarchist-terrorist puppet (because switching on an iPod is silly), how well would a home-made thermite bomb do in a terrorist attack operating during a riot? Thermite bomb as an anti-vehicle weapons, say against police cars or police APCs and the like. Home-made like home-made thermite in a closed cylinder with a magnesium sparkler sticking out of the top.

Would it be better using the ol' anarchist petrol bomb?

It would certainly do more, however it would attract MUCH more attention and their cause might be halted by military intervention.

[Yes Im Biop]

I said this a couple pages ago, didn't get an answer...

It would certainly do more, however it would attract MUCH more attention and their cause might be halted by military intervention.

Duct tape 20oz Bottle of Napalm around it just for the hell of it whale your at it

[Yes Im Biop]

or both at once.

or even been around a horse? I have, I have helped take care of horses. They are some of the stupidest animals in the world, also in many ways one of the worlds most fragile animals. Horses get spooked by almost anything, do you know why horses that pull carriages had blinders? So they don' see anything and thus don't get spooked.

-snip-

A heavily injured horse will likely collapse, this includes a horse that gets shot baldly but non fatally. Second even if it is injured lightly that horse will spook, which means it ill try and run away from the noise and smoke (aka the infantry formation) which destroys your tight calvary charge, make it much less efficient.

Horses are not meant to jump stuff, they survive by running really fast over short distances then slowing down o slower than a walk. While they can jump, just because you can do something doesn't mean its a good idea. Horse jumping competitions take place on carefully taken care of fields to make sure nothing bad happens. Horses can break their legs galloping over a empty field, its not common but it does happen.

Doesn't matter that the infantry formations can't fire accurately at that range (though they can to an extent) harassing fire, as soon as the calvary start to consolidate the infantry begin harassing fire.

While horses have been trained to charge infantry formations, this training takes years beginning at the horses birth, and makes that horse so much more expensive. Even with this training horses have to be handled well or they will spook and run, meaning the rider has to have training, preferably with the horse he will be riding so he understands it. This means more training more expense, and the horse will still be unlikely to throw its self on spikes, pikes, spears, or anything sharp. Historically horses would shy away from a pike formation, trying not to throw themselves on it.

SO historically Horses have acted in self preservation and acted like mot Untrained civilians that are around gunshots? Sounds pretty god damn smart. Not to mention i own 2 of them (Neither are gun shy) Both are probably the smartest damn animals ive ever met

[Spirit of Hope]

SO historically Horses have acted in self preservation and acted like mot Untrained civilians that are around gunshots? Sounds pretty god damn smart. Not to mention i own 2 of them (Neither are gun shy) Both are probably the smartest damn animals ive ever met

They might not be gun-shy, but massed gunfire is something different. And in a strict preservationist view horses are smart, run from danger and if it attacks and you can't run, you kick its heart out. In my experience a horse can be smart (like a person) but horses as a crowd aren't (like people).

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Have you ever shot a rifle or rode the horse.

or both at once.

Yes, it was part of my short lived job as a cow hunter. You ride around on horseback shooting cows.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

SO historically Horses have acted in self preservation and acted like mot Untrained civilians that are around gunshots? Sounds pretty god damn smart. Not to mention i own 2 of them (Neither are gun shy) Both are probably the smartest damn animals ive ever met

They might not be gun-shy, but massed gunfire is something different. And in a strict preservationist view horses are smart, run from danger and if it attacks and you can't run, you kick its heart out. In my experience a horse can be smart (like a person) but horses as a crowd aren't (like people).

That is why war horses are trained, horses are like people to a degree, they aren't meant to fight wars with guns from a psychological perspective, but they can be trained to deal with it. The only reason the thin red line is well known is because it is shocking, generally when infantry stand in a line and try to halt a cavalry charge with gun fire they get trampled to death and die in their hundreds.

[Spirit of Hope]

That is why war horses are trained, horses are like people to a degree, they aren't meant to fight wars with guns from a psychological perspective, but they can be trained to deal with it. The only reason the thin red line is well known is because it is shocking, generally when infantry stand in a line and try to halt a cavalry charge with gun fire they get trampled to death and die in their hundreds.

Yes but horses still tend to be more shy, and easier to spook than humans. On the Thin Red Line, the Russians withdrew because they thought that the 93rd was a diversion. If the Russians had know the truth the 93rd would likely have been run down and slaughtered, but the russians didn't know. And knowing is half the battle.

EDIT: as proof that the 93rd should have been destroyed look at the Charge of the Light Brigade, a calvary unit charged and defeated a cannon position.

[Graditora]

That is why war horses are trained, horses are like people to a degree, they aren't meant to fight wars with guns from a psychological perspective, but they can be trained to deal with it. The only reason the thin red line is well known is because it is shocking, generally when infantry stand in a line and try to halt a cavalry charge with gun fire they get trampled to death and die in their hundreds.

As proof that the 93rd should have been destroyed look at the Charge of the Light Brigade, a calvary unit charged and defeated a cannon position.

How many cannon and crew? Also cavalry numbers. Last time I checked if you send horsemen against a cannon the cannon wouldn't reload fast enough for a second shot and easily be cut down.