NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Allanea]

I wasn't talking about Nebelwerfers per say. I was thinking about some sort of Nebelwerfer-esque rocket artillery piece. Something that could fire a variety of rockets that are relatively accurate.

You run into the problem that unless they are guided rockets, like the ones the MLRS uses, then they are inherently not accurate. This is the reason that many nations do not use them. Even the more modern Russian Katyusha rockets are not very accurate and are intended as shock weapons in the opening stages of an attack.

What is your definition of 'inaccurate'?

[Tergnitz]

tag

[DASHES]

Hey guys. I already posted this on page 169 on the 'Make your own Armed Forces' thread, but here goes. I need to know if these basic Forces would be effective in modern warfare. Do I have all the essentials/basics?
Please keep in mind that 68% of my armed forces' budget goes to lengthy and hi-tech training, and to compensate, fighters have to work with what has been described by Immoren as a 'Mish-Mash' of equipment; the essentials of MT with the cheap[er] basics from WW2 and the Cold War. The Military Population is than 2% (Roughly 39,500,000 Men & Women (including Support personnel)
----------------------
Infantry:


Vehicle Catalog:


Air Force:


All made using files from Juniorgeneral.org
That's one amazing website.

[Sciox]

Hey guys. I already posted this on page 169 on the 'Make your own Armed Forces' thread, but here goes. I need to know if these basic Forces would be effective in modern warfare. Do I have all the essentials/basics?
Please keep in mind that 68% of my armed forces' budget goes to lengthy and hi-tech training, and to compensate, fighters have to work with what has been described by Immoren as a 'Mish-Mash' of equipment; the essentials of MT with the cheap[er] basics from WW2 and the Cold War. The Military Population is than 2% (Roughly 39,500,000 Men & Women (including Support personnel)
----------------------
Infantry:
([url=http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5356/dic.th.png]Image)[/url]

Vehicle Catalog:
([url=http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5946/newdamsremodeled.th.png]Image)[/url]

Air Force:
([url=http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1122/dashesaircorps.th.png]Image)[/url]

All made using files from Juniorgeneral.org
That's one amazing website.

Overall it's pretty solid in terms of organisation but you may want to work towards cutting out some of the ww2 era equipment in exchange for more modern equipment. Especially in your armored and air forces, a B-17 will have a hell of a time surviving in a modern combat environment, even if upgraded to deploy smart bombs. For your vehicles, you'd probably be better selling off the super heavy crusader and the M3 Stuarts to get your hands on a modern main battle tank. Your infantry are good but without a proper armored section to back them up you'll end up having to resort to human wave tactics.

[Novraslavia]

DASHES, your "Little Army Squad" illustration shows six troopers, but lists only five.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Wow that heavy tank is really fail. And I don't mean lulzy fail I mean it is just bad. It uses too many different weapons, it has poor armour, it is overpriced, it has a ton of crewmen. If you want to make a WW1 esque heavy tank you should really look in a different direction. Like this it is a battleship, a submarine, and a tank. It is also only a mile long. Or is that a mile high?

[Arbites]

Wow that heavy tank is really fail. And I don't mean lulzy fail I mean it is just bad. It uses too many different weapons, it has poor armour, it is overpriced, it has a ton of crewmen. If you want to make a WW1 esque heavy tank you should really look in a different direction. Like this it is a battleship, a submarine, and a tank. It is also only a mile long. Or is that a mile high?

You could always look to the Imperium's tanks from Warhammer 40000 for good old WWI tank goodness. You know, the Leman Russ and the Land Raider.

[Minroz]

Wow that heavy tank is really fail. And I don't mean lulzy fail I mean it is just bad. It uses too many different weapons, it has poor armour, it is overpriced, it has a ton of crewmen. If you want to make a WW1 esque heavy tank you should really look in a different direction. Like this it is a battleship, a submarine, and a tank. It is also only a mile long. Or is that a mile high?

You could always look to the Imperium's tanks from Warhammer 40000 for good old WWI tank goodness. You know, the Leman Russ and the Land Raider.

Yup, good Ol' tanks goodness. But how many tanks like that or MBTs should be fielded in battles.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Wow that heavy tank is really fail. And I don't mean lulzy fail I mean it is just bad. It uses too many different weapons, it has poor armour, it is overpriced, it has a ton of crewmen. If you want to make a WW1 esque heavy tank you should really look in a different direction. Like this it is a battleship, a submarine, and a tank. It is also only a mile long. Or is that a mile high?

You could always look to the Imperium's tanks from Warhammer 40000 for good old WWI tank goodness. You know, the Leman Russ and the Land Raider.

Seriously though, something like the Flying Elephant or even a Baneblade would be a much better idea (note I didn't say good). Really such a tank serves no real purpose that can't be filled by some less specialized design.

On an unrelated note I am going to RP in NS again starting off small. The premise for my new nation (I will still use the same account just RP as a new nation) will be an MT nation that is a tad more advanced than most countries, but is terrible at using its technology effectively (communist state with committee designed everything to justify the lulzy inefficiency).

For example, why risk human soldiers when one can just stick a 7.62 NATO machine gun on the back of a BigDog with a thermal camera? Why use inefficient tanks when walkers can traverse more difficult terrain? I will mostly use 1950s scifi-esque technology like on here toning it up or down to make it less effective or more realistic.

[Hittanryan]

Seriously though, something like the Flying Elephant or even a Baneblade would be a much better idea (note I didn't say good). Really such a tank serves no real purpose that can't be filled by some less specialized design.

On an unrelated note I am going to RP in NS again starting off small. The premise for my new nation (I will still use the same account just RP as a new nation) will be an MT nation that is a tad more advanced than most countries, but is terrible at using its technology effectively (communist state with committee designed everything to justify the lulzy inefficiency).

For example, why risk human soldiers when one can just stick a 7.62 NATO machine gun on the back of a BigDog with a thermal camera? Why use inefficient tanks when walkers can traverse more difficult terrain? I will mostly use 1950s scifi-esque technology like on here toning it up or down to make it less effective or more realistic.

Careful with walkers, they've got ground pressure, an easily crippled drive system, and a high target profile all working against them. I remember the old mechs vs. tanks debate thread. That did not end well (for anyone really, but especially the mechs).

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Seriously though, something like the Flying Elephant or even a Baneblade would be a much better idea (note I didn't say good). Really such a tank serves no real purpose that can't be filled by some less specialized design.

On an unrelated note I am going to RP in NS again starting off small. The premise for my new nation (I will still use the same account just RP as a new nation) will be an MT nation that is a tad more advanced than most countries, but is terrible at using its technology effectively (communist state with committee designed everything to justify the lulzy inefficiency).

For example, why risk human soldiers when one can just stick a 7.62 NATO machine gun on the back of a BigDog with a thermal camera? Why use inefficient tanks when walkers can traverse more difficult terrain? I will mostly use 1950s scifi-esque technology like on here toning it up or down to make it less effective or more realistic.

Careful with walkers, they've got ground pressure, an easily crippled drive system, and a high target profile all working against them. I remember the old mechs vs. tanks debate thread. That did not end well (for anyone really, but especially the mechs).

I know, I am the person that condemns mech more than probably anyone. The whole point of the new RP nation is fun, a terrible bureaucracy, more freedom, democracy and overall freedom for the people, an inefficient military. Every part of it will be RPed realistically though. I am not going to claim that my mechs are good. In fact they will be slow, poorly armed, poorly armoured, expensive, and terrible at crossing almost all terrain.

[Hittanryan]

Careful with walkers, they've got ground pressure, an easily crippled drive system, and a high target profile all working against them. I remember the old mechs vs. tanks debate thread. That did not end well (for anyone really, but especially the mechs).

I know, I am the person that condemns mech more than probably anyone. The whole point of the new RP nation is fun, a terrible bureaucracy, more freedom, democracy and overall freedom for the people, an inefficient military. Every part of it will be RPed realistically though. I am not going to claim that my mechs are good. In fact they will be slow, poorly armed, poorly armoured, expensive, and terrible at crossing almost all terrain.

Damn it, now you've got me reading through that website about what the "future" was supposed to look like. The real predictions make Fallout look like it wasn't based on SCIENCE!

[Vitaphone Racing]

Hey guys. I already posted this on page 169 on the 'Make your own Armed Forces' thread, but here goes. I need to know if these basic Forces would be effective in modern warfare. Do I have all the essentials/basics?
Please keep in mind that 68% of my armed forces' budget goes to lengthy and hi-tech training, and to compensate, fighters have to work with what has been described by Immoren as a 'Mish-Mash' of equipment; the essentials of MT with the cheap[er] basics from WW2 and the Cold War. The Military Population is than 2% (Roughly 39,500,000 Men & Women (including Support personnel)
----------------------
Infantry:
([url=http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5356/dic.th.png]Image)[/url]

Vehicle Catalog:
([url=http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5946/newdamsremodeled.th.png]Image)[/url]

Air Force:
([url=http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1122/dashesaircorps.th.png]Image)[/url]

All made using files from Juniorgeneral.org
That's one amazing website.

Look, no B-17's; they just do not have a place in modern combat. The only reason why you would want to use a B-17 is because it is a B-17, it really isn't good at anything else. If you want a tactical bomber, try using something along the lines of A-10.

With your B-52, adding more armour is pretty pointless. One, it's going to take a sizeable chunk out of your payload or your fuel and two, B-52's fly well outside the normal range for AA's which is about 5,000 feet. While some may disagree, the B-52D is no better than the B-17 and it is outclassed by the B-52H, hugely outclassed by the B-1B.

[Germania Alliance]

Look, no B-17's; they just do not have a place in modern combat. The only reason why you would want to use a B-17 is because it is a B-17, it really isn't good at anything else. If you want a tactical bomber, try using something along the lines of A-10.

With your B-52, adding more armour is pretty pointless. One, it's going to take a sizeable chunk out of your payload or your fuel and two, B-52's fly well outside the normal range for AA's which is about 5,000 feet. While some may disagree, the B-52D is no better than the B-17 and it is outclassed by the B-52H, hugely outclassed by the B-1B.

The A-10 is an Attacker, not a bomber, hence the "A" before the "10"...

Also, modern bombers are beginning to strain to keep up with attackers. As technology progresses, we constantly find ourselves striving towards accuracy, and not just inaccurate carpet bombings (even if bombers drop smart bombs). Anything a bomber can do, an attacker or a fighter can do just as well, if not better (while saving fuel, too...)

Once we move towards conventional conflicts again, the modern bomber will shine. ICly on NS, however, all I can say is go for it. Just drop the archaic bombers..

[Thrashia]

Just for reference, the A-10 is a close air support craft. That is its main objective and the reason for its design. It's a niche aircraft, because it hits targets harder than modern helicopters like the Apache or Cobra and can do it better than the faster jet[s] (fighters). It's sole purpose in life it to provide aerial direct fire support against armored targets, tanks being its bread and butter.

Also, the B-17 should, in MT, never be seen outside of a museum. Unless you have designed a new, modern bomber that simply has the same name...

[Thrashia]

Hey guys. I already posted this on page 169 on the 'Make your own Armed Forces' thread, but here goes. I need to know if these basic Forces would be effective in modern warfare. Do I have all the essentials/basics?

I'll break it down for you, giving you what I think you need from my own experience in the US Army.

Infantry:
([url=http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5356/dic.th.png]Image)[/url]

Artillery
You should drop the half-tracks. Most modern field artillery these days don't require you to use tractors. Only the armored divisions have them for towing broken down hulls. Regular re-purposed trucks can do it, or just use a cannon similar to the M-sevens (M777). They are a field piece light enough to be shipped around by helicopter, which will be a easier way of getting your field arty teams out of hot spots before they become hot spots. Much more mobile than tractors and half-tracks.

Your artillery teams also need FOs, FDCs, and a signals squad to keep everyone in clear communication with each other. That's at least an extra dozen men, but they're vital. Never, and I mean never, say that your infantry squads can just get on the radio and call in the heavy stuff. Believe me, they are busy doing their own jobs and won't have two shits to give for looking carefully over maps and giving accurate and fast information to an artillery unit several dozen or more kloms away. Hence why your arty units need their own FOs, who then report to the FDC and can then provide your arty some clear and present targets to hit.

Infantry
Throw those different classifications for infantry out the door right now. You do not need four different types of infantry. There is a reason why that went out of fashion after the Napoleonic Wars. You want one infantryman armed the same as his buddies, all capable of doing any job they are presented with. Also, beef up your squads. A 5-man squad is not a squad, its a fire-team. Each squad needs to be at least 10 men. Each squad (in the US Army) is usually deployed with at least one or two SSWs, one form of AT armament, and if they are lucky, one of them might have a marksman's lanyard amongst his uniform ribbons. Another thing, imagine the logistics nightmare of trying to supply four different types of uniform and their paraphernalia. Yeah. It's a nightmare.

BIG thing you're missing as well: none of your infantry seem to be carrying around any kind of anti-air rockets. Nothing like carrying a few stinger rockets around to help when you're out of range or communication with any friendly air support. Another is that you should beef up on more portable AT systems, like the FGM-148 Javelin.

Vehicle Catalog:
([url=http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5946/newdamsremodeled.th.png]Image)[/url]

Light Vehicles
The "cavalry car" needs to be given more ammunition and you should lose the passenger-seat gun. It just ads more weight and is in the way. Any passenger can just use his own rifle to fire out the window at need. Which, usually, won't happen anyway because a smart person will gtfo of that thing and hit some real ground cover. I would advise never attempting to use this in any kind of direct combat situation.

Lose the "supply track." It's a waste of money, resources, and doesn't solve you any kind of problem. Infantry and armored divisions will have engineer units attached to them that will have bridging equipment for any situation where it merits such. Regular transport trucks and vehicles will work fine. Also, if you are forced to create a logistics truck, meant to bring supplies to troops, that has the same armor as a light tank...then you're doing it wrong. Supply drops from the air are faster and more reliable and won't be as big of a slow-moving target like this piece would be. It just simply doesn't fit with anything you'd need in actual combat.

Lose the Stuart light tank you have there. Your infantry should be equipped heavily enough and your air support or armored tanks close enough to help that there is no need for a "light tank." If you really feel the need for something like that, then make something more similar to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It's a troop transport and still fields a gun large enough to put a decent hole into the side of practically anything short of real heavy armor. A light tank like the one your sporting there is just a metal coffin and a waste of resources.

The "Steyr Transport/General truck" thing should be given six or four wheels and not tracks. Lose the tracks. A regular transport truck will not need them.

Your ISU-152 needs go too. Just make yourself a good tank that has an actual turret on it, so it has a 360-degree arc of fire.

That DUSP Crusader tank...*sigh* makes me want to cry and gnash my teeth. It's too big and slow to be any use. A smart enemy will simply use a CAS-oriented plane or a lucky AT-round or rocket to knock a track off of that thing and make it immobile for who the hell knows how long. It's going to be mighty cramped in there too, with 10 crew and all those weapon systems. It's just a really big waste of money, troops, and fuel.

Suggestion: Find yourself a AFV that your infantry can use as a transport, modify your light humvee-esque cars, and find yourself an all-around decent tank with an actual turret. Please. It's giving me the twitches just imagining those things...

Air Force:
([url=http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1122/dashesaircorps.th.png]Image)[/url]

You need a Close Air Support dedicated plane like the A-10. You should add in a mix of helicopters, maybe a few heavier pieces for soft target CAS and a transport heli that can shove a squad around, like the old UH-1 Iroquois.

2nd thing: being "relatively inexpensive" and "reliable" are not mutually inclusive of each other. You want a solid fighter jet, it's going to cost you a pretty penny. I'd suggest sitting down and browsing through the currently fielded fighters the US, EU, and Russia are using these days. The F-16 as a template would not be a bad idea.

You should also look into getting a stealth bomber and a regular mass transport plane like the C-130.

All made using files from Juniorgeneral.org
That's one amazing website.

Those are cool pics. Cute even.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Look, no B-17's; they just do not have a place in modern combat. The only reason why you would want to use a B-17 is because it is a B-17, it really isn't good at anything else. If you want a tactical bomber, try using something along the lines of A-10.

With your B-52, adding more armour is pretty pointless. One, it's going to take a sizeable chunk out of your payload or your fuel and two, B-52's fly well outside the normal range for AA's which is about 5,000 feet. While some may disagree, the B-52D is no better than the B-17 and it is outclassed by the B-52H, hugely outclassed by the B-1B.

The A-10 is an Attacker, not a bomber, hence the "A" before the "10"...

Also, modern bombers are beginning to strain to keep up with attackers. As technology progresses, we constantly find ourselves striving towards accuracy, and not just inaccurate carpet bombings (even if bombers drop smart bombs). Anything a bomber can do, an attacker or a fighter can do just as well, if not better (while saving fuel, too...)

Once we move towards conventional conflicts again, the modern bomber will shine. ICly on NS, however, all I can say is go for it. Just drop the archaic bombers..

Tactical bomber = strike aircraft = attack aircraft. Tactical bombing and strategic bombing are vastly different things.

When strike aircraft can deliver fifty tonnes of ordnance in one go and carry cruise missiles, I'll agree with you. Until then, bombers have their place.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Just for reference, the A-10 is a close air support craft. That is its main objective and the reason for its design. It's a niche aircraft, because it hits targets harder than modern helicopters like the Apache or Cobra and can do it better than the faster jet[s] (fighters). It's sole purpose in life it to provide aerial direct fire support against armored targets, tanks being its bread and butter.

Also, the B-17 should, in MT, never be seen outside of a museum. Unless you have designed a new, modern bomber that simply has the same name...

It can hit it harder in a single strike, but the Apache is a more effective support aircraft. In-theatre, fast air is referred to as Close Air Support and Apaches are referred to as Intimate Air Support, being able to remain on station much longer, and their ability to linger directly over the battlefield than zoom over it each strike allows them to identify threats the ground commanders may not even see and take them out before they know it's there.

[Immoren]

I was considering giving my armed forces both Spike-MR and Spike-LR, but then I noticed that only difference between them is fiber-optic spool. your opinions?
My first idea of distribung AT-weapons would be this

Infantry squad: M72AX
Infatry platoon:NLAW
Infatry company's AT-squad
-Light infantry company:NLAW
-Mechanised infantry company: NLAW
-Armoured infatry company: Spike-MR
Infantry battalion's AT-platoon
-Light infatry battalion:NLAW
-Mechanised infantry battaliony:Spike-MR
-Armoured infatry battalion: Spike-LR
Manouvre brigade's AT-company
-Motor brigade:Spike-MR
-Mechanised Brigade:Spike-LR
-Armoured Brigade: Spike-ER
Corp's AT-battalion: Spike NLOS

NLAWs would be also used in Spike teams/squads to fill cap of Spike's minimum range.

Reason why I am giving short ranged AT-weapon so high in some formations has to do with terrain of my nation. Or am I wrong in thinking that "why carry heavy ATGMs with over two km range if most of combat for those troops is likely to happen at 300-500 meters"?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm undecided about wire-guided.
Sure, they can't be jammed, but can be difficult to operate, leave the user completely exposed during the entirety of their flight time (TOW launchers on early anti-tank helicopters required the craft to remain stationary in hover for up to 28 seconds, IIRC) and can cause a hazard for low-flying friendly helicopters by the spools left behind. British Army Air Corps crews once almost crashed during a training exercise in Canada where wire-guided missiles were liberally used in the anti-tank role.

[Immoren]

I'm undecided about wire-guided.
Sure, they can't be jammed, but can be difficult to operate, leave the user completely exposed during the entirety of their flight time (TOW launchers on early anti-tank helicopters required the craft to remain stationary in hover for up to 28 seconds, IIRC) and can cause a hazard for low-flying friendly helicopters by the spools left behind. British Army Air Corps crews once almost crashed during a training exercise in Canada where wire-guided missiles were liberally used in the anti-tank role.

I have read some people preffering Spike over Javelin for the fact, that fiber obtic spool makes it more versatile. Also Spike can be fired either as fire-and-forget or fire-and-guide.

[Sciox]

I'm undecided about wire-guided.
Sure, they can't be jammed, but can be difficult to operate, leave the user completely exposed during the entirety of their flight time (TOW launchers on early anti-tank helicopters required the craft to remain stationary in hover for up to 28 seconds, IIRC) and can cause a hazard for low-flying friendly helicopters by the spools left behind. British Army Air Corps crews once almost crashed during a training exercise in Canada where wire-guided missiles were liberally used in the anti-tank role.

I'd say that for the purposes of NS, it's probably better to go with wire guided when you consider the almost insane amount of ECM you can find on even the most basic of vehicles. Although another solution you may want to consider is laser guidance. Laser guided systems can't be jammed as far as I know and you can fire the missile from one vehicle kilometers behind the front line and have it guided by a soldier only a few hundred meters from the target. However you then have the problem of fog or other weather conditions disrupting the laser.

[Immoren]

Inertial guidance: go go?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm undecided about wire-guided.
Sure, they can't be jammed, but can be difficult to operate, leave the user completely exposed during the entirety of their flight time (TOW launchers on early anti-tank helicopters required the craft to remain stationary in hover for up to 28 seconds, IIRC) and can cause a hazard for low-flying friendly helicopters by the spools left behind. British Army Air Corps crews once almost crashed during a training exercise in Canada where wire-guided missiles were liberally used in the anti-tank role.

I'd say that for the purposes of NS, it's probably better to go with wire guided when you consider the almost insane amount of ECM you can find on even the most basic of vehicles. Although another solution you may want to consider is laser guidance. Laser guided systems can't be jammed as far as I know and you can fire the missile from one vehicle kilometers behind the front line and have it guided by a soldier only a few hundred meters from the target. However you then have the problem of fog or other weather conditions disrupting the laser.

My own heavy ATGM comes in a standard fire-and-forget variant capable of direct attack against fortified positions (like a tower block) or aircraft and top-attack for armour, but a second variant for wire guidance. However, I only intended that variant for export, for nations concerned about cost.

[Crookfur]

Hey guys. I already posted this on page 169 on the 'Make your own Armed Forces' thread, but here goes. I need to know if these basic Forces would be effective in modern warfare. Do I have all the essentials/basics?
Please keep in mind that 68% of my armed forces' budget goes to lengthy and hi-tech training, and to compensate, fighters have to work with what has been described by Immoren as a 'Mish-Mash' of equipment; the essentials of MT with the cheap[er] basics from WW2 and the Cold War. The Military Population is than 2% (Roughly 39,500,000 Men & Women (including Support personnel)
----------------------
Infantry:
([url=http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5356/dic.th.png]Image)[/url]

Vehicle Catalog:
([url=http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5946/newdamsremodeled.th.png]Image)[/url]

Air Force:
([url=http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1122/dashesaircorps.th.png]Image)[/url]

All made using files from Juniorgeneral.org
That's one amazing website.

others have covered most of the hideousness quite well so i'll cocnentrate on the immediate major issues i see on the aircraft:

The OH-6 does not have the weight budget for armour, let alone armour plus 2x 20mm guns and thier ammo. Also a new civilian MD-500 will set you back close to $700,000 so I woudl expect a mil spec OH-6 to cost abit more.

The F-5A is the Freedom Fgihter (and sicne its twin seat it would eb the F-5B). The Tiger II name wasn't applied until the F-5E/F models. Why oh why would you repalce those nice M39s with a pair of polstens? yeah you save a bit of weight at the cost of having to redesign the nose and more than 2/3 of your available fire power.

B-17s are dead meat vs 1940s jet fighters let alone anything more modern regardless of what you do in terms of upping the armament or adding defensive counter measures. The only possible modern role would be as an AC-130 style gunship for restricted COIN and support missions, for which other aircraft of similar vintage would be superior.

The B-52 doesn't need any more guns especailly not fixed guns.