NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

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!

Forgot to favourite it when I switched computers, spent like 2 hours tracking it down last night. Still have a few sites and stuff I need to track down.

[Jagalonia]

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.

Another thing about bullpups, is that they're more akward to use, and require more training for soldiers to get used to.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

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.

Another thing about bullpups, is that they're more akward to use, and require more training for soldiers to get used to.

Source?

[Galla-]

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.

Another thing about bullpups, is that they're more akward to use, and require more training for soldiers to get used to.

No they don't, unless your soldiers are transitioning from a traditional self-loader to a bullpup one. Like going from M16 --> F2000 or something.

If you start out with bullpup self-loading rifles, there is no difference tbh. That's if you even retrain soldiers already issued traditional rifles instead of slowly phasing out the former.

[Immoren]

Little on heavy mortar and arty techniques in finnish army and my nation's

Basic unit that conducts fire mission are heavy mortar company (9 tubes) or artillery battalion (18 tubes)
There are three "forms of fire" and they are "strike", "blanket" and "block" (literal translations from finnish.

Strike is in theory offensive form of fire. Area of effect, in theory, is 100mx100m. When conducting strike unit fires 0,1 units of fire during 60 seconds. First and last shells are supposed to be fired in same salvo.

Blanket is in theory defensive form of fire. it is similar to one above, but AoE is 300mx100m.

Final one is "Block". AoE of block is 300mx100m. When conducting block firing unit each gun expends 0,2 units of fire worth of fire as fast as possible and there are not starting or ending salvoes.

In Finland term 1 unit of fire refers to how much ammo that particular weapons system is to expected to spent during one days worth of intense fighting.
0,1 Units of fire for heavy mortars and arty are
120mm mortar: 12 shells/tube
122mm howitzer: 6 shells/tube
155mm cannon: 6 shells/tube.

When conducting attack and there are both arty and mortar preparations. 120mm mortars and arty cease their bombardment, when own troops are within 200 meters of enemy positions, while 81mm mortars continue firing until own troops are within 100 meters from enemy positions.

[Thrashia]

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.

It's really not. The Apache is too vulnerable to ground fire. When we went into Iraq in '03, a few friends of mine detailed a story to me about an Iraqi Republican Guard division setting up a flak trap, bringing several of them down. The A-10 is made to endure some of the worst ground fire that any aircraft has ever taken in aviation history and still make it back to base. The A-10 is also modular in that you can switch its weapon systems to make it a longer-lasting mission for CAS. These days helicopters like the Apache are only used for target identification. You won't ever see them used in the fashion you're describing for a long time to come, if ever again.

You mention "in-theatre," did you serve? If so, what unit and where? I'm formerly of the 3 ID, 69th Armored 2nd Batt. 1st Comp. Be nice to see another veteran on the boards.

[Anemos Major]

Might as well stick this here too.

[Immoren]

I was wonder how large quantum leap is between "Purpose of our marine force are counter-attacks and recapture of important islands on our coastline" and "Purpose of our marine force are counter-attacks and recapture of important islands on our coastline, with secondary purpose of taking part in amphibious assault and/or landing operations as part of multi-national military operations on foreing shores"?

[Thrashia]

Might as well stick this here too.

Not bad. One thing I would criticize however is that the weight and size of this thing means that it shouldn't have as high an on and off-road speed you have declared there. I know you're claiming to have an engine with 22-hundred hp, but the full-loaded this thing shouldn't be able to make beyond...I'd guestimate, 65 Km on road, 40~45 off. Also, there is no such thing as "cross-country" for tank speed. You're either on a road or you're not. Even packed, flat earth is going to give you some difficulty (more so than a paved road anyway).

[Samozaryadnyastan]

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.

It's really not. The Apache is too vulnerable to ground fire. When we went into Iraq in '03, a few friends of mine detailed a story to me about an Iraqi Republican Guard division setting up a flak trap, bringing several of them down. The A-10 is made to endure some of the worst ground fire that any aircraft has ever taken in aviation history and still make it back to base. The A-10 is also modular in that you can switch its weapon systems to make it a longer-lasting mission for CAS. These days helicopters like the Apache are only used for target identification. You won't ever see them used in the fashion you're describing for a long time to come, if ever again.

You mention "in-theatre," did you serve? If so, what unit and where? I'm formerly of the 3 ID, 69th Armored 2nd Batt. 1st Comp. Be nice to see another veteran on the boards.

I never served. But on the bookshelf behind me are two books detailing the two tours of Afghanistan (2006 and 2008, IIRC) undertaken by a pilot of British Apaches, which are modified to be able to largely avoid ground fire and take on the SAM threat that move usually invites to military helicopters.
Apaches were used there exactly as I described (except at the beginning of the first tour, when no-one really understood their capability or firepower).

Apache airframes aren't armoured at all, only the cabin. That way, any round that has the energy to penetrate at 4000ft isn't going to tear an ugly hole and ricochet through the armour plate, it's just going to go through which is, suprisingly, a more attractive prospect.

There are in fact several veterans on these boards. IIRC, Lyras served as a tanker, and Germania Alliance was an airman serving in the 'Stan.

[Anemos Major]

Might as well stick this here too.

Not bad. One thing I would criticize however is that the weight and size of this thing means that it shouldn't have as high an on and off-road speed you have declared there. I know you're claiming to have an engine with 22-hundred hp, but the full-loaded this thing shouldn't be able to make beyond...I'd guestimate, 65 Km on road, 40~45 off. Also, there is no such thing as "cross-country" for tank speed. You're either on a road or you're not. Even packed, flat earth is going to give you some difficulty (more so than a paved road anyway).

I beg to differ. The M1 Abrams has a governed top speed of about 70kph on road with a worse power-to-weight ratio, so I don't see why my tank can't manage it. And I'm not 'claiming' anything; check the write-up, which actually explains the concept behind the engine, rather than making judgements based on the statblock.

As for the 'cross-country' speed, that's something I forgot to remove from my old statblock.

[Thrashia]

I beg to differ. The M1 Abrams has a governed top speed of about 70kph on road with a worse power-to-weight ratio, so I don't see why my tank can't manage it. And I'm not 'claiming' anything; check the write-up, which actually explains the concept behind the engine, rather than making judgements based on the statblock.

As for the 'cross-country' speed, that's something I forgot to remove from my old statblock.

Having commanded an M1 Abrams, let me just say that you never get that high if you want to conserve fuel at all or turn your tracks to crap in a very short time, relatively speaking. Your tank is about ten + tons heavier than an Abrams, longer in length (which means your turns will be wide and therefore less maneuverable), and since I have no idea what type of engine is in it (other than a stated HP) then I cannot give you anything other than my guestimation, like I said before.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I beg to differ. The M1 Abrams has a governed top speed of about 70kph on road with a worse power-to-weight ratio, so I don't see why my tank can't manage it. And I'm not 'claiming' anything; check the write-up, which actually explains the concept behind the engine, rather than making judgements based on the statblock.

As for the 'cross-country' speed, that's something I forgot to remove from my old statblock.

Having commanded an M1 Abrams, let me just say that you never get that high if you want to conserve fuel at all or turn your tracks to crap in a very short time, relatively speaking. Your tank is about ten + tons heavier than an Abrams, longer in length (which means your turns will be wide and therefore less maneuverable), and since I have no idea what type of engine is in it (other than a stated HP) then I cannot give you anything other than my guestimation, like I said before.

Maximum speed =/= cruising speed. You will generally travel much slower, only speeding up to such speeds in actual combat. Also his hull length is only 0.2 meters longer, it won't make a big difference.

[Arkania 5]

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.

Go on gizmag. They have tons of lulzy weapons.

[Bajireyn]

Gyrojet weapons for Infantry operating in zero-gravity and underwater environments Y/N?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

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.

Go on gizmag. They have tons of lulzy weapons.

I just remembered for LOLWerks Industries to add my Power Gauntlet to the list of weapons. Hooray for the power Gauntlet, nothing is more awesome that crushing a man's skull with your hand. Besides catching a sword blow, bending the blade with one hand and then crushing the skull of the wielder.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Gyrojet weapons for Infantry operating in zero-gravity and underwater environments Y/N?

Y/N respectively. For underwater just go like the Russians and use giant flechettes.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

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.

Another thing about bullpups, is that they're more akward to use, and require more training for soldiers to get used to.

Some bullpups can be adapted for sinistral use (FAMAS, AUG) while others eliminate the handedness issue completely (F2000), so I don't really see a reason why bullpups shouldn't be adopted.

[Hittanryan]

Gyrojet weapons for Infantry operating in zero-gravity and underwater environments Y/N?

Only if you live in the Imperium of Man and can scale it up to .75 caliber. The thing's a real-life goddamn bolt pistol.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Gyrojet weapons for Infantry operating in zero-gravity and underwater environments Y/N?

Only if you live in the Imperium of Man and can scale it up to .75 caliber. The thing's a real-life goddamn bolt pistol.

Make it 25mm and make it high explosive.

[Hittanryan]

Only if you live in the Imperium of Man and can scale it up to .75 caliber. The thing's a real-life goddamn bolt pistol.

Make it 25mm and make it high explosive.

And armor-piercing. It has to be both. Welcome to the wonderful world of Warhammer 40000.

[The Kievan People]

*weeps bitter tears*

Wires do not confer jamming immunity.

WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP SAYING THIS. They are not even a form of guidance, anything wire guided can be designed with a radio command link instead. All they are is a relay between the launcher and missile.

Neither does semi-active laser homing.

Quite simply there is no such thing as jam immunity. An imaging infrared or MMW radar seeker will have extremely high resistance to ECM though, to the point deceptive or screening countermeasures like smoke/chaff and camouflage will be much more practical for ground vehicles than ECM.

[Arkania 5]

disregard Apache

acquire Helicopter Cavalry

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

disregard Apache

acquire Helicopter Cavalry

I particularly like the sabre of the guy in the top picture, like engaging in melee combat is actually a reasonable expectation. Of course this will inevitably lead to one thing ...

Helicopter sword fights.

[Arkania 5]

disregard Apache

acquire Helicopter Cavalry

I particularly like the sabre of the guy in the top picture, like engaging in melee combat is actually a reasonable expectation. Of course this will inevitably lead to one thing ...

Helicopter jousting.

Fix'd.