NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Mediterreania]

I'm gonna say nay. A regular technical may not have as much armor but it would be a hell of a lot more nimble in an urban environment. That killdozer is just begging for a ATGM up it's tailpipe, even if the pilot survives by some miracle it would probably have it's tracks blown off and would be stuck there until the aircraft that disabled it comes around for another pass.

Minus the fact that real nations actually do have combat dozers designed specifically to plow down enemy defenses... Even if they aren't meant for sustained combat.

A "killdozer" as an MBT is impractical, but with two firing ports, it could prove to be invaluable in certain situations.

Not to mention the lulz factor that would generate.

How effective would satellites be?

For what?

[Crookfur]

How effective would satellites be?

For what?

As a means of providing over the horizon comunitcations: Excellent!

As an aid to navigation: spiffing!

As a means of gathering of imagery of the world's surface: pretty darned good!


As a means of cleaning your fish bowl: pretty useless

[Jagalonia]

How effective would satellites be?

For what?

As a means of providing over the horizon comunitcations: Excellent!

As an aid to navigation: spiffing!

As a means of gathering of imagery of the world's surface: pretty darned good!


As a means of cleaning your fish bowl: pretty useless

I disagree. If a satalite was loaded with a giant water hose, it could be used very effectively to clean a fish bowl. Provided you were in the right place at the right time.

[Premislyd]

How effective would satellites be?

For what?

As a means of providing over the horizon comunitcations: Excellent!

As an aid to navigation: spiffing!

As a means of gathering of imagery of the world's surface: pretty darned good!


As a means of cleaning your fish bowl: pretty useless

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

[Jagalonia]

For what?

As a means of providing over the horizon comunitcations: Excellent!

As an aid to navigation: spiffing!

As a means of gathering of imagery of the world's surface: pretty darned good!


As a means of cleaning your fish bowl: pretty useless

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

Limit them to softer targets that are more spread out, unless you're launching missiles from them...>.>

[Premislyd]

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

Limit them to softer targets that are more spread out, unless you're launching missiles from them...>.>

What about "bombarding" cities?

[Galla-]

For what?

As a means of providing over the horizon comunitcations: Excellent!

As an aid to navigation: spiffing!

As a means of gathering of imagery of the world's surface: pretty darned good!


As a means of cleaning your fish bowl: pretty useless

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

horrible?

[Premislyd]

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

horrible?

What about if it were something like this? Immensely toned down to fit within MT-PMT Standards though

[Kinnego]

Should I bother having any military at all if my population is just 35,000?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

horrible?

What about if it were something like this? Immensely toned down to fit within MT-PMT Standards though

Horrible and inefficient. They would be inaccurate, have no doctrinal role, and would cost a massive amount of money to make and send into space.

[Galla-]

horrible?

What about if it were something like this? Immensely toned down to fit within MT-PMT Standards though

Bankrupting.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

Should I bother having any military at all if my population is just 35,000?

Perhaps a paramilitary group, but they more then likely wouldn't be the best armed concerning heavy weapons.

[Kinnego]

I know that, it would be for more ceremonial purposes and VIP protection more than anything.

[DASHES]

Should I bother having any military at all if my population is just 35,000?

Well, I've done the math, and the maximum military size you could have (5% of your total population) is exactly 1,750. Remember, that must include support/logistics/reserve personnel, so your actual active fighting force will be very small.
You better have the most elite, advanced, well-armed Soldiers and Vehicles on this side of The Pacific, because otherwise a military will be pointless [if it isn't so already]. With a military that small, they'll just be buying time for civilian evacuations (should you get invaded) anyway.

[Crookfur]

Should I bother having any military at all if my population is just 35,000?

Depends, would it add anything to your RP experience? At that kind of popualtion size you woudl be having a military simply for your own amusement rather than influencing over seas affairs.As such I would suggesting you come up with a fun vaguely comedic group of soldiers not totally unrelated to a sort of Dad's Army type idea that reflects a fair degree of antional personality/culture.

[The Kievan People]

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

Poor.

It's not a very attractive way to get munitions from A to B.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Sorry, forgot to edit in the rest of the question.

Anyways, how effective would satellites be for orbital strikes? I know they wouldn't be that great for use on moving targets, but how effective would they be for stationary targets?

Poor.

It's not a very attractive way to get munitions from A to B.

Satellite-launched missiles are far more an attractive prospect to Rods from God, but still have the exact same cost issue of getting them up there in the first place - unless you do what I do and have a huge complex of space stations in which you can actually manufacture them - which is just a huge target in itself.

Satellite-launched missiles should be more difficult to intercept than ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, however.

[Premislyd]

So essentially it might be a good idea, just cost a shitload of money?...

[Samozaryadnyastan]

So essentially it might be a good idea, just cost a shitload of money?...

Shitload doesn't quite cover it. More like fuckton.

[Germania Alliance]

So essentially it might be a good idea, just cost a shitload of money?...

Shitload doesn't quite cover it. More like fuckton.

And assuming your enemy doesn't have anything capable of defeating such large satellites...

Avalon, Samoz? Hehehe.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Shitload doesn't quite cover it. More like fuckton.

And assuming your enemy doesn't have anything capable of defeating such large satellites...

Avalon, Samoz? Hehehe.

Indeedy. Like I said, satellites, especially of the kind that the SSC operate (Murmansk, Zabaykaisk and Krasnoyarsk stations) are big targets for any weapon payload that can make orbit. Nukes, ICBM (and thus specialist anti-satellite missiles), lulzy oversized anti-asteroid cannons...

[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?

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.

Thanks for everything.
I'll use the Sikorsky CH-53E to tow around my Heavy Howitzer pieces. In fact, I'll make my howitzer convoys come with their own cargo crates that can hold all three guns at once. That way, the Sikorsky can just pick up the crate and transport it, and the crew can sit in the passenger hold.
As for the additional crew needed, I have this idea; what if my fireteam/squad officers carry specialized hand grenades that give off a signal that can be received by a computer several KM away wirelessly. Then the computer will be able to correlate the signal with a digital map of the operational zone and generate some exact coordinates that the howitzer crews can use. Therefore, in a few painless seconds, some accurate fire can be administered with minimal manpower required. Is that plausible, or too PMT?

I'll rearrange the layout for my Squads as well. I may need to make another page after all.
As for using Stingers however, I have to decline because they are heavy and freaking expensive. I already have squad-portable AT weaponry; a squad-level version of the M47 Dragon.
Seeing as how the M47 Dragon is a user-guided missile, wouldn't my men be able to improvise and use the Dragons against low-flying targets like Helicopters (they are extensively-trained, after all)?
I'll drop the Stuart as a vehicle for regular forces, but what about Airborne? They are cheap, light enough for para-drops, they have a realatively low profile, and if you cram them with M47 Dragons & coat them with camo, IMO you can make some rather effective tank-destroyers out of them.

As for the Calvary Cars I will add ammunition, but the Passenger GPMG provides necessarily anti-infantry fire for those 'saving that pinned-down squad's ass' moments that the Calvary Car is intended to handle. Got some freindlies in trouble? The CC's rush in, roll up, lay down covering fire until the freindles can sneak out, and then keep the enemy pinned down until reinforcements can arrive and finish the mission. They can get to the hot zone before anything else (besides Helicopters, of course) can.

I'll also drop the Steyr RSO. I'll use the Maz-537 all-the-way for logistics.

The ISU-152 must stay, I'm afraid; Its my only intermediate self-proppelled artillery unit we have, and its specs are impressive. If modernized, it could be a haunting force on the battlefield (casemate and all). Although I have not modernized it yet, I may not even need to; its superior to the currently used 2S3 Akatsiya in almost every way. Its armor is much better, its main weapon has a better RoF, its operational range (on a road) is 170 km better, and even its self-defense weapons are stronger (PKT or DsHKM? You do the math). The only ways the ISU-152 performs worse than the 2S3 is its lesser speed and its low ammo count (20 Rounds). This can easily be averted with lighter ERA armor and a small ammo-carrier vehicle to tag along. Stick an M47 Dragon on the ammo carrying vehicle and the ISU-152 gets a bodyguard against AT threats as well.

The DUSP is a self-propelled mount for the Morser 16 210mm's that we use. However, I can see how there is too much self-defense weaponry. When I designed it, I intended for it to be the tank-version of a 1-man-army. If I take out the M40 Recoilless and reduce the tank profile will it work? I need to have a way of getting my Morsers self-propelled.

Now on to the airforce. The Northop F5E's come at a ridiculously low price (the ball park is around 2.3 to 3.0 Million USD each) and they can mount an impressive array of weapons. Also, lest we forget that decent Air to Air missiles are ridiculously expensive these days. Anywhere my nation could cut corners we should The Northrop F5A is able to hold AIM-120 AMRAAM missles, which I intend to use, which are 400k each).
For mass troop transport could we use use modified B-52H Stratofortress? If I take all of the bombs out, and install compact seats, how many soldiers would I theoretically be able to cram in there?

[Germania Alliance]

And assuming your enemy doesn't have anything capable of defeating such large satellites...

Avalon, Samoz? Hehehe.

Indeedy. Like I said, satellites, especially of the kind that the SSC operate (Murmansk, Zabaykaisk and Krasnoyarsk stations) are big targets for any weapon payload that can make orbit. Nukes, ICBM (and thus specialist anti-satellite missiles), lulzy oversized anti-asteroid cannons...

Missiles can be intercepted because they're slow enough to be detected.

Conventional rounds, especially those fired from cannons capable of putting rounds into orbit and hitting asteroids, aren't so easily detected and intercepted.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Indeedy. Like I said, satellites, especially of the kind that the SSC operate (Murmansk, Zabaykaisk and Krasnoyarsk stations) are big targets for any weapon payload that can make orbit. Nukes, ICBM (and thus specialist anti-satellite missiles), lulzy oversized anti-asteroid cannons...

Missiles can be intercepted because they're slow enough to be detected.

Conventional rounds, especially those fired from cannons capable of putting rounds into orbit and hitting asteroids, aren't so easily detected and intercepted.

Missiles fired from satellites can accelerate faster due to little air resistance in LEO, can be much larger and achieve higher velocities, should have less ground distance to cover, and come straight down. Some multi-stage ICBMs can hit like Mach 3 in terminal phase - these missiles would begin at terminal phase.

Not that I support satellite-deployed missiles, they're not worth it. They're just mildly more worth it than Rods from God, but only marginally.

[Germania Alliance]

Missiles can be intercepted because they're slow enough to be detected.

Conventional rounds, especially those fired from cannons capable of putting rounds into orbit and hitting asteroids, aren't so easily detected and intercepted.

Missiles fired from satellites can accelerate faster due to little air resistance in LEO, can be much larger and achieve higher velocities, should have less ground distance to cover, and come straight down. Some multi-stage ICBMs can hit like Mach 3 in terminal phase - these missiles would begin at terminal phase.

Not that I support satellite-deployed missiles, they're not worth it. They're just mildly more worth it than Rods from God, but only marginally.

I meant missiles launched from the surface of the planet. I'd imagine they could be brought down with ease from orbit.