NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Samozaryadnyastan]

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.

America's best planned defence against incoming ICBM warheads in their Mach 3 terminal phase was to sound the alarms and duck and cover.
Russia's best planned defence was likely the Foxbat and its AA-9 Acrid missiles.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

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

America's best planned defence against incoming ICBM warheads in their Mach 3 terminal phase was to sound the alarms and duck and cover.
Russia's best planned defence was likely the Foxbat and its AA-9 Acrid missiles.

Actually, America's best planned defence was nuclear SAMs like Zeus/Spartan, and Sprint. Which were clearly superior to the Russians' A-35. LIM-49 Spartan production model had a 5 MT nuclear warhead for taking down RVs. <:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

And it's Mach 25 or so on the terminal, not Mach 3.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

America's best planned defence against incoming ICBM warheads in their Mach 3 terminal phase was to sound the alarms and duck and cover.
Russia's best planned defence was likely the Foxbat and its AA-9 Acrid missiles.

Actually, America's best planned defence was nuclear SAMs like Zeus/Spartan, and Sprint. Which were clearly superior to the Russians' A-35. LIM-49 Spartan production model had a 5 MT nuclear warhead for taking down RVs. <:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

And it's Mach 25 or so on the terminal, not Mach 3.

Samo was right, no thanks to the '72 ABM treaty. I'm not really sure if the GMD would really work, but I'm no Yank.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Actually, America's best planned defence was nuclear SAMs like Zeus/Spartan, and Sprint. Which were clearly superior to the Russians' A-35. LIM-49 Spartan production model had a 5 MT nuclear warhead for taking down RVs. <:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

And it's Mach 25 or so on the terminal, not Mach 3.

Samo was right, no thanks to the '72 ABM treaty. I'm not really sure if the GMD would really work, but I'm no Yank.

Sprint and Spartan were brought online in 1975 for defence of American nuclear missile silos.

A-35 was online since 1972 to the early 1990's when the A-135 replaced it. Sprint/Spartan were taken down due to cost and Congressional opposition. I don't even think the ABMT did anything to stop development of ABM systems. THAAD and other ABMs were still developed while the ABMT was in effect, which goes back to the late 1980's. AFAIK, all it did was limit the ABM sites to one. The USA installed Safeguard, which means Sprint/Spartan in Grand Forks, and the USSR installed the A-35 in Moscow.

So no, and it wasn't GMD. It was Nike. GMD uses a kinetic kill vehicle. Spartan and Sprint did it the brute force and awesome way, and used massive, multi-megaton nuclear warheads.

[DASHES]

Using Thrasia's advice, I've updated my armed forces.

DAMS:


DAC:
The new DASHES Air Force (Minor update):


What do you guys think now?
New DASHES Infantry Core coming soon.

[Thrashia]

See this? That is what an M1 Abrams did to an upgraded Iraqi ISU-152. If you want to use it as self-propelled artillery, that's fine, but its truly an outdated piece of junk and doesn't have the capability to fulfill any combat role in MT. If you were playing WWII-tech then yeah, it would be ahead of the curb, but in MT, its just not gonna happen. If you want reliable self-propelled guns, go with something like the Paladin. And its not necessarily the gun that the ISU is using, more than the chassis of the thing.

I'll get around to looking at that reply post in a bit.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

DASHES should use Enigma/M77.

best t-55 <:

milan apparently cannot penetrate frontal turret armour

[The Kievan People]

Mig-25 shooting down ICBM warheads wut?

The closest thing the Russians ever claimed to this was that the Mig-31M with the R-37 could shoot down Pershing warheads.

And US BMD program came first.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Mig-25 shooting down ICBM warheads wut?

The closest thing the Russians ever claimed to this was that the Mig-31M with the R-37 could shoot down Pershing warheads.

And US BMD program came first.

XB-70 had been cancelled. SR-71 wasn't a threat to engage, just an irritating fly on the wall. Yet still the Soviets continued development.
It had valve electronics and a hilariously powerful radar, could hit Mach 3 and carried missiles that flew at Mach 4.5

It all adds up.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

See this? That is what an M1 Abrams did to an upgraded Iraqi ISU-152. If you want to use it as self-propelled artillery, that's fine, but its truly an outdated piece of junk and doesn't have the capability to fulfill any combat role in MT. If you were playing WWII-tech then yeah, it would be ahead of the curb, but in MT, its just not gonna happen. If you want reliable self-propelled guns, go with something like the Paladin. And its not necessarily the gun that the ISU is using, more than the chassis of the thing.

I'll get around to looking at that reply post in a bit.

Yeah if a paladin was hit by an Abrams it would be in a similar shape. The goal of artillery is to avoid direct confrentations. Once the enemy can shoot at you you have already lost.

[Crookfur]

Using Thrasia's advice, I've updated my armed forces.

DAMS:
([url=http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/1459/betterdams.th.png]Image)[/url]

DAC:
The new DASHES Air Force (Minor update):
([url=http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1122/dashesaircorps.th.png]Image)[/url]

What do you guys think now?
New DASHES Infantry Core coming soon.

M47 dragons fired out the window of a helo? Does your military have some extreme dislike for its own troops that makes the prospect of frying everyone onboard the helicopter with the back blast from a dragon appealing?

For helo borne ATGMs just use TOW from your OH-6s.

As i said before the F-5A is the freedom fighter, its the F-5E thats the tiger II and of coruse what you have depicted is a B or F model (i.e. the twin seater versions). As to any of the F-5 family actually using AMRAAM, you might be able to bolt it on but you sure as hell won't be able to make use of it unless you upgrade to a standard roughly analogous to the F-5S/T models from Singapore. F-5A mdoels do'nt even have a radar let alone a modern digital databus to allow a radar to be used to cue an AMRAAM onto a target.

If you msut use F-5s use either the F-5S or the F-5M (brazilian upgrade that uses Isreali missiles).

[Malgrave]

Are coastal and land fortifications still useful in modern combat?

[Sigvardia]

I'd guess that fixed fortifications like bunkers and coastal guns would probably be too easy to bypass for a modern army.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Are coastal and land fortifications still useful in modern combat?

Yes. In fact I am working on a defensive line over part of my border for SMS. I think it is only like 160 km long, but it will have a lot of land mines, tank traps, trenches, bunkers, and barbed wire. I also have the minefields and barbed wire/tank trap areas pre-sighted for mortar and artillery fire. My goal is to turn a 1 kilometer long area into a killing field by holding the enemy up and tearing them apart with heavy and some lighter support elements. If they do somehow get through the minefields and barbed wire they still have to get through forward trenches (lots of bunkers and machine gun nests), reserve trenches (lots of infantry and mortars), tank trenches (tanks derp), and rear supply bases.

[Immoren]

I'd guess that fixed fortifications... ...coastal guns would probably be too easy to bypass for a modern army.

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

[-St George]

I'd guess that fixed fortifications... ...coastal guns would probably be too easy to bypass for a modern army.

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

Finland is still fighting the Winter War obv.

[Kazomal]

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

Finland is still fighting the Winter War obv.

Don't ever take your eyes off the Bear.

[Immoren]

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

Finland is still fighting the Winter War obv.

I hope not . Most Anti-ship firepower of coastal artillery is placed on Finnish and Russian made 130 mm towed field guns, SAAB RBS-15S and Spike-ER.'

Best use of D-10 tank gun

[Sigvardia]

I'd guess that fixed fortifications... ...coastal guns would probably be too easy to bypass for a modern army.

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

So fortifications can be worthwhile if you can either force the enemy to attack them or dissuading the enemy from attacking that part of the line is part of your plans?
Also I'd guess tunnels would be nice for masking the movement of your troops.

[Gridea]

Hey guys, I'm a bit newer here (first post in forums), I was just thinking. I wanted my military to have a bit different doctrine when it comes to modern warfare. Would it be sensible to have a large lightly mechanized force be the mainstay unit of my military? Tactics used would include a sort of Blitzkrieg in nothing heavier than an APC. All heavy opposition would be dealt with by air support, artillery, or guided anti-tank missiles. Of course this means a lot of reconnaissance and pre-knowledge of enemy positions. Basically, I'm going with a pretty mobile military.

[Immoren]

It depends propably on geography of coastline, as Finland still has few fixed artillery battalions to protect important harbor cities.

So fortifications can be worthwhile if you can either force the enemy to attack them or dissuading the enemy from attacking that part of the line is part of your plans?
Also I'd guess tunnels would be nice for masking the movement of your troops.

I'd remember something on lines of "when movement stops, troops dig in." First simple foxhole and then, if unit is not going anywhere, more and more elaborate net of trenches coupled with instant bunkers.

Is foldable showel still part of personal gear in other armies, or is it squad/platoon/etc. gear?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

So fortifications can be worthwhile if you can either force the enemy to attack them or dissuading the enemy from attacking that part of the line is part of your plans?
Also I'd guess tunnels would be nice for masking the movement of your troops.

I'd remember something on lines of "when movement stops, troops dig in." First simple foxhole and then, if unit is not going anywhere, more and more elaborate net of trenches coupled with instant bunkers.

Is foldable showel still part of personal gear in other armies, or is it squad/platoon/etc. gear?

E-tool or the like should be given to each soldier. Engineers should have dozers and stuff that can help dig trenches, but every soldier should be able to dig himself a foxhole in a few minutes and a section of trench in a few hours.

[Immoren]

Hey guys, I'm a bit newer here (first post in forums), I was just thinking. I wanted my military to have a bit different doctrine when it comes to modern warfare. Would it be sensible to have a large lightly mechanized force be the mainstay unit of my military? Tactics used would include a sort of Blitzkrieg in nothing heavier than an APC. All heavy opposition would be dealt with by air support, artillery, or guided anti-tank missiles. Of course this means a lot of reconnaissance and pre-knowledge of enemy positions. Basically, I'm going with a pretty mobile military.

Sounds little like Finnish type 90 jaeger brigade plus airsupport. Also I am not sure wether this type of force is really going to "blitzkrieg".

[Gridea]

Hey guys, I'm a bit newer here (first post in forums), I was just thinking. I wanted my military to have a bit different doctrine when it comes to modern warfare. Would it be sensible to have a large lightly mechanized force be the mainstay unit of my military? Tactics used would include a sort of Blitzkrieg in nothing heavier than an APC. All heavy opposition would be dealt with by air support, artillery, or guided anti-tank missiles. Of course this means a lot of reconnaissance and pre-knowledge of enemy positions. Basically, I'm going with a pretty mobile military.

Sounds little like Finnish type 90 jaeger brigade plus airsupport. Also I am not sure wether this type of force is really going to "blitzkrieg".

It was the closest word I had in mind to describe what I envision.

[Malgrave]

Are coastal and land fortifications still useful in modern combat?

Yes. In fact I am working on a defensive line over part of my border for SMS. I think it is only like 160 km long, but it will have a lot of land mines, tank traps, trenches, bunkers, and barbed wire. I also have the minefields and barbed wire/tank trap areas pre-sighted for mortar and artillery fire. My goal is to turn a 1 kilometer long area into a killing field by holding the enemy up and tearing them apart with heavy and some lighter support elements. If they do somehow get through the minefields and barbed wire they still have to get through forward trenches (lots of bunkers and machine gun nests), reserve trenches (lots of infantry and mortars), tank trenches (tanks derp), and rear supply bases.

That is good information. I have defensive positions like this in beaches near Warsaw and Pinsk (Coastal towns around my capital) I base them off the fortifications present in Scandinavian countries like Finland and Norway so lots of old Russian and Malgravean Artillery and Heavy Mortars all modernized with computer targeting systems and (semi) auto-loaders. A few old guns from the few Malgravean battleships that were scuttled in 1943 as well