NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Premislyd]

I want 45mm all-around protection on my IFV, does that cross the line into HIFV territory?

So ASE, 4-5m wide MBT, do I need a narrower tank to use in urban environments, or should I just go with my MTB escorted by my monster of an IFV and attached infantry, leaving recon, AA, etc to my LAVs?

Why is your MBT so wide? Most RL tanks are 3-4 meters wide, even 4.5 meters is insane. Regardless city streets generally are pretty wide so it will probably fit down most streets. I would probably suggest that you make your tank less of a fat ass or you use two different vehicles, MBTs for most streets, IFVs for narrow streets. Also, just an interesting subject, someone (might have been Canadai) actually thought of using an IFV with a wide bore short main gun for launching GLATGMs and HE. It might be worth tossing that idea around since a large bore gun is very useful in urban combat.

You could use a sort of BMP vehicle with a short main gun. Kinda like a Panzer IV Ausf. F1. You could also use a Stryker with a shortened down gun.

[Kazomal]

I want 45mm all-around protection on my IFV, does that cross the line into HIFV territory?

So ASE, 4-5m wide MBT, do I need a narrower tank to use in urban environments, or should I just go with my MTB escorted by my monster of an IFV and attached infantry, leaving recon, AA, etc to my LAVs?

Why is your MBT so wide? Most RL tanks are 3-4 meters wide, even 4.5 meters is insane. Regardless city streets generally are pretty wide so it will probably fit down most streets. I would probably suggest that you make your tank less of a fat ass or you use two different vehicles, MBTs for most streets, IFVs for narrow streets. Also, just an interesting subject, someone (might have been Canadai) actually thought of using an IFV with a wide bore short main gun for launching GLATGMs and HE. It might be worth tossing that idea around since a large bore gun is very useful in urban combat.

I use the LY4A2. Bought DPR a while back, on Lyras' storefront. About 4m without skirt, 5 with.

I'll look into the main gun thing, thanks.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Why is your MBT so wide? Most RL tanks are 3-4 meters wide, even 4.5 meters is insane. Regardless city streets generally are pretty wide so it will probably fit down most streets. I would probably suggest that you make your tank less of a fat ass or you use two different vehicles, MBTs for most streets, IFVs for narrow streets. Also, just an interesting subject, someone (might have been Canadai) actually thought of using an IFV with a wide bore short main gun for launching GLATGMs and HE. It might be worth tossing that idea around since a large bore gun is very useful in urban combat.

I use the LY4A2. Bought DPR a while back, on Lyras' storefront. About 4m without skirt, 5 with.

I'll look into the main gun thing, thanks.

Really? Its skirts add 1 meter in width? That doesn't seem right.

Edit: Looking at it again it says it is 4.1 meters, and 4.7 with SLAT armour. Slat armour is like that metal cage armour you might see on a striker or something, it is very different from a skirt.

[Kazomal]

I use the LY4A2. Bought DPR a while back, on Lyras' storefront. About 4m without skirt, 5 with.

I'll look into the main gun thing, thanks.

Really? Its skirts add 1 meter in width? That doesn't seem right.

4.1 without, 4.7 with slat armor, I rounded off, and said "skirt" instead of "slat" by mistake.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Really? Its skirts add 1 meter in width? That doesn't seem right.

4.1 without, 4.7 with slat armor, I rounded off, and said "skirt" instead of "slat" by mistake.

TBH I don't even know why it has slat armour, it is by no means necessary and takes a long time to weld on or remove. You should probably not use it at all.

[Coopanonva]

does my navy make any sense??

http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Coopa ... Royal_Navy

its not completed by the way

[Malgrave]

Are paratrooper still useful in the modern battlefield?

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Probably SpecOps... but then I'm not sure. One of the hats the current DCIA wore was CG of the 101st Airborne (yes, those Screaming Eagles) in Iraq, IIRC.

[Premislyd]

Are paratrooper still useful in the modern battlefield?

IMO, I think they are. My current military doctrine is like that of Nazi Germany's, although I fit in paratroopers to capture key bridges, installations, airfields, etc.. I say yes for using them as long as you have forces quickly moving in to support and link up with them.

[-St George]

Are paratrooper still useful in the modern battlefield?

IMO, I think they are. My current military doctrine is like that of Nazi Germany's, although I fit in paratroopers to capture key bridges, installations, airfields, etc.. I say yes for using them as long as you have forces quickly moving in to support and link up with them.

Just boldin'

[Malgrave]

IMO, I think they are. My current military doctrine is like that of Nazi Germany's, although I fit in paratroopers to capture key bridges, installations, airfields, etc.. I say yes for using them as long as you have forces quickly moving in to support and link up with them.

Just boldin'

so it's not useful?

I was thinking of using it on humanitarian missions to secure villages and protect them against human rights abuses swiftly before the main ground force can arrive.

[-St George]

Just boldin'

so it's not useful?

I was thinking of using it on humanitarian missions to secure villages and protect them against human rights abuses swiftly before the main ground force can arrive.

No, it probably is useful.

I was just pointing out that someone who is basing his 'current military doctrine' on 'Nazi Germany's' perhaps isn't best qualified to talk about the 'modern battlefield'.

=p

[Premislyd]

so it's not useful?

I was thinking of using it on humanitarian missions to secure villages and protect them against human rights abuses swiftly before the main ground force can arrive.

No, it probably is useful.

I was just pointing out that someone who is basing his 'current military doctrine' on 'Nazi Germany's' perhaps isn't best qualified to talk about the 'modern battlefield'.

=p

U.S's Military Doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's... As is most other "Western" countries...

[Malgrave]

so it's not useful?

I was thinking of using it on humanitarian missions to secure villages and protect them against human rights abuses swiftly before the main ground force can arrive.

No, it probably is useful.

I was just pointing out that someone who is basing his 'current military doctrine' on 'Nazi Germany's' perhaps isn't best qualified to talk about the 'modern battlefield'.

=p

I'll surge to victory using the power of a good cup of tea. War is uncivilized without the option of brewing a nice cuppa in a tank.

[-St George]

No, it probably is useful.

I was just pointing out that someone who is basing his 'current military doctrine' on 'Nazi Germany's' perhaps isn't best qualified to talk about the 'modern battlefield'.

=p

U.S's Military Doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's... As is most other "Western" countries...

Yep, the US's force projection-based military doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's.

[Premislyd]

U.S's Military Doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's... As is most other "Western" countries...

Yep, the US's force projection-based military doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's.

I was talking more about the effective use of tanks, the importance of a static defense, organization, etc. There's a reason why the U.S had several German generals write military books for the U.S Army after the end of the war.

[Immoren]

When it comes to paratroopers I am probably atleast going to have some +/- company sized "special forces" type airborne units for army level recce and sabotage missions behind "lines".

I am still not sure about that airborne division, to be used as army level reserve against enemy breakthroughs, because I asked it already, but few posters who answered were divided for both and against that idea.

[-St George]

Yep, the US's force projection-based military doctrine is based on Nazi Germany's.

I was talking more about the effective use of tanks, the importance of a static defense, organization, etc. There's a reason why the U.S had several German generals write military books for the U.S Army after the end of the war.

>implying US military doctrine hasn't changed since the end of the war

>:palm:

[Jagalonia]

Would it be possible to have a tank fueled by cocaine?

Really, you can use anything as fuel these days, gas, oil, spices...

I mean, Musolini made the trains run on thyme. Badum Tshh

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Never doubt the usefulness of soviet weaponry. Main Reasons:
- Wide Tracks
- Slim Body
- I can easily upgrade the barrel/gun
- unit cost
- Watched a documentary about tanks. T-55s got smoked by the Israelis, but only because of the Israelis stronger guns, and the fact that Israelis rock at whatever they do. I still really liked the T-55s though.
- I don't have many armoured brigades. I generally focus on artillery and infantry.

I advise you to see this video. And that's even a T72.

No tank can survive top-attack munitions. Not even Sumer's godly MCA-7. If you were physically able to fire a Javelin at an Abrams or any other battle tank, you'd get the same result.

The 30mm rounds on an A-10 Thunderbolt II actually have terrible penetration compared to other AT munitions, but are so effective because they are always firing from above, and it just completely dices the thinner upper armour. Plus, when they do penetrate, they catch fire in the crew compartment, because DU's just that awesome.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

4.1 without, 4.7 with slat armor, I rounded off, and said "skirt" instead of "slat" by mistake.

TBH I don't even know why it has slat armour, it is by no means necessary and takes a long time to weld on or remove. You should probably not use it at all.

Dat standoff.
Apparently highly effective against HEAT rounds.

[Crookfur]

I want 45mm all-around protection on my IFV, does that cross the line into HIFV territory?

So ASE, 4-5m wide MBT, do I need a narrower tank to use in urban environments, or should I just go with my MTB escorted by my monster of an IFV and attached infantry, leaving recon, AA, etc to my LAVs?

What do you mean by 45mm protection? Protection against 45mm threats or 45mm actual thickness?

[Crookfur]

Are paratrooper still useful in the modern battlefield?

Its debatable. Some still absolutly swear by them as in the end it is the only current means of projecting the kind of force an airborne divsion gives you at the speed and over the range they cna operate.

On the other hand modern air defences make full on para drops very dicey and to make full use of the reach of airborne forces you will be putting them out of reach of immediate reinforcement. Over ranges that would put airborne forces in reach of rapid reinfrocement air assault/air mobile (i.e. heliborne) units start to make more sense so you might be better off just taking some light infantry giving them all the para training (bar the very dangerous, expensive and wasteful jumping out of planes bit) and using them as a helciopter borne rapid reaction force.

As with msot stuff related to the military there is never only one "correct" way of doing things. If you want airborne forces and can come up with missions and scenarios where they will be needed then by all means have them. Likewise if you don;t really see them fitting into the kind of operations your military is engaged in/plans to engage in there is nothign to say you msut have them, its all up to you.

Personally the Crookfur Army does have several airbrone divsions buts thats mainly a result of the huge ranges our froce would need to cover to actually get into a fight and the fact that msot of our recent operations have been agaisnt foes whose air defences havn't been the best. even then only the first couple of battalions actually made jumps, the rest were landed on runways secured by the initial wave.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The vast majority of my airborne are heliborne, deployed from modernised Hinds. Samozniy Hinds (HIND-X-3 is the current service variant) allow for a strong attack helicopter force, with the bonus of being able to carry a full squad of twelve with an additional two door-gun-manning loadmasters.
The X-3 variant is almost on par with an Apache gunship in terms of avionics, countermeasures and weapon load (30mm nose gun, various rocket/missile load, even uses a modified Longbow radar) - but it can't carry full weapons with a load of infantry, and is hardly manoeuvrable, even with a fenestron tail rotor and additional engine power. X-3/A are slightly uprated variants for dedicated attack helicopter capability, which can be pressed into troop transport, for example in Spetsnaz service.
There is a completely dedicated attack helicopter, I just never got around to working out what it was going to be.

Some conventional paratroopers are deployed, but I'm considering whether to officially disband them and put them in with the heliborne, or find something that regular paratroopers are indeed useful for. Somewhere their use can be justified in huge static drops, but where they won't be torn up by AA fire.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

I advise you to see this video. And that's even a T72.

it hits the track

that tank is also probably filled with explosives for dramatic effect