NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Which he admitted. The point was that railguns that can potentially kill tanks currently exist, the problem is in the power supply and not having the projectile fuse to the gun every third shot.

A tank with a railgun capable of firing once ~10 seconds would make the Abrams look like a T-72. The problem is that having enough capacitors to store the energy required for a decent ROF requires excessive weight and size. The tank below was projected to weigh at ~90 tons

Once again, no one is proposing using them in MT, they were being compared to plasma guns in an FT environment.

[DASHES]

Sorry for the late reply.

I know for a fact that M76 Zastava's do have BUIS.

For the training bit, IMO its not as bad as it looks. Take a healthy adult, give em' the same training you would give a US Army Ranger, briefly teach em' the proper way to storm a beach (should the soldier ever have to), and lastly, give them a quick lesson about how to operate the M115 Howitzer and M1943 160mm Mortar. Voila: A DIC Trooper.
I understand that having an army of elites is very difficult, and that's one of the reasons my nations Army is so [relatively] small. I have a nation of about 2.9 Billion people, and I have an Army of over 1.5 Million soldiers. My navy and airforce are much smaller than that too.

The bit about the tanks and their having too much support is unclear. I think its best for a tank squadron to have refueling trucks nearby so that the MBT's the squadrons contain don't always suffer from the limitations of their operational ranges.

The 'Super Stallions' will be supported by MH-6 'Little Bird' helicopters, and their armament. I don't really see why this won't work.

EDIT: MATHS

That's irrelevant. What you're doing is cramming logistics units into platoon level tank formations, when they should be part of independent logistics formations or, at the very least, attached to the formation at a higher level (support assets beyond little command cars, transport trucks and possibly ARVs should only really be incorporated into a formation from Battalion level onwards). The platoon isn't an all-integrated self-operating unit, it's a small combat component of a larger operating unit. There's no point in doing something as impractical as shoehorning logistics assets that belong elsewhere into the lowest level of command; rather than having to deal with trucks and tanks in the same formation, it's best to put them in separate formations and have them interact when necessary.

Because the Super Stallion is a big, big helicopter. Unless you're fighting in all-plain environments, having to drag around these massive helicopters doesn't give you any benefits whatsoever. It limits the areas you can actually operate them in, it provides a much bigger target to enemies and so on; beyond that, attaching the MH-6 to formations of CH-53s completely negates the range advantage of the latter. Rather than forcing every helicopter formation to use one giant and one tiny helicopter which negate each others' advantages, why don't you just use a medium sized utility helicopter (UH-60, say, or NH90) capable of being fitted for different missions instead? UH-60 can act as a troop ferry, a MEDEVAC chopper, be fitted for direct support, special operations support... there's nothing wrong with a versatile platform.

Very well. I'll modify the Tank Squadrons.

I'll go ahead and adopt the UH-1H 'Huey' medium helicopter. Thanks for the advice.

[Radictistan]

Delta Hueys? Really? I hope you have a good IC reason for using that model and not someting a bit newer, like the "H" or "N."

[The Akasha Colony]

Delta Hueys? Really? I hope you have a good IC reason for using that model and not someting a bit newer, like the "H" or "N."

Or the current version, the UH-1Y.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There is no reason to use a five decade old helicopter at all and it isn't realistic in the least sense. There are loads better alternatives from that family of helicopters alone without even considering the myriad of other much better alternatives.

[Galla-]

EDIT: MATHS

That's irrelevant. What you're doing is cramming logistics units into platoon level tank formations, when they should be part of independent logistics formations or, at the very least, attached to the formation at a higher level (support assets beyond little command cars, transport trucks and possibly ARVs should only really be incorporated into a formation from Battalion level onwards). The platoon isn't an all-integrated self-operating unit, it's a small combat component of a larger operating unit. There's no point in doing something as impractical as shoehorning logistics assets that belong elsewhere into the lowest level of command; rather than having to deal with trucks and tanks in the same formation, it's best to put them in separate formations and have them interact when necessary.

Because the Super Stallion is a big, big helicopter. Unless you're fighting in all-plain environments, having to drag around these massive helicopters doesn't give you any benefits whatsoever. It limits the areas you can actually operate them in, it provides a much bigger target to enemies and so on; beyond that, attaching the MH-6 to formations of CH-53s completely negates the range advantage of the latter. Rather than forcing every helicopter formation to use one giant and one tiny helicopter which negate each others' advantages, why don't you just use a medium sized utility helicopter (UH-60, say, or NH90) capable of being fitted for different missions instead? UH-60 can act as a troop ferry, a MEDEVAC chopper, be fitted for direct support, special operations support... there's nothing wrong with a versatile platform.

Very well. I'll modify the Tank Squadrons.

I'll go ahead and adopt the UH-1D 'Huey' medium helicopter. Thanks for the advice.

Use UH-1H, since all you'd be doing is swapping out the engine.

Of course you could be totally ballin' like me and use CH-34 Choctaw.

Delta Hueys? Really? I hope you have a good IC reason for using that model and not someting a bit newer, like the "H" or "N."

Or the current version, the UH-1Y.

Or he couldn't.

[Anemos Major]

HT6A4, and again, a white background version. Enjoy.

[Anemos Major]

There is no reason to use a five decade old helicopter at all and it isn't realistic in the least sense. There are loads better alternatives from that family of helicopters alone without even considering the myriad of other much better alternatives.

You could be ditch poor and using relatively old equipment; his MBT is the M60A3, after all. UH-1D *might* be a bit too old, but as Galla said, UH-1H is definitely fine; the JGSDF still use a derivative of it IRL, for one.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There is no reason to use a five decade old helicopter at all and it isn't realistic in the least sense. There are loads better alternatives from that family of helicopters alone without even considering the myriad of other much better alternatives.

You could be ditch poor and using relatively old equipment; his MBT is the M60A3, after all. UH-1D *might* be a bit too old, but as Galla said, UH-1H is definitely fine; the JGSDF still use a derivative of it IRL, for one.

Poor financial status does not automatically equate to using old equipment. It isn't going to cost less to build a UH-1D and then outfit it with half decent electronics than it will to buy a UH-1Y for example, probably won't be cheap enough to justify the saving over an NH-90 or similar either. Just because something is old doesn't make it automatically cheaper to produce or make, often it's the opposite.

If you are really dirt poor and are buying used stock off another nation, you're pretty unlikely to have a one make force in which case a smattering of UH-1D's, UH-1H's and a lot of other crap would be far more likely.

Plus, you have to consider the wear and tear on the airframe. A tank and a helicopter are two very different things that operate in very different ways. Aircraft have a set number of hours that the airframe can perform before it's just useless and at serious risk of failure. To overhaul an aircraft that has reached it's maximum flight hours so that it's airworthy again is very expensive.

The only realistic way to RP having UH-1H's is to be already phasing them out. There is no realistic way to RP having anything older.

[Golomun]

once the plasma leaves the gun it runs into the air which stops it pretty quickly. theres very little you can do to make the plasma effective as a weapon that wouldn't be even more devasting if you used a standard kinetic projectile.

you could make a flame-thrower out of it for burning stuff, but that's about it for plasma-wifles.
AAMOF, you could go the simple route and work from the principles of a nuclear jet engine to ignite the air and throw it at your victum; you'll also get a bonus jet pack after some fine tuning

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Well... I may as well ask.
1) Would it be a terrible idea to make a logistics variant of my APC? Or better yet, since I'm working on MT now, are there any existing APC/IFV things that have a logistics variant?

2) could I reasonably expect a V-22 osprey to carry a 21 man squad and a light vehicle? Something like this

3) could I make an unmanned Kamov KA-50

4) could I replace ~65% of my naval fighter planes with UCAVs?

I think that's it... Thanks all.

[United Earthlings]

I think I remember a nuclear bomb simulator thing. It was like google map and you could punch in the force of the explosion in megatons and it would show several circles showing the where every building will be leveld, where most buildings will be badly damaged, and where there would only be minor damage. Anyone got an idea what I am thinking of? I think it might have been posted in NSD a long time ago.

Besides the first link Lubyak provided, the closest to what you describe I know of is on the FAS site.

Here's the link-Do note though that you'll need to have Java installed for the program to work.

[DASHES]

Delta Hueys? Really? I hope you have a good IC reason for using that model and not someting a bit newer, like the "H" or "N."

That was a last-thing-at-night typo.

I meant to say UH-1H 'Huey'. Sorry.

[DASHES]

There is no reason to use a five decade old helicopter at all and it isn't realistic in the least sense. There are loads better alternatives from that family of helicopters alone without even considering the myriad of other much better alternatives.

You sure there is no reason?

I use the 'Wasp' class Amphibious Assault Ship, which carries the UH-1N Huey (also, since the Wasp is a modern american ship, there is obviously some merit to/reason for its use of the UH-1 platform). I use the Wasp class ship in my ambibious ready groups. I figure if the UH-1N can fit on the Wasp ship, any vehicle from the UH-1 platform can fit in its place on that ship.

Also, its a versatile, medium helicopter, just like what Anemos Major told me I needed to get.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well... I may as well ask.
1) Would it be a terrible idea to make a logistics variant of my APC? Or better yet, since I'm working on MT now, are there any existing APC/IFV things that have a logistics variant?

2) could I reasonably expect a V-22 osprey to carry a 21 man squad and a light vehicle? Something like this

3) could I make an unmanned Kamov KA-50

4) could I replace ~65% of my naval fighter planes with UCAVs?

I think that's it... Thanks all.

1. It's not impossible, but not terribly practical. Relative to a simple truck, an APC is going to be larger, heavier, and with worse fuel mileage. It will require you to ship more supplies just to run your logistics network, and also has a more restricted payload if you want to maintain its fully-enclosed nature. Plus, the biggest advantage, improved protection, is rather moot since you won't be resupplying in combat anyway, and if you were, you still couldn't protect the men running back and forth carrying out the resupply. It will also require more man-hours to keep running relative to standard off-road truck-transporters like the HEMTT, etc.

2. Not both at once. Each takes up more than half of the Osprey's current payload, which is 32 men or 9,070 kg. The Enok weighs 5,400 kg, while 21 men is obviously 2/3 of the manpower capacity. However, if you improved the engine power, you could probably do it, although the Enok is definitely going to have to be slung from an external hook unless you're going to make the whole thing bigger, fuselage-wise.

3. You could, but the cost required to make the avionics advanced enough to replace a pilot in combat would negate any cost advantage. It also makes it vulnerable to terrain effects and radio jamming that may cut off communications, leaving it on its own. With MT, it's impossible to make an onboard decision-making package that would replace a remote operator, so this is a major issue. It's possible to make any plane automated, but replacing combat functions is rather tricky, and attack helos in particular are complicated aircraft, hence why they normally have two pilots.

4. What do you want your naval air force to do? If it will mostly be ground-attack in safe environments, like what the US does, then that's fine. UCAVs are also fine for launching long-range missiles against enemy aircraft, like the AIM-54 Phoenix. However, in MT, they're not a true replacement for dogfighting and anti-air combat. If you expect to be operating in contentious environments, using true MT, it's not terribly practical. If you're willing to push into semi-PMT, you may get supersonic UCAVs capable of deep-penetration missions, but still no true dogfighting capability. But if you don't expect to engage in dogfighting, then UCAVs may be more economical.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

1. It's not impossible, but not terribly practical. Relative to a simple truck, an APC is going to be larger, heavier, and with worse fuel mileage. It will require you to ship more supplies just to run your logistics network, and also has a more restricted payload if you want to maintain its fully-enclosed nature. Plus, the biggest advantage, improved protection, is rather moot since you won't be resupplying in combat anyway, and if you were, you still couldn't protect the men running back and forth carrying out the resupply. It will also require more man-hours to keep running relative to standard off-road truck-transporters like the HEMTT, etc.

2. Not both at once. Each takes up more than half of the Osprey's current payload, which is 32 men or 9,070 kg. The Enok weighs 5,400 kg, while 21 men is obviously 2/3 of the manpower capacity. However, if you improved the engine power, you could probably do it, although the Enok is definitely going to have to be slung from an external hook unless you're going to make the whole thing bigger, fuselage-wise.

3. You could, but the cost required to make the avionics advanced enough to replace a pilot in combat would negate any cost advantage. It also makes it vulnerable to terrain effects and radio jamming that may cut off communications, leaving it on its own. With MT, it's impossible to make an onboard decision-making package that would replace a remote operator, so this is a major issue. It's possible to make any plane automated, but replacing combat functions is rather tricky, and attack helos in particular are complicated aircraft, hence why they normally have two pilots.

4. What do you want your naval air force to do? If it will mostly be ground-attack in safe environments, like what the US does, then that's fine. UCAVs are also fine for launching long-range missiles against enemy aircraft, like the AIM-54 Phoenix. However, in MT, they're not a true replacement for dogfighting and anti-air combat. If you expect to be operating in contentious environments, using true MT, it's not terribly practical. If you're willing to push into semi-PMT, you may get supersonic UCAVs capable of deep-penetration missions, but still no true dogfighting capability. But if you don't expect to engage in dogfighting, then UCAVs may be more economical.

1) yeah... I realized that while I was out. Both roles I had in mind could be better filled by either up-armored trucks escorted by either APCs or FAVs (rear to mid line) or regular APCs with an ammo crate in the troop compartment.

2) according to my (admittedly poor) calculations, assuming all my troopers weigh ~140lbs and are carrying 70lbs of equipment (not entirley likely, but it gives me some padding) then they weigh roughly 2,562kg, plus an underslung Enok at 5,400kg equals 7,962kg. I think I could do it without mods, but I'm probably wrong.

3) fair enough, it was mostly for rule of cool anyway

4) see above, although that reminds me, could UAVs sucessfully perform AWACS duty?

[Galla-]

You could be ditch poor and using relatively old equipment; his MBT is the M60A3, after all. UH-1D *might* be a bit too old, but as Galla said, UH-1H is definitely fine; the JGSDF still use a derivative of it IRL, for one.

Poor financial status does not automatically equate to using old equipment. It isn't going to cost less to build a UH-1D and then outfit it with half decent electronics than it will to buy a UH-1Y for example, probably won't be cheap enough to justify the saving over an NH-90 or similar either. Just because something is old doesn't make it automatically cheaper to produce or make, often it's the opposite.

If you are really dirt poor and are buying used stock off another nation, you're pretty unlikely to have a one make force in which case a smattering of UH-1D's, UH-1H's and a lot of other crap would be far more likely.

Plus, you have to consider the wear and tear on the airframe. A tank and a helicopter are two very different things that operate in very different ways. Aircraft have a set number of hours that the airframe can perform before it's just useless and at serious risk of failure. To overhaul an aircraft that has reached it's maximum flight hours so that it's airworthy again is very expensive.

The only realistic way to RP having UH-1H's is to be already phasing them out. There is no realistic way to RP having anything older.

Unless he uses Viper, there's no reason he should be using UH-1Y over an -N, but twin Huey is worst Huey so UH-1H wins again.

[Paddy O Fernature]

2) according to my (admittedly poor) calculations, assuming all my troopers weigh ~140lbs and are carrying 70lbs of equipment (not entirley likely, but it gives me some padding) then they weigh roughly 2,562kg, plus an underslung Enok at 5,400kg equals 7,962kg. I think I could do it without mods, but I'm probably wrong.

Wait a second here...your average soldier is 140lbs soaking wet? Is your entire military made up of females or something?

I would bump this up to the 160-170lb mark to be a little more realistic. After all, you are talking about a combat arms unit made up mostly of physically fit men, not armchair generals ripped straight from their moms basements lad.

[The Akasha Colony]

1. It's not impossible, but not terribly practical. Relative to a simple truck, an APC is going to be larger, heavier, and with worse fuel mileage. It will require you to ship more supplies just to run your logistics network, and also has a more restricted payload if you want to maintain its fully-enclosed nature. Plus, the biggest advantage, improved protection, is rather moot since you won't be resupplying in combat anyway, and if you were, you still couldn't protect the men running back and forth carrying out the resupply. It will also require more man-hours to keep running relative to standard off-road truck-transporters like the HEMTT, etc.

2. Not both at once. Each takes up more than half of the Osprey's current payload, which is 32 men or 9,070 kg. The Enok weighs 5,400 kg, while 21 men is obviously 2/3 of the manpower capacity. However, if you improved the engine power, you could probably do it, although the Enok is definitely going to have to be slung from an external hook unless you're going to make the whole thing bigger, fuselage-wise.

3. You could, but the cost required to make the avionics advanced enough to replace a pilot in combat would negate any cost advantage. It also makes it vulnerable to terrain effects and radio jamming that may cut off communications, leaving it on its own. With MT, it's impossible to make an onboard decision-making package that would replace a remote operator, so this is a major issue. It's possible to make any plane automated, but replacing combat functions is rather tricky, and attack helos in particular are complicated aircraft, hence why they normally have two pilots.

4. What do you want your naval air force to do? If it will mostly be ground-attack in safe environments, like what the US does, then that's fine. UCAVs are also fine for launching long-range missiles against enemy aircraft, like the AIM-54 Phoenix. However, in MT, they're not a true replacement for dogfighting and anti-air combat. If you expect to be operating in contentious environments, using true MT, it's not terribly practical. If you're willing to push into semi-PMT, you may get supersonic UCAVs capable of deep-penetration missions, but still no true dogfighting capability. But if you don't expect to engage in dogfighting, then UCAVs may be more economical.

1) yeah... I realized that while I was out. Both roles I had in mind could be better filled by either up-armored trucks escorted by either APCs or FAVs (rear to mid line) or regular APCs with an ammo crate in the troop compartment.

2) according to my (admittedly poor) calculations, assuming all my troopers weigh ~140lbs and are carrying 70lbs of equipment (not entirley likely, but it gives me some padding) then they weigh roughly 2,562kg, plus an underslung Enok at 5,400kg equals 7,962kg. I think I could do it without mods, but I'm probably wrong.

3) fair enough, it was mostly for rule of cool anyway

4) see above, although that reminds me, could UAVs sucessfully perform AWACS duty?

2. 140 lbs per man seems rather light, if they're front-line soldiers in decent physical shape. In any event, you could probably do it, but you'd have to be careful about additional mission payloads at that point, including any extra equipment for the Enok, extra fuel for the V-22, and ammo, etc. The remaining weight allowance would be eaten up pretty quickly.

4. A sufficiently large UAV could be used to mount the normal AWACS-type radar, although it couldn't carry out the command functions of assigning specific air units to specific objectives like the crew of an AWACS could. It could likely handle basic target-discrimination, and could assign simple objectives like vectoring a friendly fighter unit to intercept a hostile unit, but not replicate the flexible, on-the-fly decision-making capability of an actual air controller.

You could also consider a network of smaller UAVs, each with a smaller, directional radar whose combined telemetry is collated together into a single picture. The advantage is of course that it's a bit more flexible and damage-resistant, with no single target to disable the entire network. It would likely be more expensive though. And of course, you'd still need a control station somewhere for the radar feeds to be processed and orders sent out, either on the surface, or on a separate aircraft.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

2) hense the 70lbs rucksack, for mathematical padding. I honestly have no idea how much the average person weighs, although in hindsight a quick google search would have saved me From looking like an idiot. I suppose it's a good thing I added an extra 20lbs to the equipment weight.
I figured the extra allowance would be filled quickly. I'm thinking of just designing my own transport.

I was infact thinking of five or so UAVs working in tandem (sorry, should have been more specific) the control station would ideally be on the ship that launched them.

[The Akasha Colony]

2) hense the 70lbs rucksack, for mathematical padding. I honestly have no idea how much the average person weighs, although in hindsight a quick google search would have saved me From looking like an idiot. I suppose it's a good thing I added an extra 20lbs to the equipment weight.
I figured the extra allowance would be filled quickly. I'm thinking of just designing my own transport.

I was infact thinking of five or so UAVs working in tandem (sorry, should have been more specific) the control station would ideally be on the ship that launched them.

Five could do it, so long as their radars have sufficient coverage. 120 degrees of forward coverage per plane would allow for full 360 degree total coverage for the network plus some redundancy overlap for safety in the event of failure, malfunction, or hostile damage.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Thank you, that's perfect.

I re-did my math. Assuming my average trooper now weighs 175lbs, with 65lbs of equipment (a fairly reasonable amount according to the study) then I come up with 2,286kg. I must have buggered up the math somewhare, because it seems my 140lbs troops from earlier weigh more.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

I want to understand more about the logistical rule.

How many support ships does it take for each surface combatant or submarine to make a well organized navy in terms of logistics realistically?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

TAC there is a lengthened version of the V-22 I use (I forgot the name, else I'd tell you.) It might be worth looking into.

[The Corparation]

TAC there is a lengthened version of the V-22 I use (I forgot the name, else I'd tell you.) It might be worth looking into.

Are you thinking of the QTR concept? (Quad Tilt Rotor)