NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Germania Alliance]

I think you mean World War 1, gas wasn't used in WW2.

Sorry, yes, WWI. Thanks for catching that.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

A bayonet charge is still effective.

The last bayonet charge that American troops have done, that I know of, was in Iraq, 2003, when the US Marines fixed cold steel and rushed a contingent of Feyadeen Saddam. The British have been known to use bayonet charges in Afghanistan AND Iraq multiple times to great effect.

Or did you miss those BBC articles?



There is nothing wrong with trenches and bayonets.

If anything, in these wars of PGMs and laser guided missiles, a well concealed trench is more important than anything else.

The fact that I've served in Afghanistan, and haven't heard of such shenanigans, is both shocking and revolting. They must have balls of steel. :p I'll have to ask around the office on Monday.

Trenches... I've always hated them, but we never had to conceal them. We actually found it beneficial to let the enemy see where the gun-line is, instead of putting up fences and hiding. Of course, our living quarters weren't so open, mind you.

I'm sure I could find some info on bayonet charges. US Army troops cleared trenches bayonet first in the first Gulf War, US Marines fixed bayonets and broke the NVA attack on Khe Sahn, etc. etc.

Bayonets used by the professionals: http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=13011

Scots w/ bayonets: http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=14911

Basically, it isn't true saying that bayonets aren't needed or useful. The US Army disagrees, interestingly enough, but the US Army is strange. The first or so time they quit bayonets was right before WWI or somesuch iirc, and they've done it repeatedly several times. (I don't know how many times) I believe the last time was right after 'Nam, not including 2010. But the gist is that used correctly, i.e. supported by creeping barrage and/or infantry tanks/infantry fighting vehicles, like the Vietnam link above; or going against raggedy ass militia with small calibre artillery or training whatsoever like the Iraq link, a bayonet charge is an incredibly effective tool.

A bayonet charge is still effective.

The last bayonet charge that American troops have done, that I know of, was in Iraq, 2003, when the US Marines fixed cold steel and rushed a contingent of Feyadeen Saddam. The British have been known to use bayonet charges in Afghanistan AND Iraq multiple times to great effect.

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have no access to armour, air power, and very rarely do they have access to artillery usable in a supporting role required to stop a bayonet charge, or the manpower with which to hold a line against it. A bayonet charge is only effective today in FIBUA, which is what the 2003 charge was, IIRC. In the early stages of the Afghan war, the Taliban would launch masses bayonet charges at British and American positions, only to be obliterated by, again, air armour artillery and infantry fire.

In a first world v first world conflict, the side with the bayonet charge will be cut down by the air, armour and artillery and even opposing infantry of the side it attacks, because they have broken cover to engage at close quarters, allowing all components of the OpFor to engage them in the open.

Iraqis have mortars and RPGs.

Whether they use them tactically to support defensive positions is another question. They haven't during any Coalition bayonet charges, so I'd say they lack the C3 assets necessary to coordinate such fires in such a rapid, timely fashion.

And the North Vietnamese had tanks, trenches, and 155mm guns going against a straight leg Marine company in Vietnam, with the support of 9 155mm batteries. Bayonets are useful, you just have to use them properly. That means creeping barrages, counter battery fires, and supporting the assault with infantry tanks/infantry fighting vehicles.

[Minroz]

Cool…I guess the answer is no-no in MT. From what I see, artillery and mortars are better than bayonet charges.

[Germania Alliance]

The RPG is actually a terrible anti-infantry weapon, unless using a specialised anti-infantry loading. Its HEAT warhead limits its ranges of effect to a cone ahead of the warhead, instead of a more spherical detonation. The mortars and Wombats they do possess aren't in significant quantity to be used to suppress an enemy advance, and are only deployed to harass dug-in infantry. They probably wouldn't try to use them in such a way, not only do they have little experience in doing so, it makes little sense and doesn't fit with most of their shoot-and-scoot doctrine.

But of course, of the two of us, only the one has been there...
I make my points based on personal 'logic' and from the novelised (yet true) accounts of a British airman.

Mortars and RPGs are exceptionally dangerous for the simple fact that they tend to be accurate, while the insurgents can't aim for shit. Simply means that they do end up hitting someone occasionally, whereas if they had artillery, they'd probably end up hitting a couple of goat herders instead of us.

Anyway, RPGs tend to be your worst nightmare when conducting foot patrols or when riding in a truck. When you watch a movie, especially a movie like Black Hawk Down, you don't have the time to scream "AAAARRRPEEEEGEEEEE" before the rocket hits. Actually, they just pull the trigger and the explosion is almost instantaneous. What makes them so deadly is that they come from nowhere, and if one explodes even a couple of feet away from you, you're probably going to have a leg ripped off, at most.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Cool…I guess the answer is no-no in MT. From what I see, artillery and mortars are better than bayonet charges.

The North Vietnamese Army and their battalion staff officers disagree.

[Allanea]

The bayonet is not only useful for bayonet charges. Had that been the only use of a bayonet it'd be of limited use indeed.

A modern bayonet is effectively a military survival knife that happens to attach to a rifle. A soldier has a dozen uses for a knife. Opening tin cans with food? KNIFE. Cutting barbed wire obstacles? KNIFE. Slashing the throat of an enemy? KNIFE. Cut off some 550 cord? KNIFE.

In any situation where you may run the risk of fighting in close combat – and every single military in the world trains its troops for that possibility – having a sharp blade at the tip of your gun is very useful. So instead of issuing a long blade that's basically only useful as a bayonet, issue a knife that's useful for all of the stuff knives are good for, and also attaches to your rifle.

[Germania Alliance]

I'm sure I could find some info on bayonet charges. US Army troops cleared trenches bayonet first in the first Gulf War, US Marines fixed bayonets and broke the NVA attack on Khe Sahn, etc. etc.

Bayonets used by the professionals: http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=13011

Scots w/ bayonets: http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=14911

Basically, it isn't true saying that bayonets aren't needed or useful. The US Army disagrees, interestingly enough, but the US Army is strange. The first or so time they quit bayonets was right before WWI or somesuch iirc, and they've done it repeatedly several times. (I don't know how many times) I believe the last time was right after 'Nam, not including 2010. But the gist is that used correctly, i.e. supported by creeping barrage and/or infantry tanks/infantry fighting vehicles, like the Vietnam link above; or going against raggedy ass militia with small calibre artillery or training whatsoever like the Iraq link, a bayonet charge is an incredibly effective tool.

Between you and me, if my officer told me to run towards the enemy to try and stab him, I'd probably shoot my officer.

...not literally.

But, I'm sure that such charges were out of necessity. Sometimes you just can't get the support you need, and the enemy doesn't want to leave their cover.

[New Korongo]

Can artillery ammunition be carried on normal trucks or does it need some sort of special vehicle?

[Minroz]

Cool…I guess the answer is no-no in MT. From what I see, artillery and mortars are better than bayonet charges.

The North Vietnamese Army and their battalion staff officers disagree.

So, I take it that they relied on mass-infantry assault with support of artillery and mortars to get the job done.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

The North Vietnamese Army and their battalion staff officers disagree.

So, I take it that they relied on mass-infantry assault with support of artillery and mortars to get the job done.

No, the USMC charged a fortified trench line which equipped machine gun pillboxes, mortars, howitzers, and RPGs with infantry supported by 9 batteries of US Army and US Marine artillery at Khe Sanh. The Marines literally walked over the dead NVA in their trenches, penetrated the command hut, and slaughtered the NVA 8th Battalion's CO and his entire staff.

Because a well planned, well executed bayonet charge is just as effective as any other attack.

[Germania Alliance]

Can artillery ammunition be carried on normal trucks or does it need some sort of special vehicle?

They can be.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Can artillery ammunition be carried on normal trucks or does it need some sort of special vehicle?

As I recall, tracked resupply vehicles are mostly made to retain mobility characteristics of SPHs and facilitate faster reloading.

Towed guns get their ammunition carried in trucks or tractors.

[Germania Alliance]

Can artillery ammunition be carried on normal trucks or does it need some sort of special vehicle?

As I recall, tracked resupply vehicles are mostly made to retain mobility characteristics of SPHs and facilitate faster reloading.

Towed guns get their ammunition carried in trucks or tractors.

These too, but I've forgotten what they were called... I want to say ammunition carriages, but a google search turns nothing up.

[The Northwest Wind]

How does my Light Infantry Company sound , keep in mind, my entire defense force is organised around it and that most of the soldiers in it are part-time reserves (hence the limited heavy weapons).
So far I have:

Led by a Sergeant with a Corporal as a 2IC (6 Riflemen, 2 LMGs)

Led by a Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant, or a Captain with a Signaler
Has a Staff Sergeant or Warrant Officer 2nd Class as the Second-in-Command
Composed of 3 sections and a machine gun detachment using a GPMG. (Corporal with an Assistant Gunner/Ammunition Bearer)

Led by a Major with a signaler/bodyguard
Captain or Lieutenant as Second-in-Command with a signaler; it's his job to maintain links to the fighting platoons. Also does basic administration leaving OC free to "fight" his platoons.
Has a CSM, usually a Warrant Officer Class 2, in charge of casualty evacuation and resupply of ammunition, food and other necessities.
Composed of 3 Platoons and a mortar section (Led by a Sergeant, composed of 2 Corporals, 2 Gunners and 2 Ammunition Bearers, firing two L9A1 51mm mortars.

Should I have a Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle team attached to the mortar section or just issue it to the platoon level as the sitution requires?

[-St George]

Cool…I guess the answer is no-no in MT. From what I see, artillery and mortars are better than bayonet charges.

Artillery and mortars + bayonet charges = win for you.

Unless the enemy wins.

[The Kievan People]

tag

REALLY MEDHI? REALLY?

[Great Baltica]

Please help me get a design for my contest:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=145727.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The Russian Empire once used a bayonet charge against the Rethast. Admittedly, it didn't work too well, but fortunately our cuirassiers showed up.

A properly executed bayonet charge can have devastating psychological effects, and morale is what the battle is all about. The trick is the 'properly executed' part, which, in the modern context, means, as Kat mentioned, creeping artillery support, plenty of covering fire and making sure your enemy doesn't have a quad 20mm autocannon pointed your way.

The above combined with even, say, twenty screaming marines (or, as it may be, a hundred thousand Russian line infantry advancing in stony silence until the final ten meter dash), can scatter a vastly larger number of people if used in the right spot.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The bayonet is not only useful for bayonet charges. Had that been the only use of a bayonet it'd be of limited use indeed.

A modern bayonet is effectively a military survival knife that happens to attach to a rifle. A soldier has a dozen uses for a knife. Opening tin cans with food? KNIFE. Cutting barbed wire obstacles? KNIFE. Slashing the throat of an enemy? KNIFE. Cut off some 550 cord? KNIFE.

In any situation where you may run the risk of fighting in close combat – and every single military in the world trains its troops for that possibility – having a sharp blade at the tip of your gun is very useful. So instead of issuing a long blade that's basically only useful as a bayonet, issue a knife that's useful for all of the stuff knives are good for, and also attaches to your rifle.

Doesn't that typically mean you end up with a blade shorter than a specialised bayonet?

[Sciox]

I was wondering if I could get some other's opinions on my naval battlegroup setup. Listed are the ships, their armaments and their vehicle wings, all the vessels are nuclear powered and equipped with a cooperative combat system (which plugs the weapon systems of every ship into 1 computer system for greater coordination). This battlegroup is a combination of my Surface Warfare, Amphibious Assault and Submarine battlegroup ORBATs with a few additional support ships and cruisers to take into account the larger number of surface ships.

2x Regent class aircraft carriers (medium carrier based on the Admiral Kuznetsov but with improved equipment)
Armament
-48 VLS missile tubes
-56 anti-submarine missile tubes
-4 Medium range anti-missile missile systems
-16 Scatter CIWS
-4 anti-torpedo torpedo tubes
Vehicle Wing
-36 F-60 Hecate fighters (Multirole stealth fighter)
-2 AV-30 Reaper Gunships (For support of ground troops)
-4 V-30 Phantom Tiltrotors (For transport, refueling and counter submarine operations)
-4 VAR-32 AWACs
-12 Agni UAVs (For scouting, counter submarine and limited counter surface and ground attack missions)
-4 Serpent AUVs (For counter submarine operations)

6x Pegasus Class Battlecruisers (The Sciox Navy's main surface combatant, it carries a very large missile and gun armament)
Armament
-6, 6.1 inch guns, mounted on two turrets, with three guns each and capable of firing in bursts of three shells at a time from each barrel
-568 VLS missile tubes
-56 anti-submarine missile tubes
-25 Scatter CIWS
-3 Medium range anti-missile missile systems
-4 anti-torpedo torpedo tubes
Vehicle Wing
-4 Agni UAVs
-8 Serpent AUVs

2x Collector class replenishment ships (With the entire fleet being powered by nuclear reactors, the main purpose of the Collectors are to carry food, ammunition and spare parts)
Amament
-24 VLS missile tubes
-4 anti-submarine missile tubes
-20 Scatter CIWS
-4 Medium range anti-missile missile systems
-4 anti-torpedo torpedo tubes

4x Goliath class amphibious assault ships (Four ships together are capable of carrying an entire Amphibious Marine Brigade into combat)
Amament
-48 VLS missile tubes
-12 anti-submarine missile tubes
-20 Scatter CIWS
-6 Medium range anti-missile missile systems
-6 anti-torpedo torpedo tubes
Vehicle Wing
-12x V-28 Raven Fighters (VTOL ground attack plane)
-8x AH-66 Skymanche (Sciox Marine version of the RH-66 Comanche)
-2x VC-4 Condor transport planes (Heavy VTOL, posses similar capabilities to the C-130J)
-12x V-30 Phantom Tiltrotors
-2 AV-30 Reaper Gunships
-8 Agni UAVs

2x Arsenal class submarines (Carrying over two hundred VLS missile tubes, the arsenals are used to project anti-surface and anti-air capability far from the rest of the battlegroup)
Armament
-212 VLS Missile tubes
-6 Torpedo tubes
Vehicle Wing
-8 Serpent AUVs
-4 Agni UAVs (For submarine use, they are launched from a reusable VLS launch tube however the vessel must surface to recover the UAV after it lands)

2x Market class replenishment submarines (A modfied Arsenal class ship, using the docking seals on their bellies Markets are capable of supplying other submarines with additional food and torpedoes, while still underwater)
Amament
-8 VLS missile tubes
-6 Torpedo tubes

6x Stiletto class submarines (The Sciox Navy's main nuclear powered attack submarine)
Vehicle Wing
-4 Serpent AUVs
-4 Agni UAVs
Armament
-24 VLS Missile tubes
-8 Torpedo tubes

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I would recommend you looked here http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=6178 for a general size of your Navy (designed to give a large, well-maintained Navy size estimate comparable to the USN).
This isn't telling you your organisation is wrong, I'm certainly not qualified as others to comment on that.

[Sciox]

I would recommend you looked here http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... topic=6178 for a general size of your Navy (designed to give a large, well-maintained Navy size estimate comparable to the USN).
This isn't telling you your organisation is wrong, I'm certainly not qualified as others to comment on that.

I have actually looked at that before and I'm not sure why that would be brought up, the number of ships in this force represents a significant investment in tonnage, containing about 1/6th of my professional surface fleet and 1/15th of my professional submarine force and I realize that.

However my navy isn't really comparable to the USN in many ways. Namely my larger focus on battlecruisers as opposed to destroyers and frigates, numerous medium carriers as opposed to a smaller number of supers and my huge investments in submarine as opposed to carrier battlegroups as the tip of the spear.

[The Reliquary]

Battlecruisers are iffy at best. Submarines operate best on their own, only need about 3 as part of the fleet for a force that size. And supply subs are pointless in a fleet situation, much better for resupplying individual hunter killer subs. Missile subs shouldn't operate with a fleet, have them operate near but not part of it IMO.

Might also be quite large to properly coordinate that force.

[Fohmalaut]

Would it be feasible to have these specifications in a capital ship (Large battleship based on the Yamato-Class)


Displacement: 65,000 tons, 70,000 tons (full)

Length: 256 metres (waterline), 263 metres (overall)

Beam: 38.9 metres

Draft: 11 metres

Installed power: BB1M 260,000 shaft horsepower (190,000 kW)

Propulsion: 2 Nuclear Power plants driving Four 3-bladed propellers.

Speed: 32.5 knots (60 km/h)

Range: unlimited

Crew: 2,800

Armament:
Main: 9 × 460 mm cannons housed in three-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Nuclear)(All shells are rocket assisted)
Secondary: 6 × 155 mm cannons housed in two-3 turrets (Armour Piercing, High Explosive, Anti-Torpedo)(AP and HE are rocket assisted)
CIWS systems: 6 x Goalkeeper Close In Weapons System. (7x30mm GAU-8 Gatling)
Other: 2 x THAAD anti-ballistic missile system, 4 x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, 6 x Type 1 610mm Torpedo Tubes (based on Type 93 Torpedos of WW2), 4 x Type 1 Armoured Box Launcher (Based on Mk 143 ABL for Tomahawks)

Armour:
650 mm on face of main turrets
410 mm side armour
200 mm central (75%) armoured deck
225 mm outer (25%) armoured deck

[Jagalonia]

How does my Light Infantry Company sound , keep in mind, my entire defense force is organised around it and that most of the soldiers in it are part-time reserves (hence the limited heavy weapons).
So far I have:

Led by a Sergeant with a Corporal as a 2IC (6 Riflemen, 2 LMGs)

Led by a Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant, or a Captain with a Signaler
Has a Staff Sergeant or Warrant Officer 2nd Class as the Second-in-Command
Composed of 3 sections and a machine gun detachment using a GPMG. (Corporal with an Assistant Gunner/Ammunition Bearer)

Led by a Major with a signaler/bodyguard
Captain or Lieutenant as Second-in-Command with a signaler; it's his job to maintain links to the fighting platoons. Also does basic administration leaving OC free to "fight" his platoons.
Has a CSM, usually a Warrant Officer Class 2, in charge of casualty evacuation and resupply of ammunition, food and other necessities.
Composed of 3 Platoons and a mortar section (Led by a Sergeant, composed of 2 Corporals, 2 Gunners and 2 Ammunition Bearers, firing two L9A1 51mm mortars.

Should I have a Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle team attached to the mortar section or just issue it to the platoon level as the sitution requires?

Normaly it's a "heavy" weapons det at the platoon level, with mortars, RRs/AT weapons, and GPMGs.