NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Crookfur]

Hardened steel.

But is it always the case, or is it just the practical case MT-wise? I think EGT wanted alternatives to hardened steel with the same, if not better, results.

The only alternative is tungsten carbide, which may or may not bring enough additional perfroamnce to justify the 5 fold increase in the price of the ammo. Its worth it for full on rifle cartridges but things are so amrginal in PDW roudns that you might not actually see much improvement vs a steel core.

[Crookfur]

But is it always the case, or is it just the practical case MT-wise? I think EGT wanted alternatives to hardened steel with the same, if not better, results.

Hardened steel is the best in almost all applications for small arms. Steel jacketed lead cores are probably the most common types, but hardened steel probably offers better results.

NOBODY uses steel jackets, doing so would be a very good way to destroy barrels. You are msot liekly thinking of steel tips aka M855.

[Kouralia]

How should I organise my support assets in my force? What levels should I deploy them at?

This is how I see that I'm deploying them:

Light Role Infantry

Fire team - GPMG, LAW
Section - UGL, DMR Model Rifle
Platoon - /
Company - ATGMs, Marksmen, 81mm Mortars
Battalion - /
Brigade (wouldn't have a light Role brigade exclusively, but Brigade level assets are Artillery and Armoured Corps detachments)

Mechanised

Fire team - GPMG, LAW
Section - UGL, DMR Model Rifle, APC (i.e. HMG)
Platoon - 60mm mortars
Company - ATGMs, Marksmen, 81mm mortars
Battalion - /
Brigade (wouldn't have a mechanised brigade exclusively, but Brigade level assets are Artillery and Armoured Corps detachments)

Armoured

Fire team - GPMG
Section - UGL, DMR Model Rifle, IFV (i.e. 30mm/25mm auto-cannon, 40mm GMG, 7mm GPMG), ATGM
Platoon - /
Company - ATGMs (moar), marksmen, 120mm and 81mm mortars
Battalion -
Brigade (wouldn't have an armoured brigade exclusively, but Brigade level assets are Artillery and Armoured Corps detachments)

Is this an acceptable distribution of force?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Hardened steel is the best in almost all applications for small arms. Steel jacketed lead cores are probably the most common types, but hardened steel probably offers better results.

NOBODY uses steel jackets, doing so would be a very good way to destroy barrels. You are msot liekly thinking of steel tips aka M855.

7N21 uses a lead inner core, steel 'jacket' around this core, then the bullet itself is copper jacketed and lacquered.

[Vault 1]

That's not a jacket, that's a cup.

[The Kievan People]

Yes you could. But the idea is that I can have either one AA and one artillery, 2 artillery or 2AA units depending on what the strategic picture of the battlefield is at the time.
[/quote]

So what happens to all the spares? When it's functioning as a SAM what do it's artillery rockets and AT rockets contribute?

[Purpelia]

So what happens to all the spares? When it's functioning as a SAM what do it's artillery rockets and AT rockets contribute?

You repeatedly keep missing the point even when I have provided detailed explanations and examples. I am tired of repeating my self. I really am.

[Yes Im Biop]

Yes you could. But the idea is that I can have either one AA and one artillery, 2 artillery or 2AA units depending on what the strategic picture of the battlefield is at the time.

So what happens to all the spares? When it's functioning as a SAM what do it's artillery rockets and AT rockets contribute?[/quote]

From what i'v seen. This has been asked many times. So leave it alone. I'm sure that the Vehicle will be part of an armor convoy. And be outfitted for one purpose at a time. No spares. No replacements until they return to a FOB

[Purpelia]

Exatcly.

[Yes Im Biop]

Exatcly.

Aw good. So i didn't make an ass of myself this time.

[Purpelia]

No but he did. But now for something completely unrelated. I want to ask what you people think of my new concept for squad level tactics. The idea is as fallows:

Each squad consists out of 11 men. The squad commander is also the IFV commander and mans the squad IFV (BMP-3) with a 2 men crew. One of the two crew is trained as a mechanic and another as the squad medic. Although all men have basic first aid training. The remaining 8 men are divided into two sections. The rifle section is composed of 4 men, armed with rifles (select fire bullpup battle rifle, 7.5 Swiss) and hand grenades. One of them also has an UGL and another carries a RPG-7. Disposable RPG's are available in the IFV for deployment as needed. The second section is the heavy weapon section. It is composed of 2 heavy weapon crews, one with a GMPG (MG3 rechambered in 7.5 Swiss) and another with a grenade rifle (A light, man portable GMG. Something like this). Each crew consists of a gunner with the respective weapon and an assistant with a battle rifle and extra munitions. The combat doctrine is that the rifle section serves to provide covering fire for the heavy weapon section, flush enemies out or assault positions. Where as the heavy weapon section uses its overwhelming firepower and is the one that inflicts casualties on the enemy.

[Yes Im Biop]

No but he did. But now for something completely unrelated. I want to ask what you people think of my new concept for squad level tactics. The idea is as fallows:

Each squad consists out of 11 men. The squad commander is also the IFV commander and mans the squad IFV (BMP-3) with a 2 men crew. One of the two crew is trained as a mechanic and another as the squad medic. Although all men have basic first aid training. The remaining 8 men are divided into two sections. The rifle section is composed of 4 men, armed with rifles (select fire bullpup battle rifle, 7.5 Swiss) and hand grenades. One of them also has an UGL and another carries a RPG-7. Disposable RPG's are available in the IFV for deployment as needed. The second section is the heavy weapon section. It is composed of 2 heavy weapon crews, one with a GMPG (MG3 rechambered in 7.5 Swiss) and another with a grenade rifle (A light, man portable GMG. Something like this). Each crew consists of a gunner with the respective weapon and an assistant with a battle rifle and extra munitions. The combat doctrine is that the rifle section serves to provide covering fire for the heavy weapon section, flush enemies out or assault positions. Where as the heavy weapon section uses its overwhelming firepower and is the one that inflicts casualties on the enemy.

First off...Thats a sexy grenade launcher... This is gonna be a Very very big IFV. To fit 11 people. The Marines LAV (Fars as i know anyway) Can only hold 6 men comfortably.

[Purpelia]

No but he did. But now for something completely unrelated. I want to ask what you people think of my new concept for squad level tactics. The idea is as fallows:

Each squad consists out of 11 men. The squad commander is also the IFV commander and mans the squad IFV (BMP-3) with a 2 men crew. One of the two crew is trained as a mechanic and another as the squad medic. Although all men have basic first aid training. The remaining 8 men are divided into two sections. The rifle section is composed of 4 men, armed with rifles (select fire bullpup battle rifle, 7.5 Swiss) and hand grenades. One of them also has an UGL and another carries a RPG-7. Disposable RPG's are available in the IFV for deployment as needed. The second section is the heavy weapon section. It is composed of 2 heavy weapon crews, one with a GMPG (MG3 rechambered in 7.5 Swiss) and another with a grenade rifle (A light, man portable GMG. Something like this). Each crew consists of a gunner with the respective weapon and an assistant with a battle rifle and extra munitions. The combat doctrine is that the rifle section serves to provide covering fire for the heavy weapon section, flush enemies out or assault positions. Where as the heavy weapon section uses its overwhelming firepower and is the one that inflicts casualties on the enemy.

First off...Thats a sexy grenade launcher... This is gonna be a Very very big IFV. To fit 11 people. The Marines LAV (Fars as i know anyway) Can only hold 6 men comfortably.

It's a standard BMP-3. 8 dismounts + 3 crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3

Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
7 troopers (+ 2 additional seats)

EDIT: Actually it's a BMP-3 derivative closer to the Chinese version. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-97). But the BMP-3 is a more commonly known reference.

[Yes Im Biop]

First off...Thats a sexy grenade launcher... This is gonna be a Very very big IFV. To fit 11 people. The Marines LAV (Fars as i know anyway) Can only hold 6 men comfortably.

It's a standard BMP-3. 8 dismounts + 3 crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3

Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
7 troopers (+ 2 additional seats)

EDIT: Actually it's a BMP-3 derivative closer to the Chinese version. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-97). But the BMP-3 is a more commonly known reference.

I see i see. Well in that case. It sounds solid to me. (But i'm no real expert of that stuff so...)

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Tactical snip

It sounds kind of like duck hunting to me.

The lighter rifle group being the dog and rousting the enemy "ducks" from their hiding spots, and the heavy weapons group being the hunter.

[Purpelia]

More or less yes.

[The Kievan People]

Exatcly.

No, what you are refusing to comprehend is that it's a stupid waste of money to spend money on conversion kits that will sit unused 2/3rds of the time (at best).

Your silly launcher can increase anti-tank OR anti-aircraft OR artillery combat power. Spending the same amount of money on improved capabilities for existing dedicated weapons increases anti-tank AND anti-aircraft AND artillery combat power simultaneously.

[Purpelia]

Exatcly.

No, what you are refusing to comprehend is that it's a stupid waste of money to spend money on conversion kits that will sit unused 2/3rds of the time (at best).

Your silly launcher can increase anti-tank OR anti-aircraft OR artillery combat power. Spending the same amount of money on improved capabilities for existing dedicated weapons increases anti-tank AND anti-aircraft AND artillery combat power simultaneously.

Again you completely fail to comprehend the logic behind this. I don't need or want to double all those capabilities simultaneously. If I wanted that I could just make my units double sized and be done with it. Anyone can double the firepower of an artillery battery. Just double the number of guns. And instantly you have a huge battery that is too big for the level its used on, a logistic burden etc. The idea behind this is to have something that can double the capability of a unit in one field of choice at a given time without a massive increase in cost and man power.

To put it in a different way. Imagine a military formation as a deck of cards. Say you need more Kings or Aces. Yes you can just increase the deck. But what happens when you don't need those extra cards? Taught luck, you still have a bigger deck to drag around. The idea of this is to have a joker card that can become +1X to anything I apply it to at the discretion of my strategic commanders.

Or in very, very very TLDR terms.
The OR is a feature, NOT A BUG.

[Galla-]

No, what you are refusing to comprehend is that it's a stupid waste of money to spend money on conversion kits that will sit unused 2/3rds of the time (at best).

Your silly launcher can increase anti-tank OR anti-aircraft OR artillery combat power. Spending the same amount of money on improved capabilities for existing dedicated weapons increases anti-tank AND anti-aircraft AND artillery combat power simultaneously.

Again you completely fail to comprehend the logic behind this.

Maybe that's because there is none?

[Purpelia]

Again you completely fail to comprehend the logic behind this.

Maybe that's because there is none?

But there is a logic there. Now the concept might not be a good one. I have no problem discussing that. But in order to get there he must first realize what the concept he is discussing with me is in the first place. And that's my issue. He keeps repeating it as if he expects me to load 1/3 of each missile on some sort of monstrous do it all platform at once. And that's just not it. Maybe if I wrote up some examples of the use it would get easier to understand. BRB. Will edit them into here:


Example loads and mounts:
1. Motor Rifle Battalion, Battalion Support Battery
Load:
Unguided and guided HEFrag and HE rounds
Smart ATGM's (primary)

Mount: IFV with no special sensors.
Short Description: A light rocket artillery piece that doubles as a long range ATGM launcher. Primary use is as the ATGM launcher and secondary use is to from time to time when it is strategically needed saturate an area with a barrage. Like say an enemy trench defensive trench line.

2. River line navy ship
Load:
AA Missiles (primary)
Unguided and guided HEFrag and HE rounds if and only if the specific combat task requires it

Mount: Medium sized river patrol boats with full AA sensors
Short Description: AA launcher that can also be used to demolish strategic targets like bridges or provide limited artillery capability for the patrol boat during it's operations so that it does not have to carry around a secondary weapon system that only a small percentage of the ships in the class will ever use and that even less of them will have to use twice.

3. Mountain divisions
Load:
Unguided and guided HEFrag and HE rounds (primary)
Smart ATGM's

Mount: Wheeled chassis with no sensors
Short Description: A light rocket artillery piece that can be concealed in caves and rolled out to prepared positions quickly to hit an enemy advancing along the few narrow highways of the mountains of my border. And that can than be quickly retreated to avoid counter fire or air attack. Small size and mass help with concealment and mobility.

[The Kievan People]

The OR is a feature, NOT A BUG.

I'm not saying it's a mistake. I am saying it's a silly waste of money.

[The Kievan People]

He keeps repeating it as if he expects me to load 1/3 of each missile on some sort of monstrous do it all platform at once.

Sigh. That might actually be an improvement if it were true.

[Purpelia]

He keeps repeating it as if he expects me to load 1/3 of each missile on some sort of monstrous do it all platform at once.

Sigh. That might actually be an improvement if it were true.

But that would give me a platform that does so many things at once that it can't do anything right. The idea here is that instead of developing 3 different systems that share everything but the sensors I develop one and than develop the sensors on the side and issue combinations as needed.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Like a modular system? Ex: If I wanted to (for god knows what reason) replace my patrol boat's AA armament with ATGMs, all it would take is a different missile instead of a completely new system.

[Purpelia]

Like a modular system? Ex: If I wanted to (for god knows what reason) replace my patrol boat's AA armament with ATGMs, all it would take is a different missile instead of a completely new system.

Yes. That is the idea. Except that you would also obviously have to spot the target differently. But that's a given. The whole idea being that since you won't be doing it that often there is no justification to buy two completely different systems and the equipment to swap them out.


Also, a very good reason is that your patrol boat might (like mine) be tasked in an effort to deny an invading enemy the use of rivers and river crossings. So use of guided HE projectiles to destroy bridges and stuff is a mission requirement for them.