NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Lubyak]

Look at it this way. If one recruit spends a few months training to become an infantryman, another spends a few months training to become a tank crewman, another spends a few months training to become an artilleryman and so on and so forth for every job you've clumped into that one category (ranging from cook to quartermaster to anti-aircraft gunner to combat engineer to army air corps pilot), how many months and how much money will you need to train each soldier in every role required for your army to continue functioning before you send them off to the frontline to die in a few minutes because they can't remember anything they need to remember under all the useless rubble you've shovelled into their heads?

One year of training.

For comparison, USMC Boot Camp takes 12 weeks, with infantry training taking an additional 59 days. So, a basic Marine infantryman will be in training for about 143 days, about 39% of the time it'll take you to train one soldier. Beyond this, if a soldier is going to be an infantryman, why does he also have to be ready to hop in and operate a tank, or use a piece of artillery? If you allowed specialization, it'd allow you to churn troops out much quicker, and those troops would likely be better at their particular job than if they'd been forced to try and learn all the jobs.

And let's not forget that the majority of your troops will always be rear area personnel. Why does a logistics officer need to know how to drive a tank or aim an artillery piece? Why do they need infantry training beyond that at boot camp? They're not going to be mean to be on the front lines, and if they are something has gone horribly wrong. You're wasting a bunch of money and time here, and should reconsider.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I cannot understand why upon any level loading a round at any angle whatsoever could affect munition performance.

Because in this particular case, he never said anything about affecting munition performance - the issue in question was that the guidance system wouldn't be able to operate if loaded incorrectly due to its inability to create a data sharing connection via the missile's IR ports.

When the missile is loaded into the barrel it connects via an infrared link to the tank's system. If the missile is loaded wrongly the infrared ports will not align and the missile won't be able to take any data.

(a round chambered upside down would cause a fair few problems concerning munitions performance too, mind, but I suppose that's not the issue at hand)

But...
How?

[GHawkins]

I'm thinking about equipping my army with the L85A2 and variants as their standard rifle. However, a friend of mine said that it sucks, unreliable and stuff.

However, I was able to find nothing about what I mentioned. Anyone know the L85 and it's performance? Or am I better off with another weapon (NATO style that is)?

[The Kievan People]

It it becoming clearer now.

IRL one of the most popular ways to establish a data link between a round and the FCS inside the breech is to communicate through the electrode on the primer. This has the advantage of not needing any additional holes in the breech.

[Elan Valleys]

Because in this particular case, he never said anything about affecting munition performance - the issue in question was that the guidance system wouldn't be able to operate if loaded incorrectly due to its inability to create a data sharing connection via the missile's IR ports.



(a round chambered upside down would cause a fair few problems concerning munitions performance too, mind, but I suppose that's not the issue at hand)

But...
How?

If the infrared thingy is at the top of the missile, but gets loaded so it's facing the bottom of the chamber, the two can't link up?

[Galla-]

I cannot understand why upon any level loading a round at any angle whatsoever could affect munition performance.

Because in this particular case, he never said anything about affecting munition performance - the issue in question was that the guidance system wouldn't be able to operate if loaded incorrectly due to its inability to create a data sharing connection via the missile's IR ports.

When the missile is loaded into the barrel it connects via an infrared link to the tank's system. If the missile is loaded wrongly the infrared ports will not align and the missile won't be able to take any data.

(a round chambered upside down would cause a fair few problems concerning munitions performance too, mind, but I suppose that's not the issue at hand)

It'd still lose the fight though because it doesn't have skirts, but instead tracks

Because in this particular case, he never said anything about affecting munition performance - the issue in question was that the guidance system wouldn't be able to operate if loaded incorrectly due to its inability to create a data sharing connection via the missile's IR ports.



(a round chambered upside down would cause a fair few problems concerning munitions performance too, mind, but I suppose that's not the issue at hand)

But...
How?

I'm going to be nice and tell you.

Because the gun's infrared data ports are on the top of the gun breech.

So if the missile's ports are on the bottom, the gun cannot talk to the missile and tell it things like where it needs to fly to hit the target.

This could happen if someone isn't paying attention to which way the round is loaded when they're reloading the autoloader.

[Elan Valleys]

I'm thinking about equipping my army with the L85A2 and variants as their standard rifle. However, a friend of mine said that it sucks, unreliable and stuff.

However, I was able to find nothing about what I mentioned. Anyone know the L85 and it's performance? Or am I better off with another weapon (NATO style that is)?

L85A1 was crap.

L85A2 has fixed the problems.

It's only issue is that it's a bit heavy; this however gives it accuracy and reliability.

[Dragomere]

One year of training.

For comparison, USMC Boot Camp takes 12 weeks, with infantry training taking an additional 59 days. So, a basic Marine infantryman will be in training for about 143 days, about 39% of the time it'll take you to train one soldier. Beyond this, if a soldier is going to be an infantryman, why does he also have to be ready to hop in and operate a tank, or use a piece of artillery? If you allowed specialization, it'd allow you to churn troops out much quicker, and those troops would likely be better at their particular job than if they'd been forced to try and learn all the jobs.

And let's not forget that the majority of your troops will always be rear area personnel. Why does a logistics officer need to know how to drive a tank or aim an artillery piece? Why do they need infantry training beyond that at boot camp? They're not going to be mean to be on the front lines, and if they are something has gone horribly wrong. You're wasting a bunch of money and time here, and should reconsider.

All they would need to know is how to drive it, load its ammo, and use the targeting system.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

For comparison, USMC Boot Camp takes 12 weeks, with infantry training taking an additional 59 days. So, a basic Marine infantryman will be in training for about 143 days, about 39% of the time it'll take you to train one soldier. Beyond this, if a soldier is going to be an infantryman, why does he also have to be ready to hop in and operate a tank, or use a piece of artillery? If you allowed specialization, it'd allow you to churn troops out much quicker, and those troops would likely be better at their particular job than if they'd been forced to try and learn all the jobs.

And let's not forget that the majority of your troops will always be rear area personnel. Why does a logistics officer need to know how to drive a tank or aim an artillery piece? Why do they need infantry training beyond that at boot camp? They're not going to be mean to be on the front lines, and if they are something has gone horribly wrong. You're wasting a bunch of money and time here, and should reconsider.

All they would need to know is how to drive it, load its ammo, and use the targeting system.

That's a pretty severe amount to teach people.

But...
How?

I'm going to be nice and tell you.

Because the gun's infrared data ports are on the top of the gun breech.

So if the missile's ports are on the bottom, the gun cannot talk to the missile and tell it things like where it needs to fly to hit the target.

This could happen if someone isn't paying attention to which way the round is loaded when they're reloading the autoloader.

I'm aware of Mat's explanation of how the Bugle missile communicates with its FCS.

I'm asking Anemos to clarify how dumb rounds may suffer performance losses from being rotated within the breech.

[Elan Valleys]

For comparison, USMC Boot Camp takes 12 weeks, with infantry training taking an additional 59 days. So, a basic Marine infantryman will be in training for about 143 days, about 39% of the time it'll take you to train one soldier. Beyond this, if a soldier is going to be an infantryman, why does he also have to be ready to hop in and operate a tank, or use a piece of artillery? If you allowed specialization, it'd allow you to churn troops out much quicker, and those troops would likely be better at their particular job than if they'd been forced to try and learn all the jobs.

And let's not forget that the majority of your troops will always be rear area personnel. Why does a logistics officer need to know how to drive a tank or aim an artillery piece? Why do they need infantry training beyond that at boot camp? They're not going to be mean to be on the front lines, and if they are something has gone horribly wrong. You're wasting a bunch of money and time here, and should reconsider.

All they would need to know is how to drive it, load its ammo, and use the targeting system.

It's a little more complicated than that.

[Galla-]

I'm aware of Mat's explanation of how the Bugle missile communicates with its FCS.

I'm asking Anemos to clarify how dumb rounds may suffer performance losses from being rotated within the breech.

You quoted a missile and asked how it wouldn't work.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm aware of Mat's explanation of how the Bugle missile communicates with its FCS.

I'm asking Anemos to clarify how dumb rounds may suffer performance losses from being rotated within the breech.

You quoted a missile and asked how it wouldn't work.

Anemos then said "to be fair, loading a round upside down would have performance issues, but that's not the issue at hand".

To which "but how" was my direct reply.

I read Mat's explanation the first time he explained it. And the second.

[Crookfur]

I'm thinking about equipping my army with the L85A2 and variants as their standard rifle. However, a friend of mine said that it sucks, unreliable and stuff.

However, I was able to find nothing about what I mentioned. Anyone know the L85 and it's performance? Or am I better off with another weapon (NATO style that is)?

Even the much maligned and majorly moaned about L85 (base model now known as the A1) was actually less likely to jam than an equivelent age M16, its just that for the first 10 years of its life it was beign comapred to the old FN gun and if you know British Squaddies nothing is better than the gun they used have i.e. they all spent the 60s and 70s wishing for the SMLE. of coruse the A1 wasn't brilliant and did (like most british gear) have a tendency to go wrong in ammusing/catastrophic ways, msot down to some very dodgy manufacturing issues rather anything to do with the design of the gun

Then the L85A2 coems alogn courtousy of HK and now you have a very reialble gun that IIRC had far higher user acceptance results and a lower jam rate than just about any other rifle in NATO.

[Dragomere]

All they would need to know is how to drive it, load its ammo, and use the targeting system.

It's a little more complicated than that.

The equipment is mostly automated by an on board computer.

[Grand Britannia]

Speaking of training, would having specialized members of the a militia be taught to use tanks or some other type of armored vehicles be wise?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It's a little more complicated than that.

The equipment is mostly automated by an on board computer.

And when that computer fails?

[Lubyak]

As a question, in my current doctrine, I have separate 'battle armour' and 'exploitation armour' divisions, each of which are equipped with different vehicles. Battle Armour divisions are equipped with heavier vehicles, prioritising protection and firepower over range and reliability. Exploitation Armour divisions are equipped more with lighter vehicles that prioritise range and reliability. Of course each formation isn't solely equipped with their respective vehicles, but they definitely have more of them.

Using Soviet operations as an example, the current plan would be for the battle armour divisions to make up the first echelon of forces, while exploitation armour would be kept in the second echelon and manuver groups. The idea would be that the battle armour engages and destroys enemy forces, thus clearing the path for the exploitation armour to pass through and begin seeking out and destroying hostile C&C facilities, logistics, and other Line of communications things.

Does this plan seem practical? One flaw I could see is that the two different types of vehicle would increase logistical strain...but I'm hoping that specializing the vehicles would increase combat efficiency enough to make up for the more difficult logistics.

[San-Silvacian]

My basic training is 9 weeks 4 days.

My AIT for artillery is going to be 7 weeks 4 days.

The US has a fairly well trained military in terms of initial training, a year is a waste of money and is only good for tactical elan military.

I HAVE A YEAR OF CQB, SMALL ARMS AND HAND-TO-HAND TRAINING. MY NATION HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PAYING FOR MY TRAINING. I AM THE BEST SOLDIER EVER.

*gets killed by 152.4mm artillery gun crewed by 4-5 week trained conscripts*

Speaking of training, would having specialized members of the a militia be taught to use tanks or some other type of armored vehicles be wise?

Depends on what you mean by a militia.

[Dragomere]

The equipment is mostly automated by an on board computer.

And when that computer fails?

the likelihood of a complete computer failier happening is .1%; however, there are maintenance people for that. If it fails, the system switches to manual, but it is not hard to figure out how to aim and fire it.

[Anemos Major]

All they would need to know is how to drive it, load its ammo, and use the targeting system.

If your average infantryman finds themselves in a position where it's them and an empty tank between the enemy hordes, that's no longer a military job but one for your diplomats and whatever white fabric you may have.

Driving a tank, loading its ammo and using the targeting system is a lot harder than it seems. The driver doesn't just floor the accelerator - the driver needs to know how to navigate, to drive on different terrain, how to drive and where to drive in combat situations. The loader needs to be able to keep up the correct pace when it comes to loading rounds, and in a combat situation that's a lot more difficult than it seems. The gunner and commander need to be able to memorise, understand and follow a particular pattern of engagement when going through the process of engaging other tanks, which require an understanding of the tank's tactical situation and how to complete its objectives. Each crew member has to spend months learning these skills. They then spend more months learning more vital skills outside the tank, because crewmen play an active role in maintaining their tanks (which require active maintenance almost all the time to prevent everything from the tracks breaking to the gun being mis-sighted). Then they spend a good few years continually practicing these skills until it's as familiar as familiar can be, and they can actually do everything in unison as a crew because knowing everything in the world about how to operate a tank means nothing if the two or three other crewmen don't know how to do it with you.

You're underestimating just how hard it is to be a tank crewman. Or anything else, actually, because the same sort of problems and requirements surface in almost every area of specialisation in the army.

[Galla-]

The equipment is mostly automated by an on board computer.

And when that computer fails?

Get a new tank, obv. o;

[Anemos Major]

Anemos then said "to be fair, loading a round upside down would have performance issues, but that's not the issue at hand".

To which "but how" was my direct reply.

I read Mat's explanation the first time he explained it. And the second.

Well, try jamming a round the wrong way round in a rifle's chamber and tell me how that goes. Then go and read up on dry humour and you'll have a better answer to that question.

[Galla-]

Anemos then said "to be fair, loading a round upside down would have performance issues, but that's not the issue at hand".

To which "but how" was my direct reply.

I read Mat's explanation the first time he explained it. And the second.

Well, try jamming a round the wrong way round in a rifle's chamber and tell me how that goes. Then go and read up on dry humour and you'll have a better answer to that question.

TBF that's not rly upside down, that's backwards.

[Arthurista]

Considering that scramjet engines don't work except at very high speed, is there any way to make hypersonic aircrafts take off normally?

[Anemos Major]

And when that computer fails?

the likelihood of a complete computer failier happening is .1%; however, there are maintenance people for that. If it fails, the system switches to manual, but it is not hard to figure out how to aim and fire it.

It's very hard. With no firing computer, that means no firing solutions, and no firing solutions means you either have to have a good and fast understanding of ballistics and how tank sights work or some way of getting out of that tank quickly before it's decimated.

Bear in mind that most tanks have the sort of computer control you're describing right now, and that months of training are required to get to grips with that.