NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Questers]

Kat is right that you don't want to be caught desant in a real war.

[Galla-]

Afghanistan is not at all comparable or relevant to a high intensity war tbh. The highest casualty producer in Afghanistan is UXOs, compared to long range artillery in a serious war. Come on, bro.

I stopped talking about Afghanistan. I went for your high intensity war where both sides have ATGM or other heavy tank-defeating armament at their disposal.

Since we'll go for solid examples, give me a high intensity war situation, hypothetical or whatever you want to make it.

World War 2. 75% of British casualties 1939-1945 were caused by artillery. Similar numbers for the other great powers at the time involved.

Artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, this is objective fact. When your opponent has no artillery (Afghanistan), you can ride desant. Otherwise you die.

[The UK in Exile]

I stopped talking about Afghanistan. I went for your high intensity war where both sides have ATGM or other heavy tank-defeating armament at their disposal.

Since we'll go for solid examples, give me a high intensity war situation, hypothetical or whatever you want to make it.

World War 2. 75% of British casualties 1939-1945 were caused by artillery. Similar numbers for the other great powers at the time involved.

Artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, this is objective fact. When your opponent has no artillery (Afghanistan), you can ride desant. Otherwise you die.

and I'm sure absolutely nothing has changed in the last 65 years.

WW2 - the only subject thats always topical.

[Galla-]

World War 2. 75% of British casualties 1939-1945 were caused by artillery. Similar numbers for the other great powers at the time involved.

Artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, this is objective fact. When your opponent has no artillery (Afghanistan), you can ride desant. Otherwise you die.

and I'm sure absolutely nothing has changed in the last 65 years.

WW2 - the only subject thats always topical.

What invalidated artillery, great scholar?

What war disproved that assumption that all good, modern, mechanised armies have based themselves around? Do you know why WW2 always gets referred back to? Because WW3 never happened. Everyone used their experiences in WW2 to plan for WW3, an this includes the quite correct objective facts that: artillery is the deadliest weapon on the battlefield, that small arms are mostly ineffective casualty producers, and infantry that aren't protected under armour become casualties. \:

This is not contentious. At all.

[Questers]

Artillery has become more lethal, comparatively, as time has progressed.

[Ea90]

Is 30 SPHs and 60 MLRSs per 2000-man regiment a good amount of artillery?

[The UK in Exile]

and I'm sure absolutely nothing has changed in the last 65 years.

WW2 - the only subject thats always topical.

What invalidated artillery, great scholar?

Counterbattery radar location?

[Galla-]

What invalidated artillery, great scholar?

Counterbattery radar location?

Yeah. That's why we don't have self propelled howitzers that can relocate a minute after firing.

Also CBR came into use during WW2 btw.

[Questers]

Is 30 SPHs and 60 MLRSs per 2000-man regiment a good amount of artillery?

Its too much really. 60 mrls!!!!

[San-Silvacian]

Is 30 SPHs and 60 MLRSs per 2000-man regiment a good amount of artillery?

better than 3000000 troops and only sending 2000 SPGs.

[The UK in Exile]

Counterbattery radar location?

Yeah. That's why we don't have self propelled howitzers that can relocate a minute after firing.

Also CBR came into use during WW2 btw.

and you don't think shoot and scoot howitzers probably aren't directly comparable to a war which witnessed a two hour, million shell artillery barrage, the largest ever seen?

you can't spot one or two differences there?

[Questers]

The "lessons learned" from a low intensity war are not going to be at all useful in a high intensity war. I don't know why people keep thinking they are.

[GHawkins]

What war disproved that assumption that all good, modern, mechanised armies have based themselves around? Do you know why WW2 always gets referred back to? Because WW3 never happened. Everyone used their experiences in WW2 to plan for WW3, an this includes the quite correct objective facts that: artillery is the deadliest weapon on the battlefield, that small arms are mostly ineffective casualty producers, and infantry that aren't protected under armour become casualties. \:

This is not contentious. At all.

Actually, artillery isn't the deadliest. A good air force is. You can have a million artillery guns, but they won't make a difference if they are constantly bombed by an opposing air force with air superiority.

I admit. It's deadly to ride desant on any vehicle in a combat zone. But riding inside it is worse. And Shock and Awe or Blitzkrieg and even the Soviet Cold War Doctrine, wouldn't have worked with the infantry walking besides the vehicles. They either have to ride inside them or on top of them. And in that case, on top is preferable.

Artillery is indeed deadly. I won't deny that. However, what is more deadly? Having 8 men inside a vehicle and dropping a shell on it? Or having 8 men on top of the vehicle who then have a chance to get away from the vehicle before the shell impacts? In both cases, their chances are slim. But their chances while riding on top are a lot better than when riding inside it. You can get away from the vehicle if you're outside, not when inside.

Same goes for tank busters. Take the A-10 for example. You can see it coming. If you're riding inside the vehicle, you'll be torn to shreds when it fires its main gun. If you're outside, you can jump off, run and pray for your life. No guarantee it will succeed, but again, they have a bigger chance.

Fact remains though, that infantry require transportation for modern day tactics such as Shock and Awe to work. Without that, it won't be shock and awe. And if the enemy has a capable air force or artillery brigade, then you'll have to counter that before your mechanized forces can engage without being torn to shreds.

[The UK in Exile]

The "lessons learned" from a low intensity war are not going to be at all useful in a high intensity war. I don't know why people keep thinking they are.

does that not smack somewhat of dismissing tanks as devices unique to the conditions and circumstances of the Somme?

[Questers]

even the Soviet Cold War Doctrine, wouldn't have worked with the infantry walking besides the vehicles. They either have to ride inside them or on top of them. And in that case, on top is preferable.

I'm just going to assume you've never read anything about the Soviet Army ever. Indeed it's tactical doctrine was to walk with troops alongside IFVs.

Artillery is indeed deadly. I won't deny that. However, what is more deadly? Having 8 men inside a vehicle and dropping a shell on it? Or having 8 men on top of the vehicle who then have a chance to get away from the vehicle before the shell impacts? In both cases, their chances are slim. But their chances while riding on top are a lot better than when riding inside it. You can get away from the vehicle if you're outside, not when inside

The point isn't that it's bad if the shell is a direct hit, which as you noted would be deadly in any scenario, but that a shell or a bomb explosion will kill anyone riding desant. Only a very near miss would injure people inside.

[Questers]

The "lessons learned" from a low intensity war are not going to be at all useful in a high intensity war. I don't know why people keep thinking they are.

does that not smack somewhat of dismissing tanks as devices unique to the conditions and circumstances of the Somme?

No, because there you're talking about conditions of symmetrical war. The British and German armies were otherwise ceteris paribus forces. The British Army and the Taliban are not. A good example of what I'm talking about is helicopter medevac. That is not going to be a thing in a mechanised war. It's extremely important in Afghanistan, for exmple.

[Spirit of Hope]

What war disproved that assumption that all good, modern, mechanised armies have based themselves around? Do you know why WW2 always gets referred back to? Because WW3 never happened. Everyone used their experiences in WW2 to plan for WW3, an this includes the quite correct objective facts that: artillery is the deadliest weapon on the battlefield, that small arms are mostly ineffective casualty producers, and infantry that aren't protected under armour become casualties. \:

This is not contentious. At all.

Actually, artillery isn't the deadliest. A good air force is. You can have a million artillery guns, but they won't make a difference if they are constantly bombed by an opposing air force with air superiority.

I admit. It's deadly to ride desant on any vehicle in a combat zone. But riding inside it is worse. And Shock and Awe or Blitzkrieg and even the Soviet Cold War Doctrine, wouldn't have worked with the infantry walking besides the vehicles. They either have to ride inside them or on top of them. And in that case, on top is preferable.

Artillery is indeed deadly. I won't deny that. However, what is more deadly? Having 8 men inside a vehicle and dropping a shell on it? Or having 8 men on top of the vehicle who then have a chance to get away from the vehicle before the shell impacts? In both cases, their chances are slim. But their chances while riding on top are a lot better than when riding inside it. You can get away from the vehicle if you're outside, not when inside.

Same goes for tank busters. Take the A-10 for example. You can see it coming. If you're riding inside the vehicle, you'll be torn to shreds when it fires its main gun. If you're outside, you can jump off, run and pray for your life. No guarantee it will succeed, but again, they have a bigger chance.

Fact remains though, that infantry require transportation for modern day tactics such as Shock and Awe to work. Without that, it won't be shock and awe. And if the enemy has a capable air force or artillery brigade, then you'll have to counter that before your mechanized forces can engage without being torn to shreds.

I wouldn't say riding on the outside is preferable to the inside. On the outside on a fast moving armored vehicle infantry aren't going to add much to the formations firepower. While at the same time they will make themselves more vulnerable to enemy small arms and artillery fire.

Your A-10 though doesn't really work, because any vehicle formation would have attached Anti-air ability to, at least attempt, to counter the enemy air force.

Now the whole point of APC's and IFV's was to transport your troops safely to the battlefield, where they would then disembark and engage enemy forces, alongside the armored vehicles. This create a network of mutual support.

[Galla-]

Yeah. That's why we don't have self propelled howitzers that can relocate a minute after firing.

Also CBR came into use during WW2 btw.

and you don't think shoot and scoot howitzers probably aren't directly comparable to a war which witnessed a two hour, million shell artillery barrage, the largest ever seen?

you can't spot one or two differences there?

Do you think that if you can conduct a two hour barrage, that the enemy has the ability to perform proper counter battery?

Obviously things have changed, yes. I don't see how this invalidates artillery as the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield. You seem to have some contention with that, but it's pretty obvious if you look at it. If anything, with the development and deployment of nuclear weapons under the artillery branch, its lethality has far surpassed anything imaginable in WW2, while the defenses against it (CB fire, CBR, etc.) remain fairly understandable and grounded in comparison. \:

Unless you can provide concrete evidence that artillery was neutered as a weapon in the last 65 years, I'm going to have to say that you're wrong here.

What war disproved that assumption that all good, modern, mechanised armies have based themselves around? Do you know why WW2 always gets referred back to? Because WW3 never happened. Everyone used their experiences in WW2 to plan for WW3, an this includes the quite correct objective facts that: artillery is the deadliest weapon on the battlefield, that small arms are mostly ineffective casualty producers, and infantry that aren't protected under armour become casualties. \:

This is not contentious. At all.

Actually, artillery isn't the deadliest. A good air force is. You can have a million artillery guns, but they won't make a difference if they are constantly bombed by an opposing air force with air superiority.

When have air attacks' casualty production exceeded the casualty production of artillery guns, in any actual or hypothetical high intensity conflict? Never.

The rest of your post is nonsense. If you're riding desant and you get missed by a shell, you die. If you're riding inside, it gets stuck in the armour surrounding you. If it hits you either case, you die both ways. I'd prefer to stay inside a steel box when there are huge pieces of metal being thrown by VT fused artillery shells flying around my IFV, you feel clearly different. We call this difference "suicidal", though.

The "lessons learned" from a low intensity war are not going to be at all useful in a high intensity war. I don't know why people keep thinking they are.

does that not smack somewhat of dismissing tanks as devices unique to the conditions and circumstances of the Somme?

No. What is relevant about fighting peasant dirt farmers with DShKs on flatbed trucks that is relevant to fighting the Soviet Army with a fully mechanised military?

[GHawkins]

I'm just going to assume you've never read anything about the Soviet Army ever. Indeed it's tactical doctrine was to walk with troops alongside IFVs.

Oh I've read enough. I know their tactic was to walk besides the vehicles. And they can't do that while inside their vehicles. So, what do they do when they have to flank an enemy? Get inside their vehicles again and make a perfect target? No, they ride on top of it if they want to use speed as their advantage. They'd dismount again when it became useful for them to walk again, when they were engaging. On top of that, they'd ride their IFVs on top till the point of engagement. Why? Because if they arrived and were inside, they'd be blown up together with the IFV if unfortunate enough to encounter an ATGM. Fact remains that jumping off an IFV is faster than getting out through the hatches.

The point isn't that it's bad if the shell is a direct hit, which as you noted would be deadly in any scenario, but that a shell or a bomb explosion will kill anyone riding desant. Only a very near miss would injure people inside.

As you stated, their doctrine was to walk besides the vehicles anyway. Which means whether riding desant or not, they'd be screwed over when artillery came into play. So, what do you do when you're screwed either way, either by an ATGM or artillery? You get on top, so you can dismount for the ATGM and spread out to have fewer casualties by artillery.

When have air attacks' casualty production exceeded the casualty production of artillery guns, in any actual or hypothetical high intensity conflict? Never.

Operation Desert Storm. The A-10's alone killed more than 30% of Saddam's armoured vehicles. And those were tanks alone. I have no statistics about other vehicles such as IFVs or trucks, but the A-10's killed about 1200~ of Saddam's 3400~ tank losses.

I wouldn't say riding on the outside is preferable to the inside. On the outside on a fast moving armored vehicle infantry aren't going to add much to the formations firepower. While at the same time they will make themselves more vulnerable to enemy small arms and artillery fire.

Your A-10 though doesn't really work, because any vehicle formation would have attached Anti-air ability to, at least attempt, to counter the enemy air force.

Now the whole point of APC's and IFV's was to transport your troops safely to the battlefield, where they would then disembark and engage enemy forces, alongside the armored vehicles. This create a network of mutual support.

The IFVs are vulnerable either way, the infantry inside it as well. I do admit, they are protected from shrapnel and small arms fire. But the heavy weapons will always be focused on the vehicles first. And that's where the causalities will bleed. The intensity of modern-day artillery barrages, vehicles won't offer the protection that the infantry requires.

Also, the A-10 situation was under the assumption the other party (the one sending the A-10) has air superiority.

And yes, I know the entire point of APCs and IFVs. I'm just saying that riding them desant or not doesn't matter, the infantry inside them is fucked either way if they engage in high-intensity combat. So I'd say that they'd prefer desant because their chances are a lot higher then, as they can quicker get off the vehicle and into combat positions and get away from the vehicle in case of attack that would destroy the vehicle.

[Elan Valleys]

The reason people ride on AFVs is to do with mine strikes, IIRC.

[The UK in Exile]

does that not smack somewhat of dismissing tanks as devices unique to the conditions and circumstances of the Somme?

No. What is relevant about fighting peasant dirt farmers with DShKs on flatbed trucks that is relevant to fighting the Soviet Army with a fully mechanised military?

those farmers fought the soviet army and its fully mechanised military. perhaps you should ask them. at the very least, its a more current example than WW2.

[The UK in Exile]

does that not smack somewhat of dismissing tanks as devices unique to the conditions and circumstances of the Somme?

No, because there you're talking about conditions of symmetrical war. The British and German armies were otherwise ceteris paribus forces. The British Army and the Taliban are not. A good example of what I'm talking about is helicopter medevac. That is not going to be a thing in a mechanised war. It's extremely important in Afghanistan, for exmple.

no lessons from the Boer War were relevant to WW1 then?

[Ea90]

Is 30 SPHs and 60 MLRSs per 2000-man regiment a good amount of artillery?

Its too much really. 60 mrls!!!!

What would be a more reasonable number?
30?

[Spirit of Hope]

The IFVs are vulnerable either way, the infantry inside it as well. I do admit, they are protected from shrapnel and small arms fire. But the heavy weapons will always be focused on the vehicles first. And that's where the causalities will bleed. The intensity of modern-day artillery barrages, vehicles won't offer the protection that the infantry requires.

Which gets back to my point. Infantry ride in the armored vehicles until they arrive at the battlefield. Then they disembark. At this point the infantry are not inside the vehicle, they probably aren't even right next to it. They are nearby taking cover and operating alongside the armored vehicle. Their is no point to keeping infantry inside an armored vehicle when it is at the battlefield.

Also, the A-10 situation was under the assumption the other party (the one sending the A-10) has air superiority.

Its called air defense, it takes the form of MANPADS, Avengers, and other anti air capabilities on the ground. As I have already stated the Egyptians proved this could work during the Yom Kippur War. (Yes they eventually lost but their were a lot of reasons for that)

And yes, I know the entire point of APCs and IFVs. I'm just saying that riding them desant or not doesn't matter, the infantry inside them is fucked either way if they engage in high-intensity combat. So I'd say that they'd prefer desant because their chances are a lot higher then, as they can quicker get off the vehicle and into combat positions and get away from the vehicle in case of attack that would destroy the vehicle.

Then why would you make armored vehicles at all? By your logic their isn't a point, so we should just have open topped vehicles that let the infantry jump out.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Its too much really. 60 mrls!!!!

What would be a more reasonable number?
30?

I don't recall an MLRS being a Regimental asset, though if you use the Regimental system as opposed to the Divisional system, I guess it would be by default.
I'd say a battery of six per Regiment.