NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

by **Kouralia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:20 am

Lamoni wrote:Impact fuzes typically depend on hitting a target within a set range of angles (though typically a 90 degree angle works best).

This means that the answer to your question would depend on the exact fuze used by the RKG-3, and how sensitive it is. About it going off after a period of time, that I do not know.

Curses. What kind of blast would it deliver?

Like, if it hits the floor I'm guessing no shrapnel, directional blast toward the HEAT Charge? Someone's just thrown one near some cops in NSGS, and I'm considering how deadly it will be.

by **Lamoni** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:37 am

HEAT charges tend to be more directional than other blasts, with much of the force being used to propel the molten metal jet used to create penetration in armor.

However, such a grenade will also likely throw off shrapnel when it detonates, so it is also useful against infantry, just less so than a dedicated frag grenade.

by **Kouralia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:39 am

Lamoni wrote:HEAT charges tend to be more directional than other blasts, with much of the force being used to propel the molten metal jet used to create penetration in armor.

However, such a grenade will also likely throw off shrapnel when it detonates, so it is also useful against infantry, just less so than a dedicated frag grenade.

Okay, thanks! I've got this as describing what happens:

Meanwhile the Policemen stepped up to the vehicles, ducking down in surprise as a GPMG sprayed wildly out before a man with a G36 emptied it into him. "GRENADE!" A Constable screamed, stepping hurriedly back as it sailed out of the car door and landed near the officers. Immediately the Impact fuse detonated, sending the directional blast into the recently emptied police car, ripping it apart like tissue paper and sending a small amount of shrapnel into a Constable's leg, dropping him yelling in pain. A few seconds of silence followed before a Policeman re-cocked his rifle and stuck it into the car, pointing at the pile of dazed Mafiosi. "Right, y'all under arrest for being cunts and murder and shit like that." he said mirthlessly as the other officers dragged out the assorted wounded, live and dead senators. "You have the right to remain silent, however anything you do say can and could be taken down and be used in a court of law against you. Beware of failing to mention something now which you later rely on in a Court of Law. You have the right to Legal Assistance."

by **Lamoni** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:43 am

That looks good to me.

by **Kouralia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:43 am

Lamoni wrote:That looks good to me.

Thanks!

by **Republica Newland** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:47 am

Republica Newland wrote:So tell me what do ye thinks? I remember using fucked up logic when writing this so ask me if there's smth you don't understand

Infantry (Motorized / Mechanized / Armored )

( 1/2 ) Fire and Maneuver Team

( 3/4 ) Fireteam

( 4/6/8 ) Squad ( 6 | 8/9 | 10/11 )

Light:

Commander 4: Grenadier (Rifle+UBGL)
Cmd. Assistant 3: Rifleman/Assistant Grenadier (Rifle+extra UBGL ammo)
Soldier 1/2: Gunner (MG)
Soldier 1/2: Marksman (DMR) OR Rifleman/Assistant Gunner (Rifle+extra MG ammo)

+ 2 crew

Medium:

Commander 4: Grenadier (Rifle+UBGL)
Soldier 2: Gunner (MG)
Soldier 2: Marksman (DMR)
Cmd. Assistant 3: Rifleman/Assistant Grenadier (Rifle+extra UBGL ammo)
Soldier 1: Rifleman/Assistant Gunner (Rifle+extra MG ammo)
Soldier 1: Rifleman/Assistant Marksman (Rifle+extra DMR ammo)

+ 2/3 crew

Heavy:

Commander 4: Grenadier (Rifle+UBGL)
Soldier 2: Gunner (MG)
Soldier 2: Marksman (DMR)
Cmd. Assistant 3: Rifleman/Assistant Grenadier (Rifle+extra UBGL ammo)
Soldier 1: Rifleman/Assistant Gunner (Rifle+extra MG ammo)
Soldier 1: Rifleman/Assistant Marksman (Rifle+extra DMR ammo)
Soldier 1/2: Specialist/AT (Rifle+AT)
Soldier 1/2: Specialist/Medic (Rifle+Medpack)

+ 2/3 crew

( 8/12/16 ) Section ( 12 | 16/18 | 20/22 )

1st Squad
2nd Squad

( 16/24/32 ) Platoon ( 24 | 32/36 | 40/44 )

1st Squad
2nd Squad
3rd Squad
------------
4th Squad

Platoon Leader (Officer): Grenadier (Rifle+UBGL)
PL. Assistant (Sergeant): Grenadier (Rife+UBGL)

(replacing Commander and Cmd. Assistant)

( 48/72/96 ) Company ( 72 | 96/108 | 120/132 ) [ 9 | 15 | 20 ] { 15 | 17/21 | 20/24 } << 57 | 79/87 | 100/108 >>

1st Platoon
2nd Platoon
--------------
Command/Support Platoon

1st Squad - Command

Light:

CO
2IC
Platoon Leader
PL. Assistant

Medium:

CO
2IC
Platoon Leader
PL. Assistant
Commander
Commander Assistant

Heavy:

CO
2IC
Platoon Leader
PL. Assistant
Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Soldier: Rifleman/Specialist
Soldier: Rifleman/Specialist

2nd Squad - Medevac

Light:

Medic

Medium:

Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Medic

Heavy:

Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Medic
Medic

3rd Squad - Specialist

Light:

Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Specialist
Specialist

Medium:

Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist

Heavy:

Commander
Cmd. Assistant
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist
Specialist

4th Squad - Fire Support

by **Purpelia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:45 am

Graznovia wrote:
Graznovia wrote:Is it a bad idea to equip platoon 'command' (not so much command as in dedicated command versions of the vehicle but rather the vehicle in which platoon command rides) with a mortar (probably 2B9 Vasilek), considering that it would imply to the adversary that the vehicle with the mortar contains the command element?

BAMP.

On another note, does anyone have information on Soviet/Russian rifle (yes, rifle and not motor rifle) formations?

I do exatcly what you described. I took a BMP-3 and replaced the 2A70 with a 2B9 leaving the rest intact.

by **The Kievan People** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:53 am

Graznovia wrote:
Graznovia wrote:Is it a bad idea to equip platoon 'command' (not so much command as in dedicated command versions of the vehicle but rather the vehicle in which platoon command rides) with a mortar (probably 2B9 Vasilek), considering that it would imply to the adversary that the vehicle with the mortar contains the command element?

BAMP.

On another note, does anyone have information on Soviet/Russian rifle (yes, rifle and not motor rifle) formations?

Why?

A lone mortar on the command vehicle will not contribute much. Better to just give all mortar ammunition to the mortar battery.

by **Questers** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:02 am

Graznovia wrote:On another note, does anyone have information on Soviet/Russian rifle (yes, rifle and not motor rifle) formations?

What, so leg infantry? You mean from WWII? There's loads of info about that on the internet. I hope you're not trying to make it relevant for MT tho.

by **Ayreonia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:14 am

Questers wrote:misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

Why would you want to throw away a valuable unit such as an airborne division for no gain whatsoever? Drop them behind the enemy HQ and cut off the serpent's head instead. The enemy would be a fool to divert armor to deal with lightly equipped paratroops.

by **Graznovia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:17 am

Questers wrote:
Graznovia wrote:On another note, does anyone have information on Soviet/Russian rifle (yes, rifle and not motor rifle) formations?
What, so leg infantry? You mean from WWII? There's loads of info about that on the internet. I hope you're not trying to make it relevant for MT tho.

The intent was more to find a Soviet/Russian contemporary of niche units like 'light infantry' or 'rangers' that primarily fight dismounted where motorized forces are not ideal, such as due to highly inclement terrain.

by **Graznovia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:21 am

Ayreonia wrote:
Questers wrote:misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

Why would you want to throw away a valuable unit such as an airborne division for no gain whatsoever? Drop them behind the enemy HQ and cut off the serpent's head instead. The enemy would be a fool to divert armor to deal with lightly equipped paratroops.

> Lightly equipped

Also if the enemy can drop an airborne division behind your HQ something is very wrong with your air defense.

by **Ayreonia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:27 am

Graznovia wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:Why would you want to throw away a valuable unit such as an airborne division for no gain whatsoever? Drop them behind the enemy HQ and cut off the serpent's head instead. The enemy would be a fool to divert armor to deal with lightly equipped paratroops.

> Lightly equipped

Also if the enemy can drop an airborne division behind your HQ something is very wrong with your air defense.

Please, tell me that a para division can field AFVs of equal performance and numbers to an armored one. Plus that makes the act of dropping them to be summarily surrounded and destroyed an even bigger waste.

There's something wrong with your air defense if the enemy is able to drop a goddamn division between your battle lines.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:33 am

Ayreonia wrote:Please, tell me that a para division can field AFVs of equal performance and numbers to an armored one.

Yes. Soviet airborne troops had APC's, IFV's and light tanks and could reasonably well take on anything short of an actual tank division. A western mechanized infantry force would have found them quite a challenge.

Plus that makes the act of dropping them to be summarily surrounded and destroyed an even bigger waste.

That depends on how you define waste. It does waste more money in terms of investment but less lives since now a smaller number of men can do the same job. You pick which is more important to you.

There's something wrong with your air defense if the enemy is able to drop a goddamn division between your battle lines.

At least on that much we can agree.

The Kievan People wrote:Why?

A lone mortar on the command vehicle will not contribute much. Better to just give all mortar ammunition to the mortar battery.

That's sort of the point. It replaces the platoon mortar battery entirely.

by **Graznovia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:38 am

Ayreonia wrote:
Graznovia wrote:(Image)
> Lightly equipped

Also if the enemy can drop an airborne division behind your HQ something is very wrong with your air defense.

Please, tell me that a para division can field AFVs of equal performance and numbers to an armored one. Plus that makes the act of dropping them to be summarily surrounded and destroyed an even bigger waste.

There's something wrong with your air defense if the enemy is able to drop a goddamn division between your battle lines.

A HQ (high level one that is) will most probably be situated much further back than the battle lines. Assuming Soviet-style layered air defenses, this means the HQ is going to be much harder to get at.

Also, even a BMD-3 or man-portable RPG could seriously fuck up a MBT's day. There is no need to drop equally heavy armor to pose a threat to armored formations. And here we go back to your original point and ask: would the enemy not be a fool to ignore the airborne unit which is very well capable of threatening it?

by **Questers** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:05 am

Ayreonia wrote:
Questers wrote:misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

Why would you want to throw away a valuable unit such as an airborne division for no gain whatsoever? Drop them behind the enemy HQ and cut off the serpent's head instead. The enemy would be a fool to divert armor to deal with lightly equipped paratroops.

Let me give you an example.

Suppose there are two very large bridge areas, separated by 500 kilometres of river, through which the enemy reserve must pass. Suppose that you are the general staff. If the enemy uses his paratroops to occupy one bridge - where would you assume the weight of his attack would fall - on (a) the side of the river where he is trying to block and delay your reserve, or (b) on the side of the river where he has made no, or few efforts, to stem the flow of your reinforcements & supply?

The problem is that most people are not inclined to believe an Army would throw away an airborne division or more to gain a strategic advantage.

Ayreonia wrote:There's something wrong with your air defense if the enemy is able to drop a goddamn division between your battle lines.

Nobody said how many subunits would actually survive the drop.

Paratroops, like all other military units, are disposable assets, but important ones because they're trained and equipped to be inserted vertically. There is an inherent risk in using them, however. If you are going to take that inherent risk, there's no point in developing them.

I would point out a British reinforced paratroop division held out against the best part of a German SS tank division for around a week. It wasn't really that useful because the broader plan failed, however.

by **Stahn** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:25 am

The Germans used a airborn division against the poorly trained and equiped Dutch defenders and they were defeated. The French used paratroopers against the Vietnamese and were slaughtered. The allies used paratroopers at the end of WW2 and it was the fisrt major allied defeat since years.

Airborn units are effective as long as the enemy is unable to move freely. They also make very effective defensive troops.

You can use them to capture and hold something behind enemy lines as long as the enemy won't be able to bring their full forces against them.

Against the main army they are always at a disadvantage. they don't have artillery or tanks and very few heavy other weapons.

Also their enemy is usually better aquainted with the area and most of the time can rely on the support and cooperation of the civilians.

I think you can use airborn assaults effectively but it is kind of a luxery. And make sure your main forces will soon be able to relieve or support them and only use them if you have air superiority.

If you are much stronger then your enemy you can use them to end the war sooner. if you are weaker ou have wasted your money, men and recourses.

by **Questers** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:27 am

I don't have any illusions about the survivability of my airborne divisions once a war starts. I guess the people most interested in peace in Questers are the officers of the paratroop units, I guess since the conscripts won't really know what's going on until its too late.

Or maybe not, because you would have to be batshit fucking mental to be an officer in a Questarian air landing unit.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:42 am

Stahn wrote:Against the main army they are always at a disadvantage. they don't have artillery or tanks and very few heavy other weapons.

Except they happen to be Soviet in which case they have IFV's, tanks and even artillery. Between the 2S31 and 2B9, the BMD-3 and 2S25 they are a light armored division in all but name.

Also their enemy is usually better aquainted with the area and most of the time can rely on the support and cooperation of the civilians.

That is not actually true. It all depends on the strategic and tactical situation at hand. Especially if you enjoy practicing a little thing called counteroffensives.

I think you can use airborn assaults effectively but it is kind of a luxery. And make sure your main forces will soon be able to relieve or support them and only use them if you have air superiority.

Or you make sure that they are disposable. Seriously it's just men. Men die. It's war. If I have to sacrifice a million or two to win a war how is that a serious problem?

If you are much stronger then your enemy you can use them to end the war sooner. if you are weaker ou have wasted your money, men and recourses.

If you are that much weaker than you are arguably wasting your money, men and resources fighting.

by **Ayreonia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:01 am

Graznovia wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:Please, tell me that a para division can field AFVs of equal performance and numbers to an armored one. Plus that makes the act of dropping them to be summarily surrounded and destroyed an even bigger waste.

There's something wrong with your air defense if the enemy is able to drop a goddamn division between your battle lines.

A HQ (high level one that is) will most probably be situated much further back than the battle lines. Assuming Soviet-style layered air defenses, this means the HQ is going to be much harder to get at.

Also, even a BMD-3 or man-portable RPG could seriously fuck up a MBT's day. There is no need to drop equally heavy armor to pose a threat to armored formations. And here we go back to your original point and ask: would the enemy not be a fool to ignore the airborne unit which is very well capable of threatening it?

Of course they'd be a fool. However, there's no need to divert armored reserves to deal with a para division if it's surrounded by four divisions from the moment of landing.

by **San-Silvacian** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:14 am

If its a unit however that literally scares high level commanders (i.e. VDV to NATO style scaring), you'd be surprised what may happen.

If you can drop a division's worth, at least on paper, of fully supported airborne troops with the works, you have a serious issue. Dropping them well-behind enemy lines as well with the makings of spearheading into a divisional HQ would make armies flip shit.

1: Enemy troops airborne troops behind lines, reconfiguration of rearguard assets to locate and engage said para-infantry.
2: Shifting of troop movements, reinforcements ans supplies now go to rearguard assets as they are now engaged with a very well trained enemy force, excess supplies may be sent to said forces out of fear of commanders.
3: As line shifts, concentrated enemy assault away from the paradrop starts.
4: Para infantry after so long should become combat effective strategically, however damage is done as supplies and reinforcements that could have gone to the front lines now scramble to set up defensive line to halt advance.
5: Enemy close in on weakened flanks, with both air and ground forces being pushed at their limit with dealing with currently enemy forces, reserve units are able to overpower and rout troops.
6: With no real defense, enemy troops smash into divisional HQ, or if anything, bomb it high hell.

by **Purpelia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:58 am

Ayreonia wrote:
Graznovia wrote:
A HQ (high level one that is) will most probably be situated much further back than the battle lines. Assuming Soviet-style layered air defenses, this means the HQ is going to be much harder to get at.

Also, even a BMD-3 or man-portable RPG could seriously fuck up a MBT's day. There is no need to drop equally heavy armor to pose a threat to armored formations. And here we go back to your original point and ask: would the enemy not be a fool to ignore the airborne unit which is very well capable of threatening it?

Of course they'd be a fool. However, there's no need to divert armored reserves to deal with a para division if it's surrounded by four divisions from the moment of landing.

You do realize the sheer scale of that drawing right? You would not land your armored airborne division on top of your enemy. You would land it within driving range of the same.

by **Crookfur** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:05 am

San Benedict e San Francesco wrote:Would it be poor taste to go post an inverse-storefront in GE&T (lawlz!) looking for each piece of equipment I want my army to have without designing myself? I have no real desire to start designing armour or trucks and it's hard to weed through all the PMT/FanT arms consortiums to find non-lulzy tanks for late PT early MT.

Not at all.

As others have said Request for Porposal/Tender threads can bring out the usual rash of less than stellar offerings, often by certain players who post the same stupidly verbose and over illustrated link to thier storefront rather than directly addressing the details of what is being looked for.

However the biggest issue is that for a long enough time there hasn't been a particularly well done RfP/RfT thread that hasn't been so specific as to stop most serious players from posting.

A well done request thread can be a fun experience for all involved particularly if you make it VERY clear that you are looking for more than a simple "here are ma tankz you buy kthanxby" responses.

it might also help if you mention it in the relavent "your nation's main X" or this the realism consultation threads to brign it mroe to the attention of those who don't regularly frequent the GE&T section.

by **Ayreonia** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:06 am

Purpelia wrote:
Ayreonia wrote:Of course they'd be a fool. However, there's no need to divert armored reserves to deal with a para division if it's surrounded by four divisions from the moment of landing.

You do realize the sheer scale of that drawing right? You would not land your armored airborne division on top of your enemy. You would land it within driving range of the same.

There are still two divisions behind it that aren't engaged at the moment, so there's no need to divert anybody.

by **Questers** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:11 am

as part of the project I'm doing, here's a chapter describing a tank division at rest subject to an assault-breaker attack.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... r%2036.pdf

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

Who will OP the next realism consolation thread?

Who is online