NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Transnapastain]

It might be worth mentioning that that chart is for my puppet in Terra Firma, with a population of ~42 million, not my main nation.

What you said though is pretty much what I was aiming for. However, I have to admit the last statement shot over my head, would you mind elaborating?

a unit going to war moves broadly through 4 phases, Rest, Refit, Train, Deploy. repeat. with the Org chart you have its going to be difficult to deploy the more specialist brigades of the heavy force without squeezing that cycle into a very short time. this isn't a problem if you only plan to fight a short victorious war on your borders, for longer deployments it leads to a rapid decline in quality. I assume your intending to deploy them as a whole brigade because they come with their own organic support. if I'm wrong please tell me.

Thank you, that was very helpful.

Yes, it would be my intention to deploy the entire brigade together, should it come to that. . The Army here is designed for internal actions and defense. I believe its unlikely we would ever deploy into a foreign war. The nations sole defensive priority is protecting the southern straights, which functions as this worlds Panama Canal and suppressing Mayan separatists in the north. I'm very deliberately playing small and 2nd to 3rd world on this one.

[Sevvania]

Would there be any issues with a SAW gunner also serving as a fireteam leader?

[Jagalonia]

So you use bigger bullets. The same concepts still apply. That said

, I'd rather have more smaller bullets, because when the shit is heading fanward, average accuracy is reduced by about 20-40%. Also, we have these cool pieces of plastic called mag chargers, You put it on the magazine, put the stripper clip+rounds in, then slide all the ammo into the mag. I can have a magazine full in about 10 seconds with one. This is, of course, for when you're not directly in combat, and you have time to recharge your magazines, as it were.

Still. Drop the drum. That's what your LMGs are for.

The 5.56 doesn't have the barrier penetration my troops need.

Whether all the riflemen in the squad have an extra drum or not makes a lot less of a difference to them than to the Automatic Rifleman. My fireteams no space for an assistant MG either.

What? This might be a case of clashing doctrines.
I use 8-man sections, 2 LMG, 2 grenadier, and 4 riflemen. They can cover almost any scenario, less anti-tank, but that's why you have designated weapons sections in your platoon, and never operate in anything less than a platoon context.

[The Republic of Lanos]

If I cut the men in my divisions down to 15k men instead of 20k men, I would gain 33.3 repeating divisions in my 500k army. Thoughts?

Repost.

And to the SAW gunner as commanding a fireteam, eh. Not like he had to if the current one was KIA.

[Spirit of Hope]

Would there be any issues with a SAW gunner also serving as a fireteam leader?

He might have to carry some extra gear, but I don't think it would be an undue burden on him, considering the other gear he would be carrying. I would suggest that you keep the roles separate, just so if your SAW gunner dies you don't also lose your team leader.

[Jagalonia]

Would there be any issues with a SAW gunner also serving as a fireteam leader?

Yes. Because then (s)he would have to worry about where to lay down fire from their personal weapon, aswell as where the rest of the team is shooting, not to mention contact reports take the commander out of the fight for a good minute. Best to give them a pea-shooter.

[Sevvania]

Would there be any issues with a SAW gunner also serving as a fireteam leader?

He might have to carry some extra gear, but I don't think it would be an undue burden on him, considering the other gear he would be carrying. I would suggest that you keep the roles separate, just so if your SAW gunner dies you don't also lose your team leader.

What sort of extra gear would be necessary?

[Transnapastain]

Would there be any issues with a SAW gunner also serving as a fireteam leader?

He might have to carry some extra gear, but I don't think it would be an undue burden on him, considering the other gear he would be carrying. I would suggest that you keep the roles separate, just so if your SAW gunner dies you don't also lose your team leader.

To build on this.... doesn't the SAW gunner usually set up somewhere to suppress the enemy while the fire team flanks?

Wouldn't his role suppressing the enemy have an adverse effect on his leadership, since he'd not actually be leading them during maneuvers?

Also, its common that when waiting in ambush, enemies will often target the MG first. So, as said, you hand him the big gun, he becomes a target. He dies, you lose double.

[Sevvania]

He might have to carry some extra gear, but I don't think it would be an undue burden on him, considering the other gear he would be carrying. I would suggest that you keep the roles separate, just so if your SAW gunner dies you don't also lose your team leader.

To build on this.... doesn't the SAW gunner usually set up somewhere to suppress the enemy while the fire team flanks?

Wouldn't his role suppressing the enemy have an adverse effect on his leadership, since he'd not actually be leading them during maneuvers?

Also, its common that when waiting in ambush, enemies will often target the MG first. So, as said, you hand him the big gun, he becomes a target. He dies, you lose double.

Ah yes, I'd worried that would be the case. *scratches idea off of list*

[The Akasha Colony]

If I cut the men in my divisions down to 15k men instead of 20k men, I would gain 33.3 repeating divisions in my 500k army. Thoughts?

Repost.

And to the SAW gunner as commanding a fireteam, eh. Not like he had to if the current one was KIA.

Most likely you'd have half that number anyway. There are other things to an army than just combat troops allocated to divisions. The US Army has 561,984 active troops but only 10 active divisions plus a few other brigades, and US divisions are already well under 20,000 men each. You have planning and support elements, non-divisional support brigades, training units, garrison units to maintain your bases, plus at any given time personnel will be floating between assignments, in training, and such, so you need to have enough men to fill their posts in the interim.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Repost.

And to the SAW gunner as commanding a fireteam, eh. Not like he had to if the current one was KIA.

Most likely you'd have half that number anyway. There are other things to an army than just combat troops allocated to divisions. The US Army has 561,984 active troops but only 10 active divisions plus a few other brigades, and US divisions are already well under 20,000 men each. You have planning and support elements, non-divisional support brigades, training units, garrison units to maintain your bases, plus at any given time personnel will be floating between assignments, in training, and such, so you need to have enough men to fill their posts in the interim.

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

[Arthurista]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

[New Vihenia]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

Majority here will call it bunk.

As for me..it still have uses in either executive jetliner or highspeed compound aircraft. oh and don't forget cruise missile.

[The Akasha Colony]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

I lean toward bunk in MT if it's being used to claim trolololo advantages over conventional fighters without serious drawbacks of the sort the Russians encountered.

Most likely you'd have half that number anyway. There are other things to an army than just combat troops allocated to divisions. The US Army has 561,984 active troops but only 10 active divisions plus a few other brigades, and US divisions are already well under 20,000 men each. You have planning and support elements, non-divisional support brigades, training units, garrison units to maintain your bases, plus at any given time personnel will be floating between assignments, in training, and such, so you need to have enough men to fill their posts in the interim.

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

Close enough, although I would lean toward 20 rather than 25. The US has an unusually large proportion of support, but not THAT much more than other NATO armies.

[The Corparation]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

Most of the time bunk. They have a lot of drawbacks, and its easier to get many of the benefits they have through other methods that don't have the drawbacks of FSW.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

I lean toward bunk in MT if it's being used to claim trolololo advantages over conventional fighters without serious drawbacks of the sort the Russians encountered.

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

Close enough, although I would lean toward 20 rather than 25. The US has an unusually large proportion of support, but not THAT much more than other NATO armies.

I was thinking of making the airborne, assault, and special forces and maybe one more undetermined divisions independent and make the rest support forces. That would make for 23 combat divisions and one special division.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Forward-swept wings on fighters - awesome or bunk?

For the moment at least, the supposed advantages they bring aren't worth the drawbacks which accompany them. There are very, very few platform in which they'd actually make sense on.

[The Kievan People]

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

A good rule of thumb is your army should have 50,000 men for each NATO style division, or 25,000 for each Warsaw Pact style division.

[The Republic of Lanos]

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

A good rule of thumb is your army should have 50,000 men for each NATO style division, or 25,000 for each Warsaw Pact style division.

That sounds like a corp right there.

[The Akasha Colony]

A good rule of thumb is your army should have 50,000 men for each NATO style division, or 25,000 for each Warsaw Pact style division.

That sounds like a corp right there.

Well, that's how much support goes behind each one to keep it moving and field-ready.

[Arthurista]

Most likely you'd have half that number anyway. There are other things to an army than just combat troops allocated to divisions. The US Army has 561,984 active troops but only 10 active divisions plus a few other brigades, and US divisions are already well under 20,000 men each. You have planning and support elements, non-divisional support brigades, training units, garrison units to maintain your bases, plus at any given time personnel will be floating between assignments, in training, and such, so you need to have enough men to fill their posts in the interim.

So cut the men down to 15k per division and leave 20-25 standing and filter the rest into support units?

Have a look at this. According to the pdf, Soviet-type small divisions (10-15k) allows for more combat units to be formed, which gives you an advantage in operational terms, but their staying power is sustained combat is limited owing to their lack of organic support structures.

[Rich and Corporations]

Okay then. Simple question. Some tanks supposedly have high RHAe values, but only because they use Nozh ERA.
If I used an aluminum ballistic cap, this wouldn't damage the sharp end of the DU penetrator, because only aluminum would be lobbed off. Thus penetration wouldn't be reduced as much.

So would this mean that the RHAe value of the tank was reduced, or that the penetration value was increased (relative to no ballistic cap)?

---

A good rule of thumb is your army should have 50,000 men for each NATO style division, or 25,000 for each Warsaw Pact style division.

This ignores readiness levels (many units are typically undermanned although conversely some US colored units during the Cold War had excess men), the fact that some Warsaw Pact support equipment was shifted up in the command chain (control of artillery was a bit more centralized), etc.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Is this

Service rifle
Camouflage Uniform with Infrared Tape
MOLLE Fighting Load Carrier with modular MOLLE pouches
Combat Boots
Dog Tags
Undershirt
Socks
Tactical gloves
Ranger Rack Molle Combat Webbing
Combat Helmet with night vision mounting plate
Rigger belt
Notebook and pen
Watch
Knee and elbow pads
Goggles or Glasses
Folding Knife/Multi-tool
Loose Ammunition
Bayonet
Fragmentation grenade
Water Purification bottle
Hydration bladder
Casualty and witness cards*
Flex cuffs for personnel under custody*
Night vision equipment
LED Flashlight
Chemlight
IFAK
Canteen Cup
Earplugs
Personal communication radio
Two Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs).
Poncho and/or Bivy Sack.
Poncho liner.
Undershirt
Spare batteries.
Two pair of socks
Long sleeve undershirt.
Rifle Cleaning Kit
Personal hygiene kit
Sling rope with two snap links
Map**
Whistle*
Smoke grenade
Global Positioning System
Lock pick*
Infrared Strobe Light

Good for a 2 day patrol pack?

[Aqizithiuda]

Okay then. Simple question. Some tanks supposedly have high RHAe values, but only because they use Nozh ERA.
If I used an aluminum ballistic cap, this wouldn't damage the sharp end of the DU penetrator, because only aluminum would be lobbed off. Thus penetration wouldn't be reduced as much.

So would this mean that the RHAe value of the tank was reduced, or that the penetration value was increased (relative to no ballistic cap)?

---

A good rule of thumb is your army should have 50,000 men for each NATO style division, or 25,000 for each Warsaw Pact style division.

This ignores readiness levels (many units are typically undermanned although conversely some US colored units during the Cold War had excess men), the fact that some Warsaw Pact support equipment was shifted up in the command chain (control of artillery was a bit more centralized), etc.

I'd imagine that would work only if you're hitting the bottom of a Nozh panel. Hit the middle or top, and the KEP will still be chopped up. You're most likely losing penetration as a result, due to the length of aluminum needed.

[The Kievan People]

The US Army seems to disagree, but it depends what sort of engagements you plan to be fighting. If you expect to be fighting off the communist tank hordes in the North German Plain, there's little need for infantry, so pure tank formations would be the most effective. Likewise, if you wanted to fortify the Black Forest or Fallujah, light infantry humping ATGMs all over the place using terrain for cover would also be more effective.

But nowadays the US and NATO find themselves engaged in multi-purpose work, where you never know what you'll be called on to do next. So far, the enemies that have been fought in the last few decades haven't required much direct battle strength to defeat, but they have required a bit of flexibility, having some infantry on hand to storm a compound or clear out an insurgent nest. The goal is not to create a force that will perform better than an all-tank force at tank operations or an all-infantry force in infantry operations, but one that performs better than an all-tank force at infantry operations, and vice-versa.

What this misses is that in many cases combined arms units can outperform pure units, even in situations which that slippery conventional wisdom would say are definitely suited to Tanks or to Infantry.

For example the claim that a mixed unit does not have enough long range firepower forgets that a missile armed IFV has more long range tank-killing power than a conventional gun-armed tank. One does not need to be Guderin to realize that a mixed battalion of say Bradleys and Abrams could use the TOWs to snipe and pin an enemy tank battalion at the outer limits of its own range while the battalions Abrams companies maneuver to strike from a favorable position. Conversely in a close battle weapons that are highly effective against infantry (MGs and Snipers) are easy prey for tanks, while weapons that are most effective against tanks (RPGs and ATGMs) are easy prey for infantry. A combined arms team can roll over a defensive strong point that would stop dead a much larger pure force of infantry or tanks.

The biggest "risk" is that you need to be more tactically flexible and always employ your combined arms formations in a way that plays to the strengths of ALL your arms. In other words just because you are in classic tank terrain like North Africa is doesn't necessarily mean the best tactic is to pretend the IFVs are funny-looking Tanks and BLITZKRIEGGGGG. Or because you are deep in Jungles of the darkest Africa your tank crews should get out and fight on foot.

EDIT: TL;DR the Combined Arms modifier use in HOI is REAL.