NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[The United Remnants of America]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

A couple of hundred pounds of explosive doesn't necessarily mean "floating write-off," particularly on modern (ie, large) ships, and a single hit would be unlikely to put a carrier out of action for that long.

But could any ship expect to survive three or more hits, as in not counting the ones that got intercepted en-route?

Survive, yes, operate, most likely not.

(Note that modern isn't always large), remember modern carriers as a mess of pipes and wires as much as they are steel boxes, sure temporary repairs could get it up and steaming but it wouldn't be close to 100% operational. I refer to the USS Forrestal, not that modern but still along the same lines and a single 5" unguided rocket put her in for repairs for nearly six months, especially since the number of explosive material aboard a carrier even today is huge, which causes secondary damage which in the case of the Forrestal

In regards to the Battlecruiser, depend on if they penetrate or not and position, they could sink it or the ship could just have its upperworks dstroyed

[New Vihenia]

If i managed to take out an aircraft carrier's Island.. Will it still be able to conduct aerial operations properly ?

[The Akasha Colony]

If i managed to take out an aircraft carrier's Island.. Will it still be able to conduct aerial operations properly ?

Unlikely, given that it would have lost its air control radar and the most convenient vantage points for observing deck operations as a whole. You might be able to barely operate basic sorties in an emergency, but it certainly wouldn't be business as usual.

[Inyourfaceistan]

But could any ship expect to survive three or more hits, as in not counting the ones that got intercepted en-route?

Survive, yes, operate, most likely not.

(Note that modern isn't always large), remember modern carriers as a mess of pipes and wires as much as they are steel boxes, sure temporary repairs could get it up and steaming but it wouldn't be close to 100% operational. I refer to the USS Forrestal, not that modern but still along the same lines and a single 5" unguided rocket put her in for repairs for nearly six months, especially since the number of explosive material aboard a carrier even today is huge, which causes secondary damage which in the case of the Forrestal

In regards to the Battlecruiser, depend on if they penetrate or not and position, they could sink it or the ship could just have its upperworks dstroyed

The first three were implied above the waterline. Then a fourth hit apparently in one of the same spots a prior one hit (which according to my opponent meant it did less damage), and then the fifth and sixth hit the upper decks...

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

If i managed to take out an aircraft carrier's Island.. Will it still be able to conduct aerial operations properly ?

Depends on the carrier design, admittedly, it'd slow down operations greatly and remove the carriers radar ability (but usually its best to rely on a large escorts radar anyway) but it would probably be a crippling hit, creating a list and removing a fair number of ranking officers.

[Triplebaconation]

A couple of hundred pounds of explosive doesn't necessarily mean "floating write-off," particularly on modern (ie, large) ships, and a single hit would be unlikely to put a carrier out of action for that long.

But could any ship expect to survive three or more hits, as in not counting the ones that got intercepted en-route?

But could any ship expect to survive three or more hits, as in not counting the ones that got intercepted en-route?

Survive, yes, operate, most likely not.

(Note that modern isn't always large), remember modern carriers as a mess of pipes and wires as much as they are steel boxes, sure temporary repairs could get it up and steaming but it wouldn't be close to 100% operational. I refer to the USS Forrestal, not that modern but still along the same lines and a single 5" unguided rocket put her in for repairs for nearly six months, especially since the number of explosive material aboard a carrier even today is huge, which causes secondary damage which in the case of the Forrestal

In regards to the Battlecruiser, depend on if they penetrate or not and position, they could sink it or the ship could just have its upperworks dstroyed

Eight 1000-pound bombs, each with twice as much explosive as a LRASM, detonated on Forrestal's flight deck. They were Korea-vintage from before the age of insensitive munitions.

240 pounds of explosive won't rip a warship in half, not even a small one. It'll cause damage, but whether the ship survives or not will depend on what kind of fires are started, which is completely unpredictable.

[Canuckland]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

URA, I'll tell you this because I know a little bit about EndWar.

The Stryker is, from what I've seen on this thread, is kinda a piece of shit. The Fastback is a good idea, but it'd be a strain on logistics because it's a hybrid, not a jet fuel running tank. So you'd need to modify it to be a hybrid and run on jet fuel as well.

That's all I got for when I'm tired., I don't know much.

[Triplebaconation]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

URA, I'll tell you this because I know a little bit about EndWar.

The Stryker is, from what I've seen on this thread, is kinda a piece of shit. The Fastback is a good idea, but it'd be a strain on logistics because it's a hybrid, not a jet fuel running tank. So you'd need to modify it to be a hybrid and run on jet fuel as well.

That's all I got for when I'm tired., I don't know much.

What do you think Strykers use for fuel?

[The Republic of Lanos]

URA, I'll tell you this because I know a little bit about EndWar.

The Stryker is, from what I've seen on this thread, is kinda a piece of shit. The Fastback is a good idea, but it'd be a strain on logistics because it's a hybrid, not a jet fuel running tank. So you'd need to modify it to be a hybrid and run on jet fuel as well.

That's all I got for when I'm tired., I don't know much.

What do you think Strykers use for fuel?

The tears of war orphans.

Just kidding, JP-8 in the US.

[The United Remnants of America]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

URA, I'll tell you this because I know a little bit about EndWar.

The Stryker is, from what I've seen on this thread, is kinda a piece of shit. The Fastback is a good idea, but it'd be a strain on logistics because it's a hybrid, not a jet fuel running tank. So you'd need to modify it to be a hybrid and run on jet fuel as well.

That's all I got for when I'm tired., I don't know much.

Holy Corncakes, someone new what the M118 was. You are now my new friend.

The I recently replaced Bradleys with Fastbacks, but I might switch that up soon. I tried to have sort of like an IFV and an APC capacity.

Would it be easier to replace the Strykers with the Fastbacks and replace the Bradleys with the Ground Combat Vehicle(American concept, bad-ass equipment)?

I understand the fuel problems, but if I modified it to be a jet fuel hybrid, like you alluded to, it could work, since I use M5A1 Schwarzkopf Main Battle Tanks as well, which also run on the same fuel. I assume GCVs run on it, too. Would that clear it all up?

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Survive, yes, operate, most likely not.

(Note that modern isn't always large), remember modern carriers as a mess of pipes and wires as much as they are steel boxes, sure temporary repairs could get it up and steaming but it wouldn't be close to 100% operational. I refer to the USS Forrestal, not that modern but still along the same lines and a single 5" unguided rocket put her in for repairs for nearly six months, especially since the number of explosive material aboard a carrier even today is huge, which causes secondary damage which in the case of the Forrestal

In regards to the Battlecruiser, depend on if they penetrate or not and position, they could sink it or the ship could just have its upperworks destroyed

The first three were implied above the waterline. Then a fourth hit apparently in one of the same spots a prior one hit (which according to my opponent meant it did less damage), and then the fifth and sixth hit the upper decks...

If the first three penetrated the hull, I'd be willing to say she's in trouble, the fourth one if the first was a penetrating hit would a considerable amount of damage as it would have detonated essentially in the center of the ship, blasting quite a ton of damage, fifth and sixth could have taken out the bridge and fire-control systems, so its safe to say it either hurt it a bit or crippled it considerably.

Eight 1000-pound bombs, each with twice as much explosive as a LRASM, detonated on Forrestal's flight deck. They were Korea-vintage from before the age of insensitive munitions.

240 pounds of explosive won't rip a warship in half, not even a small one. It'll cause damage, but whether the ship survives or not will depend on what kind of fires are started, which is completely unpredictable.

Yes I agree that munitions of today are a lot more insensitive, but however fuel isn't as so, jet burns hot and spreads, thus capable of destroying aircraft and deck fittings

Oh, I didn't mean 240lb, I meant 1000lb, which could, if the hit penetrated, do enough damage to effectively sever the ship in two

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/264483 ... tml&page=1

if two Harpoons could do this, it raise questions

[Triplebaconation]

It would take a hell of a missile to carry half a ton of explosives.

[Oaledonia]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

From end war? Why not use both?

[The United Remnants of America]

Question: I've been recently thinking of fading out the Stryker IFVs I use and replacing them with M118 Fastback IFVs, which are tracked vehicles.

Is this a good idea?
A bad idea?
Penguins?

Either TG answer or quote this, otherwise I'm never going to find it.

From end war? Why not use both?

Because, comparatively they'd both be considered IFVs is my military doctrine. I try to use an IFV and an APC, I was using the Bradley and the Stryker.
I was thinking about replacing the Bradley with the Fastback, which would have me using both. But what if I replaced the Stryker with the Fastback and replaced the Bradley with the GCV?

[The Akasha Colony]

Holy Corncakes, someone new what the M118 was. You are now my new friend.

The I recently replaced Bradleys with Fastbacks, but I might switch that up soon. I tried to have sort of like an IFV and an APC capacity.

Would it be easier to replace the Strykers with the Fastbacks and replace the Bradleys with the Ground Combat Vehicle(American concept, bad-ass equipment)?

I understand the fuel problems, but if I modified it to be a jet fuel hybrid, like you alluded to, it could work, since I use M5A1 Schwarzkopf Main Battle Tanks as well, which also run on the same fuel. I assume GCVs run on it, too. Would that clear it all up?

We're not strangers to EndWar here. But people post it so often with either no specs, bad specs, or copied specs that most of us have stopped responding. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen the Schwarzkopf and Ogre posted, I would be on my way to paying my tuition independently.

There also aren't any real modifications that need to be done to use jet fuel in modern military grade diesels. In fact, the most beneficial changes are actually on the fuel side, such as improving lubricity and specifying a cetane index.

[Oaledonia]

From end war? Why not use both?

Because, comparatively they'd both be considered IFVs is my military doctrine. I try to use an IFV and an APC, I was using the Bradley and the Stryker.
I was thinking about replacing the Bradley with the Fastback, which would have me using both. But what if I replaced the Stryker with the Fastback and replaced the Bradley with the GCV?

The GCV, IMO, is an evolution of the Bradley and thus would make the Fastback redundant. What you've told us is that you want to modernize a Bradley, and then replace your wheeled IFV with another Bradley variant instead of making them the same class. Think about the loss of wheeled combat vehicle, which is cheaper to maintain and easier to drive.

[The United Remnants of America]

Holy Corncakes, someone new what the M118 was. You are now my new friend.

The I recently replaced Bradleys with Fastbacks, but I might switch that up soon. I tried to have sort of like an IFV and an APC capacity.

Would it be easier to replace the Strykers with the Fastbacks and replace the Bradleys with the Ground Combat Vehicle(American concept, bad-ass equipment)?

I understand the fuel problems, but if I modified it to be a jet fuel hybrid, like you alluded to, it could work, since I use M5A1 Schwarzkopf Main Battle Tanks as well, which also run on the same fuel. I assume GCVs run on it, too. Would that clear it all up?

We're not strangers to EndWar here. But people post it so often with either no specs, bad specs, or copied specs that most of us have stopped responding. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen the Schwarzkopf and Ogre posted, I would be on my way to paying my tuition independently.

There also aren't any real modifications that need to be done to use jet fuel in modern military grade diesels. In fact, the most beneficial changes are actually on the fuel side, such as improving lubricity and specifying a cetane index.

Errm... Sorry? I mean, I'll be using the actual specs until I can figure out how to modify them. I try to not half-ass shit like a lot of people, I might as well have OCD in problems like that.

Like, before the Schwarzkopfs, I had Abrams with lighter ceramic, titanium, and cloned spidersilk armor with slightly larger bore cannon, so it'll just be a bit before I can think what to mod and what the effects are.

I'll start looking into the fuel specs and all, I'm just worried about the "go, no-go" decision for now, and I just assumed I'd talk it out with you guys first to get some public opinion.

[Canuckland]

URA, I'll tell you this because I know a little bit about EndWar.

The Stryker is, from what I've seen on this thread, is kinda a piece of shit. The Fastback is a good idea, but it'd be a strain on logistics because it's a hybrid, not a jet fuel running tank. So you'd need to modify it to be a hybrid and run on jet fuel as well.

That's all I got for when I'm tired., I don't know much.

Holy Corncakes, someone new what the M118 was. You are now my new friend.

The I recently replaced Bradleys with Fastbacks, but I might switch that up soon. I tried to have sort of like an IFV and an APC capacity.

Would it be easier to replace the Strykers with the Fastbacks and replace the Bradleys with the Ground Combat Vehicle(American concept, bad-ass equipment)?

I understand the fuel problems, but if I modified it to be a jet fuel hybrid, like you alluded to, it could work, since I use M5A1 Schwarzkopf Main Battle Tanks as well, which also run on the same fuel. I assume GCVs run on it, too. Would that clear it all up?

Canonly, he Schwartzkopf runs on diesel, I think.

Styrkers were designed as Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and the Fastback was designed as an Armoured Personnel Carrier. So if you want to replace an IFV with a APC, be my guest. And since I haven't really seen the GCV, then I don't know about that problem.

[The United Remnants of America]

Because, comparatively they'd both be considered IFVs is my military doctrine. I try to use an IFV and an APC, I was using the Bradley and the Stryker.
I was thinking about replacing the Bradley with the Fastback, which would have me using both. But what if I replaced the Stryker with the Fastback and replaced the Bradley with the GCV?

The GCV, IMO, is an evolution of the Bradley and thus would make the Fastback redundant. What you've told us is that you want to modernize a Bradley, and then replace your wheeled IFV with another Bradley variant instead of making them the same class. Think about the loss of wheeled combat vehicle, which is cheaper to maintain and easier to drive.

Hmm, true. Cheaper's usually better.

But if I still decide to keep two IFV/APC models in operation, wouldn't it be somewhat easier to have them from the same family? The GCV, Fastback and Brad have to have a few interchangeable parts due to their relation, then. Plus on production, since they're close, i wouldn't have to completely change a factory to make a new style, just only slight variations.

[The Akasha Colony]

Errm... Sorry? I mean, I'll be using the actual specs until I can figure out how to modify them. I try to not half-ass shit like a lot of people, I might as well have OCD in problems like that.

Like, before the Schwarzkopfs, I had Abrams with lighter ceramic, titanium, and cloned spidersilk armor with slightly larger bore cannon, so it'll just be a bit before I can think what to mod and what the effects are.

I'll start looking into the fuel specs and all, I'm just worried about the "go, no-go" decision for now, and I just assumed I'd talk it out with you guys first to get some public opinion.

I don't really have any issue with them, just that a lot of people in the past have popped in here, thrown out a picture, said 'this is mah tankzzz' and then left. Half of them probably didn't even know where the vehicles were from.

In terms of replacement, you have to figure out what your military wants. The US fields the Stryker as an intermediate weight vehicle, light enough to still be tactically airmobile but heavier than a simple Humvee. They're concentrated together in Stryker brigades so that the entire brigade can be airlifted more easily. If you don't have a doctrine for this, there isn't much of a reason to have them in the first place. But if you do, the Fastback is probably too heavy to fully replace them.

[Oaledonia]

The GCV, IMO, is an evolution of the Bradley and thus would make the Fastback redundant. What you've told us is that you want to modernize a Bradley, and then replace your wheeled IFV with another Bradley variant instead of making them the same class. Think about the loss of wheeled combat vehicle, which is cheaper to maintain and easier to drive.

Hmm, true. Cheaper's usually better.

But if I still decide to keep two IFV/APC models in operation, wouldn't it be somewhat easier to have them from the same family? The GCV, Fastback and Brad have to have a few interchangeable parts due to their relation, then. Plus on production, since they're close, i wouldn't have to completely change a factory to make a new style, just only slight variations.

That's why I said to make it the same vehicle line, while keeping the Stryker for a separate role.

[The United Remnants of America]

Errm... Sorry? I mean, I'll be using the actual specs until I can figure out how to modify them. I try to not half-ass shit like a lot of people, I might as well have OCD in problems like that.

Like, before the Schwarzkopfs, I had Abrams with lighter ceramic, titanium, and cloned spidersilk armor with slightly larger bore cannon, so it'll just be a bit before I can think what to mod and what the effects are.

I'll start looking into the fuel specs and all, I'm just worried about the "go, no-go" decision for now, and I just assumed I'd talk it out with you guys first to get some public opinion.

I don't really have any issue with them, just that a lot of people in the past have popped in here, thrown out a picture, said 'this is mah tankzzz' and then left. Half of them probably didn't even know where the vehicles were from.

In terms of replacement, you have to figure out what your military wants. The US fields the Stryker as an intermediate weight vehicle, light enough to still be tactically airmobile but heavier than a simple Humvee. They're concentrated together in Stryker brigades so that the entire brigade can be airlifted more easily. If you don't have a doctrine for this, there isn't much of a reason to have them in the first place. But if you do, the Fastback is probably too heavy to fully replace them.

Hmm, starting to sound like out of my 4 choices, I'll need three.

I mainly was hoping for a tank-killing, tank support vehicle that can carry troops, and then a lighter vehicle more focused on urban assault and patrol.

However, using a Stryker, Fastback and GCV together, the Stryker can fill the latter role, the Fastback the former, and the GCV could basically wage it's own war. Those things are so damn awesome.

[Triplebaconation]

The entire theory behind the GCV is that it doesn't wage it's own war.

[The United Remnants of America]

The entire theory behind the GCV is that it doesn't wage it's own war.

Fine. You're right, I just have a hard-on for them. They're like a Cold War era wet dream.

M118 Fastback
M2 Bradley
GCV
Stryker

Pick two. There, simple.