NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[The Corparation]

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

But taking something designed for one role and trying to use it everywhere for everything is the NS spirit. Why must you infringe on his creativity so?

[The Republic of Lanos]

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.

Stryker, M2 Bradley.

Both proven, may be replaced by GCV but that's liable to be cut at any time in the future.

[The United Remnants of America]

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.

Stryker, M2 Bradley.

Both proven, may be replaced by GCV but that's liable to be cut at any time in the future.

Well, since I'm depressed by your decision, I apparently am going to have to reject that choice.

GCV and Fastback. Heavy and light support vehicles. With interchangeable parts(somewhat). Maybe if they ever upgrade the Stryker, I'll add it back in.

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

Given that presently the GCV is shaping up to be on par with if not heavier than the Abrams' weight, I'm not sure if 'awesome' is how I'd describe them.

GCV and Fastback. Heavy and light support vehicles. With interchangeable parts(somewhat). Maybe if they ever upgrade the Stryker, I'll add it back in.

At 23 tonnes with basic armor and weapons, the Fastback isn't all that 'light.'

[The United Remnants of America]

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.

Given that presently the GCV is shaping up to be on par with if not heavier than the Abrams' weight, I'm not sure if 'awesome' is how I'd describe them.

GCV and Fastback. Heavy and light support vehicles. With interchangeable parts(somewhat). Maybe if they ever upgrade the Stryker, I'll add it back in.

At 23 tonnes with basic armor and weapons, the Fastback isn't all that 'light.'

It's all relative, my dear Watson. That's like calling a Humvee heavy support. Relatively true if all I have are assault rifles and pistols and the Hummer has a .50cal.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

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

Yeah but they do exist (450kg-1000kg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-89_Perseus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-5_Pyatyorka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-123_Skipper_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-70_Ametist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-120_Malakhit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

[Rich and Corporations]

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

Erm, no. Jet fuel has better additives now.

Pick two. There, simple.

No M113?

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

What sort of self-respecting NS carrier still uses steam hydraulic power transmission? Everyone uses wires nowadays.

[Triplebaconation]

Warhead ≠ explosive.

[Krazakistan]

For my military I go with a BTR(82A)/BMP(2M) split, with BMPTs for tank support vehicles.

All airmobile (Maybe not the BMPT) too.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

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

Erm, no. Jet fuel has better additives now.

Yes, but it still will burns, otherwise it wouldnt work

What sort of self-respecting NS carrier still uses steam hydraulic power transmission? Everyone uses wires nowadays.

I have four old carriers fro 1958 that still do, mainly in reserve or used for training, but still need pipes in carriers for water, gas, sewerage and other things you'd rather keep in a pipe.

[Rich and Corporations]

Erm, no. Jet fuel has better additives now.

Yes, but it still will burns, otherwise it wouldnt work

What sort of self-respecting NS carrier still uses steam hydraulic power transmission? Everyone uses wires nowadays.

I have four old carriers fro 1958 that still do, mainly in reserve or used for training, but still need pipes in carriers for water, gas, sewerage and other things you'd rather keep in a pipe.

Explosives also still explode. I don't quite see your point.

Sewerage. On a carrier. You do realize in a real crisis where the sewage plant is knocked out, there will be a makeshift poop deck, right?

Also, zip-fuels for cruise missiles and after-burners?

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't mind the vehicle doing a somersault any time the gun is fired, sure!

Put the transmission into neutral. Use rolling resistance as recoil length.

Goodbye follow-up shot, or alternatively, dugout zone. And the camouflage netting such would have.

18MJ worth of force (14cm ETC estimate) applied to an object roughly 18'000 kg (13'200 kg + 5'000 worth of gun and ammo [my estimate]) gives us roughly 45 m/s. Now I am not 100% certain about this next part. But I do believe that with a proper wing setup this would cause my little hetzer to take flight adding to its defensive ability.

You need to take into account inertia and such. Right now, you just have an eighteen-ton perfectly smooth (zero-size) marble with 18MJ of rearward force applied on a frictionless surface.

[Triplebaconation]

Put the transmission into neutral. Use rolling resistance as recoil length.

Goodbye follow-up shot, or alternatively, dugout zone. And the camouflage netting such would have.

18MJ worth of force (14cm ETC estimate) applied to an object roughly 18'000 kg (13'200 kg + 5'000 worth of gun and ammo [my estimate]) gives us roughly 45 m/s. Now I am not 100% certain about this next part. But I do believe that with a proper wing setup this would cause my little hetzer to take flight adding to its defensive ability.

You need to take into account inertia and such. Right now, you just have an eighteen-ton perfectly smooth (zero-size) marble with 18MJ of rearward force applied on a frictionless surface.

What is a MJ of force?

Anywhere other than a bizarre alternate universe where units are interchangeable rearward velocity would be less than a meter per second on a frictionless surface.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, yes, whatever.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

I have four old carriers fro 1958 that still do, mainly in reserve or used for training, but still need pipes in carriers for water, gas, sewerage and other things you'd rather keep in a pipe.

Explosives also still explode. I don't quite see your point.

Sewerage. On a carrier. You do realize in a real crisis where the sewage plant is knocked out, there will be a makeshift poop deck, right?

Also, zip-fuels for cruise missiles and after-burners?

Yes but military explosives today explode when you want them to (most of the time), a lot more safer than jet fuel,many explosives wont go off in a fire, where as many fuels will.

Sewerage is actually a great threat if unchecked, not only is it nasty, it presents a lethal threat in the form of Hydrogen Sulfide which can kill easily, especially in the confined spaces of an aircraft carrier, hence adding another layer of danger.

[Yes Im Biop]

Explosives also still explode. I don't quite see your point.

Sewerage. On a carrier. You do realize in a real crisis where the sewage plant is knocked out, there will be a makeshift poop deck, right?

Also, zip-fuels for cruise missiles and after-burners?

Yes but military explosives today explode when you want them to (most of the time), a lot more safer than jet fuel,many explosives wont go off in a fire, where as many fuels will.

Sewerage is actually a great threat if unchecked, not only is it nasty, it presents a lethal threat in the form of Hydrogen Sulfide which can kill easily, especially in the confined spaces of an aircraft carrier, hence adding another layer of danger.

RDX and C-4 burn extremely fast, and extremely well.

[Praetonia]

18MJ worth of force (14cm ETC estimate) applied to an object roughly 18'000 kg (13'200 kg + 5'000 worth of gun and ammo [my estimate]) gives us roughly 45 m/s. Now I am not 100% certain about this next part. But I do believe that with a proper wing setup this would cause my little hetzer to take flight adding to its defensive ability.

You need to take into account inertia and such. Right now, you just have an eighteen-ton perfectly smooth (zero-size) marble with 18MJ of rearward force applied on a frictionless surface.

Aren't you a physics student who claims to have briefly worked for AWE? You are a disgrace to your country Sir.

[The Corparation]

Yes but military explosives today explode when you want them to (most of the time), a lot more safer than jet fuel,many explosives wont go off in a fire, where as many fuels will.

Sewerage is actually a great threat if unchecked, not only is it nasty, it presents a lethal threat in the form of Hydrogen Sulfide which can kill easily, especially in the confined spaces of an aircraft carrier, hence adding another layer of danger.

RDX and C-4 burn extremely fast, and extremely well.

Key word there is Burn. They burn if you light them on fire. They don't explode. It takes a combination of heat and pressure to set them off. Fire alone will not set them off., although it will release some nasty toxic smoke into the air iirc.

[Primordial Luxa]

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

[GHawkins]

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

Ask the Ticonderoga.

*edit: All depends on whether you want to supplement your destroyers with a larger ship with the expanded capabilities that a cruiser has (I'm referring to AEGIS and the RIM standard ABM missiles).

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

Like anyone gives a fuck about "need" in NS.

Depends on the size of your navy. Hell, for non-pop-cap NS states that have militaries outnumbering even RL countries with medium or large populations, maybe even one of those loony super-dreadnoughts could be justified, for shits and gigs if not for actual combat practicality or at least political/psychological effect.

I haven't figured out my Navy yet, but the biggest types would be cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship, respectively. A cruiser would be, well, a cruiser, whereas a battleship would be a normal or large RL battleship in terms of size ; the battlecruiser would stand somewhere in between those two. The majority of the above will, of course, as all modern warships, rely on guided missiles but there will be a number of fuckhuge gun-armed ones primarily for shits and gigs but also for coastal bombardment. Putting aside the issue of having to field both types of ship, shelling should be a lot more cost effective than missiles, no? (assuming accuracy isn't the main point)

[Spirit of Hope]

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

You probably should. While the two (cruiser and destroyer) have very little difference between them now in terms of role, the increased size and better armament of the cruiser means that it can better carry out certain roles than a destroyer could.

[Primordial Luxa]

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

You probably should. While the two (cruiser and destroyer) have very little difference between them now in terms of role, the increased size and better armament of the cruiser means that it can better carry out certain roles than a destroyer could.

hmmm... my destroyers already out guns the Burke Class.
Should i make them smaller and add crusiers?

Do I even need cruisers in my navy?
Since they have been replaced by destroyers.

Like anyone gives a fuck about "need" in NS.

Depends on the size of your navy. Hell, for non-pop-cap NS states that have militaries outnumbering even RL countries with medium or large populations, maybe even one of those loony super-dreadnoughts could be justified, for shits and gigs if not for actual combat practicality or at least political/psychological effect.

I haven't figured out my Navy yet, but the biggest types would be cruiser, battlecruiser and battleship, respectively. A cruiser would be, well, a cruiser, whereas a battleship would be a normal or large RL battleship in terms of size ; the battlecruiser would stand somewhere in between those two. The majority of the above will, of course, as all modern warships, rely on guided missiles but there will be a number of fuckhuge gun-armed ones primarily for shits and gigs but also for coastal bombardment. Putting aside the issue of having to field both types of ship, shelling should be a lot more cost effective than missiles, no? (assuming accuracy isn't the main point)

I do have a pop cap of 500 million

[Rich and Corporations]

for a non-pop cap nation, it's probably ideal to use nuclear powered Iowas as escorts.

[San-Silvacian]

So, I have some time from basic with my phone.


You're all dumb.


I <3 the M4 btw