NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Alright then, it seems my shock troop plans are scrapped.

I do have one more question though. How is Air Assault still a thing? Based on what little I've read, it's largely the same as what I'm describing (well... with far fewer troopers in Hinds), but based on what you lot tell me they should be suffering such high casualties that the concept would have been scrubbed.

I r confuzed.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not saying that, I'm advocating mixed aircraft force.
Used in conjunction with artillery and air defences an assault could stiw be highly effective.
Value the treetops.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Right. But it seems, in general, as though I'm being told that helicopter assaults are a no-go because

a) They are thin skinned, and thus vulnerable to damn near anything
b) They are extremely noisy. This makes them incredibly easy targets for damn near anyone.
c) Despite their respectable speed and maneuverability, laden transport helicopters are kinda slow and clunky. This, of course, makes them even more vulnerable to ground attack.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me that, in a modern war against evenly matched opponents, helicopters are at best extremely limited in their usefulness and at worst flying death traps.

[Themiclesia]

What about m ranks?!

Due to military equality, all branches and sections of the military are allocated with the same rankings. In this way, there are Colonels or petty officers in all branches. For example, a colonel in the Navy is called a Naval Colonel when coversing with a member of a different branch, the same goes with an Army Chief Petty Officer. The only difference is the equivalent of a General in the Navy is an Admiral. Here is the system of rank in the Remnant military:
[High-Positions]
- President
- Commander-in-Chief
- Secretary of Defense
- National Security Advisor

[Joint Chiefs of Staff]
- General of the Army
- General of the Air Force
- Admiral of the Navy
- Commander of the Rangers
- General of the Border Guard
- Director of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence and Enforcement
- Director of the National Intelligence Agency

[Officers]
- Field Marshal/Fleet Admiral
- General/Admiral
- Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral
- Major General/Rear Admiral
- Brigadier General/Sub Admiral
- Commander
- Lieutenant Commander
- Colonel
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Major
- Captain
- First Lieutenant
- Second Lietenant
- Ensign
- Cadet(Officer Training Only)

[Non-Commissioned Officers]
- Master Chief Petty Officer
- Chief Petty Officer
- Petty Officer First Class
- Petty Officer Second Class
- Chief Warrant Officer
- Warrant Officer First Class
- Warrant Officer Second Class
- Warrant Officer Third Class

[Enlisted]
- Command Sergeant Major
- Sergeant Major
- First Sergeant
- Master Sergeant
- Gunnery Sergeant
- Tech Sergeant
- Staff Sergeant
- Sergeant
- Corporal
- Lance Corproal
- Specialist
- Private First Class
- Private
- Cadet
- Recruit(Basic Training Only)

Why would you put the national security advisor on such a table?

[Graznovia]

Right. But it seems, in general, as though I'm being told that helicopter assaults are a no-go because

a) They are thin skinned, and thus vulnerable to damn near anything
b) They are extremely noisy. This makes them incredibly easy targets for damn near anyone.
c) Despite their respectable speed and maneuverability, laden transport helicopters are kinda slow and clunky. This, of course, makes them even more vulnerable to ground attack.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me that, in a modern war against evenly matched opponents, helicopters are at best extremely limited in their usefulness and at worst flying death traps.

IMHO its not so much of 'air assault is a no-go' as 'air assault uninevitably leads to heavy casualties', against an opponent of parity that is. Air assault certainly has its uses owing to how it drastically increases strategic mobility allowing units to be quickly sent at otherwise unreachable zones (enemy flanks and rear areas) to exploit, divert, or fuck with the enemy's rear area services (i.e. supply, command etc).

I'd think there is something of a consensus here that air assault units are ultimately of a rather sacrificial role (in a war of parity that is) seeing as there are very real limits to how heavily equipped an air assault unit can be compared to the conventional enemy units it may face.

What certainly does not make sense, as others have pointed out, is mixing air assault transport and attack helicopter roles. Having your attack helicopters serve as the transports only undermines their ability to effectively perform their support mission and exposes them to more danger than they need be put in.

Loads of rockets on transports are welcome though for softening up the areas that transported troops are asssulting into, though.

[United States of PA]

Alright then, it seems my shock troop plans are scrapped.

I do have one more question though. How is Air Assault still a thing? Based on what little I've read, it's largely the same as what I'm describing (well... with far fewer troopers in Hinds), but based on what you lot tell me they should be suffering such high casualties that the concept would have been scrubbed.

I r confuzed.

I dont know about the Soviets, but in the case of the 101st Air Assault (Former 101st Airborne in the US Army) its a "Light Infantry Division" only with UH-60s and Apaches and Kiowas instead of Humvees and 5 tons.

If your fighting Fulda Gap 1989 style, i don't feel they have any use. But if your fighting A-stan in the 1980s or today, Iraq in 2003, virtually any conflict recently in Africa where your opponents have limited, outdated or nearly nonexistent Air Defenses, they have their uses for quick strike troops yeah. Move them behind the enemy using the helos to create havoc, cut the enemy off, secure vital spots etc.

If your opponent has anything resembling IADS (Stingers, Shilkas, god forbid they have Tunguska's or anything of the sort) your transport helos will be blotted from the sky like bugs.

Attack helos have their uses on the front line, but in my opinion only true attack helos like Apache, Havoc, Blackshark and any other of the sort. Plus scout helos like OH-58.

[Imperializt Russia]

They didn't fit a honking great FLIR module to the Jolly Green Giant or the B-52 for no reason.

[Immoren]

Although I already drew some "air assault" orders of battle, I am again on fence, if only forces that move on choppers and planes are special and semispecial forces conducting "deep" recon.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alright then, it seems my shock troop plans are scrapped.

I do have one more question though. How is Air Assault still a thing? Based on what little I've read, it's largely the same as what I'm describing (well... with far fewer troopers in Hinds), but based on what you lot tell me they should be suffering such high casualties that the concept would have been scrubbed.

I r confuzed.

There's a difference in role between air assault troops and shock troops. You said you wanted to use helicopter-borne troops as shock troops, which implies they would be leading assaults on the enemy. This places your helicopters at inordinate risk since it requires them to fly directly at the enemy.

Air assault troops instead would be used more like airborne troops, with a focus more on seizing and holding terrain rather than necessarily assaulting enemy positions. Thus, their very high mobility is a greater asset, and they would be deployed to locations that would not involve flying directly into the enemy air defense network. This also applies to attacking enemies who do not have significant air defense capability, which is how the US employed the air cavalry in Vietnam.

They are also useful as a mobile reserve; they can quickly airlift units from several hundred kilometers behind the lines to only a few kilometers behind, where these units can then proceed on foot to reinforce friendlies already engaged. But a screen of friendlies in front of them is desirable to keep the area clear of enemy MANPADS and other systems that would very much prefer a smoldering wreck to a helicopter full of reinforcements.

[The Kievan People]

Other stuff for helis to do...

Attack helicopters are truly wonderful for CAS. Very high sortie rate, no airfields, very accurate weapons delivery. It is much less dangerous because the helicopters do need to free-range over enemy territory, and the presence of friendly ground troops will contribute enormously to the suppression of the enemies defenses. Helicopters are also uniquely independent of fixed infrastructure and of all possible means of moving stuff, they are arguably the hardest to interdict. Only complete loss of the air will stop helicopter movement completely. When things get really bad on the ground, helicopters are an armies lifeline.

Helicopters also benefit from combined arms. After a disastrous ambush of Apache helicopters who unintentionally overflew an Iraqi army unit, the US army began to integrate helicopter operations with artillery. Even light artillery fire is known to be very effective at suppressing personal weapons (when artillery shells are going off in the vicinity, nobody wants to stick their head out for too long!) and by shelling areas where AA is likely to sited shortly before the helicopters arrive they become much less vulnerable. Helicopters can be hit by artillery shells inadvertently so helicopter-artillery coordination needs careful planning.

[Imperializt Russia]

When describing the events at Jugroom Fort in Afghanistan, Ed Macy made a point of how long the detour around a 3-gun battery of 105mm pieces was, to avoid accidental strike.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Right then.

So, essentially, heli-borne shock troops are no good, since their MO would put the helicopters at too great a risk... and stuff like that.

Instead, something like a heli-borne QRF, or assault force would be doable.

Also, different helicopters should be used for the transport and attack roles.

Correct?

[Crookfur]

On the subject of using Hinds and Hips a few Rl oeprators, notably the algerians, have discovered that things work best when you use the hinds as transports and the hips for topcover.

basically hinds can handle small arms fire far better than Hips, are faster and unlaoded quicker whislt the Hips have far far better sitational awareness, can hover at reasonable altitiudes and can carry a metric f*ckton of rockets, machine guns and (dpending ont he varient) ATGMs.

The hinds fly in very low altitiude at high speed spamming rockets all over the LZ, flare, kick the doors open to dump the chrunchies before heading out on the smae heading they came around (as hinds are comapratively crap at turning). All the while the Hips circle over head with a mahcien gunner looking out of every door and a pilot able to jink his aircraft aroudn the sky and actually point it at anythign that threatenes the hinds.

of coruse these tactics are a result of the hind's limitations rather than anything that could be generally applied to helo usage.

As said air assault is still with us due to combined ops and a bajillion sleepless nights spent by the geniuses incharge of airspace deconflcition.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

What about an assault force that uses Hinds as transports, and Mi-28s or Ka-50s as support?

That setup would take advantage of the Hind's heavy armour and armament, without burdening it with both transport and support duties.

[The Kievan People]

What about an assault force that uses Hinds as transports, and Mi-28s or Ka-50s as support?

That setup would take advantage of the Hind's heavy armour and armament, without burdening it with both transport and support duties.

Hinds passenger compartments are not armored the way the engines and cockpit are.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Hinds passenger compartments are not armored the way the engines and cockpit are.

Eh. According to the wiki, the Hind's troop compartment (indeed, the whole HInd) is armoured against .50 caliber rounds.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hinds passenger compartments are not armored the way the engines and cockpit are.

Eh. According to the wiki, the Hind's troop compartment (indeed, the whole HInd) is armoured against .50 caliber rounds.

It does however say, [citation needed]

If we check FAS...

Survivability

• Main and tail rotors electrically deiced.
• Infrared signature suppressors can be mounted on engine exhausts.
• Radar warning receivers, IFF, Infrared jammer, rotor brake, chaff and flares.
• Armored cockpit.
• Crew Two (pilots in tandem cockpits)

(In the original point, "Crew - Two" wasn't in survivability, but I feel it could be considered such).

Note how fuselage armour is at no point mentioned.

[United States of PA]

Hinds passenger compartments are not armored the way the engines and cockpit are.

Eh. According to the wiki, the Hind's troop compartment (indeed, the whole HInd) is armoured against .50 caliber rounds.

.50 caliber protection is some of the heaviest armor i have heard of for most helicopters in existence, let alone a non-vital part of one.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

It does however say, [citation needed]

True. Such is the nature of relying on the wikipedia for information.

A quick googling hasn't really turned up anything either. Still though, I'm willing to believe that it's troop bay is armoured enough to place it above the average transport.

[Purpelia]

Remember that configurable hand grenade I was talking about. And remember how apparently the Japanese had the same idea in the 30's? Well it turns out Austria got there first.

http://www.inert-ord.net/rod02h/aus_univ/index.html

[Imperializt Russia]

It does however say, [citation needed]

True. Such is the nature of relying on the wikipedia for information.

A quick googling hasn't really turned up anything either. Still though, I'm willing to believe that it's troop bay is armoured enough to place it above the average transport.

Since even the Federation of American Scientists doesn't list "armoured cargo bay" under "survivability", I'd say it's not.

[The Kievan People]

A more detailed source I have found says the Hinds body is protected from small arms and flak. Calibers unspecified.

According to Aviastar.org, the "front fuselage" has 5mm of hardened steel armor. Which is basically consistent with small arms and flak.

[Rich and Corporations]

Other stuff for helis to do...

Attack helicopters are truly wonderful for CAS. Very high sortie rate, no airfields, very accurate weapons delivery. It is much less dangerous because the helicopters do need to free-range over enemy territory, and the presence of friendly ground troops will contribute enormously to the suppression of the enemies defenses. Helicopters are also uniquely independent of fixed infrastructure and of all possible means of moving stuff, they are arguably the hardest to interdict. Only complete loss of the air will stop helicopter movement completely. When things get really bad on the ground, helicopters are an armies lifeline.

Helicopters also benefit from combined arms. After a disastrous ambush of Apache helicopters who unintentionally overflew an Iraqi army unit, the US army began to integrate helicopter operations with artillery. Even light artillery fire is known to be very effective at suppressing personal weapons (when artillery shells are going off in the vicinity, nobody wants to stick their head out for too long!) and by shelling areas where AA is likely to sited shortly before the helicopters arrive they become much less vulnerable. Helicopters can be hit by artillery shells inadvertently so helicopter-artillery coordination needs careful planning.

Something to add: volume of fire is more important in suppression then firepower itself. This is why imho the 25 pounder is better then the 105mm howitzer, greater volumes of fire.

Additionally, if you arm your attack helicopters with a tonne of 40mm grenade launchers (ideally proximity fused for airbursts) and 7.62mm machine guns just like the UH-1, you won't really need to wait for artillery support, it can suppress infantry on it's own.
Although SPAA and entrenched AA is a different story admittedly.

A more detailed source I have found says the Hinds body is protected from small arms and flak. Calibers unspecified.

According to Aviastar.org, the "front fuselage" has 5mm of hardened steel armor. Which is basically consistent with small arms and flak.

5mm of hardenened steel armor only provides protection from non-armor piercing small arms at ranges over 500 meters away.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

A more detailed source I have found says the Hinds body is protected from small arms and flak. Calibers unspecified.

According to Aviastar.org, the "front fuselage" has 5mm of hardened steel armor. Which is basically consistent with small arms and flak.

How does that compare to the average?

[Rich and Corporations]

A more detailed source I have found says the Hinds body is protected from small arms and flak. Calibers unspecified.

According to Aviastar.org, the "front fuselage" has 5mm of hardened steel armor. Which is basically consistent with small arms and flak.

How does that compare to the average?

I don't really think there's an "average."