NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[Horizont]

Updated the map. This now needs significantly more stations, but oh well; that's no problem.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Updated the map. This now needs significantly more stations, but oh well; that's no problem.

This is so open to defeat in detail it's not even funny. What's wrong with having a navy instead of this multitrillion dollar system that has dozens or more visible gaps?

[Horizont]

Updated the map. This now needs significantly more stations, but oh well; that's no problem.

This is so open to defeat in detail it's not even funny. What's wrong with having a navy instead of this multitrillion dollar system that has dozens or more visible gaps?

I do have a strong navy; this system complements it. Why, what faults can you see in it?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The fact that the costs of building and maintaining this in an environment where petrol freezes solid every six months is more than you can handle, and yet grant you this powerful navy.

[Imperializt Russia]

For the sake of sanity I pray that those full stops mean a separation of the different things into ideas that are not at all connected.

I don't know, I'm feeling pretty :NS:ified right now.

Sonar aside, many detection methods aren't especially effective underwater. Hence why torpedoes are still guided by wires.

Classified?

Honestly i doubt anyone can give you a remotely accurate answer. It all comes down to variables of like how powerful is your own radars/the enemy's radar, how far they are etc.

Alright, I'm just wondering how close I have to get to an enemy ship to jam it in support of an advancing missile attack.

Use a number of nuclear-tipped AShMs on its surface group, followed up by the killer missile attack.

How would a missile battleship do? Like a longer destroyer, with three times as many missiles or something. I'm just wondering. I'm not actually planning to do something like this, I'm just curious.

It offers you more missiles than you likely need, and gives you a significantly larger and more expensive warship to lose to attack.
Even Kirov is frankly needlessly oversized (though that's largely because it has nuclear and conventional propulsion).

So, I have a system (called RADIT: RAdio/RAdar Detection, Interception and Tracking) that I use to perform surveillence of my territorial waters. It consists of several stations that can detect radio signals in a certain radius around them, which I'm pretty sure is possible.

Now, what could the enemy do (apart from not use radar and maintai radio silence) against this system, and what measures could I take against that?

They could launch anti-radiation missiles at your facilities to kill the radar emitters and receivers very accurately.

[Regnum Albion]

May I ask if this table of organisation and equipment is realistic? My main concern is the ratios of personnel to equipment. I appreciate that it's fairly detailed, so thank you for taking the time to go through it.

[Connori Pilgrims]

How would a missile battleship do? Like a longer destroyer, with three times as many missiles or something. I'm just wondering. I'm not actually planning to do something like this, I'm just curious.

It offers you more missiles than you likely need, and gives you a significantly larger and more expensive warship to lose to attack.
Even Kirov is frankly needlessly oversized (though that's largely because it has nuclear and conventional propulsion).

It only offers "more than you'll likely need" in an IRL warfare scenario where there are not many targets to actually expend on. It does have its use in a full fleet battle (especially one in NS^TM) where saturation (aka lots of missiles) will be needed.

Doesn't deny though that it is a larger and more expensive thing to lose; also unless you will always be involved in NS^TM fleet battles, such a missile battleship (which is really just an oversized cruiser) will likely not see much use (unless you're the kind of guy to use sledgehammers on ants).

[Imperializt Russia]

"Full fleet battles" is what the Soviets built nuclear-tipped AShMs for and salvo-fired them.

[Horizont]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

[Imperializt Russia]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

Difficult to say. Note that Tsar Bomba's 50Mt yield was attained with an inactive lead third-stage in place.
Neutron bombs generate roughly 50% of their yield as high energy neutrons, so it'd probably have the blast and heat effects of a 25Mt weapon.

[Horizont]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

Difficult to say. Note that Tsar Bomba's 50Mt yield was attained with an inactive lead third-stage in place.
Neutron bombs generate roughly 50% of their yield as high energy neutrons, so it'd probably have the blast and heat effects of a 25Mt weapon.

What about fallout? It's particularly the radiation I'm interested in.

[Immoren]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

"I am just asking, because my neighbor is building neutron bomb. I've nothing to do with it"

[Horizont]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

"I am just asking, because my neighbor is building neutron bomb. I've nothing to do with it"

Well, I've got a friend of a friend who's building a Neutron Bomb...

[The Kievan People]

May I ask if this table of organisation and equipment is realistic? My main concern is the ratios of personnel to equipment. I appreciate that it's fairly detailed, so thank you for taking the time to go through it.

A lot of those battalions are far too big.

Third Battalion (Infantry): 2000 infantry personnel; 100 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ APCs; 70 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ IFVs; 10 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ ATGM Systems; 15 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Mobile Guns; 7 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Ambulances; 1 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Command and Signals System; 30 ‘Pseudonaja’ Protected Mobility Vehicles.

This for example is basically a regiment or a brigade.

[Immoren]

"I am just asking, because my neighbor is building neutron bomb. I've nothing to do with it"

Well, I've got a friend of a friend who's building a Neutron Bomb...

Reminds me of school.
"Can I do this?/Is this sensible or legal thing to do? Not me, but because my neighbor is going to do that."

[Regnum Albion]

May I ask if this table of organisation and equipment is realistic? My main concern is the ratios of personnel to equipment. I appreciate that it's fairly detailed, so thank you for taking the time to go through it.

A lot of those battalions are far too big.

Third Battalion (Infantry): 2000 infantry personnel; 100 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ APCs; 70 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ IFVs; 10 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ ATGM Systems; 15 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Mobile Guns; 7 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Ambulances; 1 LY219 ‘Ironheart’ Command and Signals System; 30 ‘Pseudonaja’ Protected Mobility Vehicles.

This for example is basically a regiment or a brigade.

Thank you for the response. So should I separate the Divisions into more Brigades, or simply add more Battalions to the Brigades?

[The Kievan People]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

It would be basically worthless. Neutrons are attenuated rapidly by the atmosphere, and a massive increase in yield does not lead to a massive increase in the area of effect.

[Horizont]

How destructive would a Neutron Bomb the size of the Tsar Bomba (50MT) be? And what would be the best height at which to detonate it to cause maximum damage?

Just out of interest, btw.

It would be basically worthless. Neutrons are attenuated rapidly by the atmosphere, and a massive increase in yield does not lead to a massive increase in the area of effect.

I see. What kind of weapon would be best if I want to create the highest amount of fallout possible?

[Immoren]

A lot of those battalions are far too big.



This for example is basically a regiment or a brigade.

Thank you for the response. So should I separate the Divisions into more Brigades, or simply add more Battalions to the Brigades?

Separated into more brigades and reduce number of personnel in battalions so that they've up to 500-750 persons.

[The Kievan People]

Thank you for the response. So should I separate the Divisions into more Brigades, or simply add more Battalions to the Brigades?

You need more divisions. A lot more divisions. Maybe four times as many.

Your divisions already have an exceptionally larger number of brigades, and your brigades an exceptionally large number of battalions (which are in turn exceptionally large).

[Regnum Albion]

Separated into more brigades and reduce number of personnel in battalions so that they've up to 500-750 persons.

Should I also reduce the number of vehicles by the same ratio, in that case?

[Immoren]

Separated into more brigades and reduce number of personnel in battalions so that they've up to 500-750 persons.

Should I also reduce the number of vehicles by the same ratio, in that case?

Yes.

[The Kievan People]

I see. What kind of weapon would be best if I want to create the highest amount of fallout possible?

A good old fission bomb is what you want. Detonated on the ground.

[Horizont]

I see. What kind of weapon would be best if I want to create the highest amount of fallout possible?

A good old fission bomb is what you want. Detonated on the ground.

Just fission? No fusion, right?

Would making it a cobalt bomb release more than usual?

[The Kievan People]

Cobalt bombs may not even work.

I've never entirely understood the appeal of fallout generating weapons, seems like a waste of perfectly good bomb material to me, but for that purpose fissions bombs work extremely well. The ideal bomb would probably be a hypothetical two-stage fission device (large fission device triggered by a smaller fission device the same way a the fusion device in thermonuclear weapons are triggered) but its not certain if one of these has ever even been built.