NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:04 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:
At 65,000 tonnes, I wouldn't exactly call it light.

By "lightweight carrier", I mean not a supercarrier.
Admittedly, QE2's significantly heavier than a Kuznetsov and significantly so compared to the Charles de Gaulle.

PROTIP: QE is bigger than a Kitty Hawk.

by **Krazakistan** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:32 pm

I guess me calling 9mm gay wasn't a subtle enough hint that I was joking....

by **Democratic Koyro** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:34 pm

Galla- wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:By "lightweight carrier", I mean not a supercarrier.
Admittedly, QE2's significantly heavier than a Kuznetsov and significantly so compared to the Charles de Gaulle.

PROTIP: QE is bigger than a Kitty Hawk.

The Kitty Hawk class is from a totally different era though.

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:45 pm

Democratic Koyro wrote:
Galla- wrote:
PROTIP: QE is bigger than a Kitty Hawk.

The Kitty Hawk class is from a totally different era though.

QE2 is plainly a supercarrier if we're just going off tonnage.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:57 pm

Galla- wrote:
Democratic Koyro wrote:
The Kitty Hawk class is from a totally different era though.

QE2 is plainly a supercarrier if we're just going off tonnage.

Maybe in the Cold War.
Today, anything under maybe 80kt probably isn't a "supercarrier".

Besides, it only carries 40 aircraft too.

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:03 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Galla- wrote:
QE2 is plainly a supercarrier if we're just going off tonnage.

Maybe in the Cold War.
Today, anything under maybe 80kt probably isn't a "supercarrier".

Besides, it only carries 40 aircraft too.

It's just poorly designed rly. If it were made by a proper company who knew what they were doing it would be nuclear powered and carry an air wing of 60 jets.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:22 pm

Galla- wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Maybe in the Cold War.
Today, anything under maybe 80kt probably isn't a "supercarrier".

Besides, it only carries 40 aircraft too.

It's just poorly designed rly. If it were made by a proper company who knew what they were doing it would be nuclear powered and carry an air wing of 60 jets.

I don't think the design company are the people who were being idiots. That probably lies with the MoD, Admiralty and Parliament.
This seems a semi-decent design concept for Modern Britain, quite frankly. The timescale, planned complement and fleet size seems to be the wtf component.

by **Democratic Koyro** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:50 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Galla- wrote:
QE2 is plainly a supercarrier if we're just going off tonnage.

Maybe in the Cold War.
Today, anything under maybe 80kt probably isn't a "supercarrier".

Besides, it only carries 40 aircraft too.

That's fully loaded, which it hardly ever will be.

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:14 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Galla- wrote:
It's just poorly designed rly. If it were made by a proper company who knew what they were doing it would be nuclear powered and carry an air wing of 60 jets.

I don't think the design company are the people who were being idiots. That probably lies with the MoD, Admiralty and Parliament.
This seems a semi-decent design concept for Modern Britain, quite frankly. The timescale, planned complement and fleet size seems to be the wtf component.

If company weren't idiots they would just delivered Kitty Hawks tbh.

Kitty Hawks, Vought 1602s, and F-14s.

by **San-Silvacian** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:31 pm

Galla- wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:I don't think the design company are the people who were being idiots. That probably lies with the MoD, Admiralty and Parliament.
This seems a semi-decent design concept for Modern Britain, quite frankly. The timescale, planned complement and fleet size seems to be the wtf component.

If company weren't idiots they would just delivered Kitty Hawks tbh.

Kitty Hawks, Vought 1602s, and F-14s.

soviet russia just shit themselves atm

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:34 pm

San-Silvacian wrote:
Galla- wrote:
If company weren't idiots they would just delivered Kitty Hawks tbh.

Kitty Hawks, Vought 1602s, and F-14s.

soviet russia just shit themselves atm

tushonka will be removed

by **Democratic Koyro** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:45 pm

More military formations. Yay.

The following is an SPG artillery battalion, found in mechanized and tank brigades of the Koy National Revolutionary Forces.

(Protip: XO= Executive Officer, second in command)

An Artillery Recon Battery will often be attatched to the Battalion from a specialized recon battalion, though Artillery Battalions do not maintain their own recon batteries.

I'm more concerned regarding the Recon Battery to be honest. I'm sensing i may be missing something important from it.

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:06 pm

Should there be a no-smoking policy in the armed forces, indoors?

by **Galla-** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:08 pm

Themiclesia wrote:Should there be a no-smoking policy in the armed forces, indoors?

No.

Put cigarettes in the rations.

by **Anemos Major** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:08 pm

Themiclesia wrote:Should there be a no-smoking policy in the armed forces, indoors?

As a rule of thumb you'll probably want to keep lit cigarettes out of the munitions warehouses, for one.

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:09 pm

Galla- wrote:
Themiclesia wrote:Should there be a no-smoking policy in the armed forces, indoors?

No.

Put cigarettes in the rations.

Might that just corrupt the food?

by **Anemos Major** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:10 pm

Galla- wrote:
Themiclesia wrote:Should there be a no-smoking policy in the armed forces, indoors?

No.

Put cigarettes in the rations.

200g chewing tobacco, 400g pipe tobacco per day of rations. :>

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:18 pm

Anemos Major wrote:
Galla- wrote:
No.

Put cigarettes in the rations.

200g chewing tobacco, 400g pipe tobacco per day of rations. :>

The few soldiers that I have (to wit - sig) would die of lung cancer - after spending 3 million dollars per annum on them.

by **Novislavia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:21 pm

Themiclesia wrote:
Anemos Major wrote:
200g chewing tobacco, 400g pipe tobacco per day of rations. :>

The few soldiers that I have (to wit - sig) would die of lung cancer - after spending 3 million dollars per annum on them.

That would probably take awhile. They'd be retired or dead for some other reason before they die of lung cancer. Unless they stared smoking at the age of six or something.

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:29 pm

Is there a thing as a military too small?

by **Romberg** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:29 pm

I'll ask again since the answer was not very clear.

In an AEW&CS context, what is the difference between ground surveillance and remote sensing? (Both are manned aircraft).

by **Novislavia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:34 pm

Themiclesia wrote:Is there a thing as a military too small?

You know too much...

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:35 pm

Novislavia wrote:
Themiclesia wrote:Is there a thing as a military too small?

You know too much...

Because I've only seem people complaining of others' militaries being too large

by **San-Silvacian** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:36 pm

Themiclesia wrote:
Anemos Major wrote:
200g chewing tobacco, 400g pipe tobacco per day of rations. :>

The few soldiers that I have (to wit - sig) would die of lung cancer - after spending 3 million dollars per annum on them.

why so much for your professional mercenary force?

also they would take decades to develop any noticeable issues.

by **Themiclesia** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:38 pm

San-Silvacian wrote:
Themiclesia wrote:
The few soldiers that I have (to wit - sig) would die of lung cancer - after spending 3 million dollars per annum on them.

why so much for your professional mercenary force?

also they would take decades to develop any noticeable issues.

We were looking to impose a no-smoking policy in our force

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

Who should OP the next Military Realism Consultation Thread?

Who is online