NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[Edward Richtofen]

that's the main issue the only places large enough for airstrips have barely any takeoff room, in the past we used high power thrusters to push our propeller planes over the mountain

Look at stuff with STOL capabilities, but don't expect your planes to carry much or to be able to take off or land at night and/or in inclement weather. You can have airstrips in mountainous areas, but they won't exactly be the safest places to fly into. Expect crashes.

I see, It seems ospreys and Harriers fit what i'm looking for.

[Tule]

Here is an airport you might be interested in. Gives you a good idea of what's achievable.

[Edward Richtofen]

Well that's nice to know but what else do I need in an army? (landlocked)
also does anyone know of a of good vtols or planes that can take off and clear a mountain quickly?

Don't direct the runway into the mountain, build the hangers into it.

are you trying to tell me that ramming my planes into mountains isn't a safe way to land them?

[Edward Richtofen]

Here is an airport you might be interested in. Gives you a good idea of what's achievable.

interesting a cork screw approach, I suppose that would be possible in some of the larger valleys

[The Corparation]

Here is an airport you might be interested in. Gives you a good idea of what's achievable.

I see your Iceland and raise you Nepal.

wrote:

Look at stuff with STOL capabilities, but don't expect your planes to carry much or to be able to take off or land at night and/or in inclement weather. You can have airstrips in mountainous areas, but they won't exactly be the safest places to fly into. Expect crashes.

I see, It seems ospreys and Harriers fit what i'm looking for.

I'm actually not sure how well the Osprey would do, this is because while the Osprey flies like a plane, it takes of like a helicopter, and helicopters have trouble at high elevation. I think the harrier will have problems as well, but I'm not entirely sure.

For transports look at small propeller aircraft, as for fighter jets, the best piece of advice I can give is to not base them in the mountains.

[Imperializt Russia]

Anything that complicates landing procedures will increase the risks of an already dangerous process.

Ospreys are probably good aircraft for mountain runways. Good range (compared to a helicopter), good speed, good altitude and VTOL. Understandably, they need a lot of space to operate, and may be vulnerable to adverse weather conditions due to balancing issues.
Harriers may not be, because remember that carrying a weapon load will restrict your STOL capability. VTOL is almost not possible when carrying a full weapons load.

[Edward Richtofen]

Anything that complicates landing procedures will increase the risks of an already dangerous process.

Ospreys are probably good aircraft for mountain runways. Good range (compared to a helicopter), good speed, good altitude and VTOL. Understandably, they need a lot of space to operate, and may be vulnerable to adverse weather conditions due to balancing issues.
Harriers may not be, because remember that carrying a weapon load will restrict your STOL capability. VTOL is almost not possible when carrying a full weapons load.

I GOT It!
we have our planes take off vertically at the bottom of at the airstrips then they land at small loading bays at the peaks, then they are catapulted off like on an aircraft carrier then they drop their payload and return vertically

[The Corparation]

Anything that complicates landing procedures will increase the risks of an already dangerous process.

Ospreys are probably good aircraft for mountain runways. Good range (compared to a helicopter), good speed, good altitude and VTOL. Understandably, they need a lot of space to operate, and may be vulnerable to adverse weather conditions due to balancing issues.
Harriers may not be, because remember that carrying a weapon load will restrict your STOL capability. VTOL is almost not possible when carrying a full weapons load.

I GOT It!
we have our planes take off vertically at the bottom of at the airstrips then they land at small loading bays at the peaks, then they are catapulted off like on an aircraft carrier then they drop their payload and return vertically

I don't even......you airbase gave me cancer.....

[Tule]

I think you should settle for a small air force primarily composed of JAS 39 Gripens, as they can be scrambled from 800 meter snow-covered runways, and place them in the few airports you have. The airport I showed you earlier has a 1400 meter runway so that shouldn't be an issue.

The fact that your nation contains a lot of mountains and valleys means that you can actually afford to have a small air force as your terrain can be very suitable for anti-aircraft units.

[Edward Richtofen]

I think you should settle for a small air force primarily composed of JAS 39 Gripens, as they can be scrambled from 800 meter snow-covered runways, and place them in the few airports you have. The airport I showed you earlier has a 1400 meter runway so that shouldn't be an issue.

The fact that your nation contains a lot of mountains and valleys means that you can actually afford to have a small air force as your terrain can be very suitable for anti-aircraft units.

thank you

[The Akasha Colony]

If you kill a soldier you kill a solider.
If you kill a doctor you potentially kill all the soldiers he could have saved.

Only in the long run. And that assumes these soldiers can eventually be returned to combat; many are too wounded to do so and are essentially permanent casualties.

In the short run, this is irrelevant since the soldiers you've injured sufficiently to warrant extraction to a field hospital won't be returning to combat any time soon, nor will the medical personnel suddenly be fighting on the front lines either. Thus, munitions expended against a hospital would be better used against targets that can and will fight back.

[Lolder]

I need some tips on the support staff required for each of the units in my army. My factbook details the army/armoured/air force breakdown, but I can't figure out what that means in terms of support staff.

[Rich and Corporations]

I'm actually not sure how well the Osprey would do, this is because while the Osprey flies like a plane, it takes of like a helicopter, and helicopters have trouble at high elevation. I think the harrier will have problems as well, but I'm not entirely sure.

For transports look at small propeller aircraft, as for fighter jets, the best piece of advice I can give is to not base them in the mountains.

It can take off like a plane.

[Val Nube]

I'm actually not sure how well the Osprey would do, this is because while the Osprey flies like a plane, it takes of like a helicopter, and helicopters have trouble at high elevation. I think the harrier will have problems as well, but I'm not entirely sure.

For transports look at small propeller aircraft, as for fighter jets, the best piece of advice I can give is to not base them in the mountains.

It can take off like a plane.

Uh, I'm pretty sure the props would destroy themselves on the ground if it tried.

[The Akasha Colony]

It can take off like a plane.

Uh, I'm pretty sure the props would destroy themselves on the ground if it tried.

The props aren't completely 'level' at 90 degrees while doing so; they are angled in STOL mode to prevent a ground collision while still providing forward thrust.

[Triplebaconation]

Seems inefficient to never move your carriers through areas that can be mined. If you need to pass a straight to engage the enemy do you just give up and go home? If so I might surround my nations with small man made islands in case we ever get in a war.

IRL this would mean no aircraft carrier can operate in the Mediterranean.

In the simplistic world of "NS Military Realism Consultation," possibly.

In the real world maritime chokepoints can be transited because:

A) They're chokepoints, with dense concentrations of international shipping. Mining them in peacetime is A Serious Thing. Nuclear mines would be lunacy. Mining them in wartime is easier said than done - the small area that would make them an attractive target for mining also makes them relatively easy to monitor and sweep.

B) Just because a strait is narrow doesn't mean it's easy to mine. The Strait of Gibraltar has a depth of 300-900 meters, for example. Bottom mines are out, so traditional moored mines would have to be used. Much easier to sweep, and difficult to deploy in large numbers from anything but a surface vessel. Also very unlikely to sink or appreciably damage a carrier.

C) Chokepoints larger than a strait require immense amounts of mines, and laying large numbers of mines is a lot harder than it used to be.

The vast majority of mine strikes occur in known shipping lanes and coastal waters. While a carrier may operate in shipping lanes during peacetime for safety's sake, in war it won't. There's also no need for it to be in coastal waters since it can strike from hundreds of miles away.

Offensive mining against a harbor might work, but a navy with carriers will also likely have a sophisticated mine countermeasures fleet, plus any method other than a submarine requires some degree of sea or air superiority in the area to be mined. If that's the case why bother with mines? Just sink the carrier in the traditional way. Likewise, if you can get a submarine into the harbor to mine it, you can get a submarine in with torpedoes. This goes double for nuclear mines, since in a nuclear war you can just nuke the harbor in 30 minutes anyway without leaving warheads lying around.

[The Ashkenazi]

I need some tips on the support staff required for each of the units in my army. My factbook details the army/armoured/air force breakdown, but I can't figure out what that means in terms of support staff.

You need a lot of support personnel to properly maintain a high performance aircraft. The ratio of support personnel to pilots will be ridiculously high in any circumstance, because you need far more ground crew, supply personnel, radar operators, air traffic controllers, base security personel, etc. than you do pilots. And this is especially true for more delicate, complex aircraft. You need a whole lot more support personnel for a MiG-31 than you do for a MiG-17. I generally try for 50 support personnel for a fourth or fifth generation multirole, and scale down from there depending on how complex the aircraft is. Some of these non-pilots can also fill air defense (SAM and AA) roles, and airborne infantry roles, so if you plan to have combat units of these types under the purview of your Air Force, you should adjust the numbers to represent the fact that these units require fewer support personnel than a fighter squadron would.

[The Ashkenazi]

The vast majority of mine strikes occur in known shipping lanes and coastal waters. While a carrier may operate in shipping lanes during peacetime for safety's sake, in war it won't. There's also no need for it to be in coastal waters since it can strike from hundreds of miles away.

It's also worth pointing out that because carrier groups have such sophisticated radar systems, including airborne radars and a multi-layered series of air defense pickets, it is unlikely that you could effectively mine the immediate area of a carrier group's advance using cruise missiles without being detected (I believe this was the original contention a page or two back, but I'm too lazy to check.) With a 200+ km range of detection, a carrier group could fairly easily avoid any hastily deployed mines. I don't see much bang for your buck in using mines offensively, especially to target well defended surface combatants. Mines are good offensively for attacking enemy supply/infrastructure, by blocking normal shipping lanes and inflicting losses on non-combat vessels. They are also useful defensively, to deny your territorial waters to enemies in the event of a naval mismatch. They are not an offensive capital ship killing weapon, not even nuclear mines.

[New Vihenia]

Anoyone into Reactive armor design ? Aside from my APS concept, i'm also digging out some materials related to reactive armor both active and passive.

One book i found useful and seemingly allow me to formulate spreadsheet out of it is "Terminal Ballistics by Zvi Rosenberg and Erz Dekel" and some other journal courtesy of Journal Of Impact Engineering.

However i wonder if anyone can refer me other literature or perhaps someone already make workable spreadsheet for their own reactive armor spreadsheet would like to share some cue.

Or perhaps is there any "rules of thumb" like that "7m rule barrek" (Though my tank gun's barrel is 7.6 m from muzzle to breech) That i can follow for reactive armor ?

Thoughts are welcome.

[Lubyak]

In the simplistic world of "NS Military Realism Consultation," possibly.

In the real world maritime chokepoints can be transited because:

A) They're chokepoints, with dense concentrations of international shipping. Mining them in peacetime is A Serious Thing. Nuclear mines would be lunacy. Mining them in wartime is easier said than done - the small area that would make them an attractive target for mining also makes them relatively easy to monitor and sweep.

It depends where the choke point is. I'm sure Iran would have a relatively easy time mining the Strait of Hormuz and Britain the Strait of Gibraltar. 'Relatively easy' would still require: a) The time to gather the necessary vessels to sweep the minefield, b) The time to sweep the field as many times as necessary before the nation who owns the carrier feels safe transiting it. Which, given how valuable a carrier is, will be a while.

B) Just because a strait is narrow doesn't mean it's easy to mine. The Strait of Gibraltar has a depth of 300-900 meters, for example. Bottom mines are out, so traditional moored mines would have to be used. Much easier to sweep, and difficult to deploy in large numbers from anything but a surface vessel. Also very unlikely to sink or appreciably damage a carrier.

I'm not sure how accurate your claim that non-surface ships have difficulty with non-bottom mines. I know that CAPTOR (which is meant for deep water use) and other such mines can be deployed from most platforms. Also somehow we've ended up back on you claiming that somehow mines are unable to damage carriers. I'm still uncertain as to how that argument makes sense. If we're assuming the carrier is steaming through the minefield, and it hits a mine, are you saying it will shrug it off? I can't imagine that to be accurate.

C) Chokepoints larger than a strait require immense amounts of mines, and laying large numbers of mines is a lot harder than it used to be.

Not really. Deploy via submarine, aircraft, or surface ship, choose any of the above. An NS minefield--I would imagine--would consist of a large number of cheap mines, with a smaller number of more expensive ones scattered about, so as to make sweeping more difficult. Even if laying the minefield is expensive and hard, clearing it will be even moreso.

The vast majority of mine strikes occur in known shipping lanes and coastal waters. While a carrier may operate in shipping lanes during peacetime for safety's sake, in war it won't. There's also no need for it to be in coastal waters since it can strike from hundreds of miles away.

And what if you wish to strike at a target further in land, that requires you to approach the shoreline? For the shipping lanes bit, I refer back to the straits. In a larger picture, allow me to refer you to the Persian Gulf War, when American naval forces--who in order to properly provide support to ground force in Iraq--had to operate in shallow, coastal waters, resulting in both the cruiser USS Princeton and the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli striking mines. Yes, both ships survived, but both suffered heavy damage that required them to be returned to home port for repair, which is almost as good as sinking them. If clearing minefields was so trivial as you suggest why could the United States Navy not do so? And why would the factors that prevented the United States from doing so not apply in NS?

Offensive mining against a harbor might work, but a navy with carriers will also likely have a sophisticated mine countermeasures fleet, plus any method other than a submarine requires some degree of sea or air superiority in the area to be mined. If that's the case why bother with mines? Just sink the carrier in the traditional way. Likewise, if you can get a submarine into the harbor to mine it, you can get a submarine in with torpedoes. This goes double for nuclear mines, since in a nuclear war you can just nuke the harbor in 30 minutes anyway without leaving warheads lying around.

I agree with most of this, surprisingly, but I will point out that even a sophisticated mine countermeasure fleet still would have several problems: 1) Assuming the mines are being laid by submarine, the enemy might not know that their harbour has been mined until a ship hits one. 2) The mineclearing assets are on hand. Mineclearing assets can't be everywhere at once, and if the minesweepers are at a strait attempting to clear minefields there, they can't also be at home keeping the harbours clear. 3) Even if the enemy has sufficient minesweepers to cover the homefront and the frontlines, it will still take time for the minesweepers to arrive, sweep the field, and then sweep it to the extent that the enemy is willing to allow their expensive warships to sail out, or civilian vessels to sail.

As for the argument that if you're laying mines with a submarine why not just use the sub to sink the carrier? The answer for me is stealth. A torpedo or cruise missile out of a submarine operating in a harbor will reveal the location of the sub, and might be what allows the enemy to destroy it. Laying mines would be much quieter, and enable the sub to drop mines and then sail away, leaving the enemy none the wise until something--hopefully something expensive-trips a mine and is sunk/damaged.

[Triplebaconation]

And what if you wish to strike at a target further in land, that requires you to approach the shoreline? For the shipping lanes bit, I refer back to the straits. In a larger picture, allow me to refer you to the Persian Gulf War, when American naval forces--who in order to properly provide support to ground force in Iraq--had to operate in shallow, coastal waters, resulting in both the cruiser USS Princeton and the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli striking mines. Yes, both ships survived, but both suffered heavy damage that required them to be returned to home port for repair, which is almost as good as sinking them. If clearing minefields was so trivial as you suggest why could the United States Navy not do so? And why would the factors that prevented the United States from doing so not apply in NS?

Incredible. At least do a little research.

[Lubyak]

And what if you wish to strike at a target further in land, that requires you to approach the shoreline? For the shipping lanes bit, I refer back to the straits. In a larger picture, allow me to refer you to the Persian Gulf War, when American naval forces--who in order to properly provide support to ground force in Iraq--had to operate in shallow, coastal waters, resulting in both the cruiser USS Princeton and the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli striking mines. Yes, both ships survived, but both suffered heavy damage that required them to be returned to home port for repair, which is almost as good as sinking them. If clearing minefields was so trivial as you suggest why could the United States Navy not do so? And why would the factors that prevented the United States from doing so not apply in NS?

Incredible. At least do a little research.

Yes, ignore everything else I posted, and make a snarky comment.

If a little research was all it took to destroy my argument, then surely, you could just describe/link to it yourself rather than rely on a snarky comment.

[Triplebaconation]

Tripoli and Princeton were hit while operating as part of a mine-clearance task force. Within sight of Kuwait.

[Lolder]

I need some tips on the support staff required for each of the units in my army. My factbook details the army/armoured/air force breakdown, but I can't figure out what that means in terms of support staff.

You need a lot of support personnel to properly maintain a high performance aircraft. The ratio of support personnel to pilots will be ridiculously high in any circumstance, because you need far more ground crew, supply personnel, radar operators, air traffic controllers, base security personel, etc. than you do pilots. And this is especially true for more delicate, complex aircraft. You need a whole lot more support personnel for a MiG-31 than you do for a MiG-17. I generally try for 50 support personnel for a fourth or fifth generation multirole, and scale down from there depending on how complex the aircraft is. Some of these non-pilots can also fill air defense (SAM and AA) roles, and airborne infantry roles, so if you plan to have combat units of these types under the purview of your Air Force, you should adjust the numbers to represent the fact that these units require fewer support personnel than a fighter squadron would.

OK, so that's a 50 SS/ Pilot ratio, but what about for armoured and infantry formations?

[Lubyak]

Tripoli and Princeton were hit while operating as part of a mine-clearance task force. Within sight of Kuwait.

...So how does that challenge anything I've said?

If you're losing combatant vessels while attempting to protect the minesweepers, then the mines are doing their job, and have effectively mission killed major pieces of your mine clearance task force. The mines have succeeded in delaying your attempts to clear them, causing damage to your vessels, and limiting your operational flexibility by denying you access to the mined waters. How does this challenge what I've said about mines being effective, especially in coastal waters?