NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Themiclesia]

Well, at least you've taken the first step of realising it's unreasonable. On this note, what would you do if someone did invade you? Don't go 'oh no, that's impossible', just assume they have and describe what you'd do.

Assuming that our allies are not invading, we'd alert the regional units of the militias and give them the green light to mobilize. A plan would be worked out if the federal government needs to send in reinforcements in supplies, advanced weapons, or other things. Our army numbers 52,500 persons excluding the militias, and is divided into 6 armies.

For a small scale invasion, that is to say the enemy's object isn't the annihilation of the country, we presume that the local militia which are trained a bit better than the US Army with the help of the federal government will be sufficient. Else, we'd concentrate more resources as needed. Our allies would be called in as well.

[The Kievan People]

Enhanced blast explosives are just explosives. They are not some magical super weapon, giving them to the WMD branch is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

[Themiclesia]

Um... my laptop is dying, so I'll probably not respond for a bit.

[The Kievan People]

For a small scale invasion, that is to say the enemy's object isn't the annihilation of the country, we presume that the local militia which are trained a bit better than the US Army with the help of the federal government will be sufficient. Else, we'd concentrate more resources as needed. Our allies would be called in as well.

I don't think you understand what "militia" means.

[New Tsavon]

For a small scale invasion, that is to say the enemy's object isn't the annihilation of the country, we presume that the local militia which are trained a bit better than the US Army with the help of the federal government will be sufficient. Else, we'd concentrate more resources as needed. Our allies would be called in as well.

I don't think you understand what "militia" means.

Given his track record so far, why are you surprised?

[Vetok]

:palm:

Enhanced blast explosives are just explosives. They are not some magical super weapon, giving them to the WMD branch is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

No doubt you can stick it on a shelf with the rest.

I am aware it's a daft idea, but it was done when I first started on NS, and to be honest I don't use them that much anyway in the Army or Air Force, so...stick them in the strategic branch where their budget can suck it up is probably the main reason behind it for the senior staff.

[Iva lotta fro]

[SNIPPED first bit since it's already been said about 20 times by other persons]

As for the rest of you lot...
This being a military realism consultation thread and all that, I've been doing some work on chemical and biological weapons recently, for various anonymous parties on nationstates. Whilst I'm very clued up on the actual agents, their potencies and distribution, and how they interact with the human body, I'm less clued up on how to implement their deployment to a military force, and of large scale strategy.

My current thinking was to have the chemical and biological weapons controlled by a seperate agency, perhaps within an existing defence research body, and from there develop it in three strands:
- A strategic arsenal, as an auxilliary to nuclear weapons, for when nuclear weapons may not be desirable (e.g. Latency of effect, damage to infrastructure and landscape, etc.), targeting population, military, agriculture, and environment. This would combine strands developed by the US and USSR, with regards to mass deployment of agents against targets, to benefit a war effort both overtly and covertly.
- A tactical arsenal, for use in small scale confrontations. In this instance, one would be looking at gas as used as a weapon in the Iraq-Iran war, and previously in Vietnam (in a non-lethal capacity), and most significantly the first world war/Ethiopia.
- A covert arsenal, for black operations in support of special operations, political actions and unconventional approaches to COIN. This would be modelled more around South Africa's Project Coast, and perhaps more significantly the Rhodesian CBW programme.

As such, the manufacturing, decommissioning and stockpiling of such weapons would come under a single body, most likely with a core of dedicated staff using other military units on loan to move them and guard stores (likely the CBRN equipped units, on a rota). Whilst strategic stockpiles could be held alongside nuclear warheads (i.e. for aircraft spraying/cluster bombing/MIRV missile), I'm less certain as to what extent the tactical arsenal should be disseminated.

So, to what degree would one train troops to conduct offensive CB warfare at a tactical level, or rather how to use the weapons? Options:
> When forming combat brigades, defensively I was looking CBRN specialists deployed at a rate of 2-3 Platoons to each Brigade; or if you would, a CBRN battalion in every combat Division. Would one consider these guys as the ones to both stockpile, transfer and deploy these weapons, down the chain of command (i.e. Stockpile is at the Army level, CBRN logistics transfer the weapons as authorised by Corps/Division command to the brigade that is deploying them), or should they be solely used in their attached role for acting as the CBRN sentries and decontamination teams?
> If the latter is true, should I dedicate artillery units to using these devices? Whilst one would likely use missiles and artillery shells to deliver the goods, how would one go about deploying the gases in cloud form?

Which I suppose leads on to how they should be deployed Tactically
> munitions work, aye, but what about spraying the stuff from aircraft? Keep it to one branch (the army) to make life simple, or centralise it with the CBRN authority, or branch out to the other services (i.e. the Air force)?
> Cloud gas attacks, as in the first world war, a crap idea or a brilliant idea? From the little reading I've done, it seemed that in the first world war, the cloud gas attacks were responsible for the majority of casualties, and the highest concentrations.
> Do the navy have any conceivable use for CBWs? If so, what and where?
> Ditto with the paramilitary, for the lethal stuff - we'll assume they have the right, however restricted, to use CS and other incapacitants. Assume this isn't an evil dictator-state thing.

And, of course:
> To what level should CBRN defence units be bolstered, from the battalion per division level, if the battlefield does go chemical/biological?

Your thoughts please.

Bumping this quite soon on in the conversation, just because the bitching and moaning is getting annoying.

Please, this is a consultation and discussion thread. If you don't like the answer you get regards to certain things that are blatantly unrealistic, then fine, just leave it at that. No need to try and prove a point, or whatever it is one does.

Similarly, the same answers have been given to points repeatedly. If someone isn't getting the point, then just leave them to it - you wont convince them, so really it's cluttering up the thread with an endless back-and-forth waste of space in exchange.

So, regards to my quoted post... thoughts?

Using chemical weapons on a strategic scale would be difficult. Not only are they impossible to control once released, but depending on the agents used, can actually become a barrier to your own forces when they attempt to seize territory.

Tactically (that is on a smaller scale) they could be used, however MOPP gear is cumbersome and difficult to fight in. Not to mention being in a contaminated area for more than four to six hours with protective gear would be completely impractical. Maybe for a quick raid, or simply as a disruptive tactic, otherwise chemical weapons are mostly obsolete.

[Imperializt Russia]

:palm:

Enhanced blast explosives are just explosives. They are not some magical super weapon, giving them to the WMD branch is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

Aren't the Buratino launchers in Russian service meant to be in control of chemical weapon formations for whatever reason?

[Themiclesia]

I don't think you understand what "militia" means.

Given his track record so far, why are you surprised?

Sorry for the confusion. I am not well versed in these matters. But they are armies that are trained.

[The Kievan People]

So if you want to throw a thermobaric hand grenade, you need to go to through the strategic weapons command? Do they have Permissive Action Links and arming codes to?

[Imperializt Russia]

So if you want to throw a thermobaric hand grenade, you need to go to through the strategic weapons command? Do they have Permissive Action Links and arming codes to?

And? So far as I'm aware, chemical shells don't either.
Unless they're so shit that Iraqi insurgents managed to break into one.

[The Kievan People]

Aren't the Buratino launchers in Russian service meant to be in control of chemical weapon formations for whatever reason?

The Buratino was built to fill the same role as the old flamethrower tanks. Flamethrower units were a part of the chemical troops.

[Dremaur]

Would any of you be interested in having a mock war with me? I believe it will help me as you can criticize me on my realism.

[Vetok]

So if you want to throw a thermobaric hand grenade,

I was very tempted to use the ROFL smiley here.

No, the thermobaric weapons that got shuffled to the strategic weapons branch are some of LG's Osiris bombs.

The Osiris vacuum device yields the equivalent of 45 tons of TNT using 7.8 tons of a new high explosive called Brimstone and developed with the use of nanotechnology. Because of this, the bomb has the same destructive power as a small tactical nuclear weapon. The bomb is pulled out of the cargo hold of the aircraft by a parachute, the parachute releases, and the GPS guides the bomb to the target destination where the bomb detonates in mid-air. Most damage is inflicted by a supersonic shockwave and extremely high temperatures, which incinerate everything nearby. Thermobaric weapons differ from conventional explosive weapons by using oxygen from the atmosphere, rather than carrying an oxidizing agent in their explosives. They produce more energy than normal weapons with the Osiris producing a blast radius of 300 m (1000 ft). Delivery is by Stormshadow Bomber.

Weight: 20,000 lb (9.1tonnes)
Length: 26.67 feet (8.13 m)
Diameter: 40.5 in (102.9 cm)
Guidance: inertial/GPS

No doubt there's problems with his designs, since I understand he had a few problems like that.

[Registug]

Would any of you be interested in having a mock war with me? I believe it will help me as you can criticize me on my realism.

Let's go, sloppy joe.

I need to brush up on my own things as well, it's been far too long since I've done some good NS writing.

[The Kievan People]

And? So far as I'm aware, chemical shells don't either.
Unless they're so shit that Iraqi insurgents managed to break into one.

Applying the controls on chemical weapons to thermobarics is barmy.

Really this is just promoting the silly myth that enhanced blast explosives are "superior" weapons, borderline superweapons even. FFS we have had people in these threads who claimed they use thermobarics instead of nuclear weapons. And don't even get me started on the FOAB. As the military realism thread we should be working to kill these superstitions dead.

Besides fairness dictates that if the thread can rip into themis, we should not hesitate to rip into vetok either.

[Dremaur]

Would any of you be interested in having a mock war with me? I believe it will help me as you can criticize me on my realism.

Let's go, sloppy joe.

I need to brush up on my own things as well, it's been far too long since I've done some good NS writing.

alright, post it and send me a link in the telegram

[Vetok]

And? So far as I'm aware, chemical shells don't either.
Unless they're so shit that Iraqi insurgents managed to break into one.

Besides fairness dictates that if the thread can rip into themis, we should not hesitate to rip into vetok either.

By all means feel free. Challenging misconceptions and silly posts is a key part of the Military Realism thread, or at least so it seems.

[Registug]

People think of thermobarics as super weapons?

[Alfegos]

I'll address random points in a random order.
I apologise in advance

The Navy have chemical protection capabilities such as deck-spraying for carriers and presumably other shipping. On carriers it may also help with oil leaks (no idea), but presumably implies that chemical attacks on ships have been considered. Bombing the flight deck of a carrier with chemical agents (especially if the aircraft lift is in operation) will contaminate on-deck stores and airframes and kill or injure deck personnel. It will cripple the carrier's capability to fight or sustain combat operations. Other warships probably spend more time with most of their crew below decks, so may be less vulnerable to chemical attacks.
Gas in WWI was inefficient and of comparatively low lethality. Gas clouds are also subject to weather changes, as at least one German unit learnt to their peril.

Nerve agents are often best deployed as aerosols. Many chemical warheads for both artillery shells and artillery rockets featured mixing and aerosol dispersion mechanisms for their agents.
Whilst tube chemical artillery would be useful for small units, camps, vehicles in the open and counterbattery work, you'd want to keep heavy artillery rockets and SSM to hand for attacking FOBs, forward airbases, resupply and maintenance depots and formation headquarters with agent.

I'm not convinced of the worth of chemical agents as a "strategic" weapon in the same sense of nuclear arms. I think their nature would primarily limit them to the tactical theatre.

Sweet. I'll address points in here that I saw in other posts, for brevity:

> Seen with the Navy - I like that thinking. So arming the Navy Air Arm would likely do the job, using cluster munitions as a dispersal system? I'd like to think that this would double up with bombarding land targets, and a few other things, so really, the Navy role would boil down to:
- Air Arm munitions, for land/naval attack
- Naval missiles - Warheads, for special delivery when authorised, for Cruise missiles and SLBMs? I could use the same system as is used for nuclear warheads with regards to safety and security of the devices, and for their stockpiling and transfer.
- SLBMs - Biological warheads, probably keep them with the nuclear warheads as a similar strategic weapon.
As for defence, yes I can see the VX/Biological bomb putting a carrier out of action more effectively than perhaps even just bombing the runway, particularly with V/STOL aircraft. Will certainly have to consider it.

> Aye, the cloud gas attacks were failures at times due to the weather, though I believe that the use of Sulphur Mustard was particularly effective in cloud gas operations - since, as you well put, other agents had issues (e.g. HCN was found to be too volatile, dispersing far too rapidly even when delivered by shells; Chlorine gas clouds were rendered usless near instantly by any bodies of water, with which it reacted). So in reality, MLRS is a much better way of putting the stuff down than, say, just letting off twenty high pressure cylinders of the nasty stuff, pointed towards the enemy, with a prayer to the meteo lads - should I have systems for cloud gas dispersal on land completely discontinued/not considered for weapons dispersal?

> So for deployment, the following sounds good for the nasty stuff for chem?
- Mortar shells (120mm, so at battlegroup or brigade level, to centralise control of the stuff)
- Light artllery shells (105mm and 155mm for infantry and armour respectively, at the battlegroup level, and 155mm at the brigade level for all - again, would probably centralise with brigade, and thus restrict it to 155mm).
- MLRS Bomblets (again, brigade asset or higher - use whatever rockets I feel like)
- SRBM Bomblets (division asset or higher)
- Cruise Missile, Bomblets (army asset...)
- 1000lb Bomb, from aircraft - use bomblet dispersal, or just one big bad fella?
- Spray, from aircraft???

> Strategically, chemical weapons are poor due to their low area of effect per device - though strategic use against industry and civil centres would still be possible. I guess using a chemical warhead for cruise missile or 1000lb bomb would do the trick here, just that such a strike would have to be authorised in the same way as a nuclear or biological strike.

> BUT BUT BUT - Biological weapons are pretty remarkable. I'm throwing defoliants in here because it makes sense to, but surely massive attacks using these against population centres, agricultural areas, and areas of heavy tree cover, would be effective? I mean, yeah, they'd start tossing nuclear weapons around like nobody's business, or reciprocate in kind ,which sorta makes them redundant in that regards, though I've always thought combining multiple biological agent strikes on population centres alongside the nuclear attacks would be far, far more effective in a synergistic manner than the two on their own (... nuclear weapons damage infrastructure and pollute areas, the biologicals further overload the infrastructure, but are exacerbated by the lowered immune systems of those affected by radiation, the general need for food and supplies after the infrastructure is devestated, and will last longer than the fallout in polluting key areas. That, and it would hit the survivors in a second wave after the initial nuclear attacks, killing them off whilst they engage in any counter-attacks, and pretty much guaranteeing that provoking a nuclear attack by a nation will result in their utter destruction - doomsday scenario if you like).

Hope that helps somewhat. As for another point...
> PAL and arming codes on the weapons. Yes I say for nuclear devices and infectious biological devices, but what about for chemical devices and biochemical devices? Perhaps have arming codes on devices with enough of a size of warhead to cause very serious damage? Perhaps just have the arming codes and PAL on the containers that they're carried in, so that access to the devices is only permitted in that way?

> Oh dear. Thermobarics have their uses, sure, but really these are quite niche - bunker clearing, ship-busting, shows of force and clearing landing areas for helicopters. Seemingly using them en masse as the next super weapon is, as has been said before, utter bollocks. They are simply another type of warhead for a particular role, in the same way as incendiaries are, as bunker-penetrating devices are, and as cluster warheads or landmines are.

[The Kievan People]

People think of thermobarics as super weapons?

Haven't you heard? They are just like nukes without radiation!

[TimberWolves]

People think of thermobarics as super weapons?

Depending on yield, they can be WMDs, but most are just tactical weapons.

[The Corparation]

People think of thermobarics as super weapons?

Yes. Fear the wrath of their large slow cargo planes as they drop a single niche weapon that if I recall correctly can be foiled by inclement weather such as high winds.

[The Kievan People]

Aerodynamic dispersal of chemical and biological weapons allows for precise control of particle size, eliminates flashing and allows for precise control of concentration.

Spraying a cloud of BC agent from an aircraft, cruise missile or drone downwind from the target is perhaps the most effective form of delivery. Assuming the wind is blowing at a good speed, it will roll over them like an advancing wall of doom. Of course if the wind is absent, intermittent or exceedingly strong this method is much less effective.

[Registug]

But thermobaric effects just result in a pressure wave and fireball. That's nowhere near a nuke.