NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Immoren]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

[Horizont]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or, as it did in most countries to experience terror bombing, it might just steel their resolve.

They don't induce fear and terror though.

There's one use which is when you are in a position to completely destroy a country, terror attacks can induce it to surrender quicker than it would otherwise have. There's some historical precedent there.

Not entirely certain that precedent should include WWII.
It didn't work against Britain, it didn't work against Germany, it didn't work against Stalingrad and it didn't really work against Japan either.
The atom bombings were more a symbolic "well fuck it, we've run out of things to fight with" on the part of the Japanese.

"The war has developed, not necessarily to our advantage."

I say terror bombing, because it wouldn't achieve much. You might bring down a city block. But to what end?
Very little, at the cost of a bombing operation and a very large, limited-stock specialist munition.

Limited-stock? I plan on mass-producing these bombs and keeping them in a stockpile afterwards.

As you probably should, since counter-bunker munitions are probably in high demand on NS.
Expending them on civil infrastructure (and probably not even infrastructure)? Nah.

[Immoren]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

Or it makes them pissed off.

[Questers]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

Any historical parity examples?

[Questers]

Strategic bombing, which is NOT the same as terror bombing, works against countries that are unable to protect themselves. It has a number of legitimate uses:

- damaging civil infrastructure used for military purposes.
- diverting resources away from war fronts.
- destroying critical plants that are few in number; ball bearing plants for example

Japan was totally unable to defend itself from US bomber swarm. Its economy died as a result. There is not really an NS country that Horizont can bomb with impunity.

[The Akasha Colony]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

Everyone thought that. Didn't really pan out in effect. Even the effect of the atomic bombs on Japan is debatable, relative to the fear of Soviet invasion.

Strategic bombing, which is NOT the same as terror bombing, works against countries that are unable to protect themselves. It has a number of legitimate uses:

- damaging civil infrastructure used for military purposes.
- diverting resources away from war fronts.
- destroying critical plants that are few in number; ball bearing plants in WW2

Japan was totally unable to defend itself from US bomber swarm. Its economy died as a result. There is not really an NS country that Horizont can bomb with impunity.

Well, there might be a few banana republics, but I doubt these banana republics will be building sophisticated bunker complexes that warrant destruction using these kinds of weapons. Which wouldn't really be terror bombing anyway, since the objective is to destroy actual military infrastructure, not just scare the population.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I want a modern variant of the WWII-era 'Grand Slam' bomb. It'll be delivered by a my own version of the XB-70 Valkyrie and it'll weigh 50 tons. It'll be dropped from around 24 kilometers while the aircraft is flying at around Mach 3.2, and it'll have its own small rocket engine to speed it up even more during its descent.

Now, what I was hoping was an estimate for the speed at which it could be going when it hits the ground and how many meters of rock it could realistically get through.

Let me tell you this. Airbus A400M the airlifter has a useful payload of 40 tons, with a range that's barely transatlantic in a one way trip with that load.
You will never be able to fit a 50 ton bomb in anything less than a An-225. Incidentally the heaviest bomb ever dropped live is Tsar Bomba at 27 tons, the Bear that dropped it had its fuselage fuel tanks and bomb bay doors removed to accomodate the size, and the Tu-95 Bear is a pretty big plane.
Your plane won't look like anything like a Valkyrie and just to get its butt to a useful altitude it would expend 80% of its total fuel reserves. All this is gone if your foe has air parity, a few R-33's or a waiting S-300 battery. Just go with Massive Ordnance Penetrator + B-52.

[Horizont]

I want a modern variant of the WWII-era 'Grand Slam' bomb. It'll be delivered by a my own version of the XB-70 Valkyrie and it'll weigh 50 tons. It'll be dropped from around 24 kilometers while the aircraft is flying at around Mach 3.2, and it'll have its own small rocket engine to speed it up even more during its descent.

Now, what I was hoping was an estimate for the speed at which it could be going when it hits the ground and how many meters of rock it could realistically get through.

Let me tell you this. Airbus A400M the airlifter has a useful payload of 40 tons, with a range that's barely transatlantic in a one way trip with that load.
You will never be able to fit a 50 ton bomb in anything less than a An-225. Incidentally the heaviest bomb ever dropped live is Tsar Bomba at 27 tons, the Bear that dropped it had its fuselage fuel tanks and bomb bay doors removed to accomodate the size, and the Tu-95 Bear is a pretty big plane.
Your plane won't look like anything like a Valkyrie and just to get its butt to a useful altitude it would expend 80% of its total fuel reserves. All this is gone if your foe has air parity, a few R-33's or a waiting S-300 battery. Just go with Massive Ordnance Penetrator + B-52.

I calculated the XB-70's maximum load to be somewhere around 90 Tons. I suppose I made a mistake somewhere. I'll just go with a slightly bigger version of the MOP then.

[Imperializt Russia]

Let me tell you this. Airbus A400M the airlifter has a useful payload of 40 tons, with a range that's barely transatlantic in a one way trip with that load.
You will never be able to fit a 50 ton bomb in anything less than a An-225. Incidentally the heaviest bomb ever dropped live is Tsar Bomba at 27 tons, the Bear that dropped it had its fuselage fuel tanks and bomb bay doors removed to accomodate the size, and the Tu-95 Bear is a pretty big plane.
Your plane won't look like anything like a Valkyrie and just to get its butt to a useful altitude it would expend 80% of its total fuel reserves. All this is gone if your foe has air parity, a few R-33's or a waiting S-300 battery. Just go with Massive Ordnance Penetrator + B-52.

I calculated the XB-70's maximum load to be somewhere around 90 Tons. I suppose I made a mistake somewhere. I'll just go with a slightly bigger version of the MOP then.

A high performance aircraft's payload will shrink dramatically compared to "lower" performance craft. This is before you get to significantly increased fuel consumption and thus required stowage.

[Velkanika]

I suggest finding a cheap copy of The Soviet War Machine (ISBN 0 89009 084 X) on Amazon for cheap, it's a great overview of Soviet doctrine from 1976. It's pretty interesting to see what Western analysts thought of the Soviets during the height of the Cold War, and it isn't another US Army Field Manual like the rest of the posters on here are in love with.

Seriously guys, do you have anything that isn't a Field Manual that deals with this?

They're useful enough. Of course, if we could get actual translated version of Soviet documents, that'd be great, (and perhaps someone with those is floating around). The US Field Manuals still have a lot of useful information on the subject, especially for someone who is beginning to get into Soviet doctrine. They're easily accessible and quite readable, so when someone asks for an introduction to Soviet doctrine, they're a nice thing to link to. I don't see why you're so hostile to the use of the field manuals.

The field manuals present only one perspective and interpretation of Soviet doctrine and battle tactics. They themselves are a doctrinal interpretation of Soviet doctrine, and I really want to see what other organizations think of Soviet doctrine. US Army Field Manuals represent a very narrow field of view; that of the US Army. I'm willing to bet that there are some rival interpretations out there that we haven't seen on here yet due to them not being in English. My problem with them is that there are other ways of looking at the Soviets other than the Battle of Fulda. The 1967 Border War with China looked radically different from the theoretical Battle of Fulda and what the Field Manuals assume the Soviets would do in rough terrain like that.

[Imperializt Russia]

They're useful enough. Of course, if we could get actual translated version of Soviet documents, that'd be great, (and perhaps someone with those is floating around). The US Field Manuals still have a lot of useful information on the subject, especially for someone who is beginning to get into Soviet doctrine. They're easily accessible and quite readable, so when someone asks for an introduction to Soviet doctrine, they're a nice thing to link to. I don't see why you're so hostile to the use of the field manuals.

The field manuals present only one perspective and interpretation of Soviet doctrine and battle tactics. They themselves are a doctrinal interpretation of Soviet doctrine, and I really want to see what other organizations think of Soviet doctrine. US Army Field Manuals represent a very narrow field of view; that of the US Army. I'm willing to bet that there are some rival interpretations out there that we haven't seen on here yet due to them not being in English. My problem with them is that there are other ways of looking at the Soviets other than the Battle of Fulda. The 1967 Border War with China looked radically different from the theoretical Battle of Fulda and what the Field Manuals assume the Soviets would do in rough terrain like that.

Hypothetically speaking of course, that could be explained by the fact that these were battles fought not in Fulda and not against NATO.
Different proportion of the Army, fighting a different foe in a different locality for a different reason.

[Riysa]

They're useful enough. Of course, if we could get actual translated version of Soviet documents, that'd be great, (and perhaps someone with those is floating around). The US Field Manuals still have a lot of useful information on the subject, especially for someone who is beginning to get into Soviet doctrine. They're easily accessible and quite readable, so when someone asks for an introduction to Soviet doctrine, they're a nice thing to link to. I don't see why you're so hostile to the use of the field manuals.

The field manuals present only one perspective and interpretation of Soviet doctrine and battle tactics. They themselves are a doctrinal interpretation of Soviet doctrine, and I really want to see what other organizations think of Soviet doctrine. US Army Field Manuals represent a very narrow field of view; that of the US Army. I'm willing to bet that there are some rival interpretations out there that we haven't seen on here yet due to them not being in English. My problem with them is that there are other ways of looking at the Soviets other than the Battle of Fulda. The 1967 Border War with China looked radically different from the theoretical Battle of Fulda and what the Field Manuals assume the Soviets would do in rough terrain like that.

Have you ever read Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics? Its composed by a US Army Colonel, and provides a very unique look at the Soviet army in the late 80s. Everything you ever wanted to know is in it, even things such as daily rations.

[Primordial Luxa]

Ok im back
So I have an army of 1548000. My divisions average out to around 26000 with my new configuration.
I'm deciding to have half of my army be field formations and the rest to be Logistics.
This gives me 30 Divisions. 5 of which will be broken down and reassigned into independent brigades.
Does this seem realistic?

[Imperializt Russia]

Ok im back
So I have an army of 1548000. My divisions average out to around 26000 with my new configuration.
I'm deciding to have half of my army be field formations and the rest to be Logistics.
This gives me 30 Divisions. 5 of which will be broken down and reassigned into independent brigades.
Does this seem realistic?

That sounds about right.
What do you envision your independent brigade being tasked with?

[Primordial Luxa]

Ok im back
So I have an army of 1548000. My divisions average out to around 26000 with my new configuration.
I'm deciding to have half of my army be field formations and the rest to be Logistics.
This gives me 30 Divisions. 5 of which will be broken down and reassigned into independent brigades.
Does this seem realistic?

That sounds about right.
What do you envision your independent brigade being tasked with?

They will primary be non-front line work and force multiplier roles so i'm thinking Battlefield Surveillance Brigades, Maneuver Enhancement Brigades, Engineer Brigades, and Sustainment Brigades primarily. However a few of them will be additional Artillery, AA, and Airborne groups that can be held in reserves in case something unexpected happens.

[Imperializt Russia]

Part of the beauty of independent brigades is that they can be thrown into existing formations on an ad-hoc basis to bolster their capabilities. Hence why Independent Armoured or Infantry Brigades would be useful to maintain.

Not sure if I'd be correct on this, but I imagine these sorts of formations would be where strategic and operational-level air defences for an entire force may be located for being assigned directly to Corps/Front etc, rather than ad-hoc component of Divisions, as well as possibly large SSM groups.

[Velkanika]

The field manuals present only one perspective and interpretation of Soviet doctrine and battle tactics. They themselves are a doctrinal interpretation of Soviet doctrine, and I really want to see what other organizations think of Soviet doctrine. US Army Field Manuals represent a very narrow field of view; that of the US Army. I'm willing to bet that there are some rival interpretations out there that we haven't seen on here yet due to them not being in English. My problem with them is that there are other ways of looking at the Soviets other than the Battle of Fulda. The 1967 Border War with China looked radically different from the theoretical Battle of Fulda and what the Field Manuals assume the Soviets would do in rough terrain like that.

Have you ever read Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics? Its composed by a US Army Colonel, and provides a very unique look at the Soviet army in the late 80s. Everything you ever wanted to know is in it, even things such as daily rations.

Was that written by William P. Baxter? I am going to purchase that on Amazon with a few other books from that period.

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

History demonstrates the complete opposite. Terror bombing was conceived during the interwar years by every nation with an air force as a doctrine, with small variations depending on the air force. In practice, it failed miserably with the notable exception of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki successfully forcing the Japanese to unconditionally surrender. The Japanese were already going to surrender at that point, and the bombings just made them get on with it. Every single other terror bombing campaign turned into a propaganda coup for the target nation. The London Blitz hardened resolve against the Axis. The firebombing of Dresden had a similar effect. Carpet bombing Berlin didn't do anything near what allied air forces thought it would, it just make German civilians button up during a raid before returning to work. The most damaging and effective bomber raids were directed at factory complexes, and those had decent effects on the German economy. The Japanese economy was already crippled before the raids due to US submarines annihilating their merchant fleet and ability to transport supplies to their factories.

[Riysa]

Have you ever read Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics? Its composed by a US Army Colonel, and provides a very unique look at the Soviet army in the late 80s. Everything you ever wanted to know is in it, even things such as daily rations.

Was that written by William P. Baxter? I am going to purchase that on Amazon with a few other books from that period.

Yup, get it - I've been mining it for how to organize my force. Its got a lot of information taken from Soviet manuals and other items captured in Afghanistan, so its probably a better look at the Soviet structure than a US or NATO manual. Plus, I can say that its definitely not biased.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

History demonstrates the complete opposite. Terror bombing was conceived during the interwar years by every nation with an air force as a doctrine, with small variations depending on the air force. In practice, it failed miserably with the notable exception of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki successfully forcing the Japanese to unconditionally surrender. The Japanese were already going to surrender at that point, and the bombings just made them get on with it. Every single other terror bombing campaign turned into a propaganda coup for the target nation. The London Blitz hardened resolve against the Axis. The firebombing of Dresden had a similar effect. Carpet bombing Berlin didn't do anything near what allied air forces thought it would, it just make German civilians button up during a raid before returning to work. The most damaging and effective bomber raids were directed at factory complexes, and those had decent effects on the German economy. The Japanese economy was already crippled before the raids due to US submarines annihilating their merchant fleet and ability to transport supplies to their factories.

^ This. The atomic bombings just hurried along the surrender, which Hirohito was considering because he'd rather face the Americans than the Soviets, which were already preparing for an invasion.

The thousand-bomber raids again, were sucessful because they hit a ton of manufacturing - it did nothing except provide propaganda to the Nazi government in terms of morale.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Any munition used for terror bombing is away from effecting enemy forces. You are giving your opponent a service.

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

If for whatever reason diplomacy fails and/or you do not have the means to participate in conventional warfare and/or you are NOT fighting a country that strikes first and asks questions later, then sure, do terror bombings.

EDIT: Oh, wait, we're talking about strategic bombing. Out of curiosity, do aircraft-carried cruise missiles generally outrange AA defenses or is it the other way round?

[Velkanika]

Bombing the civilian population of an enemy country will decrease their morale and affect their forces indirectly.

If for whatever reason diplomacy fails and/or you do not have the means to participate in conventional warfare and/or you are NOT fighting a country that strikes first and asks questions later, then sure, do terror bombings.

EDIT: Oh, wait, we're talking about strategic bombing. Out of curiosity, do aircraft-carried cruise missiles generally outrange AA defenses or is it the other way round?

It depends on the defense. Anti-ship missiles are generally outranged by a large margin by the SAMs on their targets, but land-attack missiles usually have the edge over ground defenses. It really depends on what you're attacking with what to make that call.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

If for whatever reason diplomacy fails and/or you do not have the means to participate in conventional warfare and/or you are NOT fighting a country that strikes first and asks questions later, then sure, do terror bombings.

EDIT: Oh, wait, we're talking about strategic bombing. Out of curiosity, do aircraft-carried cruise missiles generally outrange AA defenses or is it the other way round?

It depends on the defense. Anti-ship missiles are generally outranged by a large margin by the SAMs on their targets, but land-attack missiles usually have the edge over ground defenses. It really depends on what you're attacking with what to make that call.

I see.

Anyways, what is the actual effectiveness of the Iron Dome? 2/3 out of all incoming targets are classified as "non-threatening", what's that all about? Sounds like a load of bull tbh. Does the system estimate that those won't hit settlements or what?

[The Kievan People]

Yup, get it - I've been mining it for how to organize my force. Its got a lot of information taken from Soviet manuals and other items captured in Afghanistan, so its probably a better look at the Soviet structure than a US or NATO manual. Plus, I can say that its definitely not biased.

While it has been awhile since I read it, there is nothing in Airland Battle Tactics which really contradicts the Field Manuals.

The FM 100-2 series provides a very straight forward overview of the Soviet Army and SOP. It doesn't attempt to cover debates on doctrine which occurred within the USSR, it doesn't attempt to forecast future developments and doesn't attempt to explain discrepancies between what Soviet manuals said and what the Soviet Army actually did, but all those things are beyond its remit. Read it and you'll learn how the Soviets would do it by the book.

It's not the absolute definitive English language work on the Soviet ground forces, but there isn't one. Airland Battle Tactics certainly isn't it. I am not even so sure it is the definitive English language book about the Soviet Army published in the 1980s. Personally I found "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army" (1988 edition) more comprehensive. If you are looking for the Field Manuals but more in-depth, that is perhaps the first book you should look at.

[The Kievan People]

I see.

Anyways, what is the actual effectiveness of the Iron Dome? 2/3 out of all incoming targets are classified as "non-threatening", what's that all about? Sounds like a load of bull tbh. Does the system estimate that those won't hit settlements or what?

That is exactly what it does.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

That is exactly what it does.

In 2010, before the system was declared operational, Iron Dome was criticized by Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst, former fighter pilot and professor of political science at Tel Aviv University[102] for costing too much compared to the cost of a Qassam rocket (fired by Palestinian forces), so that launching very large numbers of Qassams could essentially attack Israel's financial means.

This is shallow-minded especially if it can do the above mentioned thing, unless on average each Qassam that strikes causes damage worth less than 35-50k $ , which I doubt, and that's not even considering human lives.

When estimating the cost of an event such as a rocket strike, are medical expenses for the injured included or not? In the US for example if one has a pretty bad crash I think it's almost certain that treatment costs more than repairs or even the whole car.