NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Velkanika]

Since it's the top of page 499 and all...

OK then. Go jump in a trench and we'll shoot an ICBM at you and see how long it takes for the radiation and air suction to kill you.

Infantry taking shelter at the bottom at a full-depth infantry trench are 100% secure from burst radiation. That's actual test data.

If you are not close enough to kill them with the blast wave, you won't kill them with the burst radiation either.

Here's a web applet I found that provides a reasonable set of numbers regarding a nuclear detonation under normal circumstances. Nuclear weapons can cause third-degree burns from outside their lethal overpressure radius, but that only impacts an object or person in the open with direct line of sight to the hypocenter. Given a yield of 5 kt, which it typical for a tactical nuclear weapon, the thermal pulse will kill from well outside the lethal overpressure radius. Dirt is really good at stopping bullets and radiation, so men in trenches would be far more likely to survive then a man standing adjacent to the trench and fully exposed to the hypocenter.

Considering only 15cm/6" of average soil will halve the radiation, if you crouch in a trench only a few feet deep, you will be subject to a lower degree of direct radiation. The real trouble starts if the fireball touches the ground or so close enough to draw vast quantities of dust and light particles up into the mushroom cloud. Then of course this rains down as fallout. One small tactical nuclear blast that's not "self cleaning", the fallout would be avoidable in a few hours immediately after the blast, as some of the nastiest by products of a nuclear blast have very short half-life's and will go through their decay chains until they become a more stable isotope/element. The best case is that you stay in place and defend what's left of your position. Radiation sickness is a bitch short term and if you can help it, don't move your troops from shelter for at least 24-48 hours. Trenches are ok to survive the pressure wave if it's adequately shored up, but if there is expected to have large fallout clouds from multiple blasts, I'd recommend building either a walled in and roofed section on the trench every few hundred feet if you are expecting to operate in a nuclear blast (also NBC suits will allow your troops to return to fighting sooner) or digging in to the trench wall and make a small little cave, that would possibly offer a halving factor of 2-10 which would ensure survival in some of the worst hit spots.

Why would you be using weapons large enough to do that in the first place? Multiple small blasts won't cause nearly that amount of fallout at the yields used for tactical weapons.

[Yukonastan]

Since it's the top of page 499 and all...

Infantry taking shelter at the bottom at a full-depth infantry trench are 100% secure from burst radiation. That's actual test data.

If you are not close enough to kill them with the blast wave, you won't kill them with the burst radiation either.

Here's a web applet I found that provides a reasonable set of numbers regarding a nuclear detonation under normal circumstances. Nuclear weapons can cause third-degree burns from outside their lethal overpressure radius, but that only impacts an object or person in the open with direct line of sight to the hypocenter. Given a yield of 5 kt, which it typical for a tactical nuclear weapon, the thermal pulse will kill from well outside the lethal overpressure radius. Dirt is really good at stopping bullets and radiation, so men in trenches would be far more likely to survive then a man standing adjacent to the trench and fully exposed to the hypocenter.

Considering only 15cm/6" of average soil will halve the radiation, if you crouch in a trench only a few feet deep, you will be subject to a lower degree of direct radiation. The real trouble starts if the fireball touches the ground or so close enough to draw vast quantities of dust and light particles up into the mushroom cloud. Then of course this rains down as fallout. One small tactical nuclear blast that's not "self cleaning", the fallout would be avoidable in a few hours immediately after the blast, as some of the nastiest by products of a nuclear blast have very short half-life's and will go through their decay chains until they become a more stable isotope/element. The best case is that you stay in place and defend what's left of your position. Radiation sickness is a bitch short term and if you can help it, don't move your troops from shelter for at least 24-48 hours. Trenches are ok to survive the pressure wave if it's adequately shored up, but if there is expected to have large fallout clouds from multiple blasts, I'd recommend building either a walled in and roofed section on the trench every few hundred feet if you are expecting to operate in a nuclear blast (also NBC suits will allow your troops to return to fighting sooner) or digging in to the trench wall and make a small little cave, that would possibly offer a halving factor of 2-10 which would ensure survival in some of the worst hit spots.

Why would you be using weapons large enough to do that in the first place? Multiple small blasts won't cause nearly that amount of fallout at the yields used for tactical weapons.

Interesting. That we went from 25 megaton yield weapons to five kiloton weapons. And we're still primed to end the earth if one of those comes knocking.

But yeah. This, basically. Describes how my nation reacts during a nuclear attack on an entrenched (geddit?) position.

[The Akasha Colony]

Due to Yamato's comparatively poor fire control, concerning armour joints and overall ponderousity. The Vanguard is often cited as being a far superior seagoing and steady ship, possibly even better than Bismarck, coupled with the FCS it could have managed many hits on Yamato before Yamato could have landed a punch.

Vanguard was better than Bismarck. She had a better and more efficient armor scheme, as the Germans had never fully transitioned to all-or-nothing armor (not having a navy during a period of crucial technological change does that), and while Bismarck had good optical fire control, she never had radar FCS. The Germans never caught up to the British or the Americans in active radar, although they put quite a bit of stock in passive radar receivers. Bismarck had good guns and thick armor, but was overweight and oversized for her armament, largely due to a rather inefficient (but relatively survivable) design.

[Allanea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_ ... #Shielding

A meter of soil between you and the explosion (and if you are crouching at the bottom of a trench you'll have far more) will reduce the blast radiation of a nuclear explosion by 1/1024.

Nuclear weapons can of course breach trench lines (as can conventional weapons), but they don't magically negate their usefulness.

[Yukonastan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding

A meter of soil between you and the explosion (and if you are crouching at the bottom of a trench you'll have far more) will reduce the blast radiation of a nuclear explosion by 1/1024.

Nuclear weapons can of course breach trench lines (as can conventional weapons), but they don't magically negate their usefulness.

You dun goof'd. To about 1/2048th. To 1/1024th is a yard, or 90cm.

[Velkanika]

Since it's the top of page 499 and all...


Here's a web applet I found that provides a reasonable set of numbers regarding a nuclear detonation under normal circumstances. Nuclear weapons can cause third-degree burns from outside their lethal overpressure radius, but that only impacts an object or person in the open with direct line of sight to the hypocenter. Given a yield of 5 kt, which it typical for a tactical nuclear weapon, the thermal pulse will kill from well outside the lethal overpressure radius. Dirt is really good at stopping bullets and radiation, so men in trenches would be far more likely to survive then a man standing adjacent to the trench and fully exposed to the hypocenter.


Why would you be using weapons large enough to do that in the first place? Multiple small blasts won't cause nearly that amount of fallout at the yields used for tactical weapons.

Interesting. That we went from 25 megaton yield weapons to five kiloton weapons. And we're still primed to end the earth if one of those comes knocking.

But yeah. This, basically. Describes how my nation reacts during a nuclear attack on an entrenched (geddit?) position.

MAD is incredible as a defense, seeing as no one is crazy enough to actually commit national suicide over a few tactical nuclear weapons. NUTS is a much more credible response.

[Allanea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding

A meter of soil between you and the explosion (and if you are crouching at the bottom of a trench you'll have far more) will reduce the blast radiation of a nuclear explosion by 1/1024.

Nuclear weapons can of course breach trench lines (as can conventional weapons), but they don't magically negate their usefulness.

You dun goof'd. To about 1/2048th. To 1/1024th is a yard, or 90cm.

A fair point.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Due to Yamato's comparatively poor fire control, concerning armour joints and overall ponderousity. The Vanguard is often cited as being a far superior seagoing and steady ship, possibly even better than Bismarck, coupled with the FCS it could have managed many hits on Yamato before Yamato could have landed a punch.

Vanguard was better than Bismarck. She had a better and more efficient armor scheme, as the Germans had never fully transitioned to all-or-nothing armor (not having a navy during a period of crucial technological change does that), and while Bismarck had good optical fire control, she never had radar FCS. The Germans never caught up to the British or the Americans in active radar, although they put quite a bit of stock in passive radar receivers. Bismarck had good guns and thick armor, but was overweight and oversized for her armament, largely due to a rather inefficient (but relatively survivable) design.

By far, I've seen the plans for Bismarck and you can see legacies from the Bayern class as well as poor stern protection (ironically) , it turns out though their optical FCS was far superior to anything the British fielded in the first years of the war. Had it been completed early-mid thirties (ignoring history for a second) it would have been an impossible force to fight especially since their armour was fantastic in taking stunning amounts of punishment from shells. Considering it was hit by many 16", 8" and 6" shells the damage wasn't as great as expected.

[Doppio Giudici]

Is there a missile like the Hydra 70 that is heat seeking?

I'm thinking of using a light recon heli that can map enemy locations, while using one rocket pod to deal with AT teams and the other to deal with IFVs or the like.

[The Akasha Colony]

Vanguard was better than Bismarck. She had a better and more efficient armor scheme, as the Germans had never fully transitioned to all-or-nothing armor (not having a navy during a period of crucial technological change does that), and while Bismarck had good optical fire control, she never had radar FCS. The Germans never caught up to the British or the Americans in active radar, although they put quite a bit of stock in passive radar receivers. Bismarck had good guns and thick armor, but was overweight and oversized for her armament, largely due to a rather inefficient (but relatively survivable) design.

By far, I've seen the plans for Bismarck and you can see legacies from the Bayern class as well as poor stern protection (ironically) , it turns out though their optical FCS was far superior to anything the British fielded in the first years of the war. Had it been completed early-mid thirties (ignoring history for a second) it would have been an impossible force to fight especially since their armour was fantastic in taking stunning amounts of punishment from shells. Considering it was hit by many 16", 8" and 6" shells the damage wasn't as great as expected.

The British 16" guns used by the Nelson-class were substandard. In fact, the 15" Mark I with the improved shells in use during WWII had superior penetration to those used by the 16" Mark I. That Bismarck withstood them should come as no terribly great surprise.

[New Vihenia]

Is there a missile like the Hydra 70 that is heat seeking?

I'm thinking of using a light recon heli that can map enemy locations, while using one rocket pod to deal with AT teams and the other to deal with IFVs or the like.

You're looking at AGM-124.

[The Kievan People]

I would naturally suspect as much. But with concepts of munitions running short in any extended conflict, it makes me wonder whether it would be feasible to create divisions that deliberately draw less supplies or are capable of fighting for a period of time without any draw on supplies otherwise, so that logistics can be operationally concentrated.

Similarly, given an extended build up rather than a sudden war it would seem likely that armies would be expanded (although I guess this precludes nuclear weapons), and the core force diluted to make room for conscripts (This is in mind with :ns: wars of 100 million troops or whatever number is seen as sufficiently larger than your opposition); perhaps this would also include a push towards munitions building.

Given that the vast majority of expenses are towards the more sophisticated weapons system, as seen in Libya, I do wonder how it is possible to manufacture them at a sufficient quantity that they are actually usable in extended wars. Looking through wartime economies, a great deal can be done by mobilisation of economies however given that we can speak of currency as an accounting measure of resources it seems very tricky to actually enable that on the monstrous scales required under high-intensity warfare conditions.
Perhaps in this regard it might be worthwhile to create a secondary army that operates under the conditions of munitions scarcity, I particularly wonder how this would affect the air war.

On land at least PGMs are not the main reason for the drop in expenditures. Better fire control systems have made conventional weapons, especially artillery which was the single biggest user of ammunition, far more accurate than they were in the Second World war. Better munitions have also improved the effectiveness of each round.

If we consider the humble HE shell, modern HE shells have gained:
1. Proximity fuzes, optimizing the height of burst.
2. High-fragmentation steel, optimizing the number of fragments produced.
3. Ideal filling/shell ratio, optimizing the number of useful anti-personnel fragments produced.
4. Tighter manufacturing tolerances, improving accuracy and reducing the number of duds.
5. Delay fuzes, optimizing effectiveness against hard targets.

A single modern HE shell is worth several WWII HE shells. And this is not even accounting for the improved accuracy of modern fire, which means less shells are needed in the first place. Altogether a tonne of shells in 2014 goes a lot farther than in 1944. Improved Conventional Munitions can be even more effective against some targets.

It is worthwhile to prepare for PGMs shortages, by training and by not making key capabilities dependent on PGMs (the two go hand in hand) e.g. make sure your tanks can hold their own without GLATGMs and your anti-tank defense doesn't fall flat on it's face without ATGMs. Basically don't make guided weapons an excuse for allowing conventional capabilities to atrophy. Don't be the country that bans landmines and submunitions because they have guided weapons now.

Naval and air warfare have different considerations however. The most salient difference being that while the number of targets on land is basically unlimited the number of targets in the air or the sea is limited to the number of enemy aircraft or vessels. With good intelligence and a bit of foresight a useful stockpile of guided weapons for air and sea contingencies is feasible.

[Questers]

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

[New Vihenia]

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

BTW just browsed image on KGV class.. That four gun turret looks awesome. Nonetheless i heard it's a bitch to maintain and operate..i wonder why ?

[Oaledonia]

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

BTW just browsed image on KGV class.. That four gun turret looks awesome. Nonetheless i heard it's a bitch to maintain and operate..i wonder why ?

Takao and Tone have the best cannon lay out.

[Questers]

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

BTW just browsed image on KGV class.. That four gun turret looks awesome. Nonetheless i heard it's a bitch to maintain and operate..i wonder why ?

Too much machinery in one space. Also IIRC the turrets used a lot more electric machinery than previously. The first time these weapons were used was on Prince of Wales against Bismarck and they actually jammed. French had similar problem on their Richeliu.

Btw - design was originally intended for 3*IIII, but they ended up sadly as 2*IIII + 1*II.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

By far, I've seen the plans for Bismarck and you can see legacies from the Bayern class as well as poor stern protection (ironically) , it turns out though their optical FCS was far superior to anything the British fielded in the first years of the war. Had it been completed early-mid thirties (ignoring history for a second) it would have been an impossible force to fight especially since their armour was fantastic in taking stunning amounts of punishment from shells. Considering it was hit by many 16", 8" and 6" shells the damage wasn't as great as expected.

The British 16" guns used by the Nelson-class were substandard. In fact, the 15" Mark I with the improved shells in use during WWII had superior penetration to those used by the 16" Mark I. That Bismarck withstood them should come as no terribly great surprise.

Indeed, the 16" was rather useless against the thickest portions of the belt. The number of hit though is the surprising thing, only a small section of the ship was damaged horrifically by the 16".

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

Well when we take it as "Fleet in being" its useful in tying up resources, though Tirpitz takes the prize for that. If they had of operated with Scharnhorst Class as well as 1/2 Hipper class as well as a dedicated fast supply ship, they'd be a huge concern to the Home Fleet if they managed to get west of Ireland, they'd be sending more and more units west to search for them and to guard convoys, allowing more Uboots into the Atlantic.

BTW just browsed image on KGV class.. That four gun turret looks awesome. Nonetheless i heard it's a bitch to maintain and operate..i wonder why ?

Takao and Tone have the best cannon lay out.

'

Eww, no they didnt, it was all to easy to zigzag across the bow and half the firepower is gone. Something like the Leander/Atlanta have the best firing arcs

Bismarck was a ship designed to fight in the North Atlantic. The British have never had the luxury of being able to localise designs like that.

In the end, it did take a frustratingly high amount of firepower to bring down. It was a threatening warship, but one full of deficiencies nonetheless.

BTW just browsed image on KGV class.. That four gun turret looks awesome. Nonetheless i heard it's a bitch to maintain and operate..i wonder why ?

Four sets of hydraulics and lifting gear meant a crowded turret as well as a large barbette, mainly because they had to be as long as they were wide as the barbette ring has to be circular

[Oaledonia]

Eww, no they didnt, it was all to easy to zigzag across the bow and half the firepower is gone. Something like the Leander/Atlanta have the best firing arcs

Kill yourself

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Eww, no they didnt, it was all to easy to zigzag across the bow and half the firepower is gone. Something like the Leander/Atlanta have the best firing arcs

Kill yourself

Gladly

[Oaledonia]

Kill yourself

Gladly

But Japan did make the best destroyers :3

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Gladly

But Japan did make the best destroyers :3

Yeah certainly in the 30's, their destroyers were only closely matched by the French classes (only let down by their unreliable guns). Until the Fletcher class entered large numbers in the Pacific, Japan had a good lead in the pacific destroyer department. Had they got decent radar earlier on, they could have made a heck of a difference

[Oaledonia]

But Japan did make the best destroyers :3

Yeah certainly in the 30's, their destroyers were only closely matched by the French classes (only let down by their unreliable guns). Until the Fletcher class entered large numbers in the Pacific, Japan had a good lead in the pacific destroyer department. Had they got decent radar earlier on, they could have made a heck of a difference

That's Inazuma.

[Questers]

Scharnhorst was probably the dumbest naval design of WW2.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

Yeah certainly in the 30's, their destroyers were only closely matched by the French classes (only let down by their unreliable guns). Until the Fletcher class entered large numbers in the Pacific, Japan had a good lead in the pacific destroyer department. Had they got decent radar earlier on, they could have made a heck of a difference

That's Inazuma.

Tell you how little I know about Anime/Manga

Considering only 15cm/6" of average soil will halve the radiation, if you crouch in a trench only a few feet deep, you will be subject to a lower degree of direct radiation. The real trouble starts if the fireball touches the ground or so close enough to draw vast quantities of dust and light particles up into the mushroom cloud. Then of course this rains down as fallout. One small tactical nuclear blast that's not "self cleaning", the fallout would be avoidable in a few hours immediately after the blast, as some of the nastiest by products of a nuclear blast have very short half-life's and will go through their decay chains until they become a more stable isotope/element. The best case is that you stay in place and defend what's left of your position. Radiation sickness is a bitch short term and if you can help it, don't move your troops from shelter for at least 24-48 hours. Trenches are ok to survive the pressure wave if it's adequately shored up, but if there is expected to have large fallout clouds from multiple blasts, I'd recommend building either a walled in and roofed section on the trench every few hundred feet if you are expecting to operate in a nuclear blast (also NBC suits will allow your troops to return to fighting sooner) or digging in to the trench wall and make a small little cave, that would possibly offer a halving factor of 2-10 which would ensure survival in some of the worst hit spots.

Why would you be using weapons large enough to do that in the first place? Multiple small blasts won't cause nearly that amount of fallout at the yields used for tactical weapons.

Usually the most likely places to see large multiple blasts is at military installations such as silo fields, defesive lines as well as regional cities that are close to larger cities. the closer the blasts the total volume of fallout increases. Ten 1-10kt blasts over an area of 100-250km² would produce an decent amount of fallout that would force a lot of precautions

Scharnhorst was probably the dumbest naval design of WW2.

Please elaborate? From my understanding it is the Deutschland Class Pocket Battleships that were the worst design of the German surface fleet

[Velkanika]

Usually the most likely places to see large multiple blasts is at military installations such as silo fields, defesive lines as well as regional cities that are close to larger cities. the closer the blasts the total volume of fallout increases. Ten 1-10kt blasts over an area of 100-250km² would produce an decent amount of fallout that would force a lot of precautions

Fair enough, but I don't think there'd be many trenches inside an ICBM field someone would take cover in. I think everyone would be either holed up in a bunker or leaving in a very big hurry long before a nuclear weapon arrived. As for the multiple tactical nuclear weapon scenario, the fallout of each weapon will be extremely limited and shouldn't impact infantrymen in the open further than 5 miles down wind for your typical bombardment of sub-kiloton artillery shells. If they've got CRBN suits they'll be fine for the duration of the intense radiation period unless they stand in the craters before they "cool down" for a few hours.