NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Yukonastan]

By standard do you mean something like the L/44? Or do you consider that short relative to the L/55?

If it is purely for urban/infantry support you could go with a 152mm like on the MBT-70 for maximum HE and canister.

I can't mount a gun that size on my tank... Think of the recoil yanking the turret clean off.
Not to mention the ammo...

If your tanks are operating in areas that are so confined they can't move their guns around, you may want to be reconsidering your strategy.

These tanks would be primarily for defense. My cities are sprawling. I plan to do the whole "Not one step back" thing.

Proper compensator pair under the barrel is all you'd need for 152. Autoloader also starts to be a requirement with shells of that size.

You could do it, y'know. Fairly easily.

[Imperializt Russia]

Like you said, attached infantry should clear the way in urban areas.

But don't get caught up in armoring your tank so heavily that it can never be destroyed, because that is impossible.

Just armor it against the most common threats and accept that war is hell and things get broken.

Okay then. Next question.

Short barrel or standard?
For an urban tank, I'd say a short barrel might help with maneuvering it in tight spaces, but it'd decrease it's accuracy (I assume..) for the non-urban battles.

It wouldn't impact the accuracy so much, depending on the gun's construction. It would impact the muzzle velocity and the efficiency of the burn of the projectile and propellant.

A tank in urban combat does not need to be able to swing its barrel through its range of motion. Per jungle warfare manuals, where tanks were used as bulldozers to push down trees - the tanks behind would use their improved range of gun motion to cover the tanks ahead. The same would be broadly true of a relatively narrow urban street - tanks may operate in a staggered pair, one ahead covering one side of the road and one slightly behind covering the other. some distance ahead, amidst, and behind these pairs of tanks would be infantry sweeping for IED, RPG, mine and other threats.

[Immoren]

By standard do you mean something like the L/44? Or do you consider that short relative to the L/55?

If it is purely for urban/infantry support you could go with a 152mm like on the MBT-70 for maximum HE and canister.

I can't mount a gun that size on my tank... Think of the recoil yanking the turret clean off.
Not to mention the ammo...

M551 Sheridan

[Padnak]

Always a valid option...

[Mitheldalond]

By standard do you mean something like the L/44? Or do you consider that short relative to the L/55?

If it is purely for urban/infantry support you could go with a 152mm like on the MBT-70 for maximum HE and canister.

I can't mount a gun that size on my tank... Think of the recoil yanking the turret clean off.
Not to mention the ammo...

If your tanks are operating in areas that are so confined they can't move their guns around, you may want to be reconsidering your strategy.

These tanks would be primarily for defense. My cities are sprawling. I plan to do the whole "Not one step back" thing.

Do you plan on fighting infantry or tanks mostly with this? If tanks, then the L/44 should be more than adequate. Throw in a few HE and canister shells for shooting infantry and buildings, and you're set.

If you're fighting mainly infantry and/or light vehicles, something like the BMP-3's 100mm low velocity gun launcher might be perfect. The barrel would probably not extend past the front of your hull, and you could have plenty of ammo. Carry mostly HE for demolition of dug in positions and killing light vehicles, some canister for shotgunning infantry, and a few GLATGMs for when you run into a tank.

This reminds me, I promised to design a (utterly ridiculous and mostly useless) modern Maus for Firmador. I might have to work on that. He's gone now, but it would be fun to see what kind of insanity I can come up with.

But don't get caught up in armoring your tank so heavily that it can never be destroyed, because that is impossible.

Just armor it against the most common threats and accept that war is hell and things get broken.

I wonder who else could use this advice...

*Awkwardly looks at Mitheldalond's Tulkas-II*

Hush up, you.

I'm chopping almost all of that armor off and instead going for multi-layer APS protection with minimal armor.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is one of the best gifs I've ever seen.

[Yukonastan]

This is one of the best gifs I've ever seen.

Likewise.

[Inyourfaceistan]

This reminds me, I promised to design a (utterly ridiculous and mostly useless) modern Maus for Firmador. I might have to work on that. He's gone now, but it would be fun to see what kind of insanity I can come up with.

Why would you ever do that? You would doom all of II...

You see, when I'm wrong about something or have a dumb idea (i.e. HARP gun battleships or APFSDS-projecting landmines) I usually listen to the criticism of people who know more than me and admit I'm wrong and change my failed tactic.
Hewhoshallnotbenamed refused to listen to any criticism, and dug his heels in on the dumbest of arguments (i.e. RQ-170 is a useless POS that is utterly inferior to forward scouts and is completely incapable of detecting 600+ armored vehicles and their logistical trails moving down a given corridor and even furthermore incapable of aiding a cruise missile to engage said vehicles which it can't see in the first place and anyone who uses RQ-170 to do this is an idiot). Instead,he would simply resort to attacking the intelligence of anyone who ever disagreed with him on anything and rarely ever admit he was wrong.

Do you realize the implications of giving such a weapon to someone with that mindset?

---

Anyways, I am thinking of adding AGM-176 Griffin launchers to the RWS turrets of a small number of M1126 Stryker AFV's, for the purpose of giving the unit some form of (locally) long-range weapon effective against both infantry and light armor.
Good idea or no?

[Yukonastan]

This reminds me, I promised to design a (utterly ridiculous and mostly useless) modern Maus for Firmador. I might have to work on that. He's gone now, but it would be fun to see what kind of insanity I can come up with.

Why would you ever do that? You would doom all of II...

Same reason there's now militarized bagger 288s floating around. because you can.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Why would you ever do that? You would doom all of II...

Same reason there's now militarized bagger 288s floating around. because you can.

Well the militarized bagger was never seriously developed is the thing. While they are floating around, it is more as a concept than an actual thing people employ. Honestly I have no problem with lulzy equipment, and once I get my important stuff done I might make some lulzy stuff, say they were experimental concepts tossed around an ultimately abandoned some time before entering production. Everything from a sort of tracked destroyer/landing ship, to super heavy tanks and battleships (12x 24" guns L/50 guns), to a specially designed LMG meant to be a service rifle so walking fire could continue to be a dumb concept, to a self propelled 250 mm nuclear howitzer, to a bomber akin to the space shuttle designed to enter low earth orbit before dropping bombs.

[Kouralia]

...Everything from a sort of tracked destroyer/landing ship...

Like the Goliath?

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

...Everything from a sort of tracked destroyer/landing ship...

Like the Goliath?

BIGGER

200 mm guns, at least 2, and enough room to carry an infantry company, and mortars, needs some mortars.

[Mitheldalond]

This reminds me, I promised to design a (utterly ridiculous and mostly useless) modern Maus for Firmador. I might have to work on that. He's gone now, but it would be fun to see what kind of insanity I can come up with.

Why would you ever do that? You would doom all of II...

You see, when I'm wrong about something or have a dumb idea (i.e. HARP gun battleships or APFSDS-projecting landmines) I usually listen to the criticism of people who know more than me and admit I'm wrong and change my failed tactic.
Hewhoshallnotbenamed refused to listen to any criticism, and dug his heels in on the dumbest of arguments (i.e. RQ-170 is a useless POS that is utterly inferior to forward scouts and is completely incapable of detecting 600+ armored vehicles and their logistical trails moving down a given corridor and even furthermore incapable of aiding a cruise missile to engage said vehicles which it can't see in the first place and anyone who uses RQ-170 to do this is an idiot). Instead,he would simply resort to attacking the intelligence of anyone who ever disagreed with him on anything and rarely ever admit he was wrong.

Do you realize the implications of giving such a weapon to someone with that mindset?

---

Anyways, I am thinking of adding AGM-176 Griffin launchers to the RWS turrets of a small number of M1126 Stryker AFV's, for the purpose of giving the unit some form of (locally) long-range weapon effective against both infantry and light armor.
Good idea or no?

You do realize that Firmador doesn't exist anymore, right?

I see no issue with putting Griffins on a Stryker, though you'd have to get out of the vehicle to reload, and you wouldn't be able to carry many reloads without losing troop capacity. Unless you plan to use it like the Stryker MGS?

[Padnak]

Speaking of stupid ideas, I'm planning on building an underground submarine pen berried underneath a mountain range and accessible to submarines through underground tunnels that lead out into the ocean so that submarines never have to surface until their inside the complex. I'm thinking of massively expanding an existing cave complex for the main holding area then building out a series of tunnels from that for the subs

[Inyourfaceistan]

Why would you ever do that? You would doom all of II...

Same reason there's now militarized bagger 288s floating around. because you can.

But does anyone seriously defend the Mil-Bagger? And furthermore will anyone insult your intelligence if you question the use of a Mil-Bagger as well as utterly refusing to change their strategy?

[Horizont]

Speaking of stupid ideas, I'm planning on building an underground submarine pen berried underneath a mountain range and accessible to submarines through underground tunnels that lead out into the ocean so that submarines never have to surface until their inside the complex. I'm thinking of massively expanding an existing cave complex for the main holding area then building out a series of tunnels from that for the subs

Is that really that stupid? The Soviets did that in Crimea iirc.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Like the Goliath?

(Image)

BIGGER

200 mm guns, at least 2, and enough room to carry an infantry company, and mortars, needs some mortars.

You need to think even bigger than that.

The ultimate NS landing craft would need at least two 140mm MLRS, enough room to carry a mechanized infantry company, and twin 30mm gatling cannons for CIWS and fire support, plus the ability to magically speed to the shore at 115 km/h.

[Padnak]

Speaking of stupid ideas, I'm planning on building an underground submarine pen berried underneath a mountain range and accessible to submarines through underground tunnels that lead out into the ocean so that submarines never have to surface until their inside the complex. I'm thinking of massively expanding an existing cave complex for the main holding area then building out a series of tunnels from that for the subs

Is that really that stupid? The Soviets did that in Crimea iirc.

Its not strictly speaking a bad idea, its just not the most cost effective use of resources

Given my nations extremely close relations with the soviet union during the mid to late cold war, I could IC'ly have had an existing soviet sub base that I expanded

[Inyourfaceistan]

Speaking of stupid ideas, I'm planning on building an underground submarine pen berried underneath a mountain range and accessible to submarines through underground tunnels that lead out into the ocean so that submarines never have to surface until their inside the complex. I'm thinking of massively expanding an existing cave complex for the main holding area then building out a series of tunnels from that for the subs

Well I have honestly contemplated doing similar. Granted, not as big as you claim, but sub pens dug into mountains is definitely something up my alley...

Speaking of which, having subs wait in ambush in dense, near-shore environments such as coral reefs and small coastal islands; is this a good strategy to confuse the enemy sonar (assuming the subs are waiting their before the ships arrive) or begging for disaster?

[Bratislavskaya]

Speaking of stupid ideas, I'm planning on building an underground submarine pen berried underneath a mountain range and accessible to submarines through underground tunnels that lead out into the ocean so that submarines never have to surface until their inside the complex. I'm thinking of massively expanding an existing cave complex for the main holding area then building out a series of tunnels from that for the subs

Depending on how close the mountains are to the coast this may be a good idea. If you plan on making, like, a 2km tunnel to the pens then I would say no.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

BIGGER

200 mm guns, at least 2, and enough room to carry an infantry company, and mortars, needs some mortars.

You need to think even bigger than that.

The ultimate NS landing craft would need at least two 140mm MLRS, enough room to carry a mechanized infantry company, and twin 30mm gatling cannons for CIWS and fire support, plus the ability to magically speed to the shore at 115 km/h.

That isn't tracked, though, it can't provide deep inland fire support.

[Imperializt Russia]

You need to think even bigger than that.

The ultimate NS landing craft would need at least two 140mm MLRS, enough room to carry a mechanized infantry company, and twin 30mm gatling cannons for CIWS and fire support, plus the ability to magically speed to the shore at 115 km/h.

That isn't tracked, though, it can't provide deep inland fire support.

It has a 140mm MLRS.
Two, in fact.

Besides, "deep inland fire support" is the domain of the artillery vehicles it transports, and also aircraft and dedicated naval fire support.
Swiss Army Knife Syndrome is bad.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

That isn't tracked, though, it can't provide deep inland fire support.

It has a 140mm MLRS.
Two, in fact.

Besides, "deep inland fire support" is the domain of the artillery vehicles it transports, and also aircraft and dedicated naval fire support.
Swiss Army Knife Syndrome is bad.

Bro, it is meant to be retarded. Various designs that were considered for implementation but abandoned at some point in time. The 12x 24" gun battleship probably died on the drawing board, the super heavy tank probably would die after a prototype or a couple of prototypes were created, likewise this project would die somewhere alone the line.

I imagine it was something like an army commander wanted some bigass armed and armoured landing ship to drop men on shore and support them on the initial push inland. While the project was developed to fruition eventually military planners realized that this was a dumb idea and that the vehicle filled a nonexistent niche (direct fire support and transport platforms that can assist in an initial landing and drive inland) while lacking the ability to deal with enemy anti-tank guns and as soon as a track breaks your vehicle is as useless as a regular landing ship.

[Themiclesia]

I've noticed that coaches, knights-in-shining-armour, and swords are still used in ceremonial occasions in Britain. Why are other outdated military equipment, such as bronzes and chariots not used?

[Imperializt Russia]

I've noticed that coaches, knights-in-shining-armour, and swords are still used in ceremonial occasions in Britain. Why are other outdated military equipment, such as bronzes and chariots not used?

Those are a bit too primitive and well outdate Britain's era of military dominance, which those traditions originate from.