NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Yukonastan]

Halo 4 Cortana was going insane, and had these violent episodes of rage throughout the game.
First time inside the suit on the Dawn, IIRC, then once aboard the Infinity basically EMP-ing half the systems, and some other times after that.

Not Rage/Insanity. Rampancy. And as Halo 4 Cortana is a) well into the Rampancy Stage of a Smart AI's lifetime and b) post-integration/mind-rape with the Gravemind, it's to be expected.

Comparable to insanity with extreme amnesia.

[The Akasha Colony]

I was just curious, and I figured that if anyone knew, it would be you guys: Why could the Japanese Navy not beat the US at Midway?

It's a perfect demonstration of fog of war and hindsight bias. In hindsight, we can see that the Japanese "should" have won at Midway if it had simply been a face to face battle with both sides clashing a la Jutland. They thought it as well, which is why they were willing to risk it.

However, this simply isn't how battles transpire, especially carrier battles at the time. Neither side had perfect intelligence on the other, and both had received quite a bit of misinformation, even from their own side. Pilots on both sides were notorious for over-reporting their kills, and it took a skilled officer to be able to actually estimate damage to the enemy fleet based on these reports. This was true even in the late war. Halsey never had this skill (he was a battleship admiral who had come to aviation later), but Mitscher did (he was an aviator by background).

With both sides sending strike units out to find the other in the vast expanse of the ocean and only a fuzzy at best picture of where the enemy was and in what strength, luck played a big role. There are also a whole host of other factors, including the Japanese focus on Midway Atoll itself, which took some attention away from the American carriers. The Americans benefited from the scouting aircraft based at Midway, which allowed them to strike first against the Japanese. You can look at the timeline: the Americans attacked first, more often, and in greater strength than the Japanese did.

Nagumo played it by the book and was rather conservative, which is not surprising since he theoretically held the position of strength and had much more to lose from a sloppy attack than the Americans did. In comparison, Fletcher ordered his planes to attack as soon as any of them were ready, since he was outmatched and if he didn't try to change the balance of strength, he'd be overwhelmed. By luck, the Americans happened to strike when the Japanese were unprepared (having dealt with previous strikes), while the Japanese were unable to decisively engage the American carriers since the American attacks kept them off balance.

[Imperializt Russia]

Feasibility of a railgun tank in three, two, one, go!

(PMT in mind obviously)

In a word, nil.

Halo 4 Cortana was going insane, and had these violent episodes of rage throughout the game.
First time inside the suit on the Dawn, IIRC, then once aboard the Infinity basically EMP-ing half the systems, and some other times after that.

Not Rage/Insanity. Rampancy. And as Halo 4 Cortana is a) well into the Rampancy Stage of a Smart AI's lifetime and b) post-integration/mind-rape with the Gravemind, it's to be expected.

And also downloaded the entirety of Halo 04.

[Kouralia]

Not Rage/Insanity. Rampancy. And as Halo 4 Cortana is a) well into the Rampancy Stage of a Smart AI's lifetime and b) post-integration/mind-rape with the Gravemind, it's to be expected.

And also downloaded the entirety of Halo 04.

Wonder which was worse. I mean, downloading the entirety of the database must be hard, but being left with the Gravemind would be like being a twelve year old locked in a darkened room with Rolf Harris for the best part of a year.

[United Marxist Nations]

I was just curious, and I figured that if anyone knew, it would be you guys: Why could the Japanese Navy not beat the US at Midway?

It's a perfect demonstration of fog of war and hindsight bias. In hindsight, we can see that the Japanese "should" have won at Midway if it had simply been a face to face battle with both sides clashing a la Jutland. They thought it as well, which is why they were willing to risk it.

However, this simply isn't how battles transpire, especially carrier battles at the time. Neither side had perfect intelligence on the other, and both had received quite a bit of misinformation, even from their own side. Pilots on both sides were notorious for over-reporting their kills, and it took a skilled officer to be able to actually estimate damage to the enemy fleet based on these reports. This was true even in the late war. Halsey never had this skill (he was a battleship admiral who had come to aviation later), but Mitscher did (he was an aviator by background).

With both sides sending strike units out to find the other in the vast expanse of the ocean and only a fuzzy at best picture of where the enemy was and in what strength, luck played a big role. There are also a whole host of other factors, including the Japanese focus on Midway Atoll itself, which took some attention away from the American carriers. The Americans benefited from the scouting aircraft based at Midway, which allowed them to strike first against the Japanese. You can look at the timeline: the Americans attacked first, more often, and in greater strength than the Japanese did.

Nagumo played it by the book and was rather conservative, which is not surprising since he theoretically held the position of strength and had much more to lose from a sloppy attack than the Americans did. In comparison, Fletcher ordered his planes to attack as soon as any of them were ready, since he was outmatched and if he didn't try to change the balance of strength, he'd be overwhelmed. By luck, the Americans happened to strike when the Japanese were unprepared (having dealt with previous strikes), while the Japanese were unable to decisively engage the American carriers since the American attacks kept them off balance.

Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for; because on another thread, I said that, had the Japanese just declared war instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, they had good opportunity to win in a large, set-piece battle, which could have produced far more American losses and (without the anger toward Japan over the surprise attack) could have turned US public opinion against the war. In response, someone posted about Midway. So I was wondering why Japan lost it. On a more speculative note, could Japan have pulled a victory in my hypothetical?

[Roski]

Feasibility of a railgun tank in three, two, one, go!

(PMT in mind obviously)

In a word, nil.

Not Rage/Insanity. Rampancy. And as Halo 4 Cortana is a) well into the Rampancy Stage of a Smart AI's lifetime and b) post-integration/mind-rape with the Gravemind, it's to be expected.

And also downloaded the entirety of Halo 04.

Why not?

[Rich and Corporations]

On a more speculative note, could Japan have pulled a victory in my hypothetical?

Japan had to do a first strike to cripple the US fleet and allow Japan free reign over the far east. The risk that after Japan declares war against Europe to invade their colonies, that the US would tie down Japanese task forces is too great.

[Imperializt Russia]

Power requirements. They're ludicrous.

Short of somehow building a GAh-capacity battery or fitting a nuclear reactor to a tank, you can't reasonably fulfil them.
I don't think it's especially feasible to fit some kind of ludicrously powerful 5MW diesel engine to a vehicle where 4MW of that output is used entirely for recharging the gun - one tank is burning between four or five tank's worth of fuel, at peak power, constantly. No possibility of idle if you're firing the gun.
That's assuming you just want to match current gun performances. Likely, you'll want significantly greater performance in terms of muzzle energy, due to the need of firing ever-larger and ever-heavier shells at competitive velocities.

[The Akasha Colony]

Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for; because on another thread, I said that, had the Japanese just declared war instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, they had good opportunity to win in a large, set-piece battle, which could have produced far more American losses and (without the anger toward Japan over the surprise attack) could have turned US public opinion against the war. In response, someone posted about Midway. So I was wondering why Japan lost it. On a more speculative note, could Japan have pulled a victory in my hypothetical?

A tactical victory or a strategic victory? There was simply no way they could have won the war once it started. They may have gotten lucky at Midway if the stars had aligned and Spruance made more mistakes, but the US had approved its massive new building program under the Two-Ocean Navy Act over a year before it even entered the war. More carriers were approved under that act alone (which was later supplemented by additional wartime procurement) than the Japanese ever operated in total, and that was on top of the ones the US already operated.

[San-Silvacian]

It's a perfect demonstration of fog of war and hindsight bias. In hindsight, we can see that the Japanese "should" have won at Midway if it had simply been a face to face battle with both sides clashing a la Jutland. They thought it as well, which is why they were willing to risk it.

However, this simply isn't how battles transpire, especially carrier battles at the time. Neither side had perfect intelligence on the other, and both had received quite a bit of misinformation, even from their own side. Pilots on both sides were notorious for over-reporting their kills, and it took a skilled officer to be able to actually estimate damage to the enemy fleet based on these reports. This was true even in the late war. Halsey never had this skill (he was a battleship admiral who had come to aviation later), but Mitscher did (he was an aviator by background).

With both sides sending strike units out to find the other in the vast expanse of the ocean and only a fuzzy at best picture of where the enemy was and in what strength, luck played a big role. There are also a whole host of other factors, including the Japanese focus on Midway Atoll itself, which took some attention away from the American carriers. The Americans benefited from the scouting aircraft based at Midway, which allowed them to strike first against the Japanese. You can look at the timeline: the Americans attacked first, more often, and in greater strength than the Japanese did.

Nagumo played it by the book and was rather conservative, which is not surprising since he theoretically held the position of strength and had much more to lose from a sloppy attack than the Americans did. In comparison, Fletcher ordered his planes to attack as soon as any of them were ready, since he was outmatched and if he didn't try to change the balance of strength, he'd be overwhelmed. By luck, the Americans happened to strike when the Japanese were unprepared (having dealt with previous strikes), while the Japanese were unable to decisively engage the American carriers since the American attacks kept them off balance.

Thank you, that is the kind of thing I was looking for; because on another thread, I said that, had the Japanese just declared war instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, they had good opportunity to win in a large, set-piece battle, which could have produced far more American losses and (without the anger toward Japan over the surprise attack) could have turned US public opinion against the war. In response, someone posted about Midway. So I was wondering why Japan lost it. On a more speculative note, could Japan have pulled a victory in my hypothetical?

The USMC take the island back in like 2 years is what would have happened.

[Mitheldalond]

Feasibility of a railgun tank in three, two, one, go!

(PMT in mind obviously)

Why? A normal tank gun can already fire metal darts at extremely high speeds, and can fire tons of other useful things (smoke, HE, HEAT, ATGMs, etc) as well.

A railgun can shoot metal darts at really high speeds. And that's about it.

For a PMT tank, it would be better to focus on advanced missile technology. Long range supersonic fire-and-forget ATGMs that can find, identify, and engage enemy vehicles independently, while simultaneously sending reconnaissance footage of the target area back to the tank. How about a gun launched SAM, or a cluster warhead missile for anti-infantry use? A rocket propelled APFSDS that boosts the KEP to hypersonic velocities before releasing the penetrator. A miniature gun-launched reconnaissance drone? A MALD-style radar decoy equipped with a warhead and an anti-radiation seeker for SEAD?

Doesn't that sound more useful than something just shoots bits of metal really fast? Missiles are infinitely more versatile, more useful, and more effective than railguns, and they're only going to get better.

[Padnak]

Realistically the only way that Japan could have "beaten" the US is if they had consolidated their earlier victories and used the vast amounts of materials gained from those conquests to expand their navy tenfold at least

Even then, they probably could have only hold the US at bay, or forced a favourable peace deal

[The Akasha Colony]

Realistically the only way that Japan could have "beaten" the US is if they had consolidated their earlier victories and used the vast amounts of materials gained from those conquests to expand their navy tenfold at least

Even then, they probably could have only hold the US at bay, or forced a favourable peace deal

Wouldn't have mattered how much materiel they assembled. They were still limited by their under-developed industrial and intellectual base, and in 1945 it's basically gg.

[Themiclesia]

Ahem... why can't there be more than one turret on a tank?

Credit to Chedastan.

[Velkanika]

Realistically the only way that Japan could have "beaten" the US is if they had consolidated their earlier victories and used the vast amounts of materials gained from those conquests to expand their navy tenfold at least

Even then, they probably could have only hold the US at bay, or forced a favourable peace deal

Wouldn't have mattered how much materiel they assembled. They were still limited by their under-developed industrial and intellectual base, and in 1945 it's basically gg.

Having a decent navy left wouldn't have saved them. We'd have used nuclear weapons anyways for the same reasons to force them to surrender.

[Horizont]

Ahem... why can't there be more than one turret on a tank?

(Image)

Credit to Chedastan.

There can. See: T-28, T-35, T-100. But there's seriously not much benefit that it brings when compared to the drawbacks.

[Questers]

Can anyone explain how China organizes the PLA? I've read the Wiki article, but it's a bit over my head.

Nobody knows for sure.

They have regional miiltary districts and armies like the USSR. However, in the late 90s China massively reduced the number of combat formations and went on a mechanisation drive. IIRC, their divisions are organised still according to the 3-1-1 Soviet model, but I could be wrong about that.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ahem... why can't there be more than one turret on a tank?

(Image)

Credit to Chedastan.

No benefit. A tank should have the largest single gun it can carry, there's no benefit to dual guns or more. Thus, a single gun needs a single turret.

[Roski]

Feasibility of a railgun tank in three, two, one, go!

(PMT in mind obviously)

Why? A normal tank gun can already fire metal darts at extremely high speeds, and can fire tons of other useful things (smoke, HE, HEAT, ATGMs, etc) as well.

A railgun can shoot metal darts at really high speeds. And that's about it.

For a PMT tank, it would be better to focus on advanced missile technology. Long range supersonic fire-and-forget ATGMs that can find, identify, and engage enemy vehicles independently, while simultaneously sending reconnaissance footage of the target area back to the tank. How about a gun launched SAM, or a cluster warhead missile for anti-infantry use? A rocket propelled APFSDS that boosts the KEP to hypersonic velocities before releasing the penetrator. A miniature gun-launched reconnaissance drone? A MALD-style radar decoy equipped with a warhead and an anti-radiation seeker for SEAD?

Doesn't that sound more useful than something just shoots bits of metal really fast? Missiles are infinitely more versatile, more useful, and more effective than railguns, and they're only going to get better.

Point taken. Understood.

@ImperializtRussia I see.

[Padnak]

Can anyone explain how China organizes the PLA? I've read the Wiki article, but it's a bit over my head.

Nobody knows for sure.

They have regional miiltary districts and armies like the USSR. However, in the late 90s China massively reduced the number of combat formations and went on a mechanisation drive. IIRC, their divisions are organised still according to the 3-1-1 Soviet model, but I could be wrong about that.

Speaking of that...

Does anyone have any idea how large the PLA was at its largest?

[San-Silvacian]

Realistically the only way that Japan could have "beaten" the US is if they had consolidated their earlier victories and used the vast amounts of materials gained from those conquests to expand their navy tenfold at least

Even then, they probably could have only hold the US at bay, or forced a favourable peace deal

Japan liked producing old ass ship designs.

It was cool when they were fighting a pretty inexperienced navy, but when the USN got its shit together it was lal.

[Velkanika]

Can anyone explain how China organizes the PLA? I've read the Wiki article, but it's a bit over my head.

Nobody knows for sure.

They have regional miiltary districts and armies like the USSR. However, in the late 90s China massively reduced the number of combat formations and went on a mechanisation drive. IIRC, their divisions are organised still according to the 3-1-1 Soviet model, but I could be wrong about that.

I've been seeing some indications that they're deviating from the Soviet models, notably in regards to fixed-wing aviation and air defense. They lack a significant force of modern combat aircraft, and as such the J-7 (MiG-21 Fishbed) is still their primary combat aircraft. They also rely on 20+ year-old SAMs as their main surface-based IADS component, so they've got themselves one helluva problem when it comes to a possible air war with the US or Japan.

[Korouse]

Anybody know a non-character based military RP that isn't crap?

[Imperializt Russia]

Nobody knows for sure.

They have regional miiltary districts and armies like the USSR. However, in the late 90s China massively reduced the number of combat formations and went on a mechanisation drive. IIRC, their divisions are organised still according to the 3-1-1 Soviet model, but I could be wrong about that.

I've been seeing some indications that they're deviating from the Soviet models, notably in regards to fixed-wing aviation and air defense. They lack a significant force of modern combat aircraft, and as such the J-7 (MiG-21 Fishbed) is still their primary combat aircraft. They also rely on 20+ year-old SAMs as their main surface-based IADS component, so they've got themselves one helluva problem when it comes to a possible air war with the US or Japan.

So does America and Japan. Their problem, however, are a relatively small aircraft inventory that can be directed against the Chinese, carriers or no.

[Questers]

Anybody know a non-character based military RP that isn't crap?

There aren't any.