NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[United Marxist Nations]

So what could Japan have done to end the war in an advantageous position? I mean, if it could manage to survive the war, it would have basically been natural allies with the US during the Cold War.

From what point, and with what objectives? TBH, the Japanese almost certainly did better in the long run after losing the war than they would have been if they had "won."

Basically, was there anything they could've done to keep an overseas Empire? I know that it would've had to be before starting the US war.

[San-Silvacian]

Everyone in America dies.

Then Japan might win WW2.

[Yukonastan]

If Japan beat the US to the bomb, they may have won. If Germany beat the US to the bomb, Japan may have won.

[The Akasha Colony]

From what point, and with what objectives? TBH, the Japanese almost certainly did better in the long run after losing the war than they would have been if they had "won."

Basically, was there anything they could've done to keep an overseas Empire? I know that it would've had to be before starting the US war.

Not go into Southeast Asia. Britain and the US didn't like the part where Japan was invading and brutalizing the Chinese, but neither were going to get into a full war over it. That way the Japanese would have at least kept Manchruia, Korea, Taiwan, and their half of Sakhalin. Although in the long run there wasn't much they could do in China (land wars in Asia and all that), it was certainly more manageable than fighting the Chinese and the British and the Dutch and the Americans all at once.

Problem is that it still left them short of raw materials and especially oil, so in the long term, the Japanese wouldn't have been satisfied with it. Their goal was resource independence and a buffer on all sides to protect and supply their homeland.

If Japan beat the US to the bomb, they may have won. If Germany beat the US to the bomb, Japan may have won.

Good thing that wasn't happening. Helps that the Germans in all their master race wisdom hadn't realized heavy water isn't the only neutron moderator.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

If Japan beat the US to the bomb, they may have won.

Japan didn't really...have...a nuclear program. Overall, they seemed way more interested in biological stuff than nuclear warfare. There were only a tiny handful of people in the country who even understood the basic science, much less were actually of a mind to make a bomb. Next to the massive amount of manpower, brainpower, and above all, the sheer expense of the Manhattan Project, Japan never even had the slightest chance of putting something comparable together.

If Germany beat the US to the bomb, Japan may have won.

Germany, meanwhile, had its own problems, of course, mainly arising from the fact that the prime scientist in charge of making a bomb was convinced that it would never be practical as a weapon, and the fact that Hitler thought a chain reaction was inherently uncontrollable and that the underlying science was "too Jewish" anyways.

[Gallia-]

If Japan beat the US to the bomb, they may have won. If Germany beat the US to the bomb, Japan may have won.

Germany wouldn't have had a bomb before the 1950s tbh.

[Vancon]

Would it make sense to have two different kinds of tanks, one that was signifigantly more armored to be used as bait and/or defensive operations, and another that was faster and heavily armored to flank around? I was thinking for a pincer attack where you'd have the heavies draw the enemy in since they'd have low numbers and the lighter, faster tanks come around from behind. This would be for MT or early PMT.


----------------[L]-------------
[L]-------{Obstacle.......} [L]
[H] <---(OPFOR) [LL] <--
[L]-------{Obstacle.......} [L]
----------------[L] ------------


[L]= Lighter vehicles
[H]= Heavy Vehicles
(OPFOR)= Y'all know this
[Obstacle]= Do you know this?

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it make sense to have two different kinds of tanks, one that was signifigantly more armored to be used as bait and/or defensive operations, and another that was faster and heavily armored to flank around? I was thinking for a pincer attack where you'd have the heavies draw the enemy in since they'd have low numbers and the lighter, faster tanks come around from behind. This would be for MT or early PMT.


----------------[L]-------------
[L]-------{Obstacle.......} [L]
[H] <---(OPFOR) [LL] <--
[L]-------{Obstacle.......} [L]
----------------[L] ------------


[L]= Lighter vehicles
[H]= Heavy Vehicles
(OPFOR)= Y'all know this
[Obstacle]= Do you know this?

The notion of a special heavyweight "turtle" tank for breakthroughs or defense is rather pointless. Your regular MBT should already have the necessary combination of armor, firepower, and mobility to accomplish its missions. That's what makes it an MBT in the first place. At most, just up-armor your existing MBTs if you think they need better protection.

[Allanea]

I'm not clear how you imagine using a heavy tank as "bait".

[Vancon]

Yes, this would be using my MBT already that has been up-armored. But the question still remains: Should I create another and have it take the role of the lighter vehicles? By this I mean a vehicle that sacrifices it's armor for a significantly greater speed and has a far larger gun.

[Velkanika]

1. Hello Padnak!

2. Does anyone here know how fast a plane might be able to travel in 2025? I already have a reconnaissance plane that goes mach 6, which is definitely possible, but what about even faster?

Real-world estimate on air-breathing engines? Mach 12 or so, assuming the next X-plane for hypersonic flight testing continues according to schedule.

A better question for what I'm assuming you're asking would be "will technology be mature enough for a production aircraft operating in the Mach 6 regime?" The answer is yes, but with a whole lot of engineering problems. Hypersonic flight is ridiculously difficult to achieve on air-breathing engines for longer than a few seconds due to the extreme conditions. The X-51 was able to achieve a speed of Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds on May 1, 2013. That's the current world record duration for hypersonic flight on an air breathing engine, so when you say you're going to go Mach 6 I laugh maniacally.

That said, I've been working on an NS aircraft to do just that. As has been previously noted, an object traveling at Mach 5 can still be intercepted and shot down but that is rather hard to do. The engagement envelope for that kind of target is very small, so unless the aircraft flies directly over a high-performance SAM site or an interceptor happens to be able to line up and get within 10 miles with a very fast missile, it can't be touched. The secret to achieving those speeds is to keep the aircraft's skin and engine from disintegrating due to buckling from heat expansion or melting. You can keep the skin intact via a variety of methods used on the SR-71 and Space Shuttle successfully, but the engine is going to have to be a scramjet. This is extremely inconvenient because a scramjet won't even start until you're flying at about Mach 3.5. This leaves a rather inconvenient section of the flight envelope where your only choice of air breathing engine won't work when you need thrust the most - takeoff and landing. I leave the ingenious solution to this conundrum for you to figure out, but liquid precoolers like on the SABRE engine won't be mature enough to make this work by 2025. Turbojets will get you up to around Mach 3, but they weigh a couple tons each and will disintegrate in a matter of seconds at those speeds. Enjoy the challenge.

[The Akasha Colony]

Yes, this would be using my MBT already that has been up-armored. But the question still remains: Should I create another and have it take the role of the lighter vehicles? By this I mean a vehicle that sacrifices it's armor for a significantly greater speed and has a far larger gun.

No. Again, your MBT should already be sufficiently maneuverable and have a gun capable of handling any reasonably expected target. If it is not, then rather than making a new supplementary tank, you should replace your MBT with a vehicle that meets these requirements, since your MBT is deficient in two of its three primary features.

[Vancon]

Yes, this would be using my MBT already that has been up-armored. But the question still remains: Should I create another and have it take the role of the lighter vehicles? By this I mean a vehicle that sacrifices it's armor for a significantly greater speed and has a far larger gun.

No. Again, your MBT should already be sufficiently maneuverable and have a gun capable of handling any reasonably expected target. If it is not, then rather than making a new supplementary tank, you should replace your MBT with a vehicle that meets these requirements, since your MBT is deficient in two of its three primary features.

Why does the Stryker exist then? I thought it was lightly armored and fast, just for such a purpose?

[Gallia-]

1. Hello Padnak!

2. Does anyone here know how fast a plane might be able to travel in 2025? I already have a reconnaissance plane that goes mach 6, which is definitely possible, but what about even faster?

Real-world estimate on air-breathing engines? Mach 12 or so, assuming the next X-plane for hypersonic flight testing continues according to schedule.

A better question for what I'm assuming you're asking would be "will technology be mature enough for a production aircraft operating in the Mach 6 regime?" The answer is yes, but with a whole lot of engineering problems. Hypersonic flight is ridiculously difficult to achieve on air-breathing engines for longer than a few seconds due to the extreme conditions. The X-51 was able to achieve a speed of Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds on May 1, 2013. That's the current world record duration for hypersonic flight on an air breathing engine, so when you say you're going to go Mach 6 I laugh maniacally.

That said, I've been working on an NS aircraft to do just that. As has been previously noted, an object traveling at Mach 5 can still be intercepted and shot down but that is rather hard to do. The engagement envelope for that kind of target is very small, so unless the aircraft flies directly over a high-performance SAM site or an interceptor happens to be able to line up and get within 10 miles with a very fast missile, it can't be touched. The secret to achieving those speeds is to keep the aircraft's skin and engine from disintegrating due to buckling from heat expansion or melting. You can keep the skin intact via a variety of methods used on the SR-71 and Space Shuttle successfully, but the engine is going to have to be a scramjet. This is extremely inconvenient because a scramjet won't even start until you're flying at about Mach 3.5. This leaves a rather inconvenient section of the flight envelope where your only choice of air breathing engine won't work when you need thrust the most - takeoff and landing. I leave the ingenious solution to this conundrum for you to figure out, but liquid precoolers like on the SABRE engine won't be mature enough to make this work by 2025. Turbojets will get you up to around Mach 3, but they weigh a couple tons each and will disintegrate in a matter of seconds at those speeds. Enjoy the challenge.

J58 routinely flew at Mach 3+ for more than "seconds". Other aircraft have broken Mach 3 but the heat so damaged their engines (although not destroyed in mid-flight like you suggest) that required replacement. Perhaps that was just faulty Russian engineering, though.

[The Akasha Colony]

No. Again, your MBT should already be sufficiently maneuverable and have a gun capable of handling any reasonably expected target. If it is not, then rather than making a new supplementary tank, you should replace your MBT with a vehicle that meets these requirements, since your MBT is deficient in two of its three primary features.

Why does the Stryker exist then? I thought it was lightly armored and fast, just for such a purpose?

The Stryker MGS is not, and has never been, intended to engage tanks. Stryker exists to provide a medium-weight family of vehicles to allow the US to create units that were both reasonably airmobile but also possessed a decent amount of firepower and protection. The M2 Bradley and M1 Abrams are definitely not easily airmobile, while light infantry units based around Humvees are too light for high-intensity combat. The Stryker brigades fall between that, trading some of the survivability and firepower of a fully armored formation for improved air mobility, while being better protected than light infantry in Humvees or MRAPs.

Within these formations, the Stryker MGS is not a tank destroyer. It's a modern assault gun, designed to support infantry in assaults on fortified positions. Stryker brigades (and light infantry brigades) do not have tanks at all, so this is where their firepower comes from (light infantry brigades don't even have Stryker MGS, though).

[Rio Grande del Sur]

No. Again, your MBT should already be sufficiently maneuverable and have a gun capable of handling any reasonably expected target. If it is not, then rather than making a new supplementary tank, you should replace your MBT with a vehicle that meets these requirements, since your MBT is deficient in two of its three primary features.

Why does the Stryker exist then? I thought it was lightly armored and fast, just for such a purpose?

Because the US is shifting away from MBTs and towards vehicles with similar firepower which can be more easily airlifted. This is a trend for the US because the US has most military commitments overseas. Hard to use a 60 tonne MBT in a RRF.

[Gallia-]

Strykers are just HTLD post-Congress letting the Army buy LAVs at 500% markup from the 1980s.

[Velkanika]

Real-world estimate on air-breathing engines? Mach 12 or so, assuming the next X-plane for hypersonic flight testing continues according to schedule.

A better question for what I'm assuming you're asking would be "will technology be mature enough for a production aircraft operating in the Mach 6 regime?" The answer is yes, but with a whole lot of engineering problems. Hypersonic flight is ridiculously difficult to achieve on air-breathing engines for longer than a few seconds due to the extreme conditions. The X-51 was able to achieve a speed of Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds on May 1, 2013. That's the current world record duration for hypersonic flight on an air breathing engine, so when you say you're going to go Mach 6 I laugh maniacally.

That said, I've been working on an NS aircraft to do just that. As has been previously noted, an object traveling at Mach 5 can still be intercepted and shot down but that is rather hard to do. The engagement envelope for that kind of target is very small, so unless the aircraft flies directly over a high-performance SAM site or an interceptor happens to be able to line up and get within 10 miles with a very fast missile, it can't be touched. The secret to achieving those speeds is to keep the aircraft's skin and engine from disintegrating due to buckling from heat expansion or melting. You can keep the skin intact via a variety of methods used on the SR-71 and Space Shuttle successfully, but the engine is going to have to be a scramjet. This is extremely inconvenient because a scramjet won't even start until you're flying at about Mach 3.5. This leaves a rather inconvenient section of the flight envelope where your only choice of air breathing engine won't work when you need thrust the most - takeoff and landing. I leave the ingenious solution to this conundrum for you to figure out, but liquid precoolers like on the SABRE engine won't be mature enough to make this work by 2025. Turbojets will get you up to around Mach 3, but they weigh a couple tons each and will disintegrate in a matter of seconds at those speeds. Enjoy the challenge.

J58 routinely flew at Mach 3+ for more than "seconds". Other aircraft have broken Mach 3 but the heat so damaged their engines (although not destroyed in mid-flight like you suggest) that required replacement. Perhaps that was just faulty Russian engineering, though.

The J58 was a variable-cycle turbojet-assisted ramjet. There's a lot of differences between a turbojet and that thing.

Also, a few MiG-25s and MiG-31s were lost on recon flights when they disintegrated in flight at Mach 3+. The problem was that the titanium compressor fans inside the engine got plastic when operating at those airspeeds, which caused the engine to explode.

[Gallia-]

Rofl

Do you have a linque? That sounds mildly amusing.

[Velkanika]

Rofl

Do you have a linque? That sounds mildly amusing.

Check out the Yom Kippur War and the First Gulf War (Iran-Iraq). I know the Soviets and Egyptians lost some MiG-25s like that for certain during recon flights over the Sinai Peninsula around the time of that war, and the Iraqis had some problems with engines overheating. I don't know if the Iraqis lost any MiG-25s to midair explosions not caused by enemy action, but that's probably a good bet for finding comedy.

[Oaledonia]

Can I have a read to some of your doctrines? I want to create my own, and need an idea.

[Triplebaconation]

Rofl

Do you have a linque? That sounds mildly amusing.

Alas, it's not true.

[Velkanika]

Rofl

Do you have a linque? That sounds mildly amusing.

Alas, it's not true.

Care to elaborate for once? Wait, nevermind. You never post anything that actually explains your points no matter how hard we pry, so we're going to have to settle for another cryptic one liner that doesn't actually say anything.

The Israelis found debris from a Foxbat that had an engine fail while trying to evade weapon fire in the 80s. The aircraft landed successfully, but left some hardware in the desert.

[Triplebaconation]

What do you want? A copy of the manual or something?

[The Kievan People]

Mig-25 flight envelope.