NationStates

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Padnak wrote:
They're just the secondary AA armament

The main armament is going to be 12 16.5 inch guns and 16 210mm secondary guns

Split secondary battery like that is not going to be terribly useful, although it also wouldn't necessarily be unusual for the time. However, I question your ability to fit that many secondary and primary guns on a battleship that has a displacement under 80,000 tonnes at least.

Its going to be a little cramped lol

The ship will probably be a little larger then the Yamato and will have much thicker armor. Its going to be a limited class of four ships assigned as flagships of the four major fleets I'm planning on having and will likely be spared no expense.

Oaledonia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
Too slow.

Nuclear reactors. PMT like a mad cunt.

Hydrodynamic drag is the limit of ship speed, not horsepower.

Padnak wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Split secondary battery like that is not going to be terribly useful, although it also wouldn't necessarily be unusual for the time. However, I question your ability to fit that many secondary and primary guns on a battleship that has a displacement under 80,000 tonnes at least.

Its going to be a little cramped lol

The ship will probably be a little larger then the Yamato and will have much thicker armor. Its going to be a limited class of four ships assigned as flagships of the four major fleets I'm planning on having and will likely be spared no expense.

Then I'd guess 90,000 tonnes. Yamato was the most heavily-armored battleship by plate thickness ever built. Unless you don't plan on having engines at all. I'm not even sure how or where you plan to put 16 210 mm guns, that's the main armament of two full heavy cruisers.

Also, assigning battleships (or indeed, any class of ship) in that manner (one per fleet) is not common practice. It's common on NS, and seems common based on how the US now distributes its aircraft carriers, but traditionally battleships of a given class are all placed in the same squadron, so that the squadron will have the same tactical characteristics.

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Then I'd guess 90,000 tonnes. Yamato was the most heavily-armored battleship by plate thickness ever built. Unless you don't plan on having engines at all. I'm not even sure how or where you plan to put 16 210 mm guns, that's the main armament of two full heavy cruisers.

Also, assigning battleships (or indeed, any class of ship) in that manner (one per fleet) is not common practice. It's common on NS, and seems common based on how the US now distributes its aircraft carriers, but traditionally battleships of a given class are all placed in the same squadron, so that the squadron will have the same tactical characteristics.

Huh, I just thought that distributing them that way was common practice. The more you know, I'll be doing that-

I'm expecting these ships to be rather slow and lumbering, or to be fairly fast but with a fairly limited range for a battleship of there wight range. Thinking about it, it would probably make more sense to remove the 210mm and 125mm armaments and instead go for a 150mm or something like that unified armament

Padnak wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Then I'd guess 90,000 tonnes. Yamato was the most heavily-armored battleship by plate thickness ever built. Unless you don't plan on having engines at all. I'm not even sure how or where you plan to put 16 210 mm guns, that's the main armament of two full heavy cruisers.

Also, assigning battleships (or indeed, any class of ship) in that manner (one per fleet) is not common practice. It's common on NS, and seems common based on how the US now distributes its aircraft carriers, but traditionally battleships of a given class are all placed in the same squadron, so that the squadron will have the same tactical characteristics.

Huh, I just thought that distributing them that way was common practice. The more you know, I'll be doing that-

I'm expecting these ships to be rather slow and lumbering, or to be fairly fast but with a fairly limited range for a battleship of there wight range. Thinking about it, it would probably make more sense to remove the 210mm and 125mm armaments and instead go for a 150mm or something like that unified armament

150 mm is a bit too large for it to be practical as a dual-purpose weapon. The British thought they could get away with 5.25" (134 mm) for their dual-purpose guns in WWII to get a bit more explosive power out of them, but it turned out to be too much, and rates of fire dropped as crews became tired more quickly moving the heavier shells. 5" is pretty much the optimum between ROF and shell weight, as the US demonstrated.

Split secondary batteries traditionally had weapons in the 6" (150 mm) range for anti-surface engagements supported by dedicated AA guns in the 3.5-4" (88-105 mm) class. At best, the heavier guns would be capable of long-range barrage fire against aerial targets, but not closer engagements, leaving a reduced battery of lighter guns for anti-air purposes.

Roski wrote:

San-Silvacian wrote:
Fortifications have proven time and again effective against a series of systems.

Do you even know what a fighting position is.

I do. And in a Modern Scenario, in an Urban situation, trenches are not as effective.

Please do not post if you don't know what youre talking about.

One has to wonder if the Americans got it optimal with the 5/54 and the 16 in guns. That said I think the Vanguard armament was good too... despite being essentially the same as mounted on the QE class. Vanguard was the pinnacle of battleship design outside the US.

On 80kt one could fit 4 x III 15in. Or more. But 8 guns in 4 turrets is probably better than 9 guns in 3 turrets.

Questers wrote:

Roski wrote:
I do. And in a Modern Scenario, in an Urban situation, trenches are not as effective.

Please do not post if you don't know what youre talking about.

Fuck are you going to do against Helicopters, as mercenaries, in a fucking trench?

I see that it works against nuclear warfare, but are you really going to entrench yourself against overwhelming air support and light infantry?

Roski wrote:

Questers wrote: Please do not post if you don't know what youre talking about.

Fuck are you going to do against Helicopters, as mercenaries, in a fucking trench?

I see that it works against nuclear warfare, but are you really going to entrench yourself against overwhelming air support and light infantry?

Yeah. I'll dig in. I've got organic AA, I've got vastly more protection from the front, and to a degree, from the flank, and I've now got the capability to bring out the fun stuff. (10mm medium machine guns don't really work for a perfectly mobile unit unless they're on vehicles, which restricts where they can go. Setting up a position allows me much more freedom as far as positioning that machine gun goes.)
As for helicopters, organic AA and MANPADS work fairly well.

Yukonastan wrote:

Roski wrote:
Fuck are you going to do against Helicopters, as mercenaries, in a fucking trench?

I see that it works against nuclear warfare, but are you really going to entrench yourself against overwhelming air support and light infantry?

Yeah. I'll dig in. I've got organic AA, I've got vastly more protection from the front, and to a degree, from the flank, and I've now got the capability to bring out the fun stuff. (10mm medium machine guns don't really work for a perfectly mobile unit unless they're on vehicles, which restricts where they can go. Setting up a position allows me much more freedom as far as positioning that machine gun goes.)
As for helicopters, organic AA and MANPADS work fairly well.

Organic AA?

First off, why would mercenaries face off against an attacking army?

Well Cipher was a merc and he killed all the Belkan fgts.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:First off, why would mercenaries face off against an attacking army?

Civil conflict with an army made of mercenaries had to face off against 100,000 of my heavily armed men, in taking a City where we initially thought the rebel leader was.

Is thirty to forty kg (in radio equipment and spares, water, rations, ammo, personal effects, etc) a realistic combat load for my typical footslogger?

Roski wrote:

Yukonastan wrote:
Yeah. I'll dig in. I've got organic AA, I've got vastly more protection from the front, and to a degree, from the flank, and I've now got the capability to bring out the fun stuff. (10mm medium machine guns don't really work for a perfectly mobile unit unless they're on vehicles, which restricts where they can go. Setting up a position allows me much more freedom as far as positioning that machine gun goes.)
As for helicopters, organic AA and MANPADS work fairly well.

Organic AA?

Exactly what it sounds like. The unit itself has quite the antiaircraft defenses, what with the heavy machine guns and autocannons on the IFVs, the MANPADS so proudly ignored until they're needed, and the 40mm launchers which amount to luck more than anything. The RPGs that strike the tail rotors on your fancy gunships.

Also, did I mention that M58 MICLICs are not good trench clearing devices? Because trenches are designed to reduce the effects of such weapons? Or of any weapons that hit them directly?

Krasny-Volny wrote:Is thirty to forty kg (in radio equipment and spares, water, rations, ammo, personal effects, etc) a realistic combat load for my typical footslogger?

I dunno. Ask over on the Infantry thread. Depends on how heavy your soldiers are. To me it seems to be too much, however.

Questers wrote:One has to wonder if the Americans got it optimal with the 5/54 and the 16 in guns. That said I think the Vanguard armament was good too... despite being essentially the same as mounted on the QE class. Vanguard was the pinnacle of battleship design outside the US.

On 80kt one could fit 4 x III 15in. Or more. But 8 guns in 4 turrets is probably better than 9 guns in 3 turrets.

I personally think having 3 guns a turret layout is better because it means that on a turret by turret basses fire rate is higher and the amount of gun to the amount of armor is lower (meaning less weight to the overall ship) then the equivalent amount of 2 gun turrets you would need to match it. Mind you, the ship I'm aiming for is all about being really huge and having a shit load of guns, with all the problems that brings with it.

Its an interesting trade off, having less guns in more turrets that can engage more turrets simultaneously and are of greater utility, or having more guns in less turrets that are more powerful but are of less utility and can't engage as many targets at the same time.

Roski wrote:

Yukonastan wrote:
Yeah. I'll dig in. I've got organic AA, I've got vastly more protection from the front, and to a degree, from the flank, and I've now got the capability to bring out the fun stuff. (10mm medium machine guns don't really work for a perfectly mobile unit unless they're on vehicles, which restricts where they can go. Setting up a position allows me much more freedom as far as positioning that machine gun goes.)
As for helicopters, organic AA and MANPADS work fairly well.

Organic AA?

As in, his forces have integrated AA capacity built into infantry/armored formations, so it isn't a question of unaccompanied infantry against airpower. Troops being issued MANPADS and accompanied by integrated SAMs or AA vehicles is usually how this is implemented.
This is a pretty usual state of affairs for combined-arms forces.

There's a reason why I suggested a fragmentation shell fitted with a proximity fuze to kill men in trenches.

Yukonastan wrote:

Roski wrote:
Organic AA?

Exactly what it sounds like. The unit itself has quite the antiaircraft defenses, what with the heavy machine guns and autocannons on the IFVs, the MANPADS so proudly ignored until they're needed, and the 40mm launchers which amount to luck more than anything. The RPGs that strike the tail rotors on your fancy gunships.

Also, did I mention that M58 MICLICs are not good trench clearing devices? Because trenches are designed to reduce the effects of such weapons? Or of any weapons that hit them directly?

Krasny-Volny wrote:Is thirty to forty kg (in radio equipment and spares, water, rations, ammo, personal effects, etc) a realistic combat load for my typical footslogger?

I dunno. Ask over on the Infantry thread. Depends on how heavy your soldiers are. To me it seems to be too much, however.

How's a frag, missiles landing in the trench, and lots of machine gun fire sound?

Roski wrote:

Questers wrote: Please do not post if you don't know what youre talking about.

Fuck are you going to do against Helicopters, as mercenaries, in a fucking trench?

I see that it works against nuclear warfare, but are you really going to entrench yourself against overwhelming air support and light infantry?

Trenches have been used since the beginning of organized warfare, primarily because they are so useful as a defensive structure. In modern warfare, they still offer protection from direct fire; the structure depends on the constructor's design. Anyways; trenches can protect troops from helicopters, because they don't just sit on top of a trench and shoot directly down. Depending on the angle of fire from cannons and how the ordinance lands, the occupants of a trench are safe. Trenches protect occupants from ordinances that don't directly hit inside, from shrapnel from ordinances, and direct fire. No one says trenches are the perfect defense anymore but you are giving them far less credit then they deserve.

As for your mercenaries. I would suggest HMGs and MANPADS. And FYI: Trenches would not save you from a nuclear explosion, like, at all.

They would probably save you from a nuclear firestorm if you're super lucky and are in a covered part of the trench-

Roski wrote:

Yukonastan wrote:
Exactly what it sounds like. The unit itself has quite the antiaircraft defenses, what with the heavy machine guns and autocannons on the IFVs, the MANPADS so proudly ignored until they're needed, and the 40mm launchers which amount to luck more than anything. The RPGs that strike the tail rotors on your fancy gunships.

Also, did I mention that M58 MICLICs are not good trench clearing devices? Because trenches are designed to reduce the effects of such weapons? Or of any weapons that hit them directly?

I dunno. Ask over on the Infantry thread. Depends on how heavy your soldiers are. To me it seems to be too much, however.

How's a frag, missiles landing in the trench, and lots of machine gun fire sound?

Trench defeats machine gun fire over top of it. As for the missiles, sounds good. As for the potato masher in the trench, you'll need more. Way more than just one. Not to mention you're running against machine gun fire yourself while assaulting that trench.

As for trenches and nuclear weapons, they do quite a bit more than CT thinks. You're out of the direct pressure wave, so you're not going to be blown away. You're still in the shockwave (surviveable), but you don't get the firestorm in your face. And depending on how far away the shot is, it also provides effective radiation blast shielding, due to the lip causing a shadow to obsure the blast from sight.

Not that any of that matters when you end up knee-deep in highly radioactive fallout ash.

Padnak wrote:They would probably save you from a nuclear firestorm if you're super lucky and are in a covered part of the trench-

If you survived the explosion in a trench you'd get seconds of life left as the air suction kills you or the radiation does it. This of course is if you are near the explosion -- if you're close enough to contest the explosion killing you, the other stuff will.

What is the disadvantages of a mostly conscripted military? With some professional units.

And said professional units are for high middle class and high class citizens only.

Common Territories wrote:As for your mercenaries. I would suggest HMGs and MANPADS. And FYI: Trenches would not save you from a nuclear explosion, like, at all.

Numerous US open air nuclear tests disagree with your assessment. A trench can provide great cover from a nearby nuclear strike