NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Yukonastan]

I must explain that besides being heavier than pintles and turrets, ROW stations also require a LOT more power.

Not always. There is a reason why I mentioned periscope rifles. Remote weapon mounts in the form of mechanically controlled machine guns, cupolas with a MG inside etc. have been with us since at least the M3 Lee. Now obviously, some of those would be too heavy for a scout car. But those fall into the category of "don't have enough armor to make a difference" anyway.

And you still need to get onto the roof to reload the thing, makes more sense to put up some rifle plate around the gun, and then have the guy be minimally exposed, with the clearest image available, and the highest peripheral vision available. Not to mention being able to instantly troubleshoot the gun.

Honestly I think that visibility won't do him much good once someone lobs a HE shell his way. And if the gun jams, having to pop out and clear it is still safer than sitting there all the time.

Now, while being able to slag off the collective militaries of the world may have at one point caused the Athenians to make you an admiral and say 'off you pop, darling - you do better', it doesn't do much any more.

I do not know of the reference. Please repeat in terms of familiarity.

Periscope rifles in today's society? What? Whatever happened to periscope pistols?

I dunno. ROW stations generally don't have armor around them to protect the gunner, and they're higher up by necessity, so the gunner is more exposed whenever he has to swap cans or clear a jam. I'd rather ride out of the top of the vehicle with a turret around me, with only my head and shoulders sticking above, than having to balance precariously head, shoulders, and upper torso out of the turret to swap a can on a ROW station every few minutes. In a fast-moving vehicle.

As for the HE shell, you're fucked either way in terms of HMMWV. Doesn't matter whether it's 1/4" of steel on the door or 1" of steel on the turret, that HE will ruin your day.

[Yukonastan]

Hey,

Would anyone be willing to suggest a decent assault gun/tank destroyer for use by a semi-realistic PMC? Something light weight, decent range and speed, reasonably cheap, preferably wheeled.

AMX-10RC
Stryker MGS

Why the Stryker MGS? Fire the cannon in line with the vehicle and you can swap all the shorn-off axles. Fire it perpendicular to the vehicle and the recoil rolls you over. It's a POS as it sits right now. Use the concept, but NOT that abomination.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

MVC. Cuz I'm addicted to it.

It is nice. . . Problem is, it's still in development from what I can tell. Field trials at least. Too, I'm reasonably sure it's too big for a C130 or equivalent.

---

AMX-10RC
Stryker MGS

The AMX sounds a decent idea.

[Anacasppia]

Hey,

Would anyone be willing to suggest a decent assault gun/tank destroyer for use by a semi-realistic PMC? Something light weight, decent range and speed, reasonably cheap, preferably wheeled.

Here - AMX-10RC.

This might be more fitting for you though (the TH400 version, that is). Could even be mounted with a 120mm gun.

[Vakarians]

How can I demonstrate my wealth and military size effectively then?

In simple terms, with an effective and realistic military.

To the inexperienced, walkers, supertech gunships, and supposedly bulletproof fighters might seem impressive. But to anyone with a knowledge of real-world military technology, they have the opposite effect - they make it look like you don't know what you're doing. Anyone can post a few futuristic-looking images and make superb claims about their military, and most NSers do (unfortunately). But if you want to stand out, prepare something that is well-researched and makes sense.

Take navies, for example. I could care less if one of my rivals squandered trillions of dollars on a 1-kilometer-long catamaran-hulled stealth dreadnought/carrier combo as their flagship. But if one of my rivals has eleven carrier battlegroups and is using them intelligently to restrict my naval influence, that makes me much, much more concerned for national security.

Or, on a higher level, you could turn your attention to goals other than showing off how wealthy and powerful your military is. Players that consistently go over the top acting like their nation is stronger than all the others will soon find lots of other people making the same claims, and will more often than not end up gathering a bad reputation.

I see. I'm the judicial branch in the region though. I need to demonstrate my power so others follow regional law. If that makes sense.

Where do I start to make a "well made" military?

[Velkanika]

AMX-10RC
Stryker MGS

Why the Stryker MGS? Fire the cannon in line with the vehicle and you can swap all the shorn-off axles. Fire it perpendicular to the vehicle and the recoil rolls you over. It's a POS as it sits right now. Use the concept, but NOT that abomination.

Bullshit, the MGS works perfectly fine.

[Gallia-]

Stryker is a terrible vehicle for other reasons. MGS is just icing on the cake.

[Velkanika]

Vakarians, that sounds like you're a metagame judge. You don't need IC power to make other players follow the rules if that's the case.

If you're RPing as a peacekeeper of some sort, then I suggest hard numbers in the form of divisons and brigades, plus unit type. I'm less worried about super high tech helicopters then I am of an armored division driving T-62s.

[The Soodean Imperium]

In simple terms, with an effective and realistic military.

To the inexperienced, walkers, supertech gunships, and supposedly bulletproof fighters might seem impressive. But to anyone with a knowledge of real-world military technology, they have the opposite effect - they make it look like you don't know what you're doing. Anyone can post a few futuristic-looking images and make superb claims about their military, and most NSers do (unfortunately). But if you want to stand out, prepare something that is well-researched and makes sense.

Take navies, for example. I could care less if one of my rivals squandered trillions of dollars on a 1-kilometer-long catamaran-hulled stealth dreadnought/carrier combo as their flagship. But if one of my rivals has eleven carrier battlegroups and is using them intelligently to restrict my naval influence, that makes me much, much more concerned for national security.

Or, on a higher level, you could turn your attention to goals other than showing off how wealthy and powerful your military is. Players that consistently go over the top acting like their nation is stronger than all the others will soon find lots of other people making the same claims, and will more often than not end up gathering a bad reputation.

I see. I'm the judicial branch in the region though. I need to demonstrate my power so others follow regional law. If that makes sense.

Where do I start to make a "well made" military?

Well, the absolute first place to start is to think about your military's "doctrine." Questers (who knows a good deal more about this than I do) describes it in the following terms:

Your doctrine should consider:
1. Who is most likely to attack, from where, and who will be on their side and yours.

2. Whether you will have quantitative and qualitative superiority, or neither

3. On what type of terrain the war will be fought, over how much depth, and in what space of time

4. And your overall war aims either offence or defence.

Once you've answered these questions, start building a military that will match those answers. This involves a lot of work, but fortunately the internet has a surprising amount of good information on how real-life militaries work (provided you can sift out the unreliable sources). There are a few useful resources in the introductory post on this thread, and a lot more out on the web (or in print, if you want to go the extra mile) which you can have a look at.

One last thing to remember - when regulars on the realism-related threads give you advice, even if it's presented in a hostile tone, follow that advice. Trying to argue that it works because it looks cool, or claiming that everyone else is wrong and you're the only one who understands the subject, can dig you into a deep hole and give you a poor reputation.

[Vakarians]

I see. I'm the judicial branch in the region though. I need to demonstrate my power so others follow regional law. If that makes sense.

Where do I start to make a "well made" military?

Well, the absolute first place to start is to think about your military's "doctrine." Questers (who knows a good deal more about this than I do) describes it in the following terms:

Your doctrine should consider:
1. Who is most likely to attack, from where, and who will be on their side and yours.

2. Whether you will have quantitative and qualitative superiority, or neither

3. On what type of terrain the war will be fought, over how much depth, and in what space of time

4. And your overall war aims either offence or defence.

Once you've answered these questions, start building a military that will match those answers. This involves a lot of work, but fortunately the internet has a surprising amount of good information on how real-life militaries work (provided you can sift out the unreliable sources). There are a few useful resources in the introductory post on this thread, and a lot more out on the web (or in print, if you want to go the extra mile) which you can have a look at.

One last thing to remember - when regulars on the realism-related threads give you advice, even if it's presented in a hostile tone, follow that advice. Trying to argue that it works because it looks cool, or claiming that everyone else is wrong and you're the only one who understands the subject, can dig you into a deep hole and give you a poor reputation.

Thank you for the help.

Where should I start looking? US military for information?

[The IASM]

Ok, I wish to acquire some help for creating the military of a completely new nation I've made for this world which I plan to use for a long while. Ultimately I also plan make this nation a stratocracy which is not a Burma/NK esque hell hole. The nation in question is the State Khanate of Zataria (note: Khan is seen more as a military rank than anything else; in other words a product of Zatarian westernisation). It is ultimately a quasi fascist version of the USSR which far more land and is in a three way Cold War between the Free state of America and a huge communist bloc. It is a ecomincally developed country, relying on a state dirigisme of subsides and taxes to avoid the country investing in unstable fads. However it lost much of the resources it needs to fund this industry when the country was forced to secede my worlds equal to Central Asia. Zataria wishes to regain control over the region's it lost and also spread its sphere of influence far beyond that by expanding its economic grasp as well. In other words it is seeking a stable hegemony to rule over. I wish to have some long term help with the flowing: equipment, tactics, weaponry, logistics, grand strategy, technology and realism. Some other factors to consider, Zataria is currently in the year 1958 (technology can leak into the 60s), is surrounded by neighbours who hate it but must comply with Zataria's demands as they simply wouldn't survive without them and it also lost the second Great War relatively strong as well.

A map of Zataria

[Vakarians]

Well, the absolute first place to start is to think about your military's "doctrine." Questers (who knows a good deal more about this than I do) describes it in the following terms:


Once you've answered these questions, start building a military that will match those answers. This involves a lot of work, but fortunately the internet has a surprising amount of good information on how real-life militaries work (provided you can sift out the unreliable sources). There are a few useful resources in the introductory post on this thread, and a lot more out on the web (or in print, if you want to go the extra mile) which you can have a look at.

One last thing to remember - when regulars on the realism-related threads give you advice, even if it's presented in a hostile tone, follow that advice. Trying to argue that it works because it looks cool, or claiming that everyone else is wrong and you're the only one who understands the subject, can dig you into a deep hole and give you a poor reputation.

Thank you for the help.

Where should I start looking? US military for information?

For equipment and other essentials.

[Rich and Corporations]

Stryker is a terrible vehicle for other reasons. MGS is just icing on the cake.

Indeed.

Should have mounted a 75mm howitzer on top of the Gavin.

[Prekonate]

How can SSGN guide their missiles to enemy ships? I understand what the Oscar-IIs did -- launched all their missiles at coordinates they received over long-wave radio, and relied on satellite datalinks + active seekers for guidance. But are there any other possibilities?

Tomahawks use terrain following, inertial navigation, and GPS guidance, as well as image recognition to find their targets. Once launched, they require no further input from the sub.

This is the only reply I received... it's kind of insufficient because terrain following and GPS have limited relevance to anti-ship missiles (the latter could be used for in-flight guidance?). I guess I'm really asking how an SSGN acquires ship targets. I understand that most anti-ship missiles use inertial navigation or satellite or whatever while flying to their target, but how does the submarine know where to fire in the first place? Is it forced to operate in tandem with AWACS etc. and receive radio coordinates? Long-range sonar...?

[Padnak]

I have allot of love for people who can pull off PMT or MT well, its just super easy to have tacti-wank so my general view of PMT/MT is fairly low

---

I've been in the processes of rearming my military after the trashing its been receiving in an RP I'm involved in*, and I've been tossing around the idea of a chemical weapons program

Was wondering some things

-what are some effective chemical weapons that can be bomb/tactical ballistic missile/ artillery shell deployed
-what kind of capabilities (diplomatic, industrial, scientific etc) are needed to manufacture chemical agents covertly
-how effective are chemical weapons in a humid jungle environment
-and would a bio weapons program also be something to consider

Padnak has extremely good relations with a few current and past chemical weapons states, North Korea and pre invastion Iraq if that helps

Bump

[New Vihenia]

This is the only reply I received... it's kind of insufficient because terrain following and GPS have limited relevance to anti-ship missiles (the latter could be used for in-flight guidance?). I guess I'm really asking how an SSGN acquires ship targets. I understand that most anti-ship missiles use inertial navigation or satellite or whatever while flying to their target, but how does the submarine know where to fire in the first place? Is it forced to operate in tandem with AWACS etc. and receive radio coordinates? Long-range sonar...?

Well that's from two source basically.

Internal, by the submarine's own sonar. Detection range of 200-300 Km using passive sonar is possible But this might not be sufficient for firing as there's no way to determine whether the noise came from carrier or simply merchant ship emission.

External. The most frequently used method, and yes the SSGN have to work in concert with external targeting element like AWACS ,reconnaissance aircraft or from the ground base via suitable communication channel (TACAMO aircraft or underwater telephony) For coordination with AWACS or Reconnaissance aircraft the SSGN may use floating buoys equipped with antenna to receive cue on where to fire missiles.

[Imperializt Russia]

I have allot of love for people who can pull off PMT or MT well, its just super easy to have tacti-wank so my general view of PMT/MT is fairly low

---

I've been in the processes of rearming my military after the trashing its been receiving in an RP I'm involved in*, and I've been tossing around the idea of a chemical weapons program

Was wondering some things

-what are some effective chemical weapons that can be bomb/tactical ballistic missile/ artillery shell deployed
-what kind of capabilities (diplomatic, industrial, scientific etc) are needed to manufacture chemical agents covertly
-how effective are chemical weapons in a humid jungle environment
-and would a bio weapons program also be something to consider

Padnak has extremely good relations with a few current and past chemical weapons states, North Korea and pre invastion Iraq if that helps

Bump

Chemical weapons are of limited capability and utility.
Almost all chemical weapons can be delivered by your required delivery systems, but biological weapons are of extremely limited capability and utility compared to chemical agents. They certainly hold no real battlefield use, unlike a chemical agent may.

A "humid" environment may slightly reduce the effectiveness of an agent like Sarin, which degrades naturally, but more rapidly in high heat. However, this also means that the area is safe to traverse slightly faster.

[Prekonate]

-what are some effective chemical weapons that can be bomb/tactical ballistic missile/ artillery shell deployed

There are too many to list, and effectiveness depends on what you're intending to use them for; consider just doing a Google search for "chemical weapons". Focus on nerve agents for killing, blister agents for wounding (and killing), agents like Tabun and Mustard for cheap production, BZ for incapacitating.

-what kind of capabilities (diplomatic, industrial, scientific etc) are needed to manufacture chemical agents covertly

Your country probably already has chemical production plants for fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etc. Imagine the same sort of thing, but instead of synthesizing fertilizer, you're synthesizing VX. Just disguise the factory as something else (the Iraqis did this). For developing new nerve agents, you need chemical engineers and research labs.

-how effective are chemical weapons in a humid jungle environment

This depends on the chemical properties of the agent. As a good example, Sarin degrades quickly in moisture. It is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, which means it is meant to form a covalent bond with cholinesterase to make it biologically inactive. By doing so, it prevents the formation of acetylcholinesterase, a biologically active enzyme which degrades acetylcholine. Acetylcholine is an enzyme responsible for "clearing" nerve junctions of neurotransmitters that cause your muscles to contract. The result of a lack of acetylcholine is that your muscles are "stuck" in contraction. You can imagine why this would be fatal if it acted on muscles controlling the vital functions of your body.

Sarin's method of action relies on its chemical structure. It has a very reactive phosphorus-fluorine bond; fluorine is the best leaving group on the periodic table, so the molecule is easily able to form a covalent bond with cholinesterase to perform its intended function. However, it also means that a good nucleophile will cause Sarin to react outside of the body, and switch to a biologically inactive form where fluorine is replaced by whatever the nucleophile is.

The deprotonated form of water (-OH) is an excellent nucleophile, and causes Sarin to react prematurely, in the manner described. Therefore, Sarin rapidly degrades in humid environments.

The point of mentioning all of this, in addition to ego-stroking (it is the NS military realism thread, after all), is to make clear that chemical agents are actually very complex, and it will be nearly impossible to give you answers about all chemical agents as a group. Their action relies on their structure, and their structure varies considerably between different types.

Here is a good starting point: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/li ... 1/appk.htm

Hopefully this is helpful info.

[Triplebaconation]

How does my military seem to you? Please see my Facebook entires.

Walkers are broadly infeasible, Rods from God are questionable on a number of levels.
Your Gunship uses a "high impulse thermobaric missile launcher". There's no real need for it to be a notably high-impulse weapon. Thermobarics are for infantry or armoured vehicles in the open, or use against structures and fortifications. They can't exactly move fast enough to run out of range of a thermobaric missile.

Also, DU on an aircraft is probably a complete no. DU is very heavy.
Stick to steel (or aluminium), and throw in some composites for lightweight protection. The fuselage shouldn't really be armoured at all, as this needlessly increases weight for little gain and could cause penetrating rounds to ricochet about. An unarmoured fuselage would allow penetrating rounds to penetrate cleanly through.

DU was common in aircraft until it became un-PC. It's dumb as armor, though.

That happens to be the spacecraft in question.

What if placed out of range for ASMs?

Orions are silly in concept. You litterally nuke yourself when they go to orbit, then whenever they manuver they EMP whatever happens to be below the first gamma ray burst. They then releave hypervelocity fragments into hundreds of altidues and inclinations which makes thing hazardous for other space craft, the radiation burst can easily damage any other space craft within a few thousand miles, and they're rediculously massive.

You cannot hide them and you cannot outrange ASAT weapons. If you're in LEO, an F-15 can cripple you. If you're higher up, they can hit you with a glorified sounding rocket or kill sat. They could even bust out some high-powered lasers and zap your optics/crack a window if they want to leave you with no warning. If you go up high enough, it will take about 3 hours for any weapons you or the enemy uses to get to where they're going.

You're thinking along the right lines but have a long ways to go. Kennedy shut down Project Orion as it was mostly a gag proposal for somethink they could do if they really wanted to.

I doubt an Orion would generate much EMP since the explosions are relatively tiny and it's hard to see one operating at LEO, really.

As our friend "ARC-chan" has noted, it was a serious project - except for the space battleship, maybe.

[Imperializt Russia]

Walkers are broadly infeasible, Rods from God are questionable on a number of levels.
Your Gunship uses a "high impulse thermobaric missile launcher". There's no real need for it to be a notably high-impulse weapon. Thermobarics are for infantry or armoured vehicles in the open, or use against structures and fortifications. They can't exactly move fast enough to run out of range of a thermobaric missile.

Also, DU on an aircraft is probably a complete no. DU is very heavy.
Stick to steel (or aluminium), and throw in some composites for lightweight protection. The fuselage shouldn't really be armoured at all, as this needlessly increases weight for little gain and could cause penetrating rounds to ricochet about. An unarmoured fuselage would allow penetrating rounds to penetrate cleanly through.

DU was common in aircraft until it became un-PC. It's dumb as armor, though.

As ammunition, of course, but that's not what I was getting at.
DU ammunition is fun and easily worth the weight.

[The IASM]

Ok, I wish to acquire some help for creating the military of a completely new nation I've made for this world which I plan to use for a long while. Ultimately I also plan make this nation a stratocracy which is not a Burma/NK esque hell hole. The nation in question is the State Khanate of Zataria (note: Khan is seen more as a military rank than anything else; in other words a product of Zatarian westernisation). It is ultimately a quasi fascist version of the USSR which far more land and is in a three way Cold War between the Free state of America and a huge communist bloc. It is a ecomincally developed country, relying on a state dirigisme of subsides and taxes to avoid the country investing in unstable fads. However it lost much of the resources it needs to fund this industry when the country was forced to secede my worlds equal to Central Asia. Zataria wishes to regain control over the region's it lost and also spread its sphere of influence far beyond that by expanding its economic grasp as well. In other words it is seeking a stable hegemony to rule over. I wish to have some long term help with the flowing: equipment, tactics, weaponry, logistics, grand strategy, technology and realism. Some other factors to consider, Zataria is currently in the year 1958 (technology can leak into the 60s), is surrounded by neighbours who hate it but must comply with Zataria's demands as they simply wouldn't survive without them and it also lost the second Great War relatively strong as well.

A map of Zataria

[Prekonate]

A "humid" environment may slightly reduce the effectiveness of an agent like Sarin, which degrades naturally, but more rapidly in high heat. However, this also means that the area is safe to traverse slightly faster.

You are confusing humidity and heat. Different heat means a different reaction rate. In a nucleophilic reaction such as the one involving Sarin, high heat will increase the rate of reaction, and therefore the efficacy while it remains in the environment. This is the rule for all endothermic reactions (Le Chatelier's principle). High heat will increase the effectiveness of Sarin.

However, a humid environment contains more ambient moisture, which tends to degrade Sarin quickly (see my previous post).

[Voltrovia]

Gases

Phosgene, VX, sarin, tabun, soman, cyclosarin, chlorine gas (and an important component of my chemical stockpiles, phosphine, which is very difficult to store and deploy) are all good places to start. Each has specific advantages in different environments and you can find the exact abilities and uses of each from the links below.

Wikipedia and Princeton's chemistry e-library are both good places for research. The latter is especially helpful and most basic substances you want to find out about simply have to be entered before the .htm (i.e. change phospine to anything you're interested in): http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/labsafetymanual/cheminfo/phosphine.htm

[Zeinbrad]

Fun fact- the Spartans from Halo 4 have been around since the first Halo game back in 2001. Some nine years and two months before you came up with the concept they had in six games already.

I assume he means the SPARTAN-IV class, which were introduced in Halo 4. Or any intervening literature between Cole Protocol and Halo 4.

Yes, I meant the Spartan class in Halo 4. The Specters weren't even around until the middle of the war, when Dr.Dre the OI agent founded them.

Now, the organization of the Wolfen platoon during their battle with the Boers/GDF.

Platoon HQ.
x1 Officer of Lieutenant rank.
x2 Couriers for if communication breaks down. They use motorcycles
x1 Sniper.
x1 Spotter.
(optional) x1 Forward observer for artillery, often from the artillery unit, not the platoon.

Combat Section 1-3.
x1 Sergeant
-Communication equipment.
x3 Fireteam leaders.
x11 Riflemen.
x3 Automatic Riflemen.
x2 AT guys.
x2 Medics.


Combat Pioneer/Engineer Section.
x1 Sergeant.
x5 Combat Engineers.
x1 Medic.

Support Section.
x1 Sergeant.
x1 Ambulance.
x5 Mortars.
-Chemical rounds.
-White phosphorus.
x4 Flamethrowers.

[Anemos Major]

Why the Stryker MGS? Fire the cannon in line with the vehicle and you can swap all the shorn-off axles. Fire it perpendicular to the vehicle and the recoil rolls you over. It's a POS as it sits right now. Use the concept, but NOT that abomination.

Bullshit, the MGS works perfectly fine.

It's a piece of rubbish. Too heavy for its job (nearly 19t without applique - the Army's ended up issuing a RFI for an 'Ultra Light Combat Vehicle' that ostensibly fills the niche the Stryker family was probably meant to fill), questionable autoloader reliability and complexity, failure-prone computer systems, persistent vehicle cooling problems, suspension problems associated with the turret, recoil issues as mentioned above that can't be resolved for fear of infringing upon its infantry support role and a fair bit more.

The impression I get is that the crew like the idea and its paper-functionality, but that all of that's been implemented so poorly they'd rather go back to their old vehicles.