NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Questers]

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...?

The missiles receive mid-flight corrections and co-ordination from other sources: unless the sonar signal is strong enough to rely on inertial-active only.

[Rich and Corporations]

Proper recon assets should give proper warning half an hour before hand, anything less is an ambush.

Even if you're attacking or defending.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDCON

This has nothing to do with recon, one minute you're weapons tight and technically at peace and the next you're at war. Think the Fulda Gap if WWIII happened during the Cold War; you can literally see the enemy for weeks at a time before hostilities commence but you don't know if they're going to come at you or not. They probably won't without a long period of preparation that will allow you to increase your readiness as well as i appears more likely that they will attack or that you will have to attack them. They could also suddenly attack with little preparation in order to throw you off. In this situation, which is similar to how it works at the Theater level (which I was talking about to begin with), higher levels of readiness will make a unit perform better if they go to war in 5 minutes. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this concept or metaphor.

?????
What?

More armchair generals.

War is boring.

No really, it is.

Don't listen to your video games, most of the time you're waiting to meet the enemy unless it's stalemate warfare like in Korea or in the Western Front, then you have a good idea where your enemy is unless you're on leave.

Furthermore, high alertness is stressful. Even modern soldiers, on the lookout for IEDs and terrorists, they drink caffeinated drinks for eight hour stretches just to be aware. It's difficult to maintain this alertness, even in shifts. This is why military bases have motion sensors to alarm the guards. It takes time to point your guns in the right direction (the enemy is equally liable to come from any direction), to make the last minute preparations as well.

[Questers]

Sadly randc is more right than people think he is. The only part of a modern military that would ever be on something like a constant alert is the nuclear response force.

[Rich and Corporations]

Sadly randc is more right than people think he is. The only part of a modern military that would ever be on something like a constant alert is the nuclear response force.

That's not even on constant alert.

If the US was caught by total surprise in a period of relative calm, our missilemen wouldn't be able to respond.

If they did respond, it would be a blind response.

[Kampala-]

Thankfully land based deterrent is pretty useless.

SSBNs would kill the USSR.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Sadly randc is more right than people think he is. The only part of a modern military that would ever be on something like a constant alert is the nuclear response force.

That's not even on constant alert.

If the US was caught by total surprise in a period of relative calm, our missilemen wouldn't be able to respond.

If they did respond, it would be a blind response.

You've never been to a silo museum that showed what, how, and why the silos were maintained the way they were. They were meant to be manned 24/7 for a reason: In case shit went down. Just because the Cold War ended doesn't mean the nuclear-armed sub or the Minuteman 3 silo in the sticks is not ready for nuclear war. They are ready.

If the personnel manning the silo didn't cheat on their tests.

[Gallia-]

That's not even on constant alert.

If the US was caught by total surprise in a period of relative calm, our missilemen wouldn't be able to respond.

If they did respond, it would be a blind response.

You've never been to a silo museum that showed what, how, and why the silos were maintained the way they were. They were meant to be manned 24/7 for a reason: In case shit went down. Just because the Cold War ended doesn't mean the nuclear-armed sub or the Minuteman 3 silo in the sticks is not ready for nuclear war. They are ready.

If the personnel manning the silo didn't cheat on their tests.

This is like saying if soldiers didn't shoot people or planes didn't fly.

[Velkanika]

This has nothing to do with recon, one minute you're weapons tight and technically at peace and the next you're at war. Think the Fulda Gap if WWIII happened during the Cold War; you can literally see the enemy for weeks at a time before hostilities commence but you don't know if they're going to come at you or not. They probably won't without a long period of preparation that will allow you to increase your readiness as well as i appears more likely that they will attack or that you will have to attack them. They could also suddenly attack with little preparation in order to throw you off. In this situation, which is similar to how it works at the Theater level (which I was talking about to begin with), higher levels of readiness will make a unit perform better if they go to war in 5 minutes. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this concept or metaphor.

?????
What?

More armchair generals.

War is boring.

No really, it is.

Don't listen to your video games, most of the time you're waiting to meet the enemy unless it's stalemate warfare like in Korea or in the Western Front, then you have a good idea where your enemy is unless you're on leave.

Furthermore, high alertness is stressful. Even modern soldiers, on the lookout for IEDs and terrorists, they drink caffeinated drinks for eight hour stretches just to be aware. It's difficult to maintain this alertness, even in shifts. This is why military bases have motion sensors to alarm the guards. It takes time to point your guns in the right direction (the enemy is equally liable to come from any direction), to make the last minute preparations as well.

I seem to have lost my original comparison somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that generally a military unit at a high state of readiness will be able to deal with a surprise attack better than one at a low state of readiness?

[The Republic of Lanos]

This is like saying if soldiers didn't shoot people or planes didn't fly.

Have you heard of the scandal with the Air Force over all that?

[Gallia-]

Military men the world over cheat on all the tests and lie about all the fuck ups. It keeps things running smoothly when the bureaucracy isn't bogged by every little screw up or lost form.

[Rich and Corporations]

?????
What?

More armchair generals.

War is boring.

No really, it is.

Don't listen to your video games, most of the time you're waiting to meet the enemy unless it's stalemate warfare like in Korea or in the Western Front, then you have a good idea where your enemy is unless you're on leave.

Furthermore, high alertness is stressful. Even modern soldiers, on the lookout for IEDs and terrorists, they drink caffeinated drinks for eight hour stretches just to be aware. It's difficult to maintain this alertness, even in shifts. This is why military bases have motion sensors to alarm the guards. It takes time to point your guns in the right direction (the enemy is equally liable to come from any direction), to make the last minute preparations as well.

I seem to have lost my original comparison somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that generally a military unit at a high state of readiness will be able to deal with a surprise attack better than one at a low state of readiness?

The differences due to chance would be greater then the differences due to readiness.

I'd be awfully impressed if soldiers... at a base or prepared position... walking around with rifles slung... would be more ready if they were told that the enemy could attack any time within 5 minutes as opposed to not knowing and taking general preparations.

[Mitheldalond]

?????
What?

More armchair generals.

War is boring.

No really, it is.

Don't listen to your video games, most of the time you're waiting to meet the enemy unless it's stalemate warfare like in Korea or in the Western Front, then you have a good idea where your enemy is unless you're on leave.

Furthermore, high alertness is stressful. Even modern soldiers, on the lookout for IEDs and terrorists, they drink caffeinated drinks for eight hour stretches just to be aware. It's difficult to maintain this alertness, even in shifts. This is why military bases have motion sensors to alarm the guards. It takes time to point your guns in the right direction (the enemy is equally liable to come from any direction), to make the last minute preparations as well.

I seem to have lost my original comparison somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that generally a military unit at a high state of readiness will be able to deal with a surprise attack better than one at a low state of readiness?

I think the point is that with proper intelligence, there won't be a surprise attack. You should have some warning of enemy forces mobilizing or moving around, weapons being stockpiled, or something of that nature. Even if you're sitting a few hundred yards from the enemy, you should still be able to take note of any changes in troop movements and behavior before hand.

[The Akasha Colony]

I think the point is that with proper intelligence, there won't be a surprise attack. You should have some warning of enemy forces mobilizing or moving around, weapons being stockpiled, or something of that nature. Even if you're sitting a few hundred yards from the enemy, you should still be able to take note of any changes in troop movements and behavior before hand.

The attack itself will be a surprise unless you manage to intercept the exact orders authorizing the invasion. You can see him build up, but it's hard to tell whether it's an exercise, or whether the attack is coming immediately, in a few days, or even in a few weeks.

[Velkanika]

I seem to have lost my original comparison somewhere.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that generally a military unit at a high state of readiness will be able to deal with a surprise attack better than one at a low state of readiness?

I think the point is that with proper intelligence, there won't be a surprise attack. You should have some warning of enemy forces mobilizing or moving around, weapons being stockpiled, or something of that nature. Even if you're sitting a few hundred yards from the enemy, you should still be able to take note of any changes in troop movements and behavior before hand.

All that means for the purposes of the original question is that this hypothetical force is at an increased state of readiness.

quick question.. How one measure "readiness" of an armed forces ?

How badly would they perform if a war started in 5 minutes?

In this case, the force is very ready and would probably do pretty well in an engagement as compared to a force taken completely by surprise at a low level of readiness - aka Pearl Harbor.

[Svendborg-]

It takes five minutes to move to assembly area and constitute your units?

Damn skippy that's quite quick.

[Oaledonia]

In this case, the force is very ready and would probably do pretty well in an engagement as compared to a force taken completely by surprise at a low level of readiness - aka Pearl Harbor.

The sortie levels are over 9000!

[Velkanika]

It takes five minutes to move to assembly area and constitute your units?

Damn skippy that's quite quick.

That's not what I'm saying.

quick question.. How one measure "readiness" of an armed forces ?

How badly would they perform if a war started in 5 minutes?

This analogy is a measure of overall force readiness. I have no idea where all of you are coming from on this. I'm seriously talking about generic military forces, not platoons or any of this nonsense you keep injecting into this. It's an abstract concept.

[Svendborg-]

That's exactly what you're saying, though.

It takes days to bring a military unit to combat readiness, about two for the highest peacetime alert units.

In this case, the force is very ready and would probably do pretty well in an engagement as compared to a force taken completely by surprise at a low level of readiness - aka Pearl Harbor.

The sortie levels are over 9000!

Get sunk battleship row.

[Rich and Corporations]

How badly would they perform if a war started in 5 minutes?

In this case, the force is very ready and would probably do pretty well in an engagement as compared to a force taken completely by surprise at a low level of readiness - aka Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor.
Low-levels of readiness.


Okay, I'm not arguing this point with you anymore, this is just silly.

Just to clarify: telling a force to be ready for an attack over the next few days with five minute warning is essentially no warning.

[The Kievan People]

quick question.. How one measure "readiness" of an armed forces ?

Amount of stuff that is combat capable as a fraction of all stuff that is available for use. Usually.

[Rich and Corporations]

quick question.. How one measure "readiness" of an armed forces ?

Amount of stuff that is combat capable as a fraction of all stuff that is available for use. Usually.

more like state of maintenance, levels of training/pilot hours, staffing, munitions stocks

I wouldn't really refer to training as stuff.

[The Kievan People]

more like state of maintenance, levels of training/pilot hours, staffing, munitions stocks

I wouldn't really refer to training as stuff.

No, this is combat power.

[Rich and Corporations]

more like state of maintenance, levels of training/pilot hours, staffing, munitions stocks

I wouldn't really refer to training as stuff.

No, this is combat power.

Erm.

What? I'm confused.

[The Kievan People]

Combat power is a numerical abstraction of a units combat capability.

[New Vihenia]

Amount of stuff that is combat capable as a fraction of all stuff that is available for use. Usually.

Hmm so it would be similar as "Technical availability" Thanks a lot.