NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Kouralia]

Okay, time for an idea that's not as out-there as a 135mm nuclear shell but still hast the potential to be stupid.

As I mentioned earlier, my nation's main wheeled APC has a 10-man dismount compartment with a ramp at the back. As I haven't mentioned in a long time, many of my reconnaissance and fire-direction units include motorcycles, which is difficult because my most war-likely frontier is strung with small rivers and marshes. So, just a moment ago, I had an idea: to transport a motorcycle inside of a reconnaissance-variant APC, allowing it to be ferried across otherwise impassable terrain to scout independently further ahead. I could probably still fit a 2-4 man on-foot reconnaissance team in front of it, with some discomfort.

Is this a viable and worthwhile solution? Or Michael Bay levels of rule-of-cool insanity?

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

Was from Combatreform, but it seems like a viable/non-stupid idea.

[Yukonastan]

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

Was from Combatreform, but it seems like a viable/non-stupid idea.

Doesn't Finland do this with quads?

[Erusuia]

Nuclear weapons came up on my regions RMB and I was wondering if my own nuclear stockpile was realistic.

My situation
Erusuia is bordered by a number of countries that it views as potential threats, all of which are militarily much more powerful then Eurusia. The bulk of the Eurusian military is outdated and would not be able to effectively fight against the military's of the countries Eurusia boarders. Eurusuia is very large but only has a population of 110,000,000 as appose to the extremely large (in the billions) populations of a number of countries it boarders and views as threats so it is unable to raise a huge military to compensate for equipment obsolescence. Due to the size of Eurusia and the location of allies it would likely have to fight any war on its own. Eurusuia views nuclear weapons as its main defense against military aggression.

The Stockpile

• 64,300 Warheads
  42,000 of which are tactical
  22,300 of which are strategic
• 35,000 Nuclear weapons
  14,000 of which are strategic
  28,500 of which are tactical

Delivery methods

• Submarine launched
  900 sub launched strategic weapons (although far less are actually deployed)
• Land based
  11,000 strategic (road mobile and silo based)
• Air launched
  2100 strategic

The 1950s called. They want their nukes back.

I assume this is not pop cap?

The countries I boarder? I think they are pop capped (I know my allies are) but they keep their caps stupidly high and claim to have uber advanced militaries

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I have valid claims.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I have valid claims.

To what?

[Erusuia]

I have valid claims.

To what?

Hes one of the neighboring nations with huge super advanced militaries I was talking about

Looking back on my 60,000 figure, its a bit out of hand, I think I'm going to roll it back to 10,000 warheads

[Inyourfaceistan]

To what?

Hes one of the neighboring nations with huge super advanced militaries I was talking about

Looking back on my 60,000 figure, its a bit out of hand, I think I'm going to roll it back to 10,000 warheads

Don't RP with people who have IC lol:huge populations that dwarf IRL China and India, and giant armies bigger than all the nations on Earth combined who seem to be able to supply their massive armies with borderline PMT tech somehow...

Just RP with rational people and you won't need more than 5,000 warheads if even...

[The Soodean Imperium]

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

That's what I'd considered originally, but BTRs and BRDMs "swim" pretty low in the water so it would basically have to be on the roof in order to stay dry.

Anyway, the very fact that this is apparently featured on CombatReform has me deeply skeptical all of a sudden.

[Imperializt Russia]

Sapphire is undergoing a reset, and in RP terms we'll be moving back to the turn of the millennium.
Now that we've stopped dancing around interdimensional rifts, we're basically going the Ace Combat route of "it's not Earth, we promise".

As such, I still get to break away from a much larger Russian state in the 1990s in homage to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's not earth, but we do have the Cold War. Just that Russia isn't Russia.

Anyway.

In 2002, a major conflict breaks out in Sapphire, it's the pivotal campaign that sets up the future political world.
Myself as Samozaryadnyastan, Cooksland (Regi) and others (some NPCs) fight against an aggressor state - our Russia stand-in.

Myself and Cooksland are obviously disadvantaged - it's Russia versus Georgia and Chechnya, basically. Almost literally. There's a bunch of other fronts.
Here's the rundown.
http://pastebin.com/nQ9rTdT0

Following my war of independence from "Russia" (Harloo Land), I obviously generate my own military that aims to be relatively capable. From the canon of the war we've already established, it's clear that my two main focuses are infantry and tanks, though I apparently have some kind of worthwhile air force strike capability.
Not sure how this works. Clearly, I'm a lot larger than just "Chechnya". Though the schtick is that I'm Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia (stand-in). Maybe I'm home to a few tank factories and oil fields. The strike aircraft concerns me.

What I was wondering is, since my forces will be relatively low-grade by comparison - would it be reasonable to "rely" on special operations forces? Hearing about some of the initial SOF campaigns in northern Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War where they were used more as general combat elements - would it be reasonable to use helicopters to insert elite infantry behind the battle lines to conduct operations of all kinds?

What I was considering doing would be to use this strategy during the 2002 war out of necessity, and this led to the high regard the VDV came to eventually enjoy in Samozniy Russia. Essentially, it would start with SOF, then SOF leading militias and regular infantry, before leading to dedicated heliborne assault units as a mainstay of offensive operations, also able to leap around the battlefield.
Is there any reason this can't work in close concert with heavily mechanised ground forces?

[Crookfur]

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

That's what I'd considered originally, but BTRs and BRDMs "swim" pretty low in the water so it would basically have to be on the roof in order to stay dry.

Anyway, the very fact that this is apparently featured on CombatReform has me deeply skeptical all of a sudden.

As has been said not all of the sparky/combatreform stuff is as terrible as the common perception would have you belive and some of it does make a bit of sense but saddly it all goes through the sparky filter which introduces doubts into even the most open minded people's thoughts.

Basicaly if your recce units have a need for a motorbike and have to deal with a lot of water obstacles then internal carriage certainly isn't a bad idea particulalry if you cna have a proper rack and everything set up.

[Mitheldalond]

For an amphibious invasion, since Omaha-style landings aren't useful in MT conditions, and helicopters are very vulnerable to SAM fire, would the logical thing be a use of a combined helicopter assault/conventional beach landing (with most troops in closed amphibious APCs rather than in open flat-bottom landing craft) or is a standard helicopter assault the better thing to do?

This is what I do for the first-ish wave, with the helicopters flying in behind the APC's/IFV's and a few amphibious light tanks.
Obviously, the first thing to do is find the least defended stretch of beach and land there, and then suppress what enemy forces are there with air and naval power.

It's not actually road-mobile SAM's and radar-directed AAA that would be the threat to helicopters so much as MANPADS, because a few rounds of SEAD can keep the former in the dark, but MANPADS are much harder to suppress.

Don't send in helicopters with the first wave; they'll be slaughtered. Secure a beach head first, then use helicopters to ferry the rest of the troops/cargo/whatever to shore quickly.

Helicopters survive high intensity conflict mostly by hiding behind terrain until there's something to shoot at, then popping out to fire a shot and quickly ducking back into cover. There is absolutely no cover when you're flying over the water towards shore.

A few questions about nuclear bunker-busters:

1) How big and protected of an underground target is the B-61 Mod 11 capable of destroying? A shallow reinforced bunker? A deep sub-terrainian command post? A whole mountain fortress?

2) How likely hypothetically would the US be to sell such a weapon to a stable ally (understanding it is made to fit all NATO aircraft).

3) How plausible would it be to create a capable low-yield earth penetrating weapon to fit inside an aircraft roughly the size of an F-15 to cause extreme damage to a network of deep underground tunnels and bunkers?

1) You aren't going to take out Cheyenne Mountain with a B61.

2) Wikipedia:
"The United States provides about 60 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Germany under a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. The bombs are stored at Büchel and Ramstein Air Bases, and in time of war would be delivered by Luftwaffe Panavia Tornado warplanes."

But, "The U.S. insists its forces control the weapons and that no transfer of the nuclear bombs or control over them is intended..."

3) The F-35 is supposed to be able to carry the B61 I think.

[Imperializt Russia]

The USAF provides "American war reserve materiel for the NATO defensive mission", in the form of MUNSS stationed at non-USAF bases in Europe. It's pretty clear who's intended to be dropping them.

[Gallia-]

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

That's what I'd considered originally, but BTRs and BRDMs "swim" pretty low in the water so it would basically have to be on the roof in order to stay dry.

Anyway, the very fact that this is apparently featured on CombatReform has me deeply skeptical all of a sudden.

The idea was so popular with the US Army that the Bradley almost had a motorcycle rack.

[The Akasha Colony]

To what?

Hes one of the neighboring nations with huge super advanced militaries I was talking about

Looking back on my 60,000 figure, its a bit out of hand, I think I'm going to roll it back to 10,000 warheads

60,000 is actually not that bad. It all depends on what you intend to do with them. Do you actually expect to use them in a war as a matter of course? Then having a lot is justified. But if it is purely for strategic deterrence, then you could make due with just a few thousand, since that's enough to threaten meaningful retaliation against just about anyone.

It's a matter of need: if nukes are a part of your tactical doctrine, then you will need lots of them. If they are not, then you want the minimum number necessary to maintain a credible deterrent, and nothing more, with the rest of that money going back into the the conventional branches.

[Questers]

Sapphire is undergoing a reset, and in RP terms we'll be moving back to the turn of the millennium.
Now that we've stopped dancing around interdimensional rifts, we're basically going the Ace Combat route of "it's not Earth, we promise".

As such, I still get to break away from a much larger Russian state in the 1990s in homage to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's not earth, but we do have the Cold War. Just that Russia isn't Russia.

Anyway.

In 2002, a major conflict breaks out in Sapphire, it's the pivotal campaign that sets up the future political world.
Myself as Samozaryadnyastan, Cooksland (Regi) and others (some NPCs) fight against an aggressor state - our Russia stand-in.

Myself and Cooksland are obviously disadvantaged - it's Russia versus Georgia and Chechnya, basically. Almost literally. There's a bunch of other fronts.
Here's the rundown.
http://pastebin.com/nQ9rTdT0

Following my war of independence from "Russia" (Harloo Land), I obviously generate my own military that aims to be relatively capable. From the canon of the war we've already established, it's clear that my two main focuses are infantry and tanks, though I apparently have some kind of worthwhile air force strike capability.
Not sure how this works. Clearly, I'm a lot larger than just "Chechnya". Though the schtick is that I'm Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia (stand-in). Maybe I'm home to a few tank factories and oil fields. The strike aircraft concerns me.

What I was wondering is, since my forces will be relatively low-grade by comparison - would it be reasonable to "rely" on special operations forces? Hearing about some of the initial SOF campaigns in northern Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War where they were used more as general combat elements - would it be reasonable to use helicopters to insert elite infantry behind the battle lines to conduct operations of all kinds?

What I was considering doing would be to use this strategy during the 2002 war out of necessity, and this led to the high regard the VDV came to eventually enjoy in Samozniy Russia. Essentially, it would start with SOF, then SOF leading militias and regular infantry, before leading to dedicated heliborne assault units as a mainstay of offensive operations, also able to leap around the battlefield.
Is there any reason this can't work in close concert with heavily mechanised ground forces?

No. SOF based armies have an illusory idea of what war is about. Will say more later.

Just by how much are you outnumbered in terms of GDP?

[Gallia-]

Never mind that VDV weren't even "SOF" in a Western sense, unless you mean 82nd Airborne is a SOF division.

[Erusuia]

60,000 is actually not that bad. It all depends on what you intend to do with them. Do you actually expect to use them in a war as a matter of course? Then having a lot is justified. But if it is purely for strategic deterrence, then you could make due with just a few thousand, since that's enough to threaten meaningful retaliation against just about anyone.

It's a matter of need: if nukes are a part of your tactical doctrine, then you will need lots of them. If they are not, then you want the minimum number necessary to maintain a credible deterrent, and nothing more, with the rest of that money going back into the the conventional branches.

In any war fought on home soil the use of nuclear weapons to destroy hostile formations in something out of the 1960s is the standard way of operating if the state is critically threatened, so they're something of a close second resort at a tactical level. Even with a comparably modern military I'm at a huge manpower disadvantage compared to most of my neighbors as I think I said before. My military "only" has 1,080,000 active and 3,530,000 reservists + 678,000 paramilitaries which encompasses around 4% of my population while some of my neighbors have upwards of 6 million active troops and populations in the billions, so in any sort of war outside of a minor boarder squabble I don't stand a chance unless I pull off some grade A generaling or employ lots and lots of tactical nuclear weapons.

[Kouralia]

Is it bad that I have four Corps of my Army dedicated to Paratroopers/Airborne Commandos and Marine Commandos?

(.. )
( ..)

[San-Silvacian]

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.

Was from Combatreform, but it seems like a viable/non-stupid idea.

Combatreform, as it has been said by others, does have some fairly valid ideas and actually proposes good questions about current practices by the US Army.

Their article on proper carrying of a tripod is valid, as is their little bit on camouflaging the tripod.

also,

[Erusuia]

Is it bad that I have four Corps of my Army dedicated to Paratroopers/Airborne Commandos and Marine Commandos?

(.. )
( ..)

The Eurusian Airborne Forces number around 39,000 personnel...

[Imperializt Russia]

Sapphire is undergoing a reset, and in RP terms we'll be moving back to the turn of the millennium.
Now that we've stopped dancing around interdimensional rifts, we're basically going the Ace Combat route of "it's not Earth, we promise".

As such, I still get to break away from a much larger Russian state in the 1990s in homage to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's not earth, but we do have the Cold War. Just that Russia isn't Russia.

Anyway.

In 2002, a major conflict breaks out in Sapphire, it's the pivotal campaign that sets up the future political world.
Myself as Samozaryadnyastan, Cooksland (Regi) and others (some NPCs) fight against an aggressor state - our Russia stand-in.

Myself and Cooksland are obviously disadvantaged - it's Russia versus Georgia and Chechnya, basically. Almost literally. There's a bunch of other fronts.
Here's the rundown.
http://pastebin.com/nQ9rTdT0

Following my war of independence from "Russia" (Harloo Land), I obviously generate my own military that aims to be relatively capable. From the canon of the war we've already established, it's clear that my two main focuses are infantry and tanks, though I apparently have some kind of worthwhile air force strike capability.
Not sure how this works. Clearly, I'm a lot larger than just "Chechnya". Though the schtick is that I'm Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia (stand-in). Maybe I'm home to a few tank factories and oil fields. The strike aircraft concerns me.

What I was wondering is, since my forces will be relatively low-grade by comparison - would it be reasonable to "rely" on special operations forces? Hearing about some of the initial SOF campaigns in northern Iraq during the 2nd Gulf War where they were used more as general combat elements - would it be reasonable to use helicopters to insert elite infantry behind the battle lines to conduct operations of all kinds?

What I was considering doing would be to use this strategy during the 2002 war out of necessity, and this led to the high regard the VDV came to eventually enjoy in Samozniy Russia. Essentially, it would start with SOF, then SOF leading militias and regular infantry, before leading to dedicated heliborne assault units as a mainstay of offensive operations, also able to leap around the battlefield.
Is there any reason this can't work in close concert with heavily mechanised ground forces?

No. SOF based armies have an illusory idea of what war is about. Will say more later.

Just by how much are you outnumbered in terms of GDP?

Probably a lot. It's not a numbers game yet.

It's not an SF-"based" system, the idea is to integrate SF in regular combat operations and to use them as, admittedly very specialist, conventional units in support of operations. Which supposedly was a weird concept in 2003 that worked surprisingly well. I just want to add an airborne aspect to the concept and throw them more directly against tank divisions (obviously with more heavy arms) than SF groups working with Peshmerga were in Iraq.

[North Arkana]

I know one of reasons the US doesn't want the L55 Rheinmetall gun is that the current L44/M256 uses superior ammo which makes the longer barrel unnecessary. I'm just wondering what kind of results one would get firing US ammo from an L55 gun.

[San-Silvacian]

Its velocity that also plays a big part in how ERA is defeated.

Kontakt-5 defeated the early M829 and M829A1 sabots because of their faster velocity, so it detonated at the right time to defeat them.

Newer US sabots move at slower velocities, meaning that the ERA won't detonate as fast by the time impact has been made, degrading the effectiveness of the ERA.

[Mitheldalond]

Its velocity that also plays a big part in how ERA is defeated.

Kontakt-5 defeated the early M829 and M829A1 sabots because of their faster velocity, so it detonated at the right time to defeat them.

Newer US sabots move at slower velocities, meaning that the ERA won't detonate as fast by the time impact has been made, degrading the effectiveness of the ERA.

In other words, the higher velocity of the longer L55 would actually reduce the effectiveness of the M829 against ERA.

In terms of raw penetrating power, the longer gun would probably increase penetration. But the M829A3 and -E4 already have better penetration than non-US ammo fired from the L55, and are perfectly capable of getting through the front of Russian tanks (and probably many NATO/western tanks too). So slightly better penetration isn't really worth losing the ability to defeat ERA, especially since Russian tanks generally rely heavily on ERA for protection.

[The Kievan People]

1. There are probably other ERA defeat mechanisms in the round.
2. We don't really know anything about the E4.