NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

by **Klemantan-Borneo** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:45 pm

Is this considered "light-weight" and does the content provides a soldier 3400 kcal worth of energy that they require for a day/24 hours? What about the nutrient contents needed for a soldier?

Field Ration Compact(FRC)/Feldrationkompakt(FrK)

Contains 3 different packet which are:-

-Breakfast Pack
-Lunch Pack
-Dinner Pack

Image:

The 3 different packets are often combined into one as it saves space especially for the personnel. It requires hot water to rehydrate the food as the main course are freeze-dried for protection and to make it light weight which does not weights down the men.

Primary Users:
-Arctic/Mountain Troops
-Special Forces

Shelf Life:
-Three years(Drei Jahre)

Contents in each Field Ration Compact pack:-

-Main Courses enriched with vitamins(In Each Packet)(1 x 200 grams)
-High Energy Cereal Bar[Breakfast Pack]/ Multi-Vitamin High-Fibre Biscuits with Fruits[Lunch and Dinner Pack](1 x 50 grams)
-High Energy Oatmeal Blocks[Breakfast Pack]/ Dried Fruits[Lunch and Dinner Pack] (1x 30 grams)
-High Energy Chocolate Flavoured Energy Bar[Breakfast and Lunch Pack]/ High Energy Nougat Bar[Dinner Pack](1x 30 grams)
-Energy Tablet[Breakfast Pack]/ Hydration Tablet[Lunch and Dinner Pack] (1 x 10 gram)
-Chewing Gum Strip(2 x 2 gram)

-Beverages(In Each Packet):
Chocolate Drink enriched with Calcium[Breakfast Pack] / Cola Flavoured Energy Drink[Lunch and Dinner Pack](1x30 gram)
Kopi Luwak with Sugar[Breakfast Pack] /Fruit Juice enriched with Vitamin C[Lunch and Dinner Pack](1x 30 grams)
Flavours:-
Apple
Blackcurrant
Cranberry
Lime
Orange
Raspberry
Strawberry

Contents of a/an FRC:-

Breakfast Pack(384 grams)
Lunch Pack(384 grams)
Dinner Pack(384 grams)

Total Weight: 1152 grams

Menu of a/an FRC :-
Pork Ration

No. Breakfast Lunch Dinner
PR I Pasta Promodoro Sea Bass with Potatoes and Gravy Highland Stew
PR II Scrambled Eggs with Bacon and Potatoes Spaghetti with Pork Meatball and Tomato Sauce Braised Wild Boar with Gravy and Potatoes
PR III Seafood Risotto Pork Chops with Potatoes and Sauce Penne with Salmon and Cream
PR IV Oatmeal and Berries Rouladen with Gravy and Potatoes Couscous with Pork and Vegetables
PR V Pork Congee Konigsberger Klopse Beerwurst and Knödel with Onion Sauce
PR VI Potato Salad with Bacon Braised Hare with Vegetables Sauerbraten with Potato Dumplings
PR VII White Beans with Wild Boar and Tomato sauce Gnocchi with Tomato Sauce,Seafood and Vegetable Baeckeoffe

Non-Pork Ration

No. Breakfast Lunch Dinner
NPR I Goulash Fideuà Mutton Stew Flageolets
NPR II Sauté Grouse with Neeps and Tattis and Gravy Espanje Lamb Stew Tuna Fish with Potatoes
NPR III Cereals with Berries Basque Chicken Hasenpfeffer
NPR IV Oatmeals with Fruits Risotto alla Milanese Sauté of Rabbit
NPR V Reindeer with Knödel and Mushroom Sauce Indonesian Chicken Gulai with Rice Navarin Stewed Lamb
NPR VI Ravioli in Sauce Rice with Beef and Sauce Cod Fish with Potatoes
NPR VII Rice Ratatouille with Seafood Dory fish with Sauce and Potatoes Chicken Semur and Rice

by **Rich and Corporations** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:11 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Mitheldalond wrote:Alright, allow me to rephrase the question. Would single-piece APFSDS (derived from, say, the M829 series) fired from the M58 gun on the M103 be capable of defeating modern tanks?

Impossible to say. But M58's gun wasn't that much more powerful than M256. IIRC, it was a difference of less than 1 MJ. As others have pointed out, this is more a matter of projectile design. Ultimately though M256 has twice the maximum pressure of M58, so recoil systems aside it could likely handle more power if the US Army wanted it.

German NATO rounds have 100,000 PSI compared to US 60,000 PSI (I think it's 60,000?)

by **The Akasha Colony** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:14 pm

Rich and Corporations wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:
Impossible to say. But M58's gun wasn't that much more powerful than M256. IIRC, it was a difference of less than 1 MJ. As others have pointed out, this is more a matter of projectile design. Ultimately though M256 has twice the maximum pressure of M58, so recoil systems aside it could likely handle more power if the US Army wanted it.

German NATO rounds have 100,000 PSI compared to US 60,000 PSI (I think it's 60,000?)

That sounds problematic, given that M256's maximum powder pressure is 92,610 PSI.

by **Rich and Corporations** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:33 pm

Oh wait, US rounds are 80,000 PSI. And German rounds are apparently 90,000 PSI.

by **Lamoni** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:11 am

by **Tule** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:19 am

I think I found a potential laser guided anti-personnel weapon.

by **Erusuia** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:20 am

Shortened the turret, hopefully improved it

by **Inyourfaceistan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:40 am

Okay, so while we are on the discussion of sidearms in use by infantry; is it reasonable to just allow basic infantry (officers, upper NCO's, MP's and SpecFor not included) to just bring their own personal fire arms and 1 extra clip of ammo, and not actually issue any sidearm (except to the aforementioned exceptions)???

by **Imperializt Russia** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:56 am

Inyourfaceistan wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
Actually no he misses entirely, because 40 km/h translates into the tank moving its length roughly every 0.8-0.5 seconds.

Jinking, smoke, and counter fire throws off his aim entirely.

Tanks are tough cookies. They're only scared when this appears:

Also "Questers", M1 can sling its turret full 'round in EIGHT seconds because America is superior at gyroscopic stabilisation and motion sickness management.

Why not this?

Buk sees it easier. Divisional air defences are one of a tank's best friends.

United Earthlings wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:FOBS is a class of ICBM. The technology behind FOBS can make for a low-development space launcher.

IMO, the FOBS is a further development of the ICBM and hence it's own class. Granted they share many characteristics as plenty of ICBMs have been converted into Space Launchers.

It's a needless distinction. It's a regular ICBM with a small payload and one-half of an additional stage.
If you accept the incredibly basic descriptor of ICBM that exists somewhere, that is has a minimum range of more than 5500km, then FOBS still classifies as ICBM.

The only meaningful category that should exist beyond an ICBM-class or capable missile is surely one with an interplanetary capability to strike targets on, near or consisting of celestial bodies. Since a Theatre Ballistic Missile is fundamentally different in capability to an ICBM, but a FOBS-capable munition is not fundamentally different to or more capable than an ICBM. It is highly limited in its capability outside of extreme range and novel overflight routes to a target.

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Korouse wrote:We're even operating on Mars.

trust me im special forces.

theres aliens under the surface of mars btw.

Well they are holding on to some space oil we want. But its ok I support our troops.

I wish their was a break down of where the money went. Because I feel like deployment across the world doesn't adequately explain the 300,000 gap.

The 2013 budget proposal for the DoD proposed $620bn in spending - about $70bn was for R&D, about $108bn for procurement and $274bn or thereabouts, almost half the total budget, was maintenance and operational budget. Bear in mind, this M&O proposal was in the wake of one significant military drawdown and in anticipation of a second major drawdown, from Iraq and soon Afghanistan, after the US' only tank factory had closed.

"Military personnel" accounts for $157bn, which is presumably some mixture of pay and training, other training and such costs are probably included in the M&O budget.
An additional ~$17bn rounds out the budget on miscellaneous funding - housing, "military programmes", construction, development.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... html?_r=1&
Hit "department totals".

Questers wrote:
Kouralia wrote:Does anyone know what the RAF Regiment actually brings/is meant to bring to the SFSG?
CBRN Support, probably. That's their remit after the Joint CBRN Regiment was broken up.

Isn't RAF Reg a generic light and motorised infantry formation for base defence and such?

Klemantan-Borneo wrote:What are the feasibility of using electric motors as a tank propulsion system, where an electric motors turns the "cog" or "wheel" of a tank while the actual powerplant generates electricity for the electric motors. The concept is pretty much like this.

Also, is it possible for jet engine to fully run on compressed air(no jet fuel whatsoever).

P.S- Tech level Post Modern Tech

Diesel electric drive has some significant benefits with weight, cost and space penalties. Not requiring a gearbox for some layouts alleviates some of these concerns.

I use a diesel-electric drive tank and Forza (Vitaphone Racing) designed a "green" tank powerplant which was a diesel-electric drive, which I also use.

United Marxist Nations wrote:From reading about the T-80, I've come to the conclusion that gas-turbine engines kind of suck, so why does the Abrams use it?

The T-80 (and T-64) turbines weren't built brilliantly and were often poorly maintained. Unsurprisingly, a lot of them failed due to these rather critical conditions - some spectacularly. Chechen veterans really didn't like T-80s after their engines gave out.
The Msta, an artillery piece built upon the T-80 chassis, uses a diesel engine (I think it's the T-72 diesel?) instead.

Turbines spend a lot of fuel in idle because they idle at high revs. It's a turbine. This is where Abrams' fuel efficiency is actually brought into question, though it is an older engine that could be more frugal. New (smaller and lighter) MTU diesel powerplants and other diesels have been suggested to modernise the Abrams since the all-out European tank battles it was built for may not occur, and fuel is no longer cheap.
Turbines give you good engine acceleration since IIRC you're pretty much always in the powerband.

Yukonastan wrote:
Immoren wrote:
Importance of turbines exhaust's been overstated. Wasn't this talked about in these threads recently?

It needs to be dealt with, and is an engineering problem.

The difference between a 300 degree exhaust and a 500 degree exhaust is pretty meaningless. Either way, you're a fucking sunbeam to an infra-red imager.

Roski wrote:
San-Silvacian wrote:
Low quality of troops
Fairly expensive
Your work force may suffer

The French noted a massive increase in how well the quality of troops increased when they moved from conscription to a volunteer military.

WOmen are more than capable of work...

Most of your women will already be working and are now expected to fill critical positions now vacated.
Unless literally every woman in your country is a homemaker. In which case, they will also need to be trained.

Even in that scenario it will be fairly catastrophic in effect.

Beefmerica wrote:-snip-

Classes don't traditionally work. There is a reason why they appear in videogames and not in real militaries. It's easy for players to pick up and learn what they do and how the function against each other, and it's fairly easy to balance them.
RL militaries don't usually make a habit of going "m16 op plz nerf" to the UN whenever the US rocks up in their country for some shock, awe and freedom fries.

The closest you get to "classes" are specialisations. Grenadiers, riflemen, marksmen, machine gunners to name a handful. They don't significantly differ, truth be told. A marksman is a well-trained rifleman. A rifleman fills out the bulk of combat positions. The machine gunner is a specialist and critical component of the fireteam and larger units, weapon dependent.

Beefmerica wrote:I have wondered about implementing a kind of class systems, similar to a M.O.C. Standard issue sidearm is a .44 magnum for men, automatic glock 9mm for women. Standardized accepted cartridges include, .44, 7.62x51mm, 9mm, and .50bmg

I am quite concerned by how implausibly sexist this is. Why are women in your military only allocated the 9mm cartridge? Why are men not also allocated this perfectly capable, lightweight, widely used cartridge? Why does anyone in your military have a need for a .44 Magnum handgun, male with impossible pecs and player avatar complex or not?

More importantly, sidearms are by no means required by regular infantry. Officers, machine gunners and rocket bearers have a need for them, in some instances. Sometimes not always. XM-25 gunners in Afghanistan were allocated an M4 carbine for self-defence. They left it on-base, allowing the unit to give them covering fire.

Inyourfaceistan wrote:So why is the US reportedly using F-22's against ISIS?

Because they now have air-ground targeting pods. Some probably habitually live in the Middle East to troll Iran anyway.

by **San-Silvacian** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:03 am

Inyourfaceistan wrote:So why is the US reportedly using F-22's against ISIS?

stef

plus Syrian S-300 missile systems.

Plus to show Iran.

And Russia.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:43 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:hating ground attack jets

Attack jets and helicopters occupy the same altitude and terrain restrictions. The difference is the attack jet is much faster and presents a more difficult target because of its speed. Helicopters will suffer greater attrition than A-10s and Harriers, and even during the relatively sedate air defence environment of Afghanistan, Mi-24s and the like were suffering significantly more casualties per sortie than Su-25.

Partly this is because of the greater availability of helicopters, though, and partly because helicopters are simply inherently more vulnerable.

Ground attack jets and helicopters work best as a team, though, and substituting one for the other is a poor move. No one actually does this, and services that can afford to maintain both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aviation will make use of them heavily (USMC). The NS fixation of 7% attrition rate or whatever the USAF estimated for A-10s ignores the fact that many branches would suffer even higher losses. Although as far as attack missions go CAS is probably the most dangerous on a per sortie basis, helicopters also do CAS.

For example, estimates put Tornado and F-111 strike units on low level penetration attacks as roughly 5%. Low altitude penetrations during Yom Kippur by the IAF confirmed this against a competent opponent and modern IADS, and IAF pilots suffered peak ~5% attrition rates during the worst of it.

Replacing CAS attack aircraft with high altitude aircraft like F-16 is also a poor decision, and is primarily driven by the fiscal advantages of operating fewer airframes rather than perceived improvements in capability. AF-16 showed that high speed, medium altitude aircraft cannot operate in the same environment that an aircraft like A-10 or Harrier is designed to perform in, which is closer to that of F-111 or Tornado. The latter could theoretically be an improvement in capability over legacy CAS jets like Harrier and A-10 using PGMs (AGM-124, Brimstone), but this hasn't been proven in real world environments afaik. Similarly, the former lacks the fuel and range to perform the loitering aspect of CAS, and you might end up using the latter more for "deep air support" as opposed to CAS which negates the purpose entirely (although it is their design role ial).

There's no real world experience that shows that A-10 or Harrier are somehow inoperable in a modern IADS anymore than any other low altitude aircraft, and supported by a properly executed defence suppression they can operate (relatively) fine even in heavy air defence environments. The replacement of Harrier and A-10 has more to do with incoming F-35A/B than their actual effectiveness, which needs to consume the souls of as many legacy airframes as possible on the blooded altar of V/STOL stealth nuclear strike to produce a fraction of the former did on the assembly lines.

The whole assumption that a SA-19 or SA-11 is somehow less dangerous to a helicopter gunship than a fixed-wing gunship is asinine and silly. The assumption that fixed-wing gunships and rotary-wing gunships are a cost analysis in the latter's favour is also silly, there's nothing inherent in that and most gunships cost more than their fixed-wing counterparts. Once you rip out the Blue Fox/Blue Vixen, a Harrier is cheaper than an Apache and has the added benefit of being able to use "sunk cost" weapons pods that are compatible across all your platforms. The infrastructure costs more, sure, but V/STOL and rotary-wing require similar levels of infrastructure to begin with, and added a runway for a tough jet like A-10 can be done with some rolling mats and a few hours time. You have that stuff stashed away for C-130s and (theoretically) C-17s anyway.

All of the arguments that are supposedly against CAS jets apply to helicopters similarly. The only reason you wouldn't operate both is if you're too poor, as CAS jets are not insignificantly cheaper than gunships, albeit they are less versatile and need a greater level of coordination between ground control team and attackers.

by **Post War America** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:01 am

So, I got a question about organization.

It so happens that militarily speaking the Commonwealth has access to a group of soldiers with a very particular set of skills that make them unique. This particular set of skills is course not necessarily appropriate for all (or even most) RPs. My question is thus:

Would it be more appropriate to distribute these soldiers throughout the military as attachments or would it be more appropriate to lump them all together in a single separate unit?

by **Yukonastan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:05 am

Post War America wrote:So, I got a question about organization.

It so happens that militarily speaking the Commonwealth has access to a group of soldiers with a very particular set of skills that make them unique. This particular set of skills is course not necessarily appropriate for all (or even most) RPs. My question is thus:

Would it be more appropriate to distribute these soldiers throughout the military as attachments or would it be more appropriate to lump them all together in a single separate unit?

Define "very particular set of skills" more clearly. Do you mean field brothels? Do you mean EOD? We don't know what you mean.

by **Korouse** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:14 am

Best tasting rations anyone?

by **Yukonastan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:19 am

Korouse wrote:Best tasting rations anyone?

Definitely not the humble MRE. It's not a meal, it isn't ready to eat, and you can't actually eat it.
Even if the new ones are fairly good tasting. From what I hear, way better than what was issued before.

by **Ainin** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:21 am

Yukonastan wrote:
Korouse wrote:Best tasting rations anyone?

Definitely not the humble MRE. It's not a meal, it isn't ready to eat, and you can't actually eat it.
Even if the new ones are fairly good tasting. From what I hear, way better than what was issued before.

Did they kill the bacon-covered stale rubber goo, I think it was supposedly a hash brown, yet?

by **Gallia-** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:22 am

I'm glad this is good until 2016.

by **Tule** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:28 am

Gallia- wrote:(Image)

I'm glad this is good until 2016.

FISKBOLAGET

by **Yukonastan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:29 am

Ainin wrote:
Yukonastan wrote:
Definitely not the humble MRE. It's not a meal, it isn't ready to eat, and you can't actually eat it.
Even if the new ones are fairly good tasting. From what I hear, way better than what was issued before.

Did they kill the bacon-covered stale rubber goo, I think it was supposedly a hash brown, yet?

No. That's actually fairly decent, at least from the supplier that we get our MREs. Better than potato cheddar soup, anyway.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:32 am

Tule wrote:
Gallia- wrote:(Image)

I'm glad this is good until 2016.

FISKBOLAGET

it's just a GOC that supplies genericised fish products to the military

by **Tule** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:46 am

Gallia- wrote:
Tule wrote:
FISKBOLAGET

it's just a GOC that supplies genericised fish products to the military

I just find the contrast between the bland name and the passionately drawn can amusing.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:51 am

it's not that passionate

i just looked at a can of fish i had on my desk and drew that slightly bigger

by **Yukonastan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:53 am

Gallia- wrote:it's not that passionate

i just looked at a can of fish i had on my desk and drew that slightly bigger

You should retexture that into a can of spam.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:53 am

Yukonastan wrote:
Gallia- wrote:it's not that passionate

i just looked at a can of fish i had on my desk and drew that slightly bigger

You should retexture that into a can of spam.

this is about edible rations, not long pork

by **Yukonastan** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:54 am

Gallia- wrote:
Yukonastan wrote:You should retexture that into a can of spam.

this is about edible rations, not long pork

Something posing as meat is still edible, unlike five-year-old fish.

No.	Breakfast	Lunch	Dinner
PR I	Pasta Promodoro	Sea Bass with Potatoes and Gravy	Highland Stew
PR II	Scrambled Eggs with Bacon and Potatoes	Spaghetti with Pork Meatball and Tomato Sauce	Braised Wild Boar with Gravy and Potatoes
PR III	Seafood Risotto	Pork Chops with Potatoes and Sauce	Penne with Salmon and Cream
PR IV	Oatmeal and Berries	Rouladen with Gravy and Potatoes	Couscous with Pork and Vegetables
PR V	Pork Congee	Konigsberger Klopse	Beerwurst and Knödel with Onion Sauce
PR VI	Potato Salad with Bacon	Braised Hare with Vegetables	Sauerbraten with Potato Dumplings
PR VII	White Beans with Wild Boar and Tomato sauce	Gnocchi with Tomato Sauce,Seafood and Vegetable	Baeckeoffe

NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

Who is online