NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm not sure what's meant to be so special about the Khalij Fars. I wouldn't trust that either Iran or China developed a gamechanging weapon. I don't see how it's any less vulnerable to SAMs as any other missile.

It's faster?

Why can't SAMs engage ballistic missiles anyway?

As has been noted before especially by Kyiv but I believe also by New Vihenia, an interceptor missile needs to be able to pull three times the gs of the target to reliably intercept it (leaving aside countermeasures and other things, of course). Agile fighter aircraft are usually structurally limited to around 9 g, and the pilot can keep these limits lower, so these aren't too difficult to intercept. Missiles can be made much more agile, which in turn requires a far more maneuverable missile to intercept it.

[Immoren]

[The Soodean Imperium]

And this essentually the crux of my question: is it better to have an anti-ship missile that approaches under the horizon but is "merely" supersonic in its final approach to the ship? Or an anti-ship missile that descends at ballistic-missile speeds, possibly while performing evasive maneuvers, but is far above the horizon and thus within reach of :not:SM-3s for most of its flight?

The best would be to do both.

And this has been my working excuse, so far at least. The story being that, having already fielded a Slava-inspired cruiser with P-500 missiles, the Soodean Navy decided to go the extra mile and supplement these with a Kirov-inspired ballistic-missile and anti-ship-ballistic-missile platform for the late '00s.

I understand this is a rather bad idea, but I primarily want to know if it is a "believably" bad idea, something which a real military might have attempted and then cancelled after a relatively short production run.

[Imperializt Russia]

Q: Are there any resources you can recommend?
A: Coming soon!

Butcher the content of my Mk5 entry as much as is wished.

It's not "work".

If you don't enjoy it, don't bother.

It is work, and its easier to cap a population then re-work your entire military structure.

"If you don't enjoy it, don't bother"

No. I asked a question, and didn't ask for criticism. I'm sorry I asked for something specific and not broad.
I would like if someone actually answered my question.

It's easy because, as quite rightly put, there is no real "work" in that approach.

Your military is tied to the constraints put upon it by the size of your nation, its geographical and political situation and its funding and technological capabilities.
Building your military and then putting up a nation around it amounts, loosely, to wank.

There are parameters.
Realistic and not so low that I have 1947's weapons.

They're not parameters.

Also, frankly, it doesn't look like you put very much "work" into it.

"The Army is then split into battalions of 25,000, and squads of 250.
There are 100 squads per Battalion, and there are 20 Battalions.

The remaining 19,750 are military snipers, and part of the Army’s legendary Lighting Brigade
A single battalion has 100 Roskian Liberator tanks, 250 LAVs, and 150 Humvees. Infantry Fighting Vehicles are deployed as needed.
The Roskian Navy has 20 Air Craft Carriers, with 6 of them being on the Roskian Navy’s legendary Thunder Storm Fury, which are carriers with 66inch shells inside the deck of the ships."

Wow.
He didn't even change it from the concept I put forwards as unworkable what, two weeks ago?

They're not parameters.

Also, frankly, it doesn't look like you put very much "work" into it.

"The Army is then split into battalions of 25,000, and squads of 250.
There are 100 squads per Battalion, and there are 20 Battalions.

The remaining 19,750 are military snipers, and part of the Army’s legendary Lighting Brigade
A single battalion has 100 Roskian Liberator tanks, 250 LAVs, and 150 Humvees. Infantry Fighting Vehicles are deployed as needed.
The Roskian Navy has 20 Air Craft Carriers, with 6 of them being on the Roskian Navy’s legendary Thunder Storm Fury, which are carriers with 66inch shells inside the deck of the ships."

I have more work that's not in the factbooks.

It's kind of critical to either go and take down the old information and/or update it if it has changed.

Would a 30mm autocannon be too big to put on a technical?

If you don't mind not having windows or rear suspension still intact and/or affixed to the vehicle, no. Just look how much technicals bounce and jolt around when they strap ZU-23 gun turrets to them. Can't be good for them.

A Bushmaster 25mm gun fitted to a Humvee in a test had its windows shatter from muzzle blast.
A HMG is all you see fitted to most technicals for a reason. An ATGM launcher would be a highly suitable attachment.

[Yukonastan]

Anyone see anything wrong with my doctrine?

1. How many people are there in your country?
Roughly 25 million. 2.5 million of which are werewolves.

2. How many of those people are fit for service?
A million at most, considering age, civilian jobs, and eligibility for conscription. 4% in other words.

3. What is your economy like? How much can you spend on defense?
Yukonastan has a fairly strong economy, and spends a lot of its budget on defense, as a direct result of being an entrapped armed neutral power during the height of the Cold War.

4. What is your terrain and climate like?
Sweden and Finland. Which is incidentally where Yukonastan is located.

5. Are you likely to be invaded by someone? By many?
Very likely. If the Cold War heats up again, Yukonastan has military bases, Yukonastan has strong shipping routes, is a major neutral power, has Atlantic and Arctic Ocean access, as well as direct borders with both WarPac and NATO nations. To put it lightly, we’re desireable real estate if the shooting starts.

6. Are the potential invaders significantly more powerful than you?
The Warsaw Pact forces and the NATO forces, which I’d say are fairly strong. Far stronger than a small sovereign nation.

7. Is your nation war-like and willing to sacrifice a lot, or will it rather lose its sovereignty to spare lives?
If necessary, Yukonastan will fight to the last man. However, we’re more likely to pursue a diplomatic solution to any conflict.

Doctrine:
Yukonastan is most likely going to fight fairly defensively, on its home front. While Yukonastan has a fairly large standing army, it is very well trained and highly professional.

As a result, Yukonastan’s doctrine is rather like Finland’s reformed doctrine. (Read: basically reworded Finnish defensive doctrine.) Rather than holding onto areas, the aim is to inflict maximum damage at minimum losses. Forces have to be flexible, and capable of rapid movement around the battlespace. This means a large number of prepared fighting positions, to which troops can easily move. By having a large number of prepared defenses, reconnaissance by the enemy is hindered, and the flexibility of the force means that information will never be up-to-date.

Defense is achieved through defense in depth, and through a combination of conventional strategy with hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. The aim isn’t to hold the line, it’s to entrap and destroy the enemy through constant unexpected fighting, from all directions at once.

A force that surprises the enemy has a massive temporary advantage.
Surprise strikes and attacks, and active defense, cause constant casualties.
This disrupts enemy plans, forcing them to reactively change their approach.

Movement, dispersion, and reformation are key to mitigating the effects of hostile fire.

As a result, and due to the desire for flexible battle, battlespace preparation is key. By using prepared fortifications, such as trenches, dugouts, and bunkers, units can repeatedly move between several positions, thereby making enemy intelligence obsolete.

Intelligence is key. Reconnaissance of the battlespace by air and ground units, with new technologies such as night and thermal viewers, as well as satellite and radio communications networks, give a complete and up-to-date strategic situation to the commander on the ground.

Initiative and cunning really come into their own, and are used to bring the advantage of surprise to our side. This is achieved by having small relatively independent formations of weapons systems, to maximize range, surprise, and enemy losses.

Obstacles, direct fire, and indirect fire become more effective in combination, and flexible units lend themselves to a variety of purposes. Some battalions will be trained and equipped for more dispersed operations, while others will be more adept in the attack or on the defensive.

This results in a very low-level combined operation. At all levels, the leader is given the mission, the resources, and the objective, and left to his or her own devices, to complete the mission as he or she desires.

A focus in training is courage, initiative, and cunning. Everyone is expected to know their role and part in the whole.

Material acquisitions are expected to work toward this doctrine, and include new squad and personal role radios, along with data terminals for squad leaders and individual artillery units. For artillery, this means dispersed firing support, which increases protection of the battery as a whole.

Squads are relatively small, as are platoons. Squads are ten men apiece, allowing for five two-man units, combined into two fireteams, one machine gun team, and one command and sharpshooting element. The two fireteams are heavily armed, with antitank launchers and individual grenade launchers.
Battalions also receive increased armament, with one dedicated antitank squad and four light mortars.

The new unit composition places ten men into a squad, and two squads into a platoon.
Four fighting platoons are organized into a company, which also includes a logistical support and command platoon. A company numbers 100 men as a result. Four companies form an infantry battalion of 400 fighting men.

An artillery squad of eight men crews and defends one gun. Eight guns and six heavy mortars form into an artillery company, skipping the platoon level entirely. Combined with logistics elements and another artillery company, this forms an artillery battalion of sixteen guns and twelve mortar tubes. Artillery companies therefore number 136 men, counting logistics and command. As a result, artillery battalions number 275 men.

Two battalions, of which one battalion is artillery, form a brigade. 675 fighting men, 700 men counting command and logistics.

A battle group, or division, consists of two brigades, and numbers 1400 fighting men. Logistics and command are combined from the two battalions.

Battle groups, brigades, and battalions have AT, indirect and direct fire support, and firepower. Battle groups also receive support from higher echelon forces.

R-R-R-R-RETÖST!
Hit the bottom so hard I bounced twice, suffice this time around yayayayayaya rap blah blah blah.

[Gallia-]

As Gallia notes they can. However the problem is that by the time most ballistic missiles are in range of most SAMs the ballistic missile is going very fast, and is very hard to hit.

And this essentually the crux of my question: is it better to have an anti-ship missile that approaches under the horizon but is "merely" supersonic in its final approach to the ship? Or an anti-ship missile that descends at ballistic-missile speeds, possibly while performing evasive maneuvers, but is far above the horizon and thus within reach of :not:SM-3s for most of its flight?

A supersonic sea skimmer is more scary than a supersonic diver you can see from miles away.

Then again, you can also see a sea skimmer from miles away, but that's just being pedantic.

Perhaps the best way is to not bother with missiles at all.

[Padnak]

inb4 yo mamma jokes...

1a.) how "fat" is fat? Generally the limit for beams (the width of ships) is the drydock of the nation in question and/or the max clearance for Panama and Suez canals if you give a damn about crossing said canals.

1b.)Related question - is your navy just gunning for local superiority (ala Imperial Japan or Imperial Germany) or are you trying into empire like the US/UK? If you're going for local superiority it might make sense to build ships emphasizing only certain traits such as firepower and survivability. Ships for global service may suffer more compromises especially if you have tonnage limits.

2.) how huge is huge number of guns?

'
I'm thinking of having a beam of around 40 meters with a multi-layered torpedo belt and extremely thick armor. For its armament I'm thinking of something like the fallowing:

1. 12 16" guns in four turrets (two forward and two aft with three guns per turret)
2. 16 8" guns in eight turrets (four turrets per side with two guns per turret)
3. 36 4" Duel purpose guns (eight turrets per side with two guns per turret)
4. 72 40mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)
5. 44 25mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)

Or alternatively

1. 12 16" guns in four turrets (two forward and two aft with three guns per turret)
2. 48 4" Duel purpose guns (twelve turrets per side with two guns per turret)
3. 72 40mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)
4. 44 25mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)

[Novorden]

I came up with a "For NS" missile, a short range missile designed to take out enemy amphibious assault fleets. Designed to be used with my A70 VLS truck, the missile is like the MBDA Perseus with a number of smaller (~50kg) warheads that can target multiple smaller vessels (EG: landing craft) or kept in the missile if it has targeted a larger vessel.

Having a mobile platform limits the risk of the system being taken out before it can lauch, whilst still being able to easily hide.

snip

both of these seem rather over the top

The (canceled) British K2 deisgn from the 1920s was 270m long, weighed 48,171 tonnes and carried 8 x 18" and 16 x 6" and that dwarfed anything from WW2 (damn treaties)

[Padnak]

Being over the top is its goal lol. The class of four ships are supposed to have been built during a period of massive economic growth and national prosperity and are supposed to reflect something of a golden age of big gun warship construction. I'm also working on a heavy cruiser class and a much smaller more reasonable class, among other things.

[Crookfur]

I have a Nimitz with an Arleigh Burke (that I classify as a CG because why not), four Type 45s, two Type 23s and two Virginia-class submarines, along with supply ship. Is that too big/small for a CVBG and what major flaws are there with this arrangement?

To be honest the burke and the type 45 do pretty much the same thing so what would be the driving force for including the burke?

[Immoren]

Do you agree/disagree assertion that tactics isn't lowest level of "art of warfare", but it instead starts at level where unit can no longer be led with prehearsed drills, at least to good extent?
Or am I bringing thing everyone knows and agree?

[Yukonastan]

Someone with experience in these things, please review my doctrine. Higher up on the page.

[The Akasha Colony]

inb4 yo mamma jokes...

1a.) how "fat" is fat? Generally the limit for beams (the width of ships) is the drydock of the nation in question and/or the max clearance for Panama and Suez canals if you give a damn about crossing said canals.

1b.)Related question - is your navy just gunning for local superiority (ala Imperial Japan or Imperial Germany) or are you trying into empire like the US/UK? If you're going for local superiority it might make sense to build ships emphasizing only certain traits such as firepower and survivability. Ships for global service may suffer more compromises especially if you have tonnage limits.

2.) how huge is huge number of guns?

'
I'm thinking of having a beam of around 40 meters with a multi-layered torpedo belt and extremely thick armor. For its armament I'm thinking of something like the fallowing:

1. 12 16" guns in four turrets (two forward and two aft with three guns per turret)
2. 16 8" guns in eight turrets (four turrets per side with two guns per turret)
3. 36 4" Duel purpose guns (eight turrets per side with two guns per turret)
4. 72 40mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)
5. 44 25mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)

Or alternatively

1. 12 16" guns in four turrets (two forward and two aft with three guns per turret)
2. 48 4" Duel purpose guns (twelve turrets per side with two guns per turret)
3. 72 40mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)
4. 44 25mm anti aircraft guns (Mounted all over)

The latter is better the former. Finding space for the big 8" guns while keeping them sufficiently clear to have good firing arcs and to not damage the superstructure will take up a lot of space and make it very difficult to fit your anti-air armament. In any event, beam is somewhat less important than length in this case, since you need a long broadside to have enough space for this many guns.

The anti-aircraft armament is excessively heavy for the time, though. No nation accurately predicted how many anti-aircraft guns they'd actually need since none predicted how hard it would be to ward off air attack. Every nation ended up significantly increasing their anti-aircraft armament when war broke out and Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Midway, etc. all demonstrated how hard it was to fight off a massed air attack from a multi-carrier task force.

I have a Nimitz with an Arleigh Burke (that I classify as a CG because why not), four Type 45s, two Type 23s and two Virginia-class submarines, along with supply ship. Is that too big/small for a CVBG and what major flaws are there with this arrangement?

To be honest the burke and the type 45 do pretty much the same thing so what would be the driving force for including the burke?

The Type 45 can't carry Tomahawks.

[Novorden]

The Type 45 can't carry Tomahawks.

From the type 45 wiki:
"There is provision for another 12[53][62] strike-length VLS tubes forward of the existing VLS. These could be Mk 41 tubes for Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM) and LRASM, or Sylver A70 for the MdCN derivative of Storm Shadow."[63]

[Primordial Luxa]

Hey guys
Ive made a few changes to the military section of my factbook anyone willing to offer advice would be greatly appreciated.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=238540&p=14219471#p14214786

[The Akasha Colony]

The Type 45 can't carry Tomahawks.

From the type 45 wiki:
"There is provision for another 12[53][62] strike-length VLS tubes forward of the existing VLS. These could be Mk 41 tubes for Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM) and LRASM, or Sylver A70 for the MdCN derivative of Storm Shadow."[63]

I am aware. However, in its current configuration, Sylver A-50 cannot accept Tomahawks, and they would be limited solely to the as-yet-uninstalled additional tubes (for a maximum of twelve missiles). Whereas in comparison, Arleigh Burke carries 90-96 cells that can accept any combination of missiles without modification or additional hardware. Even with the additional tubes, the Type 45 would carry 60 cells vs. Arleigh Burke's 90+, on nearly the same displacement, and Type 45 lacks torpedo tubes as well.

[Tule]

Someone with experience in these things, please review my doctrine. Higher up on the page.

Seems like its Identical to the new Finnish doctrine, which seems reasonable.

You could possibly even mix it with the old Swedish doctrine which called for a large air force which could engage the enemy on short notice with lots of firepower.

You could even get really ambitious and finish the abandoned Swedish nuclear program and drop some 20 kiloton nukes on Gdansk in case the Warsaw pact starts to misbehave.

[Yukonastan]

Someone with experience in these things, please review my doctrine. Higher up on the page.

Seems like its Identical to the new Finnish doctrine, which seems reasonable.

You could possibly even mix it with the old Swedish doctrine which called for a large air force which could engage the enemy on short notice with lots of firepower.

inb4 clone of finnish doctrine gogogogo.
it seems identical to the new finnish doctrine because it's basically the new finnish doctrine

Thanks. Nothing glaringly wrong then, I take it?

[Padnak]

The latter is better the former. Finding space for the big 8" guns while keeping them sufficiently clear to have good firing arcs and to not damage the superstructure will take up a lot of space and make it very difficult to fit your anti-air armament. In any event, beam is somewhat less important than length in this case, since you need a long broadside to have enough space for this many guns.

The anti-aircraft armament is excessively heavy for the time, though. No nation accurately predicted how many anti-aircraft guns they'd actually need since none predicted how hard it would be to ward off air attack. Every nation ended up significantly increasing their anti-aircraft armament when war broke out and Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Midway, etc. all demonstrated how hard it was to fight off a massed air attack from a multi-carrier task force.

Didn't really think about that, I'll modify it accordingly. Not for this battleship specifically, but with the technological limitations of the 1920s, what would have been the largest warship possible? I'm not going to use anything that big from that era, but it would be nice to know.

[Roski]

What population is a good cap for an effective military of 2,079,000 Active and 4,000,000 Reservists?

And I would like an actual answer, please. My country is rapidly heading towards 2 billion people, and I don't want that many.

[Doppio Giudici]

Does anyone know the smallest NATO missile or rocket that can be fired from a helicopter, while sending an APC sky high?

Is there one that can take out IFVs but not tanks?

[Crookfur]

What population is a good cap for an effective military of 2,079,000 Active and 4,000,000 Reservists?

And I would like an actual answer, please. My country is rapidly heading towards 2 billion people, and I don't want that many.

1.5-2billion if you must fail to put any effort in yourself.

i.e. China

[Tule]

What population is a good cap for an effective military of 2,079,000 Active and 4,000,000 Reservists?

And I would like an actual answer, please. My country is rapidly heading towards 2 billion people, and I don't want that many.

As we've told you already several times, we can't answer that question without knowing your socioeconomic and geopolitical situation.

How much a country spends on its military and how many people it has in the military fluctuates immensely IRL, even over relatively short periods.

You don't build up your military before you build up your nation. You just don't. Not if you want to be realistic.

You are basically demanding that we answer how many bricks you need to build a house.
I have no fucking idea. I don't even know how much land you have available to build your damn house on, how many people are going to live there etc.

[Crookfur]

Does anyone know the smallest NATO missile or rocket that can be fired from a helicopter, while sending an APC sky high?

Is there one that can take out IFVs but not tanks?

proabably hydra unless someone still has SNEBs kicking around.

Of coruse with the right warhead in the right conditions you can still kill tanks with hydra/SNEB

[Padnak]

What population is a good cap for an effective military of 2,079,000 Active and 4,000,000 Reservists?

And I would like an actual answer, please. My country is rapidly heading towards 2 billion people, and I don't want that many.

I'm a military dictatorship with a mainly professional army backed up with conscripted reserves and I'm rocking around 700,000 total active across all my branches not counting the AMSS with around a million reservists in a population of 50,000,000+