NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Kouralia]

What is the purpose of one nation having more than one special forces unit? E.g. SAS and SBS, Delta Force and Navy Seals.
Surely all their roles could be combined into a single unit? In our cash strapped world this seems more logical than ever. Unless of course it is beneficial to operate a number of more specialist units. But in that case why do, according to media reports, they seem to all do the same sort of stuff.

They have different specialist roles.

[Nachmere]

What is the purpose of one nation having more than one special forces unit? E.g. SAS and SBS, Delta Force and Navy Seals.
Surely all their roles could be combined into a single unit? In our cash strapped world this seems more logical than ever. Unless of course it is beneficial to operate a number of more specialist units. But in that case why do, according to media reports, they seem to all do the same sort of stuff.

Every branch wants their own special guys.

This is one reason, but to be fair special operations require very lengthy and specific training. And yes- there is a najor difference between specialising in let's say very long range recon and patrol and specializing in hostage rescue.

[Immoren]

Every branch wants their own special guys.

This is one reason, but to be fair special operations require very lengthy and specific training. And yes- there is a najor difference between specialising in let's say very long range recon and patrol and specializing in hostage rescue.

Of course.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

What is the purpose of one nation having more than one special forces unit? E.g. SAS and SBS, Delta Force and Navy Seals.
Surely all their roles could be combined into a single unit? In our cash strapped world this seems more logical than ever. Unless of course it is beneficial to operate a number of more specialist units. But in that case why do, according to media reports, they seem to all do the same sort of stuff.

It makes sense. Ever heard of "jack of all trades, master of none" ? It's stuff that regular grunts can't and shouldn't have to deal with, and there's too much of it to simply wrap into a single or few units.

Example of special operations: LRRP/LRP and the popular culture flavor of spec ops, CQB work. Performing recon over long range and long periods of time, with little or no support, and possibly having to do some sabotage along the way, is vastly different from CQB encounters that conclude in a matter of tens of minutes if not minutes (what is traditionally referred to as spec ops by media / pop culture)

There's no need in training either to do the other's job, and frankly, they're better off each doing their bit.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Mig-29 vs F-16
Su-27 vs F-15

(including variants)

plox

[Britinthia]

What is the purpose of one nation having more than one special forces unit? E.g. SAS and SBS, Delta Force and Navy Seals.
Surely all their roles could be combined into a single unit? In our cash strapped world this seems more logical than ever. Unless of course it is beneficial to operate a number of more specialist units. But in that case why do, according to media reports, they seem to all do the same sort of stuff.

It makes sense. Ever heard of "jack of all trades, master of none" ? It's stuff that regular grunts can't and shouldn't have to deal with, and there's too much of it to simply wrap into a single or few units.

Example of special operations: LRRP/LRP and the popular culture flavor of spec ops, CQB work. Performing recon over long range and long periods of time, with little or no support, and possibly having to do some sabotage along the way, is vastly different from CQB encounters that conclude in a matter of tens of minutes if not minutes (what is traditionally referred to as spec ops by media / pop culture)

There's no need in training either to do the other's job, and frankly, they're better off each doing their bit.

Cool. That's what I thought but I didnt want to flesh them out and pin down exactly what's what without confirmin im not off the mark completely.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Every branch wants their own special guys.

This is one reason, but to be fair special operations require very lengthy and specific training. And yes- there is a najor difference between specialising in let's say very long range recon and patrol and specializing in hostage rescue.

Meanwhile in Beslan...

[Rich and Corporations]

As Russian tanks rolled past the reviewing stand, Patton noticed Zhukov gloating over the new Soviet IS-3 model tank. Looking up at his American counterpart, the Russian general delivered a taunt: "My dear General Patton, " He crowed. "You see that tank? It carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles."


Patton's face remained impassive, his tone calm and sure. "Indeed? Well my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this: if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards, I'd have them court-martialed for cowardice. "


Patton's aide Maj Van S. Merle-Smith will later state that he had never before seen "Russian commander stunned into silence."

---

What is the purpose of one nation having more than one special forces unit? E.g. SAS and SBS, Delta Force and Navy Seals.

It's the same reason why the Army and the Air Force and the Navy operate air craft.

[Gibet]

Alright, folks, so the last time I brought this up, it was in "Create Your Own Everything V2". There, I was directed to NS Military Realism, which offered no constructive criticisms, only a brief laugh. That being said, I hope you can help me flesh out my idea for a rail gun. Ahem, that is, a railroad gun.

The plan for Greta was massive and audacious in its undertaking.

I never worked out the main gun's caliber, but it would have been equipped with three 15in guns housed in a forward, 360 degree rotation turret. As well as six 150 cm Flak floodlights, and a single 200 cm Flak floodlight. In addition, there would be six 8.8cm (88mm) AAA Guns (Anti-Air, Armor, and Infantry), and perhaps a dozen 5cm and 2cm guns. Not to mention a multitude of machine guns and other anti-infantry weapons. As a result, this raised a number of questions.

Firstly, what would the size of the crew/garrison be? How much track is too much track?--I understand that such weapons have limited use, but my current region is based in the 19th-20th Centuries, up through 1950.

Also, assuming I were to be used defensively, what kind of rail tracks would be suitable, how big? What about support units? Would such a behemoth necessitate a division's strength of men and equipment? What about escort trains?

And as for cost, let's assume for the moment that cost is not an issue. This is currently a practice in design.

[Nachmere]

Alright, folks, so the last time I brought this up, it was in "Create Your Own Everything V2". There, I was directed to NS Military Realism, which offered no constructive criticisms, only a brief laugh. That being said, I hope you can help me flesh out my idea for a rail gun. Ahem, that is, a railroad gun.

The plan for Greta was massive and audacious in its undertaking.

(Image)

I never worked out the main gun's caliber, but it would have been equipped with three 15in guns housed in a forward, 360 degree rotation turret. As well as six 150 cm Flak floodlights, and a single 200 cm Flak floodlight. In addition, there would be six 8.8cm (88mm) AAA Guns (Anti-Air, Armor, and Infantry), and perhaps a dozen 5cm and 2cm guns. Not to mention a multitude of machine guns and other anti-infantry weapons. As a result, this raised a number of questions.

Firstly, what would the size of the crew/garrison be? How much track is too much track?--I understand that such weapons have limited use, but my current region is based in the 19th-20th Centuries, up through 1950.

Also, assuming I were to be used defensively, what kind of rail tracks would be suitable, how big? What about support units? Would such a behemoth necessitate a division's strength of men and equipment? What about escort trains?

And as for cost, let's assume for the moment that cost is not an issue. This is currently a practice in design.

as i recall the german original lolgun wore out its barrel in like 50 shots or something?

[Gibet]

Schwerer Gustav did wear out it's barrel after 48 shots in combat; however, the same barrel had already fired 250 rounds during testing. Therefore, the feasible longevity of that 80cm gun was 300 rounds.

[Nachmere]

Schwerer Gustav did wear out it's barrel after 48 shots in combat; however, the same barrel had already fired 250 rounds during testing. Therefore, the feasible longevity of that 80cm gun was 300 rounds.

Did not know this.

[Ardavia]

snip

Mm.

The main problem with this is that it's a giant target, and needs two parallel railway tracks to move anywhere at all. Also, Schwerer Gustav had a complement of nearly three thousand men just to lay track, dig embankments, and assemble the gun after transport. And that's not even counting the protection detail (2 Flak battalions), which might be a generously low estimate for your design.

You'd almost certainly need aerial cover near constantly to keep it from being bombed to death, too, since trying to hold off enemy bombers with triple-A is an exercise in futility without friendly air forces to help drive them off.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Any idea on F-117 and MiG-31 weapons load (weight)?

[Gibet]

Alright, I accept the premise that it is most certainly a gigantic target. And I'll agree that it would necessitate aerial superiority. And as for the sheer cost of expanding the rail system, ouch.

So, with that in mind, what other kinds of support details would I be looking at? i.e., would it be wise to invest in a sizable infantry or armored escort force? What about repairs and railyards? These are the kinds of questions I want answered, not just reminders that it's expensive. No offense intended.

[Ardavia]

Alright, I accept the premise that it is most certainly a gigantic target. And I'll agree that it would necessitate aerial superiority. And as for the sheer cost of expanding the rail system, ouch.

So, with that in mind, what other kinds of support details would I be looking at? i.e., would it be wise to invest in a sizable infantry or armored escort force? What about repairs and railyards? These are the kinds of questions I want answered, not just reminders that it's expensive. No offense intended.

Well, you'll probably not need that much of an infantry/armoured escort force, since this thing is likely to be well behind the lines, and the ground protection can be carried out by the frontline forces that are keeping the enemy from taking it in the first place.

As for repairs, you'll probably be needing pretty much of that, since this thing will likely suffer from frequent need of repairs, considering the amount of machinery this thing has and the era (searchlights, flak guns, etc). You'll also probably not be able to drive this through a normal railyard, which means you'll have to bypass those.

Anything else, anyone?

[Valburn]

Alright, I accept the premise that it is most certainly a gigantic target. And I'll agree that it would necessitate aerial superiority. And as for the sheer cost of expanding the rail system, ouch.

So, with that in mind, what other kinds of support details would I be looking at? i.e., would it be wise to invest in a sizable infantry or armored escort force? What about repairs and railyards? These are the kinds of questions I want answered, not just reminders that it's expensive. No offense intended.

Well, you'll probably not need that much of an infantry/armoured escort force, since this thing is likely to be well behind the lines, and the ground protection can be carried out by the frontline forces that are keeping the enemy from taking it in the first place.

As for repairs, you'll probably be needing pretty much of that, since this thing will likely suffer from frequent need of repairs, considering the amount of machinery this thing has and the era (searchlights, flak guns, etc). You'll also probably not be able to drive this through a normal railyard, which means you'll have to bypass those.


Anything else, anyone?

wouldn't having the AA separate allow for a wider field of fire?

[Crookfur]

Alright, I accept the premise that it is most certainly a gigantic target. And I'll agree that it would necessitate aerial superiority. And as for the sheer cost of expanding the rail system, ouch.

So, with that in mind, what other kinds of support details would I be looking at? i.e., would it be wise to invest in a sizable infantry or armored escort force? What about repairs and railyards? These are the kinds of questions I want answered, not just reminders that it's expensive. No offense intended.

well its not going to be at all compatible with any existing rail infrastructure except when broken down so all its repair and servicing will have to be specialist and go with it and to be honest some parts (like a rotating assembly) might be beyond rail trasport.

at a rough guess you are proabably goign to need 4 to 6 rail beds to support 3x15" guns so you will need at least 3 times the rail engineering staff just to lay the rails. so we are looking at possibly a whole raile ngineering division. Repair, servicing and assembly staff will likely be in the region of 800-1000 personnel.

escort froces are proabably not needed since the sheer effort and time taken to get something like this into action will mean it could only ever be used in the most secure positions. Saying that you might want to consider a couple battalions of infantry/MPs to monitor all the little bits whose loss or dmaage could bugger the entire thing and porvide close protection against infiltrations/stay behind forces/partisans/ Popski using your own phone network to call fire on your own positions.

[Triplebaconation]

It's a dumb idea that defeats the point of a train. Putting a bunch of baby guns and searchlights on a railroad gun is like stacking a few boxcars and a caboose on top of a locomotive.

EDIT: Woops, I just looked at the picture instead of reading the description. A triple railroad gun is beyond redemption.

[Fordorsia]

Alright, folks, so the last time I brought this up, it was in "Create Your Own Everything V2". There, I was directed to NS Military Realism, which offered no constructive criticisms, only a brief laugh. That being said, I hope you can help me flesh out my idea for a rail gun. Ahem, that is, a railroad gun.

The plan for Greta was massive and audacious in its undertaking.

(Image)

I never worked out the main gun's caliber, but it would have been equipped with three 15in guns housed in a forward, 360 degree rotation turret. As well as six 150 cm Flak floodlights, and a single 200 cm Flak floodlight. In addition, there would be six 8.8cm (88mm) AAA Guns (Anti-Air, Armor, and Infantry), and perhaps a dozen 5cm and 2cm guns. Not to mention a multitude of machine guns and other anti-infantry weapons. As a result, this raised a number of questions.

Firstly, what would the size of the crew/garrison be? How much track is too much track?--I understand that such weapons have limited use, but my current region is based in the 19th-20th Centuries, up through 1950.

Also, assuming I were to be used defensively, what kind of rail tracks would be suitable, how big? What about support units? Would such a behemoth necessitate a division's strength of men and equipment? What about escort trains?

And as for cost, let's assume for the moment that cost is not an issue. This is currently a practice in design.

If it's a lot bigger than Gustav, you shouldn't even have it movable. Just plonk the gun somewhere in your nation and have it as a defensive weapon, or an offensive one if you plan on attacking neighbours.

[Gawdzendia]

Delicious Gallan spacecraft is delicious. Out of interest, what year was this thing designed in? Has a kinda late-PMT aesthetic to it.

Another curiosity (this time my own), Railgun launched / assisted Shcramjets. Feasible, absurd, or feasible with absurd amounts of cash money.

If you assume working scramjets then somewhat feasible. Nasa did some studies into a system of that variety. I believe atomic rockets has some more information on the subject.

Noted. ICly I've always been sitting on the cusp of the future (2030's or so), I would hope by that point the issues surrounding Scram and Shcram (as there is a difference) jets would mostly be solved. The idea being that as both these forms of propulsion are more efficient at higher speeds to begin with, why not give them a Mach 5 kickstart? Enter some sort of rail/coilgun.

I'd mostly use this sort of setup for ICBM interception, or to turn a destroyer inside out from a shore facility. Then again, nothing stopping me from delivering atomics in this method either.

[Gibet]

Hmm, so it wouldn't be out of the question to operate the gun as part of a larger network of defensive positions along a border, or beyond a beachhead? Like a fixed emplacement?

And an entire engineering division? I hadn't thought about all the work necessary! And a few battalions of security personnel does sound like a good idea.

Looking back now, it would seem a bit redundant to fix the AA to the gun platform. Certainly makes for bad coverage. :/

[Themiclesia]

Upon the work of Korva, I've made a few edits to his great product.

[Austrasien]

Hmm, so it wouldn't be out of the question to operate the gun as part of a larger network of defensive positions along a border, or beyond a beachhead? Like a fixed emplacement?

And an entire engineering division? I hadn't thought about all the work necessary! And a few battalions of security personnel does sound like a good idea.

Looking back now, it would seem a bit redundant to fix the AA to the gun platform. Certainly makes for bad coverage. :/

You could count the number of rounds it could fire in a day on one hand. It is no threat to anything which can move. As a defense it is completely useless.

[The Red Star Union]

I heard somewhere that once a ship is soooooo long, waves will snap it in 2. Does anyone acutally know what said length is? Just curious.