NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Kouralia]

One thing the Spike does do is give us a plausible minimal size for a missile of its guidance and capabilities. So I can plausible claim to make say a 100mm derivative to fire out of a BMP-3 style barrel.

Why.

Why.

Why.

Why.

:bmp3:

*Allanea appears from nowhere*

[Crookfur]

its a bit pointless in an IFV cosndiereing you should have a good cannon that will fire projectiles roughly simialr in weight to the tiny 1lb warhead on spike and have enough of a weight budget to support proper ATGMs.

Spike is a solution for collateral adverse dismounted infantry and teeny tiny little drones

Is there an laser-guided munition roughly similar to the RPG-7 warhead in explosive power?

Also is there a replacement to the TOW that is laser-guided?

not aware of any with specifclaly 2-5kg warheads, LM's shadowhawk might be close although of coruse at the higher end of the RPG-7 warhead rnage you are once again talking about 2.75" rockets...

The TOW repalcement is called hellfire, Spike MR/LR or PARS3

[Oaledonia]

Why.

Why.

Why.

Why.

:bmp3:

*Allanea appears from nowhere*

*Throws up*

It does have cool armor, though

[Inyourfaceistan]

So what's wrong with BMP-3?

(Not defending it, just asking)

[Gallia-]

Is there an laser-guided munition roughly similar to the RPG-7 warhead in explosive power?

Also is there a replacement to the TOW that is laser-guided?

not aware of any with specifclaly 2-5kg warheads, LM's shadowhawk might be close although of coruse at the higher end of the RPG-7 warhead rnage you are once again talking about 2.75" rockets...

The TOW repalcement is called hellfire, Spike MR/LR or PARS3

Hellfire and TRIGAT are a bit big don't you think?

But yes those are two other options, even if they've been adapted to IFV mounts except during the Twilight War.

So what's wrong with BMP-3?

(Not defending it, just asking)

Overarmed and underprotected about sums it up.

Or rather, underarmed. BMP-3 has less effective armament than BMP-2.

[Doppio Giudici]

not aware of any with specifclaly 2-5kg warheads, LM's shadowhawk might be close although of coruse at the higher end of the RPG-7 warhead rnage you are once again talking about 2.75" rockets...

The TOW repalcement is called hellfire, Spike MR/LR or PARS3

Hellfire and TRIGAT are a bit big don't you think?


But yes those are two other options, even if they've been adapted to IFV mounts except during the Twilight War.

So I should make my own versions of both of the munitions I want to make?

[Roski]

Use of miniguns like the Gau-19 when defending from an amphibious invasion?
I assume it would be the same as the MG42 in D-Day, and slaughtering the majority of the troops before they even leave the landing craft...

[Crookfur]

Use of miniguns like the Gau-19 when defending from an amphibious invasion?
I assume it would be the same as the MG42 in D-Day, and slaughtering the majority of the troops before they even leave the landing craft...

From a nice fortified fixed position you don't need the rate of fire, you need endurance. A nice water cooled vickers would be more useful.

[Roski]

Use of miniguns like the Gau-19 when defending from an amphibious invasion?
I assume it would be the same as the MG42 in D-Day, and slaughtering the majority of the troops before they even leave the landing craft...

From a nice fortified fixed position you don't need the rate of fire, you need endurance. A nice water cooled vickers would be more useful.

I forgot to add against significantly superior numbers.

[Spirit of Hope]

Use of miniguns like the Gau-19 when defending from an amphibious invasion?
I assume it would be the same as the MG42 in D-Day, and slaughtering the majority of the troops before they even leave the landing craft...

First how do you know where to set up the mini guns?

Second defending on the beach just invites the enemy to shoot your defensive positions with a missile, bomb, or gun from one of their ships.

Third it would eat through ammo, and require a supply of electricity.

Fourth any modern landing will probably be using hover craft, which means tanks will be part of the first wave. They could just direct fire your guns away.

[Crookfur]

From a nice fortified fixed position you don't need the rate of fire, you need endurance. A nice water cooled vickers would be more useful.

I forgot to add against significantly superior numbers.

A normal MG will kill them plenty quick enough. Although explody HE death is a much better way of dealing with massed infantry

[Roski]

Use of miniguns like the Gau-19 when defending from an amphibious invasion?
I assume it would be the same as the MG42 in D-Day, and slaughtering the majority of the troops before they even leave the landing craft...

First how do you know where to set up the mini guns?

Second defending on the beach just invites the enemy to shoot your defensive positions with a missile, bomb, or gun from one of their ships.

Third it would eat through ammo, and require a supply of electricity.

Fourth any modern landing will probably be using hover craft, which means tanks will be part of the first wave. They could just direct fire your guns away.

So what is a better option?

[Gallia-]

>landing craft
>in 2014

any bunker is hit with KTs

[Spirit of Hope]

First how do you know where to set up the mini guns?

Second defending on the beach just invites the enemy to shoot your defensive positions with a missile, bomb, or gun from one of their ships.

Third it would eat through ammo, and require a supply of electricity.

Fourth any modern landing will probably be using hover craft, which means tanks will be part of the first wave. They could just direct fire your guns away.

So what is a better option?

Not setting up fixed defenses on the beach.

Instead have some light/maneuverable forces, backed up by road mobile AShMs, near the coast and ready to move into blocking positions at word of a landing. I would say give them orders to harass, destroy bridges and roads, etc. but not to get to heavily engaged. Their job should be to slow the enemy down not fight them to a stand still. The AShMs are their to just try and kill some enemy ships.

Then have heavier forces further inland, set up around major road/rail hubs. At the word of a landing they rush to contain the landing and then move in and destroy it.

This is however a controversial topic with lots of different ideas. So listen to some other people to.

[Inyourfaceistan]

First how do you know where to set up the mini guns?

Second defending on the beach just invites the enemy to shoot your defensive positions with a missile, bomb, or gun from one of their ships.

Third it would eat through ammo, and require a supply of electricity.

Fourth any modern landing will probably be using hover craft, which means tanks will be part of the first wave. They could just direct fire your guns away.

So what is a better option?

An MLRS battery 20-50km behind the lines.
(Assuming enemy airstrikes haven't knocked them out already...)

[Crookfur]

First how do you know where to set up the mini guns?

Second defending on the beach just invites the enemy to shoot your defensive positions with a missile, bomb, or gun from one of their ships.

Third it would eat through ammo, and require a supply of electricity.

Fourth any modern landing will probably be using hover craft, which means tanks will be part of the first wave. They could just direct fire your guns away.

So what is a better option?

a dude hiding in the grass or a quick trench/foxhole with a radio calling all the artillery that possibly be mustered.

or for maximium modern a Fire Support Team calling in all of the aircraft as well

[Roski]

So what is a better option?

An MLRS battery 20-50km behind the lines.
(Assuming enemy airstrikes haven't knocked them out already...)

I'm afraid I'm going to lose this war... quite badly.

[Gallia-]

So what is a better option?

Not setting up fixed defenses on the beach.

Instead have some light/maneuverable forces, backed up by road mobile AShMs, near the coast and ready to move into blocking positions at word of a landing. I would say give them orders to harass, destroy bridges and roads, etc. but not to get to heavily engaged. Their job should be to slow the enemy down not fight them to a stand still. The AShMs are their to just try and kill some enemy ships.

Then have heavier forces further inland, set up around major road/rail hubs. At the word of a landing they rush to contain the landing and then move in and destroy it.

This is however a controversial topic with lots of different ideas. So listen to some other people to.

joke's on you there was no landing in the first place

So what is a better option?

a dude hiding in the grass or a quick trench/foxhole with a radio calling all the artillery that possibly be mustered.

or for maximium modern a Fire Support Team calling in all of the aircraft as well

yes planes: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rsta_flygeskadern

pgmreich invalidates all other methods of warfare

unless you somehow live through the first 48 hours of PGMreich then you win i guess

gl with that

[The Nuclear Fist]

PGMreich? What is that?

[Gallia-]

The US Navy.

[The Akasha Colony]

Not setting up fixed defenses on the beach.

Instead have some light/maneuverable forces, backed up by road mobile AShMs, near the coast and ready to move into blocking positions at word of a landing. I would say give them orders to harass, destroy bridges and roads, etc. but not to get to heavily engaged. Their job should be to slow the enemy down not fight them to a stand still. The AShMs are their to just try and kill some enemy ships.

Then have heavier forces further inland, set up around major road/rail hubs. At the word of a landing they rush to contain the landing and then move in and destroy it.

This is however a controversial topic with lots of different ideas. So listen to some other people to.

D-Day basically proved this approach wrong. The enemy will not attempt an amphibious landing without local air superiority. If they do not secure it, they will almost certainly not even attempt the landing. Once they have air superiority, moving heavy forces quickly toward the beach head becomes extremely difficult. The Germans at D-Day had an extremely hard time mustering their inland forces for a quick offensive against the Allies, giving them precious time to dig in. Rommel actually predicted this, based on his experiences with air power in Africa, but von Rundstedt disagreed and Hitler vacillated. The goal is to prevent them from securing that foothold in the first place.

[Roski]

Not setting up fixed defenses on the beach.

Instead have some light/maneuverable forces, backed up by road mobile AShMs, near the coast and ready to move into blocking positions at word of a landing. I would say give them orders to harass, destroy bridges and roads, etc. but not to get to heavily engaged. Their job should be to slow the enemy down not fight them to a stand still. The AShMs are their to just try and kill some enemy ships.

Then have heavier forces further inland, set up around major road/rail hubs. At the word of a landing they rush to contain the landing and then move in and destroy it.

This is however a controversial topic with lots of different ideas. So listen to some other people to.

D-Day basically proved this approach wrong. The enemy will not attempt an amphibious landing without local air superiority. If they do not secure it, they will almost certainly not even attempt the landing. Once they have air superiority, moving heavy forces quickly toward the beach head becomes extremely difficult. The Germans at D-Day had an extremely hard time mustering their inland forces for a quick offensive against the Allies, giving them precious time to dig in. Rommel actually predicted this, based on his experiences with air power in Africa, but von Rundstedt disagreed and Hitler vacillated. The goal is to prevent them from securing that foothold in the first place.

Mostly because Hitler was a fucking idiot.

[Arkinaid]

Mostly because Hitler was a fucking idiot.

Yes it was.

I cannot abide by anyone who claims Hitler was a military genius or even a average military leader, the man was an utter buffoon who only claim to power was charisma. He was a terrible military leader, a terrible economist, a terrible human being, and yet because the people under him such as Rommel were competent he gets the credit for Germany's early victories. When his meddling was the reason for their later losses.

[The Akasha Colony]

D-Day basically proved this approach wrong. The enemy will not attempt an amphibious landing without local air superiority. If they do not secure it, they will almost certainly not even attempt the landing. Once they have air superiority, moving heavy forces quickly toward the beach head becomes extremely difficult. The Germans at D-Day had an extremely hard time mustering their inland forces for a quick offensive against the Allies, giving them precious time to dig in. Rommel actually predicted this, based on his experiences with air power in Africa, but von Rundstedt disagreed and Hitler vacillated. The goal is to prevent them from securing that foothold in the first place.

Mostly because Hitler was a fucking idiot.

There was no shortage of poor decisions made throughout WWII and on both sides. Hitler just happened to be making those decisions at the top of the German high command. The slowness in the German response was partly because of Hitler's orders to the 15th Army, but also largely because the Allies had successfully disrupted the French transportation networks to an enormous degree.

I cannot abide by anyone who claims Hitler was a military genius or even a average military leader, the man was an utter buffoon who only claim to power was charisma. He was a terrible military leader, a terrible economist, a terrible human being, and yet because the people under him such as Rommel were competent he gets the credit for Germany's early victories. When his meddling was the reason for their later losses.

He dared when no one else would in the early phases of the war. Sometimes that's all it takes. Hell, that's all it took to make Robert E. Lee an enduring "legendary" commander despite being overall fairly average in skill. At the end of the day, it wasn't Rommel or Guderian who ordered the remilitarization of the Rhineland or the invasion of the Sudetenland. And it takes more than an "utter buffoon" to start the most destructive war in human history.

[Spirit of Hope]

Not setting up fixed defenses on the beach.

Instead have some light/maneuverable forces, backed up by road mobile AShMs, near the coast and ready to move into blocking positions at word of a landing. I would say give them orders to harass, destroy bridges and roads, etc. but not to get to heavily engaged. Their job should be to slow the enemy down not fight them to a stand still. The AShMs are their to just try and kill some enemy ships.

Then have heavier forces further inland, set up around major road/rail hubs. At the word of a landing they rush to contain the landing and then move in and destroy it.

This is however a controversial topic with lots of different ideas. So listen to some other people to.

D-Day basically proved this approach wrong. The enemy will not attempt an amphibious landing without local air superiority. If they do not secure it, they will almost certainly not even attempt the landing. Once they have air superiority, moving heavy forces quickly toward the beach head becomes extremely difficult. The Germans at D-Day had an extremely hard time mustering their inland forces for a quick offensive against the Allies, giving them precious time to dig in. Rommel actually predicted this, based on his experiences with air power in Africa, but von Rundstedt disagreed and Hitler vacillated. The goal is to prevent them from securing that foothold in the first place.

Accept their is no way you can prevent the landing. To much coast is open to attack, your opponents will have overwhelming air, land and sea power at the point of the landing, they will have the ability to plan based on your positions while you will have to guess at where they might land and if they have control of the sea enough to land an amphibious force you probably can not threaten them in turn.

Yes I think you should never let your opponent get to the point where they can threaten an amphibious invasion. But that is not something you can necessarily control. Their will be times where the enemy can land forces and you have to come up with the best way to respond.

And I should clarify, I don't think you should be responding with lighting forces to hit them on the beach, or near the beach. Instead I fell the light forces near the beach should be delaying and harassing the invading force while the heavy forces set up to check the invading forces advance. Hopefully your heavy forces can do this from an area where the enemy won't have air superiority, or at the very least you will be able to reduce the efficiency of that air superiority. Only once you have firmly stopped the enemy advance do you start trying to fight them back.

As a side note the French rail network wasn't that devastated. From everything I've read the Germans had it almost completely repaid and working within a couple of days. The allied bombing and sabotage campaign was largely ineffective to reduce the speed of the german movements. The much bigger issue was once the germans started moving the fact that their every move was harassed by allied air power.