NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Crookfur]

Should I focus more on crossbowmen or bowmen (Longbows, Composites, etc) or mix it up?

longbows providing you have the forests of yew/ash to make them from.

Yes you will still have crossbows kicking around but your main levies should be longbow focused for maximum volume of "fire"

[Kouralia]

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.

Ah, cool.

[Mostrov]

Should I focus more on crossbowmen or bowmen (Longbows, Composites, etc) or mix it up?

Depends on what the setting is. For the Genoese it was a supremely effective weapon, but they relied on a citizen soldiery and mercanaries. The English used a class of yeomanry while depending on their wars being profitable.

The Venetian requisite training the crossbow made them a formidable force.

The longbow is a superior weapon to the crossbow sorry

The Genoese certainly made good account of themselves when they weren't run down by the knights of their own allies and with their actual equipment. The latter is of course substantially easier to make, whilst the former is reliant on a great deal of factors to align for it to be feasible in the same way that the English were - who were the pre-eminent force in Europe for a time due to it.

Something that should be taken into account is the fact that you would need to be quite thorough in the logistics of the force, otherwise you would quickly run out arrows with any significant forces due to the rate of fire - something which isn't in fact cheap if you care for the early exchequer of the crown.

The only reason the forces at Poitiers didn't get overwhelmed, for instance, was because of the nature of the French, who insisted on approaching the forces then retreating to engage in a particular form of conflict due to poor morale and leadership - which meant the English could actually retrieve their own arrows.

In an open field I would think that the Cavalry would overrun them, although a good commander makes use of terrain to their forces advantage as at Halidon Hill.

EDIT: The Genoese were incredibly respected as a unit, because they were disciplined and equipped in a methodical fashion; something that most armies lacked - effectively a precursor to a standing army. Furthermore they shouldn't be thought of without their pavises' which were incredibly useful.

I'll add a few examples of their exemplary performance when I can remember them.

[Mitheldalond]

In an open field I would think that the Cavalry would overrun them, although a good commander makes use of terrain to their forces advantage as at Halidon Hill.

The French forces at the Battle of Agincourt thought so too. The English wasted no time in demonstrating that such was not the case.

[Spirit of Hope]

AHH the Great Longbow vs. Crossbow debate.

Let us begin.

The Longbow had superior effective range and rate of fire, however it essentially required a life time of training to be used properly. Notably the bodies of longbow archers can be identified by some warping in their skeletons.

The Crossbow had superior penetration, and a theoretically longer range, hover it is nearly impossible to use this range due to the weight and design of the crossbow. Its greatest advantage was that required little training to use effectively, one could be trained to use it in a couple of weeks, vs. the years required to properly use a longbow. Another advantage of the crossbow is that the archers themselves could wear and use heavier armor than a longbow men could.

Neither is as devastating as the books will have you believe. They could not penetrate heavy armor until it was relatively close. Notably at the Battle of Poitiers 200 French cavalry directly charged the English longbow men and infantry line. They, as an intact unit, reached the English infantry and engaged them. Unfortunately for these cavalry the english were behind a hedge using pole arms so the cavalry got slaughtered a different way.

The main engagement between the crossbow and longbow that people like to refer to is the Battle of Crécy. However here the crossbow men were ordered forward after a long days march, without rest, without their shields, and with wet bow strings. The longbow men had been placed on a hill further supplementing their range superiority, hardly a fair contest.

What it comes down to in the end is that both weapons were very effective when used properly. The longbow had superior rate of fire, but that came with archers that were expensive and required a life time of training. Both had significant logistical handicaps, crossbows are harder to make and heavier but require less arrows vs. longbows relatively light weight and easy to make with the right wood but requiring many more arrows.

[The Kievan People]

The supply of bowmen was not something the state could really control at the time. The number of archers available for war depended on the number kicking around in the kingdom at the time or selling their services as mercenaries.

Nearly anyone could fire a crossbow with some training though, it was a real mass weapon.

[Klemantan-Borneo]

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

[Yukonastan]

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

1. Fairly feasible. Some experimenting with dieselelectric Tiger tanks was done during WWII. Didn't go too well at that time, but nowadays, with the technological advances, yes, a DE tank is feasible.

2. No. It's impossible for a gas turbine to not burn fuel, since that's how it generates higher pressure air out of the exhaust than it takes in the inlet. It combusts fuel, which expands and heats up, and pushes out the rear. However, compressed air ROCKETS are feasible on a VERY small scale. Burning fuel and using that CO2 is going to give you more reaction mass, however.

[Mostrov]

In an open field I would think that the Cavalry would overrun them, although a good commander makes use of terrain to their forces advantage as at Halidon Hill.

The French forces at the Battle of Agincourt thought so too. The English wasted no time in demonstrating that such was not the case.

Charging through a quagmire is not, in truth, a demonstration of military skill, which was precisely why I choose the Battle of Halidon Hill as an example.

Neither is as devastating as the books will have you believe. They could not penetrate heavy armor until it was relatively close. Notably at the Battle of Poitiers 200 French cavalry directly charged the English longbow men and infantry line. They, as an intact unit, reached the English infantry and engaged them. Unfortunately for these cavalry the english were behind a hedge using pole arms so the cavalry got slaughtered a different way.

However, there was also the issue that the French were marching in front of the longbowmen in what amounted to a parade. And whilst it may have bounced off the armour of what knights and men-at-arms who were there, the majority of the army was comprised of unarmoured peasants; who the French used as little more than cannon fodder.

[Chebucto Provinces]

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.

1. Fairly feasible. Some experimenting with dieselelectric Tiger tanks was done during WWII. Didn't go too well at that time, but nowadays, with the technological advances, yes, a DE tank is feasible.

Not only feasible, one of the first tanks ever used this system. With 400 built.

[The High Tatras]

Currently, I imagine a typical 14 man Tatran infantry squad during the WW2 era as consisting of the following.

1 "squad commander" armed with an MP40 submachine gun and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
2 "light machine gunners" armed with MG-42 general purpose machine guns or Bren light machine guns and Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
2 ammunition carriers armed with Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
1 "designated marksman" armed with ZH-29 self-loading/ semi-automatic rifle
1 "grenadier" armed with a Panzerfaust recoilless rifle and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
1 "combat medic"
6 "riflemen" armed with Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles

What am I doing wrong and how should I change it?

[United Marxist Nations]

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.

I imagine much of that gap is in our lolhuge navy and Air Force.

[Yukonastan]

Currently, I imagine a typical 14 man Tatran squad during the WW2 era as consisting of the following.

1 "squad commander" armed with an MP40 submachine gun and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
2 "light machine gunners" armed with MG-42 general purpose machine guns or Bren light machine guns and Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
2 ammunition carriers armed with Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
1 "designated marksman" armed with ZH-29 self-loading/ semi-automatic rifle
1 "grenadier" armed with a Panzerfaust recoilless rifle and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
1 "combat medic"
6 "riflemen" armed with Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles

What am I doing wrong and how should I change it?

How many in a platoon?
Also, "2 ammunition carriers armed with Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols"
They have no way to carry an MP40?

Also, if you want my ten-man squad breakdown, here it is. Two of these squads make a platoon. One squad fits snugly into an APC.
1. Squad cmdr, holds a carbine and a radio.
1. Squad DM, holds a DM and ammo for the LMG.
4. Rifleman, holds a full-size rifle and ammo for the LMG and antitank launchers.
2. Grenadier, holds a carbine with UBGL and a reloadable antitank launcher.
2. Machine gunner, one holds the LMG, the other holds a carbine and carries ammo for the LMG.

[United Marxist Nations]

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?

[Yukonastan]

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?

Designed around the same time, on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Back when jet fuel was cool. But I believe they're considering tossing the AGT1500s for proper diesels, at least I heard a few rumours to that end.

[Immoren]

Currently, I imagine a typical 14 man Tatran infantry squad during the WW2 era as consisting of the following.

1 "squad commander" armed with an MP40 submachine gun and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
2 "light machine gunners" armed with MG-42 general purpose machine guns or Bren light machine guns and Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
2 ammunition carriers armed with Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistols
1 "designated marksman" armed with ZH-29 self-loading/ semi-automatic rifle
1 "grenadier" armed with a Panzerfaust recoilless rifle and a Vis wz. 35 semi-automatic pistol
1 "combat medic"
6 "riflemen" armed with Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles

What am I doing wrong and how should I change it?

Ammunition carriers ought to have SMGs or rifles.
Same with guy wuth Panzerfaust.
combat medic/Combat life saver at squad level may or may not be quite forward thinking for time.
Otherwise fine.

[United Marxist Nations]

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?

Designed around the same time, on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Back when jet fuel was cool. But I believe they're considering tossing the AGP1500s for proper diesels, at least I heard a few rumours to that end.

Okay, I wanted to know if it had any advantages over normal engines. If it doesn't, they should definitely replace the engine.

[Yukonastan]

Designed around the same time, on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Back when jet fuel was cool. But I believe they're considering tossing the AGP1500s for proper diesels, at least I heard a few rumours to that end.

Okay, I wanted to know if it had any advantages over normal engines. If it doesn't, they should definitely replace the engine.

Afaik because the gas turbine can be taken a decent amount over military power for a short while, the M1 Abrams has very good acceleration and can burst above it's normal maximum speed for a few seconds, if required.

[Immoren]

Advantages of turbines were at least that at time they were multifuel capable while diesel were not. Turbines were/are also lighter than diesel of same power. They are also mechanically simple.

[Yukonastan]

Advantages of turbines were at least that at time they were multifuel capable while diesel were not. Turbines were/are also lighter than diesel of same power. They are also mechanically simple.

This as well.

However, the AGT1500 has, now, after a few decades of use, a service life of less than 500 hours.

[Licana]

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?

Power density, better low-end acceleration, better multifuel capability.

If you've come to the conclusion that turbines hold no advantage over diesel engines in this application, then you should maybe re-evaluate your source materials.

[United Marxist Nations]

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?

Power density, better low-end acceleration, better multifuel capability.

If you've come to the conclusion that turbines hold no advantage over diesel engines in this application, then you should maybe re-evaluate your source materials.

Thank you; the source was basically a Russian Army evaluation of the T-80, which recommended never using gas-turbine engines again because of the costs. So it would seem to me like a bit of a trade-off, but that the normal engines reduce necessary expenditures considerably.

[Yukonastan]

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?

Power density, better low-end acceleration, better multifuel capability.

If you've come to the conclusion that turbines hold no advantage over diesel engines in this application, then you should maybe re-evaluate your source materials.

They hold advantages, they hold disadvantages.

First off, gas turbines drink like fish. M1 Abrams holds 1900 litres of fuel, which results in a maximum range of 426 kilometres.
Secondly, they need to be precisely built. Clearances less than one thousandth of an inch. Not very damage resilient in other words.
Thirdly, they produce a lot of heat. The exhaust is very hot, less so with diesel.
Forthly, turbines are fairly maintenance-intensive.

However, all the advantages listed apply.

[Immoren]

Thirdly, they produce a lot of heat. The exhaust is very hot, less so with diesel.

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

[Gallia-]

The main advantage of turbine engine is greater torque over a broader RPM range in comparison to diesels (and even greater when looking at hyperbar like Leclerc). This translates to better acceleration and greater tactical mobility. There was a pretty chart that compared diesel and turbine torque ranges on Tanknet but I can't find it now.

Multifuel engines existed long before AGT-1500 did.