NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Questers]

new model division

total personnel: 24,500
active: 14,500
reserve: 10,000

multirole division for FUTUR ARMI
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... vision.png

Why are the brigade HQs labeled as signals?

Good question.

The Brigade HQ is composed of two headquarters, the second of which is a secondary access node for the brigade signals network, so... it has more signals troops than anything else. it's really an HQ + a signals btn + a signals company.

[EsToVnIa]

Eh. Just one of many opinions. I'm always up for a good debate on morals or politics, although that kind of thing tends to either drag on without results or descend into yelling matches. In the end I'm just here to find out what rifle will shoot a guy in the Arctic without freezing.

Literally any gun

[Righteous Swords]

Eh. Just one of many opinions. I'm always up for a good debate on morals or politics, although that kind of thing tends to either drag on without results or descend into yelling matches. In the end I'm just here to find out what rifle will shoot a guy in the Arctic without freezing.

Literally any gun

Yes. But I am looking for the best gun. Also the one that's the most reliable and accurate, preferably cheap and with a lot of spare parts to ensure a long operating life.

[The Kievan People]

M16 is a pretty nice rifle.

[EsToVnIa]

Literally any gun

Yes. But I am looking for the best gun. Also the one that's the most reliable and accurate, preferably cheap and with a lot of spare parts to ensure a long operating life.

Ak 5, Ak 4B, AG-3F2, C7A3, lit the list goes on b/c any gun is going to be fine.

[New Korongo]

Are tank landing ships still relevant in modern amphibious operations?

Most Western nations seem have abandoned them in favour of larger amphibious assault ships which deliver vehicles to the shore on landing craft. However, both Russia and China are building or have recently built tank landing ships alongside new amphibious assault ships. As far as I can tell, the main issue with amphibious assault ships is the fact that it takes a longer period of time to deploy a large number of vehicles. Each ship only carries a small number of landing craft and the number of vehicles each landing craft can carry is severely limited, so it will take many trips back and forth between ship and shore to deploy an entire force. A small group of tank landing ships, on the other hand, can rapidly deploy a large number of vehicles in a short amount of time as they are not limited by landing craft. This is the main reason I elected to use tank landing ships alongside amphibious assault ships the last time I created my navy, but I am beginning to question whether this reasoning is legitimate. I have a feeling that the need for the rapid deployment of an amphibious force has diminished since the disappearance of Neptune-style opposed landings and that a smaller force of larger amphibious assault ships could achieve more.

[Atomic Utopia]

I was wondering about a few things, chief among them is what a military would look like in an environment where the use of strategic level thermonuclear weapons has already occurred. Drawing from what alien space bats said earlier about my ideas regarding nuclear weapons use I presume the fallout would slow down any advance, and that the enemy could easily destroy any units that go out into no mans land.

This, in my eyes, presents the possibility for a war as profound in the development of global military strategy as WWI. As with WWI we have a condition where there are strong incentives to dig in, likewise we also have an environment where you can easily remove anyone charging at you. In other words, another bout of trench warfare, but this time the thing preventing conventional assault is no longer the maxim gun, but the nuclear bomb.

So naturally I have been attempting to find ways to break such a stalemate as it is obviously undesirable and inadvisable to have the chance of such an environment developing and having no way of conducting war in said environment.

So what I need are ideas, hopefully good ideas, to break such a stalemate, where the battlefield is covered in fallout and the enemy can annihilate entire divisions in the blink of an eye.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Are tank landing ships still relevant in modern amphibious operations?

Modern amphibious operations, particularly on part of the US, are no longer just sea-land; they are sea-land-air. Or, in case of the US, more along the lines of air-sea-air-land-air. Air attack to clear hostiles, transport from sea to land by helicopters and LCAC (in this order), land forces to make strips, more air transport.

The idea of actually slugging it out during the landing has largely been deprecated.

[Galba Dea]

I was wondering about a few things, chief among them is what a military would look like in an environment where the use of strategic level thermonuclear weapons has already occurred. Drawing from what alien space bats said earlier about my ideas regarding nuclear weapons use I presume the fallout would slow down any advance, and that the enemy could easily destroy any units that go out into no mans land.

This, in my eyes, presents the possibility for a war as profound in the development of global military strategy as WWI. As with WWI we have a condition where there are strong incentives to dig in, likewise we also have an environment where you can easily remove anyone charging at you. In other words, another bout of trench warfare, but this time the thing preventing conventional assault is no longer the maxim gun, but the nuclear bomb.

So naturally I have been attempting to find ways to break such a stalemate as it is obviously undesirable and inadvisable to have the chance of such an environment developing and having no way of conducting war in said environment.

So what I need are ideas, hopefully good ideas, to break such a stalemate, where the battlefield is covered in fallout and the enemy can annihilate entire divisions in the blink of an eye.

Those'd have to be some tight-ass trenches, because they'll be removed from the landscape just as well as your formations.

I'm not convinced a setNukesInField = true war could be won without their use. You'd have to hit hard the places where tactical and strategic-level nuclear weapons were held, and do it quietly enough that your enemy couldn't fire them all off while you were doing it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Your basic five-foot trench could reduce casualties from a nuclear burst by up to about 75%. Add in blindages, bunker networks and a zigzag trench layout and this number can only increase.

[Connori Pilgrims]

I'm currently working on my organization. Would there be any downsides to using strictly Armored BCTs over having BCTs for armor, motorized inf, etc.?

1.) Can you afford an all-Armored BCT force for front-line formations?

2.) Does your doctrine/situation mean you don't need rapid-deployment forces at all?

If your answer to these questions is yes, then by all means go knock yourself out.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Please pardon my perusing. Posting to pick up promptly post-modding. Paldies.


EDIT: Hokay, Gallan Systems, due to an extended history of baiting & trolling, has been given a *** 7 day ban *** - which of course means, no posting with puppets or alts or whatever you'd like to call additional accounts. Ban is on player, not nation.

Going to finish going through the clipped bits in case there's anything else that needs attention. In the meantime, may I remind you all that this is not NSG. Please do not turn this into a prolonged discussion on politics etc, past what is needed for information on the topic at hand. Which is military realism consultation for NS RPG use. Thanks.

[Spirit of Hope]

I was wondering about a few things, chief among them is what a military would look like in an environment where the use of strategic level thermonuclear weapons has already occurred. Drawing from what alien space bats said earlier about my ideas regarding nuclear weapons use I presume the fallout would slow down any advance, and that the enemy could easily destroy any units that go out into no mans land.

This, in my eyes, presents the possibility for a war as profound in the development of global military strategy as WWI. As with WWI we have a condition where there are strong incentives to dig in, likewise we also have an environment where you can easily remove anyone charging at you. In other words, another bout of trench warfare, but this time the thing preventing conventional assault is no longer the maxim gun, but the nuclear bomb.

So naturally I have been attempting to find ways to break such a stalemate as it is obviously undesirable and inadvisable to have the chance of such an environment developing and having no way of conducting war in said environment.

So what I need are ideas, hopefully good ideas, to break such a stalemate, where the battlefield is covered in fallout and the enemy can annihilate entire divisions in the blink of an eye.

I don't think nuclear weapons have the potential to reduce assaulting forces the way you imagine they will. Certainly tactical nuclear weapons will kill unprotected infantry, and some vehicles caught in the direct blast.

However most infantry engaged in a war where nuclear weapons are being used are probably going to be able to button up in APC's and IFV's where they will be much lest vulnerable to the effects of nuclear weapons.

While trenches will certainly reduce a casualties due to nuclear weapons APC's and IFV's will already do that, and will allow the unit to continue to maneuver. The ability to continue to maneuver gains more importance here because any fixed fortifications can have nuclear weapons used against it with high accuracy that can't necessarily be used against a maneuvering force.

[Stahn]

So is T-90.

What was the point of building the T-90 again? For the capability increase it offered it seems like it would have mad substantially more sense to just keep more upgraded T-72s in service, given that they already outclass anything realistically operated by any country Russia wants to bully along its boarder...

Given that glorious T-72BM2 eats nato pigdogs

The T-90 is just a T-72 upgrade.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Didn't post this in time, but to possibly conclude the hypothetical raised previously. Also skipping over technical inaccuracies in the deleted posts. (Apologies in advance and feel free to delete if it's not appropriate, but it appears that the topic hasn't been declared off limit.)


Even if there were a moment in history when state A could have destroyed any given state B, there definitely wasn't a time you could "destroy the ideology of illiberalism forever".
First of all, such ideologies are alive and well in the Western world itself, not to mention over a hundred countries outside it. Glorifying communism with martyrdom rather than letting it show its deficiency by failing mostly on its own would've greatly strengthened their appeal.

Second, none of the Western world, with the possible exception of the US and UK governments, had any interest in engaging in such a war. You'd have to coerce the rest of Europe into letting your forces pass (wars aren't won by strategic bombing alone), then the people would start rioting and you'd have to suppress the protests, then deal with "traitors" in your own government, and if your businesspeople refused to supply your war, you could always just nationalize them...

Remind you of anyone - any country that, perhaps, also had "US" in its name, but followed by two more letters? Even if one's stated purpose was to defeat evil ideologies forever, doing so by means of a large unwanted war and mass slaughter would've only resulted in taking up their torch.

This is not to make an anti-war statement in general, only to say the line between nice democracies and evil empires is a lot thinner than most people like to think, with a number of historical cases in point. Engaging in the very things that define one as an evil empire (term used semi-ironically) to vanquish them is a self-defeating strategy.

[Korva]

Communists already believe that their bankrupt ideology was martyred. They and their apologists have their own stab in the back myth.

[Padnak]

Communists need to get on the Deng Xiaoping bandwagon



And to keep this military related; what sort of organizational structure does china use?

[United Marxist Nations]

Let's keep the political discussion out of the mil thread, as DLN advised. If we want to have this argument, we always have the Soc & Com thread.

[EsToVnIa]

Ironic advice given the poster

[Korva]

yes let us keep to entirely fact based discussion of military realism

please avoid any value statements or terms that may imply support for or against any particular strategy/tactic/weapon/equipment as such things can lead to death or even genocide

[Ulfr-Reich]

Let's keep the political discussion out of the mil thread, as DLN advised. If we want to have this argument, we always have the Soc & Com thread.

> Vatnik detected.

[United Marxist Nations]

yes let us keep to entirely fact based discussion of military realism

please avoid any value statements or terms that may imply support for or against any particular strategy/tactic/weapon/equipment as such things can lead to death or even genocide

Is there any point to this other than to mock me for not liking someone saying that killing hundreds of millions of people is good?

[United Marxist Nations]

Let's keep the political discussion out of the mil thread, as DLN advised. If we want to have this argument, we always have the Soc & Com thread.

> Vatnik detected.

Not even Russian, or even Soviet for that matter, so knock off the flaming.

[Spirit of Hope]

yes let us keep to entirely fact based discussion of military realism

please avoid any value statements or terms that may imply support for or against any particular strategy/tactic/weapon/equipment as such things can lead to death or even genocide

Is there any point to this other than to mock me for not liking someone saying that killing hundreds of millions of people is good?

And we are off topic again, can we please not have two moderator visits on one page?

Literally any gun

Yes. But I am looking for the best gun. Also the one that's the most reliable and accurate, preferably cheap and with a lot of spare parts to ensure a long operating life.

There is no best gun, if it is the most accurate it almost certainly can't be the cheapest. It becomes about what you are willing to trade off and why. Also the differences of the individual rifleman rifle is rather minute to the overall picture of a war.

Are tank landing ships still relevant in modern amphibious operations?

Most Western nations seem have abandoned them in favour of larger amphibious assault ships which deliver vehicles to the shore on landing craft. However, both Russia and China are building or have recently built tank landing ships alongside new amphibious assault ships. As far as I can tell, the main issue with amphibious assault ships is the fact that it takes a longer period of time to deploy a large number of vehicles. Each ship only carries a small number of landing craft and the number of vehicles each landing craft can carry is severely limited, so it will take many trips back and forth between ship and shore to deploy an entire force. A small group of tank landing ships, on the other hand, can rapidly deploy a large number of vehicles in a short amount of time as they are not limited by landing craft. This is the main reason I elected to use tank landing ships alongside amphibious assault ships the last time I created my navy, but I am beginning to question whether this reasoning is legitimate. I have a feeling that the need for the rapid deployment of an amphibious force has diminished since the disappearance of Neptune-style opposed landings and that a smaller force of larger amphibious assault ships could achieve more.

Western navies have been using hovercraft because they allow higher speeds and the ability to deliver vehicles and troops along more coastline. Makes the landing more flexible which means more survivable.

[Velkanika]

> Vatnik detected.

Not even Russian, or even Soviet for that matter, so knock off the flaming.

The fact that you actually know what that means really says something about your opinions toward modern Russia. You will not have a good time in the military realism threads on this website if you act as a Putin* shill.

As for politics...

In the meantime, may I remind you all that this is not NSG. Please do not turn this into a prolonged discussion on politics etc, past what is needed for information on the topic at hand†. Which is military realism consultation for NS RPG use. Thanks.

You're not going to hide behind the moderators when you make a stupid statement. Concede or defend your argument if you plan on having any shred of respect here.

Are tank landing ships still relevant in modern amphibious operations?

Most Western nations seem have abandoned them in favour of larger amphibious assault ships which deliver vehicles to the shore on landing craft. However, both Russia and China are building or have recently built tank landing ships alongside new amphibious assault ships. As far as I can tell, the main issue with amphibious assault ships is the fact that it takes a longer period of time to deploy a large number of vehicles. Each ship only carries a small number of landing craft and the number of vehicles each landing craft can carry is severely limited, so it will take many trips back and forth between ship and shore to deploy an entire force. A small group of tank landing ships, on the other hand, can rapidly deploy a large number of vehicles in a short amount of time as they are not limited by landing craft. This is the main reason I elected to use tank landing ships alongside amphibious assault ships the last time I created my navy, but I am beginning to question whether this reasoning is legitimate. I have a feeling that the need for the rapid deployment of an amphibious force has diminished since the disappearance of Neptune-style opposed landings and that a smaller force of larger amphibious assault ships could achieve more.

Western navies have been using hovercraft because they allow higher speeds and the ability to deliver vehicles and troops along more coastline. Makes the landing more flexible which means more survivable.

Hovercraft cannot completely replace landing ships due to payload and cost restrictions. Hovercraft and helicopters would probably be used to secure the initial beachead so that conventional landing ships could offload in relative safety.


* Please note that Putin is trying to be Teddy, but he still hasn't come close to riding a bull moose across a river without feeling the need to remove his shirt.

† Emphasis added for clarity.