NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Spirit of Hope]

For question 2: Copious amounts of cruise missiles.

Any particular platform (sub, surface ship, ground, ...) or type of missile? Or anything and everything.

Depends on there defenses and what you are willing to do. Sub launched cruise missiles would be a good idea if they had heavy defenses and you were willing to spend time to coordinate your submarines, get them into position and launching together, and figuring out targets.

Ships might be a good idea if they don't have really heavy defenses against ships and you have a list of targets at the ready.

Planes probably works best if you don't have all of your targets planned out, and some missiles might have to be delivered spontaneously.

The reality is for a strong first strike you will probably use a combination of all of them. Subs and ships striking at the larger fixed targets, while planes target smaller moving targets. From the sounds of your set up I would probably use sub and ship launched missiles to target enemy command and control centers plus fixed air defense positions. Planes can then sweep in and target non fixed defenses, and carry out SEAD operations.

Is this all in preparation for landing troops?

[Gawdzendia]

Any particular platform (sub, surface ship, ground, ...) or type of missile? Or anything and everything.

Depends on there defenses and what you are willing to do. Sub launched cruise missiles would be a good idea if they had heavy defenses and you were willing to spend time to coordinate your submarines, get them into position and launching together, and figuring out targets.

Ships might be a good idea if they don't have really heavy defenses against ships and you have a list of targets at the ready.

Planes probably works best if you don't have all of your targets planned out, and some missiles might have to be delivered spontaneously.

The reality is for a strong first strike you will probably use a combination of all of them. Subs and ships striking at the larger fixed targets, while planes target smaller moving targets. From the sounds of your set up I would probably use sub and ship launched missiles to target enemy command and control centers plus fixed air defense positions. Planes can then sweep in and target non fixed defenses, and carry out SEAD operations.

Is this all in preparation for landing troops?

It definitely sounds like that's what he wants to do,
This is not a disguised tag oh no.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Does anyone happen to know at what level of command BMPTs are supposed to be assigned? I'm thinking about having one Tank Support Vehicle company or platoon per Tank Battalion, at least in select units, but Russia doesn't seem to be using the "Terminator" in service and information about Kazakhstan is sparse.

It definitely sounds like that's what he wants to do

Ainin's first post states that "boots on the ground" aren't an option for political reasons, which is understandable. Personally I'm more interested in why manned aircraft are out of the question as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

I assume it'd be an asset at Regiment, if anywhere. The vehicles are then assigned to the battalions, which act as independent units.

That's just a guess, of course.

[Vancon]

Here we go again.

[Korva]

Does anyone happen to know at what level of command BMPTs are supposed to be assigned? I'm thinking about having one Tank Support Vehicle company or platoon per Tank Battalion, at least in select units, but Russia doesn't seem to be using the "Terminator" in service and information about Kazakhstan is sparse.

You could do a platoon in each mechanized infantry company, like the MGS in a Stryker company.

[Spirit of Hope]

It definitely sounds like that's what he wants to do

Ainin's first post states that "boots on the ground" aren't an option for political reasons, which is understandable. Personally I'm more interested in why manned aircraft are out of the question as well.

Probably just a political thing of "we can't send people in to their territory." Missiles can go in since they aren't people, his ships probably wouldn't be allowed to enter the territorial waters, etc.

But since that only extends 3-5 miles out from the shore it isn't a real big impediment to lobbing missiles in, and using standoff weapons.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Ainin's first post states that "boots on the ground" aren't an option for political reasons, which is understandable. Personally I'm more interested in why manned aircraft are out of the question as well.

Probably just a political thing of "we can't send people in to their territory." Missiles can go in since they aren't people, his ships probably wouldn't be allowed to enter the territorial waters, etc.

But since that only extends 3-5 miles out from the shore it isn't a real big impediment to lobbing missiles in, and using standoff weapons.

He mentioned before that the AA systems were too good for his aircraft to go in without massive losses.

[United Marxist Nations]

What are the pros and cons to the Kirov class, and what would be the best role to use them in?

[Laywenrania]

I'm currently running into my army limits (I want to go over 100k active soldiers/50k of them in the army) with my Orbat, currently I have 2 mot. Rifle divisions, 2 tank divisions, 1 paratrooper regiment and 2 mountaineer regiments (alone the divisions would go near the 50k). Now I would like to have marines (Island nations spread over 6 Islands, with dense forests and hills/mountains) too^^

For now my Idea would be to cut down the tank forces to regimental strength, in the same time increase the organic tank support in the Rifle divisions. This would allow me to field one marine division or one/two/three marines regiment/s and/or support regiments. Or should I rather cut down one mot. Rifle division in exchange for one marines division/regiment?

[Imperializt Russia]

Does anyone happen to know at what level of command BMPTs are supposed to be assigned? I'm thinking about having one Tank Support Vehicle company or platoon per Tank Battalion, at least in select units, but Russia doesn't seem to be using the "Terminator" in service and information about Kazakhstan is sparse.

You could do a platoon in each mechanized infantry company, like the MGS in a Stryker company.

You could but the BMPT is meant to be a supporting asset to the tanks, that operates at different relative strengths for different missions.
Hence why I suggested they could be an asset held at the regiment for distribution to the battalions. The regimental train certainly has the capabilities to field a unit in this manner.

What are the pros and cons to the Kirov class, and what would be the best role to use them in?

The Kirov is a very heavy air defence cruiser. It is heavy mostly because of its dual-system propulsion - it has nuclear reactors and a more conventional steam boiler engine. IIRC, this is for reliability concerns of early Soviet naval reactors.

It makes the vessel needlessly oversize. Whilst this does allow it to carry a greater number of missiles than its lighter counterparts, it's just not necessary. The slight reduction in missile stowage for something like a Slava or Sovremenny is more than made up for by the ability to deploy two vessels of lower RCS and improved turnaround in port.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's kind of what I was thinking, due to the huge amount of SAM's. Would it be a good idea to have it function as a sort of AA shield for ships with fewer AA missiles? Or would it be better to use them to counter carriers (or to help equalize between my carriers and larger carriers), since they carry enough SAM's to shoot down a huge number of carrier-based aircraft?

[Imperializt Russia]

If you already operate Kirovs, then probably yes.
There is no reason for a modern or near-modern state to adopt the Kirov.

I can't remember which, but IIRC one of the three - Ticonderoga, Arleigh-Burke, Type-45 - are meant to act as an air defence cruiser. The Kirov is pretty much just an overarmed counterpart to this.

[United Marxist Nations]

If you already operate Kirovs, then probably yes.
There is no reason for a modern or near-modern state to adopt the Kirov.

I can't remember which, but IIRC one of the three - Ticonderoga, Arleigh-Burke, Type-45 - are meant to act as an air defence cruiser. The Kirov is pretty much just an overarmed counterpart to this.

My nation is basically supposed to be the USSR if it hadn't collapsed, so we would already have the four of them. Thank you.

Btw, I think it's the Burke you're thinking of, but I'm not sure, I recall something about them having a very advanced AA system.

[Portugal 28XX]

How big could a helicopter be to carry a 30mm Gatling Gun? Would it have to be a turret mount or a stationary mount?

Just a thing i had in my head...

Depends on what you mean by 30mm gatling.

If it's a gun for a low end 30mm round like 30x113mm then you could get a gatling in a trainable mount on an apache or cobra sized gunship ie as was the case with the 30mm wecom gatling.

A gau-8 is probably more or less of of the question for any reasonable sized combat helicopter although something the size of a super stallion or chinook could likely handle it. A GSh-30-6 possible could fit on an mi-24/mi-17/mi-8 sized platform but that would likely be at the expense of other payload and amusing shaking the airframe to bits mid flight events.

Thank you all for taking your time in answering my question.

I renembered about this because, when i was a wee lad, i used to install the GAU-8 in almost any kind of vehicle i wanted to create, like i was obsessed with it.
I designed a tank with a GAU-8, although one already was proposed to the US army, i designed an attack helicopter with TWO GAU-8, a medium bomber with CAS capabilities with two GAU-8, I even slammed a GAU-8, with a drum mag, radar and targeting system, in a turret mount, on the back of a HEMTT! (pretty sure the chinese did that already)

How silly was i, eh?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, I reckon I'd feel confident suggesting that no helicopter would be able to take a GAU-8, certainly not in a useful capacity that wouldn't be better served with a fast jet built around the weapon like the A-10 - an aircraft which is on the way out, because the days of big guns aboard aircraft for AT work are just over sadly.

Most armoured vehicles are proof to that kind of attack, rockets are entirely sufficient, and standoff weapons like glide bombs and medium-range guided missiles are more than capable of keeping aircraft away from enemy air defences.

When I was much younger, I did consider a weapon I described as a "Kingsley-Browning gun" - an oversize 40mm four-barrel gun. The idea was that one would replace the 40mm and 25mm guns aboard AC-130 aircraft with two "KB guns" as they would have been known, retaining the 105mm howitzer, or fitting just three of these guns.
This gun, in all its ludicrously oversize glory (oversize in the sense of, its self-contained ammunition stowage made it about as large as some the armoured vehicles I envisioned it being attached to).

[Portugal 28XX]

Yeah, I reckon I'd feel confident suggesting that no helicopter would be able to take a GAU-8, certainly not in a useful capacity that wouldn't be better served with a fast jet built around the weapon like the A-10 - an aircraft which is on the way out, because the days of big guns aboard aircraft for AT work are just over sadly.

Most armoured vehicles are proof to that kind of attack, rockets are entirely sufficient, and standoff weapons like glide bombs and medium-range guided missiles are more than capable of keeping aircraft away from enemy air defences.

When I was much younger, I did consider a weapon I described as a "Kingsley-Browning gun" - an oversize 40mm four-barrel gun. The idea was that one would replace the 40mm and 25mm guns aboard AC-130 aircraft with two "KB guns" as they would have been known, retaining the 105mm howitzer, or fitting just three of these guns.
This gun, in all its ludicrously oversize glory (oversize in the sense of, its self-contained ammunition stowage made it about as large as some the armoured vehicles I envisioned it being attached to).

Hooray for imagination!! No limits!

[Celibrae]

This is a guys MT Factbook, please point out all the holes...

Hyacinth has an army like many others except it has a single legion of 10,000 men it uses in major engagements. They are trained to a higher degree and can use a variety of weapons. They use a Macedonian Phalanx formation mostly. With powerful machine guns functioning as lances. Behind this formation are often rows of artillery or unique weapons that are essentially machine guns but have been designed to work with a high trajectory. Much like a volley of archers.
The phalanxes also serve another purpose, to shield large and very powerful tanks (unique to Hyacinth). When needed they can raise their larger cannons to a high trajectory over the phalanx or the phalanx can separate to allow the tank to utilise its full range of weaponry. (many boom boom)
One century of the Legion is called the Falathorn Century, it is composed of snipers with also unique rifles that can either penetrate normal tank armour or pick off enemy leaders from hundreds of metres away. Another century is called the Magenta Century which is composed of assasins who can infiltrate enemy bases easily and relay important information back to the home base or give the enemy false information. They can break allies out of prisons or kill enemy leaders as they sleep (not used much in the battlefield).

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, I reckon I'd feel confident suggesting that no helicopter would be able to take a GAU-8, certainly not in a useful capacity that wouldn't be better served with a fast jet built around the weapon like the A-10 - an aircraft which is on the way out, because the days of big guns aboard aircraft for AT work are just over sadly.

Most armoured vehicles are proof to that kind of attack, rockets are entirely sufficient, and standoff weapons like glide bombs and medium-range guided missiles are more than capable of keeping aircraft away from enemy air defences.

When I was much younger, I did consider a weapon I described as a "Kingsley-Browning gun" - an oversize 40mm four-barrel gun. The idea was that one would replace the 40mm and 25mm guns aboard AC-130 aircraft with two "KB guns" as they would have been known, retaining the 105mm howitzer, or fitting just three of these guns.
This gun, in all its ludicrously oversize glory (oversize in the sense of, its self-contained ammunition stowage made it about as large as some the armoured vehicles I envisioned it being attached to).

Hooray for imagination!! No limits!

For the record, here's the lego model of the KB gun, next to my wheeled death truck concept, and also as mounted.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is a guys MT Factbook, please point out all the holes...

Hyacinth has an army like many others except it has a single legion of 10,000 men it uses in major engagements. They are trained to a higher degree and can use a variety of weapons. They use a Macedonian Phalanx formation mostly. With powerful machine guns functioning as lances. Behind this formation are often rows of artillery or unique weapons that are essentially machine guns but have been designed to work with a high trajectory. Much like a volley of archers.
The phalanxes also serve another purpose, to shield large and very powerful tanks (unique to Hyacinth). When needed they can raise their larger cannons to a high trajectory over the phalanx or the phalanx can separate to allow the tank to utilise its full range of weaponry. (many boom boom)
One century of the Legion is called the Falathorn Century, it is composed of snipers with also unique rifles that can either penetrate normal tank armour or pick off enemy leaders from hundreds of metres away. Another century is called the Magenta Century which is composed of assasins who can infiltrate enemy bases easily and relay important information back to the home base or give the enemy false information. They can break allies out of prisons or kill enemy leaders as they sleep (not used much in the battlefield).

He expects his enemy's senior commanders to be within the line of sight of all his forces, that his snipers can penetrate tank armour with portable rifles and doesn't seem to understand why no military today does what he proposed.

You could wipe out his entire "legion" with a single Harrier loaded up with the BL-755 cluster bomb.
Or a single Davy Crockett device. Apparently the battle ends at a few hundred metres, so your Davy Crockett crew should be nice and safe setting up at the limit of the 50% lethal radiation zone.

[Purpelia]

This is a guys MT Factbook, please point out all the holes...

Don't know about pointing out. But I'd like to poke a few of my own. The guy uses massed infantry tactics.

[The Corparation]

For the record, here's the lego model of the KB gun, next to my wheeled death truck concept, and also as mounted.

(Image)
(Image)

Needs more transparent orange chainsaws. Although I'm not sure whether or not you're old enough to know the glory of ice planet.

[Imperializt Russia]

For the record, here's the lego model of the KB gun, next to my wheeled death truck concept, and also as mounted.

(Image)
(Image)

Needs more transparent orange chainsaws. Although I'm not sure whether or not you're old enough to know the glory of ice planet.

I had enough sense to realise those were superfluous

[Primordial Luxa]

tag

[The Soodean Imperium]

If you already operate Kirovs, then probably yes.
There is no reason for a modern or near-modern state to adopt the Kirov.

I can't remember which, but IIRC one of the three - Ticonderoga, Arleigh-Burke, Type-45 - are meant to act as an air defence cruiser. The Kirov is pretty much just an overarmed counterpart to this.

My nation is basically supposed to be the USSR if it hadn't collapsed, so we would already have the four of them. Thank you.

Btw, I think it's the Burke you're thinking of, but I'm not sure, I recall something about them having a very advanced AA system.

Burke and Tico both have highly advanced AA systems, not only in terms of the missiles but also the radars supporting them. If you're designing an Air Defense Cruiser from the ground up, they're a good place to start, as the closest the Soviet Navy ever came to something like that was the modified Kara-class cruiser Azov and even that was a far cry from the Burke's capabilities.

The Kirov is a very heavy air defence cruiser. It is heavy mostly because of its dual-system propulsion - it has nuclear reactors and a more conventional steam boiler engine. IIRC, this is for reliability concerns of early Soviet naval reactors.

Eh, I'd more readily classify Kirov as a very heavy surface combatant than a very heavy air defense cruiser. It did have a lulzy number of S-300F tubes, but their fire-control radar ("Top Dome") could only illuminate targets out to about 75 kilometers. Its primary armament was the 20-tube battery of P-700 AShMs, for the Soviet Navy was generally more concerned with killing carriers than escorting them. After all, its Soviet Navy designation is TARKR, or Heavy Atomic Rocket Cruiser, with RKR (Rocket Cruiser) traditionally used to designate anti-ship cruisers like the Slava, Kresta-I, and Kynda (as opposed to Large ASW Ships like Kresta II and Kara).

Additionally, you have the powerplant the wrong way around: the steam turbines actually worked as a supercharger for the nuclear reactor. On nuclear power alone, Kirov had a maximum speed of around 25 to 29 knots, but the turbines allowed it to reach 32 knots for temporary periods - again, consistent with the mission of fast sorties against American carrier-battlegroups.

It makes the vessel needlessly oversize. Whilst this does allow it to carry a greater number of missiles than its lighter counterparts, it's just not necessary. The slight reduction in missile stowage for something like a Slava or Sovremenny is more than made up for by the ability to deploy two vessels of lower RCS and improved turnaround in port.

This, on the other hand, is entirely correct. In terms of missiles per ruble or missiles per ton, Slava is a better choice than Kirov, especially considering that the P-1000 being introduced as a replacement for the P-500 is in many ways superior to the P-700. The Slava was partly intended as a cheaper option in case the Kirov flopped, and indeed, toward the end of the Cold War the Soviet Navy cancelled its 5th Kirov and planned to build at least four and possibly seven more Slavas. As a result of Gorbachev's defense spending cutbacks and the subsequent breakup of the SSRs, of course, the new Slavas were cancelled shortly afterwards.

Slava also features a 64-tube S-300F complex, which is pretty potent for air defense if you upgrade it to S-300FM standard and replace the "Top Dome" fire-control radar with "Tomb Stone" as done on the refit of Petr Velikiy. It still wouldn't be a dedicated air defense cruiser comparable to the Tico or Burke, but it would give you the same engagement range as the land-based S-300s.