NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[North Yemen-]

So I have one of nations currently locked in a far away war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the main force I'm fighting has moved into the jungle and is commencing guerrilla tactics against me and my ally. I have 9,600 troops, 20 arty, 93 tanks, and 91 APC's. I can call in my jets to commence airstrikes. We have not achieved air parity. So what is the best option for anti guerrilla tactics in a jungle against 27,000 enemy troops?

Twiddle your thumbs and cry.

Or you could also leave. That's probably a better option, barring the capability to send in more boots on the ground.

[The Nuclear Fist]

So I have one of nations currently locked in a far away war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the main force I'm fighting has moved into the jungle and is commencing guerrilla tactics against me and my ally. I have 9,600 troops, 20 arty, 93 tanks, and 91 APC's. I can call in my jets to commence airstrikes. We have not achieved air parity. So what is the best option for anti guerrilla tactics in a jungle against 27,000 enemy troops?

Why don't you just gas them?

[Allanea]

Because chemical weapons do not work like that?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Because chemical weapons do not work like that?

Stop trying to ruin my dreams

[Palakistan]

A force of 9,000 people with such a small amount of tanks and artillery can't really hope to defeat a force of 27,000 people. I suggest you either retreat or bring in vastly more people, tanks, and artillery.

I'm going to bring in a lot more weapons to support these guys. More artillery, more tanks, more everything!

[North Yemen-]

A force of 9,000 people with such a small amount of tanks and artillery can't really hope to defeat a force of 27,000 people. I suggest you either retreat or bring in vastly more people, tanks, and artillery.

I'm going to bring in a lot more weapons to support these guys. More artillery, more tanks, more everything!

More guys also helps.

[Palakistan]

I'm going to bring in a lot more weapons to support these guys. More artillery, more tanks, more everything!

More guys also helps.

Yup. I have to airlift all of my equipment over too, luckily I use T-90, M-113 APC, and D-30 artillery, which is lighter. So a couple of questions: is napalm still a reliable weapon in jungle warfare, Dan could you make napalm artillery shells?

[Imperializt Russia]

T-90 isn't exactly airmobile. In fact, I'd say it's not airmobile. It weighs best part of fifty tonnes.

[The Akasha Colony]

More guys also helps.

Yup. I have to airlift all of my equipment over too, luckily I use T-90, M-113 APC, and D-30 artillery, which is lighter.

Only marginally. T-90 is still an MBT and will still require a strategic airlifter to move. It's not like you're going to be able to deploy it via C-130 or even A400.

So a couple of questions: is napalm still a reliable weapon in jungle warfare, Dan could you make napalm artillery shells?

1. It's reliable in that it still burns, but there are generally better ways to go about fighting in a jungle than carpet bombing areas with napalm like a Vietnam War movie.

2. Probably, but they'd be less effective than normal HE fragmentation shells even in a jungle.

[Palakistan]

Yup. I have to airlift all of my equipment over too, luckily I use T-90, M-113 APC, and D-30 artillery, which is lighter.

Only marginally. T-90 is still an MBT and will still require a strategic airlifter to move. It's not like you're going to be able to deploy it via C-130 or even A400.

So a couple of questions: is napalm still a reliable weapon in jungle warfare, Dan could you make napalm artillery shells?

1. It's reliable in that it still burns, but there are generally better ways to go about fighting in a jungle than carpet bombing areas with napalm like a Vietnam War movie.

2. Probably, but they'd be less effective than normal HE fragmentation shells even in a jungle.

So what would your strategy be for eliminating enemy personnel in jungle warfare?

[The Kievan People]

Have you tried artillery?

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

I'm a big fan of "shake 'n' bake" - air strikes involving HE to turn all those trees into nice kindling, followed up by napalm to make a conflagration.

There's no reason to say artillery wouldn't work just as well, provided you have a good spotter. Remember, even in Vietnam the U.S. killed far more than it took losses - the NVA and VC were just more willing to accept those losses than the U.S.

And lots of the casualties were noncoms and civilians.

[The Kievan People]

I'm a big fan of "shake 'n' bake" - air strikes involving HE to turn all those trees into nice kindling, followed up by napalm to make a conflagration.

Wet wood is not prone to burning on its own. In the jungle, wood is usually wet.

[Nachmere]

i am p. sure even wet wood will catch fire when you napalm it.

[The Kievan People]

i am p. sure even wet wood will catch fire when you napalm it.

It would burn in the presence of napalm, yes.

But once the napalm burns up the fire would probably go out. The conflagration would probably not be much different from what would occur if you dropped the napalm on an empty field.

[Korouse]

i am p. sure even wet wood will catch fire when you napalm it.

It would burn in the presence of napalm, yes.

But once the napalm burns up the fire would probably go out. The conflagration would probably not be much different from what would occur if you dropped the napalm on an empty field.

It's still effective against tanks, dug-in positions, and Vietnamese children though.

[The Kievan People]

It's still effective against tanks, dug-in positions, and Vietnamese children though.

It is not effective against tanks. It is not effective against positions with overhead cover either.

FRAG > Child bodies.

[Korouse]

It's still effective against tanks, dug-in positions, and Vietnamese children though.

It is not effective against tanks. It is not effective against positions with overhead cover either.

FRAG > Child bodies.

*It's been used against tanks, dug-in postitions, and vietnamese children

Better?

[Slavtania]

Long time lurker, first time poster. (also, tag, etc)

I've been doing some reading on various munitions/shells for artillery, specifically fragmenting ammunition, and was wondering why steel was more or less the staple as far as 'fragments' go. (I'm sure there's a technical term specifically for the part of the shell that is meant only to turn into hateful splinters.)

I thought of alternatives, and the one that bothered me the most (in terms of lack of resources I can find through google) was glass. The closest I could find of mention was an excerpt within a document I found titled 'Law Among Nations' By Gerhard von Glahn and James Larry Taulbee, mentioning this:

"AP-I, Article 35(2), forbids the employment of arms, projectiles, and other material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering... ...state practice has sanctioned the use of explosives in artillery shells, mines, and hand grenandes. On the other hand, such weapons as lances with barbed heads, irregularly shaped bullets, shells filled with glass, and the application of some substance to bullets, intended to inflame a wound, have been accepted as forbidden."

Which only tells me that people thought of this (a century ago-ish), decided it was abhorrent, wrote it down as 'bad', and called it a day. If it is indeed prohibited by international law, then that explains why there are no 'modern' documents concerning glass liners/fragments within artillery shells.

This also tells me though, that it is effective/abhorrent enough to have been specifically mentioned in international law.

I guess the question is, would glass be an effective alternative to steel in terms of fragmentation, if there is no globally recognized legal issue holding you back?

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Steel shrapnel weighs more, so with more inertia it can penetrate through even thin vehicle armor. Glass would probably disintegrate immediately.

[The Kievan People]

The fragments are pieces of the shell body. Since shrapnel went out of style in WWI, HE shells which have only the shell body and HE fill, have been the preferred munition.

Steel is preferred because it is mechanically strong, allowing for the largest possible HE content, relatively inexpensive and still produces useful fragments. Weaker materials require much thicker shell walls both to survive launch and resist disintegrating into powder when the charge detonates.

[Palakistan]

Have you tried artillery?

I haven't done much yet. Should I deploy a lot of artillery and shoot them up? What would basic operating procedure be for this?

[Slavtania]

Steel shrapnel weighs more, so with more inertia it can penetrate through even thin vehicle armor. Glass would probably disintegrate immediately.

Also a good point. The only time I'd think of where 'just as sharp but easier to disintegrate' would be handy is if you were trying to prevent shrapnel from spreading too far from your impact point, but then again, thats the whole point of shrapnel.

The fragments are pieces of the shell body. Since shrapnel went out of style in WWI, HE shells which have only the shell body and HE fill, have been the preferred munition.

Steel is preferred because it is mechanically strong, allowing for the largest possible HE content, relatively inexpensive and still produces useful fragments. Weaker materials require much thicker shell walls both to survive launch and resist disintegrating into powder when the charge detonates.

Huh. Here I thought we were still using shrapnel in artillery, not that it went out of style at about the same time they decided that glass in artillery was a special sort of mean. The long and short is, to include glass in a shell, it would have to weigh the same/possibly more to make up for structural weaknesses.

I'm going to put this under 'unnecessary but plausible'.

[Immoren]

Steel shrapnel weighs more, so with more inertia it can penetrate through even thin vehicle armor. Glass would probably disintegrate immediately.

Also a good point. The only time I'd think of where 'just as sharp but easier to disintegrate' would be handy is if you were trying to prevent shrapnel from spreading too far from your impact point, but then again, thats the whole point of shrapnel.

The fragments are pieces of the shell body. Since shrapnel went out of style in WWI, HE shells which have only the shell body and HE fill, have been the preferred munition.

Steel is preferred because it is mechanically strong, allowing for the largest possible HE content, relatively inexpensive and still produces useful fragments. Weaker materials require much thicker shell walls both to survive launch and resist disintegrating into powder when the charge detonates.

Huh. Here I thought we were still using shrapnel in artillery, not that it went out of style at about the same time they decided that glass in artillery was a special sort of mean. The long and short is, to include glass in a shell, it would have to weigh the same/possibly more to make up for structural weaknesses.

I'm going to put this under 'unnecessary but plausible'.

Closest thing to shrapnel is having tungsten balls inside shell case, but those are more used with infantry explosives rather than full blown artillery.

[The Akasha Colony]

Huh. Here I thought we were still using shrapnel in artillery, not that it went out of style at about the same time they decided that glass in artillery was a special sort of mean. The long and short is, to include glass in a shell, it would have to weigh the same/possibly more to make up for structural weaknesses.

I'm going to put this under 'unnecessary but plausible'.

You'd still need the same steel outer shell since glass would simply shatter when fired out of a cannon otherwise. Thus, adding glass only displaces the HE filler, resulting in a smaller explosion.