NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Aelarus]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

A belt-fed weapon will be substantially heavier than a magazine-fed weapon but will provide a greater volume of fire for the section.
Volumes of fire are what section machine guns live for.

[Questers]

Spaag is gay
real penis wielders fire vx at airfields

[Crookfur]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Personally both, a decent belt fed and a light automatic rifle to cover for it when it respositions, or two light ARs plus a belt fed/vehcile.


Technically speaking belt feds don't have to be heavier than mag feds its just that belt fed designs tend to be built to better handle automatic fire on a sustained basis whilt Mag feds tend these days to be based on lighter rifles. There are of course exceptions such as the bren which is pretty heavy and stuff like belt fed AR-15alikes which aren't any heavier than rifles.

And finlly you can always combine the two ala the negev, i won't say minimi/M249 as it isn't great with mags.

[Arthurista]

Are ERA bricks on top of turrets the best way to counter DPICM and the like? Or are there more effective solutions and don't cost an arm and a leg?

[Arthurista]

Also, imagine I'm to use the .280/7x44 as a universal cartridge, for gimpies as well as rifles, would that work? Or would my infantry be placed at a serious disadvantage against opponents armed with PKMs or MAGs? Should I keep a separate full-powered round for GPMGs or is that redundant?

[Husseinarti]

Also, imagine I'm to use the .280/7x44 as a universal cartridge, for gimpies as well as rifles, would that work? Or would my infantry be placed at a serious disadvantage against opponents armed with PKMs or MAGs? Should I keep a separate full-powered round for GPMGs or is that redundant?

.280 ducked.

[Elan Valleys]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

That is a man greatly satisfied by the affirmation of his masculinity.

[Husseinarti]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

Nam has a trademark on cool machine gunners.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

That isn't operator at all.

[Elan Valleys]

Who needs operator when you can be ally?

[Palakistan]

I'm not a big small arms person, but which do you prefer: mag or belt fed LMG?

Belt fed because then you can look like this:

"I've got this!" "I'm manly!"

[Kamurassia]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

[San Benedict e San Francesco]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

That's.... entirely dependant on too many variables.

[EsToVnIa]

Also, imagine I'm to use the .280/7x44 as a universal cartridge, for gimpies as well as rifles, would that work? Or would my infantry be placed at a serious disadvantage against opponents armed with PKMs or MAGs? Should I keep a separate full-powered round for GPMGs or is that redundant?

There's better choices than .280 British, tbh

Most GPC fans create their own "optimum" though.

[Imperializt Russia]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

Conventional artillery would probably inflict more kills on infantry, damage his armour and direct-fire guns and disrupt his fortifications work.

Chemical shelling would disrupt all of these, but not during the battle itself. If an enemy expects you to use chemical weapons, they will prepare for that eventuality. Chemical drills, mass issuing of chemical protective gear. Chemical weapons are difficult to move around the front in mechanised warfare. 3-platoon of the 12th tank battalion moves 400 metres off-route and wanders into an anti-tank gun the wrong side of a copse. Two regiments of the enemy now exploit this breach in your line, secure your regimental headquarters and seize two tonnes of chemical munitions and the equipment to handle it.

Either they start lobbing it at you now, or they destroy it and it's lost.

[The Kievan People]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

Neither.

You'll need to go shoot them.

[Gallia-]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

Neither.

You'll need to go shoot them.

[Arthurista]

OK I have a question lets say I'm assaulting a well defended position with tanks what would kill the most defending infantry before the initial assault, a SPG artillery strike or a Chemical/biological weapons strike?
(yes I know its very vague)

Conventional artillery would probably inflict more kills on infantry, damage his armour and direct-fire guns and disrupt his fortifications work.

Chemical shelling would disrupt all of these, but not during the battle itself. If an enemy expects you to use chemical weapons, they will prepare for that eventuality. Chemical drills, mass issuing of chemical protective gear. Chemical weapons are difficult to move around the front in mechanised warfare. 3-platoon of the 12th tank battalion moves 400 metres off-route and wanders into an anti-tank gun the wrong side of a copse. Two regiments of the enemy now exploit this breach in your line, secure your regimental headquarters and seize two tonnes of chemical munitions and the equipment to handle it.

Either they start lobbing it at you now, or they destroy it and it's lost.

Won't a WMD strike stop your own advancing armoured columns as well, even if you win that engagement? Armoured vehicles may have NBC overpressure systems, but lorries and fuel tankers don't.

See page 163 of this article - it's on the area denial effect in the aftermath of popping a tac, but the logic ought also apply to nerve agents as well.

[Confederated Socialist Republic]

My countries constitution does not allow it to attack other countries (however it does give provisions to defend allies), so I won't be invading any country. However I will still need a strong navy to defend my country from any possible attack.

I'm thinking an assortment of cruisers and destroyers (the guided missile variety), also some littoral combat ships and some frigates.
I guess submarines would also be useful for defence.
I don't have to worry about aircraft carriers, as I have numerous air bases which would be in range of any invading fleet.
And since, there is a large part of territory not attached to my mainland, several amphibious transport docks would probably be needed.

Would this be enough to defend against an attack? Or am I missing anything?

Thanks.

[Imperializt Russia]

Conventional artillery would probably inflict more kills on infantry, damage his armour and direct-fire guns and disrupt his fortifications work.

Chemical shelling would disrupt all of these, but not during the battle itself. If an enemy expects you to use chemical weapons, they will prepare for that eventuality. Chemical drills, mass issuing of chemical protective gear. Chemical weapons are difficult to move around the front in mechanised warfare. 3-platoon of the 12th tank battalion moves 400 metres off-route and wanders into an anti-tank gun the wrong side of a copse. Two regiments of the enemy now exploit this breach in your line, secure your regimental headquarters and seize two tonnes of chemical munitions and the equipment to handle it.

Either they start lobbing it at you now, or they destroy it and it's lost.

Won't a WMD strike stop your own advancing armoured columns as well, even if you win that engagement? Armoured vehicles may have NBC overpressure systems, but lorries and fuel tankers don't.

See page 163 of this article - it's on the area denial effect in the aftermath of popping a tac, but the logic ought also apply to nerve agents as well.

They'll just drive straight through, they'll pull the tarpaulin drawstrings tight and squeeze into MOPP before climbing into the cab.

[Arthurista]

My countries constitution does not allow it to attack other countries (however it does give provisions to defend allies), so I won't be invading any country. However I will still need a strong navy to defend my country from any possible attack.

I'm thinking an assortment of cruisers and destroyers (the guided missile variety), also some littoral combat ships and some frigates.
I guess submarines would also be useful for defence.
I don't have to worry about aircraft carriers, as I have numerous air bases which would be in range of any invading fleet.
And since, there is a large part of territory not attached to my mainland, several amphibious transport docks would probably be needed.

Would this be enough to defend against an attack? Or am I missing anything?

Thanks.

What's your naval defence posture? Is it merely the defence of your littoral zone, or do you need to defend your sea-lines of communication beyond the range of land-based aviation as well?

If the latter applies, it might be worth investing in some blue-water anti-submarine assets as well.

[Atomic Utopia]

My countries constitution does not allow it to attack other countries (however it does give provisions to defend allies), so I won't be invading any country. However I will still need a strong navy to defend my country from any possible attack.

I'm thinking an assortment of cruisers and destroyers (the guided missile variety), also some littoral combat ships and some frigates.
I guess submarines would also be useful for defence.
I don't have to worry about aircraft carriers, as I have numerous air bases which would be in range of any invading fleet.
And since, there is a large part of territory not attached to my mainland, several amphibious transport docks would probably be needed.

Would this be enough to defend against an attack? Or am I missing anything?

Thanks.

You are missing many things, but one I know is a nuclear deterrent. If you are not attacking others or planning to have tactical use weapons then you will only need 1-2 thousand bombs at most to make certain that you are not worth attacking at all. It would be advisable to attach them to an automated launch system that launches upon nuclear or conventional attack and announce that you have done so as to remove the human part of the decision making process and guarntee retaliation.

Also, pre-emptive strikes of the non-nuclear variety are entirely reasonable in certain uses, such as preventing attacks from non-state actors or to obtain a secure supply resources.

[Atomic Utopia]

Conventional artillery would probably inflict more kills on infantry, damage his armour and direct-fire guns and disrupt his fortifications work.

Chemical shelling would disrupt all of these, but not during the battle itself. If an enemy expects you to use chemical weapons, they will prepare for that eventuality. Chemical drills, mass issuing of chemical protective gear. Chemical weapons are difficult to move around the front in mechanised warfare. 3-platoon of the 12th tank battalion moves 400 metres off-route and wanders into an anti-tank gun the wrong side of a copse. Two regiments of the enemy now exploit this breach in your line, secure your regimental headquarters and seize two tonnes of chemical munitions and the equipment to handle it.

Either they start lobbing it at you now, or they destroy it and it's lost.

Won't a WMD strike stop your own advancing armoured columns as well, even if you win that engagement? Armoured vehicles may have NBC overpressure systems, but lorries and fuel tankers don't.

See page 163 of this article - it's on the area denial effect in the aftermath of popping a tac, but the logic ought also apply to nerve agents as well.

there is no page 163, the article is not that long.

But fuel tankers and lorries can no doubt be made to have over-pressure systems if you often use tactical nuclear weapons and the crews can wear CBRN suits to prevent problems when they are outside. Another interesting thing to note is that nerve agents tend to (assuming it is not part of the V series) decay quickly, within hours, thus it should not be much of a problem. Heck, if you have surrounded an enemy position on two or three sides it might be advisable to fire VX around the sides you have not and drop sarin in the central area.

Regardless, the area you are going to cover with VX is going to be far smaller than the area you can cover with fallout from a few nuclear bombs, and nuclear bombs will always be more effective than VX for all large-scale purposes because they, you know, explode.