NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Roski]

do SLBMs also do the whole MRV thing?

[Imperializt Russia]

Trident II says hi.

[Roski]

Trident II says hi.

o ye


thanks

[Gallia-]

Works fine for SADARM, and I guess this is why we're using artillery and not MANPAT kit.

SADARM has more time to identify its targets, and has an MMW sensor as well (which is not affected by clutter).

A MMW radar isn't "not affected" by clutter in the slightest. The easiest way to discover this is by putting the tank's parking brake on.

An autonomous artillery shell would probably engage targets based on a stored database of images anyway, so it'd ignore the truck because the tank is within its field of view.

[Nikolausstadt]

Hey guys, what kind of uniforms + camouflage would you expect for soldiers fighting in cities? Nikolausstadt, as some Germans and Dutch speakers would've already noticed by name, is a city-state and it's armed forces will only be required in it's streets.

[Gallia-]

Urban Battle Dress Uniform for maximum 90s future:







https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... U_Coat.JPG
http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/13/87/79/34/img_9942.jpg

[Nikolausstadt]

Urban Battle Dress Uniform for maximum 90s future:

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... U_Coat.JPG
http://i47.servimg.com/u/f47/13/87/79/34/img_9942.jpg

Thanks!

[Gallia-]

No problem.

[The Kievan People]

Some extensive googling sees to suggest that I am misremembering and there are no functional concepts for IIR artillery shells. Maybe the seekers are too delicate. Of course, laser seekers are abundant in this field.

When NATO was working on a future gun fired anti-armour munition in the 1980s and 1990s putting an IIR seeker in Copperhead was proposed by the manufacturer.

It can be done. The MRM-CEs seeker could survive being launched from a gun. Strix (which is old-school scanning IR, not IIR IIRC) worked quite well in US army tests.

It's not really the best option though. Long range "Fiber Optic" missiles like the Israeli SPIKE-NLOS (which is radio controlled) are generally the best option for non-line-of-sight anti-armor. Because the missiles are under control for the entire flight and provide limited situational awareness to the operator they can be fired at targets whose position is only generally known, which is much better than self-guided munitions that normally need to be placed within 100-200 meters of the target to have any chance of killing it. Having a human operator who can direct the missile to lock on to targets also significantly improves the chance that a target will be engaged if the missile is fired into an area with only limited knowledge of the targets location and it makes it a more viable close support weapon that can be used safely close to ones own troops - self-guided munitions need a very large cordon because they basically cannot distinguish friendly/enemy vehicles and will lock on to a Bradley as readily as a BMP-2. FOGs are not restrained to engaging AFVs either.

This RAND study is good reading, it covers a numerical simulation of a variety of advanced (1990s) anti-armor weapons and their potential impact on the loss-exchange ratio of light forces.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /DB169.pdf

SPOILER: EFOGM was the single best system, followed by HIMARS with DAMOCLES. DAMOCLES was a sort of super-SADARM developed by DARPA.

[Gallia-]

simpkin knew all about FOGs and Spike-NLOS the last real baller

e: also 3" ifv stronk

[The Kievan People]

Israel has been using them since the 80s apparently. He may have been PRIVY.

Britain actually borrowed a bunch of Israeli Spike NLOS carriers for use in Afghanistan.

[Gallia-]

exactor is a bit silly tho it's not an under armour launcher iirc

dream of swingfire died with striker

we must have a moment of silence every anniversary of swingfire's birth r i p

[The Kievan People]

rip in pepperoni

But really if you are using Exactor for direct fire...

[Gallia-]

rip in pepperoni

But really if you are using Exactor for direct fire...

how will you avoid the prying eyes of the soviet super drones who can see your wire and trace it back to give your position to their omniscient counter fire batteries

[Questers]

They were bought iirc. Which suggests we may see them again. SPIKE NLOS on Scout SV y/y

[Crookfur]

They were bought iirc. Which suggests we may see them again. SPIKE NLOS on Scout SV y/y

Again IIRC but they were not only bought but have been moved into the "core capability" catagory so they are here to stay ableit as an assets very securely attached to the RA.

i think the warthog was being suggested as the non m113 vehcile to carry them as the RA were to inherit all the leftovers that came back from afghanistan but Scout SV is a possibility. I might have said stomer but given the volume of them being off loaded i think that unlikely.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some extensive googling sees to suggest that I am misremembering and there are no functional concepts for IIR artillery shells. Maybe the seekers are too delicate. Of course, laser seekers are abundant in this field.

When NATO was working on a future gun fired anti-armour munition in the 1980s and 1990s putting an IIR seeker in Copperhead was proposed by the manufacturer.

It can be done. The MRM-CEs seeker could survive being launched from a gun. Strix (which is old-school scanning IR, not IIR IIRC) worked quite well in US army tests.

It's not really the best option though. Long range "Fiber Optic" missiles like the Israeli SPIKE-NLOS (which is radio controlled) are generally the best option for non-line-of-sight anti-armor. Because the missiles are under control for the entire flight and provide limited situational awareness to the operator they can be fired at targets whose position is only generally known, which is much better than self-guided munitions that normally need to be placed within 100-200 meters of the target to have any chance of killing it. Having a human operator who can direct the missile to lock on to targets also significantly improves the chance that a target will be engaged if the missile is fired into an area with only limited knowledge of the targets location and it makes it a more viable close support weapon that can be used safely close to ones own troops - self-guided munitions need a very large cordon because they basically cannot distinguish friendly/enemy vehicles and will lock on to a Bradley as readily as a BMP-2. FOGs are not restrained to engaging AFVs either.

This RAND study is good reading, it covers a numerical simulation of a variety of advanced (1990s) anti-armor weapons and their potential impact on the loss-exchange ratio of light forces.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /DB169.pdf

SPOILER: EFOGM was the single best system, followed by HIMARS with DAMOCLES. DAMOCLES was a sort of super-SADARM developed by DARPA.

Thanks, I'll give it a read.

I still find it weird that even relatively recent military research documents are basically as old as me.

[Mitheldalond]

How does this sound for a WWII destroyer? I don't have any fancy drawings yet, so I'll just use a Gearing for reference, since OOC it is based off the Gearing-class (IC it has nothing to do with the Gearing).

It has 4 quintuple-torpedo tubes, one behind the aft stack and one in place of the aft 5"/38 turret; the other two are the same as in the picture. The two dual 40mm mounts on either side of the forward smokestack are changed to quad mounts, with another quad mount 40mm on top of the bridge in front of the 5" gun director (which is moved a little bit further aft to make room). There is a dual 40mm mount on each side of the superstructure between torpedo mounts 2 and 3. There are four 20mm Oerlikons on the stern instead of three, another 4 on platforms by the second smokestack, and four on bridge structure as shown in the image. The depth charge throwers along the side are replaced with 12 trainable Hedgehog mortars, 6 on the deck on either side of the superstructure, 4 in front of the twin 40mm mounts and 2 behind. The forward 5"/38s are the same as in the image.

In total, it is armed with 4 5"/38s in twin turrets, 20 torpedo tubes, 16 40mm Bofors, 12 20mm Oerlikons, 12 Hedgehogs, and 2 depth charge rails at the stern.

The warships thread is busy arguing about F-35s, so I'll just leave this here.

[Atlantica]

I was taking a look at the Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) System, and I just came up with a question: how effective and practical would a THAAD-style, yet sea-based missile be for ballistic missile defense?

[New Vihenia]

I was taking a look at the Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) System, and I just came up with a question: how effective and practical would a THAAD-style, yet sea-based missile be for ballistic missile defense?

Look at SM-3.

[Connori Pilgrims]

How does this sound for a WWII destroyer? I don't have any fancy drawings yet, so I'll just use a Gearing for reference, since OOC it is based off the Gearing-class (IC it has nothing to do with the Gearing).

It has 4 quintuple-torpedo tubes, one behind the aft stack and one in place of the aft 5"/38 turret; the other two are the same as in the picture. The two dual 40mm mounts on either side of the forward smokestack are changed to quad mounts, with another quad mount 40mm on top of the bridge in front of the 5" gun director (which is moved a little bit further aft to make room). There is a dual 40mm mount on each side of the superstructure between torpedo mounts 2 and 3. There are four 20mm Oerlikons on the stern instead of three, another 4 on platforms by the second smokestack, and four on bridge structure as shown in the image. The depth charge throwers along the side are replaced with 12 trainable Hedgehog mortars, 6 on the deck on either side of the superstructure, 4 in front of the twin 40mm mounts and 2 behind. The forward 5"/38s are the same as in the image.

In total, it is armed with 4 5"/38s in twin turrets, 20 torpedo tubes, 16 40mm Bofors, 12 20mm Oerlikons, 12 Hedgehogs, and 2 depth charge rails at the stern.

The warships thread is busy arguing about F-35s, so I'll just leave this here.

Excessive number of torpedo tubes... if it is within the same age and generation as the Gearing-class then less torpedoes, more AA guns would be a better use of your time. The era of mass torpedo strikes of the kind the IJN envisioned would be more or less gone by the time these things would be finished, assuming you start construction at around the same time as the Gearing.

Personally, I'd delete two torpedo tube banks and replace with another dual 5"/38 mount and more Bofors guns (so basically don't change the Gearing base design) or delete the extra torpedo banks and make the destroyer correspondingly smaller... it'll end up looking like a Yank style Battle/Barfleur-class destroyer.

[Questers]

Ironically... I had to redesign my divisions again. (I'm sure I'm losing some credibility over this) I hope this is the last time because it's getting a bit boring, honestly, but the strategic situation is changing. So I need more Divisions. These are more lightweight in terms of personnel (and once again, are composed of some reserve units) but are still pretty beastly in terms of materiel. They're also more Fuller-y. I got rid of the exploitation element as well, I don't think it fitted with my doctrine.



Wheels get the fuck out.

18,500 personnel
444 Ermine main battle tanks
444 Marten armoured fighting vehicles
288 Springhare reconnaissance fighting vehicle
156 AS-21C 155-mm self-propelled howitzers and 36 MRAS-MA 227-mm MRLS
36 Chinkara attack helicopters
1,500 other vehicles, tracked and wheeled

I reduced number of SPGs now there are 3 batteries of 36, 1 per brigade, and 2 batteries of 24 for the division. as usual, division artillery commander can take control of all units at any time.

[Imperializt Russia]

444 tanks? Is this a "regular" division or an armoured division?

[Questers]

This is a regular Division. I don't have infantry/armoured distinction except in independent brigades.

It has six regiments of 74 tanks, and six regiments of 74 IFVs (I know the IFV numbers are off, need to fix.) Each regiment has 4 companies of 18 tank/MICV and an HQ of 2 tank/MICV. So there are 24 companies of tanks and 24 companies of armoured infantry. Minus the HQ vehicles, there are 3280 riflemen -- that includes only dismount scouts in recce units, and troops in MICV in infantry companies.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is a regular Division. I don't have infantry/armoured distinction except in independent brigades.

It has six regiments of 74 tanks.

My trousers are uncomfortable.