NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Dostanuot Loj]

Do mortar platoons really count as artillery?

Mortars are generally infantry weapons.

I say "generally" because I'm sure there's some ridiculous countries that have mortars living inside the artillery troops/corps/branch instead of the rifle corps/infantry branch/motor-rifle troops.

IIRC the French have 120mm mortars within the artillery.
They were originally supposed to be in the infantry regiments, with 105mm or 155mm guns being in artillery units.
But then the French decided to spend the money elsewhere and to let the artillery keep enough guns the infantry lost the mortars.

[Gallia-]

[/enerally, mortars are infantry weapons, and the men operating them are trained as infantry, rather than gunners.

But as a matter of fact, the crew of an AMOS mortar or a Hosta are not really infantrymen in any recognizable sense of the word.

Neither are mechanized infantrymen who drive IFVs, or the crews of a Stryker MGS.

Both still have their books written by the Infantry Branch.

Mortars are generally infantry weapons.

I say "generally" because I'm sure there's some ridiculous countries that have mortars living inside the artillery troops/corps/branch instead of the rifle corps/infantry branch/motor-rifle troops.

IIRC the French have 120mm mortars within the artillery.
They were originally supposed to be in the infantry regiments, with 105mm or 155mm guns being in artillery units.
But then the French decided to spend the money elsewhere and to let the artillery keep enough guns the infantry lost the mortars.

What a ridiculous country. ):

[Kazarogkai]

It can't really fire explosive shells which limits its utility somewhat. IMO its best application would be as an anti-missile weapon using hypervelocity tungsten shells (which could potentially be guided) to destroy incoming AShMs or ballistic missiles.

On the contrary, the EMRG can actually fire high explosive rounds if it wanted to; the current EMRG projectile sits inside a sabot. Anything that can withstand the peak acceleration (like most electronics inside smart artillery shells) can be theoretically put inside the sabot and launched. However since the rounds being propelled is so fast, there is no need for explosives in the first place; if the target is thick enough, the round will continue to travel and break things up....like a localized explosive.

The reason why the USN wants the railgun to fight missiles rather than ground fire support would be related to the fact that it will use very expensive guided shells to do anything useful versus ground. On the other hand, the rounds are somewhat cheaper than interceptor missiles and the shooter won't run out of railgun shells faster than a missile thus explaining why the interest is on making the weapon work in anti-missile role.

I imagine a big problem is that unlike a proper howitzer it can't really engage in indirect fire, without smart shells of course which are expensive, limiting it's usefulness for ground support as such it most certainly will not be replacing those any time soon.

[The Akasha Colony]

On the contrary, the EMRG can actually fire high explosive rounds if it wanted to; the current EMRG projectile sits inside a sabot. Anything that can withstand the peak acceleration (like most electronics inside smart artillery shells) can be theoretically put inside the sabot and launched. However since the rounds being propelled is so fast, there is no need for explosives in the first place; if the target is thick enough, the round will continue to travel and break things up....like a localized explosive.

The reason why the USN wants the railgun to fight missiles rather than ground fire support would be related to the fact that it will use very expensive guided shells to do anything useful versus ground. On the other hand, the rounds are somewhat cheaper than interceptor missiles and the shooter won't run out of railgun shells faster than a missile thus explaining why the interest is on making the weapon work in anti-missile role.

I imagine a big problem is that unlike a proper howitzer it can't really engage in indirect fire, without smart shells of course which are expensive, limiting it's usefulness for ground support as such it most certainly will not be replacing those any time soon.

It would be better than a howitzer for indirect fire. With electromagnetic acceleration, all of the uncertainties in propellant burn rate that varies from shell to shell due to minor impurities and manufacturing differences would be eliminated, increasing accuracy. And as an electromagnetic weapon, it wouldn't need to worry about loading different numbers of powder bags or cartridges to adjust firing range, just adjust power to the system.

The smart shells are only needed because the really powerful versions are expected to potentially fire hundreds of kilometers, and over that distance even a very accurate gun will exhibit a significant drop in accuracy. Current rocket-assisted shells fired from conventional guns designed to achieve similar range like ERGM and LRLAP are also guided, but this does not preclude the gun from firing unguided rounds at shorter ranges.

[Gallia-]

A railgun is wanted for CIWS because railguns can be made quite small and they are an impressive improvement over conventional gun CIWS in terms of engagement speed.

The fact that the USN is literally making guided shells for every major gun caliber from 5-6" is proof enough that Haishan's silly thesis is wrong. Common sense is the other proof.

[Rich and Corporations]

Railgun excels over propellants due to limits to acceleration from the speed of sound. Otherwise you don't really need much accuracy because either the artillery is used for suppression or for point targets slightly smaller than a city block. In other cases, terminal guidance requires a soldier with a laser pointing at the target and/or electronics capable of surviving high Gs combined with course correction.

[Kazarogkai]

I would still have concerns over expense.

Question how expensive would a ground based self prperled rail gun be in comparison to say an M109 howitzer? If for the same price I could buy 50 of the latter I would stick with that. Large numbers of good enough weapons is superior to one or two super weapons. meh.

Not gonna deny though rail guns are pretty cool though, just Ive never bee much interested in science fiction. Lasers for one thing never impressed me, smart bullets and micro rockets are my thing.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Railguns are mostly ship weapons for the foreseeable future as the massive power generation facilities and large banks of capacitors necessary to fire them are fairly large. Compared to a conventional gun the most obvious advantage is muzzle velocity (currently 2.5 km/s or mach 7.4 at sea level) which does two things: significantly increase range and significantly reduce time-of-flight. The other advantage is that the muzzle velocity can be precisely controlled by adjusting the amount of power delivered to the rails meaning you'er not limited by fixed powder bag increments on conventional guns when engaging targets as something shorter than maximum range. Another advantage is there's no propellant being stored on the ship which could explode in the case of a fire. As for its effectiveness as a shore bombardment weapon it would be quite effective, the shells are designed to release a cloud of tungsten shrapnel which could tear through radars, trucks, and lightly armored vehicles, amongst other targets. I'm presuming the shells will be GPS guided as the proposed 64MJ railgun has a maximum predicted range of a whopping 463 kilometers (250nm) which would necessitate the use of some kind of guidance system, GPS probably being the easiest to integrate as it would just be a set of steerable fins and a chip and transponder in the base of the shell. It would have to be able to survive the extremely high Gs of acceleration though that should be possible as current GPS/IMU units for guided shells are hardened to survive tens of thousands of G forces.

[The Kievan People]

One of the more obscure advantages of rail guns is they have a very small firing signature. Though they like to keep it on the down-low the SBIRS GEO, which can monitor most of a hemisphere continuously, can definitely detect the muzzle blasts or massed artillery or the plumes of artillery rockets, and possibly even individual guns/rockets. Aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and Rafael with their imaging infrared MAWS can also detect artillery fire at uncomfortably long ranges.

All these things are rather new and have yet to coalesce (at least in the white world, though when the US revealed they could determine where Syrian grad chemical rockets had been launched from they revealed a bit about how much they can really see) into a new form of artillery hunting system. But it's a big concern in the long run, especially as staring infrared MAWS proliferate on combat aircraft. When there are enough eyes in the sky and practical difficulties of managing false alarms and passing that data on in a timely manner are solved the huge visible and infrared firing signature of conventional rocket and tube artillery will be a big problem.

[Western Weyard]

One of the more obscure advantages of rail guns is they have a very small firing signature. Though they like to keep it on the down-low the SBIRS GEO, which can monitor most of a hemisphere continuously, can definitely detect the muzzle blasts or massed artillery or the plumes of artillery rockets, and possibly even individual guns/rockets. Aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and Rafael with their imaging infrared MAWS can also detect artillery fire at uncomfortably long ranges.

All these things are rather new and have yet to coalesce (at least in the white world, though when the US revealed they could determine where Syrian grad chemical rockets had been launched from they revealed a bit about how much they can really see) into a new form of artillery hunting system. But it's a big concern in the long run, especially as staring infrared MAWS proliferate on combat aircraft. When there are enough eyes in the sky and practical difficulties of managing false alarms and passing that data on in a timely manner are solved the huge visible and infrared firing signature of conventional rocket and tube artillery will be a big problem.

Interesting. So to put this into practical terms, a counterbattery unit could also include some (probably airborne) imaging system next to a counterbattery radar and the classic sound measurement system? Or would it make more sense to task a divisional MALE UAV with this, given the fact that it's already up there and looking around?

[Rich and Corporations]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_cone Maybe not. Maybe so.

[Allanea]

Interesting. So to put this into practical terms, a counterbattery unit could also include some (probably airborne) imaging system next to a counterbattery radar and the classic sound measurement system? Or would it make more sense to task a divisional MALE UAV with this, given the fact that it's already up there and looking around?

This already exists.

[East Jordan]

I am considering utilizing a sort of Garrison Battalion type unit which is intended to hold along a more-or-less static line of defenses once mobilized to stall and fix the enemy while mobile forces hit him (ideally) in the flanks. The defenses which these units would be ideally intended to hold would be placed to block likely approaches to major cities, and military bases. They would largely have only light vehicles, enough to speed them into their places, haul their heavy guns, and move supplies around. They would have four rifle companies, instead of three, and an especially heavy helping of howitzers and mortars. Personnel would probably be older than those in the maneuver formations, men and women still young enough to fight, but old enough to leave the reserves and have a life free of service obligations if they choose.

If these battalions did have tanks, they would likely be older, and few in numbers, as the more modern tanks would be assigned to maneuver battalions.

Is this a good idea or a bad idea overall? If it's a workable concept, am I missing anything, or making any glaring errors? I'm just seeking commentary at this point.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Railguns still have a pretty mean muzzle blast, although it's for a different reason than a conventional gun. The arcing between the rails generates massive amounts of heat which when combined with the friction between the sabot and the barrel causes the aluminum sabot to ablate and vaporize as it travels down the barrel. So the muzzle blast you see is burning/vaporized pieces of aluminum being ejected out the gun. Pretty badass.

[Allanea]

I am considering utilizing a sort of Garrison Battalion type unit which is intended to hold along a more-or-less static line of defenses once mobilized to stall and fix the enemy while mobile forces hit him (ideally) in the flanks. The defenses which these units would be ideally intended to hold would be placed to block likely approaches to major cities, and military bases. They would largely have only light vehicles, enough to speed them into their places, haul their heavy guns, and move supplies around. They would have four rifle companies, instead of three, and an especially heavy helping of howitzers and mortars. Personnel would probably be older than those in the maneuver formations, men and women still young enough to fight, but old enough to leave the reserves and have a life free of service obligations if they choose.

If these battalions did have tanks, they would likely be older, and few in numbers, as the more modern tanks would be assigned to maneuver battalions.

Is this a good idea or a bad idea overall? If it's a workable concept, am I missing anything, or making any glaring errors? I'm just seeking commentary at this point.

This exists.

These are called Machinegun-Artillery Divisions.

I'm not sure what the optimal organization is, but it is a thing.

[East Jordan]

I'm not sure what the optimal organization is, but it is a thing.

I know it was a thing, historically, but I was unsure if it still existed beyond concept. As for me, I also wanted to know if my general unit model is a good or a bad one.

I mentioned these battalions having four rifle companies, as opposed to the three common to modern armies. An alternate idea would be three extra-large rifle companies, perhaps with platoons in each numbering four, or three oversize ones, perhaps in addition to a support/heavy weapons platoon.

[Allanea]

I'm not sure what the optimal organization is, but it is a thing.

I know it was a thing, historically, but I was unsure if it still existed beyond concept. As for me, I also wanted to know if my general unit model is a good or a bad one.

I mentioned these battalions having four rifle companies, as opposed to the three common to modern armies. An alternate idea would be three extra-large rifle companies, perhaps with platoons in each numbering four, or three oversize ones, perhaps in addition to a support/heavy weapons platoon.

If anything I'd argue you'd want to have less rifle companies and not more.

The ideal organization for this seems to be some guys who shoot heavy weapons from their bunkers, plus a smaller amount of guys with APCs/IFVs.

[This all assuming that other, mechanized, maneuver units exist somewhere and your fortification works in conjunction with them. If it doesn't, it's not a fortification - it's a fancy gravesite.]

[Gallia-]

One of the more obscure advantages of rail guns is they have a very small firing signature. Though they like to keep it on the down-low the SBIRS GEO, which can monitor most of a hemisphere continuously, can definitely detect the muzzle blasts or massed artillery or the plumes of artillery rockets, and possibly even individual guns/rockets. Aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and Rafael with their imaging infrared MAWS can also detect artillery fire at uncomfortably long ranges.

All these things are rather new and have yet to coalesce (at least in the white world, though when the US revealed they could determine where Syrian grad chemical rockets had been launched from they revealed a bit about how much they can really see) into a new form of artillery hunting system. But it's a big concern in the long run, especially as staring infrared MAWS proliferate on combat aircraft. When there are enough eyes in the sky and practical difficulties of managing false alarms and passing that data on in a timely manner are solved the huge visible and infrared firing signature of conventional rocket and tube artillery will be a big problem.

solution is the same as small arms reports

suppressors

for all the guns in the land

e: or just nuke all of space

[Dostanuot Loj]

According to the wife I'm supposed to be renovating the half bathroom right now.

But instead, I am thinking orbats.

I know, productivity to the max, right?

Anyway, for my former British colony puppet. Using a brigade structure because divisions are too large to maintain for such a small country and I need more than just a single maneuver element. So brigade groups, or "baby divisions" if you will.

If each brigade group includes an attached medical service battalion, combat support battalion, and of course associated signals, provost, etc. units so that they act independently of any higher support, I won't list them. Suffice it to say, mini-division in this regards.

The units will be regimental based. There are three armoured regiments in the armoured corps, and eight infantry regiments in the infantry corps. The artillery corps will have three regiments, but only two are applicable for this. They are:
- The Royal Tank Regiment (Armoured)
- The Royal Dragoons (Armoured/Reserve)
- Mounted Rifles (Recce, Active/Reserve)
- The Argyle Fusiliers (Infantry)
- The North Highlanders (Infantry)
- The Mounted Rifles Regiment (Infantry)
- The Parachute Regiment (Infantry, Active/Reserve)
- The 40th Regiment of Foot (Reserve)
- The 66th Regiment of Foot (Reserve)
- The 78th Regiment of Foot (Reserve)
- The 84th Regiment of Foot (Reserve)
- The Royal Horse Artillery
- The Field Artillery Regiment (Reserve)

This will give me:
- One active Armoured Brigade Group
- Two active Mechanized Brigade Groups
- Four reserve Mechanized Brigade Groups
- One active airborne regimental combat team.
- Two reserve airborne regimental combat teams.

The armoured brigade group would include:
- One tank regiment consisting of two royal tank regiments.
- One regiment of infantry, with three battalions.
- One regiment artillery.

Mechanized brigade groups would all, including reserve units, consist of the following:
- One tank regiment.
- One infantry regiment of three battalions.
- One recce squadron.
- One artillery regiment.

The airborne regimental combat teams will consist of one parachute infantry regiment of two battalions, with an attached parachute tank squadron and airborne artillery battery, plus of course support elements.

[The Kievan People]

Railguns still have a pretty mean muzzle blast, although it's for a different reason than a conventional gun. The arcing between the rails generates massive amounts of heat which when combined with the friction between the sabot and the barrel causes the aluminum sabot to ablate and vaporize as it travels down the barrel. So the muzzle blast you see is burning/vaporized pieces of aluminum being ejected out the gun. Pretty badass.

(Image)

1. Still tiny by comparison. There is much less energy in a rail gun than in a propellant charge.
2. It can be suppressed easily.

[Kazarogkai]

Dostanuot Loj

Why do your tank regiments consist of... Royal Tank Regiments; Shouldn't they just consist of battalions?

[Haishan]

Hypersonic guided KE rounds... Does it get anymore NS than that?

MRM-KE is supposed to be like Mach 5 and launched from a 120mm tank gun. It is also guided by either SAL or MMW and actually speeds up after leaving the barrel. If all, hypersonic guided rounds aren't that (relatively) new, just very expensive.

[Immoren]

Dostanuot Loj

Why do your tank regiments consist of... Royal Tank Regiments; Shouldn't they just consist of battalions?

Cavary regiment is battalion.

[Heavonia]

Dostanuot Loj

Why do your tank regiments consist of... Royal Tank Regiments; Shouldn't they just consist of battalions?

bruh, do you even British Regimental System?

[Takhshiyt]

Dostanuot Loj

Why do your tank regiments consist of... Royal Tank Regiments; Shouldn't they just consist of battalions?

bruh, do you even British Regimental System?

ew

BCT forever