NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Allanea]

Wait wait wait wait.

I have just read NPE's factbook.

You recruit ten-year-olds into your armed forces? In what context?

I am not saying it's impossible, I'd like to know the context though.

[Azenyanistan]

is my world canon


my azens were strong before

.....

god willed it

[Neo Philippine Empire]

Wait wait wait wait.

I have just read NPE's factbook.

You recruit ten-year-olds into your armed forces? In what context?

I am not saying it's impossible, I'd like to know the context though.

What does WIP/Under construction means to you?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Because tank-centric proper.
Also, 36 is really small for a battalion. Most sit around 50-60.

As it is you're running 3x3x3 Tanks/Platoons/Companies.
I run 5x3x4.

UK is 4x3x3 btw. US Army does 4x3x4. Soviets loved 3x3x3, but also did 3x4x3.

British tank regiments usually include 2 tanks at the squadron & regiment level also. The squadron is ususally (4x3)*2 and regiments since 1990s have trended to being 3 squadrons+2 (44) or 4 squadrons +2 aka 58. Right now they're 4x3x4 but without the 2 command tanks, aka 56.

A Questarian tank squadron is 4*4 with 2 command tanks and the regiment has 4 squadrons with 2 command tanks, so 74. I thought this was the biggest tank regiment in NSMRC

The AxBxC approach does not include command tanks, btw. It's merely a comparative. So you kind of need to know how they will be played out to fully understand. Western armed forces usually use 2, Soviets 1, Canada uses 3, I use 5. And so on down the line. It's usually one section of a tank platoon, but can also be a whole platoon or some other weird number. Canada is the off country because Canadian tank platoons (troops) are four tanks, with a 3-tank command element at company (squadron) and higher level.

This is why (For anyone else reading who this is new to) is you do the math say 3x3x3 you get 27, but a Soviet tank battalion using this structure has 31 tanks, or using the 3x4x3 (Also common) structure had 41 tanks. Soviets used one command tank at company level and one at battalion level, so the math is to add command tanks in at these levels. (3*3)+1=Company. (Company*3)+1=Battalion.

This is easy to use information for other armed forces as well. Since we can safely assume a command element at coy-bat level is a tank section (subunit of the platoon), then we can break those up. We know sections have to be easily divisible to allow operation, so we can determine the number in the section based on the number in the platoon. A 3 tank platoon has two sections and the platoon commander's tank. A 4 tank platoon has two sections of two tanks, with the platoon commander commanding one section. A 5 tank platoon has a platoon commander and two sections of two tanks. A 6 tank platoon would have two sections of 3 tanks and operate like a 4 tank platoon, and so on. The lowest level where sub units exist is a 2 tank platoon, which acts like a short 4 tank platoon. Two tanks per platoon is the absolute minimum required for fire and maneuver, and therefore operation.

Now, believe it or not, the various platoon structures have advantages and disadvantages, and I have covered them on this forum before. But the simple of it is there has been a lot of real military thought and discussion put into this subject over the last century. Generally armed forces decide upon their structure due to the advantages they confer that match with their goals, although you see variations within a single armed force as well, depending on what needs to be done.

Most of that was not directed at you Questers, I'm pretty sure you know most of it anyway. I just wanted to sperg. Which I can do further into the subject if needed.

IDF tank units were 4x4x3 for a long long time. They moved, as I understand it, to 3x3x3 to allow more maneuver units for fewer tanks. The IDF, always being in a material and personnel shortage, needed maneuver units, and so moved.

Fun fact: This is the kind of thing that I'm mostly into. Armed forces put a surprising amount of money and energy into it.

What was the intended purpose of a 18-tank battalion? I can see some (good) uses for it but not as a unit part of a spearhead or breakthrough action. 18 tanks basically makes it an oversized company really.

18 tanks in a battalion was the absolute minimum the Soviets determined their battalions needed to be able to function on the battlefield at all. Any less and the force was non-viable (So destroyed), and that was bad. Essentially the battalion is destroyed at 40% casualties (Which include mechanical breakdowns BTW), or for every platoon to be short one tank. The theory can be applied (but not the math directly) to any other structure. The idea is that a battalion can function without any command tanks, and with platoons reduced to the minimum number of units required for fire and maneuver, which is two tanks. For a 3x4x3 structure this gives us a lower limit of 24 tanks, but the 3x4x3 structure may have a greater ability to absorb an entire company's loss while still functioning and as such may still be viable if reduced from four to three companies in battle. But this only applies if you can take advantage of it, which is a different discussion regarding allocation of the company or battalion level units.

Taking Quester's example above for example. Questers has a 4x4x4 structure, but may be able to doctrinally run with every battalion short two companies as long as there are four platoons per company because of the way Questarian commanders utilize the low level break down in combined arms (I am just making this up, this is not how Questers runs, I just wanted to use his battalion structure). Under this then where a Questarian tank battalion has normally 74 tanks, it would reach its point of non viability below 16 tanks. If a minimum of three companies was required the point of non viability would be below 24 tanks. And if the point of non viability was three companies but minimum of three platoons, then it would be below 18 tanks. Three platoons/three companies is pretty standard as a minimum by the way. The British, with how they expect to employ their forces, can reduce to two companies and still be viable though, so it is not absolute.

Or I can provide my own example. Minimum viability for Sumer rests at 18 tanks, as my structure can accept the loss of a company and a reduction in platoon strength to two vehicles. As each Sumerian tank company itself is 18 tanks this provides overlap in extreme cases where I need to do wonky things, like Berlin-1945 bad. With full strength companies though, a Sumerian tank battalion can operate with two companies, and as such can consolidate with losses to 34 tanks if needed and maintain most of their capability. This is due to the way these units are used though, and do not apply across all possibilities. A very simple shift in my doctrine could drop that number to 24, or raise it to 48, depending on how the Sumerian army actually works.

Believe it or not, this is a complex subject.

[Allanea]

Wait wait wait wait.

I have just read NPE's factbook.

You recruit ten-year-olds into your armed forces? In what context?

I am not saying it's impossible, I'd like to know the context though.

What does WIP/Under construction means to you?

It does not mean "you may not ask questions".

[Neo Philippine Empire]

What does WIP/Under construction means to you?

It does not mean "you may not ask questions".

But well then, it may sound unrealistic but in my new canon..

We were in war against China for 150 years and we were short of manpower.

[Altaiire]

So... bullet counters. You see these a lot in video games, but would they be useful/convenient in real life?

[Imperializt Russia]

So... bullet counters. You see these a lot in video games, but would they be useful/convenient in real life?

It's not critical information. A trained infantryman should be able to keep track of the 20-30 rounds in his magazine and know when he's running a little low and needs to change magazines.

At best, it'd make magazines more expensive and less disposable. Just use magazine "windows" or simply spring indicators (tiny cutouts in the magazine indicate a certain number of rounds left when the spring is visible through the hole).

[Allanea]

There are bullet counters IRL. Or rather, there are magazines with windows in them that allow you to notice you're running out of bullets.

[Axis Nova]

It's not critical information, but it IS certainly useful. That being said, that's perhaps the sort of thing you'd want to show on the HUD of whatever fancy future combat systems setup you may be using, rather than on the gun itself.

[Dostanuot Loj]

There are bullet counters IRL. Or rather, there are magazines with windows in them that allow you to notice you're running out of bullets.

LRBHO is best bullet counter. Always know when to change magazines.

[Allanea]

You can also load 3 tracer cartridges into your magazine so they're fired last.

When you see tracers come out of your gun... time to reload.

[Sediczja]

So... bullet counters. You see these a lot in video games, but would they be useful/convenient in real life?

We do have them IRL now, though they're a little on the bulky side and I'm not sure as to the extent of modification to the weapon necessary for them to be installed.

As others have said, If you're PMT/FT, it may be worth integrating the counter into your HUD or optic rather than having it on the weapon. Otherwise, transparent/windowed mags are a decent idea.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

What do current soldiers do with empty magazines? And if they reload while there are still a few rounds left in their current mag, do they have a way of keeping them handy?

[North Arkana]

What do current soldiers do with empty magazines? And if they reload while there are still a few rounds left in their current mag, do they have a way of keeping them handy?

dump pouches, whether it be a purpose built one, an empty cargo pocket, or even a canteen carrier which you don't use because you have a camelbak, saving empty mags is good when ammo resupply comes in stripper clips rather than preloaded mags.

[Vancon]

You can also load 3 tracer cartridges into your magazine so they're fired last.

When you see tracers come out of your gun... time to reload.

That's pretty smart.

[Ravincastle]

For my other nation, which is in a South East Asia / Pacific Ocean like region, I was wondering if there would be good utility in an 8x8 amphibious platform, 30 metric tons, mounting a 120mm (or equivalent) low recoil gun in a unmanned turret. Its sister vehicles would be an APC w/ MMG + GMG, an IFV with 40mm class gun as primary armament, and a cargo carrier for logistical support (probably a command vehicle in the same chassis).

It would basically be like an up-armed amphibious M1128 Mobile Gun System and serve primarily as heavy gun support for the infantry and secondarily as a a gun armed tank destroyer. Or would the need for safe amount of volume for buoyancy make it too ill suited as a tank destroyer? Would it be better to just put a bigger gun on the IFV?

[Source Swarm]

You can also load 3 tracer cartridges into your magazine so they're fired last.

When you see tracers come out of your gun... time to reload.

That's pretty smart.

Until the enemy realizes that's happening, and now knows you're low.

On the other hand, you're probably shouting to your fireteam/squad that you're reloading anyway, so that's of negligable tactical value.

[Spirit of Hope]

That's pretty smart.

Until the enemy realizes that's happening, and now knows you're low.

On the other hand, you're probably shouting to your fireteam/squad that you're reloading anyway, so that's of negligable tactical value.

Really negligible because reload times can generally be measured in seconds, and the rest of your squad/fire team should still be shooting.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's pretty smart.

Until the enemy realizes that's happening, and now knows you're low.

On the other hand, you're probably shouting to your fireteam/squad that you're reloading anyway, so that's of negligable tactical value.

The section machine gun will be putting out tracers at a rate of 20, 25, or 50% of its shots. There will be anywhere from three to 12 other people in the squad, at most extremes.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

What's the difference between a tracer and an incendiary bullet? Do incendiaries only get extremely hot after hitting something? I'm pretty sure they don't heat up from air friction like tracers.

[Celibrae]

A couple of questions:

First which is better, a Kh-23 or Kh-25 missile? Both are very similar air to ground missiles that i'm having trouble deciding between.

Second, what kind of rocket pods did Su-22M4s usually carry?

Third, can a J-7 carry either a R-60 or R-73 missile, and if so which is the better choice. My thinking is R-60 as it can be carried by both the Mig-21 and the Su-22s I own.

Afik, The J-7 is optimised for Chinese ordnance.

Edit: After a quick check, a few export variants can use Amercian AIM-9 Sidewinders and French R.550 Magics.

[The Kievan People]

What's the difference between a tracer and an incendiary bullet? Do incendiaries only get extremely hot after hitting something? I'm pretty sure they don't heat up from air friction like tracers.

Neither are ignited by "air friction". Tracers have an pyrotechnic mixture in the base of the bullet which is ignited by the propellant gasses. Icendiary bullets have an incendiary mixture inside the bullet, usually somewhere between the core and case, which is ignited by the compression and friction of an impact deforming the jacket.

[Spirit of Hope]

What's the difference between a tracer and an incendiary bullet? Do incendiaries only get extremely hot after hitting something? I'm pretty sure they don't heat up from air friction like tracers.

Tracers have a piece of chemical burning in their rear designed to be highly visible. There are a number of reasons for this, normally either to improve shooting accuracy or to mark targets.

Incendiary bullets contains some form of burning component inside the bullet. They were used a bunch during WWI and WWII for trying to catch enemy planes and zeppelins on fire, modern incendiaries are generally used alongside HE.

[Celibrae]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=339026

Could someone give me a second opinion on the realism of these two aircraft please, bearing in mind they are to be used in a realistic/hard MT environment.