NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Allanea]

Why? What threat are you facing that you need an additional 0.5 chin gun? Chin guns are not really a very good choice of helicopter self-defense in the first place, they're mroe there for attack helicopters.

[Theodosiya]

Why? What threat are you facing that you need an additional 0.5 chin gun? Chin guns are not really a very good choice of helicopter self-defense in the first place, they're mroe there for attack helicopters.

When Marines/Soldiers rappels down, the chopper must hover. If there's significant enemy threat, to the point where even Attacks aren't enough, and they operate behind enemy line (to wreck havok when the main lines [Mechs-Motors] are duking it out with the enemy main force), deep enough that the lack any fire support except from air and long range precision missile, better have as many firepower as you could.

[Allanea]

If you get shot at at the precise moemnt you're hovering, you're dead. Next issue.

[Theodosiya]

Air defenses, IFV organizational level and ratio of APC-IFV and Wheels-Tracks.

[Dostanuot Loj]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#ACH-47A

ACH-47A
The ACH-47A was originally known as the Armed/Armored CH-47A (or A/ACH-47A). It was officially designated ACH-47A[57] as a U.S. Army Attack Cargo Helicopter, and unofficially referred to as Guns A Go-Go. Four CH-47A helicopters were converted to gunships by Boeing Vertol in late 1965. Three were assigned to the 53rd Aviation Detachment in South Vietnam for testing, with the remaining one retained in the U.S. for weapons testing. By 1966, the 53rd was redesignated the 1st Aviation Detachment (Provisional) and attached to the 228th Assault Support Helicopter Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). By 1968, only one gunship remained, and logistical concerns prevented more conversions. It was returned to the United States, and the program stopped.
The ACH-47A carried five M60D 7.62 × 51 mm machine guns or M2HB .50 caliber machine guns, provided by the XM32 and XM33 armament subsystems, two M24A1 20 mm cannons, two XM159B/XM159C 19-Tube 2.75-inch (70 mm) rocket launchers or sometimes two M18/M18A1 7.62 × 51 mm gun pods, and a single M75 40 mm grenade launcher in the XM5/M5 armament subsystem (more commonly seen on the UH-1 series of helicopters).

The early days of attack helicopter ideas were interesting ones.

Guns A Go Go best attack helicopter ever conceived.

The problem with ACH-47 is the same as that of predreadnoughts: for any engagement many of the guns are useless. If you're taking contact to the front your side and rear gunners are useless; if you take contact to the sides you can't use your rockets, cannons, rear, and opposite guns; if you take it to the rear you have three fleeting engagements of the rear and side gunners as you try to pivot your front armament into position

The true brilliance of Guns A Go Go was to be able to land in a clearing while firing in all directions.
Chesty Puller in rotorcraft form.

Oh, and although the CH-47A is discontinued, mounting lots of ridiculously big guns onto chinooks is still a thing.
-Still waiting for that ZU-23-2, though.

That's a refueling probe.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#ACH-47A

ACH-47A
The ACH-47A was originally known as the Armed/Armored CH-47A (or A/ACH-47A). It was officially designated ACH-47A[57] as a U.S. Army Attack Cargo Helicopter, and unofficially referred to as Guns A Go-Go. Four CH-47A helicopters were converted to gunships by Boeing Vertol in late 1965. Three were assigned to the 53rd Aviation Detachment in South Vietnam for testing, with the remaining one retained in the U.S. for weapons testing. By 1966, the 53rd was redesignated the 1st Aviation Detachment (Provisional) and attached to the 228th Assault Support Helicopter Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). By 1968, only one gunship remained, and logistical concerns prevented more conversions. It was returned to the United States, and the program stopped.
The ACH-47A carried five M60D 7.62 × 51 mm machine guns or M2HB .50 caliber machine guns, provided by the XM32 and XM33 armament subsystems, two M24A1 20 mm cannons, two XM159B/XM159C 19-Tube 2.75-inch (70 mm) rocket launchers or sometimes two M18/M18A1 7.62 × 51 mm gun pods, and a single M75 40 mm grenade launcher in the XM5/M5 armament subsystem (more commonly seen on the UH-1 series of helicopters).

The early days of attack helicopter ideas were interesting ones.

Guns A Go Go best attack helicopter ever conceived.

The problem with ACH-47 is the same as that of predreadnoughts: for any engagement many of the guns are useless. If you're taking contact to the front your side and rear gunners are useless; if you take contact to the sides you can't use your rockets, cannons, rear, and opposite guns; if you take it to the rear you have three fleeting engagements of the rear and side gunners as you try to pivot your front armament into position

The true brilliance of Guns A Go Go was to be able to land in a clearing while firing in all directions.
Chesty Puller in rotorcraft form.

Cat C Not!MH-60L DAP please. 8 gats 38 rockets, 100,000 rounds of .50 BMG to dispense at leisure.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#ACH-47A

ACH-47A
The ACH-47A was originally known as the Armed/Armored CH-47A (or A/ACH-47A). It was officially designated ACH-47A[57] as a U.S. Army Attack Cargo Helicopter, and unofficially referred to as Guns A Go-Go. Four CH-47A helicopters were converted to gunships by Boeing Vertol in late 1965. Three were assigned to the 53rd Aviation Detachment in South Vietnam for testing, with the remaining one retained in the U.S. for weapons testing. By 1966, the 53rd was redesignated the 1st Aviation Detachment (Provisional) and attached to the 228th Assault Support Helicopter Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). By 1968, only one gunship remained, and logistical concerns prevented more conversions. It was returned to the United States, and the program stopped.
The ACH-47A carried five M60D 7.62 × 51 mm machine guns or M2HB .50 caliber machine guns, provided by the XM32 and XM33 armament subsystems, two M24A1 20 mm cannons, two XM159B/XM159C 19-Tube 2.75-inch (70 mm) rocket launchers or sometimes two M18/M18A1 7.62 × 51 mm gun pods, and a single M75 40 mm grenade launcher in the XM5/M5 armament subsystem (more commonly seen on the UH-1 series of helicopters).

The early days of attack helicopter ideas were interesting ones.

Guns A Go Go best attack helicopter ever conceived.

The problem with ACH-47 is the same as that of predreadnoughts: for any engagement many of the guns are useless. If you're taking contact to the front your side and rear gunners are useless; if you take contact to the sides you can't use your rockets, cannons, rear, and opposite guns; if you take it to the rear you have three fleeting engagements of the rear and side gunners as you try to pivot your front armament into position

The true brilliance of Guns A Go Go was to be able to land in a clearing while firing in all directions.
Chesty Puller in rotorcraft form.

Oh, and although the CH-47A is discontinued, mounting lots of ridiculously big guns onto chinooks is still a thing.
-Still waiting for that ZU-23-2, though.

That's a refueling probe.

I was mentioning the three miniguns in the doors and on the ramp and provisions for another two, but whatever.

5 guns, 3 gunners. The guns are simply because we found it took too long to lift a 134 pound machine gun and move it to another window to cover dead zones.

Because the H-47 is still a boat.

The fun thing people missed about the M60-Deltas, is that they were often loaded with duplex rounds and had a few washers added to the buffer to shorten and speed up the cyclic-rate into the 1000rds/min catagory (so 1800-2000rds/min effective RoF). Vets that did this reported their flash-hiders unscrewing and eventually being ejected downrage, amongst other problem such as gross-overheating and warped barrels.

If there still are duplex rounds, imagining those running through an M134.

[Theodosiya]

my question still stands. Not the one about the chopper, though.

[Gallia-]

So after finishing Steel Wind and putting slightly more thought into rearranging my artillery organization, this is the rough idea for a standard mechanized/armored corps:

Battalion and below: Platoons have a 60 mm mortar and each rifle company has two self-propelled 120 mm mortars. Each battalion also has a battery of four 120 mm self-propelled mortars, and each mortar vehicle has an 81 mm mortar for dismounted use. This means a battalion would have six 60 mm mortars and eight 120 mm mortars. These are obviously for the support of the advance and direct response to calls made by front line units, valuable for their quick response time and relative accuracy. No changes have been made.

Brigade: Each brigade combat team has one battalion of 24 155 mm self-propelled guns attached. These are long-barreled L/56 pieces and are expected to handle most of the tasks a brigade would be expected to encounter on its own, including supporting the advance and responding to on-call fire requests. No changes from the previous organization.

Division: Each division has a fires brigade composed of two battalions each of 155 mm self-propelled guns (48 guns total), the same type as in the combat brigades, and one battalion of 24 220 mm MLRS. This is a change from the previous organization, with the ATACMS battalion removed and replaced with an additional 155 mm battalion. Major division objectives include counter-battery work and destruction of targets of opportunity (a mix of AKA and FEKA roles) but if needed guns can also be seconded to advancing brigades (IKA). As part of this role, the fires brigade includes a counter-battery radar platoon to spot targets independently, which the fires battalion in the brigade lacks.

Corps: Each corps has one brigade of 203 mm long guns, composed of four battalions of 24 guns each (96 guns total), and another brigade composed of two battalions of 220 mm rocket artillery and two battalions of 340 mm long-range missiles (48 220 mm MLRS, 48 340 mm missiles). Each artillery brigade has a counter-battery radar section like the divisional brigades but also includes two UAV platoons, each with four RQ-7-class UAVs for independent target-spotting and reconnaissance. These batteries are meant to be employed to engage targets of opportunity and to enable the corps commander to lend further weight behind certain attacks where needed (FEKA/SCHWEFLA roles). They would also be responsible for engaging any opposing artillery of the same class, if these guns are outside the range of the divisional guns. The corps commander also usually has authority over the light infantry division's fires brigade unless that division is actively deployed in combat, giving him a brigade of 155 mm guns and 220 mm rockets.

ok me

e: although i admit neglecting Corps artillery in favour of massive quantities of 6.1", TBMs, and MRLs

e2: i also have more guns in division (one battalion for each maneuver subunit) which is fundamentally different reasoning than shaping/maneuver by fire

[The Akasha Colony]

When Marines/Soldiers rappels down, the chopper must hover. If there's significant enemy threat, to the point where even Attacks aren't enough, and they operate behind enemy line (to wreck havok when the main lines [Mechs-Motors] are duking it out with the enemy main force), deep enough that the lack any fire support except from air and long range precision missile, better have as many firepower as you could.

If attack helicopters are not enough to fully suppress a landing zone, you should not be landing there. A single extra gun on your transport helicopter won't fix this problem.

That aside, adding extra weight also reduces your range anyway and makes it harder to try to "operate behind enemy lines," which is much harder than you think anyway because helicopters aren't terribly hard to spot and die against practically everything with a machine gun. It's also why large formations have units of military police to help patrol and secure their rear areas.

[Prosorusiya]

it's almost as if there are solid reasons for why irl militaries do and don't do things.

i know it's hard to believe, but it's true

Totally gonna add that to my sig, as a reminder to myself and others.

[Padnak]

Does anyone know any good resources for ww2 Japanese organization?

Also are there any significant differences in purpose in the soviet model between tracked apc and wheeled apc equipped infantry units? Like is an infantry regiment equipped with MT-LBs have a different role on the battlefield than one equipped with BTR-80s?

I kinda assume they do but I'm a dumb dumb so I'm not totally sure

[Hashirajima]

Does anyone know any good resources for ww2 Japanese organization?

Also are there any significant differences in purpose in the soviet model between tracked apc and wheeled apc equipped infantry units? Like is an infantry regiment equipped with MT-LBs have a different role on the battlefield than one equipped with BTR-80s?

I kinda assume they do but I'm a dumb dumb so I'm not totally sure

Ehhh, wikipedia have a IJA division list, citation needed in my opinion.

There's a few medium to low res pics of IJN organisation charts as well.
E.g. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/M ... -front.jpg

[Taihei Tengoku]

Does anyone know any good resources for ww2 Japanese organization?

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc1.htm <<< this is a good primer on the IJA and the SNLF. Bayonet Strength had stuff on the IJA but it never got archived so it was lost when the site went down.

[Gallia-]

The Internet is truly a microcosm of American history.

Constantly disappearing and being replaced.

[Prosorusiya]

To shift the conversation....

The Prussian Air Force is going to be based around gaining air superiority over East German skies in a shooting war. Given the period(1972) what would be the best planes to do this with?

I'm thinking the main fighter to use would be the F-4E. Speed is armor, and a big, powerful plane like that would be able to rocket in, intercept East German planes, and GTFO back to friendly air cover real quick. The Phantom would be equally as good in the ground attack role, able to carry a large bomb assortment to break up armored formations. Operating Phantoms in concert with AWACS planes like the E-2 or E-121 would allow rapid coordination of forces. Additionally, the Phantom's use is supplanted by the Harrier.

Would the Phantom be able to fulfill most required roles for the German civil war? I feel that using aircraft better set up for close air support would put the pilots at great risk from the very reputable air defenses available, and large planes for strategic bombing isn't really up the Luftwaffe's alley. I considered also using the F-111, but that and the F-4 are too similar to use both, the only difference being the F-111 can carry slightly more bombs and is less setup for dogfighting.

Also, how would the F-4E contend with MiG 21s and 23s that the East German Air Force had?

Eisenschwein ("Iron Pig"), Fliegender Ziegelstein ("Flying Brick") and Luftverteidigungsdiesel ("Air Defense Diesel")

The F-4 has been called a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. It has speed and acceleration, both in copious amounts. Against a MiG-21 you adopt the same tactics the pilots of faster aircraft vs more maneuverable aircraft has used since dogfighting was a thing, you don't dogfight and use your speed to boom-and-zoom, hit-and-run, always hold the initiative in the fight.
"I can leave this fight any time I want," is a massive advantage for an aircraft to have.
IDK enough about the MiG-23 to make any judgment, but it seems like they'd be on relatively even footing vs each other.

The MiG-23 is a match for the F-4 in most combat situations, though each aircraft carries fewer missiles due to being a light weight fighter more in the F-5/F-104 mold. The MiG-23s may have slightly better turn rates than eraly F-4s, but would be equal or outmatched by the F-4E, depending on weather the MiG-23 was an eralier variant (MiG-23MF) with the larger tail fin or a latter variant with smaller tail fin and lightened and strengthened structure that could take more Gs (MiG-23ML).

Soviet long range missiles can in some situations be better than American counterparts due to the insistence of having exchangeable heat seeking/radar guided seeker heads, meaning the Soviets have BVR heat seekers, albeit with a shorter range than radar BVR missiles, meaning they can use BVR missiles even when being jammed. Usually, MiG-23s carried one heat seeking and one radar seeking BVR missile on each wing glove pylon.

The MiG-23 has limited look down shoot down radar, unlike the MiG-21, but it is unable to spot anything beyond 10 km this way. That said, it is a match for most Western fighters less the later F-16s, and will clean the clock of F-104s, F-5s, early F-16s, and early F-4s, while being a match for later F-4s. Now, compared to the F-15 and F-14, it dosen't stand a chance. But for its time it's a pretty good fighter.

[Padnak]

Ehhh, wikipedia have a IJA division list, citation needed in my opinion.

There's a few medium to low res pics of IJN organisation charts as well.
E.g. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/M ... -front.jpg

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc1.htm <<< this is a good primer on the IJA and the SNLF. Bayonet Strength had stuff on the IJA but it never got archived so it was lost when the site went down.[/quote]

Rest in pieces Bayonet Strength

thanks though!

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If you continue wanting to use regular explosives, please refer yourself to this table:

http://allanea.tripod.com/psuo96-11.html

So what I'm seeing is that 6-inch class tube artillery is the magic caliber with the best balance of effect for a given expenditure at the lowest weight when considering how many shells would be need to be supplied as well as the weight of the weapon itself.

What I got at was that per-ton of shells, the 76mm used to be superior for long term suppression of targets until the development of soviet DPICM in 152mm.

that, and 120mm mortars are awesome for laying smoke, and 122mm (120/125mm) is much superior to 152mm once you get into LOS.

The bottom-limit of artillery has always seemed to be dealing with tanks in a bad pinch. So for vietnam-era 105mm was small as anybody dared to go even though 76mm was superior in suppression. Now that the 105mm is proving obsolete in dealing with armor, and so much was invested into keeping 152mm viable, things have platued

[Gallia-]

"Early" F-16.

More like every F-16 outside the ANG until the end of WW3 in 1989. ):

[Prosorusiya]

I mean, my military is based on some of the ideas of Padnak, but less the jury rigging. Join the dark side of 2nd/3rd world nations and enjoy doing thing nobody else would because you need every advantage you can get! Soviet flamethrowers in the 21st century anybody?

Relevant.

Lol! I'll readily admit this is probably the best use for them.

I'm also likely to use them for house clearing operations against ISIS as I am planning another deployment to Iraq soon. I included them in my infantry arms because they are listed as an option in FM-100-63 for infantry based OP-FORs for motorized units, lending a bit of psychological support to the heavier individual weapons carried by light infantry units.

Oh, by the way, what would be the best kind of units for a small & poor millitary to contribute as foreign advisors/participants in foreign wars? Something like independent infantry companies/batallion tactical groups, specialty units, or like headquarters units so that my commanders could gain Combat expereience?

[Prosorusiya]

"Early" F-16.

More like every F-16 outside the ANG until the end of WW3 in 1989. ):

All I know is that early block F-16As lacked BVR missiles, which would have made them no match for MiG-23s BVR. Later F-16s BVR, and any F-16 in dogfight range, can easily beat an MiG-23 and for that matter an F-4. Of course, if a MiG-23 got in a dogfight with an F-16, something has gone very wrong. Boom-and-zoom, as you said, is the ideal tactic here. And of course this is all assuming the F-16 is set up a a pure fighter and not a fighter bomber.

[Gallia-]

I never said any of those things.

I was just saying it took about 8 years for F-16s to get Sparrows, and by the time a large number of them were able to use them in Europe, the Berlin Wall had fallen and WW3 was over.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I'm pretty sure Mig-23 was long out of production by the time F-16 got Sparrows.

Actually, I'm pretty sure by the time Mig-23 ended production there were only 500 F-16 in existence, all original A/B config. The comparison is pretty bad between the two, as Mig-23 is older and contemporary with F-4 and F-5. And in both instances it had to be redesigned (Mig-23MLD) to actually compete with either of these aircraft. The only competitive version against the F-5E/F and F-4E/F type fighters was not produced until 1982, when the F-16 was already in full swing.

Until 1982 the Mig-23 just wasn't competitive against its Western rivals, and after it wasn't either.

[Kazarogkai]

Does anyone know any good resources for ww2 Japanese organization?

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc1.htm <<< this is a good primer on the IJA and the SNLF. Bayonet Strength had stuff on the IJA but it never got archived so it was lost when the site went down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150918205 ... /index.htm

Doesn't have everything but a good portion is still there including but not limited to much of the IJA material including Battalion and Division toes found here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151002235532/http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Japanese/japanese_infantry_battalion.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20151003001829/http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Japanese/japanese_divisional_organisations.htm

[Prosorusiya]

I never said any of those things.

I was just saying it took about 8 years for F-16s to get Sparrows, and by the time a large number of them were able to use them in Europe, the Berlin Wall had fallen and WW3 was over.

Sorry, misread your post. Yes, it took eight some years to develope F-16s with Sparrows, so they didn't compare well with the MiG.

I'm pretty sure Mig-23 was long out of production by the time F-16 got Sparrows.

Actually, I'm pretty sure by the time Mig-23 ended production there were only 500 F-16 in existence, all original A/B config. The comparison is pretty bad between the two, as Mig-23 is older and contemporary with F-4 and F-5. And in both instances it had to be redesigned (Mig-23MLD) to actually compete with either of these aircraft. The only competitive version against the F-5E/F and F-4E/F type fighters was not produced until 1982, when the F-16 was already in full swing.

Until 1982 the Mig-23 just wasn't competitive against its Western rivals, and after it wasn't either.

MiG-23MLD production ended in 1983, though most of that was remanufacturing older -ML aircraft, so production had ended only three years rigor to the F-16 getting Sparrows. The MiG-23ML entered service around the same time as the F-16, so the lightened versions of the MiG-23 weren't a reaction to the F-16 so much as a fix for problems with the aircraft which were well known, specifically a lack of maneuvering ability as a result of the same missile first thinking that left early Phantoms and some MiG-21s without guns.

Most Western observers severely underestimate the Flogger as a result of having experience only with the monkey model MS variants. They also mistake it for being an F-4 equivalent (it's more a F-5/F-104 rival, being a light fighter, both of which it will easily kill). That said, I'd wager that the F-4 and MiG-23 were more or less well matched: the F-4 carried more BVR missiles so they'd have the advantage long range, but the smaller MiG would be more nimble and their R-60s are a better missile in a dogfight.

The MiG-23 was a more than a match for the F-5, F-104, Saab Darken, Saab Vigen, Mirage III, and Mirage F.1. The Soviets also considered it a match for the F-4. The later F-16, F-15, F-14, and F-18 fighters outclass it, but for the 1970s/1980s in East Germany it is pretty darn good. F-4s were and are the best option in that timeframe for beating then, anything less will be plastered across the pavement at Dusseldorf.

In reference to the MiG-23, I myself have been wondering weather the -MLD or -P variant would be better for my nations Air Force. The MLD is a better match for newer aircraft, but the P has a better datalink and can shoot down cruise missiles apparently, which could be useful if the Russians decided to attack my nation from the Caspian Sea (though we're fiends so it is unlikely). Anybody know if the PVO flew MLDs? Or did they never upgrade their aircraft like the VVS?