NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Laritaia]

Alright, Air Force or Navy to control space travel? I know most people put their navies in total to be both space vessels and sea vessels, but I feel that Air Force is better set for it in purpose.

Airforces lack the necessary class and gravitas to be allowed to control the vast space fleets of the human empires

[Kassaran]

Space Forces should control space while the navy and air force both do their respective things

Yet I can validify the Air Force because that's ultimately what my Space Forces act as, just in an even higher sphere of influence. I'm not saying space carriers, but I'm saying Space Carriers.

Not really, star fighters aren't a thing for me, but atmo-capable drop-ships and strike fighters deployed from a carrier-like space-faring vessel should be good, right? I really only have three types of vessels planned for space action; Cruisers, Transports, Corvettes. Cruisers act as the picket screen for Kassaran colonies, retain mostly space-faring features with limited atmo-capabilities (landing for drydock overhaul in low-g environs and subsequent takeoff with assist), Transports are exactly as they sound, vessels determined to hold a primarily transport themed capability, whether they be carrying troops, cargo, or SSTA (Single Stage Trans-Atmospheric) Fighters, and Corvettes which are smaller screening and exploration vessels utilized for trans-atmospheric capabilities, FTL transport between locations (we use larger jump-type gates for cruisers and transports, but that's because it's more cost effective. Corvettes are traditionally light enough to propel themselves into FTL and retain non-disruptive signatures upon exit that won't interrupt normal interplanetary drone transport networks.

Now, understanding that I'm using naval ship terms, is that why people generally class the Navy as being the primary space-faring controller? Also, is there a need for a Navy when I can utilize both orbital and grounded forces from the Space Force as such? Actually, that's given me an idea on why the Navy should be in control of Space Forces. Mobilization of planetside forces, the control of planetside forces, and the likewise expenditure of getting those forces up into orbit coupled with the maintenance and fuel costs need to make it one branch responsible for all aspects. So the Navy, using their vessels in either an orbital, interplanetary, or planetside manner, should be responsible for such ships, no?

[Purpelia]

is that why people generally class the Navy as being the primary space-faring controller?

The reason why people do it is because fundamentally space opera (that's the name of the genre that includes things like Star Wars and Star Trek) is not about depicting realistic space anything. It's about taking a period of earth history* and transplanting its mechanics into space to give you the cool and creative freedom that comes with it so that you can tell the story you want. Space in that case becomes the proverbial ocean in which your island planets and island chain/continent star systems become connected by the star navy.

In light of this, everything you ask will be answered simply by looking at the period you wish to emulate.

*Examples:
- TOS = age of sail
- TNG = cold war
- Star Wars = WW2 pacific

[Taihei Tengoku]

Navies have a culture of long detachments and local autonomy. Air forces are the least autonomous branch, where individual patrols are only several hours long and tied to fixed positions. Beyond "it goes fast" and "it's up there" air forces don't really have a reason to control satellites (or aircraft for that matter, 1947 was a mistake).

Space Forces should control space while the navy and air force both do their respective things

Yet I can validify the Air Force because that's ultimately what my Space Forces act as, just in an even higher sphere of influence. I'm not saying space carriers, but I'm saying Space Carriers.

Not really, star fighters aren't a thing for me, but atmo-capable drop-ships and strike fighters deployed from a carrier-like space-faring vessel should be good, right? I really only have three types of vessels planned for space action; Cruisers, Transports, Corvettes. Cruisers act as the picket screen for Kassaran colonies, retain mostly space-faring features with limited atmo-capabilities (landing for drydock overhaul in low-g environs and subsequent takeoff with assist), Transports are exactly as they sound, vessels determined to hold a primarily transport themed capability, whether they be carrying troops, cargo, or SSTA (Single Stage Trans-Atmospheric) Fighters, and Corvettes which are smaller screening and exploration vessels utilized for trans-atmospheric capabilities, FTL transport between locations (we use larger jump-type gates for cruisers and transports, but that's because it's more cost effective. Corvettes are traditionally light enough to propel themselves into FTL and retain non-disruptive signatures upon exit that won't interrupt normal interplanetary drone transport networks.

Now, understanding that I'm using naval ship terms, is that why people generally class the Navy as being the primary space-faring controller? Also, is there a need for a Navy when I can utilize both orbital and grounded forces from the Space Force as such? Actually, that's given me an idea on why the Navy should be in control of Space Forces. Mobilization of planetside forces, the control of planetside forces, and the likewise expenditure of getting those forces up into orbit coupled with the maintenance and fuel costs need to make it one branch responsible for all aspects. So the Navy, using their vessels in either an orbital, interplanetary, or planetside manner, should be responsible for such ships, no?

This is enough beyond the realm of "realism" that it's pretty much constrained by what your universe has for internal consistency

[Imperializt Russia]

Now I think about it, this sounds quite a bit like my paramilitary forces, except yours are the bulk of the regulars, not on-call reservists.

In any case, I'm not so sure about the firebases. Certainly not more than one per section, and not one in every section.
I mean, if you were in a relatively intense civil war, then yes. If not, I can't see the practical use. You'd deploy artillery as and when needed, and hope you don't have a need for much artillery.

That's fair

Most of Padnak is undergoing some sort of low level insurgency however there are only a few regions that would probably necessitate full on fire base coverage because of significantly higher intensity insurgencies in those areas.

I'm trying to work out how to lay out anti aircraft systems in my section system; I was thinking of having each section operate its own air defense network comprised mostly of older AA guns and elderly SAMs that is directly subservient to a national air defense command, with advanced SAMs and that kind of thing being mostly located around cities and sites of significant military importance being operated by the Republican Guard. Almost all of the military's SPAGGs would be in the Republican Guard (given that the republican guard is mostly mechanized and armored) so the army would have to kinda just make due with towed and static anti aircraft defenses anyways

That sounds reasonable to me. How's the last month been ITT?

[Gallia-]

Alright, Air Force or Navy to control space travel? I know most people put their navies in total to be both space vessels and sea vessels, but I feel that Air Force is better set for it in purpose.

Airforces lack the necessary class and gravitas to be allowed to control the vast space fleets of the human empires

Or be allowed to control vast air fleets of human empires, for that matter.

Air forces just shouldn't exist, period.

[Imperializt Russia]

When I put 203 guns in Questers artillery, it was because I figured Questers is a big army with lots of equipment from a past era that it won't want to phase out yet. I was considering that maybe 203 artillery has some special fire tasks that 155 doesn't. Supposedly Israeli M107s (175) guns received some special ammo to shoot out to 50,000 yards. I'm assuming a lighter charge 203 gun could do similar, or better.

But I am not convinced that 203 or 175 is a good choice at all. There's nothing wrong with uniformity at 155 if you're supported by MRLs, I think.

Your army isn't cool until it has artillery so loud it has a warning alarm alerting nearby personnel to its firing.

[Gallia-]

This does not look like the road to a thriving middle class.

And yet, the middle class is primarily declining because people are moving to higher income brackets.

Just make minimum wage $20/hr.

Poverty solved!

Everything else is just vanity.

Things Millennials don't do:

1) Breed.

Vanity is the principal purpose of income these days. Not like you're going to do anything else unless you orgasm from watching your bank account's Internet counter tick up.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Space Forces should control space while the navy and air force both do their respective things

Yet I can validify the Air Force because that's ultimately what my Space Forces act as, just in an even higher sphere of influence. I'm not saying space carriers, but I'm saying Space Carriers.

Not really, star fighters aren't a thing for me, but atmo-capable drop-ships and strike fighters deployed from a carrier-like space-faring vessel should be good, right? I really only have three types of vessels planned for space action; Cruisers, Transports, Corvettes. Cruisers act as the picket screen for Kassaran colonies, retain mostly space-faring features with limited atmo-capabilities (landing for drydock overhaul in low-g environs and subsequent takeoff with assist), Transports are exactly as they sound, vessels determined to hold a primarily transport themed capability, whether they be carrying troops, cargo, or SSTA (Single Stage Trans-Atmospheric) Fighters, and Corvettes which are smaller screening and exploration vessels utilized for trans-atmospheric capabilities, FTL transport between locations (we use larger jump-type gates for cruisers and transports, but that's because it's more cost effective. Corvettes are traditionally light enough to propel themselves into FTL and retain non-disruptive signatures upon exit that won't interrupt normal interplanetary drone transport networks.

Now, understanding that I'm using naval ship terms, is that why people generally class the Navy as being the primary space-faring controller? Also, is there a need for a Navy when I can utilize both orbital and grounded forces from the Space Force as such? Actually, that's given me an idea on why the Navy should be in control of Space Forces. Mobilization of planetside forces, the control of planetside forces, and the likewise expenditure of getting those forces up into orbit coupled with the maintenance and fuel costs need to make it one branch responsible for all aspects. So the Navy, using their vessels in either an orbital, interplanetary, or planetside manner, should be responsible for such ships, no?

We call them landing craft and amphibious assault ships. If using navy nomenclature.

I like calling them drop-pods, gliders, and (exclusively) interplanetary-transports, scout-drones, and arsenal/armada-craft.

Aside from a few things, things that exist in space should stay up in space.

And yet, the middle class is primarily declining because people are moving to higher income brackets.

Just make minimum wage $20/hr.

Poverty solved!

If only we'd get our $0.02/sec, we'd be set.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Some questions about hazing:

1. How did the Koreans get to their hazing culture?
2. What was the level of "haze" in European armies during the draft era? After the draft era?

[Austrasien]

Now, understanding that I'm using naval ship terms, is that why people generally class the Navy as being the primary space-faring controller?

No. It is a literary convention, like air pirates was once, that let writers use pre-existing tropes to write relatable stories about things which are otherwise too remote from the readers (and the writers really) experience.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Some questions about hazing:

1. How did the Koreans get to their hazing culture?
2. What was the level of "haze" in European armies during the draft era? After the draft era?

1. War, Japanese occupation, US Occupation with Japanese advisors, purges on both sides of the iron curtain. Did I mention a rather brutal civil war?
-They also got into the military involvement in Vietnam, somehow.

2. P. terribad. To slightly less terribad. YMMV depending on whether or not you were a team-player.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

US industrial decline has only been going on for about two generations, hardly enough time for low intelligence to be "bred out" of the population.

Industrial economies rely on intelligence. It's useful even at much lower levels of development.
Technology development has been going on for at least 10 millennia, probably more - plenty of time to breed out low intelligence, if doing so was useful, in evolutionary terms. Clearly it's not.

I guess it's not something for a board like this, but intelligence has been selectively bred at different rates in geographically separated populations. So in some places this has happened; in others, much less.

Regardless, it's clear that what intelligence is good for isn't managing the economy: it's war. If the high IQ nations decided to wipe out the low IQ nations, we'd see strong selection for IQ, because they would succeed. Persuading high IQ people to be slaves to their children is a much harder sell.

At one time, children of the more intelligent people in the more intelligent countries were raised by servants, but progressive income tax and regulation ended that. Again, eliminating the income tax and regulation seems to be a hard sell to high IQ people, even though they'd benefit.

[Allanea]

Except that 'industrial decline' is at worst a decline in relative terms. THe amount of actual cars, etc. the US makes continually grows.

[Laritaia]

Except that 'industrial decline' is at worst a decline in relative terms. THe amount of actual cars, etc. the US makes continually grows.

it's like how the recession was a period of growth stagnation, not an actual reversal

western economies are built around the alter of growth, once that growth starts to slow down people start going batshit crazy.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Except that 'industrial decline' is at worst a decline in relative terms. THe amount of actual cars, etc. the US makes continually grows.

Was that in reply to my post? Doesn't seem related, but I mine was the previous post, and there was no quote.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Why is it that heavy preparatory bombardment makes cities harder to assail? Is it because the destruction hinders mobility through the city, and the defenders largely have to remain stationary?

[The Akasha Colony]

Why is it that heavy preparatory bombardment makes cities harder to assail? Is it because the destruction hinders mobility through the city, and the defenders largely have to remain stationary?

Rubble is just as good if not a better defensive barrier for entrenched forces than conventional buildings.

[Spirit of Hope]

Why is it that heavy preparatory bombardment makes cities harder to assail? Is it because the destruction hinders mobility through the city, and the defenders largely have to remain stationary?

Any competent defender is going to prepare for any preparatory bombardment, which means the bombardment itself is unlikely to do much damage. Rubble can be used just as well for constructing defenses out of, and any time used on the bombardment gives the defender more time to dig in and prepare their defenses, or bring up reinforcements.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Except that 'industrial decline' is at worst a decline in relative terms. THe amount of actual cars, etc. the US makes continually grows.

US industrial output increased because of continuing investment in labor-saving machinery.

Manufacturing employment, as a proportion of the overall labor force, declined in all but one or two congressional districts between 1990 and 2013, and in those the increase was trivial. The median decline was 6 percentage points, which sounds small until you consider that median manufacturing employment in 1990 was 15.7%, and that the change was more severe in some places than others. And this doesn't even go as far back as 1970ish when the trend originally began.

The problem being discussed is not that the US has some absolute shortage of industrial goods. The problem is that it has a shortage of (stable, adequately paying, decent-status, high-school-degree-or-less) jobs for the people who used to make those goods.

But really this belongs in the Non-Mil thread, which is why both Kyiv and I have linked it there.

Why is it that heavy preparatory bombardment makes cities harder to assail? Is it because the destruction hinders mobility through the city, and the defenders largely have to remain stationary?

Any competent defender is going to prepare for any preparatory bombardment, which means the bombardment itself is unlikely to do much damage. Rubble can be used just as well for constructing defenses out of, and any time used on the bombardment gives the defender more time to dig in and prepare their defenses, or bring up reinforcements.

It's also worth nothing, if only tangentially, that compared with Europe/Asia 1945 today's urban agglomerations are much larger and tend to include taller and sturdier buildings. Completely reducing a 21st-century, developed-country metropolis to Stalingrad levels of ruin is going to require a greater volume of shells and bombs than it did even at the height of the Second World War.

Notably, this still doesn't invalidate the importance of keeping artillery and aircraft on hand to provide targeted fire support for forces advancing into a city, which is different from trying to reduce the city to rubble before moving in.

[Gallia-]

Why is it that heavy preparatory bombardment makes cities harder to assail? Is it because the destruction hinders mobility through the city, and the defenders largely have to remain stationary?

Prolonged bombardment creates rubbling that reduces mobility of the attackers and doesn't really detract from the cover of the defenders, but that's not really the whole story TBH.

A bomber cell of B-52s would make an adequately planned attack on something like Fallujah mostly trivial because a heavy preparatory bombardment that is effective has a tremendous amount of shock action behind it. The Germans in Caen were witness to a mass aerial bombardment that shook them (the prelude to Operation Goodwood), but the ground assault by the British was too poorly timed and planned to take advantage of this (they took several hours when they should have taken several minutes).

The problem is ultimately one of reconnaissance and timing. A big Ypres-esque shelling would be relatively useless because a lot of the munitions will fall on empty structures instead of the enemy. Rubbling will impact road mobility and you'll effectively be wasting a large majority of ammunition on nothing. A mass bombardment is a necessary prelude to an assault, which has to be accurately targeting to hit strongpoints and timed to coincide with, as soon as possible (within a couple minutes at most), a ground assault by tanks and mechanized infantry.

The other problem is that the big guns need to be big enough to topple the strongpoints. A big thick European masonry building is a veritable fortress to a 76mm or 105mm gun that probably can't penetrate it in a single shot (or multiple ones), in which case you might resort to using 155mm or even 203mm guns in the direct fire role. Experienced troops will understand that their defensive structures are essentially immune to your attack and not be phased when the ground assault commences, but if you start dropping roofs and floors on them, they'll take notice that they aren't safe.

Basically it's about intensity, duration, and timing. You want to compress as much firepower into as short a time as possible, as small an area as possible, with ground troops hugging the shells (perhaps literally? :3) as close as feasible, moving as quickly as possible.

[Allanea]

It's also worth nothing, if only tangentially, that compared with Europe/Asia 1945 today's urban agglomerations are much larger and tend to include taller and sturdier buildings. Completely reducing a 21st-century, developed-country metropolis to Stalingrad levels of ruin is going to require a greater volume of shells and bombs than it did even at the height of the Second World War.

Are they really sturdier?

I mean to say, a lot of modern skyscraper construction involves things like using a frame of metal beams, around which a relatively light building is constructing. I imagine the non-loadbearing parts would not hold up very well to bombardment.

[Allanea]

Also, relevant to your interests.

[The Soodean Imperium]

It's also worth nothing, if only tangentially, that compared with Europe/Asia 1945 today's urban agglomerations are much larger and tend to include taller and sturdier buildings. Completely reducing a 21st-century, developed-country metropolis to Stalingrad levels of ruin is going to require a greater volume of shells and bombs than it did even at the height of the Second World War.

Are they really sturdier?

I mean to say, a lot of modern skyscraper construction involves things like using a frame of metal beams, around which a relatively light building is constructing. I imagine the non-loadbearing parts would not hold up very well to bombardment.

I was referring less to glass-and-steel skyscrapers you see in city centers, and more to the mid-to-large concrete apartment complexes that tend to fall in the middle outskirts. Loadbearing bricks and non-loadbearing wood, or loadbearing wood and non-loadbearing wood, can't fare much better, but if anyone has information on e.g. estimates of number of shells to fell a certain type of building I'd concede the point.

Bombarding a modern business district could probably do a lot more economic damage, shell for shell, today than in 1943, which is one point that came up back in the Malaysia-versus-Singapore discussion. But if the goal is to actually reduce a city to rubble, I don't see old cities having a larger proportion of sturdier buildings than new ones.

Another thing to consider is that taller buildings will place more rubble on the roads and in the way of the attackers... but OTOH new middle-outskirts expansions to cities are usually built with high-density commutes in mind and may feature wider avenues and more open spaces than tightly packed Old Cities with their narrow streets and alleyways, which might invalidate that?

[Gallia-]

If you want to rubble a city you'd use nuclear weapons anyway.