NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Tule]

Well..
It certainly continues the frightening trend from WW1 and WW2 : Ever increasing amounts of dead.

Fortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. Wars are getting less deadly as high precision weapons decrease troop densities and civilian casualties.

As long as we manage not to involve nukes...

[Gallia-]

Well..
It certainly continues the frightening trend from WW1 and WW2 : Ever increasing amounts of dead.

Fortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. Wars are getting less deadly as high precision weapons decrease troop densities and civilian casualties.

As long as we manage not to involve nukes...

The trend is indeed upwards on the death scale, as a percentage of losses:total force. Using absolute number of deaths is a dumb metric because it provides nothing to compare. The only reasonable metric I've found is losses per day:total force deployed.

For comparison, the American experience of World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Just Cause's first week were of similar levels of battle intensity. Bear in mind that the bulk of this tremendous firepower in the latter case was sent out by the U.S. Army itself, and the U.S. Air Force, rather than the Panamanians. The United States Army would call this "mid-intensity" in a more civilized age, where force losses didn't exceed 1-2% of the force deployed per day. In the Yom Kippur War, arguably the last "high intensity" war, force losses were approximately 2-3% per day as a ratio of losses:force deployed. Thus, Yom Kippur would have had approximately twice the battlefield casualties of the American experience of European WW2, had it continued for the same duration at the same scale.

The increasing deadliness of modern combat is masked by the decreasing force densities, yes, but a modern armored division can more than kill a 1950s corps.

If we were still at WW2 levels of force density, you would see entire groups of men wiped out in minutes by smart bombs and laser guided machine guns. This is what happened in Desert Storm when the Iraqi Tawakalna 3rd Mechanized Division met a U.S. Army screening force and was annihilated. Partially because the Iraqis were completely blind and had no idea where to send their fighting forces, partially because the Iraqis were such a dense target that it was impossible to avoid being destroyed.

Firepower, measured in lbs/man/hr, has been on a upward trend since 1860. Battlespace control, as measured by the amount of acreage under the control of a divisional battalion, has also been on a upward trend since 1860. Force dispersion, as measured by divisional men/km of frontage has been on a downward trend since Napoleonic times. Accuracy has also been on an upward increase, which improves deadliness faster than thrown weight of explosive, so firepower measured in lbs/man/hr may actually decrease in the future, while killing power increases. After all, a doubling in accuracy of a high explosive bomb is equivalent to an 8x increase in explosive power, because of how bombs work.

So no, wars are most certainly getting deadlier. It's a trend that appears to not be abating.

It's just increasingly unlikely to bother you, because the force densities and absolute quantities of fighters is decreasing. Were there someone with WW2 levels of force manning and density, it would probably be literally worse than the Holocaust. Who needs a Falaise Pocket when you've annihilated the fighting power of the German Seventh Army within a day of landing at Normandy because Joint STARS, Small Diameter Bombs, Army TACMS, and DPICMs did all the heavy lifting for you? Thermal sights, laser guided machine guns and automatic cannon, and the Em Sixteh cleans up the survivors. V-E Day before Thanksgiving.

[Crysuko]

Fortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. Wars are getting less deadly as high precision weapons decrease troop densities and civilian casualties.

As long as we manage not to involve nukes...

The trend is indeed upwards on the death scale, as a percentage of losses:total force. Using absolute number of deaths is a dumb metric because it provides nothing to compare. The only reasonable metric I've found is losses per day:total force deployed.

For comparison, the American experience of World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Just Cause's first week were of similar levels of battle intensity. Bear in mind that the bulk of this tremendous firepower in the latter case was sent out by the U.S. Army itself, and the U.S. Air Force, rather than the Panamanians. The United States Army would call this "mid-intensity" in a more civilized age, where force losses didn't exceed 1-2% of the force deployed per day. In the Yom Kippur War, arguably the last "high intensity" war, force losses were approximately 2-3% per day as a ratio of losses:force deployed. Thus, Yom Kippur would have had approximately twice the battlefield casualties of the American experience of European WW2, had it continued for the same duration at the same scale.

The increasing deadliness of modern combat is masked by the decreasing force densities, yes, but a modern armored division can more than kill a 1950s corps.

If we were still at WW2 levels of force density, you would see entire groups of men wiped out in minutes by smart bombs and laser guided machine guns. This is what happened in Desert Storm when the Iraqi Tawakalna 3rd Mechanized Division met a U.S. Army screening force and was annihilated. Partially because the Iraqis were completely blind and had no idea where to send their fighting forces, partially because the Iraqis were such a dense target that it was impossible to avoid being destroyed.

Firepower, measured in lbs/man/hr, has been on a upward trend since 1860. Battlespace control, as measured by the amount of acreage under the control of a divisional battalion, has also been on a upward trend since 1860. Force dispersion, as measured by divisional men/km of frontage has been on a downward trend since Napoleonic times. Accuracy has also been on an upward increase, which improves deadliness faster than thrown weight of explosive, so firepower measured in lbs/man/hr may actually decrease in the future, while killing power increases. After all, a doubling in accuracy of a high explosive bomb is equivalent to an 8x increase in explosive power, because of how bombs work.

So no, wars are most certainly getting deadlier. It's a trend that appears to not be abating.

It's just increasingly unlikely to bother you, because the force densities and absolute quantities of fighters is decreasing. Were there someone with WW2 levels of force manning and density, it would probably be literally worse than the Holocaust. Who needs a Falaise Pocket when you've annihilated the fighting power of the German Seventh Army within a day of landing at Normandy because Joint STARS, Small Diameter Bombs, Army TACMS, and DPICMs did all the heavy lifting for you? Thermal sights, laser guided machine guns and automatic cannon, and the Em Sixteh cleans up the survivors. V-E Day before Thanksgiving.

I once read a story in which modern armies still fought with line warfare. lser guided weapons, smart munitions, jet aircraft et al. i'd link it if I could could remember where for the life of me I found it. the only thing I remember about it is that it was incredibly brutal, the author pulled no punches in terms of "detail"

[Vaillana]

How much would it cost annually to field an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer? I am trying to calculate how much I'd spend on my navy and this would be a big help.

[Laritaia]

supposedly it's between 60-80 million a year.

however i would tend to estimate closer to 80 then 60 if the sorry state of maintenance and training in the USN is anything to go by.

[Gallia-]

60-80 mn is accurate.

They're just getting 40-50 though.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why are you all posting on "purp's safe space"?

[Tule]

Fortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. Wars are getting less deadly as high precision weapons decrease troop densities and civilian casualties.

As long as we manage not to involve nukes...

The trend is indeed upwards on the death scale, as a percentage of losses:total force. Using absolute number of deaths is a dumb metric because it provides nothing to compare. The only reasonable metric I've found is losses per day:total force deployed.

For comparison, the American experience of World War II, the Korean War, and Operation Just Cause's first week were of similar levels of battle intensity. Bear in mind that the bulk of this tremendous firepower in the latter case was sent out by the U.S. Army itself, and the U.S. Air Force, rather than the Panamanians. The United States Army would call this "mid-intensity" in a more civilized age, where force losses didn't exceed 1-2% of the force deployed per day. In the Yom Kippur War, arguably the last "high intensity" war, force losses were approximately 2-3% per day as a ratio of losses:force deployed. Thus, Yom Kippur would have had approximately twice the battlefield casualties of the American experience of European WW2, had it continued for the same duration at the same scale.

The increasing deadliness of modern combat is masked by the decreasing force densities, yes, but a modern armored division can more than kill a 1950s corps.

If we were still at WW2 levels of force density, you would see entire groups of men wiped out in minutes by smart bombs and laser guided machine guns. This is what happened in Desert Storm when the Iraqi Tawakalna 3rd Mechanized Division met a U.S. Army screening force and was annihilated. Partially because the Iraqis were completely blind and had no idea where to send their fighting forces, partially because the Iraqis were such a dense target that it was impossible to avoid being destroyed.

Firepower, measured in lbs/man/hr, has been on a upward trend since 1860. Battlespace control, as measured by the amount of acreage under the control of a divisional battalion, has also been on a upward trend since 1860. Force dispersion, as measured by divisional men/km of frontage has been on a downward trend since Napoleonic times. Accuracy has also been on an upward increase, which improves deadliness faster than thrown weight of explosive, so firepower measured in lbs/man/hr may actually decrease in the future, while killing power increases. After all, a doubling in accuracy of a high explosive bomb is equivalent to an 8x increase in explosive power, because of how bombs work.

So no, wars are most certainly getting deadlier. It's a trend that appears to not be abating.

It's just increasingly unlikely to bother you, because the force densities and absolute quantities of fighters is decreasing. Were there someone with WW2 levels of force manning and density, it would probably be literally worse than the Holocaust. Who needs a Falaise Pocket when you've annihilated the fighting power of the German Seventh Army within a day of landing at Normandy because Joint STARS, Small Diameter Bombs, Army TACMS, and DPICMs did all the heavy lifting for you? Thermal sights, laser guided machine guns and automatic cannon, and the Em Sixteh cleans up the survivors. V-E Day before Thanksgiving.

I mostly agree.

I mean, yes, weapons today are incredibly deadly. The average life expectancy of a deployed infantryman or tank crewman in a modern conventional conflict is probably shorter than it has ever been. (I think 1980's tank crewmen in the BAOR expected to survive 2 hours from the beginning of hostilities with the Warsaw Pact)

But absolute numbers matter, they matter on the nation state level. Nation states today have in a sense traded meat for metal, oil and integrated circuits.

If you have x billion dollars to spend on an army per year you are generally better off spending it on a mix of infantry and armored vehicles than a pure light infantry conscript army.

It's obvious which side has more men, and which side gets slaughtered.

[Great New England Confederation]

Hello, I am interested in adopting a tilt-rotor aircraft into my armed forces for use with airborne cavalry divisions in supplement to conventional helicopters, as well as in use for logistical and humanitarian roles aboard ships, but i am not interested in the V22 osprey, would the Augusta AW609 be a good alternative or should I look somewhere else?

[The Akasha Colony]

Hello, I am interested in adopting a tilt-rotor aircraft into my armed forces for use with airborne cavalry divisions in supplement to conventional helicopters, as well as in use for logistical and humanitarian roles aboard ships, but i am not interested in the V22 osprey, would the Augusta AW609 be a good alternative or should I look somewhere else?

AW609 is a bit on the small and light side. It's not even in the same class as V-22. AW609 is in roughly the same class as Black Hawk in terms of power but has a much lower MTOW and thus a much lower payload capacity. This doesn't automatically rule it out but means it will either have to be supplemented with heavier aircraft or you will have to make due somehow with very limited payload. V-22 in comparison has an MTOW that is more that twice that of Black Hawk and three times that of AW609.

[Great New England Confederation]

Hello, I am interested in adopting a tilt-rotor aircraft into my armed forces for use with airborne cavalry divisions in supplement to conventional helicopters, as well as in use for logistical and humanitarian roles aboard ships, but i am not interested in the V22 osprey, would the Augusta AW609 be a good alternative or should I look somewhere else?

AW609 is a bit on the small and light side. It's not even in the same class as V-22. AW609 is in roughly the same class as Black Hawk in terms of power but has a much lower MTOW and thus a much lower payload capacity. This doesn't automatically rule it out but means it will either have to be supplemented with heavier aircraft or you will have to make due somehow with very limited payload. V-22 in comparison has an MTOW that is more that twice that of Black Hawk and three times that of AW609.

Im aware, that's why it will not be the go to aircraft, it will serve along side conventional helicopters like the black hawk and the Eurocopter Panther. It will not become the standard aircraft of the type.

[The Akasha Colony]

AW609 is a bit on the small and light side. It's not even in the same class as V-22. AW609 is in roughly the same class as Black Hawk in terms of power but has a much lower MTOW and thus a much lower payload capacity. This doesn't automatically rule it out but means it will either have to be supplemented with heavier aircraft or you will have to make due somehow with very limited payload. V-22 in comparison has an MTOW that is more that twice that of Black Hawk and three times that of AW609.

Im aware, that's why it will not be the go to aircraft, it will serve along side conventional helicopters like the black hawk and the Eurocopter Panther. It will not become the standard aircraft of the type.

Then there doesn't appear to have much of a role left over for it to handle. Regular helicopters are more compact and more efficient for shipboard use and for simple cargo transportation where speed is not of particular importance and Black Hawk is a better assault transport for airmobile units. The principal benefit of a tiltrotor is extended range and horizontal speed, but none of the roles you've mentioned really benefit from those features and would be better served by the conventional helicopters you still operate instead.

AW609 in particular is hamstrung because it is small and weak. Even V-280 will be more powerful by a fairly hefty margin and V-22 has more than three times the power of AW609. It doesn't have the payload to serve in the capacities V-22 currently serves in, or even the capacities that UH-60 serves in. Maybe it could take on some ancillary roles as a special forces transport like CV-22, but it doesn't have much room to add the extra fuel tanks, terrain following radar, and other bells and whistles used in this role while still carrying a useful number of passengers and their gear.

On another note, there is a newer version of this thread that should be used because this one has been retired on account of almost reaching the length cap.

[Laritaia]

the AW609 is really not configured for military operations

[The Manticoran Empire]

Hello, I am interested in adopting a tilt-rotor aircraft into my armed forces for use with airborne cavalry divisions in supplement to conventional helicopters, as well as in use for logistical and humanitarian roles aboard ships, but i am not interested in the V22 osprey, would the Augusta AW609 be a good alternative or should I look somewhere else?

(Image)

Honestly, I would look at what role you are seeking to fill. Is it going to be mainly used for hauling cargo from A to B, landing assault troops, Casualty Evacuation? The role that you are looking to fill plays a significant role in deciding on the vehicle used.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

[Laritaia]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

the russians would have run out of fuel long before that happend

[Gallia-]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

the russians would have run out of fuel long before that happend

They wouldn't need to anyway. NORTHAG was a paper tiger.

There were only two really competent NATO militaries: USA and Germany and their entire military power was concentrated on the Central Army Group.

[The Manticoran Empire]

the russians would have run out of fuel long before that happend

They wouldn't need to anyway. NORTHAG was a paper tiger.

There were only two really competent NATO militaries: USA and Germany and their entire military power was concentrated on the Central Army Group.

What happened to Britain and France?

[The Akasha Colony]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

This is a big reason why nations stockpiled so many vehicles and so much equipment, particularly the USSR, which held on to basically everything. It's really the only thing that can be done; hope the war ends before you run out of your stockpiles, or hope the enemy runs out of his first.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They wouldn't need to anyway. NORTHAG was a paper tiger.

There were only two really competent NATO militaries: USA and Germany and their entire military power was concentrated on the Central Army Group.

What happened to Britain and France?

De Gaulle didn't want to play and BAOR would've been Kessel'd against the North Sea coast by the collapse of the Belgians.

[Austrasien]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

If the war really had become a stalemate, which wasn't particularly implausible in the last two decades of the Cold War, it could easily have lasted long enough to permit industrial mobilization. As more recent experience has shown modern weapons alone do not add up to a decisive battle. The Soviets were quite aware from Arab experience that simply hurling vast quantities of armoured vehicles at a capable defender was not going to produce victory by itself, if they did not achieve their desired breakthrough within a relatively short time and did not choose to go nuclear they probably would have adopted a more conservative posture - for all their love of offensive maneuver they arguably had a bigger edge over NATO in a slow-motion war. NATO forces limited reserves of equipment and munitions and general inferiority in artillery would have left them in a very bad place in an extended conflict. The same place as the Germans in 1944 really.

In retrospect, the biggest risk to the Soviets was probably inexperienced but overenthusiastic Soviet commanders launching too many poorly executed attacks early in the war before NATO forces had been worn down and having their forces butchered at ludicrous loss-exchange ratios like the Syrians on the Golan Heights. Also looking back the biggest risk to NATO was that all their best laid anti-tank defences would be crushed by overwhelming Soviet artillery fire.

[Crysuko]

I have a structure for larger scale army formations, can I get some input on if they're any good

A regiment is formed from 3,000 men
5 regiments form a division of 15,0000
3 divisions form a corps of 45,000
And 4 corps form an army group of 180,000

[North Yemen-]

I have a structure for larger scale army formations, can I get some input on if they're any good

A regiment is formed from 3,000 men
5 regiments form a division of 15,0000
3 divisions form a corps of 45,000
And 4 corps form an army group of 180,000

The size of all of these will be highly dependent on your force doctrine and the rolls they fill. Regiments will rarely all be ~3,000 men.

[Crookfur]

I have a structure for larger scale army formations, can I get some input on if they're any good

A regiment is formed from 3,000 men
5 regiments form a division of 15,0000
3 divisions form a corps of 45,000
And 4 corps form an army group of 180,000

There is also the fact that each level of organisation will also add additional support assets alongside its head line "manoeuvre" units and these can add up to another few main units' worth of personnel.

Also as said the type of unit will also affect numbers. Regiments (as multi battalion groups I assume) are still at the level where you will be fielding several different types ie armoured/tank regiments, armoured/mechanised/motorised infantry and light infantry and all will have different personnel numbers.

Your numbers might work for very rough fudge factor planning but in reality none of your numbers will add up or multiply so nicely.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

So, I've heard it said that in a conventional clash in Germany between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could, if drawn out long enough, result in severe shortages of vehicles. Warplanes, tanks, etc. Did nations ever take precautions to safeguard against this? I assume you can't just build another factory, given how quickly WWIII might have occurred.

If the war really had become a stalemate, which wasn't particularly implausible in the last two decades of the Cold War, it could easily have lasted long enough to permit industrial mobilization. As more recent experience has shown modern weapons alone do not add up to a decisive battle. The Soviets were quite aware from Arab experience that simply hurling vast quantities of armoured vehicles at a capable defender was not going to produce victory by itself, if they did not achieve their desired breakthrough within a relatively short time and did not choose to go nuclear they probably would have adopted a more conservative posture - for all their love of offensive maneuver they arguably had a bigger edge over NATO in a slow-motion war. NATO forces limited reserves of equipment and munitions and general inferiority in artillery would have left them in a very bad place in an extended conflict. The same place as the Germans in 1944 really.

In retrospect, the biggest risk to the Soviets was probably inexperienced but overenthusiastic Soviet commanders launching too many poorly executed attacks early in the war before NATO forces had been worn down and having their forces butchered at ludicrous loss-exchange ratios like the Syrians on the Golan Heights. Also looking back the biggest risk to NATO was that all their best laid anti-tank defences would be crushed by overwhelming Soviet artillery fire.

Was it normal for Soviet officers to be inexperienced?