NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Militia of the Free]

Bad driving or failed VBIED attempt? You decide!

So that is how technicals are made.

The sighting of mechanical love....fascinating.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Figured I might as well tweak the light rifle squad now that it's relevant

Changes:
- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.
- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.
- One of the AT-riflemen was replaced by a marksman with a rifle in 7.62x54mmR. Initially I was going to give the marksman a sidearm as well, but then I realized that his main weapon has about the same dimensions, cartridge, and action as the FN FAL. So naturally, following the overall trend of "fightiest squad," I gave it 20-round magazines and added a full-auto setting. The marksman is now capable removing hamburger at 600 rounds per minute, or removing hamburger from 800 meters away.
- To preserve firepower, the removed AT-rifleman's AT launcher has been moved to the Corporal.
- The "stack of magazines" icon has been replaced by a magazine with a counter next to it. This does not include the magazine in the rifle.

[NeuPolska]

Would it be feasible to carry out military exercises pitting a company or battalion against another company or battalion, and arming each soldier with 60-120 rounds of Simunition? The goal would be to work on fighting in stressful situations, using bullets but without actually killing anyone, and to promote camaraderie among soldiers from each company or at least at the platoon level, and give prospective officers a chance to experience what war could be like.

Obviously there would be no usage of tanks, aircraft, or artillery, the focus would be on large-scale infantry tactics.

[Spirit of Hope]

Would it be feasible to carry out military exercises pitting a company or battalion against another company or battalion, and arming each soldier with 60-120 rounds of Simunition? The goal would be to work on fighting in stressful situations, using bullets but without actually killing anyone, and to promote camaraderie among soldiers from each company or at least at the platoon level, and give prospective officers a chance to experience what war could be like.

Obviously there would be no usage of tanks, aircraft, or artillery, the focus would be on large-scale infantry tactics.

Yes you can do that, it is in fact currently done as part of multiple different nations military exercises and training. You could easily incorporate tanks, aircraft and artillery as well, those are things that are part of modern combined arms combat.

[Crookfur]

Would it be feasible to carry out military exercises pitting a company or battalion against another company or battalion, and arming each soldier with 60-120 rounds of Simunition? The goal would be to work on fighting in stressful situations, using bullets but without actually killing anyone, and to promote camaraderie among soldiers from each company or at least at the platoon level, and give prospective officers a chance to experience what war could be like.

Obviously there would be no usage of tanks, aircraft, or artillery, the focus would be on large-scale infantry tactics.

Militaries already do this, in some cases up to brigade level bu they tend to use blanks combined with MILES (laser gear) as it allows them fully integrate tanks, artillery and air (or at least the simulation of thier effects for artillery and air) into the screnario which if operating at company level or above is pretty much required. IIRC with some versions of MILES you can also record everything and play the action back for debreifs and further training.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_ ... ent_system

[NeuPolska]

Well alright then, so my thought process is a little outdated. Thanks guys.

[United Earthlings]

So, others here have commented on how American officers have pretty generally been unwilling to go on the offensive without superiority in air or artillery support, even when armies of other nationalities have done the same and still been victorious. Is this because Americans are very casualty-averse? Or because it worked in WWII and that was the last time America won anything?

First off, I don't believe the first part of your statement is accurate for so many reasons, but the main one being because of the modern distortion basis that clearly exists due to the simple fact that you are required to go back all the way to the Korean War to even compare a period where American Superiority in one way or another wasn't an automatic given, especially when 20/20 hindsight is applied.

In addition, maybe excluding the uniquely German viewpoint, even if your statement is completely true and accurate, a reservation about committing to an offensive without clear superiority I would dare say is hardly an uniquely American trait as numerous armies have in one form or another adopted mass as one of their principal tenants of war.

Concerning your first question, Americans are no more casualty-averse than any other nation.

"The belief that casualty aversion is a characteristic of American strategic culture is fairly recent. However, it has no historical foundation. Moreover, recent research suggests that American support for military action is tied more to the public’s perceptions of the way the war is unfolding and the prospects for success rather than directly to the number of casualties. In truth, the threshold can be viewed differently across the political spectrum: Conservatives and liberals may disagree on how much the policy aims in a particular conflict are worth. Again, new research suggests that public support does not reflexively collapse with the occurrence of casualties, but rather with falling expectations of success. In short, casualties become a political instrument in time of war, regardless of the type of conflict, and this is part of the legacy of the First World War. It is surely not unique to the American context. How powerful that instrument becomes is dependent upon the stakes and how well governments are able to manage the public’s reception of adverse news against the prospects for success. As stated earlier, casualty aversion is commonly associated with the contemporary Western way of war. Whether one accepts the argument that risk transfer is a characteristic of postheroic warfare and its related culture of restraint, the risk-benefit calculus has changed since the end of the Cold War largely because neither the political stakes nor the benefits of intervention are high. Casualty aversion is thus more a policy choice in response to changed conditions than a semipermanent aspect of culture.”

Source: Reconsidering the American Way of War; Pg. 42, 43

On the second question, define winning according to your viewpoint. The majority of people saw both the Gulf War and later the 1990s Balkan interventions as a win. Of course the viewpoint of the first one has been tarnished and overshadowed by current events with the second one being largely forgotten. Finally, after you’ve defined winning you must then establish the parameters of that win due to the simple fact that the American military commits forces both small and large throughout the world even to the present day.

[Questers]

Figured I might as well tweak the light rifle squad now that it's relevant

Changes:
- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.
- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.
- One of the AT-riflemen was replaced by a marksman with a rifle in 7.62x54mmR. Initially I was going to give the marksman a sidearm as well, but then I realized that his main weapon has about the same dimensions, cartridge, and action as the FN FAL. So naturally, following the overall trend of "fightiest squad," I gave it 20-round magazines and added a full-auto setting. The marksman is now capable removing hamburger at 600 rounds per minute, or removing hamburger from 800 meters away.
- To preserve firepower, the removed AT-rifleman's AT launcher has been moved to the Corporal.
- The "stack of magazines" icon has been replaced by a magazine with a counter next to it. This does not include the magazine in the rifle.

(Image)

>not 5.45x39

[Gallia-]

7.62x39mm is the only reasonable alternative to 5.56x45mm.

It is nearly as manly.

[The Kievan People]

So, others here have commented on how American officers have pretty generally been unwilling to go on the offensive without superiority in air or artillery support, even when armies of other nationalities have done the same and still been victorious. Is this because Americans are very casualty-averse? Or because it worked in WWII and that was the last time America won anything?

Mostly because of WWII. Tactics are mostly things soldiers learn from other soldiers, who learned from other soldiers, who learned either on the battlefield or from other soldiers. Doctrine, theories and manuals are comparatively unimportant. The US Army was basically created from whole cloth in WWII and had to learn how to fight a modern (for the time) war the hard way. The way they learned to fight - leaning heavily on air and artillery support - was shaped by what they could do (build lots of radios, guns and aircraft) and what they could not do (their commanders were inexperienced, their troops were green). Of course eventually their troops got better. But they still had lots of stuff, and they had learned how to fight using that stuff and they were still winning, so they kept doing it. And they are still doing it. There has been fairly strong continuity in the US military since WWII. Veterans of WWII trained their successors, who trained their successors and so on.

Except for the Korean War the US Army has not been routed from the field by anyone. Though they have often failed to win, they haven't suffered many decisive defeats either. Though their unbroken record of failure in COIN points to some problems with US military thinking in general these conflicts are simply too trivial to prompt the kind of fundamental rethink that occurred (for example) in WWI when the major powers were compelled to completely rethink the way they fought wars.

[Questers]

The way they learned to fight - leaning heavily on air and artillery support - was shaped by what they could do (build lots of radios, guns and aircraft) and what they could not do (their commanders were inexperienced, their troops were green).

p lol how the British Army came to the same conclusion from the opposite direction. What hey could do - build lots of radios, guns, and aircraft - shaped the way they learned to fight (leaning heavily on air and artillery support) because they could afford to print shells, but not men.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

So then what does Gayla mean by 'the American army lost its balls in the desert'? If that's referring to Kasserine Pass, I had been told that was actually very beneficial to the US, as it cued America in on the fact that it still needed some big changes.

[Husseinarti]

Figured I might as well tweak the light rifle squad now that it's relevant

Changes:
- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.
- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.
- One of the AT-riflemen was replaced by a marksman with a rifle in 7.62x54mmR. Initially I was going to give the marksman a sidearm as well, but then I realized that his main weapon has about the same dimensions, cartridge, and action as the FN FAL. So naturally, following the overall trend of "fightiest squad," I gave it 20-round magazines and added a full-auto setting. The marksman is now capable removing hamburger at 600 rounds per minute, or removing hamburger from 800 meters away.
- To preserve firepower, the removed AT-rifleman's AT launcher has been moved to the Corporal.
- The "stack of magazines" icon has been replaced by a magazine with a counter next to it. This does not include the magazine in the rifle.

(Image)

iirc automatic weapons using box magazines have some feeding troubles with rimmed cartridges.

[Gallia-]

So then what does Gayla mean by 'the American army lost its balls in the desert'? If that's referring to Kasserine Pass, I had been told that was actually very beneficial to the US, as it cued America in on the fact that it still needed some big changes.

*dick

not balls

a vasectomy means you can still penetrate fluid mediums and electrolyte solutions

you just cant inject your payload to disrupt their internal center of gravity

a dick means you lack the ability to penetrate at all

though if we want to be pedantic it had more to do with the soviet union calling it quits than desert storm when the us army decided to skip buying weapons for the next three centuries

but the obsession with having sand in its panties will never leave the us army apparently since theyve only been planning for 50 years

e: the whole artillery thing is just hte us army never wanting to take off the training wheels also, tbh

[The Soodean Imperium]

iirc automatic weapons using box magazines have some feeding troubles with rimmed cartridges.

huh, TIL what "rimmed cartridge" actually means.

Fortunately all my weapons are 1px:1cm pixel art with 1-line writeups in a word document so I can just retcon in whatever 7.62x51mm's base is called and make that my sniper/machine-gun round. Or maybe use my ancient 7.5mm rifle cartridge from the 1940s if I'm feeling creative. I usually have a rule against perfect-hindsight weapons design, but the thought of having special forces teams with FN FAL lookalikes as standard issue is too much to turn down.

The exact configuration of a less-used rifle cartridge is near the bottom of the list of things I care about TBH, I'd rather be working on battalion ORBATs or warships.

[NeuPolska]

Is the SKS still viable as a standard rifle for specialized infantries? I wouldn't use it for any regular/standard infantry, but rather for something like the Royal House Guard, which is are elite infantry tasked with defending the monarch's life to the death, and also maintaining order or performing general guard duty. I may also use it occasionally within the regular infantry, just not as the standard rifle. I could see it being used in a specialized shock grenadier company, for example.

My reasons are it are:
-Stopping power (I figure if it can blow through concrete blocks like nothing it could probably put a human target down pretty quick)
-It's pretty accurate (I've seen plenty of videos of SKS users being able to make very accurate shots at distances that most assault rifles would be used at)
-It can take a heavy beating and still function (it's like the AK's cousin, after all)
-It has a very convenient and easily accessible bayonet that would actually be scary to come up against (not like modern short and stubby knife-like bayonets), which has definite uses in crowd control, guard duty, and generally any close quarters combat (I have a bit of a bayonet fetish)
-Cheap to produce and maintain

The cons I could think of are:
-Only carries 10 rounds
-Nowhere near as customizable as modern rifles that have tactical railings
-Lacks a grip (though with a well-trained user, is that really a problem?)
-Doesn't have the fire rate of most modern rifles

As for the stripper clips it uses, I feel like those can be viewed in both lights. On one hand, they can be trickier to load in the intensity of combat (but good discipline and muscle memory would make that negligible) and they don't have the capacity of magazines, but they also are much easier to carry, since they're much less bulky than a magazine, and on top of it it's much easier to prepare a few stripper clips than to load a full magazine. And I imagine overall the stripper clip would cost much less than a magazine.

Yay or nay?

[Puzikas]

a vasectomy means you can still penetrate fluid mediums and electrolyte solutions

Fiance's new name in phone is "Electrolytic Fluid Medium"
Thank

- The AT Grenadier now has a rifle with three magazines instead of a carbine with six magazines.

Is this done because you're goal is to save weight, or to increase engagment distance?
Because by and large your maximum range with your carbine and rifle, unless there's a huge disparity between the length of barrels, will be about the same. Most Infantrymen are only capable of accurately firing at individual targets at 400m, and most Infantrymen in combat are only effective to 200-300m, a distance perfectly capable for a carbine

- The Squad MG now has a GPMG 1000-rpm hamburger remover in 7.62x54mmR rather than an LMG in 7.62x39mm. The Squad MG operator also has a pistol for self-defense. MG ammunition is redistributed due to the rifle team shuffle-up but the overall load is the same, 9x 100-round boxes.

Recoil is going to be massive, ammunition consumption excessive, barrel changes frequent, and no noticeable increase in supressive ability in particular will come from firing so fast.
The switch to 7.62x54mmR is fine, but if you desire a high fire rate, it might be better to use 7.62x39mm as you had before.

Also there needs to be significantly more taper of a 20 round 7.62x54mmR magazine.
Also also avoid such large capacity magazines with 7.62x54mmR.
Also also also avoid high fire rates with magazine fed 7.62x54mmR

Is the SKS still viable as a standard rifle for specialized infantries?

No

but rather for something like the Royal House Guard, which is are elite infantry tasked with defending the monarch's life to the death, and also maintaining order or performing general guard duty.

Ceremonial weapon yes
Service rifle no
SKS wasn't even fit to be the soviet unions service rifle :|

[Gallia-]

if he has a launcher or a mortar give him a pistol because his real gat is too big to put a bayonet on

not that he would ever need it

7.62x51mm can be carried in 1000 rnds or so...by like three people since that assumes a machine gun team

the gunner by himself might carry ~3-400 rounds tops

he can double this with 5.56mm

idk how that compares to 5.45x39mm tho or if anyone ever really considered a belt-fed 5.45mm besides the rejected RPK-74 thing but probably the same because the biggest problem is the bulk of those belts, not their weight

[NeuPolska]

but rather for something like the Royal House Guard, which is are elite infantry tasked with defending the monarch's life to the death, and also maintaining order or performing general guard duty.

Ceremonial weapon yes
Service rifle no
SKS wasn't even fit to be the soviet unions service rifle :|

Any glaring reasons why?

[Puzikas]

There's a few trials belt fed 5.45s
The reason there aren't any in service is a fundamental difference between Soviet and Western doctrines of Infantry combat but lately RMoD has warmed up to the idea.


1,000 rounds of 7.62x54mmR on belts would weigh 26.8 kilos
You could cary 1,950 linked 5.45x39 for the same mass assuming the link weighed about the same.

Ceremonial weapon yes
Service rifle no
SKS wasn't even fit to be the soviet unions service rifle :|

Any glaring reasons why?

Small magazine capacity
Semi-automatic only
Poor ergonomics for CQ/Urban fite
Complicated reload

[NeuPolska]

Any glaring reasons why?

Small magazine capacity
Semi-automatic only
Poor ergonomics for CQ/Urban fite

Fair enough.

Would a SIG SG 550 or 556 be a good modern choice for the types of things I was planning to use the SKS for? I may just have my nation use a modded version of that that uses an SKS-style bayonet.

[EsToVnIa]

>complicated reload

it takes like 3 seconds to load a new charger

[Puzikas]

I would say the SF 55x series is really already modernized.

That's quite a departure, moving from a rifle from 1945 to a rifle from 1985.

I should also like to correct some misconceptions of the rifle you have.

Stopping power

This is a totally fake term. Stopping power is a myth.
7.62x39mm is an effective cartridge but its actually less capable in terms of its incapacitation abilities against soft targets than 5.56x45mm or 5.45x39mm.

It's pretty accurate (I've seen plenty of videos of SKS users being able to make very accurate shots at distances that most assault rifles would be used at)

The SKS is indeed capable of being accurate to typical engagment ranges, but its nothing of any particular noteworthyness. It is not more accurate than any of its predecessors, contemporaries or successors. It's actually less.

-It can take a heavy beating and still function (it's like the AK's cousin, after all)

Besides both firing the 7.62x39mm cartridge and being a standard service arm of the Soviet Union, the two are not related in any meaningful way.

-It has a very convenient and easily accessible bayonet that would actually be scary to come up against (not like modern short and stubby knife-like bayonets), which has definite uses in crowd control, guard duty, and generally any close quarters combat (I have a bit of a bayonet fetish)

I actually won't disagree here, the SKSs Bayonet is really cool.
That said however the usefulness of a bayonet is minimal at best, crowd control is actually something that it IS good at through, so I guess that's something.

-Cheap to produce and maintain

Cost is a negligable at best factor in most nations small arms inventories unless you are extremely poor.

Nowhere near as customizable as modern rifles that have tactical railings

There are stocks that fix this, but they are cancer and should be ignored.

Lacks a grip (though with a well-trained user, is that really a problem?)

I don't understand this one. Do you mean a pistol grip? There's really no particular issue with that.


Clips get stuck on webbing and loose rounds like all the time. Magazines are infinitely better for combat.

>complicated reload

it takes like 3 seconds to load a new charger

Your trolling doesn't work on me Prem remember

[EsToVnIa]

no i just don't what's complicated about

stick charger in the slot of the dust cover
push bullets in
remove charger
close bolt

trained conscript/soldier should be able to do this in around 6-8 seconds

e: yes i'm aware that reloading with a mag takes like 5 seconds tops, i'm arguing the usage of "complicated" more than anything because i'm autistic

[The Greater Aryan Race]

AK-74Ms would be better pick imo.