NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Allanea]

"At the time". The most advanced NBC suits (read: JSLIST) are only good for attack against liquid aerosols for 24 hours. This isn't any better than Cold War battledress. The only thing that's improved is that the suit is easier to move in and slightly lighter. So by all accounts, everything you just said is still true?

A lot of testing from the era suggests the number then was 8 hours.

But the point is, people were at the time of the belief that they were going to invent some solution that doesn't just 'force the other battalion work in NBC gear', but actually somehow penetrates the gear and kills them. It turned out to be essentially impossible, that's to say, there are apparently near-hard limits to how deadly chemweapons can be. And people basically decided it is much cheaper and easier to drop HE-F on the battalion, tear them apart with shrapnel, etc., than to go 'oh we dropped some of our most expensive chemicals in their vague location, Comrade Colonel. I bet those Yankees won't like having to clean their tanks in full gear now!'

[Allanea]

Or was Novichok the thing that was so deadly it became useless? How does that work? A BMP drives five miles downwind from a chem-stricken command post, a single molecule of Novichok goes into the commander's eye, and he just dies horribly? I mean I guess that could present problems.

It was comparable to cyclosarin in lethality, AFAIK.

[Gallia-]

"At the time". The most advanced NBC suits (read: JSLIST) are only good for attack against liquid aerosols for 24 hours. This isn't any better than Cold War battledress. The only thing that's improved is that the suit is easier to move in and slightly lighter. So by all accounts, everything you just said is still true?

A lot of testing from the era suggests the number then was 8 hours.

What is the "era" though? The 1950s? The 1960s?

But the point is, people were at the time of the belief that they were going to invent some solution that doesn't just 'force the other battalion work in NBC gear', but actually somehow penetrates the gear and kills them.

So basically like CK and Japanese gas masks?

It turned out to be essentially impossible, that's to say, there are apparently near-hard limits to how deadly chemweapons can be.

Stop killing my dreams.

BLU-80_did_nothing_wrong.avi

Or was Novichok the thing that was so deadly it became useless? How does that work? A BMP drives five miles downwind from a chem-stricken command post, a single molecule of Novichok goes into the commander's eye, and he just dies horribly? I mean I guess that could present problems.

It was comparable to cyclosarin in lethality, AFAIK.

Ok so it's just sorta mediocre.

RIP.

And anything deadlier than VX or GB is basically so unstable that it breaks down into less deadly compounds? Well, if Spiz can claim Island of Stability meme myth. ):<

[Taihei Tengoku]

So I'm trying to understand the basic breakdown of a mechanized battalion but unfortunately I'm retarded and shit at reading force organization charts, can someone help explain the basics?

A mechanized infantry battalion breaks down like any other infantry battalion: there are a few line companies that can locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver and repel the enemy assault by means of fire and close combat. Supporting these companies are heavy weapons, like guided missiles or mortars, that provide fire support but can't get up close like the infantry do. There is a headquarters staff to manage it all and some special troops to do things like communications, reconnaissance, and logistics.

A mechanized battalion just puts all these things on carrier vehicles. Some have their own contingent of tanks. The composition of support troops also differs: ones that fight as part of a larger unit (USA, USSR) usually are "clean" of organic support elements while those that are expected to fight independently (Russian BTG) bring a lot of it with them.

[Iltica]

So what happens to countries that aren't targets in a peak cold-war exchange? Most of the Southern hemisphere probably isn't going to be struck at all. Is the climate damage so severe that the earth becomes uninhabitable or could non-aligned nations conceivably just wait it out and run amok once the superpowers are out of the way?

[North Arkana]

So what happens to countries that aren't targets in a peak cold-war exchange? Most of the Southern hemisphere probably isn't going to be struck at all. Is the climate damage so severe that the earth becomes uninhabitable or could non-aligned nations conceivably just wait it out and run amok once the superpowers are out of the way?

The non-aligned nations would still be shit-tier compared to the remnants of the superpower nations, and get pounded back into their rightful lowly place by the leftovers of the superowers.

[Herador]

So I'm trying to understand the basic breakdown of a mechanized battalion but unfortunately I'm retarded and shit at reading force organization charts, can someone help explain the basics?

A mechanized infantry battalion breaks down like any other infantry battalion: there are a few line companies that can locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver and repel the enemy assault by means of fire and close combat. Supporting these companies are heavy weapons, like guided missiles or mortars, that provide fire support but can't get up close like the infantry do. There is a headquarters staff to manage it all and some special troops to do things like communications, reconnaissance, and logistics.

A mechanized battalion just puts all these things on carrier vehicles. Some have their own contingent of tanks. The composition of support troops also differs: ones that fight as part of a larger unit (USA, USSR) usually are "clean" of organic support elements while those that are expected to fight independently (Russian BTG) bring a lot of it with them.

Thanks man

[The Akasha Colony]

So what happens to countries that aren't targets in a peak cold-war exchange? Most of the Southern hemisphere probably isn't going to be struck at all. Is the climate damage so severe that the earth becomes uninhabitable or could non-aligned nations conceivably just wait it out and run amok once the superpowers are out of the way?

Most nations in the global south would be up a creek if the global north managed to nuke itself back to the stone age because they are almost entirely dependent on northern nations for the production of industrial goods and for customers to buy their mineral resources. They would lose all access to the industrial, technological, and other complex products because these are almost exclusively made in the more developed nations of the world. Nigeria, Madagascar, and Uruguay don't exactly have large semi-conductor industries capable of replacing the loss of China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan's foundries, nor do they have the capability to manufacture industrial quantities of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment to keep what passes for their healthcare systems running. The productive parts of their societies are just as plugged into the industrial world as the north, but they don't have the same industrial capacity as the north because they have never needed it.

The poorest of these nations are also generally heavily dependent on foreign aid from wealthy states, and lack of this funding could very well lead to major unrest and governmental collapse which would spill over and strain the resources of their already-taxed neighbors who are also trying to figure out how to survive without the ability to import cars, air conditioners, construction equipment, and basically everything else they need to function.

Perhaps the dirt poor subsistence farmers who don't have electricity anyway won't notice, but they're not exactly going to start building empires to fill the power vacuum. The global south isn't subordinate to the global north because the north is more powerful, it's subordinate because it's objectively weak and underdeveloped. Every northern nation could suddenly disappear but that doesn't mean Brazil will start churning out supercarriers in order to establish a new global hegemony.

In regards to general effects on the globe though, it's hard to say conclusively. It is unlikely the nuclear detonations themselves would cause cataclysmic damage to the Earth's climate. After all, over 2,000 nuclear weapons have already been detonated in various tests throughout the last 70 years. Nuclear testing though raised background radiation levels noticeably and contaminated the atmosphere with radionuclides, although with the suspension of testing current background radiation levels have basically returned to normal (and so far as I know, no negative health effects were witnessed anyway). But that testing took place over the course of decades and took more decades to return to normal; hundreds or thousands of simultaneous detonations would be a different matter.

The bigger question perhaps is the environmental effects caused by the widespread conflagrations resulting from nuclear detonations over built-up areas, which is complicated because it depends on things like fuel loading and the effectiveness of local civil defense at containing the damage. Uncontrolled fires could potentially throw enormous quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere, although even this would fall short of the worst apocalyptic predictions.

[Allanea]

A lot of testing from the era suggests the number then was 8 hours.

What is the "era" though? The 1950s? The 1960s?

I'd need to look in the book but I think it in the peak of chemweapons, 1960s/early 1970s.

But the point is, people were at the time of the belief that they were going to invent some solution that doesn't just 'force the other battalion work in NBC gear', but actually somehow penetrates the gear and kills them.

So basically like CK and Japanese gas masks?

Ok so it's just sorta mediocre.

RIP.

And anything deadlier than VX or GB is basically so unstable that it breaks down into less deadly compounds? Well, if Spiz can claim Island of Stability meme myth. ):<

According to the book at least, most compounds they tried were either unstable, or solid at room temperature, or whatever. Getting past somewhere about 1.7 mg per kilogram of body weight (don't quote me on the precise numbers) in lethality is probably extremely difficult. According to Gen. Antonov, at least, maybe it'll be possible if some exciting new biochemistry discovery is made, but not at the present level of knowledge.

The silver lining, if you will, is that soman (and other, 'worse' chemicals) is almost impossible to remove from vehicles. If you have your BMP hit with soman, decontamination in the field (which is basically 'hose it down and pray'), will make it somewhat safe, but small doses of soman remain because they've soaked in the paint. It's possible that you'll be driving the vehicle later and think you're safe, but at some point due to a weather change or whatnot, the soman has started 'deabsorbing' from the paint. Then you die or are horribly maimed for life because you're sitting in a gasenwagen. Full decontamination requires shipping the vehicle back to Nizhny Tagil or Kurgan, disassembling it and thoroughly decontaminating the parts.

To bring home just how insane this stuff is, the author describes a BTR still having traces of soman on it after having all the paint violently burned off using a jet engine.

Now, if you've mentioned to contaminate someone's house, or factory, with soman, even just the external walls, they're basically screwed. You might be able to avoid most of of the workers' dying if you follow procedure. But you're not going to be able to work in the factory without chemical protection, at least not over any term relevant to military success. Any civilian housing you hit with your soman munitions (assuming you detonate your soman bomb at the proper altitude and are not a dumbass Japanese cultist whose definition of 'chemical warfare' is 'poke a plastic bag full of poison with an umbrella') is likely to either require tearing down, or being the subject of an expensive recovery effort.

[Gallia-]

The paint thing is just Simpkin stuff though.

Why would BMPs need to worry about being hit with sarin when NATO had zero sarin to hit them with?

[Allanea]

The paint thing is just Simpkin stuff though.

Why would BMPs need to worry about being hit with sarin when NATO had zero sarin to hit them with?

It was actually hit with soman.

At the time the USSR invested shittons of money into these studies, the US was also spending money on VX and such nonsense.

By the time Simpkin was writing Human Factors, though, both sides had been reducing chemical weapons funding, while pumping out internal propaganda about how the evil enemy was going to drown everything with chemical weapons two kilometers deep.

But both sides were wrong.

[Gallia-]

The paint thing is just Simpkin stuff though.

Why would BMPs need to worry about being hit with sarin when NATO had zero sarin to hit them with?

It was actually hit with soman.

At the time the USSR invested shittons of money into these studies, the US was also spending money on VX and such nonsense.

By the time Simpkin was writing Human Factors, though, both sides had been reducing chemical weapons funding, while pumping out internal propaganda about how the evil enemy was going to drown everything with chemical weapons two kilometers deep.

NATO had no offensive chemical weapons. The USSR had oodles.

Unless the USSR had some reason to believe that NATO could retaliate its chemical weapons use, why wouldn't it use chemical weapons on things it isn't going to go near anyway?

e: Assuming that microdoses of CARC absorbed G agent is as deadly as you imply.

But both sides were wrong.

Yeah, I remember when WW3 broke out and no one got hit with chemical weapons.

[Allanea]

NATO had no offensive chemical weapons. The USSR had oodles.

By the 11980s the USSR was defunding and decommissioning its chemical weapons, if slowly. (The process was completed when Russia later formally disarmed of them).

Yeah, I remember when WW3 broke out and no one got hit with chemical weapons.

Both sides were wrong because by the mid 1970s/early 1980s both sides started gradually stepping away from the idea of using chemical weapons tactically.

[Gallia-]

Oiccc.

When you use terms like "internal propaganda", you make it sound more cynical than it actually is. I'm not sure if "propaganda" has the same connotations in Russian or Hebrew or whatever as it does in English, but when you said that term, you made it sound as if both sides were both fully aware that their opponent was never going to use chemical weapons, yet stated otherwise for some inscrutable and nefarious ulterior motive. That may have been true for the Soviet Union, I guess, if the chemical designers didn't actually realize that Novichok wasn't as deadly/effective as they claimed beforehand (implying pre-knowledge); but not so much for the West because the West killed its offensive CW program in the '60s and '70s (starting an unbroken chain of pandering to humanitarian lobbyists) and focused purely on defensive aspects.

I think the reality is more that the Soviet chemical engineers/"lobbyists" were honestly hopeful that the Novichok agents would be as good as they claimed and it was less a case of treasonous sabotage/graft/corruption and more a case of justifiable techno-optimism that happened to turn out to be wrong. Not quite FCS, since FCS was more delusional due to the lack of scientific understanding of its primary seller, but also not the Convention on Cluster Munitions because there was no intent to weaken or sabotage the Soviet Union's capacity to wage war by removing a vital weapons capability or reducing available resources.

The West probably just saw thirty trillion sarin shells stacked up in an ammo depot, thought rather prudently that "they're going to use this," and ignored all evidence to the contrary as "a typical Russian smokescreen," or whatever. Which, given it's Russia, is entirely justifiable and perfectly rational a thought to think. Russia is not exactly known for saying things directly, even within its own honest internal debates it must speak in circles or analogy to get a point across before it descends into actually making direct statements. Something that's shared, I think, with Arabs and Iranians. To a lesser extent (that is, within academia), it is something shared with France too.

Perhaps France's philosophical debate techniques of "speak in the most obfuscating manner and obscure analogies you can think up," bled a bit too deep into Muscovite military theory, if L.W. Grau's assessment of Russian "argument by analogy," of weapons is right. So perhaps those reams of "internal propaganda" about NATO throwing chemical weapons were actually the USSR describing describing how it would use chemical weapons and trying to come to terms with that. And, likewise, perhaps the reams of "internal propaganda" about the Soviet Union throwing chemical weapons were actually just based on the large stockpiles of chemical weapons the USSR had, and the extremely boring and pragmatic assumption that you wouldn't have weapons you don't intend to use, without any real exploration or care for any philosophy behind it.

That is how the USSR came to terms with the trefoil defense and the battalion tactical group. It never adopted the trefoil, but it always couched the initial debates of both battalion tactical groups and trefoils in terms of "this is what the West [or rather, the U.S. Army] thinks," which, if the USSR's military readings say anything, any time it says "this is what the West thinks," it's actually saying "this is what the USSR thinks, but we don't want to say we think this, because reasons," so by the time it's fully digested the idea (after arguing by analogy) it can start producing more definitively truthful statements.

It's something that seems to be common in what are called "low trust societies," of which Russia most certainly is.

I think it's so the authors can deflect the blame if their idea is unpopular by saying "we never said this, we were merely repeating what other people said," and everyone is expected to just know what you're talking about. Alternatively it's to keep discussion aligned within a specific group of society, say military men, while every other group reads it as literally as possible and just ignores it as not relevant to their interests. This would help ensure that the sub-group discussing whatever is still vetting discussion group members so it can be sure that their behavior is somewhat predictable. By knowing what the authors are really talking about, you prove that you know enough information that you may be able to contribute meaningfully to the discourse. Perhaps both and more, though.

[Austrasien]

So I'm trying to understand the basic breakdown of a mechanized battalion but unfortunately I'm retarded and shit at reading force organization charts, can someone help explain the basics?

Rofl this blog Viyk posted is incredible. It's like Sparky but for civil defense. He's half right, half nuts.

I'm looking for "parasitic conspiracy of narcissistic evil anti-civil defense devils" to show up.

e: He also seems to think the only utility of sarin is bombing cities, rather than bombing battalions???

e2: I've found "evil anti-civil defense"! Now we're only missing the other half of the phrase! Will it actually appear? owo

e3: This page appears to occupy a space of the Internet approximately six miles long.

e4: Praises Thatcher's background with a BSc in X-ray chemistry with fairly pedestrian 2:1 or whatever, but ignores Carter's background with a BSc in nuclear engineering and top 10% of his class at USNA? That means Carter's degree equivalent was a 1:1, albeit nuclear engineering is a fair bit simpler/easier than chemistry, but it's still only average marks. Weird.

e5: And in between his Sparky-esque diatribes he is otherwise rather eloquent and well spoken, unless I'm reading a quote from someone. It's like he's two people in one body. Perhaps Sparky really did write in Armor magazine?!

e6: Viyk where did you find this?!

e7: "doom-mongering media lies" might be an actual sparkyism!

e8: But yeah besides his actual rabid Sparkiness he is basically right afaict; I admire his brave stoicism, adherence to the principles of Leninism, and dedication to the ideal for the West to be prepared for the next big one.

It is a real gem of the internet. He also has like every manual and major book on nuclear weapons, ever, for download.

[Gallia-]

Yes, it is an exquisite example of e-real estate.

[Western Pacific Territories]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xieNM469mNg

e: "People ask me all the time if I'm certified. I say 'Hell no, I just shoot wherever I want to whenever I want to.' "

[Allanea]

Now that's going to put the catamong the chickens.

[Laritaia]

Now that's going to put the catamong the chickens.

so it's like an ASW helicopter

but worse

[Allanea]

Now that's going to put the catamong the chickens.

so it's like an ASW helicopter

but worse

You mean, 'better'.

[Gallia-]

No, it's worse.

[Laritaia]

so it's like an ASW helicopter

but worse

You mean, 'better'.

no i mean worse in basically every way.

slower, smaller carrying capacity, no sonar bouys, worse reaction time, etc, etc

e:it wins in endurance, so perhaps not worse in every way

[Allanea]

You mean, 'better'.

no i mean worse in basically every way.

slower, smaller carrying capacity, no sonar bouys, worse reaction time, etc, etc

e:it wins in endurance, so perhaps not worse in every way

It's also likely much cheaper to operate.

[The Corparation]

Now that's going to put the catamong the chickens.

so it's like an ASW helicopter

but worse

During the trials, Seagull operated successfully in sea state 6, at winds exceeding 35 knots and 1.5 meter high waves

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sea State 6 usually considered waves 2-4 times that high?

[Allanea]

When you use terms like "internal propaganda", you make it sound more cynical than it actually is. I'm not sure if "propaganda" has the same connotations in Russian or Hebrew or whatever as it does in English, but when you said that term, you made it sound as if both sides were both fully aware that their opponent was never going to use chemical weapons, yet stated otherwise for some inscrutable and nefarious ulterior motive. That may have been true for the Soviet Union, I guess, if the chemical designers didn't actually realize that Novichok wasn't as deadly/effective as they claimed beforehand (implying pre-knowledge); but not so much for the West because the West killed its offensive CW program in the '60s and '70s (starting an unbroken chain of pandering to humanitarian lobbyists) and focused purely on defensive aspects.

The Soviet government promoted educational materials to soldiers and civil defense personnel that described a future where chemical weapons would be rampant on the battlefield, due to being widely used by NATO. There is evidence - in the form of archive material, and in the form of memoirs from individuals who actually spoke to Soviet generals - that many in the Soviet high command knew that this was not going to be a reality. Even more flabbergastingly, some post-Soviet states (Belarus in particular) continue including chemical weapons survival training in their educational material. (Right alongside with a chapter reminding you that as a Belarussian soldier, it is your duty under International Law to treat surrendering US Marines humanely.)