NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[North Arkana]

A hasty slit trench is always viable. The effort on a full on system may not be.

SHOVELS.
https://youtu.be/fzs_dYE6MjA

That was the video that actually made me ask this question

Praise the shovel. Cherish the shovel. Love the shovel.

[Albynau]

How relevant are SPAAGs or radar guided anti aircraft guns on the modern battlefield?

I understand they're effective against helicopters and low flying aircraft, but how often do aircraft fly that low to make gun runs and drop unguided ordnance?

Wouldn't MANPADS overlap in their role, with a smaller logistical footprint?

Thanks.

[Ragutsa]

How relevant are SPAAGs or radar guided anti aircraft guns on the modern battlefield?

I understand they're effective against helicopters and low flying aircraft, but how often do aircraft fly that low to make gun runs and drop unguided ordnance?

Wouldn't MANPADS overlap in their role, with a smaller logistical footprint?

Thanks.

MANPADS are pretty similar to SPAAGs in the role they function, but you have to consider the accuracy of the SPAAGs and the firepower of it is totally superior to a MANPAD. Generally you take MANPADs because it cheaper or they are more suited for Urban areas, but when you need the extra firepower, either because the enemy relies on helicopter or there is the presence of Low flying aircraft, you take the SPAAGs

[Rhodesialund]

How relevant are SPAAGs or radar guided anti aircraft guns on the modern battlefield?

SPAAGs turn infantry into hamburger meat.

[Laywenrania]

and SPAAGs are mechanized, they can stay with the tanks. A manpad has to have a form of transport and then either dismount or at least stop and expose yourself.

[United Earthlings]

What happens if you deliberately condition your recruits to find joy in killing?

Going down a more morally ambiguous path thanks to our greater understanding by modern science, a certain percentage of your nation’s population is going to have to put it bluntly psychopath traits, depending on what technological era your nation currently is in, you could in theory genetically screen for people with those traits and inducted them into your armed forces. Of course, these people wouldn’t find joy in killing so much as the neural connections in said individuals’ brains don’t function normally that permit them to experience remorse and empathy emotions as others would normally.

In the more Sci-fi route, you simply remove or edit various human genomes in individuals that you have identified that influence aggressive or psychopath behaviors.

That stated it’s probably likely these types of recruits you want wouldn’t actually be any better soldiers then those you were already recruiting from a standard population mix, in fact they might even be worse when it comes to unit cohesion, effective teamwork, discipline and dare I say preventing civilian atrocities.

Without the [sci-fi] ability to reach into their brains and begin triggering reward centers on command or unless they are actually mentally retarded they will quickly grasp the pleasurable stimulus comes from the tasty chocolate bar you give them when they get a "good kill" and not from the actual act of killing.

They will probably even figure out they can just go out and buy themselves a tasty chocolate bar and skip the whole killing step.

Reading the above could easily be a chapter in of one those Freakonomics books.

[Gallia-]

What if you lavish them with peer and group acceptance instead of tasty chocolate bars?

Seems to work alright for political parties.

[The Akasha Colony]

How relevant are SPAAGs or radar guided anti aircraft guns on the modern battlefield?

Very relevant, and likely to become only more so with the proliferation of cheaper UAVs and other aerial systems.

I understand they're effective against helicopters and low flying aircraft, but how often do aircraft fly that low to make gun runs and drop unguided ordnance?

More often then you would think, since guided ordnance is still quite expensive and every military still has large stockpiles of iron bombs. And all the way up to Desert Storm, low-altitude penetration was felt to be the superior option in terms of penetrating enemy airspace until it was realized that heavy SAMs are easier to jam than an entire network of SHORADS and MANPADS are to suppress. SHORADS and MANPADS are what made those runs too dangerous, so they clearly play a rather important role.

Wouldn't MANPADS overlap in their role, with a smaller logistical footprint?

Not necessarily. High-end SPAAGs like Pantsir and Tunguska have integrated radar that allow them to search much larger volumes of airspace than a MANPADS operator looking around with his eyes. They also have larger, longer-ranged, and faster missiles capable of engaging a wider array of targets. And being fully-enclosed, they're immune to weather and low-visibility conditions that would affect a regular MANPADS.

Of course, you could supplement your MANPADS with external radar to spot targets and an external mount like on Bradley Linebacker and Avenger, but at that point you may as well just buy a real high-end system like Pantsir since it would give you a broader engagement capability. SHORADS can't replace the sheer portability of MANPADS, but at the same time MANPADS can't replace the full capabilities of a dedicated anti-aircraft fighting vehicle.

[Purpelia]

Hypotetical light tank regiment circa 1937:

• Regimental HQ and support units
• Recon Battalion (A mix of horse cavalry and motorcycle units)
• Armored Car Battalion
  
  • HQ (1 x Command Light Tank + 2 x Armored Car)
  • 3 x Armored Car Company
    
    • HQ (1 x Light Tank + 2 x Armored Car)
    • 3 x Armored Car Platoon (4 x Armored Car)
• Tank battalion
  
  • HQ (1 x Command Medium Tank + 2 x Medium tank)
  • 3 x Light Tank Company
    
    • HQ (3 x Light tank)
    • 3 x Tank Platoon (4 x Light Tank)
• Voltigeur Battalion
  (Basically a light infantry battalion. Or, more specifically a regular infantry battalion of the time but with NO guns heavier than a HMG. So no AT guns, no support artillery, no nothing. The voltigeur battalion is expected to get its support and transportation from the light tank battalion. And they only got the equipment they could carry that way.)

The formation had a total of 3 Medium tanks, 25 light tanks, 20 armored cars and a number of motorcycles and horse cavalry. In 1939 a further company of light motorized artillery (read: 40mm AT guns and light howitzers mounted on the back of an universal carrier) would be added. It's use was that of a regular light cavalry unit. In other words it was supposed to scout ahead of the main force, taking objectives which were found uncontested or easily defended and avoiding the enemy main force. It would also perform secondary duties such as flanking and breakthrough exploitation and generally light cavalry chores.


Comments?

[Kekonistan]

That was the video that actually made me ask this question

Praise the shovel. Cherish the shovel. Love the shovel.

Have another feelsworthy Ukrop video.

[Arthurista]

Does anyone know where I can find detailed info on 11 ACR operations and tactics etc. in Vietnam?

[Kazarogkai]

Hypotetical light tank regiment circa 1937:

• Regimental HQ and support units
• Recon Battalion (A mix of horse cavalry and motorcycle units)
• Armored Car Battalion
  
  • HQ (1 x Command Light Tank + 2 x Armored Car)
  • 3 x Armored Car Company
    
    • HQ (1 x Light Tank + 2 x Armored Car)
    • 3 x Armored Car Platoon (4 x Armored Car)
• Tank battalion
  
  • HQ (1 x Command Medium Tank + 2 x Medium tank)
  • 3 x Light Tank Company
    
    • HQ (3 x Light tank)
    • 3 x Tank Platoon (4 x Light Tank)
• Voltigeur Battalion
  (Basically a light infantry battalion. Or, more specifically a regular infantry battalion of the time but with NO guns heavier than a HMG. So no AT guns, no support artillery, no nothing. The voltigeur battalion is expected to get its support and transportation from the light tank battalion. And they only got the equipment they could carry that way.)

The formation had a total of 3 Medium tanks, 25 light tanks, 20 armored cars and a number of motorcycles and horse cavalry. In 1939 a further company of light motorized artillery (read: 40mm AT guns and light howitzers mounted on the back of an universal carrier) would be added. It's use was that of a regular light cavalry unit. In other words it was supposed to scout ahead of the main force, taking objectives which were found uncontested or easily defended and avoiding the enemy main force. It would also perform secondary duties such as flanking and breakthrough exploitation and generally light cavalry chores.


Comments?

So... Basically cruiser tanks right?

[Purpelia]

So... Basically cruiser tanks right?

Not quite. Like basically at this period my army only uses light and medium tanks. And the medium tank is roughly equivalent in stats to a cruiser tank.* The light tanks are really light. Like we are talking 30's light tanks. So like something in the Panzer I to R35 range. Literally light cavalry.


* It's currently in the works in 3D. But basically think of a fully sloped Panzer III with the BT-7 engine in it, about as much armor as a BT-7 but physically larger to fit a large turret ring.

[Gallia-]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

It orphans the air superiority mission.

If you don't win the air, you don't win the war.

Why would it orphan the air superiority mission when armies rely on air superiority to move around though?

Sounds like it would just orphan the strategic bombing mission.

You'd still be flattening every airbase you can reach, whether with TBMs or with airplanes.

[Purpelia]

It orphans the air superiority mission.

If you don't win the air, you don't win the war.

Why would it orphan the air superiority mission when armies rely on air superiority to move around though?

He probably means the rest of air superiority. As in the navy covers its own patch of the air, the army its patch and the rest of the entire world including things the enemy is trying to bomb in your country remains uncovered because neither of the two actually has a mandate (or obvious selfish motivation) to detach aircraft to protect it.

Sounds like it would just orphan the strategic bombing mission.

That too.

[Austrasien]

If you let the Army build fighters.

Soldiers are fixated on what they can see. If they can't see the plane at forward airfields they will start complaining about the chair force. If they can't see the fighter above them doing them "fighter things" they will complain they are not being supported. This would not be problematic in itself but some of them will eventually become the senior officers who begin making the actual decisions; then the whole air force will be units of 2-3 Harriers operating out of parking lots.

The Marines have an air force and what are they fixated on? Keeping the aircraft as close to the front as possible. That this means they are shackled to underperforming STOVLs forever does not really concern them.

[-Celibrae-]

If the Navy needs the Air Force's B-2s to strike far-inland targets, why not just give the B-2s to the Navy?

[Gallia-]

If the Navy needs the Air Force's B-2s to strike far-inland targets, why not just give the B-2s to the Navy?

Why would they need them?

[-Celibrae-]

Isn't a carrier-heavy navy quite proficient at OCA? Why not just expand its capabilities to include land-based aircraft?

It hasn't been historically. Naval aviation is usually concerned overwhelmingly with short range missions within the vicinity of their carriers. One of the reasons the USN had such a heart attack over the Chinese AShBM is because it exposed how poorly suited carrier aviation is to finding and striking targets deep inland, they had neither suitable aircraft or suitable weapons (cue the crash program to develop the LRASM, cue the 6th generation "fighter" powerpoints) because the Navy had been happy to assume these were of no major concern to them. The only available aircraft capable of directly countering the DF21 and similar threat is of course the B2. Navy leaders think a lot about global sea access, they don't give much thought to global air access except when it pertains to sea access.

?

[The Akasha Colony]

If the Navy needs the Air Force's B-2s to strike far-inland targets, why not just give the B-2s to the Navy?

Because as was mentioned before, the Navy has had a tendency to not care about far-inland targets at all until suddenly a weapon system like DF-21D comes along and they realize they need it. By then it's far too late to develop a new land-based stealth bomber, which is why the US Navy IRL is just relying on longer-ranged missiles. If there were no USAF to prioritize the deep penetration mission, there would be no one to develop B-2 in the first place. And even if there were an air force to do this and then you disbanded it and transferred its strategic bombing assets to the navy, the navy would not bother funding a serious replacement like B-21, so that capability will atrophy over time until it disappears again.

Air Force officers tend to think more heavily about things like deep penetration missions to hit specific targets like TELs and silos because it is inherently part of their core mission. But it is not part of the core mission of the Army or the Navy so it will tend to get ignored until suddenly some new threat comes along, but by then it's too late to develop a new weapon like a stealth bomber to deal with it. It's a matter of priorities; armies and navies have lots of competing priorities that the strategic bombing and air superiority mission would have to compete with, whereas they are core missions for a dedicated air force. Thus, a separate air force ensures that these missions will always have political champions and experienced air officers in charge.

The alternative is to essentially create a pseudo-branch like the US Army Air Forces, which is always controlled by air officers and can directly supervise the air missions, but at this point it's a separate branch in all but name.

[-Celibrae-]

Now, this may come off as naive, but why not clearly designate deep penetration bombing as the remit of the navy, and establish some form of bomber command within said navy's air arm?

[Gallia-]

Now, this may come off as naive, but why not clearly designate deep penetration bombing as the remit of the navy, and establish some form of bomber command within said navy's air arm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mail_scandal

This, but with real consequences. The reason the USAAC was incapable of doing something as simple as delivering air mail was because it was a part of the Army. Competing with itself, the Army is going to fund more development of tanks, small arms, and anti-tank guns than airplanes. Which is why the USAAC lobbied for independence in the first place.

The investigating committee, the Drum Board, said as such. The USAAC was understrength in both men and aircraft for a real war.

Their assumptions were based on the requirements for War Plan Red-Orange, and they came to the conclusion that in the wake of the Air Mail Scandal, the USAAC wouldn't be capable of performing its wartime duties against the British or Japanese. A large part of the reason is that because it was shackled to the Army and unable to modernize its aircraft inventory or training programs.

The same thing would happen if you shackled a deep penetration mission onto the Navy. They'd roll it into the carrier mission or say "SLBMs can do it" and let the actual deep penetrator aircraft die on paper.

[The Akasha Colony]

Now, this may come off as naive, but why not clearly designate deep penetration bombing as the remit of the navy, and establish some form of bomber command within said navy's air arm?

Because you can try to make it a written remit, but that doesn't mean that navy officers will care. Just like you can assign homework but that doesn't mean students care or put effort into it if they feel it's just drudgery or busywork.

There isn't much you can do to make a former carrier group commander rising up through the ranks care about land-based strategic bombing of deep inland targets. Or a former submariner working his way up. Or a fighter jock. None of them have any reason to care about the strategic bombing mission, and if they make it up the ranks to CNO or whatever equivalent position exists, they have no reason to put any serious resources toward that requirement. The US Navy has lots of requirements that haven't been met so this is hardly a big deal. It's just another thing that will lose out when the budget gets tight to more aircraft carriers, submarines, and carrier fighters.

If you established a seriously independent bomber command that had its own funding stream, then as before, you've created a separate branch anyway. But rather than creating a single branch to handle the air mission, now you've got all of these small independent "bomber commands" and "fighter commands" in the navy and air force that have to deal with these missions without coordinating with each other.

[-Celibrae-]

My idea was to prevent an Air Force from coming into existence in the first place, thereby forcing the Navy - the predominant branch - to come to the realisation that it had to embrace land and sea-based air power. This Navy would subsequently come to understand that heavy bombers are useful, whether they are used for hitting maritime targets or striking deep inland, thus establishing Bomber Command alongside Fighter Command for land-based use, and the Fleet Air Arm for ship-based aviation, within a greater Navy Air Service that I suppose would be a pseudo-branch, but subordinate to the greater Navy.

[Gallia-]

This Navy would subsequently come to understand that heavy bombers are useful

Sure.

thus establishing Bomber Command alongside Fighter Command for land-based use

No they wouldn't.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they're competing with the rest of the Navy, which is much louder and has just as sound arguments. They will become the red-headed stepchild of the fleet and ignored entirely, while the Navy's carriers and battle fleet get all the fancy planes and gizmos first. The Navy Bomber Command will be flying brand new, thirty year old planes and helicopters, and have no real ability to do any of their jobs.

They will either be made a separate force naturally if you silo away the Navy Air Chief of Staff position to pilots only, or they will be so suppressed and marginalized that they'll remain subordinate to the fleet headquarters if you open it up to the rest of the fleet through greater integration.

It depends on who wins the war.

You don't seem to realize that militaries' greatest enemies aren't their opponents in wartime, but the people from other service branches.

If it means something as transient as losing a war or otherwise shooting yourself in the foot to retain the surface fleet/tank battalions/strategic bombers, you bet a military will do it.