NationStates

The Corparation wrote:It probably would end up being similar. Except that this theoretical Japanese ricer hornet would have "Made in Japan" stamped on the side and use superior Nipponese avionics, folded one thousand times to be sharp like Katana.

Ehhh, I dunno. They fucked up with the F-2 by having the avionics bay rather small. They barely hit the 50km AESA range when the demand was for 100km.

But it'd be swell if this was after the F-2 rather than the F-2 not existing at all. Otherwise, the same mistakes with the F-2 could translate over.

What are AC-130s useful for? They're a bit of a meme thanks to Call of Duty but it seems to me that they are a big, fat, slow target that's most useful when there is neither enemy planes nor anti-air of any sort to threaten it. I suppose they have their roots in Vietnam gunships that we're shooting at primarily VC and NVA who might have little of either, especially when on the attack, but against a more conventional foe they ought to be useless.

You would be correct!

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:What are AC-130s useful for? They're a bit of a meme thanks to Call of Duty but it seems to me that they are a big, fat, slow target that's most useful when there is neither enemy planes nor anti-air of any sort to threaten it. I suppose they have their roots in Vietnam gunships that we're shooting at primarily VC and NVA who might have little of either, especially when on the attack, but against a more conventional foe they ought to be useless.

That's basically what they are. They aren't supposed to be engaging columns of tanks or motor rifle regiments rolling across the Fulda Gap. They're counter-insurgency weapons.

The newer AC-130Js are trending more towards standoff weapons like hellfire, griffin, and SDB.

it gets hate for not being relevant in"peer-state conflicts" but to its credit it's by far the best COIN aircraft ever made. And it's not like we're ever going to not need something which is really good at blowing up Hadjis, right?

Is it cheaper to have divisional slice in brigades (like a BCT) or in the division?

-Celibrae- wrote:Is it cheaper to have divisional slice in brigades (like a BCT) or in the division?

Neither, because that's not what the "division slice" is.

The "division slice" is the total amount of manpower needed to support a division including personnel that would never be part of the division anyway. The division slice for a US division is 40,000-50,000 men, meaning that for a 20,000-man division, there's an additional 20,000-30,000 men in various roles needed to support it. That includes everything down to the extra clerks in the personnel records department needed to keep those extra records straight, who would never be part of the division in the first place.

Direct CSS personnel are generally included in the division's TO&E in the first place, so they're not part of the "slice."

I have no data to back this up but I suppose in theory it might be cheaper to place the CSS at the division if you wanted to be really skimpy, because then you could use smaller CSS formations and parcel them out by priority only to the units that need it. It is possible that not every subordinate brigade will need all of its expected CSS at any given point so with a division-based CSS element you could try to get away with not having a full complement for every brigade, but this might cause problems in the event that every brigade does need its CSS, such as if every subordinate brigade finds itself in combat or conducting an advance. Both of which are times when you really don't want to find yourself short on logistics.

If you're keeping the same CSS element size though then it doesn't matter where it's placed in regards to cost. The major costs are personnel salaries followed by the cost of maintaining that formation in the field (supplying fuel, food, water, etc.), and these costs don't change based on whether they report to the brigade commander or the division commander. In practice, they will be deployed to the same places anyway and division-based units will be attached to line units so that they can be supported.

In this picture, what's the right-most weapon in the helicopter? Looks like a Hydra, two 7.62mm miniguns, and a Hellfire, but I'm not sure about that odd,quad-launcher-looking thing.

Also, I assume that loading a killer egg out like this will remove any ability to carry passengers in the back, due to the weight of the munitions and filling the rear compartment with ammo?

Kouralia wrote:In this picture, what's the right-most weapon in the helicopter? Looks like a Hydra, two 7.62mm miniguns, and a Hellfire, but I'm not sure about that odd,quad-launcher-looking thing.

Also, I assume that loading a killer egg out like this will remove any ability to carry passengers in the back, due to the weight of the munitions and filling the rear compartment with ammo?

Here


Also yeah. The minigun ammo gets stored in the passenger seats so you can dakka for longer periods. If you need a little bird to carry passengers, just get a version with no armaments.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:The newer AC-130Js are trending more towards standoff weapons like hellfire, griffin, and SDB.

it gets hate for not being relevant in"peer-state conflicts" but to its credit it's by far the best COIN aircraft ever made. And it's not like we're ever going to not need something which is really good at blowing up Hadjis, right?

For 'the best COIN aircraft ever made', it has a great string of lost wars.

Almost like it's bad at its job.

Gallia- wrote:

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:The newer AC-130Js are trending more towards standoff weapons like hellfire, griffin, and SDB.

it gets hate for not being relevant in"peer-state conflicts" but to its credit it's by far the best COIN aircraft ever made. And it's not like we're ever going to not need something which is really good at blowing up Hadjis, right?

For 'the best COIN aircraft ever made', it has a great string of lost wars.

Almost like it's bad at its job.

Blame the politicians, not the equipment.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:Is it cheaper to have divisional slice in brigades (like a BCT) or in the division?

Neither, because that's not what the "division slice" is.

The "division slice" is the total amount of manpower needed to support a division including personnel that would never be part of the division anyway. The division slice for a US division is 40,000-50,000 men, meaning that for a 20,000-man division, there's an additional 20,000-30,000 men in various roles needed to support it. That includes everything down to the extra clerks in the personnel records department needed to keep those extra records straight, who would never be part of the division in the first place.

Direct CSS personnel are generally included in the division's TO&E in the first place, so they're not part of the "slice."

I have no data to back this up but I suppose in theory it might be cheaper to place the CSS at the division if you wanted to be really skimpy, because then you could use smaller CSS formations and parcel them out by priority only to the units that need it. It is possible that not every subordinate brigade will need all of its expected CSS at any given point so with a division-based CSS element you could try to get away with not having a full complement for every brigade, but this might cause problems in the event that every brigade does need its CSS, such as if every subordinate brigade finds itself in combat or conducting an advance. Both of which are times when you really don't want to find yourself short on logistics.

If you're keeping the same CSS element size though then it doesn't matter where it's placed in regards to cost. The major costs are personnel salaries followed by the cost of maintaining that formation in the field (supplying fuel, food, water, etc.), and these costs don't change based on whether they report to the brigade commander or the division commander. In practice, they will be deployed to the same places anyway and division-based units will be attached to line units so that they can be supported.

My mistake. Thanks for he help.

Rhodesialund wrote:

Kouralia wrote:In this picture, what's the right-most weapon in the helicopter? Looks like a Hydra, two 7.62mm miniguns, and a Hellfire, but I'm not sure about that odd,quad-launcher-looking thing.

Also, I assume that loading a killer egg out like this will remove any ability to carry passengers in the back, due to the weight of the munitions and filling the rear compartment with ammo?

Here


Also yeah. The minigun ammo gets stored in the passenger seats so you can dakka for longer periods. If you need a little bird to carry passengers, just get a version with no armaments.

Cool, so it's some guided 70mm rockets to make terrorists get rekt.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:Is it cheaper to have divisional slice in brigades (like a BCT) or in the division?

Neither, because that's not what the "division slice" is.

Yes, it is.

A slice refers to the number of CS and CSS assets allocated to a particular unit that are needed for it to be combat effective. A division slice is the number of CS/CSS assets needed to support a single division. A brigade slice is the number of CS/CSS assets needed to support a single brigade. And so on.

The division normally task-organizes for deployment into brigade-sized elements. A combat arms brigade of three ground maneuver battalions serves as the base for each brigade task force (TF). It is complemented with appropriate combat, CS, and CSS units (brigade slice). These brigade TFs are designated division ready brigades (DRBs), according to their stage of readiness and sequence in a deployment schedule (i.e., DRB 1, DRB 2, DRB 3).

Brigadist divisions are not cheaper than heavy divisions are not cheaper than heavy divisions in any real sense of the word. You still have the same quantity of tanks and trucks to move around, you've just organized them in a fashion that is easier to make them move.

Would it have ever been possible for the Papal States to unify Italy?

I'm considering going EM-2/Taden so I can have a universal cartridge instead of having infantry sections carry both 5.56 and 7.62mm weapons. Two questions:

(a) Would such a section, armed with a pair of 7x43mm GPMGs, be significantly outgunned by enemies with PKMs? How good is that round at long range?

(b) Riflemen would carry 1/3 less ammo. Is is a worthwhile tradeoff?

Arthurista wrote:I'm considering going EM-2/Taden so I can have a universal cartridge instead of having infantry sections carry both 5.56 and 7.62mm weapons. Two questions:

(a) Would such a section, armed with a pair of 7x43mm GPMGs, be significantly outgunned by enemies with PKMs? How good is that round at long range?

(b) Riflemen would carry 1/3 less ammo. Is is a worthwhile tradeoff?

No²

a) It's probably adequate.
b) Not really, but riflemen would actually carry the same amount of ammo anyway. High cartridge weight is just a detriment for a rifle.

The dichotomy of 5.56mm/7.62mm is a reasonable one. Rifles use 5.56mm or something similar, section automatic weapons use 7.62mm or something similar.

Gallia- wrote:a) It's probably adequate.
b) Not really, but riflemen would actually carry the same amount of ammo anyway. High cartridge weight is just a detriment for a rifle.

The dichotomy of 5.56mm/7.62mm is a reasonable one. Rifles use 5.56mm or something similar, section automatic weapons use 7.62mm or something similar.

Thanks.

Re (b), I assume they'd just carry more magazines (20 rounds vs 30 rounds)?

I assume the recent reintroduction of GPMGs into the section/squad level in both British and US forces is just an Afghan idiosyncrasy? In Iraq, where engagement ranges were shorter, MINIMIs were probably fine.

b) They carry the same amount of magazines, and the magazines carry about as much ammunition.

Yes, it is to deal with the threat of .30" rifles and machine guns.

"GPC" is basically the .30-06 or .308 of hipsters.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Would it have ever been possible for the Papal States to unify Italy?

It's doubtful. The powerblocks on each side (various mixes of French, Spanish and Austrian) would be dead set against it. I suppose if one of the blocks had managed a complete domination of Italy then the papal states might have been able to rally round the princes and get support from the other block on the basis that a united and independent Italy freindly to them would be preferable to an italy dominated by thier rivals . Of course its unlikely that the resultant war would leave italy intact.

Arthurista wrote:(b) Riflemen would carry 1/3 less ammo. Is is a worthwhile tradeoff?

No, not worth it. You need all the ammo you can sling downrange. Tactical battles between infantry are decided by who throws the most lead downrange with decent to great accuracy. (Which in of itself is a bit of a meme, considering that wars are won or lost through logistics and fire support)

Like Gayla said, the 5.56x45mm/7.62x51mm pairing is a good dynamic. You have a full-powered cartridge for MGs, and intermediates for riflemen or those having to haul around assault rifles.

Assuming a population of 90 million in a developed country with a HDI of around 0.95, how large can a military force be without using conscription, and what factors would help maximise the the manpower?

Rhodesialund wrote:

Arthurista wrote:(b) Riflemen would carry 1/3 less ammo. Is is a worthwhile tradeoff?

No, not worth it. You need all the ammo you can sling downrange. Tactical battles between infantry are decided by who throws the most lead downrange with decent to great accuracy. (Which in of itself is a bit of a meme, considering that wars are won or lost through logistics and fire support)

Like Gayla said, the 5.56x45mm/7.62x51mm pairing is a good dynamic. You have a full-powered cartridge for MGs, and intermediates for riflemen or those having to haul around assault rifles.

*sits here and asks myself, why I introduced 6x49 for all my squad level weapons...*

Laywenrania wrote:

Rhodesialund wrote:
No, not worth it. You need all the ammo you can sling downrange. Tactical battles between infantry are decided by who throws the most lead downrange with decent to great accuracy. (Which in of itself is a bit of a meme, considering that wars are won or lost through logistics and fire support)

Like Gayla said, the 5.56x45mm/7.62x51mm pairing is a good dynamic. You have a full-powered cartridge for MGs, and intermediates for riflemen or those having to haul around assault rifles.

*sits here and asks myself, why I introduced 6x49 for all my squad level weapons...*

... you chose the that round diameter and case length because it was exactly in the middle, didn't you?