NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Yes Im Biop]

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?

Active Sonar, and really Powerful spy sats, and the good old MK 1 Eyeball

[Austrasien]

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

individual armament with bolt actions or semiautos makes probably no big difference in comparison to general tactics, strageties and logistics.

Strategies, yes.

Tactics and logistics? They absolutely make a difference.

R A T E O F F I R E
A
T
E
O
F
F
I
R
E

Tactical principles tend to be fairly consistent over long periods of time but actual tactics are very heavily influenced by the capabilities and limitations of the weaponry employed. As for logistics, when soldiers can fire faster they fire more bullets. The logistics implications are obvious.

[Gallia-]

By that, Viky means that automatics have an order of magnitude greater difference in firepower than bolt-actions.

SMLE had a maximum ROF of 15-20 rounds per minute.
M16 has a maximum ROF of 150-200 rounds per minute.

The firepower disparity means that a single US Army infantry section today probably produces as much volume of fire as a British rifle platoon of the 1940s.

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?

Nuking them in port.

Really, trying to beat a large submarine navy is probably an exercise in futility the longer you wait. Eventually they will eclipse aircraft as the Weapon of Choice against surface units. It may already be too late.

[Purpelia]

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?

Active Sonar, and really Powerful spy sats, and the good old MK 1 Eyeball

If the sub is close enough that you can see it it's done something horribly wrong OR you are already dead.

[Austrasien]

Really, trying to beat a large submarine navy is probably an exercise in futility the longer you wait. Eventually they will eclipse aircraft as the Weapon of Choice against surface units. It may already be too late.

Convoys?

Convoys.

Something that hasn't changed since submarines became a thing is that surface ships cannot seize the initiative against submarines, which typically choose the time and place of the fight. Search and destroy was ineffective as far back as WWI and it hasn't gotten better. Fleets most effective defense is to try and raise the cost of attacking.

[North Arkana]

Really, trying to beat a large submarine navy is probably an exercise in futility the longer you wait. Eventually they will eclipse aircraft as the Weapon of Choice against surface units. It may already be too late.

Convoys?

Convoys.

Something that hasn't changed since submarines became a thing is that surface ships cannot seize the initiative against submarines, which typically choose the time and place of the fight. Search and destroy was ineffective as far back as WWI and it hasn't gotten better. Fleets most effective defense is to try and raise the cost of attacking.

Search and destroy is ineffective? Now, sure. WW2? Oh boy, it killed plenty of subs, disrupted the operations of a hell of a lot more.

USS Bogue, lead ship of her class, served as a Hunter-Killer CVE for the duration of the war, and claimed a total of 13 subs during her career. When you've got a couple HUNDRED CVEs running hunter-killer operations in your ocean, your life as a WW2 submariner who couldn't sit underwater for months on end, got miserable, and often got cut short.

[Yes Im Biop]

Al;so i learned something today There are Sub hunting Helo's that drop extremely powerful sonar pods into the water and fire torpedos.

[Gallia-]

Really, trying to beat a large submarine navy is probably an exercise in futility the longer you wait. Eventually they will eclipse aircraft as the Weapon of Choice against surface units. It may already be too late.

Convoys?

Convoys.

Something that hasn't changed since submarines became a thing is that surface ships cannot seize the initiative against submarines, which typically choose the time and place of the fight. Search and destroy was ineffective as far back as WWI and it hasn't gotten better. Fleets most effective defense is to try and raise the cost of attacking.

Wouldn't this protection be mitigated as the standoff ranges of submarines increases relative to surface ships?

[Austrasien]

Wouldn't this protection be mitigated as the standoff ranges of submarines increases relative to surface ships?

It makes the submarine more survivable but the effectiveness of its weapons also decreases. The longer a missile or torpedo travels the more likely it is to fail to kill the target.

And the rule of flocking applies: Group enough ships together and the chance of any particular ship being sunk in an attack becomes low. If you have a big convoy blob of say forty or fifty warships and supply ships travelling together and there are two carriers in there somewhere the chance that a submarine firing torpedoes or cruise missiles from a hundred kilometres away is going to hit those carriers is slight. Even finding the carriers will be fairly hard. One of the submarines major defects currently is they cannot coordinate effectively well submerged. A very large number of ships will still saturate the lone submarines ability to engage targets, and if they counter-attack aggressively probably have a good chance of overwhelming the submarine crew psychologically by presenting them with too many threats. Even if the actual danger for the submarine does not increase in linear proportion to the number of ASuW attackers.

It is, of course, possible that one-day submarines will be able to communicate effectively with each other well submerged. Then surface ships will need to have a big think about the basic concepts of surface operations.

[Western Pacific Territories]

Wouldn't this protection be mitigated as the standoff ranges of submarines increases relative to surface ships?

It makes the submarine more survivable but the effectiveness of its weapons also decreases. The longer a missile or torpedo travels the more likely it is to fail to kill the target.

And the rule of flocking applies: Group enough ships together and the chance of any particular ship being sunk in an attack becomes low. If you have a big convoy blob of say forty or fifty warships and supply ships travelling together and there are two carriers in there somewhere the chance that a submarine firing torpedoes or cruise missiles from a hundred kilometres away is going to hit those carriers is slight. Even finding the carriers will be fairly hard. One of the submarines major defects currently is they cannot coordinate effectively well submerged. A very large number of ships will still saturate the lone submarines ability to engage targets, and if they counter-attack aggressively probably have a good chance of overwhelming the submarine crew psychologically by presenting them with too many threats. Even if the actual danger for the submarine does not increase in linear proportion to the number of ASuW attackers.

It is, of course, possible that one-day submarines will be able to communicate effectively with each other well submerged. Then surface ships will need to have a big think about the basic concepts of surface operations.

Submarine merchant vessels.

[New Korongo]

It is, of course, possible that one-day submarines will be able to communicate effectively with each other well submerged. Then surface ships will need to have a big think about the basic concepts of surface operations.

If submarines were able to communicate over long distances while submerged, would these communications not make them more vulnerable to surface vessels and anti-submarine aircraft? Could the enemies of the submarine home in on or avoid the sources of these signals?

[Anemos Major]

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?

holy shit, you're back?

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?

holy shit, you're back?

I didn't realise my inactivity was noticed beyond my region, but I am back.

Feels good that I'm at least somewhat known beyond Sondria

[Laywenrania]

individual armament with bolt actions or semiautos makes probably no big difference in comparison to general tactics, strageties and logistics.

Strategies, yes.

Tactics and logistics? They absolutely make a difference.


Tactical principles tend to be fairly consistent over long periods of time but actual tactics are very heavily influenced by the capabilities and limitations of the weaponry employed. As for logistics, when soldiers can fire faster they fire more bullets. The logistics implications are obvious.

This is true ofc, I rather meant that the state of the red army in terms of logistics and general tactics was more of a concern at this time, as in lack of enough AP shells and similar things. If you killed most of your NCOs and loose milliopns of supplies in the first months of war, it is not your primary concern if your rifleman fire with 10 rpm or with 30 rpm.

They were not as plentifully armed with these weapons as official data may suggest.

So the Mosin really was the basic weapon most Soviet conscripts had, then?

individual armament with bolt actions or semiautos makes probably no big difference in comparison to general tactics, strageties and logistics.

The 'nuts and bolts' debates over comparative military technology can be a bit of a red herring as you say, but it's fun. And it's also true that being able to lay down more suppressive fire in a quicker time is very helpful - the StG44 showed this, no?

The mosin was at the early stages of the war the weapon probably most conscripts had, yes. Later on the focus shifted to submachineguns pretty much, as large formations were rather equipped with them, but the mosin was still the basic weapon of choice. The SVT was mostly reserced to guards units to make the most of it. If you have only a limited supply of them, you don't squander them around to some poorly trained conscripts, but give them to the lads, which are the most effective iwth it.

Well, it was showed by the squad level LMG imho, the StG 44 just showed the feasibility of an intermediate cartridge - submachineguns were seen as more useful generally in limited engagement ranges, but lacked the power for medium ranges, which is where the intermediates like the StG 44 and similar kick in. But yes, assumming equal levels of training, sitation etc etc the side with primarily semiautos will have the firepower advantage. 'Murica and it's Garand ftw.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How commonplace were primitive firearms (arquebuses, muskets, etc.) in late Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty China?

(EDIT: Specifically, in the military)

[Crysuko]

How commonplace were primitive firearms (arquebuses, muskets, etc.) in late Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty China?

(EDIT: Specifically, in the military)

not very. likely only wielded by general's bodyguards and specialists.

[Puzikas]

Strategies, yes.

Tactics and logistics? They absolutely make a difference.


Tactical principles tend to be fairly consistent over long periods of time but actual tactics are very heavily influenced by the capabilities and limitations of the weaponry employed. As for logistics, when soldiers can fire faster they fire more bullets. The logistics implications are obvious.

This is true ofc, I rather meant that the state of the red army in terms of logistics and general tactics was more of a concern at this time, as in lack of enough AP shells and similar things. If you killed most of your NCOs and loose milliopns of supplies in the first months of war, it is not your primary concern if your rifleman fire with 10 rpm or with 30 rpm.

So the Mosin really was the basic weapon most Soviet conscripts had, then?


The 'nuts and bolts' debates over comparative military technology can be a bit of a red herring as you say, but it's fun. And it's also true that being able to lay down more suppressive fire in a quicker time is very helpful - the StG44 showed this, no?

The mosin was at the early stages of the war the weapon probably most conscripts had, yes. Later on the focus shifted to submachineguns pretty much, as large formations were rather equipped with them, but the mosin was still the basic weapon of choice. The SVT was mostly reserced to guards units to make the most of it. If you have only a limited supply of them, you don't squander them around to some poorly trained conscripts, but give them to the lads, which are the most effective iwth it.

Well, it was showed by the squad level LMG imho, the StG 44 just showed the feasibility of an intermediate cartridge - submachineguns were seen as more useful generally in limited engagement ranges, but lacked the power for medium ranges, which is where the intermediates like the StG 44 and similar kick in. But yes, assumming equal levels of training, sitation etc etc the side with primarily semiautos will have the firepower advantage. 'Murica and it's Garand ftw.

The Soviet Union primary issue of SVTs was to NCOs, senior riflemen, and specialized units.
These riflemen acted as a manuver unit who engaged targets in a manner similar to a modern SDM.
The USSR issued the PPSh-41, PPS-43 and made liberal use of captured MP-40s where possible to free up more PPSh-41s and PPS-43, which rendered the Soviet unit more capable of producing higher volumes of fire than their comparitive German unit, and employ that fire at ranges further than the German unit could.

At 200m, outside the typical engagement envelope for a SMG, the German squad with an MG-34/42 in a firing position could produce 395 rounds per minute. A Soviet squad could still employ it's PPSh-41s at this distance (to a limited effect), mostly because the 7.62x25mm cartridge had a flatter trajectory than 9x19. Significantly flatter. As such, a Soviet squad would be able to bring its full firepower of 425-450 rounds/min to full force at distances greater than the germans.

There's more that goes into this, as I discuss in a related postabout the German and American machine gun employment and how this shaped their formations firepower here.

The StG-44 was uniquely helpful for several reasons, and proved to be employed very much how a modern infantry rifle was/is.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

K, so after a lengthy discussion on why water-cooled machineguns are kinda obsolete as vehicle mounted weapons.

I got to thinking about some sort of twin-mount M2HBs or a GAU-19 in a remote weapon station as a replacement for the tank-commander's gun... and giving the loader a grenade-launcher. Because dakka.

Also in vain hopes that this would make the mount more effective in engaging low altitude aircraft. or alternately allow for prolonged high-intensity suppressive-firing via letting alternate barrrels cool-down.

Anyone want to talk me out of it? Because somewhere in my mind there's also a 106mm recoilless-rifle riding on top of a ferret.

[Austrasien]

why water-cooled machineguns are kinda obsolete as vehicle mounted weapons.

hold my jerry can

[Arthurista]

Really, trying to beat a large submarine navy is probably an exercise in futility the longer you wait. Eventually they will eclipse aircraft as the Weapon of Choice against surface units. It may already be too late.

Convoys?

Convoys.

Something that hasn't changed since submarines became a thing is that surface ships cannot seize the initiative against submarines, which typically choose the time and place of the fight. Search and destroy was ineffective as far back as WWI and it hasn't gotten better. Fleets most effective defense is to try and raise the cost of attacking.

Wasn't the whole point of the Spruance that it was so quiet with its new gas turbine propulsion scheme that it could operate 'offensively' against SSNs?

[Austrasien]

It was a different time. Note this is probably a log scale.

Quieting the ship does not solve the problem of detecting the submarine. Only active sonar is effective against modern submarines and only at "medium" range. Low Frequency Active is right now the only candidate for detecting modern submarines at a significant distance - a pre-requisite for effective "offensive" tactics - otherwise, the hunters are blind.

And though it is a promising technology it is not perfect. It will not be effective in littoral areas and would be fairly easy to triangulate even at enormous distances.

[Kazarogkai]

By that, Viky means that automatics have an order of magnitude greater difference in firepower than bolt-actions.

SMLE had a maximum ROF of 25-30 rounds per minute.
M16 has a maximum ROF of 150-200 rounds per minute.

The firepower disparity means that a single US Army infantry section today probably produces as much volume of fire as a British rifle platoon of the 1940s.

Carry on

[Husseinarti]

>caring that hard

[Gallia-]

By that, Viky means that automatics have an order of magnitude greater difference in firepower than bolt-actions.

SMLE had a maximum ROF of 25-30 rounds per minute.
M16 has a maximum ROF of 150-200 rounds per minute.

The firepower disparity means that a single US Army infantry section today probably produces as much volume of fire as a British rifle platoon of the 1940s.

Carry on

the minimum requirement is 15 rounds on a 12"x12" silhouette

first class shooters might get 25-30 based on world record bolt gun shooters

the average soldier might achieve about 20 rounds a minute at best

this is approximately an order of magnitude lower than the burst fire rate of an m16a2/a4

if you want i can use the cyclic fire rate and an m16a1 for 900 rounds per minute and #btfo any stupid bolt actions with two orders of magnitude greater vol of fire

[New Oyashima]

What's the oldest possible general purpose jet aircraft I could have? I have two F-86 Sabres, and the last time they were in use was in 1994, by Bolivia. Could these still be used, reasonably, with modifications and upgrades?

Also would it make sense to have mostly vehicles intended for an anti-infantry role? There's not much risk of invasion by nations with tanks, so we don't have many tanks. The most the army gets used is to fight poachers or armed uprisings that only have access to small arms and civilian vehicles.

Additionally, what is the cheapest possible trainer aircraft that we could have? I'm assuming there's a need for a trainer to learn fighter basics and a trainer to learn about jet flying. Is this correct?

Skyhawk probably.