NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Allanea]

Been wondering, how practical is using captured vehicles? It seems like they would be almost impossible to maintain without a supply of parts and ammo, not to mention your mechanics aren't trained on them.

In what context?

The IDF used the various Soviet vehicles it captured in the war of 1973 for decades afterwards. You can in fact train your mechanics on a new vehicle. It can be done.

(The Soviets and the Wehrmacht both did this, and of course terrorist groups do it all the time.)

[TimberWolves]

(Image)

Triangulating backpacks...with backpacks.

Which is accurate out to all of 300 meters.

[NeuPolska]

Using flak guns against incoming missiles launched from an MLRS?

[Allanea]

Using flak guns against incoming missiles launched from an MLRS?

Sort of. Kind of. If your enemy is a terrorist group that launches a handful of rockets at a time, some Western countries have demonstrated the ability to take limited attacks using C-RAM (the C-R literally stands for Counter-Rocket). But a barrage of hundreds of MLRS rockets, like you may be targeted with in a 'real war' type of scenario, that is not really feasible to shoot down.

[NeuPolska]

Using flak guns against incoming missiles launched from an MLRS?

Sort of. Kind of. If your enemy is a terrorist group that launches a handful of rockets at a time, some Western countries have demonstrated the ability to take limited attacks using C-RAM (the C-R literally stands for Counter-Rocket). But a barrage of hundreds of MLRS rockets, like you may be targeted with in a 'real war' type of scenario, that is not really feasible to shoot down.

So how can I defend against something like that? This is part of a larger train of thought I was having in regard to countering artillery. Figured I can have fortified artillery positions with big guns that outrange those of my enemies, so my howitzers can outgun their’s and thus create an area where I have artillery dominance, and their artillery is restricted to defense. But that doesn’t account for rocket artillery that would have an even greater range and be capable of striking against my howitzers.

[Allanea]

You cannot meaningfully 'defend' against a massed MLRS strike on a howitzer position in the sense that you are thinking of. If the position is entrenched you can increase the amount of MLRS rockets required to kill off your howitzers, but the truth is, if an enemy has discovered the position of your howitzer battery and fired at it, and now 300+ MLRS rockets are inbound and have maybe 40 seconds to arrival, you're pretty much screwed. (At least if the howitzers are towed ones). Maybe if the artillery crews run for shelter they can mostly avoid being killed.

Which is why the following tactics have been evolved to try and reduce the chance of you dying awfully:

1. Shoot and scoot (fire off a small amount of rounds, get out fast). This is why modern artillery tries to increase its rate of fire, and why accuracy is so important.

2. Deception (use decoy vehicles and positions and confuse the enemy). This obviously causes your enemy to shoot at stuff that isn't there, or use more ammunition that he would have otherwise.

3. Fortifications (yes, I realize it somewhat contradicts 1). In an ideal world, you'd want to have 3-4 entrenched positions between which your artillery can relocate rapidly.

4. Radar to try and figure out where the enemy is shooting from, or at least to warn that shots have been fired so your guys have some last-ditch chance of escape. (Note that the best form of counterbattery fire is finding a bigger gun than the one the other guy has and firing it at his guns – it's totally legitimate to fire a salvo of mLRS at an enemy howitzer battery… but it's also totally legit to fire an ATACMS at his MLRS battery!).

[NeuPolska]

So essentially my battle would end up being an artillery standoff as the two sides try to destroy each other’s artillery while the opposing infantry and armored units square up across a few hundred kilometers of forests, towns, and small fields through endless improvised fighting positions, gun nests, and trenches?

[Allanea]

It's a bit - okay, a lot - more complicated than that but yes, in a fight where both sides are fully equipped and competent and which occurs with 2018 technology (like drones, counterartillery radar, etc.), you're not going to have artillery just sitting in one place and firing off shots into the target grid square for hours like in 1944.

[NeuPolska]

So can you just full on sparg about how an offensive would go down by country 1 against country 2, with them both being competent and fielding entire field armies, given everything that’s been said? I’m going to be trying to write this and I’m trying to get the most accurate reflection of what modern warfare would look like in this scenario. Essentially country 1 is attempting to push through a fortified line of positions so that they can break the stalemate’s developing and attempt to envelope the enemy forces and thus open a route to the capital. Destruction of the target country is not a goal, capturing and annexing it is.

[The Akasha Colony]

So how can I defend against something like that? This is part of a larger train of thought I was having in regard to countering artillery. Figured I can have fortified artillery positions with big guns that outrange those of my enemies, so my howitzers can outgun their’s and thus create an area where I have artillery dominance, and their artillery is restricted to defense. But that doesn’t account for rocket artillery that would have an even greater range and be capable of striking against my howitzers.

And why can the enemy not simply build bigger guns of their own?

More importantly, the size of the gun is mostly irrelevant because in the era of cruise missiles, MLRS, stand-off weapons like JSOW, and nowadays loitering munitions with significant range, there is no point in a gun-based artillery weapon that can slightly outrange the enemy's guns, because it will inevitably be outranged by other platforms and still be vulnerable. This is why there is no arms race to build absurd 400+ mm artillery pieces with 100+ km ranges.

The best solution is to ensure your artillery is sufficiently mobile to avoid being hit by counter-battery fire, and that your military has enough reconnaissance and detection assets to hopefully spot the enemy's artillery quickly enough to engage it before it moves elsewhere. It's a battle of speed, not just in terms of how fast the artillery pieces are, but also in terms of how quickly they can come into and go out of action to relocate, and how quickly counter-battery information can be processed.

So essentially my battle would end up being an artillery standoff as the two sides try to destroy each other’s artillery while the opposing infantry and armored units square up across a few hundred kilometers of forests, towns, and small fields through endless improvised fighting positions, gun nests, and trenches?

It depends how your military organizes its artillery, but this particular scenario is not very likely.

In a Western organization, enemy artillery positions would be called in by reconnaissance assets and the TOC would place them in the fire mission queue like every other target and will be sent out to whichever of your own artillery batteries are available for a counter-battery mission. Depending on the priorities in a given operation, enemy artillery targets might be bumped up to the top of the queue as high-priority targets, or made a lower priority to, say, supporting a successful breakthrough. This flexible pooling of artillery assets is why Western artillery has consolidated on the 155 mm gun, which is a decent balance point between the characteristics required of an artillery piece. But in no circumstance would the entire artillery train be dedicated to an "artillery standoff" and leave the frontline troops to fend for themselves. In a stalemated advance, it is possible that the artillery will be the only assets still engaging.

In a Bruchmülleran organization like that of WWI Germany and the USSR, there are dedicated artillery assets for different roles rather than the multipurpose pool used in the West, so there will be dedicated counter-battery assets at higher levels. The other artillery assets will be detailed for other specific roles, like supporting the advance, short-range demolition of enemy strongpoints, and striking deep fortified targets. Some of these assets may be switched from role to role as required, but this is why there is generally more diversity in Soviet artillery classes and calibers than in the West. But this also precludes an "artillery standoff" because artillery is too valuable an asset to leave in some kind of "standoff" mode.

[New Vihenia]

So, why we have no firing on the move capability for Howitzer or MLRS ?

[NeuPolska]

So how can I defend against something like that? This is part of a larger train of thought I was having in regard to countering artillery. Figured I can have fortified artillery positions with big guns that outrange those of my enemies, so my howitzers can outgun their’s and thus create an area where I have artillery dominance, and their artillery is restricted to defense. But that doesn’t account for rocket artillery that would have an even greater range and be capable of striking against my howitzers.

And why can the enemy not simply build bigger guns of their own?

More importantly, the size of the gun is mostly irrelevant because in the era of cruise missiles, MLRS, stand-off weapons like JSOW, and nowadays loitering munitions with significant range, there is no point in a gun-based artillery weapon that can slightly outrange the enemy's guns, because it will inevitably be outranged by other platforms and still be vulnerable. This is why there is no arms race to build absurd 400+ mm artillery pieces with 100+ km ranges.

The best solution is to ensure your artillery is sufficiently mobile to avoid being hit by counter-battery fire, and that your military has enough reconnaissance and detection assets to hopefully spot the enemy's artillery quickly enough to engage it before it moves elsewhere. It's a battle of speed, not just in terms of how fast the artillery pieces are, but also in terms of how quickly they can come into and go out of action to relocate, and how quickly counter-battery information can be processed.

So essentially my battle would end up being an artillery standoff as the two sides try to destroy each other’s artillery while the opposing infantry and armored units square up across a few hundred kilometers of forests, towns, and small fields through endless improvised fighting positions, gun nests, and trenches?

It depends how your military organizes its artillery, but this particular scenario is not very likely.

In a Western organization, enemy artillery positions would be called in by reconnaissance assets and the TOC would place them in the fire mission queue like every other target and will be sent out to whichever of your own artillery batteries are available for a counter-battery mission. Depending on the priorities in a given operation, enemy artillery targets might be bumped up to the top of the queue as high-priority targets, or made a lower priority to, say, supporting a successful breakthrough. This flexible pooling of artillery assets is why Western artillery has consolidated on the 155 mm gun, which is a decent balance point between the characteristics required of an artillery piece. But in no circumstance would the entire artillery train be dedicated to an "artillery standoff" and leave the frontline troops to fend for themselves. In a stalemated advance, it is possible that the artillery will be the only assets still engaging.

In a Bruchmülleran organization like that of WWI Germany and the USSR, there are dedicated artillery assets for different roles rather than the multipurpose pool used in the West, so there will be dedicated counter-battery assets at higher levels. The other artillery assets will be detailed for other specific roles, like supporting the advance, short-range demolition of enemy strongpoints, and striking deep fortified targets. Some of these assets may be switched from role to role as required, but this is why there is generally more diversity in Soviet artillery classes and calibers than in the West. But this also precludes an "artillery standoff" because artillery is too valuable an asset to leave in some kind of "standoff" mode.

So then, victory is based on who has the faster command and control systems? My issue is that if both sides are using similar tactics of firing and relocating, then it’s just a constant cat and mouse game, isn’t it? And if artillery is raining down constantly, how can the infantry and armored divisions push up through defensive lines?

I imagine electronic warfare would be a large part of the battle, since one could jam the transmission of a fire mission to a battery or interfere with a commander giving orders to an armored squadron, in which case, if the jamming is effective and widespread enough, then the artillery batteries of either side would nearly blind in terms of knowing exact locations of enemy units. I believe my military would organize batteries similar to the Bruchmülleran organization, except perhaps instead of focusing on roles it’d be more of a focus on sector and the roles required by that sector, so a bit more flexible of a layout, with some multipurpose abilities as opposed to a general pool of batteries.

[NeuPolska]

So, why we have no firing on the move capability for Howitzer or MLRS ?

I know I didn’t specifically mention it, but it was an assumption that these howitzers and MLRS’s and such had the capabilities. In regards to howitzers coming under fire from an MLRS, with that quantity of missiles I figured that the howitzers would have a very limited chance of making it out and remaining at a reasonable strength.

[The Akasha Colony]

So then, victory is based on who has the faster command and control systems?

It's based on a lot of things. Training is one of the most important because it accelerates the OODA loop when every part of that loop understands their tasks and can carry them out efficiently. Equipment matters too. A modern platform like Crusader will give much better performance than an obsolete platform like M109A6.

My issue is that if both sides are using similar tactics of firing and relocating, then it’s just a constant cat and mouse game, isn’t it?

Yes but this is how most combat is. Modern militaries have an extreme amount of firepower at their disposal that they can drop with amazing precision at relatively short notice. Not just against enemy artillery positions, but against enemy frontline troops and logistics tails as well. This means that the "cat and mouse game" between reconnaissance assets and combat assets is just a fact of life, with every asset being both cat and mouse at the same time.

This is part of the reason why modern force densities are so low compared to decades past. Clustering troops together in a tight battlespace just begs for more casualties. There is also simply less need since modern weapons can cover wider areas.

And if artillery is raining down constantly, how can the infantry and armored divisions push up through defensive lines?

This is why mechanized forces are so important: they are not quite so vulnerable to artillery and move fast enough that they make harder targets for artillery to accurately strike.

But simply having mechanized forces is not enough. Warfare in Ukraine and Syria has generally indicated that troops tend to get bogged down very easily unless they are particularly well-trained and well-equipped.

I imagine electronic warfare would be a large part of the battle, since one could jam the transmission of a fire mission to a battery or interfere with a commander giving orders to an armored squadron, in which case, if the jamming is effective and widespread enough, then the artillery batteries of either side would nearly blind in terms of knowing exact locations of enemy units. I believe my military would organize batteries similar to the Bruchmülleran organization, except perhaps instead of focusing on roles it’d be more of a focus on sector and the roles required by that sector, so a bit more flexible of a layout, with some multipurpose abilities as opposed to a general pool of batteries.

The biggest issue is simply finding targets. A competent military will also be well-versed in marching discipline and concealment techniques to make even finding their positions in the first place troublesome.

I know I didn’t specifically mention it, but it was an assumption that these howitzers and MLRS’s and such had the capabilities.

They do not.

[Austrasien]

Artillery has the lowest loss rate of the three main combat arms by a wide margin. As a rule: units will run out of tanks first, personnel second and guns third.

Even when you have fire superiority enemy guns will still be in action. And generally, they will remain in action until their forces disintegrate entirely.

[NeuPolska]

Is there any literature online that I can read about any modern large-scale battles between competent forces? I feel like I could easily learn and understand WWII tactics, for example, with all the research and accounts done regarding a large amount of battles in different scenarios, but that amount of knowledge seems to be lacking when it comes to modern warfare. There have only really been insurgencies, unless I guess you count the Gulf War and Desert Storm, but even then, the Iraqis were far from competent.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Is there any literature online that I can read about any modern large-scale battles between competent forces? I feel like I could easily learn and understand WWII tactics, for example, with all the research and accounts done regarding a large amount of battles in different scenarios, but that amount of knowledge seems to be lacking when it comes to modern warfare. There have only really been insurgencies, unless I guess you count the Gulf War and Desert Storm, but even then, the Iraqis were far from competent.

The citations in this article has some good stuff about Ukraine. Not sure whether it's one of the gated ones h/e

[NeuPolska]

Is there any literature online that I can read about any modern large-scale battles between competent forces? I feel like I could easily learn and understand WWII tactics, for example, with all the research and accounts done regarding a large amount of battles in different scenarios, but that amount of knowledge seems to be lacking when it comes to modern warfare. There have only really been insurgencies, unless I guess you count the Gulf War and Desert Storm, but even then, the Iraqis were far from competent.

The citations in this article has some good stuff about Ukraine. Not sure whether it's one of the gated ones h/e

Yeah, it’s gated.

Huh.

Sorry if I seem a bit dense in regard to this topic, I’m at least able to grasp it quite well up to the brigade level, I’ve demonstrated that much to my instructors. I just have a difficult time visualizing one massive force coming across another massive force and beating the shit out of each other. Basically the fates of both countries are at stake so they’re both willing to throw everything they have at each other, and they have considerably large militaries.

I’ve spent the last few years of my life before the military sperging about Napoleonic warfare or even up to WWI and I’ve gotten that down pretty well imo. Only problem is now I’m stuck mentally with consciously or subconciously trying to apply Napoleonic tactics to modern warfare and that doesn’t mesh well.

[Radictistan]

With modern or near-future computerized survey equipment would it be possible for every gun to have its own, dispersed firing position so as not have a whole battery within the kill radius of an MLRS strike?

[NeuPolska]

With modern or near-future computerized survey equipment would it be possible for every gun to have its own, dispersed firing position so as not have a whole battery within the kill radius of an MLRS strike?

Probably could, I’m just trying to stuff everything into what I imagine is not that massive of a space.

Speaking of which, about how many square kilometers does the average battalion need to operate smoothly? Or the average division? Or Corps?

[Taihei Tengoku]

With modern or near-future computerized survey equipment would it be possible for every gun to have its own, dispersed firing position so as not have a whole battery within the kill radius of an MLRS strike?

They would need to be spread out over multiple grid squares, and would not be able to adjust fire.

[TimberWolves]

With modern or near-future computerized survey equipment would it be possible for every gun to have its own, dispersed firing position so as not have a whole battery within the kill radius of an MLRS strike?

They would need to be spread out over multiple grid squares, and would not be able to adjust fire.

It would also be horrifically vulnerable to CB and EW.

[Connori Pilgrims]

So, why we have no firing on the move capability for Howitzer or MLRS ?

I would imagine that barrel movement especially for uber long gun-howitzers of greater-than-or-equal-to 152mm with barrel length of greater-than-or-equal-to L52 as well as recoil and stability issues would preclude firing-on-the-move with any kind of accuracy for non-guided rounds.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Locating guns is done based on firing signatures: flash, sound, and the ballistic trajectory of artillery shells traced back to their origin. Unless the enemy has located the gun before it fires (in which case you have much bigger problems) artillery can come to a stop and fire a mission before a solution is computed on their position.

[Purpelia]

Yeah, it’s gated.

Huh.

Sorry if I seem a bit dense in regard to this topic, I’m at least able to grasp it quite well up to the brigade level, I’ve demonstrated that much to my instructors. I just have a difficult time visualizing one massive force coming across another massive force and beating the shit out of each other. Basically the fates of both countries are at stake so they’re both willing to throw everything they have at each other, and they have considerably large militaries.

Have you considered not doing it than? And I mean this genuinely.

If you are more comfortable writing about and describing smaller engagements than why not focus on those and use a combination of them to paint the broader picture? That way you can still describe a massive war but not get hung up on the strategic stuff because from the perspective you are writing the details you can't grasp or describe become invisible. Like, you don't have to go on about proper counter battery tactics and artillery deployment if the perspective you chose is such that all the characters would notice is his artillery support suddenly not being there any more.

And than you can use what knowledge and understanding of the stuff you have and get here to insert such events into the background plot at appropriate times without having to go into the details.