NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Kassaran]

I understood most of the point though when they were explaining why. There's a degree of readiness that still needs to be pursued and cant be done effectively if you're relying on your enemies to be as similarly unready as you are. The focus on increasing the survivability of individual units at the cost of the maneuverability and sustainment of the logistics mission is the most egregious error.

[Gallia-]

The US Army is still stuck in "FCS" mode for the most part.

It actually regressed to the early 1990s this decade, though, which is why it's buying Bradleys and seeking new anti-tank means and thinking about fighting in Megacities.

[Austrasien]

The US Army is still stuck in "FCS" mode for the most part.

It actually regressed to the early 1990s this decade, though, which is why it's buying Bradleys and seeking new anti-tank means and thinking about fighting in Megacities.

Doctrine advances one funeral at a time

[Taihei Tengoku]

The future of warfare is Task Force Smith encountering Task Force Chang

[Gallia-]

TF Smith got obliterated tho.

[The Manticoran Empire]

TF Smith got obliterated tho.

I don't think that was the point he was making.

[Hrstrovokia]

What's the definition of a Grenadier? Obviously it differs from force to force?

Is it better to define a Grenadier as a soldier carrying a rifle/grenade launcher or a dedicated grenade launcher?

[Spirit of Hope]

What's the definition of a Grenadier? Obviously it differs from force to force?

Is it better to define a Grenadier as a soldier carrying a rifle/grenade launcher or a dedicated grenade launcher?

Originally it meant elite soldiers who carried grenades into battle, but that was a couple hundred years ago. Right now it more means someone who has a grenade launcher, generally it is better for it to be combined with a rifle in some way.

[Purpelia]

What's the definition of a Grenadier? Obviously it differs from force to force?

Is it better to define a Grenadier as a soldier carrying a rifle/grenade launcher or a dedicated grenade launcher?

Historically the term originates from grenades as they were literally soldiers whose job it was to carry and throw those cartoon style black balls with a fuse sticking out. And because they needed to be extra strong to throw them as far as possible (preferably far enough not to be blown up) they tended to be the tallest and strongest troops around.

By the early modern period grenades fell out of favor but the practice of having "grenadier" regiments comprised of the tallest and strongest men remained. These used regular rifles like the rest of infantry but they were considered something of an elite force due to their stature, strength and overall intimidating appearance. Such formations obviously also carried with them a lot of extra prestige leading to the name becoming synonymous in many languages with the term "elite infantry".

In modern times the word can thus mean any of the two things. Either a soldier whose kit includes some sort of HE throwing device be it a mortar, grenade launcher, UGL or even rocket launcher. Or on a formation level a regiment or such formation considered to be elite. Equivalent to the Soviet Guards regiments.


An example of the later use from my own cannon are the Cuirass Grenadiers. This is a formation that existed in Purpelia since Napoleonic times and is basically elite cuirassier cavalry. Now a days these guys are my elite tank forces instead.

[Hrstrovokia]

Is it redundant then to have say, one rifleman equipped with an assault rifle/grenade launcher and then another one with an actual grenade launcher? Not in the same squad obviously but all in the same platoon? Example being someone with AK-74M w/GP-34 and another with RG-6 and a sidearm.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

The US Army is still stuck in "FCS" mode for the most part.

It actually regressed to the early 1990s this decade, though, which is why it's buying Bradleys and seeking new anti-tank means and thinking about fighting in Megacities.

I kinda liked FCS mode. It just seemed nice to have people actually committing to creating next generation vehicles that would leave us with an legitimately better force.

Random idea: putting VPM or trident style missile tubes on surface combatants, so that they can carry df-21, kei, brahmos, or tlam/standard missile. It might be unwieldy, but it would be more versatile.

[Imperializt Russia]

Is it redundant then to have say, one rifleman equipped with an assault rifle/grenade launcher and then another one with an actual grenade launcher? Not in the same squad obviously but all in the same platoon? Example being someone with AK-74M w/GP-34 and another with RG-6 and a sidearm.

One combination you could consider is giving the UBGL to the team leader, who can use it for firing smoke or other 'special' rounds, and have a dedicated grenadier with dedicated weapon. Soviet-style would truly be His Most Blessed, RPG-7 platform.

[Imperializt Russia]

The US Army is still stuck in "FCS" mode for the most part.

It actually regressed to the early 1990s this decade, though, which is why it's buying Bradleys and seeking new anti-tank means and thinking about fighting in Megacities.

I kinda liked FCS mode. It just seemed nice to have people actually committing to creating next generation vehicles that would leave us with an legitimately better force.

Random idea: putting VPM or trident style missile tubes on surface combatants, so that they can carry df-21, kei, brahmos, or tlam/standard missile. It might be unwieldy, but it would be more versatile.

More versatile than what?

TLAM, if it's the Tomahawk variant I think it is, basically already is VLS-deployable. P-700 Granit, an ancestor of sorts of Brahmos, was also VLS-deployed, aboard every heavy Soviet vessel.
I see absolutely no real utility to putting strategic VLS (ie, SLBMs like Trident) on surface combatants because it defeats one half of the supposed value of the naval component of the nuclear triad - the ability to hide. If you can acquire SLBMs, and in sufficient numbers to make them a credible deterrent, and custom-build a dedicated surface combatant to launch them - you can definitely afford the nuclear subs instead.

[New Vihenia]

Is there a real need to have a silent running mode for an estuarian corvette and is it worth the internal space that's lost in accommodating the battery pack and cooling?

not really estuary given the 90m plus length and 2250 metric tonne displacement. It's maybe can be described as a "green water" corvette for regional use. In place say Indonesia or SEA region where 80m ship may not be able to serve properly due to sea state limitation.

Silent running help lowering detection probability from submarines . furthermore being small ship you one may need maneuverability and acceleration. Electric drive helps by allowance to allocate power where it needed and battery helps storing excess energy and provide smooth transition between "slow" and "fast". So say we have 1 turbine online and 2 or 1 diesel up. The ship then need to burst at full speed. The power needed can then be provided by battery while waiting for 2nd turbine to properly start.

[Kyneland]

What military suppliers would be suitable for this nation to employ? I’m thinking German or Low Country companies, but I’m not sure.

Edit; Or would it be better for native companies to be employed?

[The Akasha Colony]

Is it redundant then to have say, one rifleman equipped with an assault rifle/grenade launcher and then another one with an actual grenade launcher? Not in the same squad obviously but all in the same platoon? Example being someone with AK-74M w/GP-34 and another with RG-6 and a sidearm.

Not necessarily.

I kinda liked FCS mode. It just seemed nice to have people actually committing to creating next generation vehicles that would leave us with an legitimately better force.

Only it wouldn't have been a "legitimately better force" even if everything envisioned in FCS materialized as hoped?

Random idea: putting VPM or trident style missile tubes on surface combatants, so that they can carry df-21, kei, brahmos, or tlam/standard missile. It might be unwieldy, but it would be more versatile.

It would serve no purpose except to be very wasteful of space.

A common VLS like Mark 41 or Mark 57 makes sense because there are a lot of commonly-used missiles that are of roughly similar size and which can therefore share launch tubes without much of a space penalty. 90+% of the missiles a surface combatant expects to carry will already fit in these tubes just fine. All of the missiles you mentioned would never be carried in quantities of more than like a half-dozen per ship except for TLAM/Standard, both of which already fit in the much smaller Mark 41.

Larger VLS are inherently more specialized and therefore more limited in use. All of the missiles you mentioned would be very undersized in a Trident II-sized tube.

VPT exists because the USN envisioned carrying totally different payloads like UUVs or special ops gear which is useful for a submarine but is not useful for a surface ship. A single large tube allows the missile launch equipment to be removed and large cargo stored instead. But in a surface ship you could just store this stuff in a boat bay or other location that would be more easily accessible than a large tube which would require a crane to access.

More versatile than what?

TLAM, if it's the Tomahawk variant I think it is, basically already is VLS-deployable. P-700 Granit, an ancestor of sorts of Brahmos, was also VLS-deployed, aboard every heavy Soviet vessel.
I see absolutely no real utility to putting strategic VLS (ie, SLBMs like Trident) on surface combatants because it defeats one half of the supposed value of the naval component of the nuclear triad - the ability to hide. If you can acquire SLBMs, and in sufficient numbers to make them a credible deterrent, and custom-build a dedicated surface combatant to launch them - you can definitely afford the nuclear subs instead.

He means the missile tubes, not the SLBMs themselves.

[Hrstrovokia]

What are opinions on mortar, artillery or MLRS fired anti-tank munitions? Been trying to gather information on Krasnopol and related munitions. Supposed to drop on the top of the tank where protection isn't as strong. Does the West have equivalent munitions? OR does top attack ATGM/minelets supercede and make redundant options like Krasnopol?

[The Akasha Colony]

What are opinions on mortar, artillery or MLRS fired anti-tank munitions? Been trying to gather information on Krasnopol and related munitions. Supposed to drop on the top of the tank where protection isn't as strong. Does the West have equivalent munitions? OR does top attack ATGM/minelets supercede and make redundant options like Krasnopol?

The US equivalent is literally linked at the bottom of the page.

Krasnopol and M712 are rather boring though. Their use is limited by their guidance: as laser-guided munitions, they require designation by some kind of platform with line-of-sight on the target. This makes them useful in the current environment in which positive visual identification is a requirement, collateral damage is a political liability, and targets are relatively small in number (terrorist cells, etc.) but makes them less useful at stopping an entire armored column or supply convoy deep behind the lines.

That's what things like BAT were for. There was a lot of interest in similar weapons in the 1980s and into the 1990s but it dried up when the need to stop entire motor rifle regiments from moving to the front lines disappeared when the USSR stopped being a thing. This is the same threat Brimstone was designed to defeat, albeit from an aircraft platform rather than an artillery platform.

[Taihei Tengoku]

TF Smith got obliterated tho.

So will Task Force Chang--in the vast majority of HICs both sides are grossly unprepared for the undertaking at hand.

[Austrasien]

What are opinions on mortar, artillery or MLRS fired anti-tank munitions? Been trying to gather information on Krasnopol and related munitions. Supposed to drop on the top of the tank where protection isn't as strong. Does the West have equivalent munitions? OR does top attack ATGM/minelets supercede and make redundant options like Krasnopol?

All said they are OK. The Copperhead (a laser-guided weapon like Krasnopol et. al.) was used in Iraq and was a bit of a dud, the difficulty of arranging a laser-designated strike compared to a conventional call-for-fire was not appreciated by American forward observers. The Soviets and ex-Soviets seemed pretty happy with the capabilities of their laser guided artillery and mortar munitions though, possibly because the Soviet artillery fire control system is less flexible than the American/British systems and the restrictions on the geometry. The Swedish Strix mortar shells uses IR homing and is by all accounts a very good AT weapon (being a mortar with an IR seeker it also provides no warning of the impending attack and strikes the vulnerable top) that is quite easy to use - not substantially different than a conventional mortar shell - but it has no form of man-in-the-loop control at all so its a one-trick obligate AFV killer.

GPS guided shells are very, very popular though because from the user perspective they are just conventional artillery but far more accurate. As are the so-called sensor fused munitions in the class of SADARM for similar reasons.

[Gallia-]

TF Smith got obliterated tho.

So will Task Force Chang--in the vast majority of HICs both sides are grossly unprepared for the undertaking at hand.

Fair, but the only serious HIC in recent decades (1973) was decided in a couple weeks.

Donbass/Iraq/Desert Storm/Panama/Grenada/Korea/WW2 would be termed "MIC" at most in Cold War era loss rates. I suppose they will only go up given 1973 was done without reconnaissance-strike complexes.

First all stalemate superpower war in generations.

TF Smith and TF Chang disintegrate on contact. Follow on forces destroyed by respective opposing RSCs.

[Crookfur]

What military suppliers would be suitable for this nation to employ? I’m thinking German or Low Country companies, but I’m not sure.

Edit; Or would it be better for native companies to be employed?

Not a chance in hell of supporting any kind of domestic arms manufacturing at that size. Well excepting perhaps a small boutique sporting arms maker.

Probably you would be buying improved Finnish type uniforms and LBE/armour carriers from varsuleka if you were buying today. Small arms might depend on when you were buying. In the 70s you are likely buying G3s moving onto a toss up between AK5s/FN FNCs and Dutch C7s in the 80s. Into the 90/early 2000s its likely all about the G36 and today you would likely be buying HK416s. Machine gun wise you are pretty much locked into the FN MAG and minimi although the MG4 does become an option once the germans start buying them.

Of course alt choices are possible if you have a particular aesthetic you like, all hk all the time is never an impossible choice.

[Kyneland]

What military suppliers would be suitable for this nation to employ? I’m thinking German or Low Country companies, but I’m not sure.

Edit; Or would it be better for native companies to be employed?

Not a chance in hell of supporting any kind of domestic arms manufacturing at that size. Well excepting perhaps a small boutique sporting arms maker.

Probably you would be buying improved Finnish type uniforms and LBE/armour carriers from varsuleka if you were buying today. Small arms might depend on when you were buying. In the 70s you are likely buying G3s moving onto a toss up between AK5s/FN FNCs and Dutch C7s in the 80s. Into the 90/early 2000s its likely all about the G36 and today you would likely be buying HK416s. Machine gun wise you are pretty much locked into the FN MAG and minimi although the MG4 does become an option once the germans start buying them.

Of course alt choices are possible if you have a particular aesthetic you like, all hk all the time is never an impossible choice.

Thank you. I think I like the idea of Finnish suppliers the most, though I’ll certainly consider your recommendations.

[Kyneland]

Say, is conscription feasible for this nation? I think the Finnish system of conscription could be quite useful to the population, and the state does desire a militarised populace.

[The Akasha Colony]

Say, is conscription feasible for this nation?

Conscription is always "feasible" in that it is always possible for the government to compel its citizens into service unless it is a particularly weak government. Whether it is useful is another matter.

I think the Finnish system of conscription could be quite useful to the population, and the state does desire a militarised populace.

Conscription is generally less useful to the general population than is commonly believed. In such a small nation even a heavily militarized populace would not be a significant impediment to foreign invasion. This is especially true given the increasingly technical requirements of modern warfare.