NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Imperializt Russia]

Hi and welcome.

Modern combat armor designs are unlikely to change the basic infantry tactics. Rather, the things that will drive changes in tactics and doctrine will be communication equipment allowing smaller units to operate over wider areas and drones.

I understand that increased communications would change overall strategies, as it would certainly allow greater communications between various units and command, allowing faster, more effective maneuvers and countermaneuvers. I suppose drones is one I didn't think much about; thank you for bringing that to my attention.

So improvements to armor (which would increase individual soldier survivability) wouldn't change tactics much on its own? Hmm...

Is there anything that it might fundamentally change, if full body combat armor rated anywhere between Type IIIA and greater than Type IV became the norm for all industrialized nations? Besides more soldiers surviving missions, I mean.

I'm asking because I'm well aware that advances in technology can have widespread ripple effects, and if strategies and tactics of the day don't advance, it can be problematic. E.g. rifling and line infantry shouldn't mix.

All improved personal protection really offers is a greater survival rate, and less severe woundings suffered on operations.

This doesn't actually offer any practical benefits to a soldier's individual utility nor overcome any fundamental hurdles related to the squidgyness of the human body. The only major change in infantry training since widespread adoption of plate body armour is that soldiers should stand face-on to the enemy rather than side-on - while the side-on profile offers a smaller target, it also negates the protection of the plate as the sides are typically exposed.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I understand that increased communications would change overall strategies, as it would certainly allow greater communications between various units and command, allowing faster, more effective maneuvers and countermaneuvers. I suppose drones is one I didn't think much about; thank you for bringing that to my attention.

So improvements to armor (which would increase individual soldier survivability) wouldn't change tactics much on its own? Hmm...

Is there anything that it might fundamentally change, if full body combat armor rated anywhere between Type IIIA and greater than Type IV became the norm for all industrialized nations? Besides more soldiers surviving missions, I mean.

I'm asking because I'm well aware that advances in technology can have widespread ripple effects, and if strategies and tactics of the day don't advance, it can be problematic. E.g. rifling and line infantry shouldn't mix.

All improved personal protection really offers is a greater survival rate, and less severe woundings suffered on operations.

This doesn't actually offer any practical benefits to a soldier's individual utility nor overcome any fundamental hurdles related to the squidgyness of the human body. The only major change in infantry training since widespread adoption of plate body armour is that soldiers should stand face-on to the enemy rather than side-on - while the side-on profile offers a smaller target, it also negates the protection of the plate as the sides are typically exposed.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why didn't they just put armor on the sides?
In addition to the smaller profile, you would think that it would allow you to layer armor more thickly without adding too much weight, so there must be some reason they didn't do it, but I can't seem to figure out what it is.

[Crookfur]

All improved personal protection really offers is a greater survival rate, and less severe woundings suffered on operations.

This doesn't actually offer any practical benefits to a soldier's individual utility nor overcome any fundamental hurdles related to the squidgyness of the human body. The only major change in infantry training since widespread adoption of plate body armour is that soldiers should stand face-on to the enemy rather than side-on - while the side-on profile offers a smaller target, it also negates the protection of the plate as the sides are typically exposed.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why didn't they just put armor on the sides?
In addition to the smaller profile, you would think that it would allow you to layer armor more thickly without adding too much weight, so there must be some reason they didn't do it, but I can't seem to figure out what it is.

Because even with side on shooting stances you don't actually spend that much side on threats. Most injuries occur on the largest surface area portions of your torso ie the front and back.

Protecting the sides is also more difficult as you tend to have more movement going on in that area.


Overall the increased use of increasingly effective body armour hasn't had a major impact on general tactics. It has served to make troops more confident and to an extent more aggressive but it hasn't changed the basics of fire and manouver.

[The Manticoran Empire]

All improved personal protection really offers is a greater survival rate, and less severe woundings suffered on operations.

This doesn't actually offer any practical benefits to a soldier's individual utility nor overcome any fundamental hurdles related to the squidgyness of the human body. The only major change in infantry training since widespread adoption of plate body armour is that soldiers should stand face-on to the enemy rather than side-on - while the side-on profile offers a smaller target, it also negates the protection of the plate as the sides are typically exposed.

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why didn't they just put armor on the sides?
In addition to the smaller profile, you would think that it would allow you to layer armor more thickly without adding too much weight, so there must be some reason they didn't do it, but I can't seem to figure out what it is.

On the sides of what? If you are asking why they don't armor the sides, you clearly have never worn body armor. Any body armor plates that are thick enough to stop ARE heavy. Further, there are side inserts for many body armor systems like the IBA and IOTV. It is, however, unnecessary since the majority of hits are to the arms, legs, chest, and back. The things that are important to protect are the lungs, heart, and spleen, which are perfectly adequately protected by chest and back plates.

Plus it is rather difficult to fight while standing perfectly side on with your enemy.

[Earth Circa 2050]

Well then... vehicles and communication? Great, areas I'm not so knowledgeable in... ^^; I know weapons and ammo to an outright pedantic degree, and I know way more than someone non-military probably needs to know about guerilla tactics, but I don't know shit about any of the current vehicles or communications. I could try to describe a futuristic communication device and inadvertently describe something that actually exists and is obsolete tech from decades ago. I've actually made that mistake in the past, even.

So... I'd, uh... ask about them, but I'm kind of scared to, and wouldn't even know what to ask...

Google is a great resource for that kind of information. In terms of what questions you should ask, consider your nation and what missions your military needs to complete. Is it far removed from rivals like the United States? Is it close to rivals with a wide open border to several rival countries, like Russia? Or is it an isolated island nation like the UK or Japan? Is the military focused more on internal defense or power projection? Once you have the needs of your nation figured out, you can start asking around for suggestions on equipment that would fit those needs.

What's the point where upgrading Yatagan and Leopard 2A6/7 become too much hassle and not worth it? (Also applies to CV90, PT-76, BMP-2, BTR-80 and Boxer. Note WarPact vehicles are NatGard, not Army)

About 50 years after introduction.

I'm, uh... in this case, building a whole world of nations. (Admittedly, they aren't developed equally.) I have, at least, much of the small arms, heavy arms, and armor figured out, and even have fairly rock hard science behind the more futuristic designs. I have unique challenges for development of military power (such as no fossil fuels; there isn't any oil left to make gasoline. All cars are pure electric), and unique political environment (a US with a failing economy suffering hyperinflation, a largely UK-run NATO that has recruited most of the Balkans, a global focus on fighting terrorism, huge corporations with their own private militaries, growing tensions between the two Koreas, and a DMZ between the border of Russia and the rest of Europe (except Belarus, because Russia and Belarus have good relations.)

Overall, I think I'll focus on what NATO would need; individual member states might have different stuff depending on their specific needs, politics, etc. but I imagine they'd be sharing a lot of stuff. This is a highly connected world, after all. However, various parts of NATO would have different military focuses, with much of Eastern Europe focused on defense to man the DMZ, and receiving weapons from the rest of NATO, while nations like the UK are focused on counterterrorism both domestic and abroad.

So first... What kind d of vehicles would be good for Eastern Europe to have on the DMZ, in case of Russian invasion? Bearing in mind as well that new vehicles could absolutely be designed (but would need to be both realistically viable and have realistically effective designs. E.g. no mecha.) Various armor-piercing weapons are in play, as well as defensible structures and terrain. Each side also has powerhouse economies and megacorp backing: whatever vehicles are in play should be bleeding edge technology, or else so effective there's no remote chance it'd be replaced even in the 2050's (even so, upgrades are likely; what with military industrial complex and all.)

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why didn't they just put armor on the sides?
In addition to the smaller profile, you would think that it would allow you to layer armor more thickly without adding too much weight, so there must be some reason they didn't do it, but I can't seem to figure out what it is.

On the sides of what? If you are asking why they don't armor the sides, you clearly have never worn body armor. Any body armor plates that are thick enough to stop ARE heavy. Further, there are side inserts for many body armor systems like the IBA and IOTV. It is, however, unnecessary since the majority of hits are to the arms, legs, chest, and back. The things that are important to protect are the lungs, heart, and spleen, which are perfectly adequately protected by chest and back plates.

Plus it is rather difficult to fight while standing perfectly side on with your enemy.

I've seen side inserts for body armor before. Admittedly, many soldiers didn't like it, but it very much exists. Also heard several stories of soldiers who didn't wear the side inserts getting shot there.

As for body armor being heavy... depends on the armor. Lightweight body armor do exist... Dragonskin comes to mind; lightweight, highly effective, and multiple shot protection. My question there wasn't "could the armor exist", in any case. My question was "assume it does for a second; what changes because of it?"

The increased aggressiveness and confidence you brought up is interesting. Is it possible that being nigh invulnerable to most small arms fire of some terrorists would boost that to an absurd degree? "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot with no effect", or so it has been said.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Google is a great resource for that kind of information. In terms of what questions you should ask, consider your nation and what missions your military needs to complete. Is it far removed from rivals like the United States? Is it close to rivals with a wide open border to several rival countries, like Russia? Or is it an isolated island nation like the UK or Japan? Is the military focused more on internal defense or power projection? Once you have the needs of your nation figured out, you can start asking around for suggestions on equipment that would fit those needs.


About 50 years after introduction.

I'm, uh... in this case, building a whole world of nations. (Admittedly, they aren't developed equally.) I have, at least, much of the small arms, heavy arms, and armor figured out, and even have fairly rock hard science behind the more futuristic designs. I have unique challenges for development of military power (such as no fossil fuels; there isn't any oil left to make gasoline. All cars are pure electric), and unique political environment (a US with a failing economy suffering hyperinflation, a largely UK-run NATO that has recruited most of the Balkans, a global focus on fighting terrorism, huge corporations with their own private militaries, growing tensions between the two Koreas, and a DMZ between the border of Russia and the rest of Europe (except Belarus, because Russia and Belarus have good relations.)

Overall, I think I'll focus on what NATO would need; individual member states might have different stuff depending on their specific needs, politics, etc. but I imagine they'd be sharing a lot of stuff. This is a highly connected world, after all. However, various parts of NATO would have different military focuses, with much of Eastern Europe focused on defense to man the DMZ, and receiving weapons from the rest of NATO, while nations like the UK are focused on counterterrorism both domestic and abroad.

So first... What kind d of vehicles would be good for Eastern Europe to have on the DMZ, in case of Russian invasion? Bearing in mind as well that new vehicles could absolutely be designed (but would need to be both realistically viable and have realistically effective designs. E.g. no mecha.) Various armor-piercing weapons are in play, as well as defensible structures and terrain. Each side also has powerhouse economies and megacorp backing: whatever vehicles are in play should be bleeding edge technology, or else so effective there's no remote chance it'd be replaced even in the 2050's (even so, upgrades are likely; what with military industrial complex and all.)

On the sides of what? If you are asking why they don't armor the sides, you clearly have never worn body armor. Any body armor plates that are thick enough to stop ARE heavy. Further, there are side inserts for many body armor systems like the IBA and IOTV. It is, however, unnecessary since the majority of hits are to the arms, legs, chest, and back. The things that are important to protect are the lungs, heart, and spleen, which are perfectly adequately protected by chest and back plates.

Plus it is rather difficult to fight while standing perfectly side on with your enemy.

I've seen side inserts for body armor before. Admittedly, many soldiers didn't like it, but it very much exists. Also heard several stories of soldiers who didn't wear the side inserts getting shot there.

As for body armor being heavy... depends on the armor. Lightweight body armor do exist... Dragonskin comes to mind; lightweight, highly effective, and multiple shot protection. My question there wasn't "could the armor exist", in any case. My question was "assume it does for a second; what changes because of it?"

The increased aggressiveness and confidence you brought up is interesting. Is it possible that being nigh invulnerable to most small arms fire of some terrorists would boost that to an absurd degree? "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot with no effect", or so it has been said.

I know it exists. It's just a pain in the ass.

[Imperializt Russia]

fyi Dragonskin was a bad product. The plates would regularly fracture or outright slip out of position and just jumble loose in the plate carrier somewhere. The base concept might be good, but that implementation was not.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

[Spirit of Hope]

On the sides of what? If you are asking why they don't armor the sides, you clearly have never worn body armor. Any body armor plates that are thick enough to stop ARE heavy. Further, there are side inserts for many body armor systems like the IBA and IOTV. It is, however, unnecessary since the majority of hits are to the arms, legs, chest, and back. The things that are important to protect are the lungs, heart, and spleen, which are perfectly adequately protected by chest and back plates.

Plus it is rather difficult to fight while standing perfectly side on with your enemy.

I've seen side inserts for body armor before. Admittedly, many soldiers didn't like it, but it very much exists. Also heard several stories of soldiers who didn't wear the side inserts getting shot there.

As for body armor being heavy... depends on the armor. Lightweight body armor do exist... Dragonskin comes to mind; lightweight, highly effective, and multiple shot protection. My question there wasn't "could the armor exist", in any case. My question was "assume it does for a second; what changes because of it?"

The increased aggressiveness and confidence you brought up is interesting. Is it possible that being nigh invulnerable to most small arms fire of some terrorists would boost that to an absurd degree? "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot with no effect", or so it has been said.

Nothing changes. Unless you can armor someones shoulders and arms without impeding movement, they are still going to have more protection to their front. You still probably won't have the face, neck, groin and legs well covered so you won't be all that invulnerable. Modern armor may stop you getting holes punched through you, but stopping a modern rifle round is still going to leave the person hit with bruises and potentially cracked/broken ribs. On top of all this bullets aren't the big threat, shrapnel from grenades/artillery is, and those things hit you all over your body. What body armor does is cover the really important bits so you are less likely to die. Until someone comes up with armor that negates shrapnel across the entire body armor probably isn't going to be changing much when it comes to tactics.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

Which is officially now my job. Fun.

[Austrasien]

I mean, you're all arguing against my tank designs, and I'm just saying that they can still accomplish the task as desired by my nation's military.

Yes but TOW missile launchers on HUMVEEs would do their "mission" better in every way, and are also much cheaper to own and operate.

You have things backwards. Weak armor is undesirable but is not intolerable. Armor is not actually a major factor in tank-on-tank engagements and has much more to do with a tanks ability to survive AT weapons. It does compromise the tanks ability to fight as an offensive weapon because anti-tank weapons usually kill tanks in ambushes, and only armor can protect from ambushes.

So it is bad at attacking. But depending on context this might not be fatal.

But the most consistent deficiency of older tanks is not armor (relatively easy to retrofit within reason) but speed and accuracy of shooting. This is a fatal deficiency because the speed at which a tank can find, hit and penetrate a target is the single most important factor in tank combat. If a tank can do nothing else, it must still be able to kill its opponents before they kill it. If it lacks armor this is even more important. Even if you are not facing modern tanks you are still facing ATGMs, and even SACLOS ATGMs easily hit 3/4 of the time or more at ranges over 3000 meters with the first round - a tank which cannot rapidly and acquire and destroy its opponents will have a short and uninspiring life. Especially if it cannot take a hit.

So it won't be great for defending either - especially compared to ATGMs which have generally fantastic accuracy.

So its not really good at anything. Not even moving as has been established, because it is slow and tends to fall apart when moving.

[Earth Circa 2050]

fyi Dragonskin was a bad product. The plates would regularly fracture or outright slip out of position and just jumble loose in the plate carrier somewhere. The base concept might be good, but that implementation was not.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

I've seen all kinds of arguments for and against the product, to the point that it becomes nigh impossible to separate fact from attempts to sabotage it's it's adoption short of doing an utterly abusive stress test oneself. Which I'd love to see. That said, I could see what you said being a potential issue.

And alright. I figure it's complicated, and recognize that those would be issues. That's separation of different comms channels, yes?

I've seen side inserts for body armor before. Admittedly, many soldiers didn't like it, but it very much exists. Also heard several stories of soldiers who didn't wear the side inserts getting shot there.

As for body armor being heavy... depends on the armor. Lightweight body armor do exist... Dragonskin comes to mind; lightweight, highly effective, and multiple shot protection. My question there wasn't "could the armor exist", in any case. My question was "assume it does for a second; what changes because of it?"

The increased aggressiveness and confidence you brought up is interesting. Is it possible that being nigh invulnerable to most small arms fire of some terrorists would boost that to an absurd degree? "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot with no effect", or so it has been said.

Nothing changes. Unless you can armor someones shoulders and arms without impeding movement, they are still going to have more protection to their front. You still probably won't have the face, neck, groin and legs well covered so you won't be all that invulnerable. Modern armor may stop you getting holes punched through you, but stopping a modern rifle round is still going to leave the person hit with bruises and potentially cracked/broken ribs. On top of all this bullets aren't the big threat, shrapnel from grenades/artillery is, and those things hit you all over your body. What body armor does is cover the really important bits so you are less likely to die. Until someone comes up with armor that negates shrapnel across the entire body armor probably isn't going to be changing much when it comes to tactics.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

Which is officially now my job. Fun.

I said full combat armor earlier, didn't I? I mean it: vest, sides, shoulders, arms, legs, hips, and helmet covering full head, neck, and face. We'll say the front of the helmet is ballistic glass so they can still see. (Best of all for such a design; comms and other tech could be integrated into the helmet.) And before you tell me "that'll be too heavy", I'm estimating a 24.9-28.1kg suit of body armor (depending on exact model), with weight distributed mostly on shoulders and hips. Not saying it won't be heavy, but I am saying it'd be manageable for highly active people, which soldiers are. I'm also not claiming it would be "invincible armor"; I stated anywhere between Type IIIA to above Type IV; even against the latter, antimateriel rounds would still work, as would and form of shaped charge. Repeated hit structural integrity should be doable with an overlapping multi-party system; Dragonskin might not have done it perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be done; maybe encase them in a thin layer of Ti6Al4V, to offer additional strength and prevent plate movement. Perhaps treated with a surface layer of tungsten. And logically, there'd still be some necessary kinks in the armor, otherwise movement is impossible... but providing the best possible protection should be worth it. And yes... I'm aware such armor would be very, very expensive. Improved comms favor small unit tactics and less numbers though. Meaning more money to outfit those troops with the best equipment, and more reason to care that your troops survive: they're a big investment at that point.

[Crookfur]

Google is a great resource for that kind of information. In terms of what questions you should ask, consider your nation and what missions your military needs to complete. Is it far removed from rivals like the United States? Is it close to rivals with a wide open border to several rival countries, like Russia? Or is it an isolated island nation like the UK or Japan? Is the military focused more on internal defense or power projection? Once you have the needs of your nation figured out, you can start asking around for suggestions on equipment that would fit those needs.


About 50 years after introduction.

I'm, uh... in this case, building a whole world of nations. (Admittedly, they aren't developed equally.) I have, at least, much of the small arms, heavy arms, and armor figured out, and even have fairly rock hard science behind the more futuristic designs. I have unique challenges for development of military power (such as no fossil fuels; there isn't any oil left to make gasoline. All cars are pure electric), and unique political environment (a US with a failing economy suffering hyperinflation, a largely UK-run NATO that has recruited most of the Balkans, a global focus on fighting terrorism, huge corporations with their own private militaries, growing tensions between the two Koreas, and a DMZ between the border of Russia and the rest of Europe (except Belarus, because Russia and Belarus have good relations.)

Overall, I think I'll focus on what NATO would need; individual member states might have different stuff depending on their specific needs, politics, etc. but I imagine they'd be sharing a lot of stuff. This is a highly connected world, after all. However, various parts of NATO would have different military focuses, with much of Eastern Europe focused on defense to man the DMZ, and receiving weapons from the rest of NATO, while nations like the UK are focused on counterterrorism both domestic and abroad.

So first... What kind d of vehicles would be good for Eastern Europe to have on the DMZ, in case of Russian invasion? Bearing in mind as well that new vehicles could absolutely be designed (but would need to be both realistically viable and have realistically effective designs. E.g. no mecha.) Various armor-piercing weapons are in play, as well as defensible structures and terrain. Each side also has powerhouse economies and megacorp backing: whatever vehicles are in play should be bleeding edge technology, or else so effective there's no remote chance it'd be replaced even in the 2050's (even so, upgrades are likely; what with military industrial complex and all.)

On the sides of what? If you are asking why they don't armor the sides, you clearly have never worn body armor. Any body armor plates that are thick enough to stop ARE heavy. Further, there are side inserts for many body armor systems like the IBA and IOTV. It is, however, unnecessary since the majority of hits are to the arms, legs, chest, and back. The things that are important to protect are the lungs, heart, and spleen, which are perfectly adequately protected by chest and back plates.

Plus it is rather difficult to fight while standing perfectly side on with your enemy.

I've seen side inserts for body armor before. Admittedly, many soldiers didn't like it, but it very much exists. Also heard several stories of soldiers who didn't wear the side inserts getting shot there.

As for body armor being heavy... depends on the armor. Lightweight body armor do exist... Dragonskin comes to mind; lightweight, highly effective, and multiple shot protection. My question there wasn't "could the armor exist", in any case. My question was "assume it does for a second; what changes because of it?"

The increased aggressiveness and confidence you brought up is interesting. Is it possible that being nigh invulnerable to most small arms fire of some terrorists would boost that to an absurd degree? "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot with no effect", or so it has been said.

A lot of what would be about vehicle wise is going to depend on your point of departure from the foreseeable likely trends.
A more active Russian front line is likely to drive more investments in tanks.
For Europe that means the mainstay tank will be some sort of offspring of the Franco german EMBT project, possibly with British involvement depending on if a UK lead nato means a stronger UK with 70s level of industrial capacity or just a fucked nato.
Assuming a big bad Britain scenario you are likely looking a tank that enters service with the big 3 in the early 40s and the late 40s/early 50s for everyone else. This beast is likely modular with various configurations ranging from top line 80ton+ version with all the DU insert packages and applique armour to a more svelte 55 to 60ton version. Gun wise it'll be the new 130mm or a resurrected 140mm. The relatively late service date will cause problems for the poles and others with a t-series inventory that needs replaced in the short term. These countries will face a choice of buying increasingly outdated leo2 s and upgrades or going for one of the new "medium" tanks like the PL-01 or an ascod/ajax derivative. I suspect the poles might go for the medium stopgap solution if they can get industrial participation in it and the promise of work share in the EMBT.

[Spirit of Hope]

fyi Dragonskin was a bad product. The plates would regularly fracture or outright slip out of position and just jumble loose in the plate carrier somewhere. The base concept might be good, but that implementation was not.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

I've seen all kinds of arguments for and against the product, to the point that it becomes nigh impossible to separate fact from attempts to sabotage it's it's adoption short of doing an utterly abusive stress test oneself. Which I'd love to see. That said, I could see what you said being a potential issue.

And alright. I figure it's complicated, and recognize that those would be issues. That's separation of different comms channels, yes?

It's complicated to the point I just spent 6 months learning about it. The basic idea is yes you are going to be using different channels for different people to communicate to each other, however then you run into real world problems.

The big things to think about:
How far can your radio reach? Different frequencies have better or worse abilities to propagate through/around obstacles, generally the higher the frequency the more data you can put on it (data includes voice talk), but the less well it propagates. In addition to this is power considerations, the more power you put through the radio, the further it can reach (disregarding issues of line of sight) however that also makes it easier for an enemy to spot. If they can detect your radio they can probably launch a strike on it. Antennas play a role, but unless you are getting super technical you can just ignore them for most basic communications.

How many radios do you have? I've gotten to play with some really cool equipment, but it is also generally very expensive. The PRC-117G, which is a rather basic radio that you currently would see a couple of at the company level, costs $50-60,0000 per, and that is not including some of the peripheral equipment that can greatly increase it's capabilities. Each radio can only effectively monitor a couple of channels at a time, so the more granular you want your communications the more it is going to cost, both in money and in the amount of time it will take to plan, set up, and maintain a network.

What type of data are you communicating? Simple voice communication can be pretty easy to establish, even over some vast distances, but if you want to pass data, such as pictures, then it becomes much harder. You start needing more peripheral equipment, frequencies, personnel, and time.

Nothing changes. Unless you can armor someones shoulders and arms without impeding movement, they are still going to have more protection to their front. You still probably won't have the face, neck, groin and legs well covered so you won't be all that invulnerable. Modern armor may stop you getting holes punched through you, but stopping a modern rifle round is still going to leave the person hit with bruises and potentially cracked/broken ribs. On top of all this bullets aren't the big threat, shrapnel from grenades/artillery is, and those things hit you all over your body. What body armor does is cover the really important bits so you are less likely to die. Until someone comes up with armor that negates shrapnel across the entire body armor probably isn't going to be changing much when it comes to tactics.


Which is officially now my job. Fun.

I said full combat armor earlier, didn't I? I mean it: vest, sides, shoulders, arms, legs, hips, and helmet covering full head, neck, and face. We'll say the front of the helmet is ballistic glass so they can still see. (Best of all for such a design; comms and other tech could be integrated into the helmet.) And before you tell me "that'll be too heavy", I'm estimating a 24.9-28.1kg suit of body armor (depending on exact model), with weight distributed mostly on shoulders and hips. Not saying it won't be heavy, but I am saying it'd be manageable for highly active people, which soldiers are. I'm also not claiming it would be "invincible armor"; I stated anywhere between Type IIIA to above Type IV; even against the latter, antimateriel rounds would still work, as would and form of shaped charge. Repeated hit structural integrity should be doable with an overlapping multi-party system; Dragonskin might not have done it perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be done; maybe encase them in a thin layer of Ti6Al4V, to offer additional strength and prevent plate movement. Perhaps treated with a surface layer of tungsten. And logically, there'd still be some necessary kinks in the armor, otherwise movement is impossible... but providing the best possible protection should be worth it. And yes... I'm aware such armor would be very, very expensive. Improved comms favor small unit tactics and less numbers though. Meaning more money to outfit those troops with the best equipment, and more reason to care that your troops survive: they're a big investment at that point.

28kg just for armor is to much, it is close to a third of a soldiers weight, without considering such things as ammo, weapons, food and water, etc. that they must carry. Sure you can do it, and I have, but can you do it day in and day out for weeks or months? It will sap a lot of your strength and make it harder to do other things that a soldier needs to do. 1/3rd body weight is the recommended maximum you put on a person before you are doing both long term damage and sharply cutting into their capabilities to act now.

Such an armor set probably still wouldn't change things much, because shrapnel from grenades and artillery would probably still penetrate the extremities, and render soldiers combat ineffective. As I said, until someone comes up with armor that can truly negate shrapnel we probably aren't going to see much of a change.

[Imperializt Russia]

fyi Dragonskin was a bad product. The plates would regularly fracture or outright slip out of position and just jumble loose in the plate carrier somewhere. The base concept might be good, but that implementation was not.

Communications is very complicated. There's a reason that armies devote an entire section of the army to signals. Many industrial standards for RF components derive from early military standards on them.

Communications is not just the ability to issue orders and submit reports, but also to maintain the chain of command in those communications, making sure that people are able to communicate with the right people, not accidentally let Private Wilkins listen in on SAC meetings and not pipe Wilkins' bloodied screaming into the SAC t-con. You need protection, power, allocations and networks engineers.

I've seen all kinds of arguments for and against the product, to the point that it becomes nigh impossible to separate fact from attempts to sabotage it's it's adoption short of doing an utterly abusive stress test oneself. Which I'd love to see. That said, I could see what you said being a potential issue.

And alright. I figure it's complicated, and recognize that those would be issues. That's separation of different comms channels, yes?

Yes.

One of the major elements you should think about (it's not important to RP, but a consideration if you want to truly 'build' a realistic military - I didn't) is called "trunking". Trunks are a critical component of the military communications network that are responsible for delineating who can talk to whom, and whether communications flow up or down the command chain. Think of them as a highly specialised military switchboard.

A member called Questers, on a previous iteration of this thread, made an excellent primer post outlining trunks and trunking units. I wouldn't be able to find it for you just now, but if you find the older versions and search for trunk and trunking, it should come up.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I've seen all kinds of arguments for and against the product, to the point that it becomes nigh impossible to separate fact from attempts to sabotage it's it's adoption short of doing an utterly abusive stress test oneself. Which I'd love to see. That said, I could see what you said being a potential issue.

And alright. I figure it's complicated, and recognize that those would be issues. That's separation of different comms channels, yes?

Yes.

One of the major elements you should think about (it's not important to RP, but a consideration if you want to truly 'build' a realistic military - I didn't) is called "trunking". Trunks are a critical component of the military communications network that are responsible for delineating who can talk to whom, and whether communications flow up or down the command chain. Think of them as a highly specialised military switchboard.p

A member called Questers, on a previous iteration of this thread, made an excellent primer post outlining trunks and trunking units. I wouldn't be able to find it for you just now, but if you find the older versions and search for trunk and trunking, it should come up.

This what you're looking for?

A Trunk—A Trunk is the Divisional trunking system established by the Divisional Communications Regiment down which Divisional traffic flows, essentially communications between Battlegroup-Brigade-Division. Also known as Talkgroup 0.
B Trunk—B Trunk is the Brigade's trunking system. There are three "B" Trunks in the Division for each Brigade, B1, B2, B3. Also known as Talkgroups 1, 2, 3.
I Trunk—I Trunk is the Intelligence talkgroup established by the Divisional Communications Regiment and consists of the Division commander's independent assets -- Aviation Regiment and Armoured Cavalry Regiment -- and the intelligence assets such as the DAG Pathfinder Company and Observation Regiment. All are tasked together in a single trunked talkgroup.
G Trunk—G Trunk is the Divisional Artillery Group trunk which consists of the main Artillery element, the Observation Regiment, the Brigade's artillery, and the Forward Observation Officers posted to the Brigade.

[The Akasha Colony]

What's the point where upgrading Yatagan and Leopard 2A6/7 become too much hassle and not worth it? (Also applies to CV90, PT-76, BMP-2, BTR-80 and Boxer. Note WarPact vehicles are NatGard, not Army)

Whenever your needs can no longer be met by upgrades and require replacement. This isn't a fixed point in time because it depends on what you want them to do.

If the Cold War had continued there's a good chance Leopard 2 would have been replaced already. Since the Cold War ended, the need for replacement has decreased dramatically. But now we're finally reaching the point where it might be necessary again.

[Danternoust]

I mean, you're all arguing against my tank designs, and I'm just saying that they can still accomplish the task as desired by my nation's military.

Yes but TOW missile launchers on HUMVEEs would do their "mission" better in every way, and are also much cheaper to own and operate.

You have things backwards. Weak armor is undesirable but is not intolerable. Armor is not actually a major factor in tank-on-tank engagements and has much more to do with a tanks ability to survive AT weapons. It does compromise the tanks ability to fight as an offensive weapon because anti-tank weapons usually kill tanks in ambushes, and only armor can protect from ambushes.

So it is bad at attacking. But depending on context this might not be fatal.

But the most consistent deficiency of older tanks is not armor (relatively easy to retrofit within reason) but speed and accuracy of shooting. This is a fatal deficiency because the speed at which a tank can find, hit and penetrate a target is the single most important factor in tank combat. If a tank can do nothing else, it must still be able to kill its opponents before they kill it. If it lacks armor this is even more important. Even if you are not facing modern tanks you are still facing ATGMs, and even SACLOS ATGMs easily hit 3/4 of the time or more at ranges over 3000 meters with the first round - a tank which cannot rapidly and acquire and destroy its opponents will have a short and uninspiring life. Especially if it cannot take a hit.

So it won't be great for defending either - especially compared to ATGMs which have generally fantastic accuracy.

So its not really good at anything. Not even moving as has been established, because it is slow and tends to fall apart when moving.

The tanks are simply meant to prevent an enemy from overrunning infantry positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-15

Atkinson, p. 444, cites another case of a TOW bouncing off a T-72 and hitting the turret of another tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-20

"In 1988-89. These tanks had been upgraded to enhance the protection of the upper front of the tank hull. This was achieved by welding additional 30 mm armored plating with stand-offs producing an air gap of the same size. This measure was taken by the Iraqis after experimenting with protecting tanks from defeat by various 120 mm ammunition from the British L11A5 rifled tank gun installed on Iran's Chieftain tanks, seized by Iraq during the war.

Although I must admit that my tanks SACLOS missile systems are inferior, despite every tank being fitted with missile boxes, many of them are defective or just for show.

The whole FCS, and gun issue could be solved by replacing the whole turret, which isn't too much of a deal since the M4-style of design is mostly hull.

I won't argue that the tanks are slow, but there can be different reasons to why a nation doesn't just simply import the latest tanks.

[The Manticoran Empire]

[spoiler="Quote Wall of Text"]

Yes but TOW missile launchers on HUMVEEs would do their "mission" better in every way, and are also much cheaper to own and operate.

You have things backwards. Weak armor is undesirable but is not intolerable. Armor is not actually a major factor in tank-on-tank engagements and has much more to do with a tanks ability to survive AT weapons. It does compromise the tanks ability to fight as an offensive weapon because anti-tank weapons usually kill tanks in ambushes, and only armor can protect from ambushes.

So it is bad at attacking. But depending on context this might not be fatal.

But the most consistent deficiency of older tanks is not armor (relatively easy to retrofit within reason) but speed and accuracy of shooting. This is a fatal deficiency because the speed at which a tank can find, hit and penetrate a target is the single most important factor in tank combat. If a tank can do nothing else, it must still be able to kill its opponents before they kill it. If it lacks armor this is even more important. Even if you are not facing modern tanks you are still facing ATGMs, and even SACLOS ATGMs easily hit 3/4 of the time or more at ranges over 3000 meters with the first round - a tank which cannot rapidly and acquire and destroy its opponents will have a short and uninspiring life. Especially if it cannot take a hit.

So it won't be great for defending either - especially compared to ATGMs which have generally fantastic accuracy.

So its not really good at anything. Not even moving as has been established, because it is slow and tends to fall apart when moving.

[/spoiler]
The tanks are simply meant to prevent an enemy from overrunning infantry positions.

Then they aren't tanks but glorified bunkers, a role for which they are inadequately armored and are nearly 3 meters tall, making them taller than most tanks in existence today. Since your enemies will probably support attacks with tanks, artillery, and airpower, using your tanks as glorified bunkers is a waste of resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-15

Atkinson, p. 444, cites another case of a TOW bouncing off a T-72 and hitting the turret of another tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-20

"In 1988-89. These tanks had been upgraded to enhance the protection of the upper front of the tank hull. This was achieved by welding additional 30 mm armored plating with stand-offs producing an air gap of the same size. This measure was taken by the Iraqis after experimenting with protecting tanks from defeat by various 120 mm ammunition from the British L11A5 rifled tank gun installed on Iran's Chieftain tanks, seized by Iraq during the war.

Although I must admit that my tanks SACLOS missile systems are inferior, despite every tank being fitted with missile boxes, many of them are defective or just for show.

The whole FCS, and gun issue could be solved by replacing the whole turret, which isn't too much of a deal since the M4-style of design is mostly hull.

I won't argue that the tanks are slow, but there can be different reasons to why a nation doesn't just simply import the latest tanks.

There are a number of reasons why nations don't import tanks. However, if defense is of vital importance to your nation, it doesn't do to use tanks that have been obsolete since 1954. The 76mm gun on the Shermans are too small to defeat even T-55 and T-62 tanks and its armor is too thin to defend against HEAT or APFSDS rounds. As such, your nation should either be a past tech nation in the 1940s or you should look into other tanks like the Merkava, K2, M1, Leopard, T-72, Challenger, etc.

[Danternoust]

There are a number of reasons why nations don't import tanks. However, if defense is of vital importance to your nation, it doesn't do to use tanks that have been obsolete since 1954. The 76mm gun on the Shermans are too small to defeat even T-55 and T-62 tanks and its armor is too thin to defend against HEAT or APFSDS rounds. As such, your nation should either be a past tech nation in the 1940s or you should look into other tanks like the Merkava, K2, M1, Leopard, T-72, Challenger, etc.

Next you will say that the Nazis were godmodding for using unusually advanced technology.
Or that the Israeli army was markedly inferior until they licensed every important part for production of their tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava_t ... ontractors

Does a nation need x number of engineers and scientists to advance beyond the 1940s?

I don't understand this discussion.

[The Akasha Colony]

The tanks are simply meant to prevent an enemy from overrunning infantry positions.

How are they supposed to do this if they are not effective fighting platforms in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-15

Atkinson, p. 444, cites another case of a TOW bouncing off a T-72 and hitting the turret of another tank

The fact that this incident is worthy of a footnote is telling.

It is rare enough to be worth mentioning as a specific incident, as it obviously did not happen often enough to prevent the Coalition from crushing the Iraqis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)#cite_note-20

"In 1988-89. These tanks had been upgraded to enhance the protection of the upper front of the tank hull. This was achieved by welding additional 30 mm armored plating with stand-offs producing an air gap of the same size. This measure was taken by the Iraqis after experimenting with protecting tanks from defeat by various 120 mm ammunition from the British L11A5 rifled tank gun installed on Iran's Chieftain tanks, seized by Iraq during the war.

Notice how it didn't work since the Coalition rolled over them anyway.

A war is not won because one or two tanks get lucky and survive near-misses.

The whole FCS, and gun issue could be solved by replacing the whole turret, which isn't too much of a deal since the M4-style of design is mostly hull.

Not really, because stability also comes from the suspension and drivetrain. And the M4's extreme height is due to its hull design.

I won't argue that the tanks are slow, but there can be different reasons to why a nation doesn't just simply import the latest tanks.

There are lots of nations that buy old, shitty tanks because they're dirt poor or aren't friends with Uncle Sam or Comrade Ivan or Chairman Winnie the Pooh.

But there aren't any reasons why a nation will intentionally produce WWII designs. It's basically a story straight out of Warhammer 40k or something.

There are a number of reasons why nations don't import tanks. However, if defense is of vital importance to your nation, it doesn't do to use tanks that have been obsolete since 1954. The 76mm gun on the Shermans are too small to defeat even T-55 and T-62 tanks and its armor is too thin to defend against HEAT or APFSDS rounds. As such, your nation should either be a past tech nation in the 1940s or you should look into other tanks like the Merkava, K2, M1, Leopard, T-72, Challenger, etc.

Next you will say that the Nazis were godmodding for using unusually advanced technology.
Or that the Israeli army was markedly inferior until they licensed every important part for production of their tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava_t ... ontractors

Does a nation need x number of engineers and scientists to advance beyond the 1940s?

I don't understand this discussion.

You're already importing or building everything else modern. I have no idea why you're so fixated on this absurd M4 clone hull except because being obstinate is fun I guess?

[The Manticoran Empire]

There are a number of reasons why nations don't import tanks. However, if defense is of vital importance to your nation, it doesn't do to use tanks that have been obsolete since 1954. The 76mm gun on the Shermans are too small to defeat even T-55 and T-62 tanks and its armor is too thin to defend against HEAT or APFSDS rounds. As such, your nation should either be a past tech nation in the 1940s or you should look into other tanks like the Merkava, K2, M1, Leopard, T-72, Challenger, etc.

Next you will say that the Nazis were godmodding for using unusually advanced technology.
Or that the Israeli army was markedly inferior until they licensed every important part for production of their tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava_t ... ontractors

Does a nation need x number of engineers and scientists to advance beyond the 1940s?

I don't understand this discussion.

OK, I'll take these points one at a time.

The Nazis were more advanced on paper, yes. But, in practice, their vehicles had miserably reliability even by the standards of the time and they were over engineered to the point that routine maintenance was nearly impossible.

The Israeli Army was inferior in terms of equipment quality until the Merkava 1 came out. They made up for that with quality of training, determination, and the ineptitude of their enemies. The Israelis have also refused to stop improving their equipment and the majority of the Merkava is developed and produced domestically. Of the subsystems in the Merkava, only five companies are NOT Israeli. Those five are L-3 (Whichs knows engines), Motorola (Which is damned good at telecommunications technology), DuPont (Which knows chemicals), Caterpillar (which helped produce an Israeli designed track), and FN Herstal (Which supplies weapons to more than HALF of the nations in the world at this point). Israel doesn't NEED those contractors. However, it expedites the process to purchase existing systems from overseas as opposed to developing new systems domestically.

Further, advancing technological is far from demanding that you have some arbitrary number of engineers.

[Danternoust]

How are they supposed to do this if they are not effective fighting platforms in the first place?

By using defilade and attacking at the right ranges or situations?

I have no idea why you're so fixated on this absurd M4 clone hull except because being obstinate is fun I guess?

Are you going to invade my country to replace the tanks???

The fact that this incident is worthy of a footnote is telling.

I was only pointing out that superior technology only goes so far.

Israel doesn't NEED those contractors. ... Further, advancing technological is far from demanding that you have some arbitrary number of engineers.

No, Israel does need those contractors or it would be producing a homebuilt tank with technologies from the 1970s. Or it could violate patent laws and produce a tank with technologies from the 80s.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How are they supposed to do this if they are not effective fighting platforms in the first place?

By using defilade and attacking at the right ranges or situations?

And how would you deal with the fact that any army that knows what they are doing will be using combined arms warfare? How do you defeat artillery, mortars, top attack guided missiles, and ground attack aircraft?

I have no idea why you're so fixated on this absurd M4 clone hull except because being obstinate is fun I guess?

Are you going to invade my country to replace the tanks???

Maybe. It would be fairly easy, after all.

The fact that this incident is worthy of a footnote is telling.

I was only pointing out that superior technology only goes so far.

Advanced technology goes a lot further than hope. Simply look at the Battle of 73 Easting. The US forces lost one Bradley, 6 dead, and 19 wounded. The Iraqi Army lost 160 tanks, 180 Armored Vehicles, 12 artillery pieces, 80 wheeled vehicles, about 1,000 wounded, and 1,300 dead. The battle was mainly fought between one US Armored Cavalry Regiment and the Tawakalna Armored Division. 8 Iraqi Divisions against 4 US and 1 UK division and the Iraqis suffered 92 times the casualties in manpower and 432 times the casualties in vehicles.

Israel doesn't NEED those contractors. ... Further, advancing technological is far from demanding that you have some arbitrary number of engineers.

No, Israel does need those contractors or it would be producing a homebuilt tank with technologies from the 1970s. Or it could violate patent laws and produce a tank with technologies from the 80s.

Uh no it doesn't need those contractors. If you actually looked at those contractors, virtually ALL of them are Israeli. Israel doesn't need foreign contractors. Israel proves that quite consistently. They could easily manufacture the Merkava IV domestically with the same technology it has right now.

"Motorola supplies Tadiran communication encryption systems;
DuPont supplies the Nomex, ballistic, and fire-retardant materials used by Hagor;
Russia Military Industries helped to design the KMT-4 & -5 anti-mine rollers and the ABK-3 dozer blade, now built by Urdan;
FN Herstal supplies 7.62 mm (MAG 58) and 12.7 mm (M2) coaxial and pintle-mounted machine guns;
Caterpillar assisted with an Israeli-designed track system."
Those are the only non-Israeli suppliers. RMI doesn't even supply anything anymore and Caterpillar just assisted. The other three provide things that Israel is more than capable of building themselves.

Next you are going to tell me that the United States is incapable of building a new tank without external suppliers.

[Danternoust]

And how would you deal with the fact that any army that knows what they are doing will be using combined arms warfare? How do you defeat artillery, mortars, top attack guided missiles, and ground attack aircraft?

Smoke, luck, smoke, and anti-aircraft?

I'm not sure any tank is designed to be armored against the A-10 or Su-25 though.

If you actually looked at those contractors, virtually ALL of them are Israeli.

That's only because some of them are also contractors or subsidiaries for western companies and receive some technology through them?

[The Manticoran Empire]

And how would you deal with the fact that any army that knows what they are doing will be using combined arms warfare? How do you defeat artillery, mortars, top attack guided missiles, and ground attack aircraft?

Smoke, luck, smoke, and anti-aircraft?

I'm not sure any tank is designed to be armored against the A-10 or Su-25 though.

Three of those will do next to nothing against artillery and Anti-Aircraft MAY help against A-10s and Su-25s but not against F-35, F-15, F-16, Su-27, and other multi-role strike fighters. Not unless that AA is SAMs.

If you actually looked at those contractors, virtually ALL of them are Israeli.

That's only because some of them are also contractors or subsidiaries for western companies and receive some technology through them?

Not really. The Israeli companies are Israeli, built up by an Israel that couldn't count on foreign arms supplies for the first 20 years of its existence and so was forced to develop a domestic arms industry.

[Danternoust]

Not really. The Israeli companies are Israeli, built up by an Israel that couldn't count on foreign arms supplies for the first 20 years of its existence and so was forced to develop a domestic arms industry.

I guess I am in the wrong timeline, and so we have no common ground to talk about.