NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Danternoust]

Would it be in anyway unrealistic for a 1984 type scenario to break out in 2024, and the expenditure of mass amounts of military equipment and munitions were to occur, in secret? Pilots get captured, but no one officially knows about it, and if news were to occur, it would be attributed to some other nation?

[Taihei Tengoku]

In 1984 the massive expenditure of lives and materiel is constantly beamed to the proles as propaganda.

[Anemos Major]

Some rudimentary statblocks for all the MA12 variants drawn up so far - if anybody catches any glaring errors, do let me know.

Type: Armoured Personnel Carrier
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2017 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment
Designed: 2011 - 2016
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2017 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 16.4t (base combat weight), 17.8t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.9m (hull)
Width: 2.7m
Height: 2.2m (top of hull), 2.9m (RWS)
Crew: 2 (commander, driver) + 9 dismounts

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 15x105mm CTA MG/H14 heavy machine-gun (RWS mounted, 1800 rounds, Ball/Tracer, APHEI/Tracer or APDS/Tracer mix)
Secondary armament: PWRS can accommodate ATGM tube

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.320EL 9L VG-turbo 4-stroke L6 multifuel diesel, 390hp (590hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 21.9hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1020/PE Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 70kph (off-road)

Type: Fire Support Vehicle
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2018 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment/Imperial Arsenal of Sailiei
Designed: 2011 - 2017
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2018 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 17.4t (base combat weight), 19.5t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.8m (hull), 8.4m (gun forward)
Width: 2.8m
Height: 1.8m (top of hull), 2.6m (turret roof)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 105mm SC6.18/mod L/50 solid propellant smoothbore cannon, dual recoil mount (30 rounds, 15 ready, APFSDS/HEGP-M mix)
Secondary armament: 7.7x54mm MG3R1 machine-gun (co-axial, 1000 rounds, 7.7x54mm Ball/Tracer mix)

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.360EL 11L VG-turbo 4-stroke V6 multifuel diesel, 480hp (750hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 24.6hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1050/P Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 75kph (off-road)

Type: Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2017 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment
Designed: 2011 - 2016
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2017 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 16.6t (base combat weight), 18.7t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.8m (hull), 7.1m (gun forward)
Width: 2.8m
Height: 1.8m (top of hull), 2.6m (commander's hatch)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 45x290mm CTA M.38C L/66 automatic cannon (180 rounds, 40x290mm CTA APFSDS-T/GPSHE-T mix)
Secondary armament:
- 7.7x54mm MG3R1 machine-gun (co-axial, 1000 rounds, 7.7x54mm Ball/Tracer mix)
- 15x105mm CTA MG/H14 heavy machine-gun (RWS mounted, 300 rounds, Ball/Tracer, APHEI/Tracer or APDS/Tracer mix)
- Arteyr-M BLOS ATGM (4 tubes, can be mounted on either side of turret, replaceable with other compatible munitions)

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.360EL 11L VG-turbo 4-stroke V6 multifuel diesel, 480hp (750hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 25.7hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1050/P Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 75kph (off-road)

[Kassaran]

Interesting video put out on the Smarter Every Day YouTube channel regarding future wars and how they would be fought. Has an interview with a four star involved and some amusing, if still ambiguous wording thrown in there to catch public attention. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter.

[Danternoust]

I think I should have a support tank that has a fixed mount 75mm gun-mortar, a turret with a 23mm autocannon, and an AWS with a 7mm MMG.

Interesting video put out on the Smarter Every Day YouTube channel regarding future wars and how they would be fought. Has an interview with a four star involved and some amusing, if still ambiguous wording thrown in there to catch public attention. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter.

If 4chan is right, we are already at fourth dimensional chess.

[United Earthlings]

Realism means replicating plausible alt history with all the limitations involved. Ends of story.

This isn't just about realistic, but figuring out what's better. You are shifting the goal posts now, from "When looking at the internet for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned. Because odds are people in the know already have and that is why they are abandoned." to promoting "realism".

Yes, realism revolves around logistics constraints, as what is ideal and what is actually used will be two different things, given that almost every country has it's own armored vehicles, tanks, guns, and virtually everything else with some sort of slight changes at least for their own use. But that's not the same as saying new technology must have been abandoned because it wasn't good enough, because realism in storycrafting is an entirely different issue.

Effectively you are now blurring things that don't need to be blurred. Anyways, my key point here is that if something isn't used, right now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good solution, or couldn't be in the future. It's an arbitrary thing to assume that it *must* have a problem with it. There is no obvious problem with many of the guns used by other countries, be it the FAMAS or HK416, it just isn't our preference for right now, and it takes a while to replace an entire inventory with new weapons. There's no obvious problem with the leopard or Challenger tank or any of the others, it's just we prefer the M1 Abrams. Something not being chosen often times has less to do with effectiveness and more to do with logistics. Often times something being new and different is why it hasn't been chosen yet.

At some point, you just have to choose something, and once you've chosen it, you tend to stick with it, often times for decades. Was the .30-06 really so much better than the 7.62m x 54mmR, the 8mm mauser, the 7.5mm etc. I don't know, maybe, but in the end it was good enough for military purposes so they used it. The military rarely changes things just to change things, and even if something better is found, it can take decades for it to be adopted. We still use a 100 year old .50 caliber machine gun and 1911 pistol design. For better or worse, the military tends to choose something and then stick to it, often times for over 100 years. That's basically how it works. Often times it's not better than what our allies or enemies use at all, or not enough to really matter. So, why not use a new weapon? Well, often times it's literally just because it's new or different, rather than it possessing any kind of flaw.

For the sake of simplicity, as far as I can tell as it specifically relates to that which is quoted above, you’ve both entered an area wherein attempting to confer a topic of exceeding complexity distilled down to its basic elements you have in fact managed to do the reserve by making the subject even more convoluted. In that regard to the statements above, you’re both right and both wrong simultaneous.

To recreate a plausible accurate alt history, you first need a firm preferably beyond basic understanding of the web of intrinsic entanglements that preceded that event you wish to alter. Sadly, this task can’t be accomplished simply by figuring out with 20/20 hindsight what one could do better, for better is to put it bluntly too subjective and one must therefore be more objective to fully address the complexities that are self-contained within every single event.

Limitations of all kinds and of all natures, logistics constraints, even at times accepting that cognitive dissonance plays a role for even what’s ideal can be what’s actually used, that things at times are blurred for a reason and only by being objective can one fully unblur those things one wishes to fully understand in all its complexities.

In closing, why dozens, hundreds of books & papers have been written on the subject both of you had only just begun to scratch the surface of, I’ll do my best to distill an answer to the question I assume you were trying to get answered Manokan.

Why a weapon system doesn’t get adopted {developed} by a particular nation at a particular time when the technology to develop it appears to be readily apparent. The main reason usually is local and national politics, a change in government, a change in priorities, etc... suffice to say whether connected to Private industries or state-run ones, as far as defense is concern, governments and their leaders ultimately set what gets developed. New while great also tends to be expensive where technology is concerned and also interconnected wherein one new technology developed requires needing a separate technology, maybe one never even thought of before being invented/developed, before the original technology developed can be even made cost effective for mass production. For governments operate on economics and the more democratic ones more so, if new technology does indeed have any flaws that prevent its adoption it can mostly be found in the sciences of economics.

A good rule of thumb is such, the more newer, fancier and complex the technology being proposition is, the more expensive it tends to be and why most folks can tolerate a project going slightly overbudget, as Purp tried to tell you, everyone and everything has a limit. Whatever the limit, once it’s reached, cancellation is sure to follow.

That’s realism in a nutshell.

---

tl;dr

Plus One for Post Count, points deducted for lack of originality

I don't mean to be to short with, I'm just following the wisdom of your post.

---

My enemy is an equal quality and size industrialized nation with its primary wealth and industry hidden behind impassible mountains, better international relations than I have and access to the sea for unlimited import of resources unlike me. His front lines are small and compact and their supply routes protected by mountains on both sides making interdiction nearly impossible. My front lines are stretched across a giant swathe of occupied territory inhabited by not so friendly locals who on top of it all are tethering at the brink of a civil war among them self (long story) all of which makes policing them a nightmare.

So whilst its a huge victory I am massively overextended. And frankly without some way of crippling the enemies industry he can just build up a massive force to counter attack me and drive me right back. Or worse yet get one of the neighboring powers to already smelling blood to decide and take a bite.

Given your strategic position, your unlikely to cripple your enemies industrial economy and given what you've previously stated, realistically speaking the enemy would probably do both highlighted above given their advantages and probably from what I'm seeing, a more realistic outcome would be your enemy being victorious and you losing the war having to conceded either to peace terms or eventually having them hoist unconditional surrender on you.

Sadly, in the scenario you've as currently created you're Germany and defeat is inevitable, the question is how much blood and treasure you’re going to expend before your nation accepts defeat.

And that's the primary issue. Back in Napoleonic times I would just have marched or sailed an army down river and ended them rightly. But now they have howitzers and mountain guns and MGs oh my!

Again, I hate to point this out, but did your army learn nothing about Suppressive fire? If your army could in theory with luck and skill accomplish that task back in the 1800s, it has just as much chance in this current war. If you wish to make it a primary issue in your storytelling, than it should go in the political arena where it makes more sense.

If your army lacks the necessary howitzers, mountain guns, machine guns etc...that's a failure of government policy to focus on and prioritize arms production. A capability issue sure, but still a political one.

If your leaders lack political will or desire to expand the ground war into EB, again that's a political issue, not an army competence or supply issue as currently outlined in regard to your story.

I don't see it as a path to victory at all. But it is the logical thing my commanders would have done in absence of any other means of reaching the enemy directly. It does not have to work, just sound like it will work to a 40's general. And that id does.

Given your strategic position and options at various times during the war, sadly it doesn't work. Not if you’re going for a realistic outcome.

The long run of my nation is that the puppet state I set up in WB collapses under its own weight and that of EB bombing and I have to retreat back to where I started from or worse lose.

I'm confused, bombing alone no matter how massive on EBs part shouldn't in of itself cause your forces to conduct a massive retreat.

Even the collapse of the puppet state you set-up shouldn't automatically equate to a loss.

This part of the story needs more refinement?

It kills a lot of people, damages their war industry and generally makes my people feel like we are doing something whilst also making their leaders feel like they have to do something and quickly lest they be replaced.
And to 40's air force generals that don't have hindsight it looks like a good enough plan.

The death of lots people is guaranteed though crippling your enemy’s war industry is not, the same applies to your nation though to a lesser extent since your ability to import vital raw materials by everything you’ve indicated is limited to some extent.

While, I’ve previously stated this point, maybe raw numbers was the better way to convey from the beginning.

“The USAAF Eighth Air Force had lost 26,000 men, representing a loss rate of 12.4 percent of the 210,000 US airmen who flew missions from England between 1942 and 1945. This was one-eleventh of all Americans killed in the Second World War and the highest casualty rate of any of the US armed forces in the Second World War. Another 18,000 were wounded and some 20,000 were shot down over enemy territory and become POWs raising total aircrew losses in the Eighth to some 53,000. A total of 6,537 US bombers were lost in combat in the ETO with the Fifteenth and Ninth US Air Forces also suffering heavy losses.”

“RAF Bomber Command lost a total of 55,564 men killed in the Second World War, representing a loss rate of 51 percent of the 110,000 Bomber Command aircrew. This was the highest casualty rate of any of the British Empire armed forces in the Second World War. A total of 8,953 RAF bombers were lost on operations over Europe.”

By comparison: “Of the 30,000 German fighter pilots trained between 1939 and 1945, of these 18,000 were killed in action or in training, 750 become POWs, and approximately 2,000 were badly wounded and removed from duty.”

Source: The Bomber War: The Allied Air Offensive against Nazi Germany; Pg 379-380.

Furthermore, the allied bombing campaign against Germany really only reached its peak effectiveness towards the last year of the war, especially when they started prioritizing the bombing of transportation targets and oil targets.

Given what you’ve previously stated and looking at the strategic geopolitical positions, EB would it appears to me to be able to better sustain similar losses stated above than your nation, given this is clearly a war of attrition on both sides.

For further inquiry, what were the various starting populations of the three nations {Purp, WB, EB} in discussion pre-war?

It's not so much of a choice as it is the fact I fluked into managing to push my enemy back to a natural strong point and now have to do something.

1. Send out peace feelers, depending on how you want the story to evolve, in exchange for you conceding back WB, you are granted greater influence within the nation.
   
2. Rest and Reorganize your forces in preparation for launching your own mountain assault.
   
3. Shore up your defenses, give the enemy the initiative why you rethink your options and prepare to await the enemy's eventually expected counterattack.
   
4. Some combination of the above...

[Manokan Republic]

Some rudimentary statblocks for all the MA12 variants drawn up so far - if anybody catches any glaring errors, do let me know.

(Image)
Type: Armoured Personnel Carrier
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2017 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment
Designed: 2011 - 2016
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2017 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 16.4t (base combat weight), 17.8t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.9m (hull)
Width: 2.7m
Height: 2.2m (top of hull), 2.9m (RWS)
Crew: 2 (commander, driver) + 9 dismounts

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 15x105mm CTA MG/H14 heavy machine-gun (RWS mounted, 1800 rounds, Ball/Tracer, APHEI/Tracer or APDS/Tracer mix)
Secondary armament: PWRS can accommodate ATGM tube

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.320EL 9L VG-turbo 4-stroke L6 multifuel diesel, 390hp (590hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 21.9hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1020/PE Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 70kph (off-road)

(Image)
Type: Fire Support Vehicle
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2018 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment/Imperial Arsenal of Sailiei
Designed: 2011 - 2017
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2018 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 17.4t (base combat weight), 19.5t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.8m (hull), 8.4m (gun forward)
Width: 2.8m
Height: 1.8m (top of hull), 2.6m (turret roof)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 105mm SC6.18/mod L/50 solid propellant smoothbore cannon, dual recoil mount (30 rounds, 15 ready, APFSDS/HEGP-M mix)
Secondary armament: 7.7x54mm MG3R1 machine-gun (co-axial, 1000 rounds, 7.7x54mm Ball/Tracer mix)

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.360EL 11L VG-turbo 4-stroke V6 multifuel diesel, 480hp (750hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 24.6hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1050/P Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 75kph (off-road)

(Image)
Type: Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle
Place of origin: Second Empire of Anemos Major

Service History
In service: 2017 -
Used by: Crown Army of Anemos Major

Production History
Designer: Fierei Oblastinei IECpl/OTD Imperial Army - Fierei Detachment
Designed: 2011 - 2016
Manufacturer: Various
Produced: 2017 -

Specifications

DIMENSIONS
Weight: 16.6t (base combat weight), 18.7t (Level 1 Applique)
Length: 5.8m (hull), 7.1m (gun forward)
Width: 2.8m
Height: 1.8m (top of hull), 2.6m (commander's hatch)
Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

PROTECTION/ARMAMENT
Protection: Modular composite protection, Level 1 applique with frontal protection up to 20mm AP
Main armament: 45x290mm CTA M.38C L/66 automatic cannon (180 rounds, 40x290mm CTA APFSDS-T/GPSHE-T mix)
Secondary armament:
- 7.7x54mm MG3R1 machine-gun (co-axial, 1000 rounds, 7.7x54mm Ball/Tracer mix)
- 15x105mm CTA MG/H14 heavy machine-gun (RWS mounted, 300 rounds, Ball/Tracer, APHEI/Tracer or APDS/Tracer mix)
- Arteyr-M BLOS ATGM (4 tubes, can be mounted on either side of turret, replaceable with other compatible munitions)

MOBILITY
Engine: MA.360EL 11L VG-turbo 4-stroke V6 multifuel diesel, 480hp (750hp augmented with electrical power injection)
Power/weight: 25.7hp/t
Transmission: FMA THEL M.1050/P Hybrid Electro-Mechanical, in-hub drive units
Suspension: Hydropneumatic

PERFORMANCE
Ground clearance: Varies
Operational range: 850km combat range, internal tank and batteries
Speed: 100kph (on-road), 75kph (off-road)

I think your statistics for them look great

They're a little light weight but as a sort of LAV-III type vehicle that makes sense, and this is just something I noticed as compared to being a problem. Plus it's always better to design something lighter weight than already bloated by tons of extra stuff added to it xD Many vehicles of this type are that weight, although more modern vehicles seem to have gotten heavier, for example the IVECO amphibious vehicle, Terrex, or Pandur, but then again the Stryker was based on the same exact chassis as the LAV-III, so in reality I don't think it's a problem.

[Manokan Republic]

This isn't just about realistic, but figuring out what's better. You are shifting the goal posts now, from "When looking at the internet for fun stuff to use look at things that were a success. Not at things that were abandoned. Because odds are people in the know already have and that is why they are abandoned." to promoting "realism".

Yes, realism revolves around logistics constraints, as what is ideal and what is actually used will be two different things, given that almost every country has it's own armored vehicles, tanks, guns, and virtually everything else with some sort of slight changes at least for their own use. But that's not the same as saying new technology must have been abandoned because it wasn't good enough, because realism in storycrafting is an entirely different issue.

Effectively you are now blurring things that don't need to be blurred. Anyways, my key point here is that if something isn't used, right now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good solution, or couldn't be in the future. It's an arbitrary thing to assume that it *must* have a problem with it. There is no obvious problem with many of the guns used by other countries, be it the FAMAS or HK416, it just isn't our preference for right now, and it takes a while to replace an entire inventory with new weapons. There's no obvious problem with the leopard or Challenger tank or any of the others, it's just we prefer the M1 Abrams. Something not being chosen often times has less to do with effectiveness and more to do with logistics. Often times something being new and different is why it hasn't been chosen yet.

At some point, you just have to choose something, and once you've chosen it, you tend to stick with it, often times for decades. Was the .30-06 really so much better than the 7.62m x 54mmR, the 8mm mauser, the 7.5mm etc. I don't know, maybe, but in the end it was good enough for military purposes so they used it. The military rarely changes things just to change things, and even if something better is found, it can take decades for it to be adopted. We still use a 100 year old .50 caliber machine gun and 1911 pistol design. For better or worse, the military tends to choose something and then stick to it, often times for over 100 years. That's basically how it works. Often times it's not better than what our allies or enemies use at all, or not enough to really matter. So, why not use a new weapon? Well, often times it's literally just because it's new or different, rather than it possessing any kind of flaw.

For the sake of simplicity, as far as I can tell as it specifically relates to that which is quoted above, you’ve both entered an area wherein attempting to confer a topic of exceeding complexity distilled down to its basic elements you have in fact managed to do the reserve by making the subject even more convoluted. In that regard to the statements above, you’re both right and both wrong simultaneous.

To recreate a plausible accurate alt history, you first need a firm preferably beyond basic understanding of the web of intrinsic entanglements that preceded that event you wish to alter. Sadly, this task can’t be accomplished simply by figuring out with 20/20 hindsight what one could do better, for better is to put it bluntly too subjective and one must therefore be more objective to fully address the complexities that are self-contained within every single event.

Limitations of all kinds and of all natures, logistics constraints, even at times accepting that cognitive dissonance plays a role for even what’s ideal can be what’s actually used, that things at times are blurred for a reason and only by being objective can one fully unblur those things one wishes to fully understand in all its complexities.

In closing, why dozens, hundreds of books & papers have been written on the subject both of you had only just begun to scratch the surface of, I’ll do my best to distill an answer to the question I assume you were trying to get answered Manokan.

Why a weapon system doesn’t get adopted {developed} by a particular nation at a particular time when the technology to develop it appears to be readily apparent. The main reason usually is local and national politics, a change in government, a change in priorities, etc... suffice to say whether connected to Private industries or state-run ones, as far as defense is concern, governments and their leaders ultimately set what gets developed. New while great also tends to be expensive where technology is concerned and also interconnected wherein one new technology developed requires needing a separate technology, maybe one never even thought of before being invented/developed, before the original technology developed can be even made cost effective for mass production. For governments operate on economics and the more democratic ones more so, if new technology does indeed have any flaws that prevent its adoption it can mostly be found in the sciences of economics.

A good rule of thumb is such, the more newer, fancier and complex the technology being proposition is, the more expensive it tends to be and why most folks can tolerate a project going slightly overbudget, as Purp tried to tell you, everyone and everything has a limit. Whatever the limit, once it’s reached, cancellation is sure to follow.

That’s realism in a nutshell.

The conversation was not originally about realism, but about why military's adopt certain types of equipment. My response was to the idea that military's don't choose certain types of equipment for the reason that said equipment is somehow worse, and my point is that are many more reasons that are more likely why something better might not get adopted, like basic logistics problems.

The realism argument purpelia changed to is just a matter of shifting the goalposts, with purpelia changing the topic of conversation entirely and trying to argue against that, which is a classic strawman argument. Obviously countries did not pick the best option in the wars, so for realism's sake, you will never have what is theoretically best. But my point is the reason why is basic logistics, as opposed to the equipment being inferior. When people say "there must have been something wrong with that idea which is why it was never chosen", that isn't really the case. Often times perfectly serviceable weapons aren't chosen because they aren't from the country of origin, or no-one thought of it yet. An assault rifle for example is not fundamentally a difficult weapon to create, be of no real technological complexity over many rifles in WWII, but they weren't widespread at the time merely due to a lack of optimization. The ak-47 was already in development but wasn't finalized until 1947, and many other assault rifles were born at the tail end of WWII, so the technology was there. Or for example, why were so few weapons in WWII bullpup despite bullpups being shorter and thus easier to maneuver in close quarters combat, where a lot of fighting took place? Removing the stock and pushing the grip forward is a really easy thing to do, and the EM-2 for example was made in 1948, right after WWII, so it's not as if the technology wasn't there. It was just, nobody put all the features together in to one gun. My main point is that why a weapon or equipment isn't chosen has less to do with it's effectiveness and more to do with other factors irrelevant of how good or bad it may have been. The main reason why most country's didn't use the M1 garand or sherman tank or what have you even though it would have been theoretically better, is that they simply didn't have it. The reason we might not be using some new form of technology, such as a 40 ton tank, or a bullpup assault rifle, or a more reliable action or what have you, isn't because it would be bad for some reason, but for basic logistics reasons.

One of the key issues is that we have a winner take all bidding contract system where independent commercial inventors provide their flawed projects, and we accept or reject them in their entirety, instead of trying to blend the best ideas together. Sure, an HK416 might be more reliable than a FAMAS in France for example, but what about a bullpup HK416 combining two elements of the guns together, wouldn't that be better? The reality the military often times just picks and chooses the best performing thing as opposed to designing it themselves. The military designs it's own tanks and planes, but doesn't always design it's own vehicles and infantry equipment, and this can lead to problems. It would be difficult for me to one up the military in terms of plane design, but small arms or light vehicles seem more plausible, also considering their low cost by comparison.

The second point is that purpelia shifted the goalposts. I'm well aware that cost and logistics is a factor in realism, but my original point was not about realism but technical superiority.

[Kassaran]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

[Purpelia]

The conversation was not originally about realism, but about why military's adopt certain types of equipment. My response was to the idea that military's don't choose certain types of equipment for the reason that said equipment is somehow worse, and my point is that are many more reasons that are more likely why something better might not get adopted, like basic logistics problems.

The realism argument purpelia changed to is just a matter of shifting the goalposts, with purpelia changing the topic of conversation entirely and trying to argue against that, which is a classic strawman argument. Obviously countries did not pick the best option in the wars, so for realism's sake, you will never have what is theoretically best. But my point is the reason why is basic logistics, as opposed to the equipment being inferior. When people say "there must have been something wrong with that idea which is why it was never chosen", that isn't really the case. Often times perfectly serviceable weapons aren't chosen because they aren't from the country of origin, or no-one thought of it yet. An assault rifle for example is not fundamentally a difficult weapon to create, be of no real technological complexity over many rifles in WWII, but they weren't widespread at the time merely due to a lack of optimization. The ak-47 was already in development but wasn't finalized until 1947, and many other assault rifles were born at the tail end of WWII, so the technology was there. Or for example, why were so few weapons in WWII bullpup despite bullpups being shorter and thus easier to maneuver in close quarters combat, where a lot of fighting took place? Removing the stock and pushing the grip forward is a really easy thing to do, and the EM-2 for example was made in 1948, right after WWII, so it's not as if the technology wasn't there. It was just, nobody put all the features together in to one gun. My main point is that why a weapon or equipment isn't chosen has less to do with it's effectiveness and more to do with other factors irrelevant of how good or bad it may have been. The main reason why most country's didn't use the M1 garand or sherman tank or what have you even though it would have been theoretically better, is that they simply didn't have it. The reason we might not be using some new form of technology, such as a 40 ton tank, or a bullpup assault rifle, or a more reliable action or what have you, isn't because it would be bad for some reason, but for basic logistics reasons.

One of the key issues is that we have a winner take all bidding contract system where independent commercial inventors provide their flawed projects, and we accept or reject them in their entirety, instead of trying to blend the best ideas together. Sure, an HK416 might be more reliable than a FAMAS in France for example, but what about a bullpup HK416 combining two elements of the guns together, wouldn't that be better? The reality the military often times just picks and chooses the best performing thing as opposed to designing it themselves. The military designs it's own tanks and planes, but doesn't always design it's own vehicles and infantry equipment, and this can lead to problems. It would be difficult for me to one up the military in terms of plane design, but small arms or light vehicles seem more plausible, also considering their low cost by comparison.

The second point is that purpelia shifted the goalposts. I'm well aware that cost and logistics is a factor in realism, but my original point was not about realism but technical superiority.

What this is all about is simply that we have very different definitions of "something wrong" and what it means in this context.

As far as I am concerned any number of things including but not limited to being more expensive, inconvenient to change over to, unproven and thus risky to adopt, too odd compared to what you are used to, other reasons of costs and logistics as well as just being against the mindset of the age all most definitively count as something wrong. Literally any factor you can point to that stopped a thing from being adopted that is not related to random chance (such as political purges or the designer dying or his factory burning down the night before the contest begins) are proof of that concept being inherently flawed at that point in time.

[Manokan Republic]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

Well, early WWI tanks were not very sophisticated or well designed. If you wanted something that stood out at the time, something like a more reliable engine, tougher tracks, stronger metal (with metal used in tanks varying in quality and typically being very soft), sloped armor and various other things could be used. A hardened outer steel armor on top of softer armor below would be interesting, as well as heavier frontal armor or slopes, spaced armor and the like. Steel designed specifically as armor with an understanding of metallurgy behind it.

I'm not sure what you are going for, exactly. Do you already have something in mind?

[Crookfur]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

Really what form your tank takes is going to depend heavily on your combat experiences in the era and who you are getting help/inspiration from.

If you didn't end up bogged down in a muddy hell and fought more of your conflict in harder/dryer areas then you likely used armoured cars and your tank development would be more focused on lighter/faster designs capable of acting more like traditional cavalry. But if you did fight a western front without armour then you are naturally going to look at the best stuff that came up out of that so the medium mark C and the late model heavies would be a big influence although you would likely end up building something closer to the medium unless you have all the moneys and all the requirement to be immediately ready with heavy armour.

or you could do what most people did in RL, buy/build a few cheapy experimental jobs and play around with various ideas until you develop a more solid grounding to start from in the 1930s.

[Gallia-]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

Put a pair of Vickers on a boiler plate turret on Little Willie and a 37mm for boom-boom.

Make a casemate version with a French 75 or 6-pounder or something inside.

Ultimate weapons.

This might unironically be where Galla's medium tanks go since the light tank is the Ford 5-ton and the heavy tank is the St. Chamond. There needs to be a Schneider CA1 somewhere in there.

[Kassaran]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

Put a pair of Vickers on a boiler plate turret on Little Willie and a 37mm for boom-boom.

Make a casemate version with a French 75 or 6-pounder or something inside.

Ultimate weapons.

This might unironically be where Galla's medium tanks go since the light tank is the Ford 5-ton and the heavy tank is the St. Chamond. There needs to be a Schneider CA1 somewhere in there.

This is actually where I was planning on starting out. I was actually planning to make larger tanks be troop carriers of a sort, armed only with MG's, while bigger guns get placed in rotating casemates. I was likely going to built SPGs before actual tanks, due to the fact that I plan on causing mass demilitarization in Asia once the war is over. From the current outlook, it appears I'm going to get a surrender from my primary adversary in Asia (a smaller Central Asian state which makes up most of Canton China), while Japan will be significantly more bloody and will require Armored Cars more than tanks for getting through more dangerous areas in the mountains to root out insurrection.

[Gallia-]

Putting infantry in tanks isn't important when the tanks can only move at walking speed.

Just don't use a rhomboid.

[Kassaran]

Putting infantry in tanks isn't important when the tanks can only move at walking speed.

Just don't use a rhomboid.

It was the last thing I wanted to do. I wasn't initially planning on making actual tanks per se, but more over implementing Armored Transports, which would develop into the Armored Gun Trasnports, which would eventually become right proper tanks. Fortunately, I have access to a derivation of high-grade metals which work on the same scale of Titanium, most have been using them actively, but I've been dedicating the not!Titanium for creating drill heads and whatnot.

[Crookfur]

Putting infantry in tanks isn't important when the tanks can only move at walking speed.

Just don't use a rhomboid.

It was the last thing I wanted to do. I wasn't initially planning on making actual tanks per se, but more over implementing Armored Transports, which would develop into the Armored Gun Trasnports, which would eventually become right proper tanks. Fortunately, I have access to a derivation of high-grade metals which work on the same scale of Titanium, most have been using them actively, but I've been dedicating the not!Titanium for creating drill heads and whatnot.

That's pretty much where Crookfur armour forces come from.
Basically fighting a boer war style conflict so use armoured traction engines to tow troop cars and guns. Evolve formations of these that also tow panzerlaffetes so they can set up armoured wagon forts over night on long journeys.

War escalates so traction engines end up being used in assaults, traction engines get thier own guns and armoured cars and trucks appear. As the war moves into softer soil start using traction engines with tracks. Eventually evolve stuff into what is essentially a turreted male medium mark c.

[Danternoust]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_tower
Danternoust never stopped using siege towers, but eventually changed from tall wooden towers powered by footmen, to squat steel boxes powered by primitive combustion engines, from archers to muskets to maxim.

[Kazarogkai]

So I was wondering if I could get some help on determining my first WWI-era tank design? It wouldn't likely find any usage during the actual war happening during 1902-(still to be determined as the RP is still ongoing), but would be built afterwards.

Really what form your tank takes is going to depend heavily on your combat experiences in the era and who you are getting help/inspiration from.

If you didn't end up bogged down in a muddy hell and fought more of your conflict in harder/dryer areas then you likely used armoured cars and your tank development would be more focused on lighter/faster designs capable of acting more like traditional cavalry. But if you did fight a western front without armour then you are naturally going to look at the best stuff that came up out of that so the medium mark C and the late model heavies would be a big influence although you would likely end up building something closer to the medium unless you have all the moneys and all the requirement to be immediately ready with heavy armour.

or you could do what most people did in RL, buy/build a few cheapy experimental jobs and play around with various ideas until you develop a more solid grounding to start from in the 1930s.

That is more or less the narrative I went with when thinking about tank development in my lands. Of course they fought in WW1 albeit the entirety of said fighting for them occurred in Africa and to a far lesser extent in the middleast helping the ottomans shore up their territories, notably crushing the Arab revolt in mecca, allied to Germany and friends. In the war it would take until about 1920 before the collapse of Germany and the main central powers before the allies, really were able to focus on us hence tanks weren't something they had to deal with until very late in the war. I have serious doubts on the effectiveness of said weapons considering the terrain they would have been fighting in with the Kaza having achieved a largely stable stalemates along 3 main fronts: The Niger delta region of eastern British Nigeria, the Northern and Eastern reaches of the cape province of British south Africa, and finally but not least the southern Egyptian Nile region. Of these the only area were I can see ww1 esque tanks having a significant impact would be the Cape where the weather wasn't so goddamn hot all the time; the other two the poor boys would have been cooked alive in those metal coffins and in the case of the delta to add further complications said tanks probably would have sunk in the mud.

The ultimate end of the war ultimately from what I wrote down had more to do with what occurred at sea with Kaza naval forces being ultimately crushed and sent on the run rather than major losses on land. In the end faced with a large scale blockade of their archipelago homeland that surely would have crippled their ability to even prosecute the war properly they ultimately lobbied for a stalemate with an agreement to return allied territory and accept the losses of their overseas empire in southern Arabia, southern India, and south east Asia in exchange for the maintaining of all the rest of their territory(their holdings in Africa and their homeland of course). By this point their forces would have been on the run being pushed back into the occupied Belgian Congo in the west, the natal in the south, and south Sudan to the north. They were the last to fall of their alliance and it would take till 1924 before they did fall. Though unlike all the rest who were destroyed they could atleast claim a stalemate, the British and french(the last of their grand alliance) were too freaking exhausted to continue fighting.

Atleast that's how I picture things going.

Nevertheless this meant that their experience overall with tanks would have been rather limited and hence tank production was pushed until about 1930 when they finally decided to go for it. By 1940 I plan on them by that point having some pretty solid tank designs though they would be a bit limited namely by lack of numbers plus their overall doctrine, influenced by their heavy use of German style infiltration tactics and the maintenance of said tactical thought, which was more British(infantry cruiser tank dichotomy) and less German blitzkrieg and all that wonderfulness.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Quick question but what was a cold war era tank with the most frontal armor?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Quick question but what was a cold war era tank with the most frontal armor?

leopard 2 or m1 abrams

[Austrasien]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_tower
Danternoust never stopped using siege towers, but eventually changed from tall wooden towers powered by footmen, to squat steel boxes powered by primitive combustion engines, from archers to muskets to maxim.

rip cost effectiveness

Between the development of firearms and the development of blast furnaces there was no way to make large amount of armour plate at a reasonable cost.

[The Upper Balkans]

If I were an extremely authoritarian government, how many chemical weapons would be normal?

[The Akasha Colony]

If I were an extremely authoritarian government, how many chemical weapons would be normal?

The production and stockpiling of chemical weapons does not scale with the level of authoritarianism in a given nation's government.

[The Upper Balkans]

If I were an extremely authoritarian government, how many chemical weapons would be normal?

The production and stockpiling of chemical weapons does not scale with the level of authoritarianism in a given nation's government.

Ok but how many chemical weapons would be considered a lot?