NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

How effective is it to blow up dams, power plants, the enemy capital, mines, all infrastructure, in modern day, and whats usually the

You still might lose the war.

t. Iraq/Afghanistan

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

So what, I just walk in with my marines and my paratroopers, clean the country up in the next week and then that's it?

It was that easy?

Wonderful, thank you.

No, because the Six-Day War did not involve these things. The Israelis won the war quickly because they kept their strategic objectives modest: Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. They did not "clean up" Egypt, Syria, or Jordan. They seized a limited amount of territory they knew they could hold, proved that they still had the military upper hand, and then immediately called for a ceasefire from a position of strength. The Arab states decided to cut their losses and agreed.

Alright then.

In terms of power level, the current situation is the United States vs WWII France (overconfident, unprepared, outdated doctrine, literally fighting with sticks) with the terrain of Russia (large grassy expanse with small marshes and a large mountain range far away from any sort of urban area) and the climate of Italy. I'm obviously the former country, so how easy would it be for me to win the war with the conditions mentioned in the previous parts of this thread?

[Gallia-]

Literally impossible. Might as well just surrender and prostrate yourself before the Holy Bread.

[Spirit of Hope]

I don't get where you think France in WWII was "overconfident, unprepared, outdated doctrine, literally fighting with sticks." While France had a number of issues, it was less military issues and more political issues that lead to Frances poor performance, France very much didn't want to suffer heavy casualties, which kept them from attacking Germany or wanting to fight in France. Combine this with Germany pulling off a very risky gambit to outflank the main French army on the border and you get the fall of France.

As to how easy for you to win, that is going to depend on a lot of things, that aren't in this thread. What are your military objectives? How apposed to those military objectives is your opponent? What is the correlation of forces, how well trained are the forces, and where are those forces? What are the military plans of both sides? So on and so forth.

[The Manticoran Empire]

No, because the Six-Day War did not involve these things. The Israelis won the war quickly because they kept their strategic objectives modest: Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. They did not "clean up" Egypt, Syria, or Jordan. They seized a limited amount of territory they knew they could hold, proved that they still had the military upper hand, and then immediately called for a ceasefire from a position of strength. The Arab states decided to cut their losses and agreed.

Alright then.

In terms of power level, the current situation is the United States vs WWII France (overconfident, unprepared, outdated doctrine, literally fighting with sticks) with the terrain of Russia (large grassy expanse with small marshes and a large mountain range far away from any sort of urban area) and the climate of Italy. I'm obviously the former country, so how easy would it be for me to win the war with the conditions mentioned in the previous parts of this thread?

As Spirit said, France in World War 2 wasn't overconfident, unprepared, using outdated doctrines, or fighting with sticks. There were a great deal of other issues that France was dealing with. First, the French Government was deeply divided along Left and Right wing lines, with neither party trusting the military. As such, a lot of high ranking military jobs in France were filled by political appointees chosen for their loyalty as opposed to their experience. Second, the Germans had a much larger population than the French did, allowing Germany to deploy a larger army. Third, French Doctrine was actually solid, demonstrated as such by the fact that Germany HAD to go around the Maginot line. The only reasons the Ardennes gambit succeeded were the loss of Belgium's support before the war started and the lack of willingness on the part of the Allies to respond to German actions in the Ardennes.

Now, since this is Russia with a Mediterranean climate, you will lose. Allow me to explain why.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. There is a reason why Russia wasn't conquered by Napoleon or the Nazis and it wasn't because of winter. It was because of supply lines. Every mile your supply train has to travel is a mile in which it must be fed, watered, and in the modern world fueled. That's more supplies that must be brought, meaning more vehicles must be brought, meaning more supplies must be brought, and on and on it goes until you run out of trucks. When you have to bring those supplies hundreds or thousands of kilometers, the supplies required to maintain the supply trucks start to take the place of supplies needed for the men at the front, meaning that eventually you simply cannot advance anymore. Meanwhile, your enemy might still have the will to fight and, therefore, you will be forced back by the resultant counter attack. It isn't enough to simply destroy their air force and attack their infrastructure. If you are invading Russia, you want as much of that infrastructure intact as possible. Otherwise, your offensive is doomed to fail the same as Napoleon in 1812 and the Nazis in the 1940s.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

I don't get where you think France in WWII was "overconfident, unprepared, outdated doctrine, literally fighting with sticks." While France had a number of issues, it was less military issues and more political issues that lead to Frances poor performance, France very much didn't want to suffer heavy casualties, which kept them from attacking Germany or wanting to fight in France. Combine this with Germany pulling off a very risky gambit to outflank the main French army on the border and you get the fall of France.

As to how easy for you to win, that is going to depend on a lot of things, that aren't in this thread. What are your military objectives? How apposed to those military objectives is your opponent? What is the correlation of forces, how well trained are the forces, and where are those forces? What are the military plans of both sides? So on and so forth.

Well, either way, the nation I'm fighting is overconfident, unprepared, using an outdated doctrine and fighting with sticks. We have no info on the other side (namely because the other person isn't really great at military strategy, since I once remember fighting off a world coalition led by them) but our general plans are to attack the country from all sides through marines and paratroopers, using their lack of organisation against them via bringing in masses of troops to overwhelm their lack of force.

Our military objectives are to form a puppet government in the region which supports our interests, but mostly to enter the capital and to force a surrender. I believe the correlation of forces is somewhere around 5:1 in total, albeit our taskforce is outnumbered 2:1, but we have reserves, we have highly trained forces currently deployed, and our forces are focused on the coasts and major cities, whilst they're scattered in military barracks all across the country.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Alright then.

In terms of power level, the current situation is the United States vs WWII France (overconfident, unprepared, outdated doctrine, literally fighting with sticks) with the terrain of Russia (large grassy expanse with small marshes and a large mountain range far away from any sort of urban area) and the climate of Italy. I'm obviously the former country, so how easy would it be for me to win the war with the conditions mentioned in the previous parts of this thread?

As Spirit said, France in World War 2 wasn't overconfident, unprepared, using outdated doctrines, or fighting with sticks. There were a great deal of other issues that France was dealing with. First, the French Government was deeply divided along Left and Right wing lines, with neither party trusting the military. As such, a lot of high ranking military jobs in France were filled by political appointees chosen for their loyalty as opposed to their experience. Second, the Germans had a much larger population than the French did, allowing Germany to deploy a larger army. Third, French Doctrine was actually solid, demonstrated as such by the fact that Germany HAD to go around the Maginot line. The only reasons the Ardennes gambit succeeded were the loss of Belgium's support before the war started and the lack of willingness on the part of the Allies to respond to German actions in the Ardennes.

Now, since this is Russia with a Mediterranean climate, you will lose. Allow me to explain why.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. There is a reason why Russia wasn't conquered by Napoleon or the Nazis and it wasn't because of winter. It was because of supply lines. Every mile your supply train has to travel is a mile in which it must be fed, watered, and in the modern world fueled. That's more supplies that must be brought, meaning more vehicles must be brought, meaning more supplies must be brought, and on and on it goes until you run out of trucks. When you have to bring those supplies hundreds or thousands of kilometers, the supplies required to maintain the supply trucks start to take the place of supplies needed for the men at the front, meaning that eventually you simply cannot advance anymore. Meanwhile, your enemy might still have the will to fight and, therefore, you will be forced back by the resultant counter attack. It isn't enough to simply destroy their air force and attack their infrastructure. If you are invading Russia, you want as much of that infrastructure intact as possible. Otherwise, your offensive is doomed to fail the same as Napoleon in 1812 and the Nazis in the 1940s.

Not specifically Russia. but rather the same terrain. It is much smaller, again, around the size of...well, we don't actually know. This is a rather low-quality RP since nobody had to put in any military information despite it being a war RP. I just meant it has a large plain with mountains, as populations are concentrated around both coasts, with some living inland.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that this is a low-quality war RP where nobody actually wrote any military details down except for me and brains are optional. However, I would like to get this war done as fast as possible so I can focus on the others, as there's a six-way war going on and I don't want to get flanked.

[Spirit of Hope]

So your enemy is "overconfident, unprepared, using an outdated doctrine and fighting with sticks," but you "have no info on the other side."

If you are outnumbered that isn't a good sign for carrying out an invasion of another nation. Since you appear to be invading an island, how are you sustaining your forces logistically? What is their navy, and what is yours? How about air forces? Since you don't seem to be able to give us answers we can't give you the answers you seem to want.

Look, we can't tell you you are going to win this RP, or how to win the RP. Forum role playing is about creating a story, and that is something you have to do in that thread. Even if in reality you could crush your enemy faster than the US did in the Gulf War, doesn't mean it will happen that way in the RP because there is another person who gets to make calls on how things go, and has the ultimate veto power. We certainly aren't going to get involved and say one side or another wins, let alone how fast they win.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

So your enemy is "overconfident, unprepared, using an outdated doctrine and fighting with sticks," but you "have no info on the other side."

If you are outnumbered that isn't a good sign for carrying out an invasion of another nation. Since you appear to be invading an island, how are you sustaining your forces logistically? What is their navy, and what is yours? How about air forces? Since you don't seem to be able to give us answers we can't give you the answers you seem to want.

Look, we can't tell you you are going to win this RP, or how to win the RP. Forum role playing is about creating a story, and that is something you have to do in that thread. Even if in reality you could crush your enemy faster than the US did in the Gulf War, doesn't mean it will happen that way in the RP because there is another person who gets to make calls on how things go, and has the ultimate veto power. We certainly aren't going to get involved and say one side or another wins, let alone how fast they win.

Alright, thanks anyway.

[The Akasha Colony]

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that this is a low-quality war RP where nobody actually wrote any military details down except for me and brains are optional. However, I would like to get this war done as fast as possible so I can focus on the others, as there's a six-way war going on and I don't want to get flanked.

It just sounds like you're asking us how to brow-beat the other player into submission, rather than looking for actual advice on how to conduct a military RP.

[The Manticoran Empire]

As Spirit said, France in World War 2 wasn't overconfident, unprepared, using outdated doctrines, or fighting with sticks. There were a great deal of other issues that France was dealing with. First, the French Government was deeply divided along Left and Right wing lines, with neither party trusting the military. As such, a lot of high ranking military jobs in France were filled by political appointees chosen for their loyalty as opposed to their experience. Second, the Germans had a much larger population than the French did, allowing Germany to deploy a larger army. Third, French Doctrine was actually solid, demonstrated as such by the fact that Germany HAD to go around the Maginot line. The only reasons the Ardennes gambit succeeded were the loss of Belgium's support before the war started and the lack of willingness on the part of the Allies to respond to German actions in the Ardennes.

Now, since this is Russia with a Mediterranean climate, you will lose. Allow me to explain why.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. There is a reason why Russia wasn't conquered by Napoleon or the Nazis and it wasn't because of winter. It was because of supply lines. Every mile your supply train has to travel is a mile in which it must be fed, watered, and in the modern world fueled. That's more supplies that must be brought, meaning more vehicles must be brought, meaning more supplies must be brought, and on and on it goes until you run out of trucks. When you have to bring those supplies hundreds or thousands of kilometers, the supplies required to maintain the supply trucks start to take the place of supplies needed for the men at the front, meaning that eventually you simply cannot advance anymore. Meanwhile, your enemy might still have the will to fight and, therefore, you will be forced back by the resultant counter attack. It isn't enough to simply destroy their air force and attack their infrastructure. If you are invading Russia, you want as much of that infrastructure intact as possible. Otherwise, your offensive is doomed to fail the same as Napoleon in 1812 and the Nazis in the 1940s.

Not specifically Russia. but rather the same terrain. It is much smaller, again, around the size of...well, we don't actually know. This is a rather low-quality RP since nobody had to put in any military information despite it being a war RP. I just meant it has a large plain with mountains, as populations are concentrated around both coasts, with some living inland.

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that this is a low-quality war RP where nobody actually wrote any military details down except for me and brains are optional. However, I would like to get this war done as fast as possible so I can focus on the others, as there's a six-way war going on and I don't want to get flanked.

So, in other words, we can't help you. In order to give you proper advice, we need information on the opposition. If the only data you can give us is about your forces, we can't do much. We need to know what they are up against. If this is a war RP with no requirement for military details, it's not a very good war RP.

[Gallia-]

Our military objectives are to form a puppet government in the region which supports our interests, but mostly to enter the capital and to force a surrender.

Sounds familiar.

You've set your goals to be literally impossible given your analogy. The Taliban fight with sticks, have never even heard of the word "doctrine", and are totally unprepared to fight stealth bombers. They still whooped the ass of the USA. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, not only is hostile to the United States and supportive of its enemies (Iran), but the invasion of Iraq and ouster of the local regional strongman (Saddam) led to a power vacuum that created the impetus for the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the explosion of the Iran-Saudi proxy war, and the creation of ISIS, all due to the USA's meddling in the region. In one fell swoop, twenty years of hedging against Iran basically collapsed and the USA suffered the greatest defeat in the Middle East since 1979.

So not only will you utterly fail to win, you will have everything else that goes against you morally, politically, and militarily aligned against you.

This is also called "shooting yourself in the foot".

Of course that's assuming you have any idea what you're talking about when you gave that analogy. Since I don't know who you are and you post on NS the answer is probably "no", you just assume that big tanks and fleets > the other guys.

[Allanea]

Now, I am actually of the view that a degree of competitiveness in NS is healthy and even good.

But.

Consider:

Physically defeating the enemy soldiers in battle, especially with an advantage as you described, is the easy part.

To establish a long-term solution for the country you need to be engaging in , essentially, diplomacy - either to work out a post-war status quo that the country's population largely accepts (i.e. to ensure there's no guerrilla war lasting decades), or at least a status quo that gains you the support of some of the nation's population, and its key neighbors (to ensure the guerrillas find it a very uphill battle to fight against you).

It might actually be that this is unachievable for you (not because you lack the tanks and jets, but because your nation is for whatever reason unwillnig to pay the price).

So it's possible you may need to consider other objectives.

[United Earthlings]

Does anyone know off hand what the specific manoeuvering capability rating is of the various SAMs and AAMs in service around the world and/or a source they could direct me to that provides that information all in one place?

I've find the information for some types like the ESSM and the IRIS-T, but that's it so far.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Does anyone know off hand what the specific manoeuvering capability rating is of the various SAMs and AAMs in service around the world and/or a source they could direct me to that provides that information all in one place?

I've find the information for some types like the ESSM and the IRIS-T, but that's it so far.

A lot of that information is likely classified and what isn't classified I haven't found.

[New Vihenia]

Not that really hard to find some compilations :

https://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviati ... s/aam.html

SAM's
https://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviati ... s/sam.html

and Russian manufacturer often mention them. If they mentioned the target instead you have to multiply it with constant of 3-5 altough i would suggest 4-5 as 3 is rather very optimistic indicating a perfect missile with perfect time constant (The time delay between input from autopilot to the missile fin). If you see say an AAM/SAM with 30G maneuverability it would be capable of engaging target maneuvering at 30/4 = 7G or 30/5=6 G. Some might be rated at 45-60G or more like in case of Dogfight AAM (e.g R-73 and AIM-9X) So they can engage target maneuvering up to 12G.

[Radictistan]

This document has some useful performance data you don't see anywhere else, but nothing on g-limits.

[Spearos]

Help me please. I'm trying to build ranks for my armed forces. Here they are:
army, navy, airforce, cybersecurity

[Manokan Republic]

Our military objectives are to form a puppet government in the region which supports our interests, but mostly to enter the capital and to force a surrender.

Sounds familiar.

You've set your goals to be literally impossible given your analogy. The Taliban fight with sticks, have never even heard of the word "doctrine", and are totally unprepared to fight stealth bombers. They still whooped the ass of the USA. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, not only is hostile to the United States and supportive of its enemies (Iran), but the invasion of Iraq and ouster of the local regional strongman (Saddam) led to a power vacuum that created the impetus for the ongoing Syrian Civil War, the explosion of the Iran-Saudi proxy war, and the creation of ISIS, all due to the USA's meddling in the region. In one fell swoop, twenty years of hedging against Iran basically collapsed and the USA suffered the greatest defeat in the Middle East since 1979.

So not only will you utterly fail to win, you will have everything else that goes against you morally, politically, and militarily aligned against you.

This is also called "shooting yourself in the foot".

Of course that's assuming you have any idea what you're talking about when you gave that analogy. Since I don't know who you are and you post on NS the answer is probably "no", you just assume that big tanks and fleets > the other guys.

This is so dumb it's difficult to begin to explain where all the problems lie, but honestly I'm not surprised by nation state's anymore. This confirms a lot of my suspicions about people in this forum. The Taliban had control over 90% of the territory of the country, through the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and were primary created and funded by Pakistan, being made by the ISI in 1994. Like with the Kargil war in India, Pakistan created a fake Mujahideen group disguised as an organic resistant movement that was largely made up of their own military forces. "Pakistani Lieutenant General Shahid Aziz, and then head of ISI analysis wing, has confirmed there were no mujahideen but only regular Pakistan Army soldiers who took part in the Kargil War.[48] "There were no Mujahideen, only taped wireless messages, which fooled no one. Our soldiers were made to occupy barren ridges, with hand held weapons and ammunition", Lt Gen Aziz wrote in his article in The Nation daily in January 2013". The Taliban had the support of the Pakistani military, including their air force and commando forces, including having 1500 commandos support them at one point in a particular battle. "On 1 August 1997, the Taliban launched an attack on Sheberghan, the main military base of Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum has said the reason the attack was successful was due to 1500 Pakistani commandos taking part and that the Pakistani air force also gave support". Osama Bin Laden was found .8 miles away from the premier Pakistani Military training academy, and is largely believe to have been sheltered by the ISI.

The Taliban had a total force of nearly 300,000 men and control over 90% of the territory of Afghanistan, with international support. Now? Their numbers are less than 10,000. They officially control no territory, and are present in a few percents of the region. Where they are present, they don't have much sway, as they simply lack the numbers or ability to be openly seen without being annihilated. They are little more than a tattered guerrilla movement, hiding out in the deserts and mountains, having been all but completely annihilated, despite still being fed more soldiers every year by Pakistan. The organization is, well, mostly useless. To say they "kicked our asses" is not only wrong, it's so patently absurd it's almost impossible to describe how dumb it really is. You simply have to know little about the conflict at all to believe something so ridiculous.


Iraq is separate from the Afghanistan war, obviously. The Taliban had almost no presence there. Iraq has by virtually metrics improved. he problems in Iraq did not begin at the start of a U.S. or global invasion, but rather had been occurring long before that. The U.S. invaded Iraq on March 20th, 2003, long after most of the horrific problems of Iraq had occurred. In 2002, Saddam had released virtually all the prisoners of the country, letting rapists, murderers, violent criminals and even terrorists roam the streets of his country. [1][2] The country's electricity had dropped from a 9300 megawatt capacity in 1990 to 3300 by early 2003 before the U.S. invasion, nearly a third, and rose to a 13,000 megawatt capacity as of 2016, after the U.S. intervention. [3][4] Saddam selectively cut off power to groups he was attempting to murder, such as the Kurds, and left them without food, water and electricity in a barren desert that was almost impossible to survive in without. Access to clean water had been reduced dramatically, and in 2004 only approximately 45% of rural areas had access to clean water and 96% in urban areas, compared to 77% in rural areas and 98% in urban areas in 2012, with a dramatic improvement in the quality of the water as well, particularly in regards to salt content, as well. [5][6] The country's GDP dropped abysmally from around 180 billion dollars a year in 1990 to almost zero by 2001, a full two years before the U.S. lead global invasion, and has since risen to between 180 and 230 billion per year as of 2010 and 2018, a nearly 1000% increase from the preceding years. [7][8]

ISIS formed in Syria in 2014, 3 years after the civil war in Syria started. It's an amalgamation of a number different terrorist organizations that was swiftly defeated in 2017, and that has had little impact on the war. They are responsible for less than 2% of the casualties. It's not a result of Iraq destabilizing, as it didn't destabilize, nor is it a result of the Iraq war at all, but rather Assad's brutal repression of his own people, and people being desperate enough to join a terrorist organization to fight him. The actual history of the world contradicts the quite frequently misleading headlines you often see. The idea we lost, or had our asses kicked, or that Iraq is somehow in terrible shape is absurd. The idea they are now some sort of major ally to Iran is absurd. Iraq didn't destabilize, and it destabilizing wouldn't lead to war in another country entirely. You've taken ridiculous exaggerations and twisted them to such a degree it's just not even factually true anymore. And this is sort of a fundamental problem. By what objective measure would you say we lost to the Taliban? Typically when you occupy a country for several decades and control the territory, you are considered the winner. The fact we are still there is because we won, else they would have kicked us out already.

[Manokan Republic]

As Spirit said, France in World War 2 wasn't overconfident, unprepared, using outdated doctrines, or fighting with sticks. There were a great deal of other issues that France was dealing with. First, the French Government was deeply divided along Left and Right wing lines, with neither party trusting the military. As such, a lot of high ranking military jobs in France were filled by political appointees chosen for their loyalty as opposed to their experience. Second, the Germans had a much larger population than the French did, allowing Germany to deploy a larger army. Third, French Doctrine was actually solid, demonstrated as such by the fact that Germany HAD to go around the Maginot line. The only reasons the Ardennes gambit succeeded were the loss of Belgium's support before the war started and the lack of willingness on the part of the Allies to respond to German actions in the Ardennes.

Now, since this is Russia with a Mediterranean climate, you will lose. Allow me to explain why.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. There is a reason why Russia wasn't conquered by Napoleon or the Nazis and it wasn't because of winter. It was because of supply lines. Every mile your supply train has to travel is a mile in which it must be fed, watered, and in the modern world fueled. That's more supplies that must be brought, meaning more vehicles must be brought, meaning more supplies must be brought, and on and on it goes until you run out of trucks. When you have to bring those supplies hundreds or thousands of kilometers, the supplies required to maintain the supply trucks start to take the place of supplies needed for the men at the front, meaning that eventually you simply cannot advance anymore. Meanwhile, your enemy might still have the will to fight and, therefore, you will be forced back by the resultant counter attack. It isn't enough to simply destroy their air force and attack their infrastructure. If you are invading Russia, you want as much of that infrastructure intact as possible. Otherwise, your offensive is doomed to fail the same as Napoleon in 1812 and the Nazis in the 1940s.

Not specifically Russia. but rather the same terrain. It is much smaller, again, around the size of...well, we don't actually know. This is a rather low-quality RP since nobody had to put in any military information despite it being a war RP. I just meant it has a large plain with mountains, as populations are concentrated around both coasts, with some living inland.

A better analogy might be the U.S. vs. Iraq in the Persian gulf war. The use of swift-acting IFV's and Tanks to destroy the bulk of their armored vehicles The Bradley for example destroyed more tanks than enemy tanks, despite being present in about as many numbers as the Abrams, and so a swift ground invasion allowed us to quickly take our their ground military, while directed strategic strikes on their communication systems and air field crippled their air force before most could get off the ground. The inferior equipment not only couldn't pierce the front armor of our tanks, but our tanks moved faster, had a longer range, an were more accurate, allowing us to more quickly engage them before they could even return fire, leading to most of our tanks suffering close to no losses in the conflict, especially from enemy fire. We not only could take the hits, but we almost never did. As the equipment is similiar to Russia, and French equipment is marginally better or around the same in quality, effectively you can employ the same basic strategy to overwhelm them quickly.

If you look at the KD ratio of us in the persian gulf war, it was 292 casualties vs. 25,000 to 50,000 for Iraq, and 31 tanks and 28 Bradley's vs. 3300 tanks and 2100 APC's, around 1 to 100 depending on the exact figures you go by. Your main objective is speed, to use a powerful force to quickly take out enemy forces, especially in static positions such as bases, and overwhelm the cities and political centers as quickly as possible. Then roll out your regular infantry as an occupying force to contain the area and sit there basically, while you try to transition them over to your side. Just don't pull out for political reasons and you should be fine. The disadvantage of a weak, static government forces is that it's easily targeted and easy to plan around. Speed and maneuverability matter a lot in modern warfare, with "shoot and scoot" tactics being instrumental to success. You can look at Chadian forces, with smaller numbers and inferior equipment defeating Libyan forces by running circles around them for example, and targeting military bases, largely defeating the superior armored vehicles of the Chadians with anti-tank missiles strapped to Toyota trucks. Guerrilla forces take a longer time to target, since you either annihilate the whole civilian population, or sit around waiting for random attacks on your people, with leads to long drawn out conflicts. If the enemy is hiding from you, they are much harder to kill. Modern military equipment leads to massive firepower levels, but resultingly poor defenses and higher expenses maintaining the forces, even if otherwise well armored (being defeated by a simple anti-tank missile, mitigating the point of a heavily armored vehicle). Good intelligence, like in the Chadian war, is essential to success, and with the enemy in hiding, this can be be hard to come by. Thus your bottleneck will be rooting out a well hidden force hiding among the civilian populace. But overtaking a country itself is actually quite easy. Defeating guerrillas is quite easy, but only if you can find them, and this becomes the struggle.

[Hrstrovokia]

Can someone point me in the right direction for a decent site or forum concerning military optics [sights, scopes etc]. Especially if it's Soviet/Russian.

RussianOptics would be a decent reservoir of information were it not for the terrible layout of the site. Gunrf.u is decent. After that I'm acquiring most of my information from sites selling optics [RusOptics, NPZOptics, AKStuff, BearOptics] and that's ok but not great for building knowledge at my current base.

[New Vihenia]

Can someone point me in the right direction for a decent site or forum concerning military optics [sights, scopes etc]. Especially if it's Soviet/Russian.

RussianOptics would be a decent reservoir of information were it not for the terrible layout of the site. Gunrf.u is decent. After that I'm acquiring most of my information from sites selling optics [RusOptics, NPZOptics, AKStuff, BearOptics] and that's ok but not great for building knowledge at my current base.

Unfortunately a deeper information is in a book. The good one would be "The XXI Century Encyclopedia : Russian Arms and Technology- Optoelectronics and Laser System"

[Austrasien]

Can someone point me in the right direction for a decent site or forum concerning military optics [sights, scopes etc]. Especially if it's Soviet/Russian.

RussianOptics would be a decent reservoir of information were it not for the terrible layout of the site. Gunrf.u is decent. After that I'm acquiring most of my information from sites selling optics [RusOptics, NPZOptics, AKStuff, BearOptics] and that's ok but not great for building knowledge at my current base.

Find a textbook about... optics.

Military optics are extremely elementary and once you know the basics you will understand them all.

[Hrstrovokia]

Unfortunately a deeper information is in a book. The good one would be "The XXI Century Encyclopedia : Russian Arms and Technology- Optoelectronics and Laser System"

Thank you!

EDIT: oh jesus the cost, it's like buying college books again :/