NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Triplebaconation]

interesting

[Theodosiya]

Pro and cons of having composite MLRS-SPH battalion in brigades?

[Spirit of Hope]

Pro and cons of having composite MLRS-SPH battalion in brigades?

A battalion of SPH would be a good addition, the MLRS is going to be more than the Brigade needs or can use to its maximum potential.

[Gallia-]

Pro and cons of having composite MLRS-SPH battalion in brigades?

russia does it

been doing it for almost 80 years now

MRLs being basically "instant firepower point here" is nice they have a high "shock action [potential]" you could say

it works fine in a 1:2 or 1:1 ratio rly

BTGs usually pack 1 or 2 howitzer batteries alongside 1 or 2 BM-21 (and now, I guess, BM-30) batteries in their artillery battalion

[Danternoust]

Trying to find source for something I read a while ago. In the beginning of WWI, more artillery shells were expended then in the following three or four years.

[New Vihenia]

Hey guys, So yeah gotta ask.

I was thinking that there could be a correlation between The longest ranging a weapon or weapons platform a country has with its political or diplomatic influence. Well let's say US..There is carrier groups and ICBM's meaning that US have "global" diplomacy power based on the range of those. Same goes for Soviet Union or in current day Russia.

Based on that there could be perhaps a metrics to figure or approximate diplomatic or political influence of a country based on above. There is of course some additional concerns beyond range like say endurance or maybe Payload (the amount of weapons/firepower that can be unleashed). Perhaps "Payload-range" would be the better metrics than range alone.

One example of usage is Chinese vs Indian carrier fleet. The following is from my simple attempt in figuring out throw weight of LCS-Indian Ocean country carriers. They are for 1000 Km inland target range.



From the table above it can be seen that Chinese carrier fleet has superior throw weight and can strike more targets. Thus China is more likely to have better leverage in terms of "diplomatic or influence power" on its bid, despite Indian Carrier may have same range. The conclusion is both Nations have "very long range" presence but China is stronger as it can deliver more punch to back their words.


So long story short "Diplomatic/influence = How far, how long and how hard you can hit"

What do you guys think on my concept above ?

[Gallia-]

Russia can't project power to its neighbors, though.

If you nix ICBMs (they aren't really weapons, no one has ever used one) I guess it might make sense, but then it's just Mahan with planes.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Hey guys, So yeah gotta ask.

I was thinking that there could be a correlation between The longest ranging a weapon or weapons platform a country has with its political or diplomatic influence. Well let's say US..There is carrier groups and ICBM's meaning that US have "global" diplomacy power based on the range of those. Same goes for Soviet Union or in current day Russia.

Based on that there could be perhaps a metrics to figure or approximate diplomatic or political influence of a country based on above. There is of course some additional concerns beyond range like say endurance or maybe Payload (the amount of weapons/firepower that can be unleashed). Perhaps "Payload-range" would be the better metrics than range alone.

One example of usage is Chinese vs Indian carrier fleet. The following is from my simple attempt in figuring out throw weight of LCS-Indian Ocean country carriers. They are for 1000 Km inland target range.

(Image)

From the table above it can be seen that Chinese carrier fleet has superior throw weight and can strike more targets. Thus China is more likely to have better leverage in terms of "diplomatic or influence power" on its bid, despite Indian Carrier may have same range. The conclusion is both Nations have "very long range" presence but China is stronger as it can deliver more punch to back their words.


So long story short "Diplomatic/influence = How far, how long and how hard you can hit"

What do you guys think on my concept above ?

Diplomacy and Influence has more to it than just firepower. The reason why the US is a superpower and Russia no longer is comes to down to political clout and economic power. The US has enough political clout that it can call together dozens of nations for wars that don't even really affect those other nations. Further, the US has enough economic power that it can finance projects in dozens of foreign nations simultaneously.

There is a reason why China is currently spending billions on projects in foreign nations and working on buddying up to the developing world. It want's to push the US out of those areas and replace or at least match the US in influence over the world.

[New Vihenia]

Diplomacy and Influence has more to it than just firepower. The reason why the US is a superpower and Russia no longer is comes to down to political clout and economic power. The US has enough political clout that it can call together dozens of nations for wars that don't even really affect those other nations. Further, the US has enough economic power that it can finance projects in dozens of foreign nations simultaneously.

There is a reason why China is currently spending billions on projects in foreign nations and working on buddying up to the developing world. It want's to push the US out of those areas and replace or at least match the US in influence over the world.

The thing is that Both Chinese and the US basically similar.. both have carrier fleet although US have more. and as we see even at some point Soviet and later Russia have the carrier fleet and other long ranged weapons platform.

That is another point that i see the influence and diplomacy have correlation to those metrics i mentioned.

Clearly Nation capable of fielding such have economic and "other factor" that does allow such acquisition. Thailland and Brazil at one point have such ability but with the loss of their carrier fleet and lack of other platform (Thailland still has carrier tho it does not have any fighters) Indicating that these Nation does not able to exert influence and diplomacy as far as what they used to be. Their influence is now limited to payload-range of their fighter jets or warship.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Diplomacy and Influence has more to it than just firepower. The reason why the US is a superpower and Russia no longer is comes to down to political clout and economic power. The US has enough political clout that it can call together dozens of nations for wars that don't even really affect those other nations. Further, the US has enough economic power that it can finance projects in dozens of foreign nations simultaneously.

There is a reason why China is currently spending billions on projects in foreign nations and working on buddying up to the developing world. It want's to push the US out of those areas and replace or at least match the US in influence over the world.

The thing is that Both Chinese and the US basically similar.. both have carrier fleet although US have more. and as we see even at some point Soviet and later Russia have the carrier fleet and other long ranged weapons platform.

That is another point that i see the influence and diplomacy have correlation to those metrics i mentioned.

Clearly Nation capable of fielding such have economic and "other factor" that does allow such acquisition. Thailland and Brazil at one point have such ability but with the loss of their carrier fleet and lack of other platform (Thailland still has carrier tho it does not have any fighters) Indicating that these Nation does not able to exert influence and diplomacy as far as what they used to be. Their influence is now limited to payload-range of their fighter jets or warship.

China has AN aircraft carrier and hasn't been able to really use it. Russia does NOT have a carrier, since it is undergoing refit after a mishap in 2018. Furthermore, there are a lot of countries with aircraft carriers that don't have the same level of influence as others.

Again, influence is not determined solely by striking power. Striking power is hard influence. Soft influence, which is money and diplomacy, also exists and it is the combination of hard and soft power that determines the full influence of a nation. The Soviet Union had massive striking power but it was never able to match the US in economic might or political clout, meaning that its influence shrank over the years while US influence grew. Conversely, China has substantially less striking power than the US but matches the US in economic might and is quickly overtaking the US in political clout. Going by your metric, China is not even in the running with the USA, due to its lack of striking power. One aircraft carrier against 10. Maybe 200 ballistic missiles against 3 or 4 thousand. Hardly comparable.

THAT is why you cannot ignore soft power. It is the great equalizer. It is through soft power that a weaker nation can defeat a stronger one.

[Gallia-]

"Soft power" is a meme. It literally just "exists" in the minds of American "political scientists" because the USA is so overwhelmingly powerful that anything vaguely foreign is amplified by Hollywood.

Besides that the original concept was more weirdos from the Clinton Era trying to rationalize why they literally gave away America's power and prestige for nothing (Hillary Clinton didn't make ISIS, that was George Bush, but Hillary Clinton did make China), which I guess peaked in 2003 religious crusaderism.

NV is mostly correct that there is a relationship between available firepower and political power, but only because political and economic power express themselves as the same thing, i.e. as large amounts of firepower. Princes that can afford large war hosts can afford to flex muscle in foreign lands frivolously, and they can also afford to spend money trivially. This is something that has been known since at least the times of Jomini, if not Tacitus. The real interesting part comes in being able to find out how to determine who is going up and who is going down, and determining their intersection points in time. This is what separates the Wilhelms and Lenins from the Napoleons and Hitlers.

Unfortunately that is mostly intuitive and there's no easy correlation, but the PRC is probably stalling out and the USA has yet to reach its nadir. The intersection point will be in about 10 years, if the PRC doesn't go all Wilhelm and jump the gun, or otherwise provoke USA (fat chance), into warring it. This is the apex (or close to) of PLA power and the nadir of US power in the Pacific. For the PLA to be strong enough to challenge the USA in the Far East it will need about 3-4 carrier battlegroups of modern ships, with full deck loads of modern fighters like J-11 (or FC-31) and good escorts and SSNs to go with it. Unless the USA wants to commit everything it has at the time (~2030) in a sort of total war, it will be limited to about 3-4 battlegroups and some surface action groups, since it will still want carriers to patrol the Atlantic and form a strategic reserve.

China is just growing in economic power while USA is slackening, so they're becoming more competitive with each other. They will be roughly equivalent in the '30s and beyond, assuming China doesn't explode or USA doesn't turn into a continent spanning Detroit or something where it's like 5 taxpayers per 50,000 acres or whatever or some other major trend line shift. The USA will be slightly poorer and China will be significantly richer, and regionally speaking the Chinese will be basically equivalent to the Far East Fleet. 2nd and 3rd Fleet will be enough to stop the Chinese if the USA wants to commit that much (it probably will), but if it doesn't then 7th Fleet is going to have to bear the brunt of the battle and it will probably be broken.

China will probably have anywhere from 3-5 CVBGs with fairly modern (like 1990s USN tier) equipment and some decent-ish training I guess, and a few very modern (for them) SSNs that are probably equivalent to 688i. SUBRON 15 will probably still be dinky but 3rd Fleet will have maybe a dozen decent subs to throw at the Chinese. Assuming they don't break out of the 1st island chain into open ocean before those subs can sortie and ambush them, they will probably lose. If they do break out then it will be a traditional fleet battle between opposing carrier battlegroups and one that the USN might lose, like it did the last time it fought roving BATGRUs in the Pacific.

[Danternoust]

Yes, but in logistics the Chinese are equivalent to 1860s America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_Carbine_Affair

[New Vihenia]

Thanks for the insight Kat and Manticorean.

Yes it's still rather intuitive, nonetheless i kinda see it adequate, maybe for a simple estimate on what kind of power "my military should have or to back whoever doing the talking out there" In a more "calculated" approach.

and yes based on the metric, China is still behind in terms of striking punch as their carrier and missile forces lacked the payload range to match, say US CSG. But against other regional power such as India, they're near and almost evenly matched. against smaller countries like say Vietnam, China have the advantage of having more payload range for their weapon systems.

It also can be seen that the country may have option to either increase range by say having longer ranging missiles or aircraft or make more efficient engine, therefore increasing their sphere of influence or increasing payload by having more aircrafts or field more missiles or improve existing warhead to allow more yield/destructive power, therefore strengthening their grip on existing sphere.

Having more money to spend means increasing both by build bigger missile that can go farther and lift more payload and make both efficient engine and improved warhead with precision or increased yield. I think it's pretty good and at least cover the basic.

[Kazarogkai]

Decided to update and fix up my current rank structure. This one will be the one I'll use for my nation's forces by the 20th Century and more or less for earlier periods too albeit with some modifications of course. So here it is:

REGULAR ENLISTED
EN0 Prospect
EN1 Young Brother
EN2 Prime Brother
EN3 Good Brother
EN4 Big Brother

PETTY OFFICER
PO1 Caller
PO2 Pace-Keeper
PO3 Flag-Bearer
PO4 Overseer

JUNIOR OFFICER
JO1 Pack Leader
JO2 Pack Commander = Pack
JO3 Block Leader
JO4 Block Commander = Block
JO5 Column Leader
JO6 Column Commander = Column
JO7 Sub-Rasa
JO8 Rasa = Regiment

SENIOR OFFICER
SO1 Prime Rasa = Command
SO2 Veteran Rasa = Host
S03 Battle Rasa = Banner
SO4 Major Rasa = Front
SO5 Chief Rasa = Division
SO6 Staff Rasa = Chief of Staff
S07 Director of War = Committee of War


A couple interesting points to bring up for any who might have some mild interest for whatever reason. First Ill start with a general overview of the naming of things which might seem a bit strange when one first looks at it. For one thing it's meant to look strange. It's meant as a largely indigenous developed system which so happened to have some partial outside influences especially in it's later development. Hence why some things look a bit familiar why others are a bit off. Another thing to bring up is the nature of Officers. The development of Military leadership went a little bit differently because of the strange history of the Kaza or Shaza as they refer to themselves as. In the post Tribal phase when organized states were formed, most notably in the Central Heartland Plateau Region, the overall structure of the ruling classes formed was decidedly non-secular. For the most part States organized society at large into castes with the top most being a sorta vaguely Brahman like Monk Caste who were aided in administering with the larger but decidedly less powerful Scholar-Bureaucrat style Scribe Caste and a Soldier-Bureaucrat Warrior Caste. Similar to how other nations would use their Nobles the military leadership was run in these states with the Monks taking the topmost Officers positions so to speak with the aforementioned Scribes serving as Lower level Officers and those deriving from the Warrior Caste being able to also rise to positions of low level leadership aka NCOs basically. Hence the Divisions of Officers into 3 types(Petty, Junior, and Senior).

Now starting from the top. The Regular Enlisted are composed of technically 5 though officially only 4 Ranks. Prospects is a rank conferred on new recruits who upon completing their training and formal induction are automatically promoted to the rank of Young Brother. Kinda like a private sorta. The actual ranks themselves in part are a reference to the historical organization of Pre-Modern Shaza military units who organized their troops based on age and skill with skill being determined by how many heads one had bought with them. The youngest and inexperienced serving ahead of the main lines as skirmishers trying to prove their name and the remainder divided into thirds.The primes having risen as a result of getting their first head fighting in the first line and so on. To add a bit more to that Big Brother ranks in addition to being the most veteran/eldest were meant to serve as mentor figures to the "young brothers" usually being paired up with one or two who would be expected to learn from their example and be trained by them. The reason for the ranks being called variations of Brother? Mostly tradition but within Shaza culture there is the concept of Brotherhood via War. Similar to Spartan Hoplites for a Warrior their unit was above and superseded their membership in their original clan/family. Hence when Young Prospects upon induction into a given War Host swore an Oath of Loyalty would be accepted and joined with the others within their unit as Brothers in War in effect becoming their new family.

Going on from there the officer ranks. Despite the name mind you Petty Officers are more like NCOs or maybe Warrant Officers in the Western sense. They serve as leaders and assist the commanders of units they are apart of but are not in themselves true commanders. For the most part. Compare to western NCOs a thing to keep in mind is the Petty Officers are far more limited in terms of their overall role in the military establishment. Jobs(Say Adjutants) that would usually be performed by an NCO in a western military force are instead filled by properly Commissioned Officers albeit low ranking ones. Their names are based on Historical tasks that they were expected to perform at one point or another. In the current format Callers serve as team leaders, Pace-Keepers as Section Leaders, Flag-bearers as low level clerks of sorts assisting Commissioned Officers usually and sometimes serving as specialist(warrant officers) troops, and finally Overseers serving as effectively high level chiefs of clerks in staff organizations. Overseers also have a major role in the training of new prospects serving in the role of drill sergeant and instructor in various ways and forms.

Junior Officers are where things get a bit wacky and maybe somewhat interesting. The first part of the name of each ranks simply refers to what they command, the second part on the otherhand refers to their role. One should Immediately notice the difference between Leaders and and Commanders. First Unlike in most western militaries officers, unless they serve in the general staff, are not derived from college graduates but instead from a mixture of secondary school graduates and highly talented Petty Officers. Adding onto that unlike in most militaries newly minted Junior Officers upon graduating, or for when promoted, are not immediately thrust into command of a unit but instead place into a sub-officer rank; where they will for the time being serve underneath the command of a current more senior officer of equivalent rank. Said senior officer is expected to mentor them and prepare them for leadership until they are considered ready for command of their own. This system serves three major purposes for the Shaza: First and most importantly it provides a source of extra on the job training and experience in a manner like that of an apprenticeship serving underneath the wise and sage mentorship of an older more experienced figure who can help them learn the ropes before throwing them to the sharks to sink or swim. Secondarily it serves as a a sort of officer dump of sorts that allows them to circumvent the usual problem that puts a ceiling on the number of officers one can have that being, having enough units available physically for said officers to command. This allows them to amass in effect a large number of trained professional active serving officers without having to worry about creating new units if they don't need or want too at the moment. Third and final it aids in mobilization with the opposite point being true too. If say for example they're going through a period of mass expansion(general mobilization) they don't have to worry about training up new officers to fill said roles they got a pool of experienced officers who can readily fill those roles. One of the big problems the soviets suffered from in the period leading up to the Great Patriotic War was a lack of experienced officers due to the mass expansion of the soviet military. Even without the purge this was already an issue.

Going on from that finally we have the various ranks of Rasa which are an old Shaza word translating over as General or Lord. The initial Raza rank plus the Sub-Raza Rank are regarded as Junior Officers with that being the highest military command being capable of being held historically in the old system by one derived from the Scribal Caste basically. Historically in a manner similar to the roman legions of old the regiment was regarded as the primary operational military unit capable of independent action. All units led by a Senior Officer were historically increasingly greater amalgamations of Regiments working together in effect. As of now due in part to experiences fighting against western powers leading up to the War of Empires(WW1) the Regiment has in it's role been superseded by the local Division Equivalent known as Commands led by a Prime Rasa which are composed of the old Regiments. All units from that point forward are composed of amalgamations of said Commands. Once one reaches the Rank of Chief Rasa though things also get interesting. Unlike in the west the term Division is now a name for a specific military tactical unit but instead references the various divisions within the armed forces these being of the following: Capital Guard, Land Division, Sea Division, Air Division, Commando Division, and finally the War Department Staff. The First 5 mentioned are led by a Chief Rasa who along with their lieutenants form the war council which is the primary ruling military body of the Armed Forces. They are subordinate only to the Staff Rasa who Leads the War Department as Chief of Staff and the Director of War who as head of the Committee of War is the civilian head of the Armed Forces and who together function as the 11th and 12th members of the aforementioned War Council.


To those who might be confused by the naming of Units here is a key:
Section = Squad
Pack = Platoon
Block = Company
Column = Battalion
Regiment = Legion/Brigade/Regiment
Command = Division
Host = Corps
Banner = Army
Front = Army Group
Division = Branch of the armed forces(Land, Sea, Air)
Chief of Staff = Leader of the General Staff
Director of War = Commander in Chief/Minister of War

[Triplebaconation]

Sounds like Cub Scouts.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Sounds like Cub Scouts.

Mixed with Scientology.

[Austrasien]

Hey guys, So yeah gotta ask.

I was thinking that there could be a correlation between The longest ranging a weapon or weapons platform a country has with its political or diplomatic influence. Well let's say US..There is carrier groups and ICBM's meaning that US have "global" diplomacy power based on the range of those. Same goes for Soviet Union or in current day Russia.

Based on that there could be perhaps a metrics to figure or approximate diplomatic or political influence of a country based on above. There is of course some additional concerns beyond range like say endurance or maybe Payload (the amount of weapons/firepower that can be unleashed). Perhaps "Payload-range" would be the better metrics than range alone.

One example of usage is Chinese vs Indian carrier fleet. The following is from my simple attempt in figuring out throw weight of LCS-Indian Ocean country carriers. They are for 1000 Km inland target range.

(Image)

From the table above it can be seen that Chinese carrier fleet has superior throw weight and can strike more targets. Thus China is more likely to have better leverage in terms of "diplomatic or influence power" on its bid, despite Indian Carrier may have same range. The conclusion is both Nations have "very long range" presence but China is stronger as it can deliver more punch to back their words.


So long story short "Diplomatic/influence = How far, how long and how hard you can hit"

What do you guys think on my concept above ?

In the now air power is the basis of power projection. Of non-nuclear forces airpower provides the strongest defence: A state which controls the air above and around it cannot for any practical purpose be attacked by sea or by land. Before this can even be seriously contemplated the opponent must at least lose monopoly of the air, if not be swept from the air entirely, so the question of power projection really collapses to the question of air power projection.

It is also intimately linked to space power: States which have effective satellite intelligence have a fundamental leg up on those which do not.

How much power projection capability a state has, and so how much diplomatic leverage it could potentially gain from that, is a function of the quality of their reconnaissance-strike complex. The US has the NRO and the B-2 so it's number one, it can credibly threaten to find and kill anything anywhere.

[Kazarogkai]

Sounds like Cub Scouts.

Lol

Odly enough my biggest influence was the promotion and ranking system of the Aztecs to a degree with some vaguely Roman influence. Within the Aztec system the way one would rise through the ranks was via capturing enemy warriors, I replaced that with headhunting expanding upon an already existing institution within Shaza society. One head your now fully initiated, 2 heads you've earned your name and can now join the shield wall, 4 heads your doing good welcome to the 2nd line, finally 8 heads your a big boy now and it's time for you to help mentor some of these young bucks. In the Aztecs it was purely linear(1,2,3,4,etc) but I figure slicing off a guys head in the middle of a battle would be a bit more simple than dragging someone back as a captive hence the greater numbers needed. That and they just kinda got a thing for the number 2(the Heavenly Couple) and don't tend to like odd numbers(the Corrupt One) much. atleast historically that is how it would have been done. Just thinking out loud here.

[Purpelia]

Sounds like Cub Scouts.

Lol

Odly enough my biggest influence was the promotion and ranking system of the Aztecs to a degree with some vaguely Roman influence. Within the Aztec system the way one would rise through the ranks was via capturing enemy warriors, I replaced that with headhunting expanding upon an already existing institution within Shaza society. One head your now fully initiated, 2 heads you've earned your name and can now join the shield wall, 4 heads your doing good welcome to the 2nd line, finally 8 heads your a big boy now and it's time for you to help mentor some of these young bucks. In the Aztecs it was purely linear(1,2,3,4,etc) but I figure slicing off a guys head in the middle of a battle would be a bit more simple than dragging someone back as a captive hence the greater numbers needed. That and they just kinda got a thing for the number 2(the Heavenly Couple) and don't tend to like odd numbers(the Corrupt One) much. atleast historically that is how it would have been done. Just thinking out loud here.

If you like that sort of advancement structure you should look into feudal Japan. The Samurai, and their professional soldier counterparts the Ashigaru were literally headhunters who advanced socially and militarily based on the quantity and quality of the heads they produced.

[New Vihenia]

How much power projection capability a state has, and so how much diplomatic leverage it could potentially gain from that, is a function of the quality of their reconnaissance-strike complex. The US has the NRO and the B-2 so it's number one, it can credibly threaten to find and kill anything anywhere.

Can this be related to say resolution capability of their respective Satellite ? Be it Optical, radar or ESM.

[Gallia-]

The only people with a functional RSC is America so there's not really a comparison point with resolution of optics.

The actually difficulty is launching these space satellites, not making semiconductors to power their thermal telescopes or whatever, so by the time you can throw half a dozen super sats into GEO you're better than America.

SBIRS seems to do fine and it was built with the finest backwards mid-90s semiconductor technology that powered the Super Nintendo or whatever.

[United Earthlings]

What do you guys think on my concept above?

For starters, someone forgot to read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Its insights would really help you flush out this hypothesis of yours.

Second, since you seem to be going more for some type of wargaming simulation, it's a little dated, but James F. Dunnigan's How to Make War (Fourth Edition): A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare in the Twenty-first Century would also be a good reference point to consult in my opinion.

As it stands now, it feels like to me your trying to shoehorn this into a correlation implies causation fallacy.

[Austrasien]

Can this be related to say resolution capability of their respective Satellite ? Be it Optical, radar or ESM.

Well, no. That would be something like trying to measure "seapower" in terms of the calibre of battleship guns. It is a metric. Not a super useful one by itself.

Can they see it?
If they see it can they recognize it?
Can they disseminate that information in a sufficiently timely manner?
Do they have something that can reach it?
Will it get there?

The resolution of the Kh-11 or Lacrosse is less important than the fact that since at least the first Gulf War the US has been able to transform "seen by NRO satellite" to "hit by bombs" in a very, very short time. And this capability has only improved since there are now known instances where aircraft have put weapons on target within minutes of it being detected by ISR assets. So far the only other state to demonstrate similar capabilities without relying on US assets is Israel, though on a much more geographically limited scale.

These days reasonably good satellite imagery can be purchased from commercial satellite vendors. Most states though lack the expertise or infrastructure to rapidly transform that data into targets, or the capability to hit those targets from sufficient distance and/or in the face of opposition. States like Thailand might operate a carrier but its value against any but the weakest adversaries is quite limited because they have vanishingly little capability to fight and an air war or locate targets which can't be seen on google earth.

[Danternoust]

In Danternoust-84, the main fleet uses nuclear destroyers with open reactor compartments that create a steam curtain, obscuring the fleet from any direct observer unaided by sonar or radar.

[Spirit of Hope]

In Danternoust-84, the main fleet uses nuclear destroyers with open reactor compartments that create a steam curtain, obscuring the fleet from any direct observer unaided by sonar or radar.

So instead of being really hard to spot visually your destroyers create huge clouds of steam that make their approximate location very easy to determine visually?