NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Purpelia]

Just have a buttplate drop off the back Manokan.

He slav squats and shoots.

I was actually thinking of basically having mortar backpacks. Basically imagine having your infantry running around with a mortar on their back and being able to blow stuff up in indirect fire at will.
Than again on closer examination I imagine that sort of role would be better suited for something like one of those dainty 60mms or a grenade launcher or something. But still it'd be a mortar backpack.

[Theodosiya]

What's the best infantry equipment system at the moment ?

[Austrasien]

To say what Kester means: Tanks are fine but they're not great for attacking well dug, well equipped troops with a strong anti-tank defense belt. Since anti-tank defense was the prime consideration of military R&D spending for the past 100 years it's not surprising that anti-infantry weapons have suffered. If we had some sort of weapon that could be equivalent to a FOG or a Javelin, but killed a dozen dudes, then yes the infantry attack would be pretty easy to defeat. But we don't. The closest you get are VT fuzed howitzer and mortar rounds and they are not serious defensive weapons since they'll just be suppressed by counter battery fire from rocket launchers prior to the assault.

It seems entirely correct to say infantry dug and concealed with plenty of ATGMs and MANPADs are a very, very tough nut right now.

But it's questionable if this works the other way. Infantry moving in the open are extremely vulnerable, especially if they move in large enough numbers that they can be recognized from the air as hostile infantry. The helicopter in particular (though itself very vulnerable) is extremely dangerous to infantry caught in the open outside their air defence umbrella. Theoretically, UAVs could be as well though the current trend is towards tank rather than man plinking.

Absent developments in technology the current min-max really does seem to be something along the lines of "SOCOM and the USAF". Small teams who sneak in and eliminate stragglers while marking larger things for air/missile strikes.

[New Vihenia]

Basically Javelin but it goes much-much longer. With Propfan propulsion and those big cruising wing. Control is canard. Range is perhaps 60 Km. All in Javelin form factor (probably bit longer but it's about 1.3 m with launcher)

[Gallia-]

To say what Kester means: Tanks are fine but they're not great for attacking well dug, well equipped troops with a strong anti-tank defense belt. Since anti-tank defense was the prime consideration of military R&D spending for the past 100 years it's not surprising that anti-infantry weapons have suffered. If we had some sort of weapon that could be equivalent to a FOG or a Javelin, but killed a dozen dudes, then yes the infantry attack would be pretty easy to defeat. But we don't. The closest you get are VT fuzed howitzer and mortar rounds and they are not serious defensive weapons since they'll just be suppressed by counter battery fire from rocket launchers prior to the assault.

It seems entirely correct to say infantry dug and concealed with plenty of ATGMs and MANPADs are a very, very tough nut right now.

But it's questionable if this works the other way. Infantry moving in the open are extremely vulnerable, especially if they move in large enough numbers that they can be recognized from the air as hostile infantry. The helicopter in particular (though itself very vulnerable) is extremely dangerous to infantry caught in the open outside their air defence umbrella. Theoretically, UAVs could be as well though the current trend is towards tank rather than man plinking.

Absent developments in technology the current min-max really does seem to be something along the lines of "SOCOM and the USAF". Small teams who sneak in and eliminate stragglers while marking larger things for air/missile strikes.

This is also true, but it is still harder to spot a man from altitude than a tank. Even more so if the man is wearing a uniform made from something like Barracuda or Nakidka which can reduce his IR and radar signature. I don't think such a uniform qualifies as "SOCOM" though. It's not particularly high speed or terribly expensive if you have lots of seamstresses to do the work with, it's just really hot.

Bring lots of water I guess.

The main thing is that there aren't a lot of shrapnel shells or something, though. Something like the Lazy Dog in a CBU or a bombardment rocket would be an excellent manstopper for general use against large infantry units. I suppose ICM could also work, but you'd fit fewer of these in aviation weapons than in rocket artillery or something, and I suspect the viable fragments that could potentially cause casualties would be worse for ICM than a Lazy Dog. Shrapnel mortar shells might be the true infantry deleter I guess.

[Purpelia]

Basically Javelin but it goes much-much longer. With Propfan propulsion and those big cruising wing. Control is canard. Range is perhaps 60 Km. All in Javelin form factor (probably bit longer but it's about 1.3 m with launcher)

(Image)

Out of curiosity just how is this thing launched and targeted? I mean, what sort of system do you have in place other than artillery in combination with spotters that can spot let alone shoot a missile at a tank from that distance?

[Slavakino]

I would post a lot of shit here but I'm either too busy, too lazy or too impatient for doing crap on PS

[New Vihenia]

Out of curiosity just how is this thing launched and targeted? I mean, what sort of system do you have in place other than artillery in combination with spotters that can spot let alone shoot a missile at a tank from that distance?

Launching is like Javelin, from dug in position or something like Humvee. The Beyond Line of Sight targeting part is handled by UAV's if there is any target or it can actually loiter in target area for some time (trading range to endurance)

[Austrasien]

This is also true, but it is still harder to spot a man from altitude than a tank. Even more so if the man is wearing a uniform made from something like Barracuda or Nakidka which can reduce his IR and radar signature. I don't think such a uniform qualifies as "SOCOM" though. It's not particularly high speed or terribly expensive if you have lots of seamstresses to do the work with, it's just really hot.

I mention numbers mostly because I think if anything is going to reveal an impending infantry attack it will be the sighting of multiple men converging on a single location. Even if only ten men from a whole company are observed and it's not even possible to determine for certain if they are armed, ten men approaching a friendly position by an indirect route should be enough to get a defenders noggin joggin.

[Gallia-]

Yes, but even the arch-bagels, the RKKA, did duos and singleton infiltration of trench positions in the Ostfront t. John English.

[New Vihenia]

OK adding more variant..



The first is your average Joe's Javelin top attack, fire and forget missile. The rightmost one is something like an ADATS married with Yakhont+PAC-3Erint and that one candidate built for stinger but use laser beamrider instead and let's not forget the XAAM-8 "Zeus". This thing is called "SAFIR" stands for "Supersonic Attack For Infantry Reference". The idea is.. "hey how about having an ADATS but in size of Javelin and can share same kind of tube", for guidance let's make use of the CLU's already existing laser rangefinder"

[Purpelia]

Out of curiosity just how is this thing launched and targeted? I mean, what sort of system do you have in place other than artillery in combination with spotters that can spot let alone shoot a missile at a tank from that distance?

Launching is like Javelin, from dug in position or something like Humvee. The Beyond Line of Sight targeting part is handled by UAV's if there is any target or it can actually loiter in target area for some time (trading range to endurance)

That's explaining how it works, not what system is in place to make use of it. I basically struggle to see any scenario where a 60km range on an anti tank missile could be functionally useful other than for artillery. And even than 60km is on the extreme end and would require some rather impressive spotting capabilities to be functionally practical.

To put it as simply as I can. What system do you have in place where you can pick out and target an individual tank at that sort of range and what part of your military actually has a use for that specific capability?

[New Vihenia]

To put it as simply as I can. What system do you have in place where you can pick out and target an individual tank at that sort of range and what part of your military actually has a use for that specific capability?

1.UAV
2.The weapon itself do loiter and the operator see the output of the seeker.

Who will use it ? Of course the army and the special forces branch.

[Purpelia]

To put it as simply as I can. What system do you have in place where you can pick out and target an individual tank at that sort of range and what part of your military actually has a use for that specific capability?

1.UAV
2.The weapon itself do loiter and the operator see the output of the seeker.

Who will use it ? Of course the army and the special forces branch.

But who specifically? I mean, what scenario do you envision where someone in your military has to fire an ATGM that'll loiter over a spot artillery range away until a tank comes along to be blown up? I basically can't see a realistic combat scenario where the capability is useful.

[Gallia-]

It's obvious where it would be useful. You can't see any scenario because you don't know what you're talking about. Read a book.

The most obvious benefit is that it will allow soldiers to shoot at tanks very far away from them. This lets you have fewer soldiers to protect the same stretch of ground from a tank attack.

[Purpelia]

It's obvious where it would be useful. You can't see any scenario because you don't know what you're talking about. Read a book.

The most obvious benefit is that it will allow soldiers to shoot at tanks very far away from them. This lets you have fewer soldiers to protect the same stretch of ground from a tank attack.

You don't seriously expect a situation where like a dug in squad gets to control 60km squared of space with an ATGM launcher? What happens when the enemy sends in 2 tanks? Or 5? Or literally any serious situation.
And just what are those tanks doing 60km away from your units with nothing in between and no support for you to pick off?

[Gallia-]

60 km squared? For a rifle squad? It's more likely than you think.

[Kassaran]

It's obvious where it would be useful. You can't see any scenario because you don't know what you're talking about. Read a book.

The most obvious benefit is that it will allow soldiers to shoot at tanks very far away from them. This lets you have fewer soldiers to protect the same stretch of ground from a tank attack.

You don't seriously expect a situation where like a dug in squad gets to control 60km squared of space with an ATGM launcher? What happens when the enemy sends in 2 tanks? Or 5? Or literally any serious situation.
And just what are those tanks doing 60km away from your units with nothing in between and no support for you to pick off?

A dug-in squad could though. What happens to that tank column when the first tank in the formation suddenly goes up in flames due to a sudden missile strike. No helicopters, no known artillery, yet suddenly no more lead tank either? You're stopping, taking cover, trying to figure out where that just came from and reporting it back up.

So now you have a tank column shut down until it receives its next setoff orders taking into account a potential missile strike. Even more so, if they try again, you just have a second missile on stand-by and take out a second tank. At that point, you've probably cost the enemy far more both financially and in manpower than it'd cost your own nation to field the two missiles and the infantry training to use them.

[Sibauk]

It would be easier to think of it like a guided artillery round (e.g. Copperhead, Excalibur) - but command-guided with a camera and not requiring a gun to launch.

[Spirit of Hope]

It's obvious where it would be useful. You can't see any scenario because you don't know what you're talking about. Read a book.

The most obvious benefit is that it will allow soldiers to shoot at tanks very far away from them. This lets you have fewer soldiers to protect the same stretch of ground from a tank attack.

You don't seriously expect a situation where like a dug in squad gets to control 60km squared of space with an ATGM launcher? What happens when the enemy sends in 2 tanks? Or 5? Or literally any serious situation.
And just what are those tanks doing 60km away from your units with nothing in between and no support for you to pick off?

If the enemy sends a bunch of tanks then dispersed squads armed with this weapon can mutually support one another, instead of only the one squad at the point of contact.

I'm not sure why you would be apposed to a longer range just because it is a long range. The major problem would if the range came at the expense of something else, but we don't have enough info on the full system to say what the tradeoffs are.

[Immoren]

I know that fifties aren't that long after WWII, but I am reading book about history of artillery arm in Finland and there is this chart for M/50 artillery regiment and it shows it had one motorized battalion and one horse-drawn battalion and somehow I was surprised.

Then I remembered horses remained surprisingly long in general iirc. lol

[Manokan Republic]

I know that fifties aren't that long after WWII, but I am reading book about history of artillery arm in Finland and there is this chart for M/50 artillery regiment and it shows it had one motorized battalion and one horse-drawn battalion and somehow I was surprised.

Then I remembered horses remained surprisingly long in general iirc. lol

Horses are surprisingly effective, and often overlooked for modern military's, but were essential in WWII where like 92% of the german forces were horse drawn and only like 8% were mechanized, and for the polish, fins and so on. Currently, there is no mechanical robot that can easily replicate the ability of a horse, camel, or other animal like this, and so they are still the best at what they do, traveling long distances, foraging from the land for supplies, and being able to travel over very rough terrain. A jeep or car just can't go over many obstacles a horse can, and some animals like goats find themselves on top of trees, canyons and other weird places a traditionally wheeled vehicle could never go. There's something to be said for ingrained balance and the ability to put all your force in to the toe or finger of a hand or foot, and so far it's been difficult to replicate. The few promising things that exist have very short lifespans and need a ton of external power to work, a tether or motor and can only travel short distances, in a very cumbersome manner, in comparison to organic creatures. One day, a full-body exoskeleton with like horse muscle in it or something may be used to augment people instead of robotics, or some sort of hybrid of both most likely. I'd imagine the actual skeletal part and power system would be electronic, as well as some kind of computer to regulate and control everything would exist, while some form of organic muscle is then used for all the heavy lifting. You might see them add gyroscopic stabilization in addition to all the little nerve cells that flank the muscle cells.

[Purpelia]

You don't seriously expect a situation where like a dug in squad gets to control 60km squared of space with an ATGM launcher? What happens when the enemy sends in 2 tanks? Or 5? Or literally any serious situation.
And just what are those tanks doing 60km away from your units with nothing in between and no support for you to pick off?

If the enemy sends a bunch of tanks then dispersed squads armed with this weapon can mutually support one another, instead of only the one squad at the point of contact.

I'm not sure why you would be apposed to a longer range just because it is a long range. The major problem would if the range came at the expense of something else, but we don't have enough info on the full system to say what the tradeoffs are.

I don't see any logic or practicality in issuing an artillery ranged weapon to anyone but artillery forces as the only benefit it provides them is the ability to engage targets at ranges well beyond those that they should be concerning them self with. Front line infantry have better things to do (like shoot at stuff close to them) than guide in UAV's and rockets at artillery ranges. Thus, the only way I see this being employed is as an addition to the regular artillery forces. And whilst I can see it being useful in that application I do not see it being more useful than alternatives we already have such as various forms of smart submunitions or even just saturation fire from a MLRS that can hit whole formations at that range.

[Spirit of Hope]

If the enemy sends a bunch of tanks then dispersed squads armed with this weapon can mutually support one another, instead of only the one squad at the point of contact.

I'm not sure why you would be apposed to a longer range just because it is a long range. The major problem would if the range came at the expense of something else, but we don't have enough info on the full system to say what the tradeoffs are.

I don't see any logic or practicality in issuing an artillery ranged weapon to anyone but artillery forces as the only benefit it provides them is the ability to engage targets at ranges well beyond those that they should be concerning them self with. Front line infantry have better things to do (like shoot at stuff close to them) than guide in UAV's and rockets at artillery ranges. Thus, the only way I see this being employed is as an addition to the regular artillery forces. And whilst I can see it being useful in that application I do not see it being more useful than alternatives we already have such as various forms of smart submunitions or even just saturation fire from a MLRS that can hit whole formations at that range.

Just because it can go to 60km doesn't mean it can't go a shorter distance. From what I can tell this can engage in direct fire out to 60km, which means the infantry can still engage the enemy right in front of them. But it also means that the infantry can engage further, allowing distant positions to mutually support one another or to have a smaller number of launchers that are more dispersed but can provide the same level of coverage, thus saving you money. The later of course would have the downside of less tubes overall, which could be a problem if facing a large scale attack.

My question would largely be how the missile is communicating over those ranges, and in loiter mode how it spots targets/is controlled by the user. There are celerity difficulties with a 60km AT missile, but the idea of a 60km AT missile isn't bad.

I know that fifties aren't that long after WWII, but I am reading book about history of artillery arm in Finland and there is this chart for M/50 artillery regiment and it shows it had one motorized battalion and one horse-drawn battalion and somehow I was surprised.

Then I remembered horses remained surprisingly long in general iirc. lol

Horses are surprisingly effective, and often overlooked for modern military's, but were essential in WWII where like 92% of the german forces were horse drawn and only like 8% were mechanized, and for the polish, fins and so on. Currently, there is no mechanical robot that can easily replicate the ability of a horse, camel, or other animal like this, and so they are still the best at what they do, traveling long distances, foraging from the land for supplies, and being able to travel over very rough terrain. A jeep or car just can't go over many obstacles a horse can, and some animals like goats find themselves on top of trees, canyons and other weird places a traditionally wheeled vehicle could never go. There's something to be said for ingrained balance and the ability to put all your force in to the toe or finger of a hand or foot, and so far it's been difficult to replicate. The few promising things that exist have very short lifespans and need a ton of external power to work, a tether or motor and can only travel short distances, in a very cumbersome manner, in comparison to organic creatures. One day, a full-body exoskeleton with like horse muscle in it or something may be used to augment people instead of robotics, or some sort of hybrid of both most likely. I'd imagine the actual skeletal part and power system would be electronic, as well as some kind of computer to regulate and control everything would exist, while some form of organic muscle is then used for all the heavy lifting. You might see them add gyroscopic stabilization in addition to all the little nerve cells that flank the muscle cells.

The Germans didn't use horses in WWII because they wanted to, they used them because they had to. There are very few places where horses can go, that motor vehicles can't go, that are worth fighting over. Yes a horse can go down a specific path a truck might not be able to take, but a truck can take a different path. If there are no paths a truck can take to the area, why are you fighting over it?

Meanwhile horses have a much larger logistical need than trucks, with issues like food and water, veterinary care, proper exercise and sleep. Nor can you simply make horses, breeding and raising horses is a specialist skill.

[Eisarnathiuda]

I know that fifties aren't that long after WWII, but I am reading book about history of artillery arm in Finland and there is this chart for M/50 artillery regiment and it shows it had one motorized battalion and one horse-drawn battalion and somehow I was surprised.

I'm gonna eat your fuckin' horses.