NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Albynau]

I understand the 30mm RARDEN was developed early on to be a compact weapon that didn't need external power, used the smallest possible turret space so the British could cram it into itty bitty vehicles, with a large caliber round to shoot Soviet APCs from long range, and so sacrificed fire rate and having any sort of belt feeding system.

Technology has marched on since then so I'm curious why they continued to put it on the Warrior IFV more than a decade later. Was this a matter of being cheap/not wanting to adopt a new weapon, or does the RARDEN offer anything over things like the 25mm KBA or other things available at the time? The only thing that stands out to me as a layman is that 30x170 is a bigger cartridge than 25x137, but lacking both experience and knowledge in how modern armored combat works, I'm not sure how much of an advantage that translates to.

I guess my questions revolve somewhat around:
1) Are there things worth shooting at with a 30x170 that are armored against 25mm and lower rounds?
2) Does 30x170 yield any substantial engagement range advantage over 25mm and lower rounds?
3) Seeing as the RARDEN only has a capacity of six rounds, when you're shooting at something with an autocannon, how many rounds are you expected to shoot at it before it's either neutralized/you realize your gun isn't doing anything?

Thank you.

[Austrasien]

They were cheap.

[Crookfur]

To expand on they were cheap, they were already in service, they already had the infrastructure to support them and the schools to teach folk how to maintain and operate them (although these had to expanded as roughly a third to a half of all your infantry jncos now have to attend the gunner course).

Just as RARDEN didn't offer much over other ac options and a 25mm bushy could have been fitted (and was for desert warrior) none of the other options offered much over Rarden.

Of course they took that sensible choice and chucked it out the window with the 7.62mm chain gun fuckery.

[Kelak]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

Also, whats the viability of using an arsenal ship, but for an anti-ship role?

[United States of PA]

If you are going to be operating far from home, why would you choose to limit your endurance by not going nuclear?

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

So,
Is there currently a capable amphibious attack platform ?

[The Dolphin Isles]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

Also, whats the viability of using an arsenal ship, but for an anti-ship role?

I might not be the best authority on this, but I'll give my two cents.

Typically, cruise missile submarines are almost exclusively nuclear-powered for various reasons. The first obvious issue is size. The larger a submarine is, the more power it needs to propel itself through the water. This is much more of an issue for conventional powered submarines. The largest one is the Qing Class and can only fit 4 cruise missile VLS tubes and 2 SLBM VLS tubes in the conning tower. You can still put cruise missiles in the torpedo tubes (this class only has 2), but your armament size will still be small. You will also have very large range issues

This is all for the trade-off of "being quieter" but nuclear subs are getting better and better at noise reduction, and the process of snorkeling is incredibly risky compared to any sound dampening benefits. Conventional submarines really only have the benefits of significant reductions in cost and better political points (no scary nuclear plant). If you have the money, the tech, and the political will for it, the real only choice for a dedicated cruise-missile submarine and not just an attack submarine with some VLS is the nuclear route. Granted, if you don't have these, then cruise missile subs are still a thing but with heavily reduced capabilities.

As for arsenal ship, you can have one for sure. I personally feel that it would not be as effective as a more dispersed fleet that can both cover more area and does not put all of its eggs in one basket. Such a large concentration of your assets seems to be extremely dangerous. Sure, it would be cool for a ship to have 500 VLS tubes, but how many is it going to be able to use on each engagement? Does it even need such a large payload between port visits? However, I have much less knowledge of this topic in general.

[The New California Republic]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

It depends what you mean by "far from home"; diesels would be fine if it was operating within a few hundred miles of the bases, but if you are talking about crossing oceans and/or staying on missions for months at a time then nuclear is definitely the way to go.

[New Vihenia]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

If the Submarine is meant to operate in Litoral zone (e.g dropping SOF and perhaps providing fire support) Then Submarine with diesel-electric propulsion + AIP could be approximately more efficient.

This is from book "Theory of Submarine Design"



For oceanic area however for sea control mission or maybe ship hunting the Nuclear submarine trumps the diesel electric ones.

---------------
Found this.. well Previously i only able to found the final chapter.. but apparently the full book is released :

Atomic-Powered Submarine Design (From Foreign Press Materials).1967

This one in terms of quality i got to say exceeding all those nuclear submarine related books released in following 1970's and to this date. This book really talks about everything regarding nuclear submarine. You can find specification for shielding, steam generators etc.

The downside is it doesnt talk about Russian nuclear boat itself. That one have to find..with some difficulties scattered in Russian websites or design buereau official web unfortunately incomplete and often for my feeling at least, censored.

[United Earthlings]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

If cost isn't the deal breaking factor and endurance especially underwater endurance is that which is most desired, then a nuclear cruise missile submarine is the way to go. Additionally, a diesel-electric submarine with AIP can actually stay submerged quite awhile without having to rise close to {AKA: Snorkeling} or above the surface to charge batteries, the air supply now being more a limiting factor, which IIRC can be extended as long as up to 48 hours. If designed right and adherence to modern sound reduction methods, at {low} tactical speeds the sound profile of a AIP SSG and a SSGN will probably be similar all things being equal in dimensions.

One final note to keep in mind, in general nuclear submarines of any type tend to be larger and therefore have a larger weapons payload as compared to diesel-electric submarines.

Also, whats the viability of using an arsenal ship, but for an anti-ship role?

Given the cost and complexity of building naval vessels, the better able a class of vessel is able to perform multiple roles, the jack of all trades, in general the wiser the investment. So, to me an arsenal ship is basically any vessel type that can be equipped with a large amount of VLS cells whether that be a DDG or even some exotic CGN.

[Cossack Peoples]

I need a harsh view on my military--what do you think I'm missing and need to add it to have it function effectively? I'm mostly focusing on gear and equipment/vessels, so for my own sake stay out of the Asset Inventory I'm already thinking of redoing or ORBAT type stuff.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You have about half a trillion $'s in tanks and IFV's. This is a problem.

[The Akasha Colony]

If I were to make a cruise-missile submarine meant to operate far from home, would it be worth making it an AIP-diesel submarine? On the hopes that the quieter engine would make up for having to resurface every so often? Or should I just go with a nuclear submarine?

Distance from home does not have any bearing on the utility of an AIP propulsion system. Reducing the surfacing frequency is useful for any submarine. An AIP boat would be louder than a nuclear submarine when its engine is running to recharge the batteries. A fuel cell AIP system would be quiet but fairly low power and suffer from low energy density. Modern diesel and nuclear boats are both much quieter than ambient ocean noise so the difference in noise level is moot. While a diesel boat running on batteries is obviously extremely quiet, the greater size of a nuclear submarine provides much more space for quieting measures while modern natural circulation reactors eliminate reactor pump noise.

In any event, if it needs to traverse long distances and carry a heavy missile load, a nuclear plant is the better option. Diesel boats are ambush weapons that hide in shallow water to catch unsuspecting prey. Nuclear boats are capable of actually hunting targets because unlike diesel boats, they aren't limited to single-digit knots.

Also, whats the viability of using an arsenal ship, but for an anti-ship role?

This is literally a cruise missile submarine.

[Spirit of Hope]

I need a harsh view on my military--what do you think I'm missing and need to add it to have it function effectively? I'm mostly focusing on gear and equipment/vessels, so for my own sake stay out of the Asset Inventory I'm already thinking of redoing or ORBAT type stuff.

Your navy could use some different types of vessels and aircraft, you appear to have only submarines in the process of being built, no ballistic missile submarines, carriers, mine countermeasure ships, amphibious assault/support craft, patrol boats, helicopters, or ASW/naval patrol aircraft. Despite having something like 3-4 times the personnel of the US Navy.

Your airforce has a similar problem, you have multiple times the manpower but a much lower amount of equipment. You don't have any AWACs, or transport aircraft.

For the army there is no way you have 9 million infantry with an army that total size is 16 million.

[The New California Republic]

I need a harsh view on my military--what do you think I'm missing and need to add it to have it function effectively? I'm mostly focusing on gear and equipment/vessels, so for my own sake stay out of the Asset Inventory I'm already thinking of redoing or ORBAT type stuff.

There doesn't seem to be any information on the acquisition and engagement radars for the SA-6 Gainful clone. And there appears to be nothing covering against high altitude targets, as I assume the Gainful clone is limited to low and medium altitudes.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I need a harsh view on my military--what do you think I'm missing and need to add it to have it function effectively? I'm mostly focusing on gear and equipment/vessels, so for my own sake stay out of the Asset Inventory I'm already thinking of redoing or ORBAT type stuff.

The main thing I can see is the fact that you have 27 million men and women under arms with 4 million trucks and and at least 100,000 other major ground vehicles. Given how modern your soldiers appear to be, I can only imagine that they are paid well, trained well, and housed well, all of which adds greater expense. Even if you pay your soldiers relatively little, across 27 million personnel, it adds up. Then you have to buy spare parts to repair all the equipment they use, purchase ammofor them to train with, maintain facilities for them to live and woworwowork at. Just in personnel costs you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars. In maintenance costs, hundreds of millions more. You might even hit a $1 trillion dollar budget before you even consider sounding overseas operations, procurement programs, or R and D efforts. Of course, without a lot more information about the geo-political situation you face, I can't say much.

[Zayan]

Any idea on whether or not this is an efficient squad setup? This isn't supposed to be a standard rifle squad, but rather a special weapons squad. Ideally each platoon would have 1 of these squads.

Squad Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Radioman: M1 Carbine/MP-40

---

Fireteam A Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 2 uncolored smoke grenades + 1 colored smoke grenade
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Grenadier: M79 Grenade Launcher + M1911 pistol or M1 Garand w/ rifle grenade launcher + 4 rifle grenades or MP-40 + 4 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Engineer: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + C4 + 1 colored smoke grenade or M2 Flamethrower + M1911 pistol + 1 colored smoke grenade

---

Fireteam B Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Machine Gunner: M1919 Browning + M1911 pistol
Assistant Machine Gunner: M1 Carbine + 1 uncolored smoke grenade
Ammo Carrier: M1 Carbine/MP-40

[The Manticoran Empire]

Any idea on whether or not this is an efficient squad setup? This isn't supposed to be a standard rifle squad, but rather a special weapons squad. Ideally each platoon would have 1 of these squads.

Squad Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Radioman: M1 Carbine/MP-40

---

Fireteam A Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 2 uncolored smoke grenades + 1 colored smoke grenade
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Grenadier: M79 Grenade Launcher + M1911 pistol or M1 Garand w/ rifle grenade launcher + 4 rifle grenades or MP-40 + 4 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Engineer: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + C4 + 1 colored smoke grenade or M2 Flamethrower + M1911 pistol + 1 colored smoke grenade

---

Fireteam B Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Machine Gunner: M1919 Browning + M1911 pistol
Assistant Machine Gunner: M1 Carbine + 1 uncolored smoke grenade
Ammo Carrier: M1 Carbine/MP-40

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

[The New California Republic]

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon.

As with everything, context matters. In some situations a shotgun can actually be extremely effective, including building clearance in urban warfare, clearing out trenches, jungle warfare, etc.

[Zayan]

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

Maybe I can replace the machine gunner's pistol with an M1 Carbine, since I know that American airborne troops did so in World War 2. However, I imagine it'd be far too heavy and cumbersome for someone to carry a flamethrower or a grenade launcher alongside a fully loaded M1 plus ammo.

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon.

As with everything, context matters. In some situations a shotgun can actually be extremely effective, including building clearance in urban warfare, clearing out trenches, jungle warfare, etc.

This type of squad was setup with jungle warfare in mind, specially the Congolian swamp forests and lowland forests. Therefore I'd think a shotgun would work quite well in that terrain.

[Husseinarti]

Any idea on whether or not this is an efficient squad setup? This isn't supposed to be a standard rifle squad, but rather a special weapons squad. Ideally each platoon would have 1 of these squads.

Squad Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Radioman: M1 Carbine/MP-40

---

Fireteam A Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 2 uncolored smoke grenades + 1 colored smoke grenade
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Grenadier: M79 Grenade Launcher + M1911 pistol or M1 Garand w/ rifle grenade launcher + 4 rifle grenades or MP-40 + 4 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Engineer: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + C4 + 1 colored smoke grenade or M2 Flamethrower + M1911 pistol + 1 colored smoke grenade

---

Fireteam B Leader: M1 Carbine/Model 1897 Shotgun + 1 fragmentation grenade + 1 uncolored smoke grenade + 2 colored smoke grenades
Pointman: Model 1897 Shotgun/MP-40 + 2 fragmentation grenades + 2 white phosphorous grenades
Machine Gunner: M1919 Browning + M1911 pistol
Assistant Machine Gunner: M1 Carbine + 1 uncolored smoke grenade
Ammo Carrier: M1 Carbine/MP-40

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

then they were moved into regular infantry use by like the USMC, where they loved it

airborne and some regular army troops use them as well

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

Maybe I can replace the machine gunner's pistol with an M1 Carbine, since I know that American airborne troops did so in World War 2. However, I imagine it'd be far too heavy and cumbersome for someone to carry a flamethrower or a grenade launcher alongside a fully loaded M1 plus ammo.

An M79 alongside na M1 carbine would be useful

The M79 is range and ammo limited so the grenadier can contribute to a firefight with his rifle.

[The Akasha Colony]

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

Maybe I can replace the machine gunner's pistol with an M1 Carbine, since I know that American airborne troops did so in World War 2. However, I imagine it'd be far too heavy and cumbersome for someone to carry a flamethrower or a grenade launcher alongside a fully loaded M1 plus ammo.

As with everything, context matters. In some situations a shotgun can actually be extremely effective, including building clearance in urban warfare, clearing out trenches, jungle warfare, etc.

This type of squad was setup with jungle warfare in mind, specially the Congolian swamp forests and lowland forests. Therefore I'd think a shotgun would work quite well in that terrain.

Actual troops who fought in jungles did not field nearly so many shotguns. Not anywhere close. Largely because shotguns are extremely niche weapons. Their extremely limited range, cumbersome reloading process, and relatively restricted ammunition capacity makes them poor choices for anything resembling a common-use firearm.

If you look at every war in the last century, troops fighting in jungles have used standard infantry arms (primarily rifles) in combat. Not by mistake, but by choice. There is nothing special about a jungle or forest that so completely changes the tactical situation that the rifle, submachine gun, or ideally, the assault rifle, gets displaced as the foremost infantry weapon.

[The New California Republic]

Actual troops who fought in jungles did not field nearly so many shotguns. Not anywhere close. Largely because shotguns are extremely niche weapons. Their extremely limited range, cumbersome reloading process, and relatively restricted ammunition capacity makes them poor choices for anything resembling a common-use firearm.

Actually if I remember rightly in Vietnam it was the guys at the back of the patrols that were very frequently armed with shotguns, as a "sting in the tail" in case of ambush from the rear.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon.

As with everything, context matters. In some situations a shotgun can actually be extremely effective, including building clearance in urban warfare, clearing out trenches, jungle warfare, etc.

Jungle warfare isn't a situation where a shotgun is useful enough to replace a rifle, same with urban warfare. For clearing trenches, it still isn't worthwhile to replace your primary weapon with a shotgun. The situations in which a shotgun MIGHT be useful are not often enough that you can replace a more versatile rifle or carbine with a shotgun. Even in jungles and urban environments, you will find far more engagements occuring at ranges beyond the 50 to 100 yards that the shotgun retains ANY effectiveness at all. Furthermore, in an urban environment the spread of a shotgun increases the risk of civilian casualties or, in room clearing operations, of friendly casualties. Everything a shotgun can do, a carbine or assault rifle does better. Except duck hunting but that's irrelevant.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Shotgun is useless as an infantry combat weapon. The M1 Carbine was design to replaced the M1911 with support troops but was issued to officers and senior noncoms.

Maybe I can replace the machine gunner's pistol with an M1 Carbine, since I know that American airborne troops did so in World War 2. However, I imagine it'd be far too heavy and cumbersome for someone to carry a flamethrower or a grenade launcher alongside a fully loaded M1 plus ammo.

I wouldn't bother with standardized grenade loads. If you want to specify, go ahead. I can tell you, though, that soldiers are going to bring more bullets and grenades depending on the mission. If it's a short hop, like a convoy run from one FOB to another, then they might not bring much beyond the "typical" load. But if it's a patrol into the bush where contact is likely, they'll probably bring a lot more bullets and such.
Furthermore, I'd issue most of the guys with a rifle. You include the MP40, which I would drop in favor the STG-44 or FAL. For the grenadier, you don't need both an M79 and an M7 adapter. Either will work but both is just additional stuff to carry. Depending on when exactly this particular squad is fighting, I might suggest some different weapons but the presence of the M79 suggests after 1961, in which case I would suggest replacing the M1 Carbine and MP40s with the FN FAL and the M1919 with the M60 or the FN MAG. Also, since this is a platoon heavy weapons squad, I'd pull the grenadier out. Put the grenadier with the rifle squads where he'll do more good. Replace him with a M67 recoilless rifle for anti-tank work.

So yeah. FN FAL rifles, M60 or FN MAG machine guns, and a M67 recoilless rifle.