NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

the us army used tons of conscripts in korea and vietnam as infantry

it's one of the major reasons it lost both wars lol (not because of conscripts per se, but because the conscription system was easily gamed)

[Manokan Republic]

the us army used tons of conscripts in korea and vietnam as infantry

it's one of the major reasons it lost both wars lol (not because of conscripts per se, but because the conscription system was easily gamed)

Well in Vietnam and Korea, the number of draftees was about half that of WWII, or roughly a third, and most were not in infantry positions that were drafted.

Also I would argue we won both wars, the only issue with Vietnam was pulling out, which lead to South Vietnam being swarmed and civilians being mass murdered, until 1986 when the new government via a CIA back coup was put in to power.

[Albynau]

Hello guys, I appreciate the help you all have given me in the past and I have a bunch more questions:

1) Was/is the high-low mix of aircraft a thing any more? It seems to me that you'd want the most capable aircraft you can to fight peer-level adversaries, and if you need something to just drop bombs on insurgents or something you'd just use drones or armed trainers or something even cheaper than a low end fighter aircraft.

2) Is utilizing towed artillery in a conflict with a near-peer adversary suicidal? If you know you're going to receive counter-battery fire and you have to shoot and scoot in order to survive, how do you even do that with towed artillery?

3) I can understand the usage of light/medium mortars at the company level and below by being reasonably man portable and being quick to deliver support. I can understand the efficiency of 155mm howitzers at high levels of organizations. I'm having a harder time understanding the artillery in between the two extremes, like 105mm howitzers or 120mm mortars. If 155 does everything that 105 does except at a larger logistical footprint, wouldn't you just be better off with more 155s and getting rid of 105s entirely? What situation is there where you want to shoot a 105mm howitzer at something versus a 155mm?

I can kind of see a niche for 120mm mortars since you can mount it on a vehicle that has the same footprint as a 81mm mortar carrier, but similar to the above question, if all your mortars except for the light 60mm ones are going to be driven around in vehicles, why bother having a 81mm at all when you could have a 120mm one?

4) Tracks versus wheels for artillery? I understand that tracked is more expensive but has better terrain crossing capability, but I'm not sure how that translates to artillery. How often is artillery supposed to be going into rough terrain? Does it affect their ability to displace after shooting? I imagine wheeled is faster when actually moving, but don't a lot of these vehicles need to deploy ground supports in order to fire which tracked vehicles don't need to do? What kind of military would select something like a Panzerhaubitze 2000 over a CAESAR or vice versa?

5) Do dedicated reconnaissance aircraft like a RF-4E have much of a point nowadays when satellites and drones exist?

6) I don't really know how to word this question so I'll give a scenario.

Nation A is preparing for a Fulda Gap type scenario against a much stronger Nation B. Once hostilities starts it is likely Nation A's air force will be unable to hit Nation B's airfields and other strategic sites or contribute much to the ground fighting and would instead be solely devoting its attention to surviving and contesting the air space over the battlefield. Consequently, once hostilities start, instead of the air force trying to suicidally attack enemy strategic assets, the plan is just to lob as many tactical ballistic missiles at their airfields/harbors/supply depots.

I'm just basing this entirely on the idea that the missiles on the ground in hiding are less vulnerable to being blown away than aircraft trying to get through an air defense network and lots of enemy aircraft.

Thank you in advance.

[Spirit of Hope]

2) Is utilizing towed artillery in a conflict with a near-peer adversary suicidal? If you know you're going to receive counter-battery fire and you have to shoot and scoot in order to survive, how do you even do that with towed artillery?

Towed artillery can be better under certain circumstances, they are lighter which means they can be airdropped or helicopter transported much more easily, they can be better dug in and concealed, which is a bonus as well. It is hardly suicidal, especially if your crew are well trained and know what they are doing. Self propelled guns are probably preferred, but they have issues as well.

3) I can understand the usage of light/medium mortars at the company level and below by being reasonably man portable and being quick to deliver support. I can understand the efficiency of 155mm howitzers at high levels of organizations. I'm having a harder time understanding the artillery in between the two extremes, like 105mm howitzers or 120mm mortars. If 155 does everything that 105 does except at a larger logistical footprint, wouldn't you just be better off with more 155s and getting rid of 105s entirely? What situation is there where you want to shoot a 105mm howitzer at something versus a 155mm?

105's are generally used because they are lighter, again air dropped and helicopter transport. This is going away to some extent as nations make lighter artillery pieces, but the logistical tail of 105s is still smaller/lighter than a 155s.

I can kind of see a niche for 120mm mortars since you can mount it on a vehicle that has the same footprint as a 81mm mortar carrier, but similar to the above question, if all your mortars except for the light 60mm ones are going to be driven around in vehicles, why bother having a 81mm at all when you could have a 120mm one?

You can more easily dismount the 81mm mortar vs. the 120mm mortar for on foot operations, and the 81mm mortar can have more ammo which means more stowed fire missions.

4) Tracks versus wheels for artillery? I understand that tracked is more expensive but has better terrain crossing capability, but I'm not sure how that translates to artillery. How often is artillery supposed to be going into rough terrain? Does it affect their ability to displace after shooting? I imagine wheeled is faster when actually moving, but don't a lot of these vehicles need to deploy ground supports in order to fire which tracked vehicles don't need to do? What kind of military would select something like a Panzerhaubitze 2000 over a CAESAR or vice versa?

Wheeled is faster on road, but slower off road. The question becomes what is your priorities, where do you envision fighting, and against who? If you need to save money, plan to fight where there are a lot of roads, and against an opponent who will not be counter battery firing as much you probably tend towards the wheeled versions. If money isn't a major issue, roads are going to be scare or damaged, and you expect more threat of enemy artillery you probably go tracked.

5) Do dedicated reconnaissance aircraft like a RF-4E have much of a point nowadays when satellites and drones exist?

Yes. Satellites have to wait to revisit, and their orbits are likely to be guessed by an astute enemy. They also are restrained in the angles and types of reconnaissance they can conduct. All while being incredibly expensive.

Large reconnaissance drones that can compete with a reconnaissance aircraft aren't exactly agile or good at defending themselves. They also have the inherent issue of being controlled remotely, which is a vulnerability to a peer opponent.

6) I don't really know how to word this question so I'll give a scenario.

Nation A is preparing for a Fulda Gap type scenario against a much stronger Nation B. Once hostilities starts it is likely Nation A's air force will be unable to hit Nation B's airfields and other strategic sites or contribute much to the ground fighting and would instead be solely devoting its attention to surviving and contesting the air space over the battlefield. Consequently, once hostilities start, instead of the air force trying to suicidally attack enemy strategic assets, the plan is just to lob as many tactical ballistic missiles at their airfields/harbors/supply depots.

I'm just basing this entirely on the idea that the missiles on the ground in hiding are less vulnerable to being blown away than aircraft trying to get through an air defense network and lots of enemy aircraft.

Thank you in advance.

It's not a terrible idea, it's one of the main uses for tactical ballistic missiles. Just be aware that airfields are notoriously difficult to take out of operation in either the long term or short term.

[Gallia-]

Towed artillery is harder to kill (in terms of both weapons lost and crew injured or killed) than self-propelled artillery.

This is probably because there are fewer things to actually break on a towed piece (anything can tow a 155mm, even a Humvee, less a 5-ton or whatever, while a Paladin can only tow itself) and the crew is spatially separated and can be better protected against fire (in theory every crewman of a towed gun can have a dugout with overhead protection against bomblets at the least, whereas even the best protected self-propelled piece is limited by tonnage and probably won't stop high penetration warheads like TGSM without significant capital investment). You can also make towed artillery much harder to kill than self propelled guns (in theory, again, because its armor isn't limited by chassis tonnage, as the Chinese PVA proved in Korea when it produced towed artillery firing positions with significant overhead cover capable of resisting 155mm hits).

It is the optimal "high intensity war" artillery, provided you have enough hours (a couple days, at least) to prepare the fighting positions and aren't afraid of limited gun traverse, anyway.

Self propelled guns are either a crutch for wimps who can't use shovels or the arch representation of the cult of shoot and scoot. Towed artillery just finds a good spot and wails away at maximum fire rate, stopping only when the counter fire gets so heavy it starts to damage the piece's fighting position.

[Purpelia]

Towed artillery is harder to kill (in terms of both weapons lost and crew injured or killed) than self-propelled artillery.

This is probably because there are fewer things to actually break on a towed piece (anything can tow a 155mm, even a Humvee, less a 5-ton or whatever, while a Paladin can only tow itself) and the crew is spatially separated and can be better protected against fire (in theory every crewman of a towed gun can have a dugout with overhead protection against bomblets at the least, whereas even the best protected self-propelled piece is limited by tonnage and probably won't stop high penetration warheads like TGSM without significant capital investment). You can also make towed artillery much harder to kill than self propelled guns (in theory, again, because its armor isn't limited by chassis tonnage, as the Chinese PVA proved in Korea when it produced towed artillery firing positions with significant overhead cover capable of resisting 155mm hits).

It is the optimal "high intensity war" artillery, provided you have enough hours (a couple days, at least) to prepare the fighting positions and aren't afraid of limited gun traverse, anyway.

Self propelled guns are either a crutch for wimps who can't use shovels or the arch representation of the cult of shoot and scoot. Towed artillery just finds a good spot and wails away at maximum fire rate, stopping only when the counter fire gets so heavy it starts to damage the piece's fighting position.

But what happens when your army needs to advance?

[Immoren]

Simplest way (towed) artillery battalion can protect itself against enemy counter-battery fire is to simply practice spreading out over so wide geographic area that each enemy fire mission can't stop more than single section functioning.

Also you should just replace 60mm with 81mm in all troops that matter and give 60mm as fog dispenser for home guard or special forces or somethnig.

[Purpelia]

Simplest way (towed) artillery battalion can protect itself against enemy counter-battery fire is to simply practice spreading out over so wide geographic area that each enemy fire mission can't stop more than single section functioning.

Also you should just replace 60mm with 81mm in all troops that matter and give 60mm as fog dispenser for home guard or special forces or somethnig.

Speaking of that how far can the fog throwers on tanks and IFV's reach? Would it perhaps be smart to put a small 60mm mortar poking out the turret of IFV's to let them throw smoke and maybe flares further away to cover infantry?

[Velkanika]

the us army used tons of conscripts in korea and vietnam as infantry

it's one of the major reasons it lost both wars lol (not because of conscripts per se, but because the conscription system was easily gamed)

Well in Vietnam and Korea, the number of draftees was about half that of WWII, or roughly a third, and most were not in infantry positions that were drafted.

Also I would argue we won both wars, the only issue with Vietnam was pulling out, which lead to South Vietnam being swarmed and civilians being mass murdered, until 1986 when the new government via a CIA back coup was put in to power.

Right, I'm gonna go ahead and burst your bubble. Believing that the US is invincible is dangerous - it opens us all up to overconfidence and is precisely why we lost the Vietnam War.

Before I continue, let me clarify why I say we lost the Vietnam War. The objective of the US involvement in the Vietnam Wars (note the plural) was to maintain a non-Communist government in Southeast Asia to contain the spread of Communism from China. Considering that Saigon was captured by an armored spearhead after the US withdrew and ARVN disintegrated on contact with the NVA/NLF, I feel completely supported by the evidence when I say that objective was not secured.

The United States became heavily involved in the Vietnam War when the French withdrew to consolidate forces in Algeria - the NLF successfully defeated them militarily and forced their withdrawal, which makes them a classic example of a successful insurgency. The US then, despite the French just loosing the First Indochina War, proceeded to fight the Second Indochina War with exactly the same strategy and combat tactics. Then, when General Westmoreland was briefed on how the tactics were failing to achieve their operational objectives in early 1969 (about a year into the Vietnam War for the US) he showed a shocking lack of imagination and failed to make any adjustments to his operational planning or provide tactical direction to his subordinate commanders. That situation continued until he was relieved from command.

These errors were further compounded by a fundamental miscalculation by the United States - American military planning relied on the assumption that the Viet Cong were infiltrators based in the North who were invading the south. In reality, the VC were the parts of the old anti-French coalition that happened to live in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese, and the failure to recognize that their existence was down to failures in the South Vietnamese government doomed the American efforts to ultimate failure. By the time the problem was properly recognized, it was too late to do anything about it. Public opposition to the South Vietnamese government was already endemic in the rural population, who notably also didn't like the Communists that much but generally could at least be relied on to provide security. By 1970, the NLF was operating a shadow government in rural South Vietnam, where they would begin police actions and hold government operations right after the sun went down and the American and ARVN troops left the villages.

The US withdrew because public opinion swung against the war, and because we realistically had no way to win without working with the Communists in some capacity, which they had zero inclination to indulge us with seeing as they saw the whole thing as a continuation of their war for national independence from the French empire. Also, because civilians were already being massacred before the US withdrew, so most Americans kinda shrugged about the Vietnamese doing it to themselves after we left.

As for the original topic of discussion, conscripts, the US force in Vietnam changed considerably over time. In the latter stages, it was principally conscripts led by conscripts - we basically took a bunch of hormonal high school students, handed them M16s, and gave them brand new, green officers with inadequate training themselves as leaders and expected them to defeat an enemy who dressed the same as the civilian population which generally hated them as an extension of their hatred of imperial control that they could not tell apart until they took fire.

There is a reason that the First and Second Indochina Wars often provide case studies at various American war colleges as examples of what not to do in warfare. Metaphorically, we decided to kick a dog right after we watched it rip the legs off of the last guy who tried and expected a different outcome.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Who makes better soldiers: married men or bachelors?

[Somerania]

I need some advice
Is the new M84AS1 better than the M84D in anyway? If so can I improve the M84D by adding the better parts of the M84AS1 in it? (I am a democratic Yugoslavia btw)

[Kassaran]

Whomever is more willing to fight. Married soldiers and single soldiers don't differ in their discipline or morale in any particular ways. Age is probably the bigger part in it all and for the job you want to boot.

[Immoren]

Why does this sound like it was taken from advert brochure.

[Gallia-]

Whomever is more willing to fight. Married soldiers and single soldiers don't differ in their discipline or morale in any particular ways. Age is probably the bigger part in it all and for the job you want to boot.

Married soldiers probably take fewer personal risks, doubly so for soldiers with children, relative to the same people being unmarried.

Whether this is important or not depends on whether you rely on personal aggression and risk taking to matter. For people like Hamas who rely on literally suicidal attackers because most of their army is fedayeen, it can be a problem. For people like ISIS or Ansar Al-Islam who rely on suicide bombers, it is also a problem, it can be a problem. For the Caroleans, who rely on disciplined troops who are unwavering against (for their time) near certain death, it can be a problem. For people who don't rely on suicidal bravery/recklessness in the face of battle, it probably isn't an issue.

But a fact remains that for plenty of historically successful armies, such as those of Al-Qaeda or their descendents, marriage is a problem because it will lead to guys backing out of deals and not committing politically valuable attacks against your enemies. How do we know this? Because the PLO used marriage and child rearing to liquidate one of their more infamous assassin special forces units, the Black September, by marrying the assassins and giving them a baby birth stipend. The Fedayeen became the family man and the potential for ex-BSO operatives to attack their employers was greatly reduced. Naturally it didn't stop the occasional lone wolf from claiming the BSO's namesake but it basically dissolved the organization internally. Who cares if some random Belgians at a gay homosexual night club, or some Greeks get killed by a guy or two who couldn't get married though. The important thing is that the BSO wasn't shooting Yasser Arafat for selling out.

Unmarried men in large, cohesive groups who disagree with your sudden change in political sentiments are probably the most dangerous threat to an organization. Which is why you marry soldiers in the first place: it helps prevent coups. It also helps if you are economically and militarily weak and need to rely on extremely powerful, mobile, computerized weapon systems utilizing such things as liquid natural gas carriers and airliners as ersatz warheads, with the guidance package being a 18-20 year old battle computer of a design so advanced and powerful we don't even know they work, much less how to build them in factories, because they are quite literally an alien technology to our greatest engineers.

So it's doubly important for smaller Islamic armies, such as the Mahdi Army or AAI or ISIS, that rely on highly motivated and zealous troops who engage in metaphorical (forlorn hopes, human sea attacks, Munich) and literal (boom) suicide attacks.

[Triplebaconation]

the us army used tons of conscripts in korea and vietnam as infantry

it's one of the major reasons it lost both wars lol (not because of conscripts per se, but because the conscription system was easily gamed)

The US conscription system wouldn't have worked if draftees got cushy assignments - one of its main purposes was to terrify kids into longer-term voluntary enlistment.

[United Earthlings]

I need some advice
Is the new M84AS1 better than the M84D in anyway? If so can I improve the M84D by adding the better parts of the M84AS1 in it? (I am a democratic Yugoslavia btw)

Except for a few minor differences, they're practically the same tank.

The M84AS1 can go slightly faster and has an active protection system, if installed.

The M84D can fire 1 round faster per minute.

Without digging deep into the weeds of technical issues, given that Croatia being a member of NATO probably has better access to the latest in electronics, the sensors on the M84D I would venture are probably slightly better compared to what's found on the M84AS1 which is comparable to what would be found on T-90s as Serbia sources most/majority/all of their equipment from Russia.

[Gallia-]

the us army used tons of conscripts in korea and vietnam as infantry

it's one of the major reasons it lost both wars lol (not because of conscripts per se, but because the conscription system was easily gamed)

The US conscription system wouldn't have worked if draftees got cushy assignments - one of its main purposes was to terrify kids into longer-term voluntary enlistment.

Very wholesome.

I just meant draft deferments for university students vs. Moron Corps conscription in VN though.

Should have been reversed: deferments for morons and automatic drafting of anyone who scores >50 percentile on SAT or ACT scores. Too easily gamed so the best potential infantrymen who won't die as much in combat end up evading infantry service through a variety of deferments while the worst have to be brought in to fill in the gaps and end up breaking in combat and leading to entire platoons routing or whatever.

[New Vihenia]

I need some advice
Is the new M84AS1 better than the M84D in anyway? If so can I improve the M84D by adding the better parts of the M84AS1 in it? (I am a democratic Yugoslavia btw)

I would expect it is possible as there seems to be not much of differences between both.

[Immoren]

Fuck all readable "career" progression examples for different officer groups in Immoren.
lol

[Triplebaconation]

The US conscription system wouldn't have worked if draftees got cushy assignments - one of its main purposes was to terrify kids into longer-term voluntary enlistment.

Very wholesome.

I just meant draft deferments for university students vs. Moron Corps conscription in VN though.

Should have been reversed: deferments for morons and automatic drafting of anyone who scores >50 percentile on SAT or ACT scores. Too easily gamed so the best potential infantrymen who won't die as much in combat end up evading infantry service through a variety of deferments while the worst have to be brought in to fill in the gaps and end up breaking in combat and leading to entire platoons routing or whatever.

Guys with college deferments actually eventually served in higher proportion than those without them. Of course they were far more likely to be sent to specialist schools and spend their terms in Hawaii or somewhere and a college degree lowered your chances of dying in combat by ten or twenty times.

[The Army of DxD]

If the DM53, which uses tungsten, had a penetration value of 800 mm of RHAe, what would its penetration value be if it used depleted uranium?

DM53 has a weight of 21.4 kg, a projectile weight of 8.5 kg and a muzzle velocity of 1,750 m/s.

[Gallia-]

Very wholesome.

I just meant draft deferments for university students vs. Moron Corps conscription in VN though.

Should have been reversed: deferments for morons and automatic drafting of anyone who scores >50 percentile on SAT or ACT scores. Too easily gamed so the best potential infantrymen who won't die as much in combat end up evading infantry service through a variety of deferments while the worst have to be brought in to fill in the gaps and end up breaking in combat and leading to entire platoons routing or whatever.

Guys with college deferments actually eventually served in higher proportion than those without them. Of course they were far more likely to be sent to specialist schools and spend their terms in Hawaii or somewhere and a college degree lowered your chances of dying in combat by ten or twenty times.

I guess this is how wartime conscription systems work when there's no peacetime draft. ):

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

The US conscription system wouldn't have worked if draftees got cushy assignments - one of its main purposes was to terrify kids into longer-term voluntary enlistment.

Very wholesome.

I just meant draft deferments for university students vs. Moron Corps conscription in VN though.

Should have been reversed: deferments for morons and automatic drafting of anyone who scores >50 percentile on SAT or ACT scores. Too easily gamed so the best potential infantrymen who won't die as much in combat end up evading infantry service through a variety of deferments while the worst have to be brought in to fill in the gaps and end up breaking in combat and leading to entire platoons routing or whatever.

or draft them (without deferment) but draft former Ivy League students as officers.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The Vietnam problem was that the USA elite fraction was discovered to be entirely disloyal and had no intention of winning Vietnam. A large fraction explicitly wanted to lose Vietnam so they could win the USA internal conflict (e.g. Harvard Crimson Khmer Rouge editorials). Any possible draft scheme would have to go through a disloyal designer rather than a national HOI4 AI.

[Gallia-]

The Vietnam problem was that the USA elite fraction was discovered to be entirely disloyal and had no intention of winning Vietnam. A large fraction explicitly wanted to lose Vietnam so they could win the USA internal conflict (e.g. Harvard Crimson Khmer Rouge editorials). Any possible draft scheme would have to go through a disloyal designer rather than a national HOI4 AI.

The Selective Service Act was probably written by actual communists. Or banksters. Not much of a difference in the end.

It has nothing to do with Kent State though.

It was true in Korea too. It was true in WW2, as well, except that the deferments were rarer and less likely to be granted because wartime boards were instructed to ignore them by FDR. It's not something unique to Marxism, it's just that the USA actively courts subversive elements internally, whether communist or capitalist leaning. Deferment systems are generally a sign of problematic or subversive issues because it means you can game your way out. The solution is to not allow deferments, which is basically what FDR did, just unofficially. It means more The Sullivans happens but whatever.

The only deferments should be for actual physical or mental problems, like severe scoliosis or palsy or something, not class distinctions or whatever. That's just a great way to make any possible elites hate their own nation because they never had obligations towards it. Deferment should ultimately just be a way to keep the draft board from needing to examine the guys who can barely walk up stairs without crutches I guess. Once you start introducing class distinctions into the mix you end up making a Korean War style draft system (as enforced, anyway, but the actual draft had class distinctions built-in for weird reasons) that pulls from the chaff instead of the cream, while said cream go on to establish a society that destroys itself from within.

The USA is just kinda awfulbad at running a conscript army I guess. It's sort of the example of how to not run a draft system to begin with, since it was sabotaged from its inception in 1940.