NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Triplebaconation]

just play harpoon lol

[Gallia-]

Finally. First image of our new "Ramjet manpads"

(Image)
(Image)

Pardon for the poor operator Image. The missile is basically Mistral but the Pyramidal shaped nose cone is not only to provide the seeker with its POV but also as the inlet shock cone. The booster stage will propel the missile to Ramjet working speed, then a sustainer, some Boron enriched grain starts and providing the thrust all the way to target. The rear fins are wraparound fin, while the canard is should be smaller but basically works like the good ol Igla or stinger.

What's the thing dropping down from the front? Some sort of radar or infrared telescope?

Or is this just to keep the ramjet from sucking in fragments of the plastic tube cover?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't really understand much about naval combat, any good starting sources for someone who knows little to nothing about it?

World of Warships

World of Warships+1

[Purpelia]

Hell no

Watch Master and Commander or something instead

Seriously, the guy not only talks about ships but has multi hour long specials on specific ships and battles. Right now he is doing Jutland. It's a very good place to learn about these things.

[Gallia-]

Hell no

Watch Master and Commander or something instead

Seriously, the guy not only talks about ships but has multi hour long specials on specific ships and battles. Right now he is doing Jutland. It's a very good place to learn about these things.

Ancient Aliens has more credible talking heads.

Drachnifel is bad, like all "Youtube history people" who lack actual real world experience i.e. being at a museum displaying a thing piece by piece with sufficient personal knowledge and understanding of the subject to explain it (Ian from ForgottenWeapons, who understands what he is talking about with guns, although he isn't a engineer or gunsmith or anything) or actual vetted credentials and experience in the subject matter (Nick Moran talking about tanks) or whatever. He has a poor memory and is bad at recalling passages (and the contexts of those passages), and checking his sources in general (which is bizarre, since he is making videos rather than doing something talking an IRC channel where fast replies are somewhat encouraged), assuming he ever provides them, but he is good at playing the part of "someone who knows something" until he is actually questioned I suppose, which makes him appealing to some people. But he is ultimately just a guy who plays World of Warships and nothing else.

He isn't someone who knows anything more than you could get through a cursory glance through Conway's Fighting Ships or any Friedman or Polmar book, so Shipbucket tier, at best. If he were actually going to museums and naval history organizations and getting regular interviews with people like Paul Stillwell or something, I would be moderately impressed, but he isn't. And he's a bit too poor of a historian to actually do so I'd imagine. There is one guy who works at a museum as a tour guide or something who does OK videos with what are basically Powerpoint presentations, and he has a degree from a decent school (Salzburg) and is not big-headed. He also cites his information.

Just play Harpoon if you want to learn about carrier/aviation based combat, or Rule the Waves 2 for pre-airplane stuff.

Both are fairly low file size (Harpoon 3 is like 200 MB) and low requirements, can run on modern computers, and are reasonably educational.

The only thing is that Tomcat can't acquire firing solutions with the camera so watch out for that bug. It would be great if it could since would make my typical plays in DCS as a Tomcat BARCAP (or OCA) with an AI RIO much easier. Ostmark get a better computer and DCS F-14 so you can be my backseater~ ;o

[Nevertopia]

How "realistic" is my military strength using the numbers in my main overview Military section factbook? https://www.nationstates.net/nation=nev ... id=1379366

Im interested in the material advantage my nation possesses. Would that many vehicles make sense for my army? Granted this is every vehicle needed in an army, from fighter jets to APCs.

[New Vihenia]

Or is this just to keep the ramjet from sucking in fragments of the plastic tube cover?

Yeah, it's just a simple tube cap. Open before firing

[Gallia-]

ic i was confuse because it swung down

i think a foam cover like Javelin (or M47) would potentially be safer tbf

M47 pulls the whole foam cover (javelin only pulls off the center bit) off too

that way if you drop the tube it just crushes a bit of foam instead of hurting the missile or w/e

[Purpelia]

Seriously, the guy not only talks about ships but has multi hour long specials on specific ships and battles. Right now he is doing Jutland. It's a very good place to learn about these things.

Ancient Aliens has more credible talking heads.

Drachnifel is bad, like all "Youtube history people" who lack actual real world experience i.e. being at a museum displaying a thing piece by piece with sufficient personal knowledge and understanding of the subject to explain it (Ian from ForgottenWeapons, who understands what he is talking about with guns, although he isn't a engineer or gunsmith or anything) or actual vetted credentials and experience in the subject matter (Nick Moran talking about tanks) or whatever. He has a poor memory and is bad at recalling passages (and the contexts of those passages), and checking his sources in general (which is bizarre, since he is making videos rather than doing something talking an IRC channel where fast replies are somewhat encouraged), assuming he ever provides them, but he is good at playing the part of "someone who knows something" until he is actually questioned I suppose, which makes him appealing to some people. But he is ultimately just a guy who plays World of Warships and nothing else.

He isn't someone who knows anything more than you could get through a cursory glance through Conway's Fighting Ships or any Friedman or Polmar book, so Shipbucket tier, at best. If he were actually going to museums and naval history organizations and getting regular interviews with people like Paul Stillwell or something, I would be moderately impressed, but he isn't. And he's a bit too poor of a historian to actually do so I'd imagine. There is one guy who works at a museum as a tour guide or something who does OK videos with what are basically Powerpoint presentations, and he has a degree from a decent school (Salzburg) and is not big-headed. He also cites his information.

Well yes. I ain't denying anything you said. You definitively won't be getting any sort of academic quality education from the guy or indeed anyone on youtube. Even the actual history professors I listen to can be questionable. But what you will get is a level of knowledge that is quite sufficient for the purposes of someone who only really wants and needs to learn enough to play pertend-ships on an internet forum. And his way of presenting it is rather entertaining and definitively more enjoyable than poring through books or reading internet articles. At least for someone who does not have a deep interest in the subject. And if you are, than he should serve as a decent entry point toward something serious.

So he is my recommendation for the average forum user.

[Gallia-]

You could also write a fan fiction of WW2 and try to pass it off as real. Same level of quality lmao.

[Purpelia]

You could also write a fan fiction of WW2 and try to pass it off as real. Same level of quality lmao.

Again, it's an entertainingly performed alternative to reading wikipedia or digging around the internet and doing basic research. Won't earn you a PHD but will get you through forum level fiction writing.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My brain hurts and I'm informing your parents.

[Albynau]

Following up to a previous question I had regarding the survivability of towed versus self propelled artillery, and how towed emplacements enjoy better survivability given enough time to dig in. What if you had an extreme excess of time (months, or years even) and wanted to build up protected positions for artillery, what would they look like?

Would we see a return to things like concrete casemates or bunkers? Would things like these Swiss artillery forts still see use?

Thank you in advance.

[Taihei Tengoku]

They would look like that. However the most survivable position for your artillery guns is aiming directly at the enemy's presidential palace, so you should have diplomats working to get them there while the engineers dig out the casemates.

[Gallia-]

Following up to a previous question I had regarding the survivability of towed versus self propelled artillery, and how towed emplacements enjoy better survivability given enough time to dig in. What if you had an extreme excess of time (months, or years even) and wanted to build up protected positions for artillery, what would they look like?

Would we see a return to things like concrete casemates or bunkers? Would things like these Swiss artillery forts still see use?

(Image)

Thank you in advance.

No. Aircraft would destroy these sort of fortifications pretty easily. But you might see multiple redundant firing positions and dummy positions setup for the batteries to use. Less "countries that last fought a war when musketry meant smoothbore muzzleloaders" and more "PVA in Korea" and "RKKA in the Ostfront".

The artillery piece still wants to move around, just not after fire mission or whatever. Maybe every few hours or so, instead. The Chinese earthen log casemates were built with entrances in the back for the pieces to be moved out. The Soviets didn't really bother with this, but they used deceptive fire positions and dummy guns (a propellant charge on the end of a log or fired out of a pipe does wonders for bamboozling the contemporary flash spotting techniques of "field glasses and the Oberleutnant's Fiesler Storch") to make intelligence information difficult.

Even inflating the number of guns is useful since it might result in the enemy draining resources from "less important" areas to your deceptive area and weakening the areas you want to attack.

You should look at how the Chinese and Soviets fought against the Americans and Nazis. The Ostfront end state of the reconnaissance group deception attacks (battalion or regimental strength mechanized attacks by motorcycle and tank troops supported by large artillery fire) to fool the Nazis is particularly good, but the artillerymen were also adept at avoiding Nazi counter battery and air attacks through relatively simple earthworks deceptions.

You might need more advanced decoys in the age of the SAR, but you can use expended barrels and a heavily laden 5-ton truck to imitate a howitzer, for instance similar things are done to defend SAM sites from identification. There's no reason you can't construct decoys of howitzer batteries, though. Shot barrels and damaged limbers are likely in abundance on a battlefield and can be easily repurposed into something materially useful instead of being sent back to a depot for scrapping or something.

[Albynau]

No. Aircraft would destroy these sort of fortifications pretty easily. But you might see multiple redundant firing positions and dummy positions setup for the batteries to use. Less "countries that last fought a war when musketry meant smoothbore muzzleloaders" and more "PVA in Korea" and "RKKA in the Ostfront".

The artillery piece still wants to move around, just not after fire mission or whatever. Maybe every few hours or so, instead. The Chinese earthen log casemates were built with entrances in the back for the pieces to be moved out. The Soviets didn't really bother with this, but they used deceptive fire positions and dummy guns (a propellant charge on the end of a log or fired out of a pipe does wonders for bamboozling the contemporary flash spotting techniques of "field glasses and the Oberleutnant's Fiesler Storch") to make intelligence information difficult.

Even inflating the number of guns is useful since it might result in the enemy draining resources from "less important" areas to your deceptive area and weakening the areas you want to attack.

You should look at how the Chinese and Soviets fought against the Americans and Nazis. The Ostfront end state of the reconnaissance group deception attacks (battalion or regimental strength mechanized attacks by motorcycle and tank troops supported by large artillery fire) to fool the Nazis is particularly good, but the artillerymen were also adept at avoiding Nazi counter battery and air attacks through relatively simple earthworks deceptions.

You might need more advanced decoys in the age of the SAR, but you can use expended barrels and a heavily laden 5-ton truck to imitate a howitzer, for instance similar things are done to defend SAM sites from identification. There's no reason you can't construct decoys of howitzer batteries, though. Shot barrels and damaged limbers are likely in abundance on a battlefield and can be easily repurposed into something materially useful instead of being sent back to a depot for scrapping or something.

I was thinking concrete or at least some sort of permanent structure not because they would be more resistant to getting shelled, but more for the long term consideration of how long they would last when exposed to the elements. I'm not too sure wooden earthworks can last very long without constant maintenance. Just sink a bunch of prefab concrete boxes everywhere for the guns to relocate to and from. When tensions start ramping up, start putting together the wooden earthworks to supplement the prefab dug outs you already have to operate from or fill them with dummies.

[Gallia-]

Maintaining a wooden structure is easier than constructing a concrete boxpill that can withstand significant firepower. It's also easier to source, in most instances, than concrete. Yes, you can lay concrete slabs in the field or ship slabs prefab, but that isn't a reasonable solution for anything above ground. So while concrete is necessary for some fighting positions, artillery is not one of them, because it is not underground and it is probably going to need semi-constant maintenance anyway.

Also concrete would be harder to camouflage in the age of the hyperspectral imaging sensor, whereas a tree and earthen mound can be camouflaged somewhat better. This is a concern from the 2030's though.

If you have some sort of prepared defensive position like the Korean DMZ setup then all concrete works can become practical due to the time sink available, but wood is better for field expediency, and I'm not sure concrete is even preferable if you have time given the material nature of concrete i.e. it is brittle and poor at resisting water and hard to camouflage against certain forms of sensors and such and so.

Commando snipers make their ghillie suits from what is available in situ to maximize their camouflage so I'm not sure why artillery or other fighting positions should be any different tbh.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Following up to a previous question I had regarding the survivability of towed versus self propelled artillery, and how towed emplacements enjoy better survivability given enough time to dig in. What if you had an extreme excess of time (months, or years even) and wanted to build up protected positions for artillery, what would they look like?

Would we see a return to things like concrete casemates or bunkers? Would things like these Swiss artillery forts still see use?

(Image)

Thank you in advance.

Modern missiles can hit the gun with precision through obstacles.According to the mode of operation of the Soviet Union and China, there will be a large number of field air defense forces near the artillery.In addition, the artillery positions need to be transferred immediately after the shelling to prevent the enemy artillery's counterattack and aircraft air attack.

[Albynau]

Maintaining a wooden structure is easier than constructing a concrete boxpill that can withstand significant firepower. It's also easier to source, in most instances, than concrete. Yes, you can lay concrete slabs in the field or ship slabs prefab, but that isn't a reasonable solution for anything above ground. So while concrete is necessary for some fighting positions, artillery is not one of them, because it is not underground and it is probably going to need semi-constant maintenance anyway.

Also concrete would be harder to camouflage in the age of the hyperspectral imaging sensor, whereas a tree and earthen mound can be camouflaged somewhat better. This is a concern from the 2030's though.

If you have some sort of prepared defensive position like the Korean DMZ setup then all concrete works can become practical due to the time sink available, but wood is better for field expediency, and I'm not sure concrete is even preferable if you have time given the material nature of concrete i.e. it is brittle and poor at resisting water and hard to camouflage against certain forms of sensors and such and so.

Commando snipers make their ghillie suits from what is available in situ to maximize their camouflage so I'm not sure why artillery or other fighting positions should be any different tbh.

I'm trying to model a slightly less impressive version of the DMZ, but most of the fortifications I can find information for are either for the North (which while an interesting read on digging in everything, I'm not sure emulating North Korea is a good idea), or things like the South's booby trapped highways and so forth, which while interesting things to consider, aren't very helpful to see how South Korea would dig in their artillery in case the Norks decide to party like it's 1950.

Modern missiles can hit the gun with precision through obstacles.According to the mode of operation of the Soviet Union and China, there will be a large number of field air defense forces near the artillery.In addition, the artillery positions need to be transferred immediately after the shelling to prevent the enemy artillery's counterattack and aircraft air attack.

I don't intend for the structures to survive getting a thousand pound bomb getting dropped on them or anything, just to be a little more resilient than a wooden bunker against other artillery. If they drop a JDAM or something on it, well, that's one JDAM less that isn't headed towards something more valuable.

[Gallia-]

The South Koreans wouldn't dig anything in, they would be the ones attacking lol.

Of course they aren't going to have significant defenses, they're at a strategic advantage for offensive. Their defenses, to the extent they exist, were mostly designed to not interfere with civil development and infrastructure either. Which is why it's mostly pre-drilled highways and bridges with built-in slits for tank trap I-beams and explosives respectively.

The North Koreans have been running a defensive game since at least the 1980's, though, and they don't have much of a civil economy to interfere with because of their "military first" policy, so they going to have more elaborate defenses. It isn't going to significantly impact the ground operations of the ROKA because they can't challenge the aviation of the ROKAF, though, so they would just end up getting swatted by Strike Eagles while K1A1 battalions rampage through entire DPRK divisions to reach Pyongyang inside a week or something.

It's a bit similar to the situation between Malaysia and Singapore, really, except Malaysia is even less prepared for a Singaporean invasion.

[Albynau]

I don't have a good example of a country sharing a built up militarized border with another that is worried about a land invasion constantly.

What would the South Koreans build if they were worried about the North Koreans coming down and the North Koreans were actually a credible threat?

[Gallia-]

I don't have a good example of a country sharing a built up militarized border with another that is worried about a land invasion constantly.

You literally gave the ultimate example: North Korea.

What would the South Koreans build if they were worried about the North Koreans coming down and the North Koreans were actually a credible threat?

Look at their opposite?

North Korea is worried about the South Koreans coming and the South Koreans are not only a credible threat, but an actual existential one, because a battalion of K1A1s would probably chew through a division of Type 59s and 5-ton trucks and scrawny DPRK manlets like the U.S. Army chewed through the Republican Guards. The South would take the North in a slugging match and come out not just on top but probably bankrupt because it would suddenly find itself needing to feed, clothe, and employ millions of helpless adults (although realistically they would probably operate the DPRK as a autonomous zone for a while, to give it time to adjust with slow increments of change, rather than smashing the entire, mostly functional, bureaucracy).

With its inability to produce an effective ground army, for want of healthy men, and inability to produce an effective air force, for want of effective fighter-bombers, the North Koreans have decided that the most cost-efficient means to prevent the South's inevitable campaign of conquest against them is to develop nuclear weapons and put their money where their mouth is by credibly being able to flatten Seoul, Okinawa, and Tokyo with megaton IRBMs. If they can reach Hawaii or D.C. even better, since that nips the United States in the bud as well, but the USA is about as interested in a land war in Asia as the DPRK is in retaking the South.

What you would build is nuclear weapons and means to deliver them to your enemy, honestly. If you can't afford that, then you better pony up the cash for an effective tactical air force able to inflict thousands (or tens of thousands) of casualties on an enemy invading army in a few minutes time. Unless you're isolated from your enemy by a sea border that seems really tough, though. Sweden had the advantage of needing to fly E1 wing out to the Baltics and throwing 300-400 RBS 15s at the Soviet Navy with each attack a couple times, hopefully letting the landing forces weaken enough that they can be repelled by tank regiments of Strv 104 or whatever.

If you're seriously interested in a large conventional ground army you would probably want an air force large and capable enough to challenge your enemy. Then you can focus on digging in artillery pieces and stuff. If you can't make a powerful air force that can attack the enemy, it doesn't matter how strong or big or well equipped your army is, you will lose. Your only option to prevent an invasion then is having nuclear weapons of sufficient quantity and dispersion that they can't be reliably targeted and destroyed before you launch them at your enemy.

Sweden made a mistake not investing in a nuclear arsenal and buying Viggens over atom bombs. North Korea isn't making that mistake, but it cost its army everything, including new tanks, guns, and artillery pieces since the mid-1980s. It's why the DPRK hasn't seriously invested in any new vehicles besides T-62 and Saggers for the past 50 years: all that money has been funneled away to the nuclear program. Repeatedly. They make a big noise about how they can flatten Seoul with mega artillery but they know they can't, so instead they're trying to make that true by buying IRBMs to just nuke the place.

They knew they lost the ability to conduct major offensive operations approximately around 1951, but it probably didn't permeate their brains until the mid-1970s or so when the K1 and M1 tank started to appear on the peninsula. The DPRK was genuinely one of the best equipped armies in the world in 1970 and it more or less lost it all by 1980. They ran some small tank programs to try to catch up to stuff like M1 and K1, but couldn't, so they went for the next best thing: the atomic bomb. Nothing is more efficient than a bomb that costs a mere $5,000,000 but does the damage of $5,000,000,000 of smaller bombs. Actually the tank program (and acquisition of a handful of MiG-29s to try to deal with F-15 and F-16) were part of an aborted conventional forces modernization that was competing at the time with the nuclear program, but it was so much more expensive for so much little gain, and I guess the famine really killed the conventional force modernization scheme.

If North Korea were a credible conventional army threat the ROKA would be the ROKSRF and just be a battalion of GLCMs and Pershings or something.

Nuclear weapons are the most efficient means of defensively countering a conventional army. The South Koreans aren't a nuclear state because they expect to perform some level offensive, ground gaining combat. Namely, they want to conquer the North, by force if needed, and are well equipped and trained to do this. The Swedish Army isn't a nuclear army because, well, frankly the Swedes were sorta stupid and preferred to buy a new fighter-bomber instead of a nuclear weapon, but I guess that's fair since they probably couldn't have developed the missile delivery systems (or bombers) needed to drop nukes in the first place if they went full bore down that route.

[The Akasha Colony]

I don't have a good example of a country sharing a built up militarized border with another that is worried about a land invasion constantly.

What would the South Koreans build if they were worried about the North Koreans coming down and the North Koreans were actually a credible threat?

At this point it feels like you're fishing for an excuse to build a bunch of concrete fortifications, rather than actually looking for an answer on what kind of fortifications work best.

The problem with big concrete fortifications and bunkers is that they take a comparatively long time to build and are fairly easy to spot. This latter part is a problem because it means they will basically all be spotted long before the war starts through various means, so when the shooting actually happens, the enemy will have already mapped out your potential artillery emplacements. This in turn is the real problem because killing a target isn't the hard part these days, it's finding a target.

On the other hand, simple wood and soil fortifications can be made on the spot with some chainsaws and an earthmover in a few hours. Or in a slightly longer period with some axes, shovels, and a work crew. They can be built rapidly shortly before or even during a conflict, and readily abandoned when not needed. This means the enemy probably won't have their positions pre-sighted for bombardment. They are also easier to camouflage while still being resistant to shellfire.

I don't intend for the structures to survive getting a thousand pound bomb getting dropped on them or anything, just to be a little more resilient than a wooden bunker against other artillery. If they drop a JDAM or something on it, well, that's one JDAM less that isn't headed towards something more valuable.

Artillery is quite valuable.

[New Vihenia]

Even stronger case for self propelled gun that can fire on the move

[Gallia-]

Movement attracts the eye though.

It would be better if the gun could fire from inside a house or underground or something. Since a howitzer that can be flash spotted from space it really isn't going to be super survivable against F-35 or something if it's moving at 60 kph or 0 kph, it'll just get hit by an SDB either way. Firing on the move would have been a good solution in 1975 though (it probably would have made "SCHUT N SKYUT" viable) when targeting moving armor was much harder than it is nowadays.

What's old is new again. The atomic powered suicide subterrene blows up the artillery firebase. And the airfield. And the carrier in port.

We'll need to make flying cities to escape the threat of underground stealth subterrenes whose only detectable signature is their explosion due to acoustic metamaterials making them sound like sewage flows or something.