NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

The page should just say "one long, three strongs, four quicks" or maybe "man over weapons".

Can you elaborate on this (and the precise meaning of ""one long, three strongs, four quicks"")? I am planning on using the strategy you proposed.

[The Corparation]

Speaking of guns on subs. I know the following can be done with modern technology easily enough. I also know it'd be a bad idea to do for many reasons now and in any other time. But my question is simply technical. How early could it be done and be FUNCTIONAL and PRACTICAL FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. Not a tactical or strategic one. In those it just won't work.

The idea is as follows. Take a battleship grade gun. So 12-16 inches, what ever is vogue at the time of construction for main batteries. Mount it inside a submarine in a spinal mount. Sort of like a casemate tank destroyer. The sub fires from under the surface to conceal where its shooting from. And it aims by turning and tilting the whole ship. The idea is of course to aim at static targets like coastal forts, harbors or other such stuff. Potentially even as a terror weapon against civilians.

Surcouf/M2 were set up like this although they were intended to shoot ships rather than shore. There's no reason why you couldn't use them to shell shore targets. Overall effect on the enemy would probably be the same as Japan got with the deck guns they shelled the pacific coast with. The biggest effect Japanese shelling had on the US was civilians got scared of an invasion which served as further justification for setting up Internment Camps but beyond that they didn't really have any effect on the war.

[Triplebaconation]

USS Holland had dynamite guns.

[Purpelia]

Speaking of guns on subs. I know the following can be done with modern technology easily enough. I also know it'd be a bad idea to do for many reasons now and in any other time. But my question is simply technical. How early could it be done and be FUNCTIONAL and PRACTICAL FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. Not a tactical or strategic one. In those it just won't work.

The idea is as follows. Take a battleship grade gun. So 12-16 inches, what ever is vogue at the time of construction for main batteries. Mount it inside a submarine in a spinal mount. Sort of like a casemate tank destroyer. The sub fires from under the surface to conceal where its shooting from. And it aims by turning and tilting the whole ship. The idea is of course to aim at static targets like coastal forts, harbors or other such stuff. Potentially even as a terror weapon against civilians.

Surcouf/M2 were set up like this although they were intended to shoot ships rather than shore. There's no reason why you couldn't use them to shell shore targets. Overall effect on the enemy would probably be the same as Japan got with the deck guns they shelled the pacific coast with. The biggest effect Japanese shelling had on the US was civilians got scared of an invasion which served as further justification for setting up Internment Camps but beyond that they didn't really have any effect on the war.

Those things had cruiser grade guns at best though. And they had some traverse and elevation to them. And they were designed to be fired when surfaced. Big difference.
I was thinking of something that would be fired underwater and be giant, as giant as you can make a spinal mount. Like if you could sneak this thing under a battleship and fire it'd just break in two.

[Kazarogkai]

Is it just me or is the engine on a T-34 significantly larger than those on other tanks? Aside from the M4 which had a giant radial that is.

Could be a result of having far more horsepower compared to most tanks of the period. Most like the panzers were packing in the 300-350 hp range. The T34 in contrast is packing 500 which quite a bit larger than pretty much all other major medium tanks of the period minus those that used the German 690hp mayback. Another factor might be fuel. The T34 used diesel last time I checked, sieaap engines tens to be a bit bigger than gasoline engines so that might be a factor. My best guess off the top off my head.

[Socialist Macronesia]

This one goes out to my MT bois:

Oh boy am I about to offend so many people. This is coming from a mostly-hard MT guy. I have nothing against PMT/FT RP, just I would prefer MT in my RPs.

So here's a question: What is the deal with dreadnoughts?

First, let me say I don't mean you can't have a powerful singular unit. I am saying that you shouldn't have one that costs as much as your entire military. It also seems that a lot of GE&T storefronts like to sell really strong singular units, but they either

A. Push hard to the line of PMT or FT

or

B. Suck

Example: carriers. A hypersonic missile attack would likely be successful... unless you are using hypersonic missiles. So you add that. Now others think "well we need to outclass hypersonic missiles" so they create a satellite launched weapon, or a smaller hypersonic missile, or something else, and so it goes back and forth until you start seeing supercavition submarines with planes and UAVs, that can move indefinitely...

...on a MT STOREFRONT.

Now you either have to have a sucky carrier group, or one that pushes MT because you no longer can play MT, it has to be super powerful or you can't compete in an RP.

I must say, the Germans are widely to blame with stuff like the Bismark and Gustav, which lots of history fanboys like to go crazy over. (History fanboys: no offense, but remember that they actually lost... twice.)

Is it just me?

Probably. But I am open to criticism.

[Dayganistan]

This one goes out to my MT bois:

Oh boy am I about to offend so many people. This is coming from a mostly-hard MT guy. I have nothing against PMT/FT RP, just I would prefer MT in my RPs.

So here's a question: What is the deal with dreadnoughts?

First, let me say I don't mean you can't have a powerful singular unit. I am saying that you shouldn't have one that costs as much as your entire military. It also seems that a lot of GE&T storefronts like to sell really strong singular units, but they either

A. Push hard to the line of PMT or FT

or

B. Suck

Example: carriers. A hypersonic missile attack would likely be successful... unless you are using hypersonic missiles. So you add that. Now others think "well we need to outclass hypersonic missiles" so they create a satellite launched weapon, or a smaller hypersonic missile, or something else, and so it goes back and forth until you start seeing supercavition submarines with planes and UAVs, that can move indefinitely...

...on a MT STOREFRONT.

Now you either have to have a sucky carrier group, or one that pushes MT because you no longer can play MT, it has to be super powerful or you can't compete in an RP.

I must say, the Germans are widely to blame with stuff like the Bismark and Gustav, which lots of history fanboys like to go crazy over. (History fanboys: no offense, but remember that they actually lost... twice.)

Is it just me?

Probably. But I am open to criticism.

I'd say the solution here is find a group of people who have a similar idea of what constitutes a modern tech level and RP only with them. Although that's probably easier said than done.

[The Manticoran Empire]

This one goes out to my MT bois:

Oh boy am I about to offend so many people. This is coming from a mostly-hard MT guy. I have nothing against PMT/FT RP, just I would prefer MT in my RPs.

So here's a question: What is the deal with dreadnoughts?

First, let me say I don't mean you can't have a powerful singular unit. I am saying that you shouldn't have one that costs as much as your entire military. It also seems that a lot of GE&T storefronts like to sell really strong singular units, but they either

A. Push hard to the line of PMT or FT

or

B. Suck

Example: carriers. A hypersonic missile attack would likely be successful... unless you are using hypersonic missiles. So you add that. Now others think "well we need to outclass hypersonic missiles" so they create a satellite launched weapon, or a smaller hypersonic missile, or something else, and so it goes back and forth until you start seeing supercavition submarines with planes and UAVs, that can move indefinitely...

...on a MT STOREFRONT.

Now you either have to have a sucky carrier group, or one that pushes MT because you no longer can play MT, it has to be super powerful or you can't compete in an RP.

I must say, the Germans are widely to blame with stuff like the Bismark and Gustav, which lots of history fanboys like to go crazy over. (History fanboys: no offense, but remember that they actually lost... twice.)

Is it just me?

Probably. But I am open to criticism.

The definition of modern tech can be fairly blurred. After all, it is technically possible for modern first world countries to build functional power armor like the Spartans wear in the Halo games. We cant match the genetic augmentation or AI assistance but the actual army can be made with a rough parts cost of around $300,000 per suit. Now this isnt accounting for development costs or any other costs associated with making something like that but it just goes to show that MT can be somewhat difficult to rigidly define.

Now that that is out of the way, I will say that I fully agree with your complaints about many of the supposedly MT storefronts. A lot of what they offer is either hypothetical equipment that was proposed at some point and either never started development or was killed in its infancy or is a highly experimental technology that may not even work as advertised. I'm as guilty as the next guy is for adopting and using technology that IRL never left prototype stage but I at least try to keep it to stuff that is feasible and not completely ridiculous.

All that being said, it is probably best to fully Dayganistans advice and find a group of like minded mT role players to hang around.

[The Corparation]

Surcouf/M2 were set up like this although they were intended to shoot ships rather than shore. There's no reason why you couldn't use them to shell shore targets. Overall effect on the enemy would probably be the same as Japan got with the deck guns they shelled the pacific coast with. The biggest effect Japanese shelling had on the US was civilians got scared of an invasion which served as further justification for setting up Internment Camps but beyond that they didn't really have any effect on the war.

Those things had cruiser grade guns at best though. And they had some traverse and elevation to them. And they were designed to be fired when surfaced. Big difference.
I was thinking of something that would be fired underwater and be giant, as giant as you can make a spinal mount. Like if you could sneak this thing under a battleship and fire it'd just break in two.

Surcouf had cruiser guns but M2 and her sisters had full on 12 inch guns originally meant for a battleship and could fire from periscope depth (Although iirc they had to surface to reload). That said if you fit a battleship gun to a submarine you're not going to be snapping battleships in two because it'll take more than one hit to snap a battleship in two and you probably aren't going to be able to get more than a couple of shots off even if you sped up the reload time and added the ability to reload while submerged.

[Austrasien]

So here's a question: What is the deal with dreadnoughts?

It is NS.

They have been here since (almost) the beginning.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Does allowing troops to bring their wives

and potentially mistresses

on deployment raise or lower morale?

[Spirit of Hope]

Does allowing troops to bring their wives

and potentially mistresses

on deployment raise or lower morale?

What type of deployment?

While having family come with soldiers on deployment would generally increase morale, loosing family members to enemy action would hurt morale more. Not to mention the increased logistical burden of families.

[Crookfur]

Does allowing troops to bring their wives

and potentially mistresses

on deployment raise or lower morale?

A combat deployment? Heck no thats a bad idea.
A long term overseas posting? Yup bring the whole gang.

For all the issues with Jodys and dear John letters no soldier wants their family in combat zone.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Does allowing troops to bring their wives

and potentially mistresses

on deployment raise or lower morale?

Which place.
Iraq, Djibouti, Hawaii, Guam or Japan?Poor fourth class Marine or rich Navy?

[New Vihenia]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

I was thinking of a tank in the manner of Ob-488 but with enhanced personnel capacity to say 6 or 8 with crew of 3. Conventional turret basket takes about 30% of hull volume of typical AFV's. So, yeah. If non penetrating turret can be build. That 30% can carry more people. Potentially without need to make the tank longer or wider.

[The New California Republic]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

So...you mean in terms of absolutely no protrusion below the turret ring by the turret into the body of the tank? Even limiting it with an unmanned turret you'd still need at least some protrusion into the body of the tank, as this concept art shows:

Completely eliminating the turret ring protrusion into the body of the tank would be extremely difficult to achieve, and I have not personally ever seen it done.

[New Vihenia]

So...you mean in terms of absolutely no protrusion below the turret ring by the turret into the body of the tank?

Yes, that's a Non-penetrating turret is.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Does allowing troops to bring their wives

and potentially mistresses

on deployment raise or lower morale?

If it's a region where violence is to be expected, no. If it's a region where they can expect to be safe and able to basically live normal civilian lives, then sure.

[Purpelia]

It's random question time. This time with taste.
Am I the only one who finds the Little Soviet Daleks to be just incredibly cute?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

It's random question time. This time with taste.
Am I the only one who finds the Little Soviet Daleks to be just incredibly cute?

(Image)

Not the only one

[The New California Republic]

It's random question time. This time with taste.
Am I the only one who finds the Little Soviet Daleks to be just incredibly cute?

(Image)

[Purpelia]

Someone in the design department rally loved his doctor. I wonder if we'll find the missing episodes buried on a VCR tape somewhere deep in ancient Soviet archives in Siberia.

Also, just a note. To everyone who has not tried designing a tank, and I mean properly designing it like where do I put the periscopes and how do I fit the armor thickness or how tall does the turret floor need to be to fit the drive shaft sort of design, you really should. It's just been an incredible journey both in really understanding why certain things were done the way they were by coming to them on your own but also just figuring this stuff out in general.

[Spirit of Hope]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

I was thinking of a tank in the manner of Ob-488 but with enhanced personnel capacity to say 6 or 8 with crew of 3. Conventional turret basket takes about 30% of hull volume of typical AFV's. So, yeah. If non penetrating turret can be build. That 30% can carry more people. Potentially without need to make the tank longer or wider.

I'm sure you could make a non penetrating tank turret, I'd just question the usefulness. The stuff that goes inside the vehicle would now have to be outside, leading to a potentially larger/taller turret, and the turret is generally the most visible/ targeted part of the tank. I'm assuming the turret would be unmanned, which would partially offset the issue.

[The New California Republic]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

I was thinking of a tank in the manner of Ob-488 but with enhanced personnel capacity to say 6 or 8 with crew of 3. Conventional turret basket takes about 30% of hull volume of typical AFV's. So, yeah. If non penetrating turret can be build. That 30% can carry more people. Potentially without need to make the tank longer or wider.

I'm sure you could make a non penetrating tank turret, I'd just question the usefulness. The stuff that goes inside the vehicle would now have to be outside, leading to a potentially larger/taller turret, and the turret is generally the most visible/ targeted part of the tank. I'm assuming the turret would be unmanned, which would partially offset the issue.

It'd also likely make it far more vulnerable, as the entire shell stock would need to be in the turret.

[Spirit of Hope]

I'm sure you could make a non penetrating tank turret, I'd just question the usefulness. The stuff that goes inside the vehicle would now have to be outside, leading to a potentially larger/taller turret, and the turret is generally the most visible/ targeted part of the tank. I'm assuming the turret would be unmanned, which would partially offset the issue.

It'd also likely make it far more vulnerable, as the entire shell stock would need to be in the turret.

I dont think that would be a huge deal, with proper blow out panels and modern munitions you probably wouldn't loose the whole turret even if the ammunition took a direct hit.