NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Interesting but Purpelia is an international pariah.

NO IT IS NOT. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA? I AM OFFENDED NOW.

Oh.
How is it not an international pariah?
Is it rich?

[Purpelia]

NO IT IS NOT. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA? I AM OFFENDED NOW.

Oh.
How is it not an international pariah?
Is it rich?

The entire world and setting I created does not think any of this is a big deal. There is no UN. And frankly there is no christianity or the western world either. Things that we might consider to be crazy shit on account of our culture and western imperialism imposing it on the rest of the world simply isn't in a world without those things. It's a planet that might as well be completely alien. Including but not limited to having an indigenous species of dodos whose survival strategy is breeding so fast you can't kill them all (like rabbits really).

[United Feldheim]

Stepping away from the cringe inducing discussion of pedophilia and wartime rape above...

When it comes to tanks in a modern context, is there ever a reason to design and deploy classes other than the MBT? My understanding is that with the MBT combining speed, firepower, and protection into a single platform, that the old idea of light, medium, heavy, cavalry, infantry, etc. tank is outdated.

All that said, what situations do you see arising that could lead to a more expansive system of tank classifications?

I know looking at airborne operations, it seems as though light tanks can and even do now have a niche as rapidly deployable armored support. I wonder if perhaps the same logic could be applied to amphibious operations in fictional scenarios where countries lack the large scale sealift capabilities to make landing MBT’s practical in combat situations.

For heavy tanks, perhaps frequent and high lethality urban warfare could push a country to develop a class of heavily up-armored tanks, which, while underpowered for maneuver warfare on open ground could excel at having the staying power to support clearance operations with minimal risk to the vehicle. (Basically the M1’s TUSK taken to an extreme). The only other scenario I can imagine myself would be some sort of near-future armor breakthrough. This could dramatically increase the protection of an armored vehicle, but due to its first gen nature brings excessive weight as a trade off. Perhaps in an aggressively competitive military environment nations could be pushed to develop heavy tanks using this new protective technology alongside their MBT forces as some sort of heavy breakthrough and assault vehicle.

Just a few ideas, anyone else have any scenarios or any insights into modern military doctrine that could contribute to a reemergence of more granular tank classifications?

[Gallia-]

If you're subsidizing multiple manufacturers you can have multiple MBTs. The Soviets did this for a while.

You could also just have overlap from generations of vehicles. The Koreans have M48A5s serving alongside K1, K1A1, and K2s. Eventually (before 2030) those M48A5s will be replaced by K1A1s displaced by the K2s though. The US Army expected to have M60A3 in service alongside M1A1/M1A2 until the 2000s, too, before the USSR imploded (it would have had a tank fleet of 10,000 vehicles, with roughly 1/3rd being Pattons).

[Purpelia]

Just a few ideas, anyone else have any scenarios or any insights into modern military doctrine that could contribute to a reemergence of more granular tank classifications?

To be perfectly honest no. Fact of the matter is that the MBT is just too good of a compromise compared to any super specialized vehicle that they don't really make sense cost-effectiveness vise. Yes, a dedicated urban combat tank or landing tank or whatever might well be better at its job but the MBT does that job well enough that you might as well not bother. So that basically leaves you with the MBT for almost everything and than various light tanks for scouting, airborne and such.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I don't think light armor is actually easy to deploy. A 20t light tank is basically at the level of a 60t MBT in terms of strategic mobility--it's sucking up transport planes to transport onesies and twosies where each sortie could keep an entire platoon of leg infantry on the move.

[Gallia-]

Light tanks don't require an airfield to be deployed but this is a questionable advantage to begin with.

[Manokan Republic]

Stepping away from the cringe inducing discussion of pedophilia and wartime rape above...

When it comes to tanks in a modern context, is there ever a reason to design and deploy classes other than the MBT? My understanding is that with the MBT combining speed, firepower, and protection into a single platform, that the old idea of light, medium, heavy, cavalry, infantry, etc. tank is outdated.

All that said, what situations do you see arising that could lead to a more expansive system of tank classifications?

I know looking at airborne operations, it seems as though light tanks can and even do now have a niche as rapidly deployable armored support. I wonder if perhaps the same logic could be applied to amphibious operations in fictional scenarios where countries lack the large scale sealift capabilities to make landing MBT’s practical in combat situations.

For heavy tanks, perhaps frequent and high lethality urban warfare could push a country to develop a class of heavily up-armored tanks, which, while underpowered for maneuver warfare on open ground could excel at having the staying power to support clearance operations with minimal risk to the vehicle. (Basically the M1’s TUSK taken to an extreme). The only other scenario I can imagine myself would be some sort of near-future armor breakthrough. This could dramatically increase the protection of an armored vehicle, but due to its first gen nature brings excessive weight as a trade off. Perhaps in an aggressively competitive military environment nations could be pushed to develop heavy tanks using this new protective technology alongside their MBT forces as some sort of heavy breakthrough and assault vehicle.

Just a few ideas, anyone else have any scenarios or any insights into modern military doctrine that could contribute to a reemergence of more granular tank classifications?

For a time yes, although in the modern day it’s not really necessary, given that you can basically just create a tank that is good enough at everything not really to matter, and tanks are more useful in the general purpose role. Like you said though an airborne tank is still useful for niche roles, and something akin to a tank killer, like the hellcat, could still be useful today, especially in the dual role of an airborne tank. If you take a look at IFV’s, such as the Bradley, they kind of fulfill the role with anti tank missiles, and in the Persian gulf war for example they killed more tanks than our tanks. As tank support, they do a pretty good job, but being able to out maneuver the enemy and hit them first is a pretty big advantage, hence how a lighter faster vehicle can provide an advantage over a heavily armored one. There’s no point in extra armor If it can’t stop the enemy round. The Toyota and Rhodesian bush wars are both pretty good Modern examples of how light vehicles with big guns can take our superior armored vehicles, by out maneuvering and flanking them. In the Toyota wars they used a various array of technicals with rocket launchers, and in the Rhodesian bush wars, they tended to mount heavy guns on fairly well armored light vehicles, such as with the 90mm guns. In the modern day, active defense systems can easily shoot down missiles, but not kinetic projectiles, so a light tank with a big gun could be a potential replacement for the IFV, or something with high end kinetic missiles.

The other option is to use tanks for other purposes, for example the Israelis with the merkava started using them as ambulances and troop transports, to such the extent they eventually made the namer, which is an apc as well armored as a tank built on the merkava chassis. So some sort of heavy troop transport is a potential role.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What are the effects of treating spies in wartime as POWs (rather than criminals)?

[Manokan Republic]

What are the effects of treating spies in wartime as POWs (rather than criminals)?

Nothing really other than it may encourage more spying.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What are the effects of treating spies in wartime as POWs (rather than criminals)?

Nothing really other than it may encourage more spying.

Is it likely to improve treatment of your POWs or lead to peace starting earlier?

[The Corparation]

What are the effects of treating spies in wartime as POWs (rather than criminals)?

Being nice to captured spies may make your opponent more willing to be nice to any of your spies that they capture.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Thinking about removing IFVs from my TOE altogether. As they converge with tanks in complexity and cost an IFV seems to be a diversion of various scarce inputs (fire control sets, trained armor crews, 1,000hp+ drivetrains) from main battle tanks to a generally weaker vehicle.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

CEASE. NOW.

I was actually calling it unnatural and condemning all child sexual exploitation. Read my whole post, please.

[Gallia-]

Return of the tank desantii.

Or just follow the tanks in 5-ton trucks I guess.

[Purpelia]

Purpelian pedophillia extends to prepubscent children. This is more or less unprecedented. There's no evolutionary advantage to this because they can't even make babies.
People of the past considered people adults too young. But even they had a definition of childhood which protected some children.
It was wrong that this was so young though.

Can we just NOT go into the details? I am fine with mentioning it as something off on the side to creep people out but I am definitively bloody well not into having long detailed conversations on the topic. So just stop.
I mean, for gods sake the reason I know it creeps people out is because it creeps me out. Seriously, I am beginning to think you are actually into this.

I shall speak no more of this topic.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Does a country lose international standing if it sends young men into combat before they're old enough to vote?

A foreign spy deployed to my NS nation is in this category.

[Dayganistan]

Does a country lose international standing if it sends young men into combat before they're old enough to vote?

A foreign spy deployed to my NS nation is in this category.

Depends how old they are. If they're under 17 it's going to be more screaming about child soldiers than anything.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Does a country lose international standing if it sends young men into combat before they're old enough to vote?

A foreign spy deployed to my NS nation is in this category.

Depends how old they are. If they're under 17 it's going to be more screaming about child soldiers than anything.

16?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Lol conscripting shildren

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Lol conscripting shildren

I know right LOL.

I mean Sharifistan conscripts 16 year olds but they're considered adults there. In the Munkcestrian Republic they say their children and then still conscript them LOL.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

About as funny as sending 12 year olds across a minefield to clear it with their feet.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

About as funny as sending 12 year olds across a minefield to clear it with their feet.

16 year olds are stronger and relatively mature compared to 12 year olds.

[Farnhamia]

About as funny as sending 12 year olds across a minefield to clear it with their feet.

16 year olds are stronger and relatively mature compared to 12 year olds.

*** 2 week ban for violating the PG-13 rules *** and for pushing your thread-jack well beyond the boundaries of good taste.

[Purpelia]

Well to try and send this thread in a more sane direction. I've been watching lots of warship history videos and that got me thinking. Naval battles on rivers were a huge deal in ancient times. Rivers were for all intents and purposes your superhighways before roads were cool. And that has not really changed up until very recent times when railroads developed to supplant and eventually somewhat replace them. So in light of that what is the largest warship I could reasonably put on a large river (think Danube, Nile, Ganges etc) and have it not just physically fit but actually be functional and capable of fighting others of its kind in naval battles? Period in question is 1880-1930. Anything beyond that and aircraft just end up being too much of a threat.