NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Austrasien]

A question: Is it possible for the old M1-style helmet to be effective if modernized (read: polymer'd and redesigned to be lighter and more protective while retaining the same shape?)

Would this 'Super M1' helmet be usable with Level IIIA soft armor + ESAPI plates like modern infantry, or would it cause more fatigue?

It isn't impossible but it would be undesirable. The flared rim is an artifact of how it was made (repeatedly hammering a steel plate) and simply won't be present on a composite helmet unless its added intentionally and there is no reason to add it. The M1 also didn't have any accommodation for earphones & the chinstrap was on par with what was common in its day but is quite inferior to modern helmets chin straps.

So it wouldn't look like the M1 helmet really.

[The Manticoran Empire]

A question: Is it possible for the old M1-style helmet to be effective if modernized (read: polymer'd and redesigned to be lighter and more protective while retaining the same shape?)

Would this 'Super M1' helmet be usable with Level IIIA soft armor + ESAPI plates like modern infantry, or would it cause more fatigue?

In theory it could be done. However, it would not share the shape of the M1 style helmet. Rather, it would likely resemble the current ACH or ECH helmets, possibly the British or German helmets.

As for the usability with body armor such as the IOTV or IBA systems, chances are that it would be no different than modern Kevlar helmets. Having recently completed a combat exercise in Kentucky, I can tell you that the helmet isn't what causes most of the fatigue. It's the body armor. The helmet does, however, have the risk of causing neck injuries if improperly made.

[Taihei Tengoku]

It's not the shape of the M1 that gave it its protection

[The Manticoran Empire]

It's not the shape of the M1 that gave it its protection

I never said that it did.

[Celitannia]

Russian electronic warfare brigades apparently have four battalions each - does anyone know what these battalions look like? Wondering if they’re all general purpose EW for distribution piecemeal to manoeuvre brigades or if each battalion within the brigade has a distinct purpose.

E: So far I’ve been able to find a TO&E for Russian general purpose EW companies but also a TO&E for a specialised EW air defence jamming battalion and both employ the same UHF/VHF aircraft jamming system (R-934B) but on different scales. The latter battalion is obviously solely comprised of R-934B, whereas the EW company has a single squad for jamming aircraft. But this doesn’t help me really because I don’t know if either even live in the brigade.

E2: My working assumption is that general purpose EW companies live in manoeuvre units and provide limited all-spectrum jamming support. Meanwhile specialised battalions live in EW brigades (e.g air defence) and offer perhaps more advanced capabilities like electronic intelligence gathering and analysis. Could be talking out of my arse though.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Russian electronic warfare brigades apparently have four battalions each - does anyone know what these battalions look like? Wondering if they’re all general purpose EW for distribution piecemeal to manoeuvre brigades or if each battalion within the brigade has a distinct purpose.

E: So far I’ve been able to find a TO&E for Russian general purpose EW companies but also a TO&E for a specialised EW air defence jamming battalion and both employ the same UHF/VHF aircraft jamming system (R-934B) but on different scales. The latter battalion is obviously solely comprised of R-934B, whereas the EW company has a single squad for jamming aircraft. But this doesn’t help me really because I don’t know if either even live in the brigade.

E2: My working assumption is that general purpose EW companies live in manoeuvre units and provide limited all-spectrum jamming support. Meanwhile specialised battalions live in EW brigades (e.g air defence) and offer perhaps more advanced capabilities like electronic intelligence gathering and analysis. Could be talking out of my arse though.

Probably a couple of EW companies. Chances are that you have a Battalion Headquarters Company and then probably 1 Specialized and 2 GP EW companies.

[Mostrov]

So often here the focus is on in selecting the best matériel, but what would be the opposite: the worst equipment that could be used by a fighting unit, both in obsolescence and failure through use, but can be compensated for by experience, good strategy and élan. Say for a brigade-sized force that would have to go toe-to-toe with any of the more formidable equivalents from NS (or reality).

[Austrasien]

So often here the focus is on in selecting the best matériel, but what would be the opposite: the worst equipment that could be used by a fighting unit, both in obsolescence and failure through use, but can be compensated for by experience, good strategy and élan. Say for a brigade-sized force that would have to go toe-to-toe with any of the more formidable equivalents from NS (or reality).

Equipment is really just a multiplier. As the combat value of a soldier can be zero there isn't a lower bounds to how little combat power a formation might possess quality & quantity of armament notwithstanding. People who unwilling/unable to fight will squander any equipment and will be defeated even by the weakest willing & able opponents.

A simple example of this is when soldiers are deployed in abortive coups to remove popular leaders or by unpopular leaders to "restore order" and end up folding in the face of nearly unarmed protesters. The product of zero and infinity is still zero.

Edit: TL;DR its quite possible to win with no equipment at all.

[Gallia-]

when u preach elan vital but youre not french so you dont surrender

[Kazarogkai]

In theory it could be done. However, it would not share the shape of the M1 style helmet. Rather, it would likely resemble the current ACH or ECH helmets, possibly the British or German helmets.

As for the usability with body armor such as the IOTV or IBA systems, chances are that it would be no different than modern Kevlar helmets. Having recently completed a combat exercise in Kentucky, I can tell you that the helmet isn't what causes most of the fatigue. It's the body armor. The helmet does, however, have the risk of causing neck injuries if improperly made.

This somewhat simplified and built with modern(relative speaking) materials as a WW1 helmet design. Possibility check? Assuming the country is a reasonably strong industrial power known for being a premiere arms manufacturing spot.

I would probably add some ear holes to the side along with venting holes on the side of the crest(for ventilation) in addition to the usual modern padding and the like of course.

[Purpelia]

It's dumb. You won't be able to make it decently protective without it being too heavy. And the shape is going to severely impede the soldiers peripheral vision (leading to him getting shot more often) and hearing (leading to him getting shot more often). There is a reason why every modern combat helmet is open to the sides. Don't change what ain't broken.

[Gallia-]

til purp has supersonic ears

true mind over matter

[The Manticoran Empire]

In theory it could be done. However, it would not share the shape of the M1 style helmet. Rather, it would likely resemble the current ACH or ECH helmets, possibly the British or German helmets.

As for the usability with body armor such as the IOTV or IBA systems, chances are that it would be no different than modern Kevlar helmets. Having recently completed a combat exercise in Kentucky, I can tell you that the helmet isn't what causes most of the fatigue. It's the body armor. The helmet does, however, have the risk of causing neck injuries if improperly made.

This somewhat simplified and built with modern(relative speaking) materials as a WW1 helmet design. Possibility check? Assuming the country is a reasonably strong industrial power known for being a premiere arms manufacturing spot.

I would probably add some ear holes to the side along with venting holes on the side of the crest(for ventilation) in addition to the usual modern padding and the like of course.

It could work. Helmets are primarily for protection against shrapnel.

It's dumb. You won't be able to make it decently protective without it being too heavy. And the shape is going to severely impede the soldiers peripheral vision (leading to him getting shot more often) and hearing (leading to him getting shot more often). There is a reason why every modern combat helmet is open to the sides. Don't change what ain't broken.

What are you even talking about? Modern combat helmets are open to the side to accommodate radio systems. Further, World War One steel helmets weren't even a millimeter thick. As far as your vision and hearing complaints, those don't hold much water, since modern militaries actively inhibit soldiers hearing with hearing protection. Further, there isn't really anything in that helmet that will inhibit the peripheral vision.

[Purpelia]

til purp has supersonic ears

true mind over matter

It's more a case of you hearing the ones that don't hit you and deciding to hit the ground before one does.

What are you even talking about? Modern combat helmets are open to the side to accommodate radio systems.

Modern combat helmets are for all intents and purposes the same shape as WW1 era helmets. And back than there were no radios. Thus making you wrong.

Further, World War One steel helmets weren't even a millimeter thick.

And yet they weren't light either. Extending the material to cover twice the surface area would make it much heavier. Almost as if steel is heavy. Shocking, I know.

As far as your vision and hearing complaints, those don't hold much water, since modern militaries actively inhibit soldiers hearing with hearing protection. Further, there isn't really anything in that helmet that will inhibit the peripheral vision.

You mean other than the slabs of metal hanging off the sides of your face? Only those.

Again, there are reasons why no military on earth does this. Don't try and do what nobody else is because they ain't ever wrong.

[Gallia-]

I don't think Purp has ever seen a helmet IRL.

Hard to find those in California or whatever I guess.

[The Manticoran Empire]

til purp has supersonic ears

true mind over matter

It's more a case of you hearing the ones that don't hit you and deciding to hit the ground before one does.

Hearing a bullet crack past your head isn't going to be greatly affected by having a thin piece of metal next to your ear.

What are you even talking about? Modern combat helmets are open to the side to accommodate radio systems.

Modern combat helmets are for all intents and purposes the same shape as WW1 era helmets. And back than there were no radios. Thus making you wrong.

You have clearly never seen a modern combat helmet. Modern combat helmets are designed to provide more space around the ears to allow for the use of headsets. During the first and second world wars, helmets were much closer to the ears, prohibiting the use of headsets later on, which led to their replacement.

Further, World War One steel helmets weren't even a millimeter thick.

And yet they weren't light either. Extending the material to cover twice the surface area would make it much heavier. Almost as if steel is heavy. Shocking, I know.

And modern helmets aren't heavy? My ACH weighs three times what the Brodie helmet weighed. The helmet shown in the image won't weigh much more than a modern helmet does, so I don't see why you are mentioning weight.

As far as your vision and hearing complaints, those don't hold much water, since modern militaries actively inhibit soldiers hearing with hearing protection. Further, there isn't really anything in that helmet that will inhibit the peripheral vision.

You mean other than the slabs of metal hanging off the sides of your face? Only those.

Those slabs aren't in a position to impact your vision and you are again ignoring the fact that modern armies actively impair soldiers hearing in order to preserve it with things like ear plugs.

Again, there are reasons why no military on earth does this. Don't try and do what nobody else is because they ain't ever wrong.

Just because it isn't done doesn't mean it can't be done, especially since he specifically mentioned WORLD WAR ONE as the time period for the helmet. Your complaints are unfounded in that situation.

[Crookfur]

In theory it could be done. However, it would not share the shape of the M1 style helmet. Rather, it would likely resemble the current ACH or ECH helmets, possibly the British or German helmets.

As for the usability with body armor such as the IOTV or IBA systems, chances are that it would be no different than modern Kevlar helmets. Having recently completed a combat exercise in Kentucky, I can tell you that the helmet isn't what causes most of the fatigue. It's the body armor. The helmet does, however, have the risk of causing neck injuries if improperly made.

This somewhat simplified and built with modern(relative speaking) materials as a WW1 helmet design. Possibility check? Assuming the country is a reasonably strong industrial power known for being a premiere arms manufacturing spot.

I would probably add some ear holes to the side along with venting holes on the side of the crest(for ventilation) in addition to the usual modern padding and the like of course.

It might work but you have to be prepared to spend 5 to 6 times the cost of the helmets that were issued. The increased cost is not just the extra material but the more complex shape is going to require seperate parts and more machining/forming stages than simply shoving a disk of metal into a press and a more or less finished helmet coming out the other end.

It's probably not affordable if you have to find materials to match the actual Ww1 deployment levels, unless you were to keep them as special issue items like how the British deployed body armour, where each division got enough sets for 400 men (basically a company per brigade give or take)

[Kazarogkai]

It might work but you have to be prepared to spend 5 to 6 times the cost of the helmets that were issued. The increased cost is not just the extra material but the more complex shape is going to require seperate parts and more machining/forming stages than simply shoving a disk of metal into a press and a more or less finished helmet coming out the other end.

It's probably not affordable if you have to find materials to match the actual Ww1 deployment levels, unless you were to keep them as special issue items like how the British deployed body armour, where each division got enough sets for 400 men (basically a company per brigade give or take)

I can understand that. A thing to keep in mind is this would not be an exact replica of the previously mentioned for obvious reasons. Certain methods would be performed for simplification purposes. The crest would definitively be shortened somewhat, the back ridge gotten rid of, a hole cut into the side of the ear plate to help with hearing, the visor might be slightly raised to allow for a gas mask and finally some minor cuts and tweaks here and there.

Overall admittedly it might end up looking more like the Roman Galea than anything else sorta. The hope would be for a helmet composed of maybe only 3 pieces at best: the main body of the helmet split in two right and left and joined at the crest and finally the visor placed on last. Shouldn't be heavier than maybe 2-2.5 lbs which is around that of a roman helmet and a bit lighter than those used by knights so the conscripts shouldn't be bitching too much.

With that in mind as stated before this would be for a nation with a relatively small population but with a tremendously robust industrial heart. Less France or UK and more maybe Switzerland and Paraguay(on the dawn of the Triple Alliance war). Their going to be putting down considering their population(in the 10-15 million range) at best a military of ~1 million at land at best plus or minus a few here and there rather than the multi million as seen in say Germany or Russia. Hence they should be able to have the ability to equip their troops, partially out of necessity, somewhat to a vaguely higher quality compared to most. Theoretically anyways.

This is a picture more or less showing the various cuts I would more or less be making into the thing; Yes i know my handwriting is terribly and of course it wouldn't be this embellished bear with me please. The red lines represents things that are getting cut mind you:



Also how expensive were helmet anyways at the time? I doubt they would be that extreme.

[Altaiire]

Can I get some opinions regarding the recent US "debate" regarding the deployment of W76-2s on Tridents? I don't fully understand the point. If the low-yield option is for the sake of proportionate response, and you put them on Tridents, how would your opponent be able to reasonably distinguish between a "low-yield" and a "high-yield" response and not cause a further escalation of the nuclear exchange?

I feel like if you really wanted a submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon it would make more sense to put it on an attack submarine-launched cruise missile, even if it would be less effective, than waste it on an SSBN tube when SSBN's are already being expected to carry the major burden of responsibility for strategic deterrence.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Can I get some opinions regarding the recent US "debate" regarding the deployment of W76-2s on Tridents? I don't fully understand the point. If the low-yield option is for the sake of proportionate response, and you put them on Tridents, how would your opponent be able to reasonably distinguish between a "low-yield" and a "high-yield" response and not cause a further escalation of the nuclear exchange?

I feel like if you really wanted a submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon it would make more sense to put it on an attack submarine-launched cruise missile, even if it would be less effective, than waste it on an SSBN tube when SSBN's are already being expected to carry the major burden of responsibility for strategic deterrence.

The thing with nuclear weapons is that once they have been launched, restraint is basically out the window. Nuclear weapons are all in type weapons. If you have launched them, you are basically in the period of the war where you need a hail mary.

[The Akasha Colony]

Can I get some opinions regarding the recent US "debate" regarding the deployment of W76-2s on Tridents? I don't fully understand the point. If the low-yield option is for the sake of proportionate response, and you put them on Tridents, how would your opponent be able to reasonably distinguish between a "low-yield" and a "high-yield" response and not cause a further escalation of the nuclear exchange?

I feel like if you really wanted a submarine-launched low-yield nuclear weapon it would make more sense to put it on an attack submarine-launched cruise missile, even if it would be less effective, than waste it on an SSBN tube when SSBN's are already being expected to carry the major burden of responsibility for strategic deterrence.

This distinction is largely irrelevant as the world has moved away from launch on warning postures to launch under attack postures. As such, the retaliating nation would already know whether the incoming strike is high or low yield because it will have already impacted and likely at least preliminary field reports received, which can in turn affect the severity of the counter-strike.

W76 is a good fit for the US nuclear posture because the US posture has never been focused on causing huge amounts of death and destruction for its own sake but instead very focused damage to key parts of the enemy's military-industrial complex and military-political command systems. In the past, the inaccuracy of warheads meant that massive death and destruction was simply unavoidable as nuclear weapons could not be targeted at anything smaller than a city. But now by several accounts Trident II RVs can be accurate enough to target at specific buildings. So the extra collateral damage is in many cases unnecessary and indeed a liability as it raises the cost of action. If your goal is to wipe out the Kremlin, obliterating the rest of Moscow is an unnecessary political expense.

This is especially true because there has been discussion about how the Russians might resort to the use of lower-yield nuclear weapons in a more limited conflict in Eastern Europe. If the US maintained only large warheads on its ICBMs, it would be restricted in response options as it could only respond with an escalation of force, not equal force. And ballistic missiles provide much greater coverage than cruise missiles while being harder to intercept.

[Gallia-]

Can I get some opinions regarding the recent US "debate" regarding the deployment of W76-2s on Tridents?

The economic reasoning is probably something like this: some W76s are so old, and tritium production so bottlenecked, that they cannot be adequately resupplied without sacrificing the tritium fuels of other bombs. Better to sacrifice a few W76s by not refueling their tritium and letting the primaries go off alone than to bottleneck the production of ICBMs warheads or gravity bombs.

Likely entirely because the Rocky Flats Plant was shut down due to environmental concerns rather than national security concerns, so the USN can't actually source or produce any tritium fuel or plutonium pits without the permission of the USAF. Rocky Flats, prior to being shut down in the 1990s, was the sole source provider of USN thermonuclear warheads. Savannah River produced the USAF's thermonuclear weapons, and is still operational and being upgraded with a new pit production facility for the incoming GBSD in the late 20's.

Ultimately what is going to happen is US tritium production is going to be down cycled in the 30's and beyond because the USA has no domestic source for tritium production precursor fuel, so it will bottleneck both naval ship reactors and thermonuclear pit production, since the LEU plant was shut down in the mid-90s as well.

The US nuclear economy is basically running on inertia from the Clinton admin, and it won't be fixed in time to respond to the deterrence cliff in the late 20's and early 30's when a confluence of submarine inventory, fighter inventory, and nuclear weapons production capacity combine to make the USA very weak to "regional conflicts" like the kind the PRC would need to pull off to secure control of East Asia. If there were any time for a Taiwan invasion or Pacific War 2, that would be the time, since the PLAN and Russia would be at their relative height of power to the USN and the USA in general.

So W76-2 is probably an attempt to reduce tritium use/production requirements to extend the US source low-enriched uranium used for tritium production into the mid-late 30's, when the US conventional strength will pickup again relative to the PLAN and Russian Navies, and the deterrence cliff will start to be recovered from. There might be a reactor built in the 20s or 30s that can be operational in the late 30s or early 40s that will produce US source LEU, and close that problem, too.

It's not an option for anyone facing the weird and stupid problems of the US nuclear weapons economy that are entirely a result of nonsensical "end of history" biases made by unimaginative philosopher professors 25 years ago. The actual best option would be to just have an air launched cruise missile like ASMP or JASSM carry a low yield nuclear warhead. Putting it on SLBMs is, obviously, stupid, and the U.S. Congress seems to recognize that to some extent.

how would your opponent be able to reasonably distinguish between a "low-yield" and a "high-yield" response

They wouldn't but this isn't a real problem either.

No one will put an SSBN in the line of fire like that because it's unlikely W76-2 will be deployed in the sense that most commentators think, i.e. "tactical" or whatever. It'll probably be used as an alternative to "heavy" W88s for busting launch silos and LCCs because it has a better fuse and INS package than the W76-1, which can put a missile silo inside the crater zone of even the reduced yield warhead. This frees up the bigger warheads for busting cities or area targets like railyards and airbases, or excavating deeply buried bunkers, or whatever.

[Gallia-]

Branch insignia of the Royal Artillery. Worn as a cap badge by high ranking artillerymen and NCOs who work at the Field Artillery School, mostly. Actual working artillerymen wear their regiment's cap badge with a background trim that denotes the battalion of the regiment they're a part of. As with all artillerymen, the color scarlet is chosen mostly because artillery guns make big red flames, and the color gold is because it's a national color (along with blue and white/silver).

The "ancient lore of Gallaverse" explanation is that it's because Jesus was an artilleryman, since he single-handedly invented the trebuchet (he didn't) due to his knowledge of engineering and carpentry , and the red is representative of the blood of Christ on the cross, because artillerymen are the closest to God in all professions of the military (in reality it's the corps of engineers but no one tell artillerymen that the mattock is holier than the triangle, Gallaverse Christ knew the power of both intimately). Few know this outside of esoteric students of theology, and fewer know that Christ didn't single handedly assemble a trebuchet but merely acted as, essentially, a foreman directing the actions of a team of a laborers to assemble a battery of trebuchets after getting the idea of using a counterweight with a lever from his work in quarries. In truth, he actually invented what IRL is called the "couillard", because a proper great trebuchet in the style of the Crusades was simply too big to be moved (illuminated scriptures exist of these, though), and also built several large traction trebuchets transported and powered by a team of asses. Because he spent some years as an arkitekton (master-builder) for a military legion. Which is why combat engineers are holier than gunners.

tl;dr Christ the Divider is stronger than Christ the Redeemer, Gallaverse's Christ was a lot more keen on "hard sayings" than "turn the other cheek", but still more of a "sic vis pac, para bellum" than a true warmonger like some prophets. So because Jesus once worked as a siege engineer (as recorded in the Gospel) artillerymen wear red to represent His blood on the cross.

[Mitheldalond]

So how does one go about detecting/countering low probability of intercept radar systems?

[The Manticoran Empire]

So how does one go about detecting/countering low probability of intercept radar systems?

Luck and more powerful computers connected to your RWRs.