NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[United Earthlings]

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start.

SpringSharp Video tutorial-You’re Welcome

It's for the last 3.0 beta version, so if you decided to start with the simpler older 2.1 version like I did to get a good feel for the program first, not everything is the same. The older version also comes with RL historical ships to review, which I found to be the most helpful. That and just using the program for hours on end working on dozens of designs including my own attempt at a few historical classes to see the differences in calculations between RL designs and the SpringSharp version to see where the program's limitations were.

Access to the vast library of naval technical design guides doesn’t hurt either.

That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

That’s Funny… I’m sure all the oceanic life down at Davy Jones Locker will appreciate the new artificial reefs you’ll be providing…

Why not? It would go well with my conceptual PreDreadnaught Yamato build. That one is slated to have Congo turrets as secondaries.

But why the French of all things?!!!!

My hunch is Purp finally got around to watching Drachinifel’s French Pre-Dreadnoughts special. Just tell Purp they need to watch another special as they tend to make you obsessive.

WWII Missile Barges armed with TV-guided V1 rockets

Y/N?

If you can successfully explain how your nation acquired from the future, late 1960s technology to make that work, I’m going to have to go with a hard N.

The core problem is all these measurements like width between bulkheads that I've never been able to find sources for.

My hunch is that a lot of people are just guessing looking at cross sections of various vessels and extrapolating the data based on the known dimensions of the specific class type their examining. The occasional times you actually do come across a specifically stated measurement in the various naval design guides is then used as a basic reference data point.

Even freeboard is surprisingly hard to find for historical ships.

Yeah, I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who’s noticed that annoyance.

[Gallia-]

Yes, above is apparently limitations of springsharp. The freeboard information is probably found from actually measuring available blueprints/sketch.

Other than that. First of all thanks for the input. regarding the ship for the 610mm gun. I envisaged that it would be much larger than what was available in WW-II in service or concept. The 33 m barrel for 61cm 55 caliber requires rather large turret, probably much larger than even Yamato. The ship itself will be monstrous.. Not 200-290 m But likely closer to a super-tanker. in range of 300-400 or even 500m. The displacement is therefore much greater in the order of about 200K metric tonne or more. This in turn put strain on machineries. 4 shafts might no longer be enough if 30 Knots is desired. Some other solution have to be sought like tandem propeller.

It is yes an extremely large undertaking. Can be a good history story tho.

----------
Other than that. Lemme introduce you guys to a doodle. The Vihenian BSRBM (Battlefield Short Range Ballistic Missile)
The launcher there is basically a place holder. The missile itself only slightly bigger and longer than R-400 Oka. It however carries over 4 metric tonne of propellant, 500 Kg warhead and range of 800 Km, guidance is Radar correlation. It will be a Regiment level asset.

(Image)

(Image)

he attacc
he protecc
but most importantly
he fat as hecc

bib boi

[Purpelia]

Why not? It would go well with my conceptual PreDreadnaught Yamato build. That one is slated to have Congo turrets as secondaries.

But why the French of all things?!!!!

Because French PreDreadnaughts in particular are just sexy. I mean, just look at them.
[url=French Pre-Dreadnoughts - When Hotels go to War]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ygXLnRAm-A[/url]

What's not to love about giant steampunk hotels assembled by madmen engineers high on smelly cheese and vine?

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start. That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

The old version (2.xx) had some RL ships included. I consider 3.xx to be overly complicated for the program's purpose. The core problem is all these measurements like width between bulkheads that I've never been able to find sources for. Even freeboard is surprisingly hard to find for historical ships.

Indeed. Like I can't even find the values for turret armor on most things.

SpringSharp Video tutorial-You’re Welcome

It's for the last 3.0 beta version, so if you decided to start with the simpler older 2.1 version like I did to get a good feel for the program first, not everything is the same. The older version also comes with RL historical ships to review, which I found to be the most helpful. That and just using the problem for hours on end working on dozens of designs including my own attempt at a few historical classes to see the differences in calculations between RL designs and the SpringSharp version to see where the program's limitations were.

Thanks. Will look into it.

Access to the vast library of naval technical design guides doesn’t hurt either.

And I have nothing. Well almost nothing.

:rofl: That’s Funny… I’m sure all the oceanic life down at Davy Jones Locker will appreciate the new artificial reefs you’ll be providing…

I am mostly picturing a world where the Dreadnaught concept newer caught on. So you get insane things like this floating about until someone pops the first actual naval battle.

My hunch is Purp finally got around to watching Drachinifel’s French Pre-Dreadnoughts special. Just tell Purp they need to watch another special as they tend to make you obsessive.

Guilty as charged.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Would 5 tank platoons be unwieldy in modern warfare?

[Austrasien]

Would 5 tank platoons be unwieldy in modern warfare?

I don't think so.

Tanks operate more spread out now so if anything larger platoons are becoming more attractive.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Would 5 tank platoons be unwieldy in modern warfare?

I don't think so.

Tanks operate more spread out now so if anything larger platoons are becoming more attractive.

Something that has made me curious is why tank platoons got smaller in the first place.

[New Vihenia]

Would 5 tank platoons be unwieldy in modern warfare?

I don't think so.

Tanks operate more spread out now so if anything larger platoons are becoming more attractive.

methinks tank platoon of 4 tanks - 2 Heavy IFV.

[Austrasien]

Something that has made me curious is why tank platoons got smaller in the first place.

Cost and org charts for one thing.

It is generally easier to enlarge or shrink an existing unit like a tank battalion than it is to completely restructure it into new formations. It is also easier to enlarge or shrink existing units than to raise new ones from scratch. When dealing with cases like tank units where the availability of particular equipment is a limiting factor there is a strong incentive to economize by spreading the equipment ever-thinner.

If a force was configured with a standard tank battalion with three companies, each of three platoons with three tanks and there was a need to reduce the size of the tank pool then the best option would in most cases be too remove tanks from each platoon but keep the rest of the org chart identical. Reducing the number of platoons in each company or company in each battalion below three would be highly undesirable. Consolidating battalions would also be an option, but if it were ever desired in the future to re-enlarge the tank pool, it would take longer and cost more to raise whole new battalions from scratch and train them to proficiency.

There is also the inevitable bureaucratic reluctance to eliminating battalions or other large units wholesale as they will generally have stakeholders in the military and government who will fight to maintain the existence of the formation in some form - the strength of which will generally be proportionate to the size of the unit over the size of the force as a whole. So there is again a political incentive for planners to compromise by trimming rather than wholesale consolidation.

[Austrasien]

methinks tank platoon of 4 tanks - 2 Heavy IFV.

This doesn't seem particularly attractive to me.

On one hand: The infantry platoon has two squads and so needs to combine with another platoon. Unless the IFVs have a really impressive passenger compliment.

On the other hand: In armoured combat, if they are providing overwatch for the moving tanks they are likely placing their passengers at excessive risk.

Of course, they can always "hang back" during armoured combat, but if that is the case why even make them a permanent part of the platoon?

[Danternoust]

Okay.

UFOs are now officially real.

The US army is working with a rock star to uncover the secrets behind them.

So, how does one realistically interact with UFOs who behave as if they are just passing through and occasionally screwing with those that they encounter?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Okay.

UFOs are now officially real.

The US army is working with a rock star to uncover the secrets behind them.

So, how does one realistically interact with UFOs who behave as if they are just passing through and occasionally screwing with those that they encounter?

Probably the same way you deal with rowdy kids in the neighbourhood.

I don't think so.

Tanks operate more spread out now so if anything larger platoons are becoming more attractive.

methinks tank platoon of 4 tanks - 2 Heavy IFV.

I can't tell if that is a joke or not.

[United Earthlings]

Other than that. First of all thanks for the input. regarding the ship for the 610mm gun. I envisaged that it would be much larger than what was available in WW-II in service or concept. The 33 m barrel for 61cm 55 caliber requires rather large turret, probably much larger than even Yamato. The ship itself will be monstrous.. Not 200-290 m But likely closer to a super-tanker. in range of 300-400 or even 500m. The displacement is therefore much greater in the order of about 200K metric tonne or more. This in turn put strain on machineries. 4 shafts might no longer be enough if 30 Knots is desired. Some other solution have to be sought like tandem propeller.

It is yes an extremely large undertaking. Can be a good history story tho.

Considering the sheer weight already of any 610mm shell, a lower velocity 45 caliber gun might be a better selection.

Machinery strain shouldn’t be an major issue even with the limits of early to mid 1940s technology, what will probably present a major issue is hull vibration issues and unforeseen hull stress fractures due to the sheer size of the vessel. Even your monstrosity of a design you’re imaging should work fine with 4 shafts to achieve a desired 30 knots or thereabouts, the issue will be getting the right propeller diameters that minimizes hull vibration yet able to propel the vessels at the desired speed when run at full power.

Also, I’m thinking a twin rudder design at the minimal is a must, preferably 4 rudders if you want anything approaching a decent turn radius.

The major powers during the late 1930s and into the 1940s really dreamed up some impractical battleship concepts.

I have a feeling Mith is going to be quite Mithed by the below…And yes that means I did indeed mad scientist the shit out of SpringSharp. Not quite 200K metric tons, but I got pretty darn close by borrowing the dimensions from the sheer lunacy that was the German H-44 concept. I got you 29.8 knots on a 349.61 meter design that works at least from a technical point of view, but considering the monstrous impracticality of the design, a sacrifice of 0.2 knots to appease whatever deity or deities your nation prays to, to make this thing a reality is a small sacrifice on your part.

But, hey, at least your nation’s Drydocks will be well prepared once they can afford to build large fleet supercarriers in a decade or two.

New Vihenia Class Battleship, laid down 1944 (Engine 1946)

Displacement: 120,052 t light; 125,535 t standard; 138,109 t normal; 148,167 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall/water x beam x draught
1,147.00 ft / 1,131.00 ft x 168.00 ft x 40.00 ft (normal load)
349.61 m / 344.73 m x 51.21 m x 12.19 m

Armament:
8 - 24.00" / 610 mm guns (4x2 guns), 6,912.00lbs / 3,135.23kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (12x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1944 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 6 raised mounts - superfiring
144 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (36x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 9 raised mounts - superfiring
112 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 57,104 lbs / 25,902 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 85

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 18.5" / 470 mm 644.67 ft / 196.50 m 15.55 ft / 4.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
5.50" / 140 mm 644.67 ft / 196.50 m 38.24 ft / 11.66 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 28.0" / 711 mm 16.0" / 406 mm 26.0" / 660 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 8.00" / 203 mm, Conning tower: 20.00" / 508 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 287,901 shp / 214,774 Kw = 29.80 kts
Range 15,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 22,632 tons

Complement:
3,581 - 4,656

Cost:
£75.375 million / $301.502 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 7,138 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 47,541 tons, 34.4 %
- Belts: 8,330 tons, 6.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 5,017 tons, 3.6 %
- Armament: 11,776 tons, 8.5 %
- Armour Deck: 21,267 tons, 15.4 %
- Conning Tower: 1,151 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 7,190 tons, 5.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 58,033 tons, 42.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 18,056 tons, 13.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
221,418 lbs / 100,433 Kg = 32.0 x 24.0 " / 610 mm shells or 55.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 13.7 ft / 4.2 m
Roll period: 19.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.636
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.73 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.63 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 64
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.69 ft / 1.43 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 37.00 ft / 11.28 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 23.85 ft / 7.27 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.20 ft / 7.07 m
- Quarterdeck (21 %): 23.55 ft / 7.18 m
- Stern: 23.85 ft / 7.27 m
- Average freeboard: 24.75 ft / 7.54 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.2 %
Waterplane Area: 143,695 Square feet or 13,350 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 327 lbs/sq ft or 1,597 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.15
- Longitudinal: 0.95
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Other than that. Lemme introduce you guys to a doodle. The Vihenian BSRBM (Battlefield Short Range Ballistic Missile)
The launcher there is basically a place holder. The missile itself only slightly bigger and longer than R-400 Oka. It however carries over 4 metric tonne of propellant, 500 Kg warhead and range of 800 Km, guidance is Radar correlation. It will be a Regiment level asset.

1. Can you design the missile to where it’s able to be stowed and fired from a tracked vehicle similar to how the ATACMS is on the M-270 MLRS system?
2. Can you extend the range to 1,000 or even better 1,200 Km?
3. Can you sell the DPR to the Commonwealth?

he attacc
he protecc
but most importantly
he fat as hecc

bib boi

For those of us not fluent in Gallianese, can we get an English Translation of that?

Indeed. Like I can't even find the values for turret armor on most things.

If google not your friend, try a different search engine.

I am mostly picturing a world where the Dreadnaught concept newer caught on. So you get insane things like this floating about until someone pops the first actual naval battle.

The all big gun battleship concept, AKA Dreadnought, was inevitable, naval battles or not.

To misquote Doctor Who, in the Timey Wimey of things, there a fixed points and there are points that can bend and flex, the all big gun battleship is a fixed point.

Guilty as charged.

Came across these just recently, something else for you to obsessed over instead of French Pre-Dreadnoughts. Enjoy

Japanese Capital Ship Design from Kawachi to Yamato & Japanese Navy Armor WW2

[Danternoust]

Dreadnoughts could never catch on if fire control systems didn't improve, namely improvements in telephony and mechanical computing. Otherwise vertical elevation would be useless.

Pre-dreadnoughts would be ideal for supporting shore based landings due to having a large number of casemates.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The only landing pre-dreadnoughts supported was a disaster that never reached its day 1 objectives

[Theodosiya]

"Pure" Tank battalion vs Combined Arms battalion ?

[New Vihenia]

This doesn't seem particularly attractive to me.

On one hand: The infantry platoon has two squads and so needs to combine with another platoon. Unless the IFVs have a really impressive passenger compliment.

On the other hand: In armoured combat, if they are providing overwatch for the moving tanks they are likely placing their passengers at excessive risk.

Of course, they can always "hang back" during armoured combat, but if that is the case why even make them a permanent part of the platoon?

The idea is to actually provide the tank its relief crews. One prevalent complain on my 3 man tanks somehow is "Dude.. you need more men, these 3 will got tired quickly" Thus I was thinking on attaching heavy IFV.

Can you design the missile to where it’s able to be stowed and fired from a tracked vehicle similar to how the ATACMS is on the M-270 MLRS system?
Can you extend the range to 1,000 or even better 1,200 Km?
Can you sell the DPR to the Commonwealth?

Yeah, tracked chassis has been in my thought. Extending range may need to extend the missile's propellant section by some metric. Exactly about 2 meter, to allow heavier propellant, thus 3 km/s velocity required for about 1200 Km range.

[United Earthlings]

Dreadnoughts could never catch on if fire control systems didn't improve, namely improvements in telephony and mechanical computing. Otherwise vertical elevation would be useless.

Pre-dreadnoughts would be ideal for supporting shore based landings due to having a large number of casemates.

The lack of a potential further development of fire control systems doesn't invalidate the concept of the all big gun battleship in fact it only encourages the outcome more so because any technological bottleneck on fire control systems would affect Pre-Dreadnoughts even more.

If you really start to get into the weeds on this subject, even for those just covering the English Anglo-American development of the first Dreadnoughts, the idea spread like a deadly virus through the various official and unofficial naval publications and journals in the closing years of the 19th century and into the very beginning of the 20th century.

I’m also surprised you didn’t mention the single greatest contribution that permitted ever more effective fire control. Ever improving Optical Rangefinders.

[Purpelia]

The all big gun battleship concept, AKA Dreadnought, was inevitable, naval battles or not.

And so were microchips. That didn't exactly stop Fallout.

[Albynau]

This is more of a political question but it is military related I suppose.

How does neutrality work with regards to strategic waterways during war time?

Since that is a horribly phrased question and I can't think of a better way of phrasing it I'll try using the Turkish straits as a geographic example since it is the closest to the situation I have in mind as it is wholly owned by one country.

In our example, let's say that not-Romania and not-Ukraine declare war on each other. Not-Belarus comes to the defense of not-Ukraine and the scales are tipping against not-Romania. Not-Romania asks for help, and not-Egypt decides to come to its defense, and wants to ship military supplies and/or possibly troops via the not-Turkish straits. Without this aid, not-Romania will most likely lose the war. Not-Turkey is a neutral party, is not aligned with any of the countries in this example, and doesn't want to get dragged into any war. What steps could the government of not-Turkey take? What steps should they take?

1) Don't do anything, business as usual;
2) Close the strait to military ships from all belligerent nations;
3) Close the strait to all ships from all belligerent nations;
4) Close the strait to everyone;
5) Admittedly I don't know a lot about this so I I'm sure there are other actions that I missing

Does it matter that not-Belarus is landlocked and isn't affected by any potential closure?
Would it matter if not-Egypt is significantly stronger militarily and in international standing and alliances than any of the other countries in this example?

Thank you folks.

[Spirit of Hope]

There is what the nation can do, and what they can "legally" do.

For what they can "legally" do, this is going to depend on treaties they are signatories to, if the strait is fully within their territory, etc. A nation would be well within its rights, by common internal law, to deny access of a nations or another's ships, civilian and military, into their territory. Maritime territories that they can control this way is generally understood to extend a couple of miles from their cost. However of they control a strategic strait they may be signatories to a treaty that guarantees some level of freedom of movement, irl Turkey has done this.

As to what a nation can actually do, closing the strait may require the us of military force, or at least the threat of military force. Do they have the military ability to turn back another nations fleet trying to make the passage? Do other nations view the threat as credible? How much do other nations wish to avoid expanding the fighting?

[Danternoust]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Rolle_Radio

It turns out because Norway is less corrupt than the United States, they have implemented a multi-service radio before we have.

The disadvantage is that they can't live stream a power point presentation over their network.

I'm referencing the attritionist letters btw.

[The Corparation]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Rolle_Radio

It turns out because Norway is less corrupt than the United States, they have implemented a multi-service radio before we have.

The disadvantage is that they can't live stream a power point presentation over their network.

I'm referencing the attritionist letters btw.

Corruption is less of a problem then having to replace a multitude of systems whose creators all took their own creative liberties in implementing standards they were supposed to follow while also never properly documenting how/why they deviated. Although I guess you could consider that a form of corruption.

[Gallia-]

America invented air to ground radios, so I find it difficult to believe RandC's assertion that Norway somehow innovated something that existed long before the Norwegian armaments industry, and indeed long before Norway became a country independent of Nazi rule. JTRS was a trainwreck but that's pretty much entirely because it's software defined radio, which is a form of radio whose most notable feature is that they are bad radios.

Harris Falcon is what happens when you make a modern radio set using the most advanced technologies that actually works.

[Theodosiya]

Is it better to have pure tank battalion or combined arms battalion?

[New Visayan Islands]

Is it better to have pure tank battalion or combined arms battalion?

What's the highest level of organization you envision for your ground forces?