NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Celitannia]

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

He's actually saying he knows very little about tanks.

The sheer amount of writing needed to convey this notion though is quite impressive. Most use only a few words to get this point across.

In this case I must say being concise is a virtue.

[Kassaran]

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

He's actually saying he knows very little about tanks.

The sheer amount of writing needed to convey this notion though is quite impressive. Most use only a few words to get this point across.

Tanku make boom?

[Boullonia]

Question time; during the 2014 MH-17 disaster the Dutch government opted for military intervention in seperatist held Ukrainian area. They would use the 11th Airmobile Brigade plus aspects of the Korps Commandotroepen (Special Forces) to drop in the area of disaster and, if needed, defend themselves from incoming attacks in order to provide a safe space for investigation.

Now if the Dutch government would have given a ''go'' for this scenario, and assuming that the seperatist would intervene AND that the Ukrainians wouldn't use the momentum - what would likely be done with Dutch prisoners of war? How would propaganda be used - ie, what kind of videos to ''warn'' or demoralize the Dutch population? What would've been the likely combat results with Russian military advisors and possible (very) limited Russian intervention? How does NATO doctrine in this scenario differ from DNR/LNR Doctrine/Russian doctrine? Would you guys predict a total destruction of the Dutch Airmobile Brigade or would the Dutch be able to force a peace deal? Assume a max of ten days needed holding off the separatists to force a peace deal.

For reference, the Dutch Airmobile Brigade is armed with a couple of lightly armored vehicles (jeeps mostly), 80mm mortars, portable SAMs and Panzerfaust 3s (no ATGMs), but they do have CAS in form of ten Apache AH-46D helicopters.

[Purpelia]

Question time; during the 2014 MH-17 disaster the Dutch government opted for military intervention in seperatist held Ukrainian area. They would use the 11th Airmobile Brigade plus aspects of the Korps Commandotroepen (Special Forces) to drop in the area of disaster and, if needed, defend themselves from incoming attacks in order to provide a safe space for investigation.

Now if the Dutch government would have given a ''go'' for this scenario, and assuming that the seperatist would intervene AND that the Ukrainians wouldn't use the momentum - what would likely be done with Dutch prisoners of war? How would propaganda be used - ie, what kind of videos to ''warn'' or demoralize the Dutch population? What would've been the likely combat results with Russian military advisors and possible (very) limited Russian intervention? How does NATO doctrine in this scenario differ from DNR/LNR Doctrine/Russian doctrine? Would you guys predict a total destruction of the Dutch Airmobile Brigade or would the Dutch be able to force a peace deal? Assume a max of ten days needed holding off the separatists to force a peace deal.

For reference, the Dutch Airmobile Brigade is armed with a couple of lightly armored vehicles (jeeps mostly), 80mm mortars, portable SAMs and Panzerfaust 3s (no ATGMs), but they do have CAS in form of ten Apache AH-46D helicopters.

There is absolutely no possible way that the separatists would intervene. It would just be political suicide. Russia would be forced to distance it self from them for fear of starting WW3 and that would have been it. So your scenario is incredibly unlikely.

[Boullonia]

Question time; during the 2014 MH-17 disaster the Dutch government opted for military intervention in seperatist held Ukrainian area. They would use the 11th Airmobile Brigade plus aspects of the Korps Commandotroepen (Special Forces) to drop in the area of disaster and, if needed, defend themselves from incoming attacks in order to provide a safe space for investigation.

Now if the Dutch government would have given a ''go'' for this scenario, and assuming that the seperatist would intervene AND that the Ukrainians wouldn't use the momentum - what would likely be done with Dutch prisoners of war? How would propaganda be used - ie, what kind of videos to ''warn'' or demoralize the Dutch population? What would've been the likely combat results with Russian military advisors and possible (very) limited Russian intervention? How does NATO doctrine in this scenario differ from DNR/LNR Doctrine/Russian doctrine? Would you guys predict a total destruction of the Dutch Airmobile Brigade or would the Dutch be able to force a peace deal? Assume a max of ten days needed holding off the separatists to force a peace deal.

For reference, the Dutch Airmobile Brigade is armed with a couple of lightly armored vehicles (jeeps mostly), 80mm mortars, portable SAMs and Panzerfaust 3s (no ATGMs), but they do have CAS in form of ten Apache AH-46D helicopters.

There is absolutely no possible way that the separatists would intervene. It would just be political suicide. Russia would be forced to distance it self from them for fear of starting WW3 and that would have been it. So your scenario is incredibly unlikely.

Not relevant, I just wonder what the likely combat outcome would be. Aside from all political consequences.

[Kassaran]

So your question is, Air Assault Dutch Brigade vs. Separatists... who would win?

[Boullonia]

So your question is, Air Assault Dutch Brigade vs. Separatists... who would win?

This basically, aside of that how would Seperatist propaganda probably be used?

[Allanea]

It's fairly arguable that the separatist force was at the time at its peak military performance, due to still having some of its most brilliant and offensive-minded commanders, and having already received a lot of Russian equipment.

On the other hand, the Dutch are a much more competent force than Ukrainians.

The question is, would the greater training of the Dutch prevail over the piles of T-72s, BMP-2s, and D-30s? I think it could.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I see we have some learning to do.

Crew members have to be able to walk to different sections of a tank, such as from the turret to the driver's location, so in actuality yes there are various walking and moving paths.

Yes, crew members can sometimes move between different stations under armour, but there are no walking paths. They go through open spaces which are left open for the equipment in the tank to move, like the area the gun elevates/depresses and recoils in. This is not a walking path, and it is not comfortable. The closest thing to a designated moving path in a tank is the open part of the turret basket which allows the driver to slide out over his seat into the turret to go out the turret hatches. There is literally no room to be cut here.

The last tank designed with "walkways" that I can think of was designed in the 1920s. And having been inside a B1 I can say with utmost certainty that "walkway" is a far stretch of a concept.

If you remove the part of the turret that is expected to hold a person, and requires them to move in order to load a weapon, you'll see it'll drop the turret size substantially,

Congratulations, you've just discovered the pinnacle of 1940s tank design technology. Removing a human loader reduces protected volume (there's that term again!), and is a concept so well understood and so ingrained in tank design that it was being used in the 1930s and 1940s in tank design processes.

as would removing the driving section of the vehicle,

Who will drive the vehicle?

and the area you need to walk through to get to the driving section and turret.

You mean close the hole? Because we have already established, repeatedly, that there are no walkways in tanks. There is a hole in a sheet of metal of the turret basket, most of the time. And removing this hole would provide literally no reduction in volume.

If you look at an M1 Abrams for example,

I've been in almost a dozen Abrams.
Also M60, M48, Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, Leopard 1 and 2, AMX-30, Leclerc, T-72, T-55, T-62, and dozens of others.

you can see how much room is needed to grab a round, move it, and then put it in the chamber of the 120mm cannon. You can see how much dead space there is, which wouldn't need to be there if it was minimized to as small a size as humanly possible.

Congratulations, you've just discovered the pinnacle of 1940s tank design technology. Removing a human loader reduces protected volume (there's that term again!), and is a concept so well understood and so ingrained in tank design that it was being used in the 1930s and 1940s in tank design processes.

Another good example is this picture, which you see how much area the crew compartments take up. If you shortened it, by removing a turret or the need for someone to crawl in one, removed the driving area, and shrunk down the cabin space, you'd have a much smaller overall tank.

Internal volume are driven by two things:
1: How much space the crew needs.
2: How much space the equipment needs.

If you remove one crew from Abrams you get Leclerc.
If you remove armour, turret, and all the things you need to really be a tank, you get Strv-103.
Keeping the crew you are literally proposing Strv-103, congrats you're 60 years late to that party.

If you cut out the crew, congrats you're discussing UGVs. Take a gander into realistic military discussion about tank-like UGVs. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't really exist. Man-in-the loop is important, so important in fact that militaries across the world who are seeing severe manpower shortages are not desperately trying to switch to the least manpower intensive fighting machines around.

A predominately automated system that removes the need for crews to expose themselves and visually see their targets

This need is not a technical design "flaw", it's an inherent, intentional reality within military circles.

is not only more protective but potentially smaller if designed correctly. You could theoretically have a tank that's just as effective but is much smaller.

Congratulations, you've just discovered the pinnacle of 1940s tank design technology. Removing a human loader reduces protected volume (there's that term again!), and is a concept so well understood and so ingrained in tank design that it was being used in the 1930s and 1940s in tank design processes.

I'm not sure how much

You may not be, but real tank designers are. This stuff has been studied to death.

but it could be pretty substantial

It is.

perhaps twice as small.

But not that substantial. Unless you remove all crew, but that won't happen.

With less armor comes better fuel efficiencies, faster speeds, and lower costs, not needing as much material to manufacture the tanks, particularly the high end armor.

Congratulations, you've just discovered the pinnacle of 1940s tank design technology. Removing a human loader reduces protected volume (there's that term again!), and is a concept so well understood and so ingrained in tank design that it was being used in the 1930s and 1940s in tank design processes.

So it would be a huge improvement over existing tanks and also make them small enough to be easily transportable,

Congratulations, you've just discovered the pinnacle of 1940s tank design technology. Removing a human loader reduces protected volume (there's that term again!), and is a concept so well understood and so ingrained in tank design that it was being used in the 1930s and 1940s in tank design processes.

or pass over rougher more difficult terrain.

This actually does not hold true. Mobility is a function of mean ground pressure, power application to the tracks, and the ability of the suspension design to cope with it. Lowering the weight does nothing, it is adjusting those features which makes the difference. This is why the Conqueror heavy tank was praised for its superior mobility, and the Israelis intentionally kept Centurions in the Golan heights (and implemented Centurion-based suspension on the Merkava).

That and hybrids would probably be some of the biggest improvements to tanks.

Strangely enough, not on its own. Hybrid power tanks have existed for over a century now and even the new ones do not typically reduce volume or weight, often they increase it. The advantages here come in other ways such as range increases, mobility increases (power application to the tracks), signature reduction, and a whole host of other things. Reduction of size and weight are not on that list.

I'm going to reiterate all the way back to my original point: You apparently know nothing of how tanks work or are designed. There is nothing wrong with that, most people don't.

[Gallia-]

You're not a real tank until you have a bagel warmer.

[Spirit of Hope]

The question is, would the greater training of the Dutch prevail over the piles of T-72s, BMP-2s, and D-30s? I think it could.

Some other questions are, how much support is NATO giving this Dutch intervention? If the Dutch feel serious enough about the shoot down to send their own military are they engaging Article 5 as well? Can they at least get clearance to allow their fighter aircraft to pass through friendly air space to support the efforts of their ground troops?

[Dostanuot Loj]

The question is, would the greater training of the Dutch prevail over the piles of T-72s, BMP-2s, and D-30s? I think it could.

Some other questions are, how much support is NATO giving this Dutch intervention? If the Dutch feel serious enough about the shoot down to send their own military are they engaging Article 5 as well? Can they at least get clearance to allow their fighter aircraft to pass through friendly air space to support the efforts of their ground troops?

I think in this case the Dutch were counting on their involvement as being a calming factor. That politically nobody would want to start shooting at them, so all involved would reign in their forces until the Dutch leave.

[Spirit of Hope]

Some other questions are, how much support is NATO giving this Dutch intervention? If the Dutch feel serious enough about the shoot down to send their own military are they engaging Article 5 as well? Can they at least get clearance to allow their fighter aircraft to pass through friendly air space to support the efforts of their ground troops?

I think in this case the Dutch were counting on their involvement as being a calming factor. That politically nobody would want to start shooting at them, so all involved would reign in their forces until the Dutch leave.

Very true, but the original question mentions the separatists intervening, which sounds like just the thing that could result in Article 5 being invoked, and/or follow on Dutch operations.

[Axis Nova]

While unmanned ground vehicles may have their role at some point in the future, I think it'll be in the field of logistics, rather than primarily combat. Unmanned tankers and cargo vehicles, for example. We're already on the verge of that in real life-- the trucking industry in the US is keenly interested in being able to apply driverless technology to their 18-wheelers.

[Theodosiya]

Autoloaded 35 ton 105mm FSV? And could paras still receive limited number of Wiesels and BMD, not for Mechanization but for fire support?

[The Soodean Imperium]

I think in this case the Dutch were counting on their involvement as being a calming factor. That politically nobody would want to start shooting at them, so all involved would reign in their forces until the Dutch leave.

Very true, but the original question mentions the separatists intervening, which sounds like just the thing that could result in Article 5 being invoked, and/or follow on Dutch operations.

The problem is, it's a little hard to discuss hypotheticals - i.e, how the Ukrainian separatists would respond tactically, what they would do with prisoners - while eliminating all options in which the rebel leadership attempts to de-escalate or avoid confrontation.

One can certainly look at the scale and organization of the two sides to ask who would win, but political pragmatism is likely to constrain any tactical and/or publicity decisions on the part of the separatist leadership, if not necessarily on the part of its ragtag footsoldiers.

[The Akasha Colony]

Autoloaded 35 ton 105mm FSV?

For what use?

35 tonnes is an awkward size for a new purpose-built vehicle since it's heavier than it needs to be to just carry a 105 mm gun around (MGS, B1, and MCV are all well under 30 tonnes) but it's not heavy enough to be particularly well protected. Which means it's heavier than would be desired for airborne operations, but not heavy enough to be used in high-intensity conflicts unless further up-armored.

But the weight class implies that it is just a conversion of an existing IFV, in which case that particular weight isn't a goal but is just a byproduct of using something that already exists.

And could paras still receive limited number of Wiesels and BMD, not for Mechanization but for fire support?

This is what Wiesel was literally supposed to do?

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Speaking of lightweight tanks, fcs vehicles were intended to be 16 tons. However, that doesn't really count as an actual tank. How would having a team of multi purpose ugvs in every battalion work?

[The Akasha Colony]

Speaking of lightweight tanks, fcs vehicles were intended to be 16 tons. However, that doesn't really count as an actual tank.

The only problem is they didn't work. Whoops.

[Manokan Republic]

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

He's actually saying he knows very little about tanks.

The sheer amount of writing needed to convey this notion though is quite impressive. Most use only a few words to get this point across.

So by using a lot of information, I must know a little about tanks?

That sounds like the opposite of logic. "This guy gives a lot of information, and facts and details, must not know what he's talking about..." Also I was explaining to someone how reducing the size of the interior would dramatically decrease the overall size of the tank, who questioned whether or not that would happen.

[Manokan Republic]

A predominately automated system that removes the need for crews to expose themselves and visually see their targets is not only more protective but potentially smaller if designed correctly. You could theoretically have a tank that's just as effective but is much smaller. I'm not sure how much, but it could be pretty substantial, perhaps twice as small. With less armor comes better fuel efficiencies, faster speeds, and lower costs, not needing as much material to manufacture the tanks, particularly the high end armor.

So it would be a huge improvement over existing tanks and also make them small enough to be easily transportable, or pass over rougher more difficult terrain. That and hybrids would probably be some of the biggest improvements to tanks.

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

Precision marksmanship from battalion sniper company suppresses the enemy in infantry-on-infantry champion combat, proceeding to direct robotic fires from airborne NLOS tank Block II Gavin "aluminium Wunderwaff". Meanwhile, depth fires are provided by railgun battleship USS Pitchfork Ben after destroying the enemy navy with contemptuous ease. Victory is attained within 48 hours and the 7th Precision Marksmanship Brigade Combat Team (PMBCT) is withdrawn, as another democracy emerges like a phoenix from the broken remains of evil kleptocracy.
What a wonderful world you live in.

An automated systems on an M1 Abrams would be a better tank choice, as the M1 abrams is 30 years old and doesn't have the same electronics upgrades as modern tanks. Further, better engines, such as found on the German Leopard 1, which is about 3 times more efficient, would also be an upgrade for the Abrams.

It's not about one system being better all together, so much as it is taking the best elements from all the systems and putting them together. Also there's the idea of using M1 Abrams armor but on a smaller more miniaturized tank, using automated systems to shrink the overall size.

[Manokan Republic]

Autoloaded 35 ton 105mm FSV?

For what use?

35 tonnes is an awkward size for a new purpose-built vehicle since it's heavier than it needs to be to just carry a 105 mm gun around (MGS, B1, and MCV are all well under 30 tonnes) but it's not heavy enough to be particularly well protected. Which means it's heavier than would be desired for airborne operations, but not heavy enough to be used in high-intensity conflicts unless further up-armored.

But the weight class implies that it is just a conversion of an existing IFV, in which case that particular weight isn't a goal but is just a byproduct of using something that already exists.

The idea is shrinking down the size of the tank using automated systems. It doesn't need to be as big without a driver's cabin, a manned turret and so on, which shaves off weight and size. Thus it can be smaller and, lighter weight. Hence the 30-35 tons, as compared to 68 tons for most M1 abrams.

[Spirit of Hope]

For what use?

35 tonnes is an awkward size for a new purpose-built vehicle since it's heavier than it needs to be to just carry a 105 mm gun around (MGS, B1, and MCV are all well under 30 tonnes) but it's not heavy enough to be particularly well protected. Which means it's heavier than would be desired for airborne operations, but not heavy enough to be used in high-intensity conflicts unless further up-armored.

But the weight class implies that it is just a conversion of an existing IFV, in which case that particular weight isn't a goal but is just a byproduct of using something that already exists.

The idea is shrinking down the size of the tank using automated systems. It doesn't need to be as big without a driver's cabin, a manned turret and so on, which shaves off weight and size. Thus it can be smaller and, lighter weight. Hence the 30-35 tons, as compared to 68 tons for most M1 abrams.

You aren't going to be able to shrink a vehicle with Abrams level protection down to 35 tons, you probably can't even do this if you completely remove the crew because of all the other systems that would still need to be inside the protected volume. Weapon, ammo, engine, electronics, controls, etc. all take up space the crew is just one more thing and designers try to cram them in their as best they can.

Then their is the problem of how automated to make the system, you can make an autoloader, and that might save you some room, though not all that much all things considered. But what else are you going to automate? You basically can't reduce the crew bellow three (driver, gunner, commander) given current computer capabilities. Automated driving systems are getting good at moving along roads or set routes, but they require input on where to go and aren't up to the same level as humans in the area of responding to verbal and implicit commands. Most of the same issues apply to the gunner as well, you can make a system that aims a gun, but would you be able to trust it in the field against a covered and concealed opponent, and working off of verbal and implicit commands from the tank commander? Finally their is the commander, which I feel is rather obvious why it has so far remained human.

So you're saying that NLOS-C is a better tank than Abrams?

Precision marksmanship from battalion sniper company suppresses the enemy in infantry-on-infantry champion combat, proceeding to direct robotic fires from airborne NLOS tank Block II Gavin "aluminium Wunderwaff". Meanwhile, depth fires are provided by railgun battleship USS Pitchfork Ben after destroying the enemy navy with contemptuous ease. Victory is attained within 48 hours and the 7th Precision Marksmanship Brigade Combat Team (PMBCT) is withdrawn, as another democracy emerges like a phoenix from the broken remains of evil kleptocracy.
What a wonderful world you live in.

An automated systems on an M1 Abrams would be a better tank choice, as the M1 abrams is 30 years old and doesn't have the same electronics upgrades as modern tanks. Further, better engines, such as found on the German Leopard 1, which is about 3 times more efficient, would also be an upgrade for the Abrams.

It's not about one system being better all together, so much as it is taking the best elements from all the systems and putting them together. Also there's the idea of using M1 Abrams armor but on a smaller more miniaturized tank, using automated systems to shrink the overall size.

The Abrams has had it's electronics update a number of times, and has a version under development with even more updates. Engine efficiency (size or fuel wise) isn't the only consideration, tank designers have to consider more variables, iirc the turbine engine currently in use was chosen because it gets up to full power (and thus accelerates better) than diesel engines.

[The Akasha Colony]

So by using a lot of information, I must know a little about tanks?

That sounds like the opposite of logic. "This guy gives a lot of information, and facts and details, must not know what he's talking about..." Also I was explaining to someone how reducing the size of the interior would dramatically decrease the overall size of the tank, who questioned whether or not that would happen.

Kellyanne Conway, is that you?

Just because you write "information" does not make it true.

You write lots of "information" and "details" but very few facts because this information and these details are usually wrong. "Tank walkways" are pretty kek.

But it's become clear that attempting to point any of this out is a fool's errand because evidently looking at a few inforgraphics from pop-sci magazines and websites makes one an expert on tank design and use, beyond the reproach of any amount of common sense, logic, or first-hand experience with armored fighting vehicles.

[Kassaran]

So by using a lot of information, I must know a little about tanks?

That sounds like the opposite of logic. "This guy gives a lot of information, and facts and details, must not know what he's talking about..." Also I was explaining to someone how reducing the size of the interior would dramatically decrease the overall size of the tank, who questioned whether or not that would happen.

No, he's literally calling you out about writing on a topic of which you are incredibly inexperienced. He called out your information as false at best and straight deception and misleading in context at worst. You don't understand tank design or its complexities beyond WWI era designs as other posters have shown and likewise have no grasp of the concept of realism.

An automated systems on an M1 Abrams would be a better tank choice, as the M1 abrams is 30 years old and doesn't have the same electronics upgrades as modern tanks. Further, better engines, such as found on the German Leopard 1, which is about 3 times more efficient, would also be an upgrade for the Abrams.

It's not about one system being better all together, so much as it is taking the best elements from all the systems and putting them together. Also there's the idea of using M1 Abrams armor but on a smaller more miniaturized tank, using automated systems to shrink the overall size.

No, an auto loading system would not be better, it would make the tank heavier and impact it's performance. The M1 Abrams would indeed be 30 years old in design and systems if we didn't include constant upgrades to said hardware and software... much like the Apache Attack Helicopter which I personally work on. Additionally, you literally just called a Leopard 1's engine more advanced than a current generation Abrams... when it's a last generation MBT while the Abrams is current gen. You obviously have no clue about any of the content upon which you are founding your baseless theories and ideas upon. Think before you write please, this is only making you look worse.

The M1 is not known for its armor, it's known for its speed and avaliability on the battlefield... of which these are both supplemented by top-of-the-line targeting and communications systems. Challenger tanks are legendary for their armor and German tanks for their gun stability. Korean (southern type) K2s are rumored to be capable of going all skynet terminator mode when their crew's shouldn't be functioning and the US is just a meme lord. God only knows what the Armada is going to become and all of the Slavic countries that are rehashing T90s and 72s and everything like them.

Your limited fetching of information from the broad spectrum is most disturbing to say the leas and that's not the worst part.

The idea is shrinking down the size of the tank using automated systems. It doesn't need to be as big without a driver's cabin, a manned turret and so on, which shaves off weight and size. Thus it can be smaller and, lighter weight. Hence the 30-35 tons, as compared to 68 tons for most M1 abrams.

Because you've not even learned the lesson we tried to tell you first. Tanks are as small as they can get with the technology we have. You're not adding anything new to the discussion at hand and your ideas on what or how a tank is or functions are dated by your seeming perception that there is room inside a tank. This is false. There is space, not room. A tank that weighs 30 tons, and has two crew members is what we call a bomber and it makes up for its lack of armor with speed, altitude, and not having to worry about being directly countered by tanks because it has to face other, lighter but more lethal threats.