NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

a new way to sling a 500 lbs bomb :thinking:

Good enough for an W80. <.>

How far can you make ATACMS reach if you so desired? 500 klicks? Otoh LORA is like 400 klicks...

If you can make it either Light or pack high fraction of propellant or both, it would take you far. very far.

E.g Weight class of OTR-23 (4360 kg). If you can make somehow make the missile to pack 3700 Kg of propellant or 84% propellant fraction. You can get about 4.6 Km/s and some 2600 km of range.

1,000 klicks with a useful 500 kg load then?

[New Vihenia]

1,000 klicks with a useful 500 kg load then?

Yes you can.

Light guidance and structures as well as somehow light rocket motor casing, to allow high propellant fraction. playing around with fractions yield me this



Wlaunch is launch weight

PAY is payload
Struc is structure
Guid is guidance section, must be light
MOT is total mass of the motor which consist of PROP which is propellant and CAS is the casing including the nozzle.

For lightest mass perhaps it can use hot gas injection TVC, which taps the gas from combustion chamber. Above would give you about 2.9 km/s and some 1038 km range.

[Gallia-]

tbf atacms is much smaller than oka being 1670 kg

with a 230 kg warhead it has a range of around 300 km

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Does using military police in combat cause problems? Which countries (if any) do this?

[Valentine Z]

I need a bit of a help with, err... Okay, my nation is a mix of MT, PMT, FT, and some FanT, but that might be a bit besides the point.

I just need a bit of clarification regarding Navies, just MT and realistic Navy. So typically, I'm aware that there's the usual Fleet organization, consisting of several classes of ships. I have also looked up US Navy's Command Structure, all good!

Now, the question: I would like to know if a Navy has ever divided themselves based on types of ships, followed by a Fleet? It sounds a bit absurd and counterintuitive, but I was wondering if it was such a thing with dividing your logistics purely on what kind of ships you have.

For example, 22nd Fleet = 4th Cruiser Division + 5th Cruiser Div + 17th Destroyer Div + 8th Submarine Div.

Thank you for the help! ♥️

[Husseinarti]

I need a bit of a help with, err... Okay, my nation is a mix of MT, PMT, FT, and some FanT, but that might be a bit besides the point.

I just need a bit of clarification regarding Navies, just MT and realistic Navy. So typically, I'm aware that there's the usual Fleet organization, consisting of several classes of ships. I have also looked up US Navy's Command Structure, all good!

Now, the question: I would like to know if a Navy has ever divided themselves based on types of ships, followed by a Fleet? It sounds a bit absurd and counterintuitive, but I was wondering if it was such a thing with dividing your logistics purely on what kind of ships you have.

For example, 22nd Fleet = 4th Cruiser Division + 5th Cruiser Div + 17th Destroyer Div + 8th Submarine Div.

Thank you for the help! ♥️

yeah, historically they did and still do

the us navy has DESRONs (destroyer squadrons) and so many are allocated to the various fleets. Historically it had organizations for cruisers, battleships, etc as well.

[Spirit of Hope]

Does using military police in combat cause problems? Which countries (if any) do this?

What do you mean by military police and combat?

What most people consider military police aren't trained to be front line soldiers, so it's stupid and wasteful to use them for that. Instead military police conduct rear area security operations, which doesn't mean they won't see combat. After all infiltrators, bypassed enemy forces, local resistance, and others will all need to be stopped.

The NKVD had military units in the USSR, but they started life as border security units not as military police.

[Gallia-]

The simple answer is yes, military police troops are frontline combat troops.

In the US Army they have a greater preponderance of grenade launchers and machine guns than infantry squads.

[Immoren]

Common OPFOR for MPs-in-training is SOF guys in these parts. IIRC
Well.
Some MPs-in-training.

[Gallia-]

Yes. The reason American MPs have so many machine guns and grenade launchers is because they're supposed to destroy special forces units that might attack MSRs, airbases, or nuclear ammo storage points.

It's a common worldwide thing I suppose that MPs are mostly supposed to corral drunk drivers in peacetime and destroy infiltrators/saboteurs like the Desert Rats in wartime.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I think the biggest advantages of the ski jump over a catapult are that the takeoff runs for even heavy fighters (Su-33) can be relatively short and the stresses on the airframe are much less than a power assisted launch.

When the USN tested ski jumps for F/A-18A it found that a 9-degree ramp was ideal because it lacked the "thumping" of a 6-degree ramp, and the former reduced the takeoff run of an F/A-18A fully loaded to between 1/2th to 1/3rd of normal (depending on throttle setting). In Air Force tests, they determined a tactical fighter like F-15 or F-16 could take off with a 9 degree ramp in under 1,000 feet, which means if something like a Nimitz had a bow ramp it would be able to takeoff with pretty much any loadout, and probably from quite short distances if you gave it a light load.

Also no it would be slower in every respect in launching aircraft. Probably won't matter for something like a Nimitz but it might be a concern if you're trying to carpet bomb Hanoi with F-4s and A-7s.

Piggybacking back to this because im crap that like that.
Can you fly a 60 ton MTOW FB-22 off the front end of a CVN-68 with a skijump? <.<
Edit: LolCS is still alive, kill with fire!

[Strykla II]

Will a soldier’s personal life (for example their family life, political views and religion) be relevant to their soldiering?

No. Not really.

A day late but yes these things absolutely can be relevant.

Family life? Political views? What happens when the land you live in suddenly belongs to another country? Are you going to up and move your entire family during a crisis with little hope that the other country will have more opportunities for them? What if you've been showered with propaganda - and not all of it complete lies - that the nation which wants this territory back hates you for speaking a slightly different language?

Religion? What if you're a private in an Middle Eastern army, and you live under a brutal Sunni regime for decades? Some faraway nation comes along, trashes the place, and tells you that you are now democratic. Well, the country is majority Shia, so Shias win all the elections, and the Sunnis who played along for a while under the regime get stabbed in alleys and have their houses trashed in sectarian violence. Then some Sunni religious group comes along, the army flees in droves, followed by more violence. What religion you are will absolutely have an impact.

Some nations have a history of the military remaining apolitical, with the attitude that we are professionals when in uniform. This has complex origins and took a long time to develop. Many nations do not have this. Soldiers are people, and they are going to do what it takes to survive, whether it means forsaking oaths because you aren't going to risk your family's safety, playing along with brutal regimes and terrorist groups so long as they aren't the one getting beheaded, or anything else.

[Austrasien]

A day late but yes these things absolutely can be relevant.

Family life? Political views? What happens when the land you live in suddenly belongs to another country? Are you going to up and move your entire family during a crisis with little hope that the other country will have more opportunities for them? What if you've been showered with propaganda - and not all of it complete lies - that the nation which wants this territory back hates you for speaking a slightly different language?

Religion? What if you're a private in an Middle Eastern army, and you live under a brutal Sunni regime for decades? Some faraway nation comes along, trashes the place, and tells you that you are now democratic. Well, the country is majority Shia, so Shias win all the elections, and the Sunnis who played along for a while under the regime get stabbed in alleys and have their houses trashed in sectarian violence. Then some Sunni religious group comes along, the army flees in droves, followed by more violence. What religion you are will absolutely have an impact.

Some nations have a history of the military remaining apolitical, with the attitude that we are professionals when in uniform. This has complex origins and took a long time to develop. Many nations do not have this. Soldiers are people, and they are going to do what it takes to survive, whether it means forsaking oaths because you aren't going to risk your family's safety, playing along with brutal regimes and terrorist groups so long as they aren't the one getting beheaded, or anything else.

They make perfect sense retrospectively. They are nearly useless prospectively, it is just as easy to imagine (or find) life story's which follow the same path and arrive at the opposite conclusion. Or any range of other conclusions.

Warfare is a social activity not an individual activity. The characteristics of individuals are not terribly important except inasmuch as they are expressed as group behaviours. By-and-large cowardly individuals can be made brave, lazy made productive, insubordinate made disciplined, provided the social architecture they are placed in is correct. This is a wonderful characteristic of social animals in general and humans in particular; we contain a whole range of possible behaviours and proclivities (a personality in other words) which only exists when we are interacting with other people.

Modern western culture muddies understanding by assuming there is a single internally consistent self which can only be comprehended through careful reading of an individual's biography. This isn't true, which is why "mob psychology", the "madness of crowds" (observations of the basic fact humans will do things in groups they do not do as individuals) lead to so much hand wringing and confusion. But from a pragmatic perspective it's useful you don't need to understand if a soldier got along with his dad or felt really respected as a shia or whatever.

A military force has powerful levers for inciting the correct behaviours from their soldiers:

• It controls who the soldier spends time with
• It controls who the soldier must obey

And this organization is fractal. Soldiers are controlled by their officers by being placed in the correct social architecture. Officers are themselves controlled by their superiors by being placed in the correct architecture. And the military as a whole is controlled by the correct social architecture relative to the state and society as a whole. Of course this much simpler to describe in general terms than to perform in practice. Only a rare and exceptional leader has an opportunity to raise his army ex-nihilo and so both the social structure of the army and the social structure it is contained in are tightly chained by their own past.

As has been well known and practiced by many military forces through history, particularly those of large empires which draw on many different kinds of recruits, most undesirable behaviours can be managed by diluting people with problematic tendencies when they are correctly identified. If recruits from a particular tribe (for example) are known to be unreliable it may be sufficient to put them under officers from a more reliable group. Or if they are very rebellious ensure that small numbers of them are spread between many regiments of more reliable troops. This is also true of officers.

Different people require more management than others to get the best results. Some groups of people are completely unsuitable for a particular military. Though this is generally rare.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The simple answer is yes, military police troops are frontline combat troops.

In the US Army they have a greater preponderance of grenade launchers and machine guns than infantry squads.

and then you have the tankers... who get iirc:
2 M4's
2 M16's
1 M203
3 M240's
1 M249
4 9 mm pistols
1 M2HB
1 Shotgun
And the 120 mm
And the Army wanted to add bayonets to all that
All this on 4 dudes.

[Gallia-]

MPs on paper have four .50 cals, two Mk 19s, four SAWs, and four M320s per squad.

[Cossack Peoples]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

[Spirit of Hope]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

Define best. Kills the most people? Kills the fastest? Spreads the furthest? Hardest to fight? Least likely to back blow? etc. It is all going to depend on what you want to do.

[New Vihenia]

Nuclear.

Bio weapons are way too uncertain :x.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

Anthrax.

[Cossack Peoples]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

Anthrax.

That does have its advantages; deadliness, low chance of friendly fire, ease of production-- but it doesn't spread at all behind enemy lines. Is there a more efficient means of dispersal than the good ol' sealed anthrax envelope?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Anthrax.

That does have its advantages; deadliness, low chance of friendly fire, ease of production-- but it doesn't spread at all behind enemy lines. Is there a more efficient means of dispersal than the good ol' sealed anthrax envelope?

Well you might be able to disperse it via cropduster.

[Gallia-]

Nuclear.

Bio weapons are way too uncertain :x.

ye

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

Big downside: You get assblasted by atom bombs. Before you move even.

[Gallia-]

Best biological weapon. No Geneva Conventions to follow. Go.

Big downside: You get assblasted by atom bombs. Before you move even.

#uwu#

[Triplebaconation]

when you read wikipedia instead of the news for the past year lol