NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[New Aeyariss]

If all but a few ATGMs carried by Infantry are capable of knocking out a tank, are those Infantry better off doing something else like carrying more portable but less powerful ATGMs/RPGs (focus against enemy IFV/APC) or just do something else entirely like mortar crew?

Like you could just delegate striking a tank to, say an IFV/APC with more capable ATGMs?

In Nifonese army there is a system where each infantry company has light ATGMs, while heavier, more efficient ATGMS are located on battalion level. Finally, there is an ATGM battalion in infantry and medium brigades with notKhrizantemas mounted on 6x6 vehicles.

In Nifonese doctrine, enemy tanks are to be engaged by battalion / brigade lelvel ATGMs, as unless firing from side or rear, company level ATGMs are incapable of damaging the frontal armour of modern tanks.

[Miku the Based]

If all but a few ATGMs carried by Infantry are capable of knocking out a tank, are those Infantry better off doing something else like carrying more portable but less powerful ATGMs/RPGs (focus against enemy IFV/APC) or just do something else entirely like mortar crew?

Like you could just delegate striking a tank to, say an IFV/APC with more capable ATGMs?

I'd suggest just running up to the tank with a shaped charge and placing it on the gunners hatch.
Also missiles, lots of missiles. Also sniping them during tea time.

[Hinachi]

If all but a few ATGMs carried by Infantry are capable of knocking out a tank, are those Infantry better off doing something else like carrying more portable but less powerful ATGMs/RPGs (focus against enemy IFV/APC) or just do something else entirely like mortar crew?

The infantry carrying ATGMs that can't penetrate enemy tanks would be better off upgrading to ATGMs that can, or changing to multipurpose projectors that can fire rounds useful against structures and infantry, I think. The main driver of the cost of a ATGM is the guidance, anyway, so increasing the diameter or improving the design of the warhead is relatively worthwhile.

Like you could just delegate striking a tank to, say an IFV/APC with more capable ATGMs?

You can, but consider that infantry ATGM teams will be more concealable and thus survivable. Vehicle mounted ATGMs aren't necessarily more capable than infantry ATGMs either, in terms of the targets they can defeat (top attack missiles allow infantry ATGMs to defeat practically any tank today). They could carry heavier, higher velocity missiles like Khrizantema or even KE missiles like LOSAT, though.

[Austrasien]

ATGMs are generally extremely useful when line-of-sight ranges exceed a few hundred meters routinely. Over about 1000 meters they are far and away the most effective weapon the infantry has at its immediate disposal for engaging anything on the ground. ATGM single-shot-hit probabilities rarely are around 80 to 90% out to the limits of their range when used by a capable operator, and their range is typically 3-5 km.

Nothing else comes close to this. The world record sniper kill is 3.5 km. A typical TOW or Kornet crew would have no trouble picking off an individual at 3.5 or 4.5 km, and little trouble finding them with the FLIR sight if there is no intervening obstacles.

The main downside is they are expensive, heavy and somewhat cumbersome. At rifle range, under 300 meters, their crews are quite vulnerable. Under about 150 meters they can rarely be used and are a hazard to firer under about 50 meters. Stacking it with ATGMs is the easiest way to increase an infantry units killing power, but it needs to be in the appropriate terrain to make use of their extraordinary effective range.

[Gallia-]

he fin

[Triplebaconation]

nice wz-10

[Gallia-]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Hinachi]

How are landing craft usually defeated? By cumulative hits causing fire and flooding, hits to the propulsion and bridge that immobilise it, or a combination of both?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If all but a few ATGMs carried by Infantry are capable of knocking out a tank, are those Infantry better off doing something else like carrying more portable but less powerful ATGMs/RPGs (focus against enemy IFV/APC) or just do something else entirely like mortar crew?

The infantry carrying ATGMs that can't penetrate enemy tanks would be better off upgrading to ATGMs that can, or changing to multipurpose projectors that can fire rounds useful against structures and infantry, I think. The main driver of the cost of a ATGM is the guidance, anyway, so increasing the diameter or improving the design of the warhead is relatively worthwhile.

This is largely why the 9M14 or AT-3 refused to die.

It just kept getting improved HEAT, tandem-HEAT, and bigger rocket motors, and replaced 2km spools with 3km ones.

Serbian models swapped out the wire spools for radio-guidance so those are good out to 5 km, the only downside being it's possible to jam the guidance.

[Gallia-]

How are landing craft usually defeated? By cumulative hits causing fire and flooding, hits to the propulsion and bridge that immobilise it, or a combination of both?

By sinking their transports at sea.

[New Vihenia]

he fin

(Image)

only 6 ATGM's ?

[Gallia-]

it's a scout helicopter so

the gunship is just YAH-63 but different i guess and it has 16 brimstonesque rockets

[Hinachi]

How are landing craft usually defeated? By cumulative hits causing fire and flooding, hits to the propulsion and bridge that immobilise it, or a combination of both?

By sinking their transports at sea.

That makes sense, but I imagine the army would want to field weapons to get a slice of the coastal defense pie. And the navy and air force got the full size AShMs as they have the surveillance capabilities to find enemy ships out to the distances that the AShMs can strike.

So I was wondering whether delivering a large amount of explosives or striking specific parts of a landing craft is a more effective approach.

[Gallia-]

Hellfires are fine for shooting tiny boats.

[Miku the Based]

Nothing else comes close to this. The world record sniper kill is 3.5 km. A typical TOW or Kornet crew would have no trouble picking off an individual at 3.5 or 4.5 km.

Actually the world sniper kill (if you call big boolet with breach locked gun a sniper) is 22 miles.
Edit: and the boolet that did the trick was called Excalibur

[img]https://images.app.goo.gl/1cFLUEtJ8Nc5axkX7img] sorry I can't get the image to load.

[Triplebaconation]

By sinking their transports at sea.

That makes sense, but I imagine the army would want to field weapons to get a slice of the coastal defense pie. And the navy and air force got the full size AShMs as they have the surveillance capabilities to find enemy ships out to the distances that the AShMs can strike.

So I was wondering whether delivering a large amount of explosives or striking specific parts of a landing craft is a more effective approach.

Historically the vast majority of landing craft have been lost to mines.

[Gallia-]

CAPTOR but it shoots ADCAPs and it only listens to LPD/LHA screws would be kinda spicy.

I guess you could also have something like a multiple rocket launcher that spits glide mines out at landing beaches maybe. Like a FASCAM for LCACs or whatever instead of tanks. :thinkle:

[Hinachi]

Naval mines are probably the remit of the navy and the air force which traditionally had the platforms used to deploy them (ships, bombers).

IRL CAPTOR was only ever an anti-submarine weapon, I wonder why? Are surface vessel acoustic signatures too difficult to distinguish without a human operator? Surface vessels include merchants, after all.

FASCAM sounds very sensible for the army, with the platforms used to launch them already existing and having broader uses in land battle. The anti-armour mine of FASCAM (RAAMS) probably already works against hovercraft since it uses a magnetic sensor.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

IRL CAPTOR was only ever an anti-submarine weapon, I wonder why? Are surface vessel acoustic signatures too difficult to distinguish without a human operator? Surface vessels include merchants, after all.

Probably political will. There is/was also (idk if it's alive or not) a programme to convert older'ish(?) Mk 48's into mines a la the Mk 37 conversions.

[Miku the Based]

IRL CAPTOR was only ever an anti-submarine weapon, I wonder why? Are surface vessel acoustic signatures too difficult to distinguish without a human operator? Surface vessels include merchants, after all.
.

Wait, I have submarines that are merchant vessels.

[Hrstrovokia]

Wait, I have submarines that are merchant vessels.

They legit had plans to do that with the Typhoon class:

http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files ... t/list.htm

You might need Google Chrome to auto translate that.

[Triplebaconation]

Naval mines are probably the remit of the navy and the air force which traditionally had the platforms used to deploy them (ships, bombers).

IRL CAPTOR was only ever an anti-submarine weapon, I wonder why? Are surface vessel acoustic signatures too difficult to distinguish without a human operator? Surface vessels include merchants, after all.

It's doubtful CAPTOR actually "distinguished" between targets. It probably just filtered out contacts using some kind of propagation trickery since it was designed specifically for the GIUK gap.

I don't think Mk46 even has an anti-ship mode.

Anti-landing obstacles aren't just naval mines, they'll be in the surf zone and on the beach too.

FASCAM would be fairly useless for beach defense.

[Gallia-]

Naval mines are probably the remit of the navy and the air force which traditionally had the platforms used to deploy them (ships, bombers).

IRL CAPTOR was only ever an anti-submarine weapon, I wonder why? Are surface vessel acoustic signatures too difficult to distinguish without a human operator? Surface vessels include merchants, after all.

FASCAM sounds very sensible for the army, with the platforms used to launch them already existing and having broader uses in land battle. The anti-armour mine of FASCAM (RAAMS) probably already works against hovercraft since it uses a magnetic sensor.

Literal FASCAM is too small and wouldn't work, since it uses crush sensors and tripwires, which are not useful underwater.

I meant a rocket launcher that shoots Destructors or something. It's "like FASCAM" in that it's an artillery piece that puts a minefield somewhere instantly.

You could also just drop a dozen sea mines from an airplane or something I guess but that's a bit lamer. I'm assuming if you can strap an SDB to a MLRS then I don't see why you can't strap any kind of similar sized sea mine to it. A 250 lbs sea mine is probably enough to make even large landing craft like Zubrs afraid, but then again Zubr has rocket launchers for surf zone clearance so IDK. It might just blow them up or something.

[Triplebaconation]

It's nothing to do with the technical characteristics.

Before an assault scatterable mines are pretty bad compared to engineers who can also do obstacles and fighting positions.

During an assault they're very tube-intensive so they'll consume valuable indirect fire missions. Most of your direct fire stuff isn't going to be pointed out to sea.

Scatterable mines are best used to support maneuver.

[Austrasien]

Nothing else comes close to this. The world record sniper kill is 3.5 km. A typical TOW or Kornet crew would have no trouble picking off an individual at 3.5 or 4.5 km.

Actually the world sniper kill (if you call big boolet with breach locked gun a sniper) is 22 miles.
Edit: and the boolet that did the trick was called Excalibur

[img]https://images.app.goo.gl/1cFLUEtJ8Nc5axkX7img] sorry I can't get the image to load.

Literally the same as an ATGM.