NATION

PASSWORD

NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:37 pm

Miku the Based wrote:I can see the purpose of limiting flight range to prevent collateral damage


It's literally twice the range of AT-4 except it can actually hit things at any range, as opposed to needing to shoot half a dozen of them to hit something.

MBT-LAW is, as the name implies, a LAW for killing MBTs. The fact that it is large is because MBTs need quite big warheads. The fact that it is fast is because it uses an inertial guidance system that relies on the tank not changing direction, braking, or speeding up during the flight time. If it were long ranged the tank crew might actually be able to respond. As it stands, they can't really do anything against it except shoot it down with an APS.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Triplebaconation » Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:42 pm

*sigh*

The fins of the RPG-7 don't increase its susceptibility to crosswinds. Far from it.

How a projectile, finned or not, interacts with crosswinds will be determined by where the center of pressure is located in relation to its center of gravity. The further these two are separated the more aerodynamically stable the projectile will be.

The tendency of the RPG-7 to veer into crosswinds is simply the weathercocking associated with highly stable rockets.

With an overbore warhead, an RPG-7 rocket with no fins would have a center of pressure very close to the center of gravity. It may no longer turn into crosswinds but it would be more susceptible to air currents in general - possibly to the point of just spinning in a circle.

To account for all possible wind speeds and angles the rocket must be capable of changing its shape - ie, with control surfaces.

Note that the pop-out fins are not responsible for spinning the RPG-7 rocket in the first place so all this venturi stuff is simply superfluous.

Finally, an AT rocket is not like a rifle bullet. Just because it spins doesn't mean it's actually spin-stabilized. Finned rockets are rotated to reduce angular deviation during the first phase of flight. Actually spin-stabilizing one would require imparting much more angular momentum and reduce the effectiveness of a shaped charge warhead.
Last edited by Triplebaconation on Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Axis Nova
Diplomat
 
Posts: 982
Founded: Feb 14, 2004
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Axis Nova » Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:22 pm

Note that the listed velocity of any rocket propelled weapon on Wikipedia is going to be misleading, because unlike a bullet, rockets speed up in flight.

User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:20 am

How important is it to be able to have dismounted or towed artillery, mortars, anti-tank guns etc on a modern battlefield?

Is a force heavy composed of self-propelled equipment at a huge disadvantage? I would imagine only in a mountainous environment, no?

And then on top of that question; would it be more beneficial to delegate self-propelled weapons to a proper standing professional force and towed weaponry to a reserve force?

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9965
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:58 am

Hrstrovokia wrote:How important is it to be able to have dismounted or towed artillery, mortars, anti-tank guns etc on a modern battlefield?

Is a force heavy composed of self-propelled equipment at a huge disadvantage? I would imagine only in a mountainous environment, no?

And then on top of that question; would it be more beneficial to delegate self-propelled weapons to a proper standing professional force and towed weaponry to a reserve force?


Towed weapons are generally better at surviving than self propelled systems, they can be dug in and have a lower signature. That said they are slower, especially if you want to dig them in properly.

Which is better is going to depend on what you are doing with them.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:57 am

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Towed weapons are generally better at surviving than self propelled systems, they can be dug in and have a lower signature. That said they are slower, especially if you want to dig them in properly.

Which is better is going to depend on what you are doing with them.


Would it be exceptionally naïve to have a military force with little or no towed weaponry?


User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:33 am

If you face off against an enemy force willing to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, towed equipment and crews is pretty much f*cked right?

So the advantage is towards self-propelled stuff, no?

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:37 am

Every war involving mass use of chemical and biological weapons involved both sides having substantial quantities of towed, and unprotected, artillerists and infantrymen.

It didn't really do much to stop British gunners from firing on the Western Front or Iranian infantrymen from taking the Iraqi trenches.

No reason to assume getting doused in nerve agents or whatever is going to substantially affect the outcome of a war, but the people who tend to use the most chemicals also tend to lose. There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies. A force bound by motor trucks would probably fare well against chemicals in environments where the width of the truck is not a substantial barrier to movement.

In tighter terrains (forests, jungles) or more congested urban areas ("pedestrian friendly") or whatever then trucks are obviously kinda bad, but at that point you're better off looking at motorbikes or something since width matters and a tank is wider than any truck.
Last edited by Gallia- on Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Miku the Based
Diplomat
 
Posts: 665
Founded: Dec 03, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Miku the Based » Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:43 am

Just get a bunch of low profile Katyusha and slap in a mortar and rocket combo for every personnel carrier. If you need to dig in just use dynamite if you're in a hurry or a bobcat or official engineering force for concrete dugout for placing the Katyusha below the surface.
Cannons tend to take time to set up and even some self propelled arty needs stablizing posts and a entire 15 man team to set up due to the recoil and the tedious mounting process.
January 8th, 2021 - I vow not to respond to anyone OOCIC/OOC I'm 100% serious
Do not ask me my opinion of LGBT. the mods don't approve.
Yes, I'm Homophobic, Transphobic etc. not stop incessantly responding to me and then have the audacity to claim I am the one "trolling". If I don't respond to you most likely I'm on your foe list. If one is hypersensitive I recommend putting me on your foe list
Socialism Cockshottian Economic Pan-aftrica DPRK Hamas Belarus CCP Kazakhstan Maxim Gorky National Bolshevikism jim profit free thought and expression thereof | Susan Sontag Critical Theory New-Left Cub/Ven. Socialism Smashie Drugs USculture NPA Corrupt Moderator Unruley Moderators anglos thought crimes/police


User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:53 am

Gallia- wrote:There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies.


I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one? And the use of chemical weapons was akin to tanks, something that could conceivably break the deadlock? I don't think they were inferior or the use of chemical weapons a loser's crutch, but I am absolutely open to correction.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:02 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:
Gallia- wrote:There's good reason to believe that chemical/biological use might be a loser's crutch used by inferior militaries that is easily adapted to by even poorly trained, relatively impoverished third-world armies.


I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one?


No, because they lost.

Hrstrovokia wrote:And the use of chemical weapons was akin to tanks, something that could conceivably break the deadlock?


It didn't, and it didn't do much to dissuade Allied gunners from firing. Even mustard gas just meant slathering basically stark naked in protective ointment and shooting shells in your skivvies.

Hrstrovokia wrote:I don't think they were inferior or the use of chemical weapons a loser's crutch, but I am absolutely open to correction.


Germans pioneered, and made most use of, and most innovative use of, chemical weapons during the war. Germans also lost. Iraqis made most of use chemical weapons during Iran-Iraq. Iraq also lost. Chemical weapons tend to be seen as a panacea for fundamental failings in other, more imperative concerns, because there's a somewhat pervasive belief that tactical successes can be translated to strategic successes, but this hasn't really been demonstrated ever. If anything, the opposite has, but planners who think more about weapon effectiveness than achievable objectives and campaign goals inevitably miss the forest for the trees to begin with.

Chemical weapons are not substantially more irritating on a grand scheme than bombarding the enemy with smoke or something. They are generally more expensive than WP though, unless it's something relatively simple like phosgene or chlorine, which is itself are important industrial chemicals, so they're usually available in huge quantities. Sulfur mustard is also nice because it likes to stick to things and practically speaking produces the same quantity of casualties as VX or sarin without the literal space age requirements of production.

Doesn't mean they should be stockpiled or anything but being able to produce a few thousand or so shells of chemicals might be worth a look if you once had success with them or whatever.
Last edited by Gallia- on Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 64097
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Immoren » Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:14 pm

Gallia- wrote:Real brain move is WW2 tier mechanization.

80% 5-ton trucks and towed artillery.
20% fully mechanized self propelled tracks.


I don't know why my brain prefilled this post as
"80% horses and towed artillery.
20% mechanized artillery."
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.


User avatar
Langenia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6771
Founded: Apr 22, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Langenia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:18 pm

Is it true that Soviet/Russian military equipment is cheaper and easier to maintain compared to Western-made military equipment? If so, does this come at the cost of quality?
LANGENIA
Fatherland, Unity, and Valor
Overview|Armed Forces|Politics|Embassy Program|LangenArPort| Incumbent President: Nicolas Furia
Langenia is an MT-early PMT nation located in northern South America, the result of Spain not successfully colonizing the region but leaving its mark. Some NS stats are used. We outpollo PolloHut.
NEWS: Following Insaani coup that removes royal family and installs new hardline Islamist regime, Insaanistan fights Christian countries and oppresses non-Muslims. Arms embargo imposed by Aragon, along with sanctions on regime officials and combat operations.| OAS meeting to take place soon.| Langenia distances from Cassadia.| Vaccinations continue, COVID restrictions to be eased.| AeroLangenia begins international flights again.| This is LCNA.


User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:02 pm

Gallia- wrote:
Hrstrovokia wrote:
I'm not expert on WW1, but wasn't the German army at least an equal to the French and British armies one-on-one?


No, because they lost.


Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:14 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
No, because they lost.


Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?


The US was an inferior military to the PAVN because it didn't know what it was going to do in Vietnam. The Vietnamese had a much simpler job: make the Americans go home and unify the country.

Chemical weapons are tangential to this, but people who are poor at planning wars probably think winning fights = winning wars, so chemical weapons are attractive to them.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:28 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
No, because they lost.


Would you agree then that the US was an inferior military, using chemical weapons as a loser's crutch, in the Vietnam war? {Agent Orange for example).

I mean it did lose after all?

The US defeat in Vietnam was primarily twofold.

1st, the military leaders did not understand the war they were fighting. They tried to fight the war in a conventional fashion and, since they couldn't take land, they measured success in body count. This accomplished nothing. The PAVN and VC could use the US military as a recruiting tool, pointing to their casual disregard for civilian casualties to galvanize the population against them. They similarly could reoccupy positions in short order since the US left and returned to their firebase as soon as the battle was over.

2nd, the political will of the United States was quickly spent. The American people didn't believe in the war, they didn't know why we were fighting or why they should care or go. The increasing casualties in a war that we were told we were winning but that never seemed to end drained the people of their will to fight and that led to the political leaders throwing in the towel.

Agent Orange was a tool that the military used because they didn't understand the war they were fighting. They didn't understand the war, they didn't understand the enemy, and they didn't respect the American people and for those reasons, the US lost the war in Vietnam.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Miku the Based
Diplomat
 
Posts: 665
Founded: Dec 03, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Miku the Based » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:42 pm

The US kind of did know what they were fighting. They were fighting a enemy that was using the jungle to hide. Even today we do not have anything that could see through the hot and dense foliage of the jungle. Angent orange was a answer to that, to get rid of the jungle so they could see the enemy.
They used terrible tactics and did not dare to convince or sway the majority of south Vietnam. The instead relied on ethnic reivalrys of the Minority tribes against the majority in the highland to "win hearts and minds" while Diệm enforced his unpopular rule on the majority in the lowlands. In the end both the capitalist regiem and the tribes were wiped out.
January 8th, 2021 - I vow not to respond to anyone OOCIC/OOC I'm 100% serious
Do not ask me my opinion of LGBT. the mods don't approve.
Yes, I'm Homophobic, Transphobic etc. not stop incessantly responding to me and then have the audacity to claim I am the one "trolling". If I don't respond to you most likely I'm on your foe list. If one is hypersensitive I recommend putting me on your foe list
Socialism Cockshottian Economic Pan-aftrica DPRK Hamas Belarus CCP Kazakhstan Maxim Gorky National Bolshevikism jim profit free thought and expression thereof | Susan Sontag Critical Theory New-Left Cub/Ven. Socialism Smashie Drugs USculture NPA Corrupt Moderator Unruley Moderators anglos thought crimes/police


User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:59 pm

The British thought trucks were the answer to everything TBF. Still do.

I guess fighting bush wars on the relatively shrubbery free areas of India and Africa does that to a man.

Eventually they will conquer urban combat by making a tank small enough to drive through hallways and mobile enough to climb stairs.
Last edited by Gallia- on Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15180
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:00 pm

Gallia- wrote:The British thought trucks were the answer to everything TBF. Still do.

I guess fighting bush wars on the relatively shrubbery free areas of India and Africa does that to a man.

Eventually they will conquer urban combat by making a tank small enough to drive through hallways and mobile enough to climb stairs.

Beaten by IQ 110's on their bicycles and their knee mortars. Rip.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23187
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:08 pm

Yes the British didn't really consider if the enemy had some form of quasi-motorization they would be able to bypass road-bound forces. Or that vehicle width could appreciably open up huge tracts of land for infiltration.

They weren't really focused on defending Malaya probably because they assumed the Japanese would never make it there I guess.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gallia-, Hallowed Brazilian Empire, Jaharyx, Kergstan, Madrinet

Advertisement

Remove ads