NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Hurtful Thoughts]

How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?

Probably as a spearhead in infantry attacks, or as a second wave backing up armored spearheads

Or as a QRF in defense.

[Gallia-]

How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?

By treating them no different from a tracked mech brigade. Lol.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?

By treating them no different from a tracked mech brigade. Lol.

Considering the distinct differences in protection, I would think employing them in exactly the same manner as tracks would be exceptionally dangerous.

[Gallia-]

By treating them no different from a tracked mech brigade. Lol.

Considering the distinct differences in protection, I would think employing them in exactly the same manner as tracks would be exceptionally dangerous.

You're so close to getting it.

e: For viewers at home, Stryker brigades are basically gimped versions of Soviet BTR regiments. The BTR regiment at the end of the Soviet Army's existence had a tank battalion of T-80 or T-72, three battalions of BTR-80 or -70, a battalion of 2S1 howitzers, a company of air defense vehicles (2S6 and 9K35; US equivalent being M7 Linebacker), and an anti-tank missile troop (Konkurs). There was also the stereotypical entrenching battalion, which is broadly similar to the American equivalent, but with more of everything. The Soviets ordinarily considered them interchangeable with BMP regiments but this was only partially accurate, since the BTR had inferior protection relative to BMP.

Obviously depending on the vehicle there will be differences in how it is seen, but "motorized armored car" and "mechanized" are a fake distinction. They're not functionally any different except that the wheeled vehicle is probably going to be heavier, taller, and less mobile for a given amount of protection. They will be inferior in attacking an entrenched defense without significant obstacle reduction capability. The Soviets never really gave any field regiments serious anti-obstacle battalions or anything (rather, the bulk of their organic engineering was devoted to entrenching; obstacle reduction was attached to chosen assault forces from the division or army level) so there's probably nothing like that. It's a fairly niche capability that isn't very useful outside of breaching minefields.

An actual medium wheeled force is not significantly different in composition to a mechanized force, it's just less sturdy. It's probably OK for following the breakthrough armor troops through or protecting a less threatened flank, which is what the Soviets intended the BTR regiments to be (i.e. a cheaper version of their BMPs, since they lack ATGW and are wheeled and such) in the first place.

Consider the BMP regiment to be the tip of a TVD's spear and the BTR regiment to be the blade and you might have a better idea of it, as they even look the same except for some funny wheeled trucks.

Obviously since the wheeled truck is supposed to be cheaper than the highly expensive tracked APC it will probably be splitting the job of "ATGW slinger" and "mounted cannon carrier" between vehicles, assuming the tracked infantry carrier has missiles. If it doesn't (like most European carriers) then it will need a firing post or something for the infantrymen to use, and possibly a TOW missile carrier or something in battalion.

---

Galla IIRC uses LAV-25s or something for a cheaper alternative to Bradleys and whatever the fuck this is, although I'm not sure it will find a APC that carries 11 dismounts with a wheeled chassis. Bradley/LAV platoons are dyads with two 2-carrier sections and Pbv501 platoons are triangles with three 11-man squads. All the battalions, regiments, and divisions are constructed identically except for the infantry carriers. The tracked vehicle battalion has an assault gun company of Bradleys with either Sheridan turrets or MGS turrets, while the wheeled vehicle battalion has an anti-tank missile company with TOW-2 and HATM. They're all just called "mechanized infantry" and they all have a single tank battalion inside them (M1 Abrams).

This is opposed to "motorized infantry" who are mechanized in 5-ton trucks and are still constructed very similarly, albeit with greater obstacle production capability. So stuff like ground mounted Volcanoes being in brigades rather than divisions, more towed AT guns, and Gorchak pillboxes, and greater quantities of howitzers and multiple rocket launchers. They are also square divisions rather than triangular ones.

All of this is different from what Galla considers "cavalry" which in context is either a heavy mechanized shock force (each infantry division has a separate cavalry squadron/battalion) in highly protected fighting vehicles (similar to Achzarit or Namer) using cavalry tanks (which goes something like Merkava --> MBT-70 --> MBT-70 w/ Sabra armor kit --> Some sort of monstrous 152mm Armata-esque supertank) with large quantities of anti-fortification ordnance. They're mainly used for urban combat shock forces, where infantry can't do their normal tactic of "crawl up to the trench at night, throw hand grenades, and charge in firing from the hip" or whatever because someone has an infrared cued spotlight and a machine gun. So the cavalry have to go in, drive through a fortification belt, and blow it up with thermobarics and flamethrowers.

The other context is light reconnaissance/skirmishing where they drive around in either armored cars and MRAPs and perform route reconnaissance, or they act as a screen for a larger theater/army level unit (similar to an ACR) like a corps. These are really the same thing, though. Mechanized cavalrymen in armored cars generally act as screens for brigades or battalions, while motorcycle cavalrymen are traffic wardens and genuine bridgesitters who do actual route recon and minor probing attacks. Light armored cars are amphibious and usually follow the motorbikes, while heavy armored cars are not and usually follow the motor scouts.

The recce tanks are in division reconnaissance battalions (1 HAC, 1 motorcycle, 2 motor scout, 1 recce tank companies). I'll probably end up making them Mobile Gun Systems or Expeditionary Tanks exclusively (depending on whether they are tracked or wheeled mech divisions) since I can't really justify a third silly special tankii though. Brigade reconnaissance is a LAC/motorbike mixed company only. Practically speaking, as the reconnaissance troops get heavily chopped up and embedded into supporting formations (a motorcycle platoon or squad with a company or platoon of infantrymen and a tank platoon, for instance), a little goes a long way.

The purposes of why become obvious when put into proper context. Top is infantry and bottom is cavalry.

Incidentally all cavalrymen wear some variation of the combat vehicle helmet, since it gives them good ballistic protection, impact protection, and radio communications. Only helicopter and motorcycle cavalrymen wear different helmets, which are just Army standard chopper flight helmets with full face visors and much thicker padding.

[Miku the Based]

Why not just train everyone as a 75th ranger regiment QRF force?
That way you have the ability of surgical precision of a special force when called for and a hard hitting brute agressiveness a conventional Calvary division when the situation permits.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Why not just train everyone as a 75th ranger regiment QRF force?
That way you have the ability of surgical precision of a special force when called for and a hard hitting brute agressiveness a conventional Calvary division when the situation permits.

QRF, not RRF.

QRFs are just conventional counter-attacks in a defense in depth scenario.

RRFs are the STRAC-mobiles.

[Miku the Based]

Why not just train everyone as a 75th ranger regiment QRF force?
That way you have the ability of surgical precision of a special force when called for and a hard hitting brute agressiveness a conventional Calvary division when the situation permits.

QRF, not RRF.

QRFs are just conventional counter-attacks in a defense in depth scenario.

RRFs are the STRAC-mobiles.

I thought rangers are used as QRF for green berets and other special units to help exfil. They tend to have the big guns.
The idioms are confusing. To clarify I mean to give them stuff like apc, tank, rocket etc. But train them to be a irreggular at moments notice.

[Dtn]

In the US military a quick reaction force doesn't have much to do with conventional counterattacks - it's a (usually) small force involved in stability operations or base defense. Ready reaction force is (usually) the same thing despite the wiki article. Other nations use the terms differently, and even in the US the exact meaning will vary with situation and time period.

Rapid response forces means everything from small quick reaction forces to strategic rapid deployment forces.

Mobile reserves in conventional warfare are just "response forces."

STRAC means you've been reading too many Vietnam novels.

The acronyms are confusing because they generally don't have fixed definitions, and can stand for different things with quite different meanings, or the exact same thing. It's probably best not to get hung up on it since only context will tell if someone's talking about a MP equivalent of a SWAT team or an airborne division.

[Amidia-]

Good Galla post

[Hinachi]

Does anyone know sources (books are welcome too) for 'brigade slices' in different armies post-Cold War?

[South Americanastan]

Does anyone know sources (books are welcome too) for 'brigade slices' in different armies post-Cold War?

Wikipedia's a start

[Gallia-]

Does anyone know sources (books are welcome too) for 'brigade slices' in different armies post-Cold War?

Do you mean the number of personnel? Not really.

FWIW "Division slice" comparisons aren't really useful anyway, since all they tell you is "this has more people per whatever than this", which is not useful. German and Russian divisions had similar "slices", but the Germans were vastly more effective on a man-for-man basis in the field, whether attacking or defending, than the Russians, outside of a couple battles. Conversely, the US Army performed better than the Russians in attack and defense, and had a larger division slice than the Germans and Russians put together (albeit their infantrymen were poorly trained relative to the Germans, again).

On the other hand, in Korea, the Chinese had a division slice even smaller than the Russians or Germans in WW2, and absolutely walloped the US Army in combat. The only reason it exists, I think, is to justify a middling to basic understanding of the concepts of staffing and personnel management that the USA fully demonstrated in WW2. It's a good over-simplification that tells nothing of predictive value: there's no particular reason to assume that a larger or smaller division slice will tell you much about how a division performs in battle.

So division slice is really only useful for personnel accounting because it tells you how many paychecks you need, how many theoretical hospital beds the Veteran's Affairs needs for TRICARE, and how many pensions you'll be paying at the end of a career, when multiplied by some stuff. It's a measure devised by people who view the world as a series of simply manipulated numbers and bullet points at the end of an executive summary.

[Miku the Based]

I'm thinking of using a land feature similar to Pointe du Hoc to make senario in arma. What units are recommended to use for a naval defense emplacment. (l'm may be busy with other stuff I play around eden editor on my down time.)

[Trad Japan]

Does traditional Jujutsu have any modern military or police application?

[Austrasien]

Martial arts aren't especially useful in real fights as arts, but they are good physical training. A police officer who spars a lot will probably be much more prepared mentally for having to grapple with a real criminal in a real fight. They will be somewhat familiar with sudden pain and adrenaline and they will be able to think more clearly.

For soldiers, it's basically a sport. Not a bad one at all though.

[Crookfur]

Does traditional Jujutsu have any modern military or police application?

A lot of modern combative systems tend to draw a lot inspiration or use a very similar approach to jujitsu.

It's a good base for a basic hand to hand system which is handy for all recruits (especially in the police) if only as a confidence builder.

Absolutely nothing wrong in encouraging further study as a personal training or recreational activity.

[Trad Japan]

From a military point of view, were kamikaze attacks worth the loss of pilots?

[Austrasien]

From a military point of view, were kamikaze attacks worth the loss of pilots?

For the late-war Japanese airforce, which was taking very heavy losses in engagements anyway, it was a reasonably effective way to sink ships. By the time Kamikaze attacks became common conventional Japanese air attacks were doing basically nothing to the Allied navies, but still cost many Japanese pilots their lives. Kamikaze attacks killed about two allied sailors for every Japanese kamikaze pilot so from a pure loss:exchange perspective it was not a futile tactic, and perhaps 80 to 90% of Kamikazes were shot down long before reaching their target, so the efficiency of the successful Kamikazes which breached air defenses was rather high.

That said the Japanese air force sunk a lot more ships early in the war with purely conventional tactics when they were still more competitive with the British and US in the Air. So it can be considered an effective tactic only for an otherwise very weak air force.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Does traditional Jujutsu have any modern military or police application?

Welcome back Sharifistan.

[Trad Japan]

Does traditional Jujutsu have any modern military or police application?

Welcome back Sharifistan.

Thank you, my worthy opponent.

[United Earthlings]

If everything in NS is made up, why are you asking about whether it is feasible in this thread? Lol.

My thoughts exactly and given the trajectory I've noticed for the past few years, I'm not the only one who has contemplated that question.

Nations usually make defense decisions based on their circumstances, not trite and misinterpreted aphorisms.

We'd hope nations would pursue sound judgment in regards to defense spending, but from what I've observed in many cases its trite and misinterpreted aphorisms that determine how a nation's defense spending is allocated.

Of course there were advances but nothing that would allow 250-300% more power in the same space.

That's all fine, but just going by some rough calculations I think would put it in the realm of 100-150% more power required in the same space to attain the required knots I desire.

I believe there were significant advances in propulsion technology to permit that percentage, however I of course want to make sure that's actually correct and feasible.

For example, USS Tennessee, laid down in 1919, had machinery of 1805 tons and 28,600 horsepower, or 15.8 hp/ton. Comparable US battleship studies of late 1934 had machinery of 2200 tons and 40,000 hp , or 18.2 hp/ton. This is a 15% improvement, with some of that merely from using larger machinery - of course it gets more efficient as the size of the turbines is increased. Particularly germane is a 1934 90,000 hp plant was estimated at 3930 tons, or 22.4 hp/ton. This is better, but where are you going to cram 2000 tons of extra machinery?

In any case technological advance is rarely linear in time or space. There's less room for improvement (figuratively and literally) on a US Standard battleship during the time period than on an Italian or Japanese battleship with low-capacity coal boilers and direct drive turbines laid down just a year or two earlier.

Additional weight from newer machinery shouldn't be a major problem since TE is already pretty heavy to begin with. The main problem would be developing machinery that would be less weight to begin with, but offer increased power output for the same amount of volume used by the to be replaced TE system that is used by Commonwealth Dreadnoughts that are planned to undergo a major refit. Not all Dreadnoughts built by the Commonwealth will undergo this refit.

Yes, but unlikely more than a knot or two...

Good to know, then this just further confirms that an updated TE drive isn't the way to go.

...unless you remove an entire turret and magazine and replace them with machinery spaces.

My nation's Dreadnoughts had less turrets to begin with. They were standardized early on with 4 turrets. Hence, why only the largest and latest Dreadnoughts my nation built are being considered for the refit.

High steam in the mid-30s roughly doubled attainable horsepower per ton, but unless your Mahans (again a US clone ) put to sea considerably earlier than reality they're not going to prove anything for a program beginning in 1935. (By the way, the Mahan plant was only 400 psi and 700 degrees, the US didn't standardize on true high steam of 600 psi and 850 degrees until the success of Somers in 1938.)

Volume is trickier - during design work for the North Carolinas there was considerable doubt that a 90,000 hp plant would fit in a purpose-built 702-foot battleship, but I'm not aware any inboard profiles have survived so we can't compare engine rooms.

(And yes, the machinery spaces of a New Orleans class were quite a bit larger than those of the Standard battleships.)

They prove as I intended that technology was advancing during this period and to show what technology was available. Even 400 psi and 700 degrees is a major improvement compared to what came before it.

Yes, I agree volume is trickier. So besides looking at the various North Carolina design proposals, I also looked at American Battleship design studies done for the period between 1929 and 1934 to give a better sense of what's realistic or not.

What specific Standard (American) battleship are you comparing? The last few classes, the ones with TE, had quite large machinery spaces certainly larger than the machinery spaces of the later New Orleans class treaty cruisers.

"Treaty cruiser construction required the development of relatively light, high powered plants. For example, the Salt Lake City, the first U.S. treaty cruiser, developed 107,000 SHP on 2,176 tons of machinery at the same time that Steam Engineering estimated 2,560 tons for a 40,000SHP turboelectric plant". Quoted directly from Friedman's excellent US battleships design history.

Ideally, the best and most feasible route now seems to me to be to adapt the propulsion system of my nation's first classes of heavy cruisers to my nation's dreadnought refit program by replacing the TE drive outright with the lighter, more simple and reliable geared turbine system derived from that of my nation's early heavy cruisers.

Ah yes, battleships, the great technical innovators.

So, your point is that defense spending has no impact on technical innovation?

You roleplay as much as I do lol.

Your battleships (which are of course facsimiles of US types) could be powered by high-density unicorn farts for all I care. This might actually be interesting.

A reality thread kind of needs to use reality as a baseline. In reality reconstructing a few Italian battleships made sense given their treaty obligations, lack of industrial and economic capacity, and their expected operating environment and adversaries.

United Earthlings is under no such constraints that we know of, and is much less likely to undertake a similar but larger endeavor for a miniscule gain in "tactical options." They deem it of worthwhile value? Great! That guy from last week's nation apparently deemed 150-ton nuclear-lobbing mobile suicide bunkers worthwhile.

Why are you even bothering posting in the realism thread if it's all authorial fiat justified by wikiquotes?

I don't understand why you posted anything in the above section I'm quoting. It contributes nothing toward a positive discussion and reading it merely left me with the image of a child throwing a tantrum.

Seriously, WTF?

Not half as much as flatulent turns of phrase like "Fallacies of witticism" bring me.

Have you considered the problem with your posts is their semiotics rather than semantics?

In closing: I'm glad you liked that one, though I am sadden that you kind of ruined our established dynamic by turning to a fart pun. I was hoping for better.

And while yes, I could continue this pointless one-upmanship, rather than posting an awful zinger. I think it's better to focus on the actual topic and so for now I'm going to encourage that dynamic so that we can have a discussion that is positive.

If I was communicating with you through say Sign Language then that might cause a semiotic problem, since I'm not its semantics.

[Kassaran]

I don't even know if I wanna block 'em this time, just to see what they post. I laughed a bit too hard reading that last post of theirs.

"Worthy Opponent" shows alarming self awareness. On that note, for the application of self-learning artificial intelligences in modern military forces, would they be better used in assessing satellite imagery and looking for patterns humans might miss for others, or would they be best used to determine the identities of foes on fire controls systems in real time? Basically a question on the ability of AI to quickly analyze complex situations in real-time versus a longer period of observation.

[Dtn]

If everything in NS is made up, why are you asking about whether it is feasible in this thread? Lol.

My thoughts exactly and given the trajectory I've noticed for the past few years, I'm not the only one who has contemplated that question.

NS as a whole has lost something like 80% of its userbase since it peaked in 2013. Traditional forums are becoming as obsolete as usenet and listservs.

...unless you remove an entire turret and magazine and replace them with machinery spaces.

My nation's Dreadnoughts had less turrets to begin with. They were standardized early on with 4 turrets. Hence, why only the largest and latest Dreadnoughts my nation built are being considered for the refit.

The Italian battleships gained substantially more machinery space by removing the amidships turret.

They prove as I intended that technology was advancing during this period and to show what technology was available. Even 400 psi and 700 degrees is a major improvement compared to what came before it. ]

Is it? It's about a 10% improvement in enthalpy compared to 285 psi and 50 degrees reheat typical of a Standard battleship. 600 psi and 825 is about 15%.

The Mahans were designed for 600 psi. They were limited to 400 because as Friedman's excellent US battleships design history states, "nor, in 1937, had sufficient experience with the new destroyers of the Mahan and later classes been accumulated."

In practice the new technology had teething problems that took some years to overcome.

What specific Standard (American) battleship are you comparing? The last few classes, the ones with TE, had quite large machinery spaces certainly larger than the machinery spaces of the later New Orleans class treaty cruisers.

"Treaty cruiser construction required the development of relatively light, high powered plants. For example, the Salt Lake City, the first U.S. treaty cruiser, developed 107,000 SHP on 2,176 tons of machinery at the same time that Steam Engineering estimated 2,560 tons for a 40,000SHP turboelectric plant". Quoted directly from Friedman's excellent US battleships design history.

I directly compared the machinery spaces of the USS New Orleans with the USS New Mexico. There's no physical way for the New Orleans plant to fit on the New Mexico. (Machinery volume actually remained remarkably consistent between the Nevada and Colorado classes but the layout varied considerably.)

Parsons turbines and White-Forster boilers were actually a retrograde step in technology and efficiency compared to American Curtis turbines and B&W boilers of the time in some respects.

Ships are more than just numbers that can be reallocated arbitrarily. Battleships have different requirements than cruisers, particularly treaty cruisers that heavily compromised protection and survivability. Or else why not just use destroyer engines? After all a WW1 four-stacker had about the power of a Standard battleship, and obviously the machinery weight was less than half 2500 tons or so since a Wickes was only ~1200 tons. Maybe this is all more complicated than we thought!

I'm not really being sarcastic. It's incredibly complicated. The number that probably comes close to describing a steam plant's efficiency in the way that you seem to be using it - thermal efficiency reducing weight and bulk - is heat rate. This makes sense, right? The more horsepower you get out of a btu the less surface area you need for your boilers, etc, etc.



How does this mesh with your impression of the development of steam power? To me it says even at the beginning of the turbine age we're seeing diminishing returns. In fact I suspect the inverse of this graph would nicely show the power of a ceteris paribus steamship over the years.

Yes, I agree volume is trickier. So besides looking at the various North Carolina design proposals, I also looked at American Battleship design studies done for the period between 1929 and 1934 to give a better sense of what's realistic or not.

The shortest North Carolina design proposal was 640 feet with 50,000 shp making 22 knots - hmm.

You should carefully read the South Dakota class chapter to get a better idea of the difficulties in getting 25+ knots out of a shorter hull.

For example, the 1937 scheme D was a 680 foot design comparable in armament layout and armor to a Standard battleship. It made 24 knots on 75,000 horsepower. Your refit Standard will require greater horsepower due to being faster, having a shorter hull, and being less hydrodynamically advanced - with less available space.

Ah yes, battleships, the great technical innovators.

So, your point is that defense spending has no impact on technical innovation?

I didn't say "defense spending," I said battleships. Battleships were a smaller, less demanding, less competitive, and necessarily more conservative market than civilian power generation.

The actual story of how and why the US adopted turboelectric and later high steam following developments in the civilian market is fairly interesting but only hinted at in Friedman.

I don't understand why you posted anything in the above section I'm quoting. It contributes nothing toward a positive discussion and reading it merely left me with the image of a child throwing a tantrum.

Seriously, WTF?

Dubious choices justified by authorial fiat and your superior intellect has been a criticism of your posts for something like a decade?

Refitting a dozen battleships of the type described for 25 knots is a fairly dubious choice that would require an extraordinary set of "realistic" (ie, not arbitrary) justifications.

Have you considered the problem with your posts is their semiotics rather than semantics?

In closing: I'm glad you liked that one, though I am sadden that you kind of ruined our established dynamic by turning to a fart pun. I was hoping for better.

In the context of language, "flatulent" means inflated, pretentious, pompous, portentously overblown, or turgid - and has since before it was used for fart.

If I was communicating with you through say Sign Language then that might cause a semiotic problem, since I'm not its semantics.

Semantics is the study of meaning, semiotics is the study of symbols. Besides transmitting meaning, language is a social act that necessarily conveys symbols about social identity through form and structure.

I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules [sic] known as "social semiotics."

Your affected language is carefully designed to convey that "you're smarter than the whole of NS and the sources they draw upon combined" "by proxy of being almost twice as old as the average NSer and that once I assimilate those sources into my collective combined with my already preexisting sources," to quote the classics.

The problem is it's full of acyrologia like "by proxy of being almost twice as old as the average NSer and that once I assimilate those sources into my collective combined with my already preexisting source" that obfuscate the meaning of your posts while conveying quite different symbolism than you intend. You might say that there's a significant* gap between the signifié and signifiant, made particularly noisome by your frequent use of the most obnoxious smileys.

*Yes, that was a actually a pun.

[Gallia-]

til flatulence is a metaphor

If everything in NS is made up, why are you asking about whether it is feasible in this thread? Lol.

My thoughts exactly and given the trajectory I've noticed for the past few years, I'm not the only one who has contemplated that question.

And yet you keep coming back here asking about things that are silly. Instead of accepting something as silly, and changing it, you keep using increasingly verbose justifications for the silliness. ):

[Cossack Peoples]

Silliness, eh?

I'm planning on slapping CHAMPS on a SLAM but make the turbojet a turbofan and with low-observable characteristics, any objections from anyone other than supporters of the several strategic arms limitation and reduction treaties?