NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Mig-301/321,Mig-701,T-54S，PK-DA，The Soviet Union had a lot of advanced fighters that stayed on the design drawings LOL.After the United States began to use stealth bombers to replace supersonic bombers, hypersonic interceptors were no longer important

[Laka Strolistandiler]

A 50kt nuclear warhead will weigh less than 200lbs. You seem to be confused about everything you want.

Not to mention the MiG-701 was simply a rebadge of the Sukhoi T-60S bomber after the designer was forced to switch bureaus.

What kind of "Technician at Sukhoi Design Beaurau, university student at MAI" are we dealing with here?

Well pal I’m no weapons technician- my unit deals with project design maintenance and field support (Отдел эксплуатации проектов, Отдел 50—3) . Also 701 shares little to no design features with later variants of T-60S. Yes, the initial concept might be somewhat look-alike, but what they developed into- nah.

IRL MiG-25RB could carry 2xFAB-500T bombs (each one 1100 lbs). As stated above, this plane would share only its general arrangement (компоновка, idk how to translate it in English, sorry) with MiG-25. It’s not like I’m trying to fit a bomb as large as the plane itself on a plane, who am I for that: Sylvanski?

[Gallia-]

A 20 KT bomb is going to be about the same size and mass as a 227 kg GP bomb with a low drag body.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

A 20 KT bomb is going to be about the same size and mass as a 227 kg GP bomb with a low drag body.

I took B-57 tactical free-fall bomb as an equivalent with some additions.

[Gallia-]

Aside from maybe a moving tail and INS package, there's not much to be added.

It's also tiny. You could carry three of them on most fighters' inner wing pylons. Maybe even six.

[Dtn]

Not to mention the MiG-701 was simply a rebadge of the Sukhoi T-60S bomber after the designer was forced to switch bureaus.

What kind of "Technician at Sukhoi Design Beaurau, university student at MAI" are we dealing with here?

Well pal I’m no weapons technician- my unit deals with project design maintenance and field support (Отдел эксплуатации проектов, Отдел 50—3) . Also 701 shares little to no design features with later variants of T-60S. Yes, the initial concept might be somewhat look-alike, but what they developed into- nah.

IRL MiG-25RB could carry 2xFAB-500T bombs (each one 1100 lbs). As stated above, this plane would share only its general arrangement (компоновка, idk how to translate it in English, sorry) with MiG-25. It’s not like I’m trying to fit a bomb as large as the plane itself on a plane, who am I for that: Sylvanski?

With your intricate knowledge of obscure Soviet paper planes, surely you know the MiG 70.1 in fact had two roles - a long-range interceptor and a strike aircraft. The only major difference was the avionics fit.

The later variant of the T-60S was the MiG 70.1. After Samoylovich left Sukhoi put together a new team that restarted development of the original and quite different TsAGI T-60 concept under the designation изделие 54.

This is deep lore indeed, in striking contrast with the innocent simplicity of your big MiG-25 with a single nuclear self-defense missile.

If you want a really obscure Russian project, an enlarged stealthy MiG-25 with strike capability would look almost exactly like...well, I'm sure you already know about it.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Well pal I’m no weapons technician- my unit deals with project design maintenance and field support (Отдел эксплуатации проектов, Отдел 50—3) . Also 701 shares little to no design features with later variants of T-60S. Yes, the initial concept might be somewhat look-alike, but what they developed into- nah.

IRL MiG-25RB could carry 2xFAB-500T bombs (each one 1100 lbs). As stated above, this plane would share only its general arrangement (компоновка, idk how to translate it in English, sorry) with MiG-25. It’s not like I’m trying to fit a bomb as large as the plane itself on a plane, who am I for that: Sylvanski?

With your intricate knowledge of obscure Soviet paper planes, surely you know the MiG 70.1 in fact had two roles - a long-range interceptor and a strike aircraft. The only major difference was the avionics fit.

The later variant of the T-60S was the MiG 70.1. After Samoylovich left Sukhoi put together a new team that restarted development of the original and quite different TsAGI T-60 concept under the designation изделие 54.

This is deep lore indeed, in striking contrast with the innocent simplicity of your big MiG-25 with a single nuclear self-defense missile.

If you want a really obscure Russian project, an enlarged stealthy MiG-25 with strike capability would look almost exactly like...well, I'm sure you already know about it.

Well, you’ve got me here- 701 is the choice. I’ll possibly arm it with 3-5 guided nukes and stuff.

[United Earthlings]

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.

Which is sad in a way.

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

That is true and not in dispute by me, the Italian battleships I cited were also substantially shorter in both length and width before said modifications. Yes, their machinery spaces were enlarged, that's also not in dispute by me.

What is in dispute is the unknown by me. Were the Italian battleships enlarge machinery spaces volume wise larger, smaller or similar to the as built New Mexico, Tennessese or Colorado classes machinery volume? That information and sources I lack to form a reasonable objective hypothesis of what's possible and not possible.

Note: Yes, I'm aware I specifically didn't mention weight. I'm taking it one step at a time.

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.

Yes, I would consider a 10% or 15% improvement to be on the major side.

All new technology has teething problems, even the North Carolina class had numerous teething problems as clearly stated in Friedman's excellent US battleships design history. That's a side issue and furthermore, I would have no issue if I do, do a eventually historical write-up about my nation's Dreadnoughts/Battleships stating IC something along the lines like the early refits didn't meet expectations and was ultimately consider a partial failure as they were unable to reach the desired speeds due to early teething problems, etc...etc...

Coming back to the beginning, my point as citing the Mahans as an example, was that potential new boilers could be designed for higher outputs. Whether that was for destroyers, cruisers, battleships and even carriers.

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.

I agree, the subject matter can be quite complicated. That's why I wanted a second opinion on the subject before I attempted to dive headfirst into a write-up.

And yes, the thermal efficiency reducing weight and bulk (the heat sink) does make sense to me.

My impression of steam power hasn't been our issue(s) at contention, so in that regard to me there is no issue of disagreement either on the development of steam power nor its gradual diminishing returns.

I didn't mean take the physical plant from the New Orleans and graph it into my nation's facsimile of the New Mexico class, that would of course be completely illogical and stupid. I meant it in the way Friedman references it. "Note the dramatic saving on machinery weight when cruiser geared turbines (CL GT) were adopted. They required half the volume per unit of power of battleship turboelectric engines."

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.

I agree that at first glance those two cited examples would seem to support the conclusion your attempting to draw, but when one steps back to view the wider picture the conclusion your attempting to paint isn't as clear cut where here your attempting to hammer into place a correlation that doesn't imply causation.

Jumping back a few chapters to the one covering design studies between 1929 and 1934, compare just the two design studies from April 1929 {Page 220/221 FTR} with Scheme D at 612 feet with 41,000/46,000 SHP making 22 knots powered by TE. Then right next to it you have Scheme F for a short battleship design at 554 feet requiring 65,000/71,000 SHP for 22 knots powered by geared turbines.

Reading further along in the same chapter you get to Battleship Studies for September 1933 with Design C for a 35,500 ton; 600 ft; 46,500SHP at 22 knots. Adding in the reference from the previous page: "Geared turbines, but not the light-weight type, would be adopted. In this wholly C&R study the speed was set at 22 knots on the basis of the 1929 General Board characteristics." Jumping to the end of the same paragraph, "Very roughly, the addition of 15,000SHP (600 tons) would add a knot. A reduction of 10,000 (400 tons) would reduce speed by about as much."

What does this revel to you?

To me when viewed in its entirety, that faster, shorter battleships are possible because available space isn't the defining issue, weight restrictions are as in the various design proposals are trading off one thing to gain another all to maintain a self-imposed weight limit of 35,000 tons displacement. This also completely explains why the various design proposals for the North Carolina and later South Dakota classes are longer, because for a given power plant, the shorter the ship, the slower. Alternatively, for a given speed, the shorter the ship, the more power would be required. More power means more weight has to be devoted to machinery to achieve a given knot.

A battleship undergoing a refit isn't bound to that arbitrary 35,000 ton weight restriction which means more weight can be devoted to more powerful machinery which by its very nature will be heavier.

So, in that regard your right, my (refit) battleships will require greater horsepower which can be potentially offset by heavier, more powerful machinery, of course eventually a diminishing return will be reached. The question then becomes, how many knots can be gained until the trade in ever expanding weight of machinery renders it impractical.

This makes sense, right?

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 know you said battleships and therefore considering the construction of battleships consumed a good percentage of a nation's annual defense spending, my question was valid.

However, I'll rephrase it for you.

Did battleship construction have no impact on technical innovation?

I also agree the history is quite interesting.

[United Earthlings]

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. ):

Not to worry, I've learned the error of my ways to not ask anymore "silly" questions because clearly the old adage of: There are no silly questions doesn't apply here.

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.

The superior intellect insult is a new one and since you addressed the authorial fiat in a separate post, I'll do the same.

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

Guess what, people are going to occasionally misinterpret your context of language when you use words that have definitions that have gone out of fashion.

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."

In the original context when I first made reference to its use, I was talking about it clearly in the semantics sense.

Only through your sheer obstinateness have we reached the end of this semiotic road.

Are you satisfied now so we can digress this pointless side discussion and move back to the central thesis of my question?

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.

Just got home tonight, I've got the feeling that something ain't right.
And I'm wondering what it is I should do.
Got to sit down, in case I fall off my chair.
You got me thinkin' that I'm wastin' my time.

Imagination sets in, pretty soon I'm singin',
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering how I'll get free of this mess.
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!

What happened to the person I used to know
You let your mind out somewhere down the road
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face.
Losing control and running all over the place.

Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

who the fuck cares

[United Earthlings]

Really "isolationist megapower with no war in three centuries" is the most absurd aspect of United Earthlings, so it gets its own post.

What aphorism guided the design of the Standard battleships? How does Vegetius justify United Earthlings using facsimiles of a type carefully created in reflection of US strategic interests of the time? Are battleships purely technological artifacts?

There is obviously no such thing as "realism" in NS. Some fictional country using an F-35 isn't more "realistic" than a Harry Potter broom, and may very well be less so.

When we RP (lol) or even world-build, we're just telling a story. What makes a good story? Again, it comes down to author fiat.

Obviously everything that happens in a fictional story is authorial fiat, but a good story has plausible and internally consistent justifications that allow the audience to suspend disbelief and forget everything is just a contrivance. These justifications add conflict and drama to the story.

"United Earthlings has a large and incredibly skilled military with lots of tools designed for intercontinental power projection despite three centuries of pacifist isolation because of this Latin quote" is just bad storytelling. It's not an actual motivation with purpose, there's no conflict or drama, it's less "realistic" than My Little Pony - Rainbow Dash at least reacts to situations in ways that are relatable and make her an actual character.

IMO "realism" isn't about how many horsepower your battleship has - it's about plausible and internally consistent ways to tell a story via world-building. Ideally realism is just good story-telling. This thread is a niche application but whatever.

In reality the development of battleships is a good story. There's conflict and tension. It's not "We're going to do whatever it takes to make our battleships 25 knots for some reason because we think it's a good idea for some reason." There's no conflict or tension there.

I suspect the actual reasons the two iterations of the Commonwealth we know about are heavily-armed isolationists is a legacy from when people actually RPed and you didn't want to get shown up by Questers or someone, but it's ok. You just have to worry about Sharifistan now.

Of course there's the added bonus of just being able to tell us how badass United Earthlings is without showing anything but nobody here is exactly lighting NS on fire these days.

Your powers of observation haven't serve you well when it comes to making statements about the nation I've created. Everyone single one above was an assumption and a blatantly false one at that.

I've never officially declared my nation a megapower, that's more you projecting your bias onto me then any officially stated record of fact by me. In fact, officially for quite a few years now (almost a decade) I've consider my nation more along the lines of a Middle Power, maybe a case can be made for at times a Regional Power, but on any given day on average a Middle Power it is.

War comes in many flavors, as I flesh out the history of my nation I'll work out the vagaries of that statement. For the time being consider it amended to the following: "Following the founding of the Commonwealth from the wake of a bloody and destructive civil war that saw the loss of 25% of the nation's prewar population, the new Commonwealth government adopted a policy of isolationism that eschewed foreign entanglements that would draw the nation and its people into another destructive (world) war. This policy would hold sway over the Commonwealth for many years and decades to come until finally, the influence of outsiders could no longer be ignored. Though the Commonwealth would play catch-up for the next few decades, the Commonwealth gradually establish its own dominant sphere of influence both through economic and military* means in its region. Though the policy of isolationism was abandon, its influence would continue to hold some sway within the foreign policy ideas embraced by the Commonwealth throughout the late 19th and into the 20th century."
*One example of small wars the Commonwealth probably would have engaged in I would include would be Colonial Wars against non-state actors.

Your suspicion is not even close, so no cookie for you. I'm not surprised you missed the patch update since I didn't exactly launch it with much fanfare, but for quite a few years now I placed the isolationists idea more into the historical record of my nation's past beliefs. Currently, I classify my nation more along the lines of Armed neutrality. I also personally don't see the need for any adverbs like heavily in the description, since I think the term Armed Neutral is plenty as a basic foundational policy description.

Being shown up or not shown up is immaterial because its about telling a good story. My reasoning for not RPing has not one single iota thing to do with your wrong-headed assumptions. Yes, I've barely RPed for a myriad of reasons for awhile now, but back when I was much more active during the Jolt days I did ok, not great, but I was never worried about being shown up or not even then. If in the future I catch a thread RP that appeals to me and I have the time to properly devote to it, I wouldn't mind or fear jumping back into the deep end.

Additionally, you really need to explain to me why your so upset with me for posting just an outline of an idea and then for some unexplainable reason are mad I didn't have the foresight to instead post the whole fully fleshed out completed story. If the idea proves sound, I can write the conflict and tension and other things when I you know, sit down to write the actual story. No story has even been written yet by me, so complaining about bad storytelling is just beyond ironic.

I didn't and am not saying a quote is storytelling. I have a few ideas rattling around in my head for a good story concerning the naval developments of battleships for my nation, my question was merely a thought exercise for a possible chapter I am considering.

In closing, everyone tends to engage every now and then in hyperbole when it comes to various aspects of one's nation. One can only hope that at the end of day they've managed to balance out the hyperbole with the sane realism.

[Puzikas]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

[Austrasien]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

in this moment I am euphoric

[Arroyo-Abeille]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

We saw it live here folks. Those who know, know.

[Scandinavian Federated Alliance]

someone kill this madman, its not to late

[The Corparation]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

The experiment was a success beyond all our wildest dreams.

[Daemyrs]

I was here for this historic moment

[Scandinavian Federated Alliance]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy




ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

The experiment was a success beyond all our wildest dreams.

we were to busy asking if we could, we never thought if we should

[Krigeinbrung]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

Quality post as always Puz.

[Licana]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy

War comes in many flavors

ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

Extremely high quality content.

[Scandinavian Federated Alliance]

This post has signifigance beyond you can understand.


Also idk probably like the Mi-24 is hot and makes me feel good inside my tummy




ahhh yes neopolitian war my favorite

Extremely high quality content.

more then you will ever comprehend

[Dtn]

In the original context when I first made reference to its use, I was talking about it clearly in the semantics sense.

Only through your sheer obstinateness have we reached the end of this semiotic road.

Are you satisfied now so we can digress this pointless side discussion and move back to the central thesis of my question?

The problem, of course, is that semantics has two quite different meanings - people who use "semantics" dismissively or defensively (you and Manokan being the two who come to mind in this thread) tend to think it's just quibbling over word choice or nonsense like capitalization - some lexicographical dispute. There's deep irony in using semantics in this sense and linking wikipedia articles to educate others, since it's a clear sign you don't know much about it.

If we're talking about the feasibility of reengining the ship to achieve N knots, then the meaning of feasible and reengining is actually deeply important - and they only have meaning in relationship to one another, the material facts, and our different understanding of those facts.

We might even have different ideas of what 25 knots means.

To me when viewed in its entirety, that faster, shorter battleships are possible because available space isn't the defining issue, weight restrictions are as in the various design proposals are trading off one thing to gain another all to maintain a self-imposed weight limit of 35,000 tons displacement.

Do what now? Displacement is the volume of water displaced by the hull. "Available space" and "weight" are inextricably linked.

Battleships tended not to waste space (mostly length) because of these weight restrictions. Since Congress set displacement limits, American battleships were subject to weight restrictions before any treaties, leading to exacting designs and compact machinery spaces. In other words, short ships.

Ship design is a parametric process. Regardless of any tonnage increases, barring radical alterations the dimensions of machinery spaces have the same maximum in a refit ship. The tradeoffs in these parameters have already been made, and heavier machinery is going to be larger than lighter machinery.

So, in that regard your right, my (refit) battleships will require greater horsepower which can be potentially offset by heavier, more powerful machinery, of course eventually a diminishing return will be reached. The question then becomes, how many knots can be gained until the trade in ever expanding weight of machinery renders it impractical.

There are two ways to answer this question. The first is to simply accurately calculate the hydrodynamics of a United Earthlings battleship at xxx tons, then design a complete machinery set using United Earthlings technology of the time and see if it fits.

You can do that if you want. I don't particularly care to, and in fact couldn't since I don't know how United Earthlings differs from history. You might just Springsharp it. It'll be inaccurate but nobody will know the difference.

I know you said battleships and therefore considering the construction of battleships consumed a good percentage of a nation's annual defense spending, my question was valid.

However, I'll rephrase it for you.

Did battleship construction have no impact on technical innovation?

I also agree the history is quite interesting.

Innovations in what? Big guns and armor? "No impact" is silly. Battleship construction may have advanced technology in some ways and slowed it in others. More likely the latter. Certainly they didn't drive the advancement of basic technologies - which isn't the same as battleship design. There'd be no Krupp armor without Krupp spoons or cheap razor blades.

I think we tend to overrate the role of militaries in technological advances due to the atomic era, but WW2 changed the military-scientific relationship both quantitatively and qualitatively, with fundamental research becoming an important part of military power.

I've never officially declared my nation a megapower, that's more you projecting your bias onto me then any officially stated record of fact by me. In fact, officially for quite a few years now (almost a decade) I've consider my nation more along the lines of a Middle Power, maybe a case can be made for at times a Regional Power, but on any given day on average a Middle Power it is.

War comes in many flavors, as I flesh out the history of my nation I'll work out the vagaries of that statement. For the time being consider it amended to the following: "Following the founding of the Commonwealth from the wake of a bloody and destructive civil war that saw the loss of 25% of the nation's prewar population, the new Commonwealth government adopted a policy of isolationism that eschewed foreign entanglements that would draw the nation and its people into another destructive (world) war. This policy would hold sway over the Commonwealth for many years and decades to come until finally, the influence of outsiders could no longer be ignored. Though the Commonwealth would play catch-up for the next few decades, the Commonwealth gradually establish its own dominant sphere of influence both through economic and military* means in its region. Though the policy of isolationism was abandon, its influence would continue to hold some sway within the foreign policy ideas embraced by the Commonwealth throughout the late 19th and into the 20th century."

Here's the second way to answer the question.

Until today's amendment, I considered this the definitive UE lore:

Not counting the multiple war games and military exercises/maneuvers that take place every year as well as the time period before the establishment of the Commonwealth, since the establishment of said Commonwealth the nation has fought in not one conflict or war of aggression whether conventional or unconventional in nature. With over three centuries of uninterrupted peaceful relations with the entire world’s nation-states, an impressive feat few if any other nation-states can claim.

The Commonwealth has achieved this unprecedented stability through officially policies of neutrality {avoidance of entangling alliances}, isolation {enhanced by the nation being an island nation, hence no shared land borders to fret over this including never acquiring any colonies), a frightening economic powerhouse with global connections and finally, an overwhelming military presence with the Commonwealth on average spending 4% of its GDP on the nation’s defenses mostly on its impressive Blue Water Power Projection capable Navy.

With its mastery of economic dominance of the region, long standing democratic traditions and powerful military the Commonwealth remains the sole uncontested global power in its region.

A power few if any nations would wish to contest let alone stupidly challenge. Furthermore, those with dealings with the Commonwealth know first hand you either peacefully co-exist with the Commonwealth or face your own annihilation and/or possible extinction, there is no middle ground.

Certainly every statement you've made about the Commonwealth to date in these threads is more consistent with the above than your amended version.

Yes, you're telling a story with these silly battleships. Fiction and roleplaying are narrative acts, but so is world-building down to the tedious fictional OOBs created in this thread.

"NS Military Realism" isn't realism the way an art historian or literary critic would use the term - the life-like depiction of ordinary reality. It's merely a narrative logic with rules that have predictive value. A more fantastical setting (tone?) may just as "realistic" if it has a narrative logic with internal consistency that gives predictive value.

For years and years the version of the Commonwealth presented to us has been patently absurd. The narrative logic is (was?) simply "United Earthlings is awesome," and often "United Earthlings is more awesome than you because I say it is." You can say anything you want, of course, but Mary Suetopias generally aren't very compelling because then we have predictive value without internal consistency - an inverted narrative logic.

Now the narrative logic has radically shifted, perhaps for the better. I guess we still could go into why a country that spends enough on battleships to advance the technical state of the art in propulsion (awesome!) or whatever beyond the predictive value of historical trends wouldn't fool around with these refits, the limited value of a 25 knot refit in the first place and so on and so on, but that's not the question even though its much more important than the technical minutiae.

So is it feasible for United Earthlings to reconstruct its Standard battleships to achieve 25-28 knots? It's exactly as feasible as it is for Bella Swann to get a really cute haircut that makes her even more irresistible to Edward Cullen.

Also I like butter pecan.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'm of half the mind that I should rename this thread the NS Military Worldbuilding Thread tbqbh.

[Gallia-]

who the fuck cares

based

choco is best ice krem

chu-chii post favorite is krem :3

[European Federation Reunified]

What are the natural materials used in laser technology (especially in military technology)?