NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Dtn]

saddam should've convinced the ussr to fire-sell him a few RSD-10's. that would've made Israel far more uncomfortable than any trillion petrodollah epeen failure.

That would have been dumb because the entire point of working with Gerald Bull was to develop Iraq's domestic industrial capabilities.

Saddam Kamel, not Hussein, was the one who brought Bull to Iraq and he had several goals in mind, probably none of which were shooting giant guns at Israel.

Also Babylon was only $25 million which was insignificant for Iraq in the late 80s.

[Gallia-]

I assume they were hoping to make a massive forge in true Marxist fashion?

[Dtn]

The ultimate goal was to create a self-sufficient industrial base to supply the Arab world with arms because of Pan-Arabism, to avoid unreliable and expensive supply of foreign arms, and to pay back the massive war debt of the Iran-Iraq war - which ultimately led Saddam to attempt to plunder Kuwait.

National prestige was also important and the 1000mm gun was a small part of the larger Iraqi space program begun around the same time.

The smaller 350mm guns planned may have had a military purpose but Iraq cancelled them because SRC never bothered with any guidance system.

[Gonswanza]

The ultimate goal was to create a self-sufficient industrial base to supply the Arab world with arms because of Pan-Arabism, to avoid unreliable and expensive supply of foreign arms, and to pay back the massive war debt of the Iran-Iraq war - which ultimately led Saddam to attempt to plunder Kuwait.

National prestige was also important and the 1000mm gun was a small part of the larger Iraqi space program begun around the same time.

The smaller 350mm guns planned may have had a military purpose but Iraq cancelled them because SRC never bothered with any guidance system.

Not to mention that Bull was the sole project lead, being killed by Mossad when Big Babylon was only partway completed with nobody else to serve in his place given the odd mess back in the office.

personally I found this detail a bit strange, but then again when the lead guy gets blown up for working on a superweapon (if you can call it that) I'd suddenly decide to not fill his place too with more pressing matters on the front.

[Immoren]

So what was the current consensus about tube artillery beyond 155/152mm in context of NS MT world building?
Would they be not used for same reasons they're no longer used in real life (or used as much) or would there still be place for super-heavy artillery brigade with super heavy artillery and mortar battalions?

[Gallia-]

They shoot far.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

saddam should've convinced the ussr to fire-sell him a few RSD-10's. that would've made Israel far more uncomfortable than any trillion petrodollah epeen failure.

That would have been dumb because the entire point of working with Gerald Bull was to develop Iraq's domestic industrial capabilities.

Saddam Kamel, not Hussein, was the one who brought Bull to Iraq and he had several goals in mind, probably none of which were shooting giant guns at Israel.

Also Babylon was only $25 million which was insignificant for Iraq in the late 80s.

That said, thoughts about Iran's approach of using a single missile-complex and a rather complicated method of rapidly reloading their 3 missile-silos rather than building a fuckton of single-use silos?

[The Corparation]

If you're attacked prior to launching one hit and you've lost the ability to fire all of your missiles as opposed to one of your missiles This can be mitigated with multiple launch positions but even then you're still putting all your eggs in one basket. The way to make it really work is to go full 80s USAF, have the complex a mile deep and give the missiles tunnel boring machines so that you build your firing positions *after* withstanding the first strike.

[Dtn]

Large silo fields would obviously be useless for Iran.

If you're attacked prior to launching

Attacked by what? An airborne division?

The launch pits are virtually immune to conventional weapons by virtue of their construction and location. They're also more robust than a missile silo, with no complex equipment, while being too small to make a direct hit by a nuclear RV likely.

The facility themselves (it's not like Iran is going to rely on just one) are immune to everything except weapons that probably don't exist, and even if the launch pits are disabled they have secondary exits for dispersed TELs.

Plus these are only one of the methods Iran has to launch missiles. It's not like they're going to throw away everything else.

The dynamics of the Iranian missile program are very different from nuclear powers with big silo fields.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Large silo fields would obviously be useless for Iran.

If you're attacked prior to launching

Attacked by what? An airborne division?

The launch pits are virtually immune to conventional weapons by virtue of their construction and location. They're also more robust than a missile silo, with no complex equipment, while being too small to make a direct hit by a nuclear RV likely.

The facility themselves (it's not like Iran is going to rely on just one) are immune to everything except weapons that probably don't exist, and even if the launch pits are disabled they have secondary exits for dispersed TELs.

Plus these are only one of the methods Iran has to launch missiles. It's not like they're going to throw away everything else.

The dynamics of the Iranian missile program are very different from nuclear powers with big silo fields.

Assuming said launch pits are built correctly.

Iran's are not even deep enough, and the overburden there is offers less protection than average since it's sandstone, and the interior is crumbling as-is to the point there are already tarps to catch the chunks.

Best-case is each launch-pit is autonomous enough they can maybe continue to fire a salvo even after the main complex is destroyed.

[Dtn]

Iran's are not even deep enough, and the overburden there is offers less protection than average since it's sandstone, and the interior is crumbling as-is to the point there are already tarps to catch the chunks.

This is like saying tanks have "tarps to catch the chunks" lol

I guess we'll just have to trust your rock id skills and hope they aren't thrown off by other incredibly common tunnel construction techniques like shotcreting.

The larger point is that Iran's missile systems aren't for fighting a nuclear war and shouldn't be looked at from that perspective.

[Cossack Peoples]

So I appear to have gotten myself into a predicament. Currently, our main service rifle is chambered in 7.42, an arbitrary distinction from 7.62; this is effectively a battle rifle, and on top of that, they're given 40 round magazines for arbitrary reasons. First off, I just want to be sure, but this is completely unacceptable from a weight standpoint, right? Second, how would decreasing the magazine size down to 20 affect things? I want to know from a combat effectiveness standpoint. And lastly, is there a way to keep the caliber for this "assault" rifle's intended purpose, or would it just be better for everyone if it were decreased to a smaller diameter round? Bear with me, I realize my mistakes even given my embarrassingly un-American lack of knowledge on firearms.

[Jamaica Isla Azul]

Going back in time, to 1993 here for a war RP setting I have but am unsure with regard to certain things.

My nation is an island of 46,882 km² / 18,101 square miles in size, and realistically, would swing-wing aircraft (variable-sweep), something like the Rockwell B-1 Lancer as an example:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/B-1B_air_refueling.jpg/450px-B-1B_air_refueling.jpg

work with an army in 1993?

Also, realistically, for an island this size, what would be considered a reasonable size, for a nation which does not have conscription, and is in a tourism-focused nation with history and is a capitalistic not dictatorial state?

What percentage of a population of 4.845million in 1993 would be needed for an army to be realistic (note that women are legally banned, and the legal age to join is 20)?

[Spirit of Hope]

So I appear to have gotten myself into a predicament. Currently, our main service rifle is chambered in 7.42, an arbitrary distinction from 7.62; this is effectively a battle rifle, and on top of that, they're given 40 round magazines for arbitrary reasons. First off, I just want to be sure, but this is completely unacceptable from a weight standpoint, right? Second, how would decreasing the magazine size down to 20 affect things? I want to know from a combat effectiveness standpoint. And lastly, is there a way to keep the caliber for this "assault" rifle's intended purpose, or would it just be better for everyone if it were decreased to a smaller diameter round? Bear with me, I realize my mistakes even given my embarrassingly un-American lack of knowledge on firearms.

The weight difference between a 40 and 20 round magazine is going to have no noticeable impact on your soldiers ability to fight. For the same amount of ammo using 40 round magazines will save you weight, though not a huge amount. The bigger issue would probably be magazine size and reliability, a 40 round magazine, especially for a 7.42 mm bullet, is going to be rather large and might get in the way of the weapons use, especially while prone. Not a huge deal, but something to note.

The big reason militaries went to intermediate cartridges is because you can carry more ammo for a given weight while also being somewhat more controllable in automatic fire. Since a intermediate cartridge and a full size cartridge are going to be similar in effectiveness inside of 300 meters you aren't loosing much in effectiveness of the round.

The big question would be how your military approaches small arms.

[Dtn]

rather large and might get in the way of the weapons use

[Inner Planets]

I need small arms and tanks

[Cossack Peoples]

So I appear to have gotten myself into a predicament. Currently, our main service rifle is chambered in 7.42, an arbitrary distinction from 7.62; this is effectively a battle rifle, and on top of that, they're given 40 round magazines for arbitrary reasons. First off, I just want to be sure, but this is completely unacceptable from a weight standpoint, right? Second, how would decreasing the magazine size down to 20 affect things? I want to know from a combat effectiveness standpoint. And lastly, is there a way to keep the caliber for this "assault" rifle's intended purpose, or would it just be better for everyone if it were decreased to a smaller diameter round? Bear with me, I realize my mistakes even given my embarrassingly un-American lack of knowledge on firearms.

The weight difference between a 40 and 20 round magazine is going to have no noticeable impact on your soldiers ability to fight. For the same amount of ammo using 40 round magazines will save you weight, though not a huge amount. The bigger issue would probably be magazine size and reliability, a 40 round magazine, especially for a 7.42 mm bullet, is going to be rather large and might get in the way of the weapons use, especially while prone. Not a huge deal, but something to note.

The big reason militaries went to intermediate cartridges is because you can carry more ammo for a given weight while also being somewhat more controllable in automatic fire. Since a intermediate cartridge and a full size cartridge are going to be similar in effectiveness inside of 300 meters you aren't loosing much in effectiveness of the round.

The big question would be how your military approaches small arms.

What would some approaches to this be? Right now, this shitheap of a country has extremely bloated and clunky small-scale units with fireteams of seven. I figure this doesn't give me the best in terms of tactical mobility. I was thinking of having these really excessive teams get more squad-level and platoon-level equipment, but in terms of rifles I haven't really thought about it.

[Spirit of Hope]

The weight difference between a 40 and 20 round magazine is going to have no noticeable impact on your soldiers ability to fight. For the same amount of ammo using 40 round magazines will save you weight, though not a huge amount. The bigger issue would probably be magazine size and reliability, a 40 round magazine, especially for a 7.42 mm bullet, is going to be rather large and might get in the way of the weapons use, especially while prone. Not a huge deal, but something to note.

The big reason militaries went to intermediate cartridges is because you can carry more ammo for a given weight while also being somewhat more controllable in automatic fire. Since a intermediate cartridge and a full size cartridge are going to be similar in effectiveness inside of 300 meters you aren't loosing much in effectiveness of the round.

The big question would be how your military approaches small arms.

What would some approaches to this be? Right now, this shitheap of a country has extremely bloated and clunky small-scale units with fireteams of seven. I figure this doesn't give me the best in terms of tactical mobility. I was thinking of having these really excessive teams get more squad-level and platoon-level equipment, but in terms of rifles I haven't really thought about it.

Your squad level structure really doesn't matter from a unit mobility perspective, the bigger question would be transport, training, equipment, moral, etc.

When I say approaches I mean what is your small as culture. Do you have a military culture filled with ideas of individual marksmanship or does it believe in masses and automatic fire? Do you focus on shooting at range or more close quarters fighting? And so on.

A larger cartridge makes more sense if you plan to use less automatic fire for a rifleman and plan to be engaging at longer ranges.

From a reality perspective most fighting takes place under 300 meters and involves a lot of suppressive fire for the hits you do get.

[Crookfur]

So I appear to have gotten myself into a predicament. Currently, our main service rifle is chambered in 7.42, an arbitrary distinction from 7.62; this is effectively a battle rifle, and on top of that, they're given 40 round magazines for arbitrary reasons. First off, I just want to be sure, but this is completely unacceptable from a weight standpoint, right? Second, how would decreasing the magazine size down to 20 affect things? I want to know from a combat effectiveness standpoint. And lastly, is there a way to keep the caliber for this "assault" rifle's intended purpose, or would it just be better for everyone if it were decreased to a smaller diameter round? Bear with me, I realize my mistakes even given my embarrassingly un-American lack of knowledge on firearms.

Calibre alone does not dictate if something is a battle rifle.
7.42 could definitely be an assault rifle round as long as the case is shirt/low capacity enough. For example russian 7.62x39mm or Czech 7 62x45mm are both definitely assault rifle cartridges.

[Spirit of Hope]

So I appear to have gotten myself into a predicament. Currently, our main service rifle is chambered in 7.42, an arbitrary distinction from 7.62; this is effectively a battle rifle, and on top of that, they're given 40 round magazines for arbitrary reasons. First off, I just want to be sure, but this is completely unacceptable from a weight standpoint, right? Second, how would decreasing the magazine size down to 20 affect things? I want to know from a combat effectiveness standpoint. And lastly, is there a way to keep the caliber for this "assault" rifle's intended purpose, or would it just be better for everyone if it were decreased to a smaller diameter round? Bear with me, I realize my mistakes even given my embarrassingly un-American lack of knowledge on firearms.

Calibre alone does not dictate if something is a battle rifle.
7.42 could definitely be an assault rifle round as long as the case is shirt/low capacity enough. For example russian 7.62x39mm or Czech 7 62x45mm are both definitely assault rifle cartridges.

Don't forget 7.62×25, so it could even be a pistol cartridge.

Given the language I assumed he was most familiar with 7.62 NATO and didn't want to confuse the issue.

[Cossack Peoples]

Your squad level structure really doesn't matter from a unit mobility perspective, the bigger question would be transport, training, equipment, moral, etc.

When I say approaches I mean what is your small as culture. Do you have a military culture filled with ideas of individual marksmanship or does it believe in masses and automatic fire? Do you focus on shooting at range or more close quarters fighting? And so on.

A larger cartridge makes more sense if you plan to use less automatic fire for a rifleman and plan to be engaging at longer ranges.

From a reality perspective most fighting takes place under 300 meters and involves a lot of suppressive fire for the hits you do get.

Okay, in hindsight I could still make the full-size cartridge work, because my super-duper steppe warriors (with biceps the size of watermelons) are used to fighting at significant distance outside of urban environments. Just wouldn't be too effective no matter the accuracy of the rifle, and wouldn't be as effective as intermediate cartridges once the fighting gets more intimate. Probably be better with professional soldiers, too, and not conscripts that get cycled out after finally getting used to the weight of dozens of 40-round magazines.

But moving onto fireteams and squads, what could I do with those extra guys? Either I have more than one SAW, more grenadiers, or I give them MANPADS or RPGs (as a treat). Or should I keep them as riflemen and leave that other stuff up to the squad?

[Dtn]

I need small arms and tanks

Just look for ray guns with a British aesthetic.

[Spirit of Hope]

Your squad level structure really doesn't matter from a unit mobility perspective, the bigger question would be transport, training, equipment, moral, etc.

When I say approaches I mean what is your small as culture. Do you have a military culture filled with ideas of individual marksmanship or does it believe in masses and automatic fire? Do you focus on shooting at range or more close quarters fighting? And so on.

A larger cartridge makes more sense if you plan to use less automatic fire for a rifleman and plan to be engaging at longer ranges.

From a reality perspective most fighting takes place under 300 meters and involves a lot of suppressive fire for the hits you do get.

Okay, in hindsight I could still make the full-size cartridge work, because my super-duper steppe warriors (with biceps the size of watermelons) are used to fighting at significant distance outside of urban environments. Just wouldn't be too effective no matter the accuracy of the rifle, and wouldn't be as effective as intermediate cartridges once the fighting gets more intimate. Probably be better with professional soldiers, too, and not conscripts that get cycled out after finally getting used to the weight of dozens of 40-round magazines.

But moving onto fireteams and squads, what could I do with those extra guys? Either I have more than one SAW, more grenadiers, or I give them MANPADS or RPGs (as a treat). Or should I keep them as riflemen and leave that other stuff up to the squad?

Plenty of nations still use full size rifle cartridges. Another thing could also be cost, "we've got these rifles, they work, why bother replacing them."

Squad design is basically what you want it to look like, as long as you have an ok mix of squad level HE and LMGs/SAWs it isn't going to make a huge difference. If like 1 in 5 has an LMG or HE your probably good.

Fire team of 7 (2 fireteams to a squad?) you could do SAW, RPG/Grenadier, SAW assistant, Grenadier assistant, 2 Riflemen, Team Lead. Or you could do asymmetrical fireteams, one is full of riflemen and one is full of weapons teams, so 6 riflemen and a team lead and then a SAW, RPG, DM, and team lead. Or you could just completely redo them, plus no one says that squads have to be the same across all units and circumstances, I've got 3 or 4 basic squads.

[Cossack Peoples]

A soldier's loadout will be determined by whether they make it to the armory first or not.

[Gonswanza]

A soldier's loadout will be determined by whether they make it to the armory first or not.

Armory royale