NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Gorgashia]

I feel like the more honest answer at this point is ‘no.’ You cannot conduct a crossing over a major river without getting ‘rofl’d’ by artillery. There is a reason why you should try to find and secure a bridge over crossing a river. If you want to cross difficult terrain in a war environment, you have to pay the toll.

Think of it this way, you are in a War RP on NationStates and a dude is actually trying to cross a river where you have established defences and guns on the other side and he is actually confident that he can get across without getting a battalion or two smashed to pieces. What would you think about that? The point is that the other guy on the river deserves a modicum of respect for his intelligence and as such we cannot assume there is an easy trick. If he was an idiot, you would not be stuck on the other side of a contested major river with artillery pointed at you.

[Hrstrovokia]

I know this is probably a very niave question but is the Chinese BeiDou system any use? Would China let other nations use it? Particularly for military uses. Since GLONASS seems to be a non-starter, why doesn't Russia use the Chinese system - BeiDou? Would it be a terrible admission of weakness from the Russians?

[Gallia-]

Like do you even read books my guy lol? Dyel?

Not any good ones in awhile, no.

Haven't read "Ghost Army" by Jack Kneece since highschool. But I do sorta remember a thing about the unit doing some deception-antics in preparation for the Rhine crossing, and the deceptions around the various amphibious landings made in history were reasonably well documented and studied

Sounds like a bad book from your description though.

Literally everything that isn't the initial breakout from Normandy landing zones or the Bulge was just nothing though. The Western forces were more at risk of outrunning their own supply convoys than Nazi counteroffensives, save the Ardennes Salient. There's just nothing to be learned except "overwhelming force wins" lol. Yes, we learned that when you overwhelm the enemy with infinite resources you can do stupid shit and not be punished for it. Great job? In that sense it's kinda like the Red Army's offensives in the Carpathians: nothing of particular note happened that anyone can really study. Except the Carpathians were a good example of integrating irregular levy troops/indigenous partisans into regular ground forces' command structures. So they had something to learn there. The Western Allies didn't even manage that, although they did manage to discern that the French are bad at working together I guess.

Granted, deception alone usually isn't enough to cause a break in fire discipline, so a feint or diversionary attack of some sort to make it real is called for, and usually you give that unit a chance of actually succeeding. Otherwise the OPFOR would see no harm in ignoring them if they obviously can't do the thing they were set out to pretend to do in force. The difference is just how massive a force they are pretending to be while doing it.

You're pretty much saying the same thing but with way more words.

If we're saying the same thing then you have a really weird way with articulating your points and should probably work on that lol.

The point of reconnaissance-in-force is to make the enemy's defensive plan activate in full, be mapped by reconnaissance, possibly push in to determine the size of the tactical or operational reserve, and plots for fire strikes. The normal way to counter this is to have excessive quantities of defensive systems, or to be able to anticipate the movement of the reconnaissance troops and conduct a counter-preparation through meticulous artillery reconnaissance, because you ultimately still actually have to put a reconnaissance battalion into the fight, where they will in all likelihood suffer significant casualties, or a motor rifle battalion reinforced by recce company, and backed by a division's RAG, to provoke a suitable defensive response. The reconnaissance troops will ideally not die, but it's a very real possibility they might get "Bilohorivkaed" or something. Then you follow through immediately with a suppression mission from your multiple rocket launchers. At least you're only down a dead or crippled battalion or two, but you provoked a response from the enemy and neutralized some gun batteries. Good job. Now do it again.

Considering the "ghost army" didn't suffer any significant dead from artillery fire or machine guns, and the only thing it could do was convince the generally not very clever Germans that there may have been another corps or field army in an area by using radio traffic deception and inflatable decoys to bamboozle air observer/reconnaissance, well, that's rather different. It's something you do to redirect main combat forces around, like a corps or field army, or an army group's main reserve formation. The Soviets did that too. Operation Bagration's deception preparations were a great example of that sort of deception that the "ghost army" did in faking entire field armies or whatever, such as during Bodyguard.

This is deception sure, but it's not something you actually do during a tactical movement like a battalion river crossing lol. "smoke pots and loudspeakers" is Russian-tier field training.

In other words, it's a total non-sequitur to forcing a river, which requires expending blood by its very nature.

The only question is whether you're going to make the river run red with it, or the river merely suggest a tinge of blood instead. If you have a very good idea of what the enemy looks like, you may be able to do the former without too much bloodshed because you can flatten his artillery forces with rocket launchers. If you don't, you can probably do the former to get a better idea of what he looks like, and either react with rocket launchers or at least plan for the future counter-preparation. Thus, the purpose of the artillery reconnaissance is to neutralize the deadliest arm of the land forces: artillery, which requires knowing the location of mortars and artillery, and having suitable quantities of rocket launchers.

The purpose of deception during any offensive operation by a CAA or corps is going to be IPB through RIF, i.e. muscularly supported limited attacks, with the express purpose of provoking a reaction and gathering information based on that regarding the enemy's disposition and defensive plan. That's not what the "ghost army" did, so I have no clue why you gathered that from that book unless it's badly written or something.

I know this is probably a very niave question but is the Chinese BeiDou system any use? Would China let other nations use it? Particularly for military uses. Since GLONASS seems to be a non-starter, why doesn't Russia use the Chinese system - BeiDou? Would it be a terrible admission of weakness from the Russians?

Because GLONASS existed before Beidou, obviously.

Why stop using GLONASS and suddenly change to a new GNSS when you have a perfectly functional GNSS already? Most Russian receivers probably use GLONASS, Beidou, and Galileo anyway, along with GPS. Multiple system receivers (whether physically or digitally) are useful for obvious military reasons. If Russia and China were in a war, Russia using Beidou without GLONASS would have no method of GNSS except weird foreign systems, which could be controlled by states on China's side and used against it by injecting bad vibes into the receivers and making them think they're somewhere they're not. That would be bad, clearly.

Having a single national GNSS with the capability to use multiple other GNSS is the clear winner because it gives you a backstop and provides protection against spoofing or jamming systems designed to defeat your own GNSS.

re accuracy: It's fine. Beidou has relatively poor accuracy compared to modern GPS, but that's because the USA stopped restricting the accuracy of GPS deliberately because I guess it didn't want someone like INMARSAT making Galileo in 2005 instead of 2025. Beidou hasn't, because the PLA doesn't want people using its receivers for military or insurrectionist purposes. 2-3 meters is adequate accuracy for a car or a person walking, but probably not very adequate for the gunlaying of an artillery piece or the INS system of a jet fighter. GPS for something like L3's IPADS has a sub-30 centimeter accuracy and Beidou is probably similar or equivalent with its military receivers.

I imagine the Politburo would have some strict requirements before handing out military grade Beidou receivers. Maybe you'd have to sell them a economically viable portion of your country's national industry.

[The Akasha Colony]

I know this is probably a very niave question but is the Chinese BeiDou system any use?

It works fine. It's not a groundbreaking concept or particularly difficult to implement, given how many full and partial navigation systems are in operation.

Would China let other nations use it? Particularly for military uses. Since GLONASS seems to be a non-starter, why doesn't Russia use the Chinese system - BeiDou? Would it be a terrible admission of weakness from the Russians?

What's wrong with GLONASS?

It's not really a matter of "letting them use it" so much as the availability of hardware. It's not like you just buy a license and then you're up and running; access to the military bands in satellite navigation systems requires each receiving device to be equipped with the proper decryption key to decipher the encrypted timing signal (as opposed to the unencrypted civilian band signals). This is a rather time consuming process to implement, so it is not a trivial decision to make.

Beyond the above issue regarding the amount of time it would take to reprogram or retrofit every receiver with the BDS decryption keys, China is unlikely to sign any agreements with entities that are not fully aligned with their geopolitical goals. And even if they signed such a deal, it is very likely the Chinese would simply revoke access the moment that entity engages in any actions the Chinese government disagrees with. Russia would only ever be allowed to be a client for BDS, never a true partner, and as such they would always be at risk of being kicked out if they ever defied their Chinese overlords. That's not a very reliable arrangement. That's what GLONASS is for and why the Russians are determined to stick with it even if it might not be as accurate as GPS, BDS, or Galileo. It's theirs, and no one can revoke their access.

This is enough of a potential issue that even the EU decided to go its own way with Galileo rather than remain entirely dependent on GPS, since the US has restricted GPS availability in certain areas in the past and has been pretty upfront about being willing to do so in the future if the US government decides its necessary. The EU invested in Galileo as a means of guaranteeing access to a satellite navigation system under their own control.

[Gallia-]

i wonder how big of a hat you need for GOST BR6 protection lolol

asking for a friend #<.>#

[Hrstrovokia]

What's wrong with GLONASS?

I've watched quite a few videos on Youtube by fairly decent commentators like Perun who barely mention GLONASS, that the Russians have to use commercial GPS/INS systems on board Sukhoi aircraft.

My reasoning upon reading this was that GLONASS was less than useful, and that they needed the US GPS system to accurately use precision guided munitions etc. Maybe I made a big leap and assumed a lot here.

[The Akasha Colony]

I've watched quite a few videos on Youtube by fairly decent commentators like Perun who barely mention GLONASS, that the Russians have to use commercial GPS/INS systems on board Sukhoi aircraft.

My reasoning upon reading this was that GLONASS was less than useful, and that they needed the US GPS system to accurately use precision guided munitions etc. Maybe I made a big leap and assumed a lot here.

Lots of commercial hardware, if not most these days, is fully capable of using multiple satellite navigation systems. The use of this hardware doesn't mean they aren't using GLONASS at all, it just means that their receivers can also use signals from GPS, Galileo, etc. Most likely it's just because they don't have the ability to manufacture enough domestic semiconductors to equip all of their platforms so they're just buying receivers off the shelf that come with the ability to use all of the available networks. My smartphone already has the capability to use GPS, GLONASS, BDS, and Galileo, and it's not particularly special.

[Gallia-]

What's wrong with GLONASS?

I've watched quite a few videos on Youtube by fairly decent commentators like Perun who barely mention GLONASS, that the Russians have to use commercial GPS/INS systems on board Sukhoi aircraft.

My reasoning upon reading this was that GLONASS was less than useful, and that they needed the US GPS system to accurately use precision guided munitions etc. Maybe I made a big leap and assumed a lot here.

Your reasoning is just incorrect.

It's because GLONASS could be getting jammed by systems setup by the United States or provided by NATO, and as such reliance on a single system is counterproductive, since it can be easily spoofed or something. Especially by a more powerfully technological opponent with a global electronic eye, like the United States, thus sending Russian pilots off course or into anti-aircraft ambushes.

That's pretty much the immediate idea anyone who looks at this should think of, I'd think, given how much hand wringing the United States itself has done in its corporate/military media spheres about the very subject of "Russian GPS jammers/spoofing tests" or whatever bloggers claim to have discovered by shouting it on Twitter when they see a cargo ship's AIS doing tighter tactical turns than a PT boat in a harbor on a public map site.

Aside from that a lot of frontline combat systems like the Su-25T lack integrated INS guidance packages and moving map displays, because a lot of them are from before the time for those things, so Russian pilots tend to use cellphones with multiple GNSS receivers for the purpose of moving map information. Aside from not requiring you to take your eyes off the flight path, you just glance at a mirror to your side, it's probably in a better place than whatever harebrained position the Red Army's Frontal Aviation thought was badass as fuck to put a moving map display circa 1988. Worst case it's like the Tomcat's pilot radar viewer where it's hidden down where ya nuts hang and you can't see it without craning like a chicken to look behind the flight stick, because fuck putting important data screens in actually useful places lol.

There's also no Russian bomb system which uses GPS? I don't know who told you that but they're probably using something recreational. Or you just assumed wrong and might be conflating actual news stories with stuff.

The last time someone tried to integrate Western INS munitions into a Soviet aircraft, it ended up being rather poor for them because the Malaysians ended up having to call Sukhoi to tell them to fix their jailbroke jet fighters that they tried to use Paveways (or maybe they were French Hammers) and the bombs kept going the opposite horizontal direction i.e. they would go left when they needed to go right and vice versa, and completely missed their target. Sukhoi told them they would fix them but they would still need to pay for it because they were dumb and jailbroke their planes instead of asking Sukhoi to do it or something smart because they were being cheap/poor. This was like 2014 or so.

Source: a dude who's brother works at PJSC UAC/JSC Sukhoi told me this once a few years ago.

[Imperium of Texas]

Is it Okay to commit War crimes if the target is Communist?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is it Okay to commit War crimes if the target is Communist?

Depends on whether or not the guy's ur "rp'ing" with accepts it or not

[Gallia-]

dont encourage them to make icky guro porn novellas pls

i thought ns grew out of that back in 2013

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

dont encourage them to make icky guro porn novellas pls

i thought ns grew out of that back in 2013

The shit omstark got up to in the Balkans in 2014 ersumthing would curdle your intestines
<.>

[Gallia-]

dont encourage them to make icky guro porn novellas pls

i thought ns grew out of that back in 2013

The shit omstark got up to in the Balkans in 2014 ersumthing would curdle your intestines
<.>

Nah, Jenrak's post about the dremel drilled pp and molten lead doesn't phase me.

NS's guro phase was mostly 2008-2012 or so. It died down after that I guess but I also stopped reading NSRPs so maybe it never did IDK.

It got to the point where it was clear who was writing with one hand and who was just doing it for the genuine shock value though.

[Dtn]

I've watched quite a few videos on Youtube by fairly decent commentators like Perun who barely mention GLONASS, that the Russians have to use commercial GPS/INS systems on board Sukhoi aircraft.

My reasoning upon reading this was that GLONASS was less than useful, and that they needed the US GPS system to accurately use precision guided munitions etc. Maybe I made a big leap and assumed a lot here.

Your reasoning is just incorrect.

It's because GLONASS could be getting jammed by systems setup by the United States or provided by NATO, and as such reliance on a single system is counterproductive, since it can be easily spoofed or something. Especially by a more powerfully technological opponent with a global electronic eye, like the United States, thus sending Russian pilots off course or into anti-aircraft ambushes.

That's pretty much the immediate idea anyone who looks at this should think of, I'd think, given how much hand wringing the United States itself has done in its corporate/military media spheres about the very subject of "Russian GPS jammers/spoofing tests" or whatever bloggers claim to have discovered by shouting it on Twitter when they see a cargo ship's AIS doing tighter tactical turns than a PT boat in a harbor on a public map site.

Aside from that a lot of frontline combat systems like the Su-25T lack integrated INS guidance packages and moving map displays, because a lot of them are from before the time for those things, so Russian pilots tend to use cellphones with multiple GNSS receivers for the purpose of moving map information. Aside from not requiring you to take your eyes off the flight path, you just glance at a mirror to your side, it's probably in a better place than whatever harebrained position the Red Army's Frontal Aviation thought was badass as fuck to put a moving map display circa 1988. Worst case it's like the Tomcat's pilot radar viewer where it's hidden down where ya nuts hang and you can't see it without craning like a chicken to look behind the flight stick, because fuck putting important data screens in actually useful places lol.

There's also no Russian bomb system which uses GPS? I don't know who told you that but they're probably using something recreational. Or you just assumed wrong and might be conflating actual news stories with stuff.

The last time someone tried to integrate Western INS munitions into a Soviet aircraft, it ended up being rather poor for them because the Malaysians ended up having to call Sukhoi to tell them to fix their jailbroke jet fighters that they tried to use Paveways (or maybe they were French Hammers) and the bombs kept going the opposite horizontal direction i.e. they would go left when they needed to go right and vice versa, and completely missed their target. Sukhoi told them they would fix them but they would still need to pay for it because they were dumb and jailbroke their planes instead of asking Sukhoi to do it or something smart because they were being cheap/poor. This was like 2014 or so.

Source: a dude who's brother works at PJSC UAC/JSC Sukhoi told me this once a few years ago.

Much less OSINTy that Western pilots often carry civilian GLONASS receivers.

[Gallia-]

F-35 fears the GPS spoof.

[Tippercommon]

dont encourage them to make icky guro porn novellas pls

i thought ns grew out of that back in 2013

I think you drastically overestimate what remains of NationStates lol

[New Visayan Islands]

I know this is probably a very niave question but is the Chinese BeiDou system any use? Would China let other nations use it? Particularly for military uses. Since GLONASS seems to be a non-starter, why doesn't Russia use the Chinese system - BeiDou? Would it be a terrible admission of weakness from the Russians?

Wiki indicates only the PLA and the Pakistan Armed Forces have access to BeiDou's licensed military service. On top of that, BeiDou is WAS limited in its coverage owing to the manner of the system's orbit--GEO, as opposed to MEO for GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo--until BDS-2 and -3.

Edited per Akasha's correction. Thanks!

[The Akasha Colony]

I know this is probably a very niave question but is the Chinese BeiDou system any use? Would China let other nations use it? Particularly for military uses. Since GLONASS seems to be a non-starter, why doesn't Russia use the Chinese system - BeiDou? Would it be a terrible admission of weakness from the Russians?

Wiki indicates only the PLA and the Pakistan Armed Forces have access to BeiDou's licensed military service. On top of that, BeiDou is limited in its coverage owing to the manner of the system's orbit--GEO, as opposed to MEO for GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo.

That's rather out of date. BDS-2 was already implementing a full MEO constellation for global coverage, and the system is now on BDS-3, which also has full global coverage via MEO satellites. The GEO element of BDS-2 and BDS-3 is mostly to continue supporting legacy BDS-1 receivers since the original BDS-1 satellites were decommissioned in 2012.

[Allanea]

I feel like the more honest answer at this point is ‘no.’ You cannot conduct a crossing over a major river without getting ‘rofl’d’ by artillery. There is a reason why you should try to find and secure a bridge over crossing a river. If you want to cross difficult terrain in a war environment, you have to pay the toll.

Think of it this way, you are in a War RP on NationStates and a dude is actually trying to cross a river where you have established defences and guns on the other side and he is actually confident that he can get across without getting a battalion or two smashed to pieces. What would you think about that? The point is that the other guy on the river deserves a modicum of respect for his intelligence and as such we cannot assume there is an easy trick. If he was an idiot, you would not be stuck on the other side of a contested major river with artillery pointed at you.

I mean do you not imagine that securing a bridge (or even crossing a 'secured' bridge ) would be equally difficult under the same circumstances?

Sometimes, however, you take casualties as an inherent part of operations.

And then, if you have a way to turn 'everyone gets trashed and the enemy laughs as your tanks burn atop the wreckage of your pontoon bridge' to 'you only lost 2 battalions' you are actually doing well.

[Mareyland]

On the subject of river crossings: I am working on a post about a river crossing in an 1870s conflict. The Battle of Fredericksburg in the American Civil War is my main source of inspiration.

Could anyone tell me, was there any way the Union could have actually won the day at Fredericksburg?

My amateur military historian’s reading of the battle is that the Union could have reinforced their flank assault (IRL Meade seems to have made a basically unsupported attack that met success at first and then faltered) and forced Lee to abandon the heights. Instead they infamously sent a whole set of frontal attacks up Marye’s Heights and got chewed up.

Some accounts seem to suggest the frontal attacks themselves could have carried the day, if they’d been made in strength and not piecemeal. Is this accurate?

[Gorgashia]

I feel like the more honest answer at this point is ‘no.’ You cannot conduct a crossing over a major river without getting ‘rofl’d’ by artillery. There is a reason why you should try to find and secure a bridge over crossing a river. If you want to cross difficult terrain in a war environment, you have to pay the toll.

Think of it this way, you are in a War RP on NationStates and a dude is actually trying to cross a river where you have established defences and guns on the other side and he is actually confident that he can get across without getting a battalion or two smashed to pieces. What would you think about that? The point is that the other guy on the river deserves a modicum of respect for his intelligence and as such we cannot assume there is an easy trick. If he was an idiot, you would not be stuck on the other side of a contested major river with artillery pointed at you.

I mean do you not imagine that securing a bridge (or even crossing a 'secured' bridge ) would be equally difficult under the same circumstances?

Sometimes, however, you take casualties as an inherent part of operations.

And then, if you have a way to turn 'everyone gets trashed and the enemy laughs as your tanks burn atop the wreckage of your pontoon bridge' to 'you only lost 2 battalions' you are actually doing well.

Okay, fair, on both points.

[Sonakion]

Anyone have any good reading material on the Internet about modern warfare?

[Dtn]

It would be nice to find good reading material on the Internet about anything.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

It would be nice to find good reading material on the Internet about anything.

How basic do you wanna get?

Because there's field-manuals and I'm pretty sure project gutenburg still hosts various translations of Clausewitz's "On War" and George Marshal's "Infantry in combat", just bear in mind everything in those books is dated to turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively.

Then there's tankograd's blog about soviet-era tech. For tanks and anti-tank weapons, and tank and anti-tank accessories.

[Sonakion]

It would be nice to find good reading material on the Internet about anything.

How basic do you wanna get?

Because there's field-manuals and I'm pretty sure project gutenburg still hosts various translations of Clausewitz's "On War" and George Marshal's "Infantry in combat", just bear in mind everything in those books is dated to turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively.

Then there's tankograd's blog about soviet-era tech. For tanks and anti-tank weapons, and tank and anti-tank accessories.

For me at least something covering basics regarding modern warfare and technology.