NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[The Manticoran Empire]

With aircraft, mostly. Aircraft and submarines have been the most effective method of attacking enemy ships for pretty much the last century. Ships are actually not particularly good at attacking each other compared to aircraft and submarines which is why they have been largely relegated to the role of escort for or against those assets.

So it would be best for helicopters with anti-ship missiles to engage enemy ships?

What would that mean against modern warships with anti-air missiles? For an NH90 armed with Naval Strike Missiles (for example), would it be viable for it to hide in the radar horizon of a Ticonderoga-Class Cruiser and engage it like that?

Not really. Basically what he's saying is that you want to have a radar equipped aircraft aloft looking for the radar signals of a surface group that can then relay the location either to your own surface group or an incoming force of long range aircraft armed with ASMs. It is important to note that the recon aircraft wouldn't be actively searching with their own radars, since that would give away their position. Rather they would be listening for the radio emissions of enemy radars and would then direct a strike from other, missile armed aircraft. This could take the form of modifications to strategic bombers the Tu-95 coordinating a strike by Tu-22Ms or through carrier based aircraft directed to a target by a Hawkeye or similar platform using F-18s or F-35s. It is unlikely that a helicopter would be employed, largely due to range limitations.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh it increasingly looks like hiding in radio-silence will be pointless given cubesats with high-res SAR's staring down at you. Once those things tracks you all your enemy needs is an F-35 flight putting a 2000 pound LJDAM through your deck.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Tbh it increasingly looks like hiding in radio-silence will be pointless given cubesats with SAR's and high-res cameras staring down at you. Once those things tracks you all your enemy needs is an F-35 flight putting a 2000 pound LJDAM through your deck.

Well it will be more helpful than just broadcasting your position for everyone to see like a giant electromagnetic strobelight.

[Almadaria]

Tbh it increasingly looks like hiding in radio-silence will be pointless given cubesats with SAR's and high-res cameras staring down at you. Once those things tracks you all your enemy needs is an F-35 flight putting a 2000 pound LJDAM through your deck.

The first step in modern naval warfare begins in orbit with S-500s, I guess

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh it increasingly looks like hiding in radio-silence will be pointless given cubesats with SAR's and high-res cameras staring down at you. Once those things tracks you all your enemy needs is an F-35 flight putting a 2000 pound LJDAM through your deck.

Well it will be more helpful than just broadcasting your position for everyone to see like a giant electromagnetic strobelight.

Is staying blind that helpful?

Tbh it increasingly looks like hiding in radio-silence will be pointless given cubesats with SAR's and high-res cameras staring down at you. Once those things tracks you all your enemy needs is an F-35 flight putting a 2000 pound LJDAM through your deck.

The first step in modern naval warfare begins in orbit with S-500s, I guess

A single Falcon 9v1.1 could put a hundred 100 kg cubesats in LEO with 1 meter resolution radar systems. You would never be able to disable all of them with any ASAT missile.

[Austrasien]

The first step in modern naval warfare begins in orbit with S-500s, I guess

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWtkMot ... =emb_title

Technology races ahead.

A more realistic approach will be to use your satellites to both protect your own ships and find the enemies. Instead of a helicopter cueing missiles, satellites.

[Gallia-]

Well it will be more helpful than just broadcasting your position for everyone to see like a giant electromagnetic strobelight.

Is staying blind that helpful?

The first step in modern naval warfare begins in orbit with S-500s, I guess

A single Falcon 9v1.1 could put a hundred 100 kg cubesats in LEO with 1 meter resolution radar systems. You would never be able to disable all of them with any ASAT missile.

That's just a way to protect against small scale nuclear missile attacks.

Targeting's not an issue for a bomber regiment since it can find things on its own, except that the enemy can see you with their cubesats too, as Kyiv mentions. After all the average warship has a much lower infrared signature than a dozen afterburners lighting up for MITO at Engels-2, or a bunch of supersonic bombers flying over the ocean, relative to the background.

Which means that the carrier group will be instantly aware it's being targeted by something. Which means it can put fighters on the bombers on their way and ambush them. Which means the carrier is safe.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well it will be more helpful than just broadcasting your position for everyone to see like a giant electromagnetic strobelight.

Is staying blind that helpful?

That depends on how you define helpful.

[New Vihenia]

Also, NV, that's some sexy modelling you still got going on... might be back in the market for some more being made if you're up for it. I have coin if Khajit has wares.

EDIT: Also, what do you got for mobile CRAM/CIWS mounted systems for those and do you have dazzler/laser emitters for use in similar missions? Be interesting to see airmobile dazzler trailers and motorized jamming antennas to move about the battlefield...

I'm always up OwO.

Regarding CRAM is as you see the one i have is that LolHuge tracked vehicle. No "small" CRAM-CIWS yet. and No laser and jammers yet.

A single Falcon 9v1.1 could put a hundred 100 kg cubesats in LEO with 1 meter resolution radar systems. You would never be able to disable all of them with any ASAT missile.

This is a very good idea. Except SAR alone is not enough. It needs GMTI, and GMTI needs some sort of size for technique like DPCA or STAP to work as the technique relies on emitting from a different part of the antenna, so the CubeSat have to be bit bigger. Now an opportunity would be to put Dense constellation so that there is distance close enough to each Satellite so it can form a Massive Phased Array. This opens up opportunity of not only GMTI or SAR but also ESM and Datalink too.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Wasn't sure if I should put this into IDT, since that thread has been dead for a while.

What level of fieldcraft or bushcraft training is appropriate for regular light infantry units? Would it be useful to train a few people in each platoon how to do things like tracking, or would that be silly?

[Manokan Republic]

Other than moral weakness is there any reason why modern armies no longer use flamethrowers? They sound like the perfect weapon to use in situations such as urban combat, COIN or just generally against dug in enemies. And sure, they are dangerous as hell to the user but so is everything else on the battlefield. And yet we don't even see factions that use suicide bombers using them. So what gives? Like I'd at least expect to see them used in the middle east.

Flamethrowers are themselves fairly ineffective. You have a short range of about 30-60 feet, about 8 seconds worth of fuel at best, most of the fuel burns out in mid-air when let aflame, and it's really heavy, like typically 60 pounds or more. Comparatively if you used an incendiary grenade with a 40mm grenade launcher, you could shoot out the napalm or white phosphorous or what have you out to 400-800 yards, and it wouldn't burn out in mid-air, giving you a greater range and effect once it reaches the target, as well as a more powerful and faster acting munition that could also be mixed with explosives. In addition it could be used for other things, like regular high explosive grenades, or smoke and so on. Using thermite/white phosphorous would allow for higher temperatures, and so a better time melting through metal, such as on vehicles or in bunkers, and it would leave behind molten metal everywhere that would be pretty annoying to deal with. Napalm does not really burn hot enough unless you adds these things to it.

If you use a vehicle, the same principle applies. You could air drop in an incendiary bomb or use a large artillery piece, mortar or rocket to get a much longer range, to bombard the target miles away without the fuel burning up in mid flight. With vehicle based flamethrowers like the crocodile, they tended to splash the target with a wet burst of unburned fuel, then ignite it with a hot burst or even an incendiary/tracer round to set it on fire, so they had a longer range. You are generally better off with just, shooting out an incendiary shell, than using a flamethrower. The U.S. military drops napalm bombs from airplanes all the time, just not against human targets. So in short, basically flamethrowers suck, but napalm itself is not a bad weapon, or incendiary stuff in general.

It's worth noting also that fire doesn't kill people or incapacitate vehicles very quickly. Even if you could melt through tank armor or tracks or something which, might actually be a legitimate use of something like thermite based incendiary weapons, aside from the ceramics they commonly use, it would take a long time, and the reason burning people to death is immoral is it takes so long, which is why it's so painful. A bullet is a much faster way to take someone out and incapacitate them immediately, or a bomb. Better chucking in a grenade with secondary flashbang effects or something and then rushing in to a bunker, than to use a flamethrower where the people run out, on fire, still able to shoot you. Even a thermobaric grenade or something fancy like that would be better. It just generally is not that useful outside of specific niche uses which likely can be filled better with more conventional weapons, or specialized grenades. The only real use of a flamethrower is to spread terror or fear, which can backfire just as easily as they dig in and fight back harder rather than surrender to an enemy which treats them well afterwards. You won't surrender if you KNOW you will be executed or burned alive anyways, but you will surrender if you think the outcome will be better than staying and fighting. For that matter, tear gas or pepper spray, or even a very strong stink-bomb would flush people out of a hiding spot as well or better than a flamethrower, by filling every nook and cranny with something that causes pain or incapacitates them, and yet it wouldn't be as deadly. A highly concentrated irritant is going to be lighter weight for it's given volume than fuel (people can stand next to a campfire and be fine, fire is only really dangerous with close contact/if it sucks up oxygen), so it would be better to use some kind of really painful, pain-inducing poison gas, like say a nerve agent, than a flamethrower. So, chuck in a sarin nerve gas grenade, roughly the size of one of those sarin bomblets, and wear a gas mask and NBC suit and, blamo, enemy flushed out of hiding spot. Wait a few hours for it to erode and dissipate and you are fine.

"One neat trick for flushing out Yugoslavian from defensive bunkers! The United Nations hates this! This substance is BANNED in over 13 countries, found out more by clicking here!"

[Manokan Republic]

Wikipedia obviously doesn't tell the full story of Bastion either

I'd hoped this thread died but I guess it's just Manokan-tier from here on out

Should I shoot this milan missile from two miles away and take out the enemy tank while traveling 60 mph on a Toyota that carries dozens of missiles on it so I can make a fast get away or fire multiple times if I miss, or the machine gun sprays me, or should I get off within 100 yards of the tank where it's inevitable they will see me and the machine gun will open fire on me and I'm traveling 3 mph with a few rockets on foot since it's heavy, and then slowly set my weapon up to fire?

Hmmm, well I did read from a single book once that people did this, so I guess missile systems could have never been mounted on a Toyota truck. All opposing evidence in huge numbers is just wrong. I.Q. levels 300+

Who would go so far as to mount an anti-tank missile on a truck, surely it's better to jump off and slowly walk towards a tank for no reason? I'm guessing there was never a time where they fired it off the back of a truck, after all they assaulted a base once and use a rocket launcher once at close range, thus all times were at close range. Surely they would remove the very heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles firing platforms welded on to the back of their trucks and remove them before battle, this is the smart thing to do? I mean in all seriousness being contrarian for the sake of it is stupid. The U.S. Bradley has TOW missiles mounted on it, the various BMP and BMD Russian vehicles fire a variety of anti-tank munitions, the Israelis have anti-tank missiles mounted on their guns... you only get out and dismount sparingly, and when you do it's with a more expensive and sophisticated missile system, to fire a few rounds, in an ambush, using stealth, rather than as a main line of attack. For obvious reasons a faster moving armored vehicles with extra machine guns mounted on it and armor to protect the men is better to fire from. One of the reason why anti-tank guns fell out of use was they took too long for infantry to jump out and set up, and in that time frame they could expect return fire or for the enemy tank to go away. Lightly armored tank destroyers largely replaced them like the Hellcat or M10 or M36, during WWII, as it became clear that infantry slowly setting up their weapons was a mistake, it was better to move in and fire quickly then move in, set down for 30 minutes setting up the weapon and unloading all the ammunition and slowly firing at the target. Having it mounted to a vehicle not only means you can move and fire faster, but that you carry all your ammunition with you, food and water, extra machine guns and armor, and that has a generator to power things built right in to the vehicle via it's engine. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to dismount and try to set the big heavy gun up when you could just keep it mounted to the vehicle. But you can go on saying all sources except yours are fake, even years later, that's fine, might want to seek out a therapist though if you're that attached to the idea.

[Gallia-]

Also, NV, that's some sexy modelling you still got going on... might be back in the market for some more being made if you're up for it. I have coin if Khajit has wares.

EDIT: Also, what do you got for mobile CRAM/CIWS mounted systems for those and do you have dazzler/laser emitters for use in similar missions? Be interesting to see airmobile dazzler trailers and motorized jamming antennas to move about the battlefield...

I'm always up OwO.

Regarding CRAM is as you see the one i have is that LolHuge tracked vehicle. No "small" CRAM-CIWS yet. and No laser and jammers yet.

Dumbla being expanding galaxy brains probably just turns all its FIM-92 factories (or rather, aluminum rolling machines) into MHTK-expies.

Twice as long twice as big as actual MHTK but no warhead only HTK and a pop-pop Dragon style ring of rockets.

:thinking:

I guess it's mounted on a Bradley with a single or double Bushmaster setup and like 32 Stinger-HTKs in a biggish turret.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Wasn't sure if I should put this into IDT, since that thread has been dead for a while.

What level of fieldcraft or bushcraft training is appropriate for regular light infantry units? Would it be useful to train a few people in each platoon how to do things like tracking, or would that be silly?

Light infantry is basically going to do one of a handful of things: Airborne or air assault missions, mountain warfare, or jungle/forest combat. For airborne and air assault, tracking skills aren't that helpful. But for mountaineers and forest conflicts, I'm not sure. It might be useful but, then again, it might be too expensive and take too long to be effective.

[Sevvania]

Should I shoot this milan missile from two miles away and take out the enemy tank

Considering the MILAN's maximum operational range is 1.2 miles, you should not, because your missile will not reach. As the missile is wire-guided, you will also have to maintain continuous line of sight to the target as you bounce your rickety Toyota across the desert at speed.

Having never operated an anti-tank launcher from the back of a pickup truck, this sounds gloriously Mad Max, but hard.

should I get off within 100 yards of the tank where it's inevitable they will see me and the machine gun will open fire on me and I'm traveling 3 mph with a few rockets on foot since it's heavy, and then slowly set my weapon up to fire?

Or just pull up into cover, peek-a-boo them, then leave.

[Triplebaconation]

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

[New Vihenia]

Is there any real reason on why an active radar homing SAM still actually needs a dedicated fire control radar ? e.g why NASAMS needs a Sentinel. I got into bit of discussion with people in charge selling the system to Indonesia, which kinda surprise me as it :

1.Still needs the Sentinel, means if it got blown by drones or ARM's. you cant fire anything.
2.Not as mobile or concealed as i expected, i think it can fit into shipping container or basically anywhere at least for iteration that being sold to us.

To give an autonumous target search capability that is fine and maybe to datalink missile in flight although for 20 km range i doubt it would be necessary. However missile datalinking function is physically requires much less of power compared to radar application. Considering the active nature of the missile It actually opens the possibility or it should be a norm. The missile system wont need a dedicated fire control radar to get info where to shoot. It can be from elsewhere e.g your airport radar, or any other resources providing it can provide same kill box as if it's fired from airplane. Get it inside the FDC or Command Post (CP). Got processed and target assigned. Fire and if long range fire is desired the CP can have a small stealthy dedicated datalink antenna.

The only thing i can think of is CRAM application or ABM's but. This i guess requires something bigger than Sentinel. Something more akin to Buk M3's. 9S36.

[Purpelia]

I have an idea. And it's one that I would be frankly shocked if it wasn't already being done in the real world which is the primary reason I am asking about it.

Basically, you know how armies need to set up places for people to sleep when they aren't in a dugout on the front lines? Well how about making an entire army base, housing, showers, kitchens, field hospitals etc out of shipping containers. Prefab those things en mass and just transport them as part of a regimental supply train to where ever they are needed for rear line units. You can make them splinter proof (or better) and even bury them underground if the need arises. Cheap to make, easy to ship and generally useful. An army base on the move.

So like, yea. Opinions? Are people doing this already? If not why not? If yes, duh but like tell me about it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

I have an idea. And it's one that I would be frankly shocked if it wasn't already being done in the real world which is the primary reason I am asking about it.

Basically, you know how armies need to set up places for people to sleep when they aren't in a dugout on the front lines? Well how about making an entire army base, housing, showers, kitchens, field hospitals etc out of shipping containers. Prefab those things en mass and just transport them as part of a regimental supply train to where ever they are needed for rear line units. You can make them splinter proof (or better) and even bury them underground if the need arises. Cheap to make, easy to ship and generally useful. An army base on the move.

So like, yea. Opinions? Are people doing this already? If not why not? If yes, duh but like tell me about it.

This has been proposed by some people. I first found it on the much maligned Combat Reform website. The idea is decent on the face of it, however it would require a lot more trucks to be used to get these shipping containers from ports to where the camp is being built.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I have an idea. And it's one that I would be frankly shocked if it wasn't already being done in the real world which is the primary reason I am asking about it.

Basically, you know how armies need to set up places for people to sleep when they aren't in a dugout on the front lines? Well how about making an entire army base, housing, showers, kitchens, field hospitals etc out of shipping containers. Prefab those things en mass and just transport them as part of a regimental supply train to where ever they are needed for rear line units. You can make them splinter proof (or better) and even bury them underground if the need arises. Cheap to make, easy to ship and generally useful. An army base on the move.

So like, yea. Opinions? Are people doing this already? If not why not? If yes, duh but like tell me about it.

The US military uses what they call containerized housing units in a similar capacity. They don't have the same mobility concept as you, but they do use them at bases.

[Purpelia]

How many containers would I need for different sized units anyway? Like I don't imagine I'd need that many to house something like a battalion of troops.
I mean, reading the internet they are cubes 14m long, 2.5m wide and 3m high (rounded). That easily means you can have something like 6 men sleeping bunked above one another in 14 rows per side leading to ~168 per container. Assuming a 2m long 1m wide bed (which is honestly wider than troops need, they are in war and not on holiday) that's 7 beds longitudinally and 2 horizontally. So each level is 14 beds. Now assuming .5m height above each bunk which is more than adequate that's 6 bunks per series. That makes ~84 people per container. Make that 80 if you want to give them some room to breathe.

[Kassaran]

I don't understand why you wouldn't just pack a shipping container with tents, camouflage nets, and plywood if you really needed a mobile and modular housing unit.

[Gallia-]

Can't have soldiers setting up tents. That would be too big brained.

[Purpelia]

I don't understand why you wouldn't just pack a shipping container with tents, camouflage nets, and plywood if you really needed a mobile and modular housing unit.

1. I like the idea of building stuff out of shipping containers.
2. Are weatherproof.
3. That would be too easy.
4. I can make them armored vs splinters or even bury them underground.
5. Tents are for field use, when at base you actually want something more solid. Or so I'd imagine. Like, this is for one of those bases you'd set up in your rear rest areas to have troops spend some days in the rear whilst someone else is using their chance to murder foreign barbarians and their babies with fire. Like I'd imagine an old army would just commandeer houses in a village or town or something for those purposes back in the day. This is replacing that.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

It's nice for more permanent dwellings because you can have electrical, networking, plumbing, and HVAC all set up in the container with external hookups.

I'd consider it as being between a tent and a traditional building.