Guide to Aerial, Ground and Naval Warfare

[Vortiaganica]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

What about attack helicopters and ICBM's? I'd love to have those two coverd as well, since personally I can't really find a use for helicopters other than transportation.

They fall under the Ground Attack and Tactical Airlift categories.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

Depends what non-lethal weapon you want to use. If you wanted to use mustard gas or something of the like, it could work as a repellant or as a cover for an offence.

[Hegstoria]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

Well they already use em. Theres that Humvee mounted heat ray thing being developed for crowd control, and theres that sound emitting device common on freighters and cruise ships that travel through dangerous waters.

[Vortiaganica]

I'm meaning more like microwave technology. (The US uses a weapon that fires microwave rays, which irritate the skin and cause a burning sensation on anyone in front of it to a range, which obviously is not enjoyable)

Or possibly, some sort of really upped up taser gun. (Like, really upped up, through some sort of military funded program, I don't really know how I could up it for military combat)

Basically, an inlet to allow us take over a given territory by forcing the surrender, not forcing a retreat, of troops using non-lethal technology. (As in, without ANY lethal technology, or as little as possible. The technology Hegstoria has mentioned is used for civilian craft, I believe, and isn't supposed to be used in an actual INVASION)

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Maybe vialbe against unarmed civillians, or small groups of soldiers, but I don't think they are designed to replace lethal weapons in conflict.

[Agadar]

What about attack helicopters and ICBM's? I'd love to have those two coverd as well, since personally I can't really find a use for helicopters other than transportation.

They fall under the Ground Attack and Tactical Airlift categories.

Barely anything about helicopter strategies is discussed in any of the guides, nor do any of them talk about ICBM's.

Talking about ICBM's, I'd love to see a guide regarding the use of nuclear weaponry. I'd love to write one myself, but I'm not exactly an expert.

[Vortiaganica]

Maybe vialbe against unarmed civillians, or small groups of soldiers, but I don't think they are designed to replace lethal weapons in conflict.

In your opinion, what would be the best way to use them in tandem with lethal weapons to achieve an equilibrium between winning and not killing?

Any tips if I were to go down the non-lethal path?

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

What about attack helicopters and ICBM's? I'd love to have those two coverd as well, since personally I can't really find a use for helicopters other than transportation.

They fall under the Ground Attack and Tactical Airlift categories.

Barely anything about helicopter strategies is discussed in any of the guides, nor do any of them talk about ICBM's.

Talking about ICBM's, I'd love to see a guide regarding the use of nuclear weaponry. I'd love to write one myself, but I'm not exactly an expert.

The only thing differences between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in combat are that helicopters can hover and can land in a much smaller area than fixed wing aircraft. I really don't think I need to state that. Also be aware that I haven't written a how-to guide, I have written a basic guide to instill a little knowlege about air warfare.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Maybe vialbe against unarmed civillians, or small groups of soldiers, but I don't think they are designed to replace lethal weapons in conflict.

In your opinion, what would be the best way to use them in tandem with lethal weapons to achieve an equilibrium between winning and not killing?

Any tips if I were to go down the non-lethal path?

Its sort of hard to say. Basically, you wouldn't want to send your troops out with only non-lethal weaponry, and you would have to be very careful about how and when you used it. You would basically use it only when the enemy doesn't have their weapons at the ready.

[Satirius]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

Lazer dazzlers are becoming more and more frequently used to blind enemy troops, and the Chinese use them on the Type 99 to blind enemy missiles or the people who operate them.

Permanent blindness is very possible considering that this is NS. The ZM-87 could permanently blind to three kilometers, but it looks approximately as awkward as a Vickers Gun. Dazzlers that temporarily blind come in sizes small enough to mount on rails.

[Vortiaganica]

Hmm...thank you.

I WAS thinking about trying to use non-lethal technology almost as a main weapon for my infantry forces. (Who, because my nation is an island, are very elitist and a fairly small group, mostly there to complement naval and aerial power, as well as in case we need to use force in foreign lands)

Although it seems that it would be a fairly tough proposal to do anything with JUST non-lethal technology.

[Satirius]

Considering enemy infantry is safe if they ducked behind a pillow :/

[-the Ukrainian SSR-]

Considering enemy infantry is safe if they ducked behind a pillow :/

I have two bad*** words.

Rubber. Bullets.

Head. Shots.

Okay that's four but still.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

What about standard personal weapons such as taser batons, bean bag rounds, wax bullets, and rubber bullets as tertiary non-lethal weapons in civilian and COIN situations? I think they would be very useful. For example, if there is some guy in a COIN scenario holding a cell phone, you don't know if he's calling someone or trying to blow something up. Worse yet, if he ignores your warnings to put don the cell phone you have no idea if its because he wants to detonate a bomb or if he just can't understand you. You don't want to chance him blowing anything up, which could hurt you, your fellow soldiers, or someone else, but if he was making a legit call and was innocent blowing his brains out might saddle a conscience. Considering most US and coalition deaths in the Middle East are caused by planted explosives, often triggered by douchebags with mobile devices, a situation such as this is all too common yet unacceptable in modern warfare. It only makes sense that a soldier should have something as a less-lethal backup in scenarios like this. What if you could pull out a wax-tip loaded pistol, rubber bullet dispenser, or ranged taser and knock down the cell phone dude? If he was innocent then sure he'd be pissed at you, but he'd still be alive. Because of the less discriminant nature in which non-lethal force can be used, non-lethal and less-lethal weapons are ideal for urgent, no-time-to-think friend-or-foe scenarios.

[Vortiaganica]

Because of the less discriminant nature in which non-lethal force can be used, non-lethal and less-lethal weapons are ideal for urgent, no-time-to-think friend-or-foe scenarios.

That would be part of the reason why I will DEFINITELY be spending a fair bit of my budget on some non-lethal weapons.

I'm just not sure how far I should go.

Like someone above said. 'A pillow could stop it.' Well, maybe not a pillow, but there is every possibility that I end up overlooking the slightly more dangerous stuff (like shotguns and rocket trucks) in favor of wax bullets.

What I want to do is to use non-lethals or less-lethals in a high quantity on an actual battlefield, where most people are likely to be foe, assuming not everyone is as messed up in the head as I am to go far enough to use non-lethal weapons as a PR stunt.

[Belkan Provinces]

After reading the Urban Warfare section where it lists all the famous Urban Battles:
Stalingrad - my grandpa fought there and was wounded in the leg, right above the knee, they had to amputate it

The Wire guided rockets we trained with were above all the coolest thing I have ever seen, still have the need to shoot a RPG-7 though

[Groko]

subscribe.

[Vortiaganica]

Quick question:

For a half-realistic military, how many personnel should I set for each of my branches? (As an estimate)

The following is my current ideas on the number I want to use for my factbook.

Not sure if they are good numbers. (I have a pop of 2.5 bill...almost, 50 or 60 mil short)

THE VORTIAGANIC ARMED FORCES

VORTIAGANIC POLICE:27,500,000 personnel.
VORTIAGANIC TRAFFIC POLICE:50,000 personnel.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY GUARD (BLACK CATS)-The Vortiaganic Special Police/Dictator's Personal Security Service.:2,500,000 personnel.
THE ROYAL GENDARMIE-The Vortiaganic Paramilitary Service.:500,000 personnel.
THE IRON KNIGHTS-The Vortiaganic Special Forces.:200,000 personnel.
THE HAND OF GOD-The Vortiaganic Elite Platoon.;
20 Students, 4 Teachers, 1 Grandmaster

4 Squads of 10 people each (1 teacher, 9 students) and 1 master to oversee the platoon or be adjoined to one of the squads.
VORTIAGANIC NAVY -The Vortiaganic Navy.:3,000,000
VORTIAGANIC AIRFORCE :3,000,000
VORTIAGANIC ARMY -The Vortiaganic Ground Forces, Logistics and Command:4,000,000

[Rustika]

I made a thread for this, but I got a bunch of people who didn't understand naval warfare telling me it was a terrible idea. So I'm posting it here for people who have a brain to tell me what they think.

Class and type: Lupo class Missile Platform Battleship
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 270.43 m
Beam: 32.97 m
Draft: 11.33 m
Speed: 33 kn (61 km/h)
Complement: 91 officers, 989 enlisted

Armament:
6x DARDO 40 mm Naval guns (AA, can destroy Anti Ships Missiles, and other precision weapons)
2x LIVECO 20 mm AA Guns (AA)
6x Siklvester Side Launchers (Coastal bombardment, Missiles launchers, one can launch 4 Missiles at a time)
21x Sidewinder Launchers (AA Missiles)
20x Maestralo Launchers (Anti Ship)
10x AS Launchers (Anti Submarine Rockets)
4x Hedgehog Depth charge shooters (Anti submarine, can shoot 20 at a time)
5x 324 mm Torpedo Tubes (Homing Anti Submarine/Anti Ship)
2 × SCLAR-H chaff, decoy and flares launchers
2 × SLAT anti torpedo system

Armor:
Belt: 307.3 mm
Bulkheads: 287.0 mm
Barbettes: 294.6 to 439.4 mm
Turrets: 500 mm
Decks: 190.50 mm
Aircraft carried: Piomare Helicopters (2x)

[The PeoplesFreedom]

I made a thread for this, but I got a bunch of people who didn't understand naval warfare telling me it was a terrible idea. So I'm posting it here for people who have a brain to tell me what they think.

Class and type: Lupo class Missile Platform Battleship
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 270.43 m
Beam: 32.97 m
Draft: 11.33 m
Speed: 33 kn (61 km/h)
Complement: 91 officers, 989 enlisted

Armament:
6x DARDO 40 mm Naval guns (AA, can destroy Anti Ships Missiles, and other precision weapons)
2x LIVECO 20 mm AA Guns (AA)
6x Siklvester Side Launchers (Coastal bombardment, Missiles launchers, one can launch 4 Missiles at a time)
21x Sidewinder Launchers (AA Missiles)
20x Maestralo Launchers (Anti Ship)
10x AS Launchers (Anti Submarine Rockets)
4x Hedgehog Depth charge shooters (Anti submarine, can shoot 20 at a time)
5x 324 mm Torpedo Tubes (Homing Anti Submarine/Anti Ship)
2 × SCLAR-H chaff, decoy and flares launchers
2 × SLAT anti torpedo system

Armor:
Belt: 307.3 mm
Bulkheads: 287.0 mm
Barbettes: 294.6 to 439.4 mm
Turrets: 500 mm
Decks: 190.50 mm
Aircraft carried: Piomare Helicopters (2x)

This is really not the appropriate place for this. I'd recommend NSD. http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/NSDraftroom/index.php

[DaWoad]

A (slightly odd) question from myself:

How viable are non-lethal weapons for infantry, airforce or navy? I don't have high hopes of attaching some giant tranquilizer gun(omg this dart in my head is bigger than my whole body) to my navy or some random Microwave 'Death To Morale' Ray on my air force, but would infantry or armour using non-lethal weaponry viably be able to put down enough opposing troops to be viable as a forward attacking force or even most of that attacking force?

Depends what non-lethal weapon you want to use. If you wanted to use mustard gas or something of the like, it could work as a repellant or as a cover for an offence.

mustard gas is lethal not less-lethal

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Depends what non-lethal weapon you want to use. If you wanted to use mustard gas or something of the like, it could work as a repellant or as a cover for an offence.

mustard gas is lethal not less-lethal

Rubber bullets aren't meant to be lethal either, but one shot to the temple and you're gone. I would class Mustard gas as a non-lethal weapon because it isn't employed to kill, but to harrass and incapacitate enemy soldiers.

[Amerikians]

mustard gas is lethal not less-lethal

Rubber bullets aren't meant to be lethal either, but one shot to the temple and you're gone. I would class Mustard gas as a non-lethal weapon because it isn't employed to kill, but to harrass and incapacitate enemy soldiers.

Good sir, Mustard Gas was designed to slaughter enemy soldiers, not harrass and incapaciatate them. It was designed to clear trenches and kill everything in them including the rats. So I disagree on that note. Do not misinform.

[Concordeia]

My suggestion for non-lethal weaponry as part of general warfare is to have plenty of flashbang and chemical incapacitant (knock-out gas) weapons, though the mass use of flashbang munitions could very possibly cause permanent hearing loss. For stopping vehicles, I would recommend high-power microwave beam weapons, seeing as almost all modern vehicles have electronic systems, though they may be shielded. In some situations, if the enemy force is really competent and intent on killing your guys or others, you may have no choice but to resort to lethal measures.