NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Lolzieristan]

It's plagiarism, which is against NS rules.

So what are you expecting me to make my own tactics?

No, we just expect you to either write your own textbook or to refer people to the original page. No shame in doing that, I refer people to Wikipedia when they're unsure of my equipment specs.

[The Akasha Colony]

~five thousand people in five days?
Charter a few Tristars, you'll have it done in three.

Closer to 15,000 in five days. A Stryker brigade is 3,900, and there are three to a division. Then supporting elements such as artillery and what logistics the division is equipped with, plus command elements.

The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.

We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.

Not that far off, since the MOWAG Piranha III it's pseudo-based off of isn't too different. Of course, it's a generation removed from the original Piranha since it's based on the Canadian LAV III, itself a variant of the Piranha. In comparison, the USMC turned their LAV-25s into mini-Bradleys complete with 25 mm autocannon rather than a piddly .50 cal RWS.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.

We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.

It's based off the LAV III, which I'd always thought was a Canadian mod of the LAV-25. Was it always the other way around?

It's plagiarism, which is against NS rules.

So what are you expecting me to make my own tactics?

No, we're expecting you to write about Soviet Deep Battle in a way that isn't plagiarism.

~five thousand people in five days?
Charter a few Tristars, you'll have it done in three.

Closer to 15,000 in five days. A Stryker brigade is 3,900, and there are three to a division. Then supporting elements such as artillery and what logistics the division is equipped with, plus command elements.

The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.

We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.

Not that far off, since the MOWAG Piranha III it's pseudo-based off of isn't too different. Of course, it's a generation removed from the original Piranha since it's based on the Canadian LAV III, itself a variant of the Piranha. In comparison, the USMC turned their LAV-25s into mini-Bradleys complete with 25 mm autocannon rather than a piddly .50 cal RWS.

Fifteen thousand sounds like a large Division.

[The Akasha Colony]

The more I think about it, it seems like the Stryker is an American redo/ripoff of early model BTRs, like the BTR-70. With a fancy interchangeable turret system, and a whole lot of other bells and whistles.

We Americans do like our dings and toots, you know.

It's based off the LAV III, which I'd always thought was a Canadian mod of the LAV-25. Was it always the other way around?

So what are you expecting me to make my own tactics?

No, we're expecting you to write about Soviet Deep Battle in a way that isn't plagiarism.

Closer to 15,000 in five days. A Stryker brigade is 3,900, and there are three to a division. Then supporting elements such as artillery and what logistics the division is equipped with, plus command elements.





Not that far off, since the MOWAG Piranha III it's pseudo-based off of isn't too different. Of course, it's a generation removed from the original Piranha since it's based on the Canadian LAV III, itself a variant of the Piranha. In comparison, the USMC turned their LAV-25s into mini-Bradleys complete with 25 mm autocannon rather than a piddly .50 cal RWS.

Fifteen thousand sounds like a large Division.

Modern US divisions are pretty large in terms of manpower since they have lots of support. At the same time, they're not really even meant to be deployed as a division anymore, since the Army has basically transitioned to BCTs. It might be slightly smaller than 15,000 but it can't be any smaller than 12,000, since the three maneuver brigades alone make up 3,900 personnel.

[Graznovia]

Will I need a replacement for my Backfire Bomber?

Most likely.

Hey, be careful while you're at it, it might Backfire on you!
Jokes aside, my opinion hinges on which model you are using; M3 is pretty much a solid choice. If you're using earlier models, might want to consider upgrading the fleet to M3 standard.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Fifteen thousand sounds like a large Division.

Modern US divisions are pretty large in terms of manpower since they have lots of support. At the same time, they're not really even meant to be deployed as a division anymore, since the Army has basically transitioned to BCTs. It might be slightly smaller than 15,000 but it can't be any smaller than 12,000, since the three maneuver brigades alone make up 3,900 personnel.

And here I was thinking that the Soviet formations were huge...
The Soviet formations have a much greater emphasis on offensive force though. Units that were to some degree non-combat or limited-combat added up to a total ~2500 from fourteen or twelve thousand total for an MRD and TD respectively.

[The Akasha Colony]

Modern US divisions are pretty large in terms of manpower since they have lots of support. At the same time, they're not really even meant to be deployed as a division anymore, since the Army has basically transitioned to BCTs. It might be slightly smaller than 15,000 but it can't be any smaller than 12,000, since the three maneuver brigades alone make up 3,900 personnel.

And here I was thinking that the Soviet formations were huge...
The Soviet formations have a much greater emphasis on offensive force though. Units that were to some degree non-combat or limited-combat added up to a total ~2500 from fourteen or twelve thousand total for an MRD and TD respectively.

From what I've seen, Cold War-era Soviet formations were smaller in manpower but much larger in terms of combat vehicles than US units. A modern US armored division will have fewer than 200 tanks despite having a larger manpower pool than an equivalent Soviet formation.

[Graznovia]

Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

MRDs of the early 1980s had 220 battle tanks, while Tank Divisions (which had three tank regiments to a motor rifle regiment, as opposed to the MRD's 3:1 reversal) had closer to 340.
This is forgetting the 500-1000 IFVs, well over a hundred 152mm artillery pieces towed and self propelled, rocket systems, anti-air, the thousand or so logistical trucks (and mobile field bakeries!) and chemical weapons batteries that either would also have been equipped with.

[The Akasha Colony]

Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?

I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.

[Lolzieristan]

Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?

I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.

The Soviets have the BMD, airborne variants of the BMP. They also have airborne variants of practically any other light vehicle you might want.

I do buy into the idea, personally. Armor support is always nice to have, in any situation.

[Graznovia]

Meanwhile I'd like to ask if there is any point to a light tankette a la the Wiesel that can be easily airlifted or airdropped in quantity, and is petite enough to follow the infantry wherever they go (down alleys in built-up areas, for one)?

I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.

I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?

[Lolzieristan]

I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.

I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?

The main problem with armor in cities isn't their physical size, it's how much easier it is to destroy a tank in the street than a tank in the prairie. You've got unlimited cover, vertical advantages, ready-made roadblocks, confined spaces and bottlenecks...overall, all the infantryman has to do is squeeze off an RPG.

[CTALNH]

So what are you expecting me to make my own tactics?

No, we just expect you to either write your own textbook or to refer people to the original page. No shame in doing that, I refer people to Wikipedia when they're unsure of my equipment specs.

Done that for the tanks.

[The Akasha Colony]

I would find some utility in it, but that assumes the infantry don't already have some kind of transport themselves, since anything a Wiesel can carry, a Humvee could carry as well, but a Humvee can also provide mobility for the troops. It might be worth it for small airborne units, but light vehicles could be airdropped as well.

I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?

Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.

[Ainin]

Your section on Deep Battle strategy is almost a word for word copy of the wiki article on the subject.

So?Its better than most people out there.

It goes against several rules:

• You can't take Wikipedia content without attribution.
• Do not plagiarize on NS.
• All contributions to NSwiki are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see NSwiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?

Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.

Until recently, RPG strike in urban environments stood a high chance of crippling most battle tanks.
Since only the Merkava and Leopard took really serious efforts in addressing roof armour, it's still fairly true that an RPG from a high rise is going to bugger whatever's in the turret basket of an MBT.

[The Akasha Colony]

Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.

Until recently, RPG strike in urban environments stood a high chance of crippling most battle tanks.
Since only the Merkava and Leopard took really serious efforts in addressing roof armour, it's still fairly true that an RPG from a high rise is going to bugger whatever's in the turret basket of an MBT.

High-rises aren't that common though. Even in most Western cities, the vast swath of suburbs and urban outskirts that vastly out-volume the inner city will be composed mostly of short buildings, often more spread out as well. And that's aside from small towns that don't even have an urban center. And a tank will be more suitable to mounting a protective APS than a small tankette.

[Graznovia]

I'd imagine there might be times where due to terrain or limited airlift capability airborne units operate 'light' that is without the support of airdropped APC/IFV, yes. Could such a 'tankette' potentially be viable in urban combat unlike lumbering counterparts like MBTs and APC/IFV?

Unlikely. The drawback to such a small vehicle kept to sufficient airdrop weight is that it will get chewed up by almost any threat. RPGs, any kind of heavy machine gun, and potentially even a medium machine gun with armor-piercing rounds. An MBT can shrug off an RPG strike that doesn't manage to hit a weak point, but any hit on a tankette would be fatal. While it can be used as a supplement, I don't see it fully replacing an MBT in urban combat (nor would it replace an IFV anyway, since it can't replace its troop-carrying capacity). And MBT can brute-force its way through fortifications and strongpoints, which is a capability a tankette would lack.

Okie, time to get down to writing up one then, and I figure it'll be filling a relatively niche role as did Wiesel...

On Akasha's point about APS, gotta agree; a tankette being a far less valuable asset than say a MBT, I for one would not be attempting to mount APS on them.

[CTALNH]

So?Its better than most people out there.

It goes against several rules:

• You can't take Wikipedia content without attribution.
• Do not plagiarize on NS.
• All contributions to NSwiki are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see NSwiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages.

Okay I will go put a IOU on the page happy?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Scaling the roof of the average bungalow (which wikianswers tells me is 11.4ft exactly) would put you a metre above the roof of a battle tank below.
Not especially safe to try and engage from with an RPG, but you might be able to jump atop and put a rather large command-detonated anti-tank mine on the roof to be a dick.

Engaging from the first floor window of a two-story house can only put you higher up, and the same goes for scaling the roof of that. The ridgeline of a terraced two story house is supposedly 8.5m off the floor, putting you six metres above the tank. I live in a box plonked on that very ridgeline of a terraced two story house. If a tank was ever to somehow get itself into the alleyway behind my house, I imagine that (confined space-appropriate weapon allowing, ofc) I'd have no difficulty engaging it.

In this area of Liverpool, these kinds of houses (almost all without the loft conversion box room, sadly) go on for miles east to west. Go to the CBD, you've suddenly got storey after storey of office building to scale.

[Discordant Schism]

I use the PaK 44 a good deal(what can I say... it's a good gun), and I'm fairly sure it would bust up light armored vehicles, maybe even damage a modern MBT(Jagdtiger anyone?) but is it really a god idea to use a 70-year-old gun?

Then again, I also use the Flak 38.

[The Republic of Lanos]

It goes against several rules:

• You can't take Wikipedia content without attribution.
• Do not plagiarize on NS.

Okay I will go put a IOU on the page happy?

Next time, cite your sources or just link to the doctrine you want to use.

[Lolzieristan]

I use the PaK 44 a good deal(what can I say... it's a good gun), and I'm fairly sure it would bust up light armored vehicles, maybe even damage a modern MBT(Jagdtiger anyone?) but is it really a god idea to use a 70-year-old gun?

Then again, I also use the Flak 38.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PaK 44 is a towed gun, right?

[The Akasha Colony]

Scaling the roof of the average bungalow (which wikianswers tells me is 11.4ft exactly) would put you a metre above the roof of a battle tank below.
Not especially safe to try and engage from with an RPG, but you might be able to jump atop and put a rather large command-detonated anti-tank mine on the roof to be a dick.

Engaging from the first floor window of a two-story house can only put you higher up, and the same goes for scaling the roof of that. The ridgeline of a terraced two story house is supposedly 8.5m off the floor, putting you six metres above the tank. I live in a box plonked on that very ridgeline of a terraced two story house. If a tank was ever to somehow get itself into the alleyway behind my house, I imagine that (confined space-appropriate weapon allowing, ofc) I'd have no difficulty engaging it.

In this area of Liverpool, these kinds of houses (almost all without the loft conversion box room, sadly) go on for miles east to west. Go to the CBD, you've suddenly got storey after storey of office building to scale.

The problem is that from that height, the tank can still engage and detect you relatively easily. Were it truly so easy to knock out an MBT in urban combat, I would suspect a lot more tanks would have been lost in Iraq to RPGs, and yet most were lost to IEDs instead. Knowing how to do it on an internet forum is a bit different from properly doing it on the battlefield. This is of course true of any type of insurgent, whether armed with an RPG or a machine gun, but since most are armed with some kind of gun and not an RPG, a tank's ability to shrug off machine gun fire will make it much more survivable than a tankette when confronted with most combat situations.