NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Elan Valleys]

THE ONLY SEAD I KNOW IS MISSILE SPAM QQ

Look up how they did SEAD in Vietnam and the Gulf Wars, and maybe 2003 Iraq as well. It would be more applicable to your smaller aircraft.

My google searching for Iraq War SEAD missions have all ended in failure. Got any links bro?

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... bekaa.aspx

[Crookfur]

@Themiclesia

Can I buy a carrier or 2 from you for a good price?

Certainly. Although we have 123 carriers, we only really use about 40 of them, because our Navy is suffering from undermanning. We don't want these spanking new vessels sitting in the docks to rot away, so we will sell you 2 of them.

Themiclesia collects a special due from each of her colonies to fund the carriers, and this due isn't represented in the budget. We keep on collecting the due even if we already have all the carriers we need, and from the '90s onwards, the new carriers just sit in the docks. The funds are by statute required to be put towards carriers. As the colonies' economies boomed, so did the due.

Dude to put it simply you don't have the personnel to maintain and operate 1 carrier.

To be frank just admit that you've buggered things up and start a fresh, nobody will think any less of you for doign so. However coming up with increasingly bizarre explanations for simple absurd will make you look like a fool.

The joy of NS roleplaying is that you can go back and fix things and you don't have to stick rigidly to things that don't work. Everyone here has had to change something about their nation or thier ideas at some point after issues have been pointed out to them.

Yes it can be fun to Roleplay a political mill stone that hamstring's your nations military, but what you have put forward goes well beyond that.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

THE ONLY SEAD I KNOW IS MISSILE SPAM QQ

Look up how they did SEAD in Vietnam and the Gulf Wars, and maybe 2003 Iraq as well. It would be more applicable to your smaller aircraft.

My google searching for Iraq War SEAD missions have all ended in failure. Got any links bro?

Look up the Bekka Valley air war in Syria by Israeli forces. No F-15s lost, Syrian IADS smashed.

10,80 is a relatively small tank force NS wise. The US has built over 8,000 Abrams, granted most of them are in storage, but if it came to all out war I think the majority of them would be able to be brought back into duty. 1,080 active MBTs is a very reasonable number given NS budgets and conflicts.

Most of those Abrams are obsolete. Their armor is far inferior, and they probably have 105mm Guns.

As I recall, pre-A1 standard Abrams tanks account for a fifth or less of total production.

My google searching for Iraq War SEAD missions have all ended in failure. Got any links bro?

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... bekaa.aspx

I misspelt Bekaa.

This is how you execute SEAD without #stelff #swag #yolo

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Here's an artillery rocket launcher.
LET US GATHER AROUND IT, COMRADE

Libyans cannot into logic, for some reason.
Also,

UNRELATED
Is there any worth for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM70E2 rocket launcher?
Think Trans linked it a couple days ago, looks cool but I imagine that in trying to be a towed field gun launching rockets, it loses most of the advantage of multiple launch rocketry.

[Immoren]

Do SPG sections usually have their section leader and section sergeant in separate HQ/command team like somewhat with towed guns (except command position is within APC or LUV or something like that) or do section leader and section sergeant command one of the vehicles in section like in tank troops?

Wanna say they're separate. Lemme check my field manual, gimme one sec.


EDIT:

According to FM 100-60, the Soviet SPG organization does not have a separate command team for individual sections. But at the platoon level, which is one up from section and typically contains three sections, there is indeed a separate command unit.

Section in artillery is same as platoon.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Wanna say they're separate. Lemme check my field manual, gimme one sec.


EDIT:

According to FM 100-60, the Soviet SPG organization does not have a separate command team for individual sections. But at the platoon level, which is one up from section and typically contains three sections, there is indeed a separate command unit.

Section in artillery is same as platoon.

You sure that's true of the Soviets?

[Immoren]

Section in artillery is same as platoon.

You sure that's true of the Soviets?

Dunno.

Firing position team
-Command MT-LB

Driver/Commander
Commander/Driver

-Firing position team

Firing position officer
Firing position NCO
Firing position Specialist
RTO

Close protection Squad
-MT-LB

Driver/Commander
Commander/Driver

-First team

Squad leader
SAW gunner
Grenadier
AT-guy
AT-guy

-Second team

Squad 2iC
SAW gunner
Grenadier
AT-guy
AT-guy

Gvodzika Squad

Squad leader
Driver
Gunner
Loader

Gvodzika Squad

Squad leader
Driver
Gunner
Loader

Gvodzika Squad

Squad leader
Driver
Gunner
Loader

[Samozaryadnyastan]

In practice, Gvozdikas were employed as direct-fire counter-fortification, counter-battery and limited anti-tank.
The organisation may be different in more generic SPG units, such as those for Msta or 2S3 and such.

[Immoren]

In practice, Gvozdikas were employed as direct-fire counter-fortification, counter-battery and limited anti-tank.
The organisation may be different in more generic SPG units, such as those for Msta or 2S3 and such.

Yet Finns are happily using Gvodzikas to give indirect support to motorized and mechanized battle groups(currenctly), and previously for armoured brigades.

I remember someone critizicing that only good use for 2S5 Giatsint-S is training for use of SPGs, but they aren't good as battlefield pieces. I wonder if that's true.

[Purpelia]

In practice, Gvozdikas were employed as direct-fire counter-fortification, counter-battery and limited anti-tank.
The organisation may be different in more generic SPG units, such as those for Msta or 2S3 and such.

Yet Finns are happily using Gvodzikas to give indirect support to motorized and mechanized battle groups(currenctly), and previously for armoured brigades.

Is that so... In that case would making a modern high tech 123mm SPG to serve in the same role be a good idea? And would it be a good idea to make the gun compatible with the regular two piece tank ammo?

[The Akasha Colony]

UNRELATED
Is there any worth for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM70E2 rocket launcher?
Think Trans linked it a couple days ago, looks cool but I imagine that in trying to be a towed field gun launching rockets, it loses most of the advantage of multiple launch rocketry.

For a modern long-range rocket most of the induced inaccuracy is going to be from variations in the rocket itself and atmospheric conditions. The barrel won't do much if anything to correct that. So IMO, a simpler multi-tube launcher would be better.

10,80 is a relatively small tank force NS wise. The US has built over 8,000 Abrams, granted most of them are in storage, but if it came to all out war I think the majority of them would be able to be brought back into duty. 1,080 active MBTs is a very reasonable number given NS budgets and conflicts.

Most of those Abrams are obsolete. Their armor is far inferior, and they probably have 105mm Guns.

Most M1s in the stockpile are M1A1s (4,796 of 8,343), so they'd have the M256. Of course, there are 1,547 M1A2/SEPs alone.

So apparently my friend, Novegorod, thinks that ATGMs kill armored warfare. So what do you guys think of this?

There was much trumpeting about this initially, but the cost and size of ATGMs vs conventional shells plus the relative ease with which CE protection can be added to tanks helped keep the first wave of ATGMs at bay. This new round of top-attack munitions has to contend with APS installations, which are by no means a magical shield but do enough to reduce the effectiveness of medium and low velocity projectiles that dedicated high-velocity weapons are still useful.

[Lolzieristan]

Section in artillery is same as platoon.

You sure that's true of the Soviets?

The field manual itself says that three sections go into a platoon in the Soviet Army. Now, this thing hasn't always been all that reliable about the naming of units (seem to recall someone telling me that they used regiments in the Soviet Army, though this thing has brigades), but the info remains the same: Soviet artillery units had separate command units for every organization group except for the very bottom one, whatever it may be called.

[Elan Valleys]

You sure that's true of the Soviets?

The field manual itself says that three sections go into a platoon in the Soviet Army. Now, this thing hasn't always been all that reliable about the naming of units (seem to recall someone telling me that they used regiments in the Soviet Army, though this thing has brigades), but the info remains the same: Soviet artillery units had separate command units for every organization group except for the very bottom one, whatever it may be called.

A motor rifle regiment is essentially a weak mechanised infantry brigade.

They also had brigades, though.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The field manual itself says that three sections go into a platoon in the Soviet Army. Now, this thing hasn't always been all that reliable about the naming of units (seem to recall someone telling me that they used regiments in the Soviet Army, though this thing has brigades), but the info remains the same: Soviet artillery units had separate command units for every organization group except for the very bottom one, whatever it may be called.

A motor rifle regiment is essentially a weak mechanised infantry brigade.

They also had brigades, though.

In what way 'weak'?

[Elan Valleys]

A motor rifle regiment is essentially a weak mechanised infantry brigade.

They also had brigades, though.

In what way 'weak'?

Tank company instead of battalion IIRC.

Although most of my Soviet knowledge applies to Afghanistan; a theatre where up to 60% of a unit might contract hepatitis and a 'battalion' might be able to deploy 200 men on a good day.

[The Kievan People]

The Russian military has two names for brigade-sized formations: Polk which is an indigenous Russian word that we translate as regiment and Brigada, which is unsurprisingly a loan word.

They are not consistent in applying these. Though AFAIK there are no divisions with Brigada. But since the translation of Polk to regiment is not an iron law it is not as inconsistent as it seems.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

In what way 'weak'?

Tank company instead of battalion IIRC.

It was, however, chock-full of direct-fire capable artillery, and apparently issuing RPKs to everyone who wasn't an infantryman.
Made up for it by also assigning an entire Tank Regiment at the Divisional level.

[Immoren]

in finnish terminology both squad and army group are reffered with same word "ryhmä"
lack of imagination or attempt to confuse enemy intel?

[Lubyak]

in finnish terminology both squad and army group are reffered with same word "ryhmä"
lack of imagination or attempt to confuse enemy intel?

Moscow, 1939

"So, you mean to tell me the entire Finnish border is patrolled by a mere 10 men? Hmm..this gives me an idea.

[Purpelia]

Random question time. I was contemplating having a small number of infantry organic to my tank forces under the battalion level. In particular an infantry platoon in each tank company. Now, contrary to all you know about me this platoon would actually be a unit of light infantry. That is to say it would consist of infantry only without any support weapons and driving in APC's. The formation would look something like this:

Tank Infantry Platoon
Command Section
- standard motor rifle infantry command section
3 x Tank Infantry Squad
APC (tracked Sisu Pasi equivalent)
Section 1
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 2
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 3
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 4
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

The idea being that the platoon divides into 3 squads, each assigned to one of the 3 tank platoons in my tank company. That way, each tank platoon has 1 APC full of infantry or 1 fire team of 4 per tank.

Opinions?

[The Akasha Colony]

Random question time. I was contemplating having a small number of infantry organic to my tank forces under the battalion level. In particular an infantry platoon in each tank company. Now, contrary to all you know about me this platoon would actually be a unit of light infantry. That is to say it would consist of infantry only without any support weapons and driving in APC's. The formation would look something like this:

Tank Infantry Platoon
Command Section
- standard motor rifle infantry command section
3 x Tank Infantry Squad
APC (tracked Sisu Pasi equivalent)
Section 1
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 2
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 3
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 4
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

The idea being that the platoon divides into 3 squads, each assigned to one of the 3 tank platoons in my tank company. That way, each tank platoon has 1 APC full of infantry or 1 fire team of 4 per tank.

Opinions?

I would imagine the APC itself would be a bit vulnerable in combat relative to the tanks it's supposed to support. Otherwise it's the same direction I was moving in except that this unit would be administratively a separate company that would then be detached in the field to the tank company commander. This allows the tank commanders to not have to deal with the administrative details of supplying an infantry unit.

The US Army has a similar structure except it's a 2 + 2 split (which is why an Armored BCT's combined arms battalions have two tank and infantry companies each).

[Immoren]

again reminds me of ye olde finnish tank company toe. Except platoon moved as tank desants or with trucks. And platoon didn't take part in combat, but guarded and upkept tank platoons' encampments while tank crews were resting at night.

[Purpelia]

again reminds me of ye olde finnish tank company toe. Except platoon moved as tank desants or with trucks. And platoon didn't take part in combat, but guarded and upkept tank platoons' encampments while tank crews were resting at night.

That was the general idea. The infantry in this unit would help with maintenance, guard encampments, help in reloading and refueling and generally do all that stuff. And in combat, they would act to support the tanks in a limited fashion by providing a small pool of men that are highly trained in operating with said tank unit and can provide local security (looking out so that no one sneaks up with a molotov). Obviously I would have tanks operating as a part of a larger combined arms formation that would detach proper heavy infantry units to support these. And this infantry is in no way meant to replace them.

I would imagine the APC itself would be a bit vulnerable in combat relative to the tanks it's supposed to support.

Imagine the thing as an IFV that loses it's turret for 4 extra seats. It's definitively not a light armored APC. The APC designation is only there because it lacks the firepower to act as an IFV.

Otherwise it's the same direction I was moving in except that this unit would be administratively a separate company that would then be detached in the field to the tank company commander. This allows the tank commanders to not have to deal with the administrative details of supplying an infantry unit.

A company is way too big for my needs here. But I had the same notion when I gave them a standard Platoon HQ. The command staff in there would be directly under the company commander and handle all their own administrative needs.

The US Army has a similar structure except it's a 2 + 2 split (which is why an Armored BCT's combined arms battalions have two tank and infantry companies each).

My battalions will have a proper Motor Rifle Company attached. Full heavy support and all. I am a big fan of 3+1 units.

Overall, do you people think the formation as described has merit?

[United Republics of Aralon]

Random question time. I was contemplating having a small number of infantry organic to my tank forces under the battalion level. In particular an infantry platoon in each tank company. Now, contrary to all you know about me this platoon would actually be a unit of light infantry. That is to say it would consist of infantry only without any support weapons and driving in APC's. The formation would look something like this:

Tank Infantry Platoon
Command Section
- standard motor rifle infantry command section
3 x Tank Infantry Squad
APC (tracked Sisu Pasi equivalent)
Section 1
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 2
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 3
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

Section 4
Section Leader - Rifle, UGL, sidearm
Machine Gunner - MG3, sidearm
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo
Rifleman Assistant - Rifle, sidearm, MG ammo

The idea being that the platoon divides into 3 squads, each assigned to one of the 3 tank platoons in my tank company. That way, each tank platoon has 1 APC full of infantry or 1 fire team of 4 per tank.

Opinions?

We also do this. We assign a squad of ten to each pack(three tanks).There are two packs in each tank platoon and three platoons in a company.What I recommend is to ditch 3 of the GPMGs as your infantry is expected to keep up with tanks on foot in tactical situations.Use IARS(our choice despite 1930ies ERA I'm gonna post those beauties sometime soon) or LMGs. We also attach two car mounted mortar squads, each with two of our glorious 52mm silent mortars, to suppres FOPs and anti armor squads.
Our ten man squads ride in to battlle in the glorious Chariot Mk.5 ICV(IFV regressed to WWII tech)

According to URA Doctrine having infantry support with tank companies is VITAL , as on uneven forest terrain, or in cityfights,
well trained infantry can quickly obliterate light to medium armor, or even heavy armor, if they have good AP stuff, and terrain and numbers are both in their favor.
Our Squad looks like this:
Fire team one:
-Squad Leader: Rifle(carbine), sidearm, rifle grenades. *All rifles are LC-14 Mk.III straight pull rifles. Carbine is LC-14/C
-Rifleman(Team leader):Rifle
-Rifleman:Rifle*
-Rifleman:SMG,
-Automatic rifleman: H-LAR
Fire team two:
-Team leader Cpl:,sidearm,Rifle, Rifle grenades
Rifleman,Assistant: SMG MG rounds
Rifleman Assistant:Rifle,MG rounds,
Automatic rifleman:H-LAR
Machine gunner: GPMG
One of the rifleman in Fire team one will usually be a qualified marksman and carry a DMR(LC14/SM MkIII with 3x scope)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Of course, the classical Victorian mindset held that men could be exchanged under terms of parole, and could be trusted to not violate their terms and return to combat.

Ah, but that only applied to equally civilized nations. Not to savage primitive natives. And Purpelia sees it self as the one and only civilized nation (with a few foreign nations given the title "civilized" but those are friendly to the point that war is very unlikely). Anyone who Purpelia is likely to fight is also likely to be seen as no better than the British or Spanish saw the native Americans and native African tribes.

Transferred to not threadjack.
I don't believe calling yourself the only truly civilized nation in the vast NS World leads to anything good.