NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

lmao 10,000 tonnes for a 25 km railgun is piss poor considering a railgun that isnt even 1 tonne can achieve that

majestic

[Crysuko]

lmao 10,000 tonnes for a 25 km railgun is piss poor considering a railgun that isnt even 1 tonne can achieve that

majestic

So basically what we've learned from this conversation, is i'm a clot who shouldn't be allowed within 25 KM of a shipyard.

[Kassaran]

lmao 10,000 tonnes for a 25 km railgun is piss poor considering a railgun that isnt even 1 tonne can achieve that

majestic

So basically what we've learned from this conversation, is i'm a clot who shouldn't be allowed within 25 KM of a shipyard.

Hardly.

You're just new to the idea of shipbuilding and utilizing post-modern armament.

I at one point thought the same thing as you about railguns, I'm sure, but now I've slowly begun to recognize what railguns are.

A railgun is your best bet at immediate responses to threats at the distant edges of, or perhaps the edge of the horizon.

How about, instead of making supercarriers armed with these heavy railguns of yours, look into creating smaller vessels with lighter variants? You could of course make a single original design that was land-based for prototyping, like we are now in the real-world... but your ultimate goal with PMT Railguns would be to make a supergun built for intercepting static or easily predicted targets. Now, the other question about railguns is," are they my countries best option of defeating the enemy"? Probably, if you're not a global power and don't have room for raking up the massive research costs involved in finding out how to make affordable rails for your railguns along with the shots, you would be better off streamlining your traditional gun designs while looking into approaching the problem from a different direction.

When you came in asking about railguns, you probably were thinking of 'balancing'. 'Balancing' is a game mechanic to make playing said games fair. Real life isn't fair... at all. Likewise, why offer your enemy a massive island-sized target to shoot at, when you actually can just have a small destroyer sized one... or several? Why offer so many bodies reliant upon a single hull to protect them when you can cut down crew operating costs by using automation and your powerplant can already easily supply the vessel as it is with power for its noted 'power-hungry' systems, like radar and whatnot?

This is the mindset people need to move away from when they approach MT and PMT weapons and shipbuilding. Why give yourself weaknesses when you don't need to? Make a design, identify flaws, refine. If eventually you come to too many flaws, approach the problem from a different direction and engage it from there. Do what real-life engineers do and problem solve by making a hundred different faulty approaches, a hundred more inefficient approaches, a dozen efficient approaches, and eventually perhaps make the best approach? Sometimes, the best approach is not the unique one mind you.

[Crookfur]

Well it would certainly cut down the number of dear John letters the forces post office would have to deal with.

IIRC most conscription systems have been pretty blind to marital status even when they have otherwise taken consideration of dependents.

Keskinen: missed that bit and went straight to the 35,000lb service number however the max bomb load (let alone your slightly expanded one) never going to be the most common load mainly because it limits the fuel load and hurts the range. With the max load victors might have been able to hit France and maybe mine some French Atlantic ports but with a circa 20,000lb load Moscow and further into Russia is doable. 35,000lb would probably be the limit for reaching eastern europe.

As for the training pipeline, yup that would be right.

Yeah, fortunately, a slight advantage I have in the RP region that I'm in is that there's a scattered group of us that allows each other to stage equipment via a NATO-esque agreement, if necessary, which cuts down on the range vs. bomb loading issue.

And as far as the training pipeline, how long for each? I've been using Nordic aircraft, though somehow I missed the Hawk, which is in service with Finland.

Even with lots of regional bases max bomb load missions are going to be few and far between as even the best basing is unlikely to put you right next door to your targets.

If using such bombers you might want to look at developing thier stand off capabilities. Whilst historically the v-bomber stand off capabilities focused on nuclear strikes in the latest 70s/early 80s you would be seriously look at such platforms as the only way to deliver useful amounts of air launched cruise missiles.

As for training times I would probably just base things off the RAF courses:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/idtraf/courses/t ... flying.cfm

You would be looking at the elementary course and then the basic and advanced fast jet courses.

[Austrasien]

1. goal is as a direct fire anti-ship weapon. essentially a cannon.

Have you considered something like, say, a cannon?

Nothing about your requirements suggests a railgun of any kind of EM accelerator would be the best choice. Even in a PMT environment.

[Keskinen]

Even with lots of regional bases max bomb load missions are going to be few and far between as even the best basing is unlikely to put you right next door to your targets.

If using such bombers you might want to look at developing thier stand off capabilities. Whilst historically the v-bomber stand off capabilities focused on nuclear strikes in the latest 70s/early 80s you would be seriously look at such platforms as the only way to deliver useful amounts of air launched cruise missiles.

As for training times I would probably just base things off the RAF courses:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/idtraf/courses/t ... flying.cfm

You would be looking at the elementary course and then the basic and advanced fast jet courses.

Ok, that makes more sense now. The big thing is that there's not a whole lot of turn over in the Air Force for pilots, because we're not involved in constant conflicts which was my reasoning for the extended courses.

Also, did I miss a memo or something? It seems to me that the vast majority of players attach their rotary wing forces to the regular Air Force, rather than an Army Aviation group. Now, I'm an American, so that may play into it (fixed wing is mostly Air Force, helos are mostly Army) but are there any real advantages of lumping helicopters in with the fixed-wing aircraft?

[Crookfur]

Even with lots of regional bases max bomb load missions are going to be few and far between as even the best basing is unlikely to put you right next door to your targets.

If using such bombers you might want to look at developing thier stand off capabilities. Whilst historically the v-bomber stand off capabilities focused on nuclear strikes in the latest 70s/early 80s you would be seriously look at such platforms as the only way to deliver useful amounts of air launched cruise missiles.

As for training times I would probably just base things off the RAF courses:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/idtraf/courses/t ... flying.cfm

You would be looking at the elementary course and then the basic and advanced fast jet courses.

Ok, that makes more sense now. The big thing is that there's not a whole lot of turn over in the Air Force for pilots, because we're not involved in constant conflicts which was my reasoning for the extended courses.

Also, did I miss a memo or something? It seems to me that the vast majority of players attach their rotary wing forces to the regular Air Force, rather than an Army Aviation group. Now, I'm an American, so that may play into it (fixed wing is mostly Air Force, helos are mostly Army) but are there any real advantages of lumping helicopters in with the fixed-wing aircraft?

Well in the British military the RAG tends to have the bigger transport helicopters ie puma, Merlin and chinook whilst the army air corps. has the gunships and light to medium utility things (lynx), its a division that stems from ww2 largely where the RAF has always flown the transport airvraft and the AAC had its own fleet of observation and laison aircraft. It's from those roles and origins that the current helicopter fleet has developed. The only service that gets all it's own stuff is the navy even if the royal marines have to use lynx that formally belong to the army.

[Gallia-]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 5/Appc.htm

how cool guys breach minefields

[Allanea]

Well, until NVU-P detects your crawl and kills you and your entire squad with one of its OZM mines.

[Gallia-]

Until you sweep the minefield with an HPM and kill all sensors that aren't pressure springs.

Probably mandatory before a dismounted sweep given that NVU-P is just a worse form of M7 Spider, or is basically Matrix.

[Allanea]

Until you sweep the minefield with an HPM and kill all sensors that aren't pressure springs.

So, something that doesn't actually exist yet?

Existing RFEMI/EMP/HPM munitions don't really kill landmine sensors permanently unless they're right on top of them.

[Gallia-]

I never said anything about the landmines.

[Allanea]

I never said anything about the landmines.

It's highly likely magnetic sensors will actually become hypersensitive when exposed to EMP [this occurs in experiments], and complex sensors like those on MANPADS are often just temporarily disabled.

Vibration sensors on landmines existed since 1943 and are terrifyingly simple. [No electronics are involved at all.] Even if an actual NVU-P won't work (which I doubt), I don't thin kyou want to be crawling across a 1980s minefield with a stick.

Of course, the US military had no HPM munitions at the time this was drawn (other than, of course, the option of using nukes), and still does not have them, and has no plans to field them in the near future as far as anyone knows.

[Gallia-]

I never said anything about the landmines.

It's highly likely magnetic sensors will actually become hypersensitive when exposed to EMP [this occurs in experiments], and complex sensors like those on MANPADS are often just temporarily disabled.

EMP isn't HPM.

Vibration sensors on landmines existed since 1943 and are terrifyingly simple. [No electronics are involved at all.] Even if an actual NVU-P won't work (which I doubt), I don't thin kyou want to be crawling across a 1980s minefield with a stick.

Why do you think that NVU-P is protected against microwave attack? It's a system of wires and some seismic sensors hooked up to a computer. Literally the same thing as Matrix Remote Trigger System and the US Army's M18 Claymore and M5 MCCM, or a broadly inferior version of M7 Spider. Not surprising since both are from roughly the same time period.

It would be very difficult to totally shield it from HPM since it has to talk to things and isn't totally self-contained, which means the application of a Faraday cage would be incomplete and unable to fully protect it.

Of course, the US military had no HPM munitions at the time this was drawn (other than, of course, the option of using nukes), and still does not have them, and has no plans to field them in the near future as far as anyone knows.

Except this is wrong. It has two really obvious HPM systems. CHAMP hasn't seen combat use, but the stupendously named "Max Power" has been to Iraq and blown up some mines in convoy protection role. The latter is the obvious thing I'm referring to:



I suppose there's also Active Denial System, but I doubt that is powerful enough to attack electronics.

It is true that neither existed in the 1980s, but I suspect that most everyone had mine rollers and MCLCs in the 1980s too, so "improvising" your way across a minefield isn't really necessary. When it is, you are probably dealing with similarly poorly equipped forces like Serbians or something, who would lack sensor controlled/networked minefields like Matrix/NVU-P/Spider.

[Theodosiya]

Why don't just bombard suspected minefields with nades, mortars, even 1000kg bombs.

[Allanea]

Okay, I admit I had HPM and EMP confused.

It is true that neither existed in the 1980s, but I suspect that most everyone had mine rollers and MCLCs in the 1980s too, so "improvising" your way across a minefield isn't really necessary. When it is, you are probably dealing with similarly poorly equipped forces like Serbians or something, who would lack sensor controlled/networked minefields like Matrix/NVU-P/Spider.

I don't get what kind of situation this is for.

Either you have mine rollers and MICLIC and so on, in that case you should be using those.

Or you don't, but then you're not likely to have HPM either. It's worth saying here that MAXPOWER did not succeed well in Afghanistan and has been withdrawn from the field for additional testing and is not currently being used.

[Gallia-]

I don't get what kind of situation this is for.

Some dude said he didn't have any mine clearing equipment whatsoever and ran into a minefield, so I suggested that the infantry get out and start probing the minefield with sticks and bayonets. Viky said he should improvise a flail or roller but I'm not terribly convinced an improvised roller would survive more than one mine.

Either you have mine rollers and MICLIC and so on, in that case you should be using those.

Yes, but this guy said he didn't, although he never elaborated on it.

Or you don't, but then you're not likely to have HPM either.

The "sweeping minefield with HPM" prior to a dismounted probe and clear by infantry was mostly a jape comment, though. I'm aware it would be extremely anachronistic, that was the point. That said, I'm not terribly sure how well that correlates. There are more reasons besides "backwardness" that could contribute to a lack of mine rollers or MCLCs. Maybe they all got exploded or something?

But he never said why, either.

It's worth saying here that MAXPOWER did not succeed well in Afghanistan and has been withdrawn from the field for additional testing and is not currently being used.

Interesting. Is there any more information on this truckly and his underperformance?

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

[Allanea]

I've no extensive knowledge of this, except to say it's apparently proven unwieldy (the truck is HUEG LIEK XBOX) and not as reliable as they liked.

But really you should at least have a 2-meter mine probe if you're doing this sort of thing.

[Allanea]

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

They were not as plentifully armed with these weapons as official data may suggest.

[Laywenrania]

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

individual armament with bolt actions or semiautos makes probably no big difference in comparison to general tactics, strageties and logistics.

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

They were not as plentifully armed with these weapons as official data may suggest.

So the Mosin really was the basic weapon most Soviet conscripts had, then?

In the earlier stages of the Eastern Front in WWII, did the fact that Soviet soldiers were more plentifully armed with semiautomatic and automatic weapons like the SVT-40 and PPSH, while Germans may have had their respective versions but not nearly as many of them, make much of a difference?

individual armament with bolt actions or semiautos makes probably no big difference in comparison to general tactics, strageties and logistics.

The 'nuts and bolts' debates over comparative military technology can be a bit of a red herring as you say, but it's fun. And it's also true that being able to lay down more suppressive fire in a quicker time is very helpful - the StG44 showed this, no?

[Allanea]

So the Mosin really was the basic weapon most Soviet conscripts had, then?

It depends.

The Marine Infantry had SVTs in place but most people still, to my knowledge, had Mosins. Just over a million SVTs have been made by the war's start, which wasn't enough to supply most people. To realize how deeply insufficient this was, RKKA small arms losses in the first six months of the war comprised 5,548,039 rifles abandoned or destroyed.

Additionally, SVT just wasn't very good in terms of reliability and accuracy as compared to the Mosin rifle.

[Kassaran]

Alright guys, I got some weird questions coming up, I'm wondering if I can get some answers from you all.

Given a massive earth-shattering event occurred and somehow, theoretically the US fell apart (I'm not asking for how plausible, the RP setting has it already having happened), what would the remnants of the Seventh Fleet be needing to do most after three years stuck in and around the Hawaiian islands, stuck for no good reason other than incredibly inclement weather?

Given that the last anyone heard, the world was simply going dark, no war broke out, there's no animosity between the nations known as the US and Russia anymore, but that's solely because they no longer exist. What would be my minimum necessary fleet to ensure I can still protect against deep sea pirates like rogue Russian and Chinese submariners and irate Japanese whalers? I've currently put it all down as, one Nuke sub still operational as a permanent guard dog, and the USS Nimitz which for all intents and purposes retains less than a handful of usable aircraft because fuel and because the Nimitz is now a generational ship? How many nuclear powered vessels would the Navy likely have left in the 7th Fleet after converting all but the two vessels mentioned into power generators for the civilian populace on Oahu?

Also, is there any oil and fuel production for Naval use in and around Hawaii?

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

As someone who just despises submarines and wants to sink as many as possible with surface ships and aircraft, what's the best way for a surface fleet to find and destroy enemy submarines?