NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Triplebaconation]

The baseline drift at 39,600 yards is 1,756.8 yards, so at 45km, which is about the range that he wants to engage at with the slightly extended range weapon he has in mind, which is about 50,000 yards, the drift will be ~3,000+ yards roughly on the basis of the increase of those figures. Coupling to that the additional deviations on the basis of other factors and you may as well say a prayer before you fire the salvo, as only the hand of God will put the shells anywhere near an OTH moving target.

I am just endlessly amused by the notion of expressing your CEP in units of battleship.

Drift has nothing to do with CEP. It's caused by gyroscopic force in the direction the shell is spinning and is a known quantity that would be input into a fire control solution. This is why this kind of stuff is listed in a range table.

Mean dispersion of a good WW2 battleship gun would be about .5% of range. At 45km this is a probable error of 190m.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I wonder how many >305 mm shells it would take to suppress a WWII tank regiment.

[The New California Republic]

I wonder how many >305 mm shells it would take to suppress a WWII tank regiment.

I have a table of the number of 152mm shells to inflict certain casualty rates on a US tank batallion, and it says that 180 shells would be needed to inflict 8% casualties. However, actual suppression usually means about 20 to 30%, so more than that; but the larger shells you are asking about would offset that somewhat. As a ballpark guesstimate you are probably talking about 300 shells to achieve the 20 to 30% casualty figure on a batallion size. Adjust accordingly for a regiment.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do Muslim countries ever use female spies as honeytraps?

[Austrasien]

Yes I have and it very much is. I have been expanding on it each time, but it is all part and parcel of the same generic problem of accuracy in this specific scenario that I was getting at, which needs an exegesis of the problem at each step if the conversation is going to go anywhere. Trying to hold me to account for discussing several points as part of a general conversation about a specific aspect (accuracy) of a specific scenario is a bit weird tbh, and I'm not entirely sure why you are doing it, but it's probably better if you stop.

Why else? It's wrong! Anyone who reads it and thinks its correct gets wrong ideas that lack of laser rangefinders in biplanes was somehow important. To the very limited extent this thread has any purpose at all, it should be to propagate useful facts.

[Gallia-]

I wonder how many >305 mm shells it would take to suppress a WWII tank regiment.

I have a table of the number of 152mm shells to inflict certain casualty rates on a US tank batallion, and it says that 180 shells would be needed to inflict 8% casualties. However, actual suppression usually means about 20 to 30%, so more than that; but the larger shells you are asking about would offset that somewhat. As a ballpark guesstimate you are probably talking about 300 shells to achieve the 20 to 30% casualty figure on a batallion size. Adjust accordingly for a regiment.

>300 shells

Lol. It obviously depends on how well dug in, how dispersed, and how camouflaged the tanks are. If you're just trying to suppress the 3-4 battalions that the regiment has, and nothing else, it will be much better to use a large amount (a dozen or so) of nuclear weapons to attack the tank companies (or platoons) directly, as the expenditure of conventional weapons beyond attacking a battalion is far too high to justify, really. You're talking about thousands (or tens of thousands) of shells distributed across dozens of targets. A 4x4x4 battalion would probably require well north of 5,000 shells distributed across its fighting units, and that would require each fighting unit's location to be known reliably, as suspected and dummy positions would probably be employed to bamboozle intelligence gathering.

Conversely you be able to suppress the same unit, assuming you knew where about half or a third or so of its platoons were reliably, with a couple dozen nuclear artillery shells.

180 shells might be able to suppress a platoon of 3 tanks, an APC, and a dozen infantrymen with a couple ATGW, in the open. The Soviets would probably have classified it as a harassing fire since it would be a fairly pitiful barrage. A more common number is about 600-700 rounds of 6" shells to suppress a platoon with dug in positions. Without direct observation of fall of shot, this climbs to about 2,400. Obviously depending on the physical location of the firing batteries in relation to the target some units will be firing more, or less, shells at the target.

Curiously this "180 shells" is the exact figure that appears in Soviet norm firing tables (the mathematics are far too tedious to be done for each fire mission without computers, as it would require several minutes of computation per target, assuming the gunnery officer is good at algebra and knows his multiplication tables [why wouldn't he?]) for 152-mm batteries suppressing a platoon defensive position. 240mm mortars, which might equate a 305mm gun, require about 100-120 shells, depending on the range. Since this is such a common gunnery school problem in Soviet (and Russian) field artillery schools (i.e. "how many shells are needed to suppress a mechanized-tank combined platoon defensive position of 200x300 meters in open terrain with minimal defensive preparation given these values and formulae...for full credit, show your work.") we already know the answer and it is explained in depth in C. Bellamy's Red God of War.

[The New California Republic]

I have a table of the number of 152mm shells to inflict certain casualty rates on a US tank batallion, and it says that 180 shells would be needed to inflict 8% casualties. However, actual suppression usually means about 20 to 30%, so more than that; but the larger shells you are asking about would offset that somewhat. As a ballpark guesstimate you are probably talking about 300 shells to achieve the 20 to 30% casualty figure on a batallion size. Adjust accordingly for a regiment.

>300 shells

Lol. It obviously depends on how well dug in, how dispersed, and how camouflaged the tanks are.

Yes obviously it depends on different factors, but again that's why it's an estimate, which is what the person asking the query was wanting, since they didn't describe the scenario in detail.

it will be much better to use a large amount (a couple dozen) of nuclear weapons,

He was asking about a WW2 scenario.

Curiously this is the exact figure that appears in Soviet norm firing tables

It was a US Army table that I was using.

[Gallia-]

>300 shells

Lol. It obviously depends on how well dug in, how dispersed, and how camouflaged the tanks are.

Yes obviously it depends on different factors, but again that's why it's an estimate, which is what the person asking the query was wanting, since they didn't describe the scenario in detail.

It's a shitty one unless you mean nukes.

it will be much better to use a large amount (a couple dozen) of nuclear weapons,

He was asking about a WW2 scenario.

He's asking about Panzer General because he's playing Panzer General instead of the vastly superior Star General, which is better because it has Space Marines with lasers and hover tanks, and not L A M E things like Bulgarians tbh, even if it's just a reskin of Panzer General.

Anyway, 18,000 rounds is a better estimate than 180.

Curiously this is the exact figure that appears in Soviet norm firing tables

It was a US Army table that I was using.

It's assuming something bizarre then, like every shell being a self-guided death weapon like Excalibur, or submunition cargo shell like ICM, or a nuclear weapon. 300 shells will not suppress a battalion. Nor a company. It might suppress a tank platoon, assuming the fall of shot is observed, and the shells are highly capable fragmenting warheads or ICM cargo shells.

[The New California Republic]

Yes obviously it depends on different factors, but again that's why it's an estimate, which is what the person asking the query was wanting, since they didn't describe the scenario in detail.

It's a shitty one unless you mean nukes.

He was asking about a WW2 scenario.

He's asking about Panzer General because he's playing Panzer General instead of the vastly superior Star General, which is better because it has Space Marines with lasers and hover tanks, and not L A M E things like Bulgarians tbh, even if it's just a reskin of Panzer General.

Anyway, 18,000 rounds is a better estimate than 180.

It was a US Army table that I was using.

It's assuming something bizarre then, like every shell being a self-guided death weapon like Excalibur, or submunition cargo shell like ICM, or a nuclear weapon.

Then blame the US Army, not me.

[Gallia-]

It's a shitty one unless you mean nukes.



He's asking about Panzer General because he's playing Panzer General instead of the vastly superior Star General, which is better because it has Space Marines with lasers and hover tanks, and not L A M E things like Bulgarians tbh, even if it's just a reskin of Panzer General.

Anyway, 18,000 rounds is a better estimate than 180.



It's assuming something bizarre then, like every shell being a self-guided death weapon like Excalibur, or submunition cargo shell like ICM, or a nuclear weapon.

Then blame the US Army, not me.

You're the one not bothering to follow up by fact checking your own sources.

Hell, not even fact checking, just plausibility checking. Soviet norms are a bit outdated since they never properly incorporated ICMs or guided submunitions to the tables, they always assumed WW2-era HE-F, but they are more than applicable to that role and they tell us that you need about 300 shells, with observed, at fairly short range (about 4-5 kilometers), to suppress a platoon. Target set is one APC, two tanks, 4 ATGW, 8 machine guns, 30 troops, minimally dug-in with some light overhead cover for a couple machine guns.

[The New California Republic]

Then blame the US Army, not me.

You're the one not bothering to follow up by fact checking your own sources.

I'm not in the habit of second-guessing every single source regarding answering a throwaway question asked by another forum user.

[Gallia-]

You're the one not bothering to follow up by fact checking your own sources.

I'm not in the habit of second-guessing every single source regarding answering a throwaway question asked by another forum user.

Then you should find better sources, like Chris Bellamy's thesis (or book he turned into a thesis), or Steel Wind, or something.

Field manuals are only good if you know what they're talking about. If someone is telling you you can inflict nearly 10% casualties on a tank battalion with a piddly 180 shells then something strange is going on. This could be a lot of things: maybe they have a different definition of casualty, maybe they're assuming the tanks aren't dug in or in defensive positions, maybe they're firing highly capable shells. Not all of these reasons are especially nefarious or duplicitous, but the results are certainly jarring to someone who is interested enough in a subject to try to understand it somewhat.

A quick and easy table lookup for battery commanders is that each hectare of land being fired on by battalion is 180 shells at 12 kilometers. Granted, that is for destruction, rather than suppression, but the figure is the same 180 shells, and the requirements for suppression will be more similar to destruction than harassment. Perhaps you misread the given firing norms of a Soviet battalion against an American target?

[The New California Republic]

Then you should find better sources, like Chris Bellamy's thesis (or book he turned into a thesis), or Steel Wind, or something.

I'll add it to the list. Thanks.

[The New California Republic]

Perhaps you misread the given firing norms of a Soviet battalion against an American target?

Nope, target type is US tank batallion. It gives a lower figure in the defence, i.e. a dug in enemy however.

[Gallia-]

Perhaps you misread the given firing norms of a Soviet battalion against an American target?

Nope, target type is US tank batallion. It gives a lower figure in the defence, i.e. a dug in enemy however.

If the tanks are gathered at an assembly area in the open, then even a light dusting of shells will be dangerous. I somehow doubt even 180 HE-F would inflict more than maybe 2-3% casualties on a unit though. It would be a spoiling attack at best, because it would stop them for a couple hours while they recover. It took a battery of multiple rocket launchers firing submunition cargo shells and ICM bombs to inflict about 10% casualties in the rocket attack, which is far more efficient than any cannon.

Also Bellamy is somewhat inconsistent in his use of "suppression" and "destruction" in the explanation it's a bit difficult to tease out what he means by certain things, like whether or not the 180 shells/hectare is an actual destruction fire plan or simply a continuation of the previous discussion on suppression of a platoon fighting position, since he used destruction and suppression interchangeably there as well, but whatever. However, I suspect the 30% marker for suppression lies at around 100-120 shells/hectare because the platoon is dispersed across 6 hectares of area, assuming minimal defensive preparation (light overhead cover for crew weapons, slit trenches, etc.).

[The New California Republic]

Nope, target type is US tank batallion. It gives a lower figure in the defence, i.e. a dug in enemy however.

If the tanks are gathered at an assembly area in the open, then even a light dusting of shells will be dangerous.

Also Bellamy is somewhat inconsistent in his use of "suppression" and "destruction" in the explanation it's a bit difficult to tease out what he means by certain things, like whether or not the 180 shells/hectare is an actual destruction fire plan or simply a continuation of the previous discussion on suppression of a platoon fighting position, since he used destruction and suppression interchangeably there as well, but whatever. However, I suspect the 30% marker for suppression lies at around 100-120 shells/hectare because the platoon is dispersed across 6 hectares of area, assuming minimal defensive preparation (light overhead cover for crew weapons, slit trenches, etc.).

For illustrative purposes regarding an infantry batallion instead of a tank batallion, the same number of 152mm shells the table asserts 31% casualties in the attack, and 12% in the defence.

[Gallia-]

If the tanks are gathered at an assembly area in the open, then even a light dusting of shells will be dangerous.

Also Bellamy is somewhat inconsistent in his use of "suppression" and "destruction" in the explanation it's a bit difficult to tease out what he means by certain things, like whether or not the 180 shells/hectare is an actual destruction fire plan or simply a continuation of the previous discussion on suppression of a platoon fighting position, since he used destruction and suppression interchangeably there as well, but whatever. However, I suspect the 30% marker for suppression lies at around 100-120 shells/hectare because the platoon is dispersed across 6 hectares of area, assuming minimal defensive preparation (light overhead cover for crew weapons, slit trenches, etc.).

For illustrative purposes regarding an infantry batallion instead of a tank batallion, the same number of 152mm shells the table asserts 31% casualties in the attack, and 12% in the defence.

Where are they getting these numbers and why aren't you looking at that lol?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tbh I was interested in asking whether or not really big calibre guns on floating memes were any more effective than 6 to 8 inch guns in breaking up tank regiments with nefarious agendas. I guess not.

[The New California Republic]

For illustrative purposes regarding an infantry batallion instead of a tank batallion, the same number of 152mm shells the table asserts 31% casualties in the attack, and 12% in the defence.

Where are they getting these numbers and why aren't you looking at that lol?

It doesn't say where they are getting it from but since it's US Army estimates I assume it'll be a combo of past combat experience and simulations.

[The New California Republic]

Tbh I was interested in asking whether or not really big calibre guns on floating memes were any more effective than 6 to 8 inch guns in breaking up tank regiments with nefarious agendas. I guess not.

Oh you.

[Gallia-]

Tbh I was interested in asking whether or not really big calibre guns on floating memes were any more effective than 6 to 8 inch guns in breaking up tank regiments with nefarious agendas. I guess not.

They can shoot big nukes I guess and maybe substantial cargo munitions but otherwise no not really.

Explosives obey the inverse cube law, which means that you need 8x the explosive to be twice as big a boom.

That said Galla has a battery of self-propelled 16" guns mounted on MBT-70s because the field artillery has a cannon cult.

Where are they getting these numbers and why aren't you looking at that lol?

It doesn't say where they are getting it from but since it's US Army estimates I assume it'll be a combo of past combat experience and simulations.

Bold of you to assume the US Army relies on either of these things.

[The New California Republic]

[...] MBT-70s [...]

I remember reading books years ago from the time that made reference to the MBT-70 and how it was going to be such a great thing, and then shortly after it was cancelled. Then a similar thing happened with Sergeant York: all the literature at the time said how good it was, and one book said how many were going to be in service within the next two years, and then the same year as the publication date of the book the project was cancelled. It was good at locking on to toilet extractor fans though, so extractor fans beware.

[Allanea]

Tbh I was interested in asking whether or not really big calibre guns on floating memes were any more effective than 6 to 8 inch guns in breaking up tank regiments with nefarious agendas. I guess not.

They are.

At least if we are to assume that the artillery manuals I have in front of me mean anything.

According to the chart I have here, 152mm howitzers firing HE-F require 150 shells per hectare to suppress entrenched armored vehicles. 203 mm shells reduce this requirement to 40 shells per hectare. One can imagine a further reduction with 305mm shells, although for obvious reasons PSUO-96 does not include them (at that time Russia did not have any such armament).

[Kassaran]

What's the most Sid Meiers a civilization could get? Like, having railgun battleships, but not having jet planes... Morddh from Greater Dienstad is basically cold war-era tech, but spread across multiple planets as they went interstellar relatively quickly in their history and now are a dominant space power from virtue of just having more shit up in orbit and across the Solar System. Is this just an aesthetics thing primarily, or are there actual examples of nations developing really advanced technologies for the time and simply running out of ways to apply them outside of their specific specialty, and thus we never see widespread use of the implications of that technology...

[Taihei Tengoku]

All industrial technology occurs simultaneously. Before then China invented everything but didn't figure out cheese or glass.