NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Sibauk]

Would AShM TELs based on islands just 1700 and 600 km² in size be too easy to find to be worth having? For comparison these islands would have roughly 20% and 10% of the coastline of Taiwan (which has AShMs on TELs) respectively.

Attack by nuclear weapons is not a consideration BTW.

Edit: Perhaps Singapore, a 700 km² island nation that only fields ship and air-launched Harpoons is a better comparison.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Could you design an Army uniform including a cloak (with trackpants covering the legs and body armour underneath)?
Would it be effective as uniform for medics and logistics soldiers?

Could you?

[Puzikas]

Could you not repeat your question every other post?

What makes you think a cloak isn't part of historical uniforms?
What makes you think that a uniform is meaningfully better or worse for a medic or a logistical troop than it would be for a line infantryman?
What makes you think that track pants are coveralls?
What makes you think ANY of these things you ask?

Would AShM TELs based on islands just 1700 and 600 km² in size be too easy to find to be worth having? For comparison these islands would have roughly 20% and 10% of the coastline of Taiwan (which has AShMs on TELs) respectively.

Attack by nuclear weapons is not a consideration BTW.

Edit: Perhaps Singapore, a 700 km² island nation that only fields ship and air-launched Harpoons is a better comparison.

Nah you can hide TELs for AShMs pretty easily it's just a matter of how developed an island of that size is and if you can construct competent earthworks and camouflage for them

[Romextly]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Could you design an Army uniform including a cloak (with trackpants covering the legs and body armour underneath)?
Would it be effective as uniform for medics and logistics soldiers?

Could you?

You could but why would you? Medics and logistics guys still have to be in the field running the risk of being blown up. It is cheaper to issue everyone the same uniform.

[Romextly]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

But in a fight tank v. tank, with all other variables considered, which would win?

[Korva]

Whoever shoots first.

[Romextly]

Whoever shoots first.

So it's fair game?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Could you?

You could but why would you? Medics and logistics guys still have to be in the field running the risk of being blown up. It is cheaper to issue everyone the same uniform.

Thanks. You would for cultural reasons. TG me if you want more info.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

But in a fight tank v. tank, with all other variables considered, which would win?

According to a US Army study from World War 2, the tank that shoots first usually wins.

[Dayganistan]

Thanks. You would for cultural reasons. TG me if you want more info.

Real world armed forces issue the exact same uniform to everyone regardless of any cultural reasons. The only difference might be a different camo pattern for a different branch. For field uniforms, just be normal and give everyone the same BDU. For parade uniforms, go nuts with the cultural attire.

[Triplebaconation]

Ah, the traditional cultural costume of track suit and cape.

Assume arable land and water exist within the vast interior of the supercontinent.

Not very Pangea then.

Yes, "climate levels" are in part determined by the shape of the continents. The interiors of these landmasses may not necessarily be a giant desert but they will tend to be arid with extreme latitudinal and seasonal temperature differences due to a lack of moderating ocean currents.

Even today the vast majority of people live near the coast, I'm not sure how he expects this would change.

[Crookfur]

2 of the Heroic Logisticians of the Sharifstani Logistics Corps reassuring the mother of one of thier brave new recruits:

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

2 of the Heroic Logisticians of the Sharifstani Logistics Corps reassuring the mother of one of thier brave new recruits:

(Image)

They're also issued a bayonet in case someone tries to grab their cloak

[Korva]

Yes, but which one is the atheist living in a theocracy whose parents are 3rd cousins of different faiths?

Will he make a good soldier?

[Triplebaconation]

"Don't worry, ma'am, in the 80% likely event your 17.5-year-old 5' 12" son dies delivering this load of track pants his wife and mistress will receive a generous pension in addition to their salary at the cape factory. Are you chaste and devout enough to join my wives and me for dinner this evening?"

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Yes, but which one is the atheist living in a theocracy whose parents are 3rd cousins of different faiths?

Will he make a good soldier?

I know it's a joke but realistically the atheist would join a Marxist faction.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

"Don't worry, ma'am, in the 80% likely event your 17.5-year-old 5' 12" son dies delivering this load of track pants his wife and mistress will receive a generous pension in addition to their salary at the cape factory. Are you chaste and devout enough to join my wives and me for dinner this evening?"

LOL.

[Immoren]

Why do some militaries use cardinal numbers for units instead of ordinal numbers.
Like 2 parachute regiment instead of 2nd parachute regiment?
Is it because it ordinal numbering implies seniority between those units?

[Triplebaconation]

No, the British put much more emphasis on seniority even though they use ordinal numbers. It's just a language thing.

[United Earthlings]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

When you have to build 1.7 T-34s to equal 1 Sherman and your own soldiers think the lend-lease Sherman tanks their getting are better overall, that should tell you something. So, yes the T-34 is indeed the better tank, but only because I'm bias and I like the look of the T-34 better.

Even today the vast majority of people live near the coast, I'm not sure how he expects this would change.

Someone forgot to do their research, because last I checked, less than 40% didn't make a majority, but then what do I know, I only live in this alternate reality.

[Husseinarti]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

Depends.

Both the T-34 and M4 Sherman on paper were very much so "good" tanks. They did their job and did them well.

The USSR had sent some early T-34 models to the US not to long after war were declared in 1941, and the US had good things to say about gunnery optics and a few other things, while also being aggravated at a few others.

"Quality" and "Quantity" are two things you balance in mass-production, when you find yourself fighting a war of survival against a nation that seeks to unironically wipe your race off the face of the Earth, and has launched the largest ground offensive in the world to do it. You end up focusing on quantity over quality. As well, the Soviet industrial system suffered from a lack of "unified" production standards across the various tank factories, which themselves had to be moved sometimes thousands of miles further into the USSR as to avoid their capture by the Nazis. Not just the factory, but the entire infrastructure that was supposed to support it was moved deep into the USSR.

This, combined with the issues of a "unified" production standard and rapid need for vehicles after the loss of what, 60% of its pre-war tank inventory is little over a month or so, meant the USSR really didn't always have time to focus in the niceties of manufacturing its tanks. It did have however a similar system of mass-production the US had, as they had contracted US industrial developers to assist them in such endeavors pre-war. In short, they produced allot of "bad" to "passable" tanks, fighting the largest land war in history. Comparing a T-34 built in 1942 vs an M4 Sherman in 1942 isn't wrong, but it needs context. On paper its much more even between the two.

The M4 Sherman was a tank designed to go thousands of miles to fight somewhere. Much like the Japanese, the USA knew its wars wouldn't be fought on its soil and needed to come up with a tank that could be supported thousands of miles away with minimal hassle. The M4 throughout the war maintained a very high standard of production as you know. The US factories didn't have to move thousands of miles, the factories had decades of manufacturing experience already, and they weren't being bombed or risked blown up.

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

When you have to build 1.7 T-34s to equal 1 Sherman and your own soldiers think the lend-lease Sherman tanks their getting are better overall, that should tell you something. So, yes the T-34 is indeed the better tank, but only because I'm bias and I like the look of the T-34 better.

no

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

Depends on the metric. For the Soviet Union, it was. T-34s were cheaper and easier to manufacture than the Sherman. However, for the US, the T-34 would be absolutely the most useless pile of junk in the history of armored warfare. The T-34 worked for the Russians because they built it with planned obsolesence in mind and had rail lines to the factories. The US had to ship everything overseas. As such, while the Russians were alright in reducing the lifespan of a vehicle to reduce its cost and complexity, the US could not make that sacrifice. Anything that would be sent overseas HAD to be able to fight anywhere in the world for prolonged periods of time with the only maintenance facilities being a tent with a mud floor.

The T-34 that fought WW2 wasn't supposed to fight WW2. So you're halfway right

[Triplebaconation]

but then what do I know

Apparently not that "near" is a relative term. Indeed, if I were to choose some arbitrary distance for near such as two inches, only a small minority of people would live near the ocean!

It's well-established that population density falls off sharply in relation to distance (more precisely distance and elevation due to the influence of navigable rivers) from the ocean. While nobody knows the current exact percentage given the rapid population growth of coastal megacities, a majority of the population almost certainly lives within 200 kilometers of the ocean. You may not consider this "near," but again this a relative term so a semantic argument would be fruitless.

A 66% supermajority is estimated to live within 400 kilometers of the coast.

The relationship between economic activity and distance from the coast is even more pronounced.

What this means for your supercontinents is perhaps best illustrated visually.



The dark purple strip is approximately 200 kilometers at the Equator, while the light purple is 400 kilometers. The majority of the population will live in temperate areas in these strips. The rest will be largely trackless waste, as are the interiors of most continents with the exception of Europe even today.

To answer your question, land warfare probably wouldn't be any different. Why would it? Was land warfare historically more advanced in the Great Plains than in Italy?

Naval warfare would probably be more important than in the real world, particularly in the area around the Tethys Sea and the large rift in Gondwanaland.

[Gallia-]

Quick question. Is the T-34 a better tank than the M4 Sherman?

When you have to build 1.7 T-34s to equal 1 Sherman and your own soldiers think the lend-lease Sherman tanks their getting are better overall, that should tell you something. So, yes the T-34 is indeed the better tank, but only because I'm bias and I like the look of the T-34 better.

Even today the vast majority of people live near the coast, I'm not sure how he expects this would change.

Someone forgot to do their research, because last I checked, less than 40% didn't make a majority, but then what do I know, I only live in this alternate reality.

ughhhh