NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[DASHES]

I made some changes to my Army Organization, added a few things, and I am now very proud of the end result.
It is very basic and as I am in love with even numbers, doing the math for it will be very easy when I am deploying a battle-force.

It is below, re-posted from here:
My new Mechanized Infantry Platoons.

I have Motorized Infantry Platoons

(Image)

I also have Logistical Support Platoons

(Image)

I even have Tank Companies now.

(Image)

By the way, this is the DMRFV.
(Yes, I know its crap by modern standards. I made it when I was relatively new to this stuff. I'll replace it soon.)

At the Regimental Level, I also have Heli-Towed Artillery units.

(Image)

Finally, at the Division Level (Divisions are known in the DIC as 'Land Armies') we have Heli-Borne Command Groups:

(Image)

DIC Heavy Infantry Battalion:
- 2 Mechanized Infantry Rifle Platoon(s) [100 Wo/Men in all]
- 2 Motorized Infantry Rifle Platoon(s) [100 Wo/Men in all]
- 5 Logistical Support Platoons [200 Wo/Men in all]
The entire Battalion consists of 400 Infantrymen.

DIC Armored Infantry Battalion:
- 2 Mechanized Infantry Rifle Platoon(s) [100 Wo/Men in all]
- 2 Tank Companies [140 Wo/Men in all]
- 10 Logistical Support Platoons [400 Wo/Men in all]
The entire Battalion consists of 640 Infantrymen.

DIC Heavy Infantry Regiment:
- 14 Mechanized Infantry Rifle Platoon(s) [700 Wo/Men in all]
- 20 Motorized Infantry Rifle Platoon(s) [1000 Wo/Men in all]
- 30 Logistical Support Platoon(s) [1200 Wo/Men in all]
- 10 Heli-Borne Artillery Unit(s) [100 Wo/Men in all]
The entire Regiment consists of 3,000 Infantrymen.

DIC Land Army (Division):
- 3 DIC Heavy Infantry Regiment(s) [3 x 3,000 Wo/Men Infantrymen; 9,000 Wo/Men in all]
- 7 Tank Companies [980 Wo/Men in all]
- 2 Heli-Borne Command Group(s) [20 Wo/Men in all]
The entire Land Army is consisted of 10,000 Infantrymen.

So... Do I have everything I need?

I have never seen so many logistics units. You have half as many soldiers in a battalion as you need. Recommended structure is 3-4 companies, of 3 platoons each, with 700-900 soldiers, not including logistics.

Why do you say three infantry regiments, and then 7 tank companies? Why not a tank regiment composed of two battalions?

The same thing is done on the regiment. Where are the battalions? Listing the platoons like that is not right.

Where are the engineers? AA? Reconaissance? HQ units? The fire support?

No offense, but it seems that you haven't been paying much attention to my post or the thread.

IIRC, it has been stated by several major contributors to this thread that one should have more support personnel than combat personnel in their military. This rule applies to all branches of the military. When things start getting real on the battlefield, the rate of food, fuel, and ammunition consumption is astonishing, so I have plenty of supply trucks attached to my units to combat that (Ha ha... Pun).

I will fix the Regiment and replace the platoon listings with actual battalions.

I admit that I need to make AA and Engineer units. I forgot I needed those, so I'm glad I asked.
As for HQ units, I had the 'Division-Level' DIC Command Groups for that.

For Recon, either Forward Observers or the Air Force handles that (via UAV's). As the Air Force is an entirely different branch, their recon UAV's are not listed here.

As far as Fire Support goes, I have plenty, and I'm surprised that you missed it. I have the 'Regiment-Level' Heli-Towed Artillery Units. If those aren't fire support I'm not sure what is. Additionally, both my Logistical Support Platoons and Tank Companies have Type 63 APC's equipped with BGM-71 TOW's attached to their units. These vehicles double as bodyguards for their units and when the unit is not in immediate danger, they can coordinate in/direct fire salvos with their Divisional DIC Command Groups or a local freindly FIST.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Would it be a poor idea to combine my army and airforce?

[DASHES]

Would it be a poor idea to combine my army and airforce?

Generally, yes it would be a poor idea.
While they do occasionally work together in things like coordinated assaults, during a conflict they are both busy doing their own thing and handling their own range of targets. They do need each other, but they do not need to be together.

[Valita]

I have never seen so many logistics units. You have half as many soldiers in a battalion as you need. Recommended structure is 3-4 companies, of 3 platoons each, with 700-900 soldiers, not including logistics.

Why do you say three infantry regiments, and then 7 tank companies? Why not a tank regiment composed of two battalions?

The same thing is done on the regiment. Where are the battalions? Listing the platoons like that is not right.

Where are the engineers? AA? Reconaissance? HQ units? The fire support?

No offense, but it seems that you haven't been paying much attention to my post or the thread.

IIRC, it has been stated by several major contributors to this thread that one should have more support personnel than combat personnel in their military. This rule applies to all branches of the military. When things start getting real on the battlefield, the rate of food, fuel, and ammunition consumption is astonishing, so I have plenty of supply trucks attached to my units to combat that (Ha ha... Pun).

I will fix the Regiment and replace the platoon listings with actual battalions.

I admit that I need to make AA and Engineer units. I forgot I needed those, so I'm glad I asked.
As for HQ units, I had the 'Division-Level' DIC Command Groups for that.

For Recon, either Forward Observers or the Air Force handles that (via UAV's). As the Air Force is an entirely different branch, their recon UAV's are not listed here.

As far as Fire Support goes, I have plenty, and I'm surprised that you missed it. I have the 'Regiment-Level' Heli-Towed Artillery Units. If those aren't fire support I'm not sure what is. Additionally, both my Logistical Support Platoons and Tank Companies have Type 63 APC's equipped with BGM-71 TOW's attached to their units. These vehicles double as bodyguards for their units and when the unit is not in immediate danger, they can coordinate in/direct fire salvos with their Divisional DIC Command Groups or a local freindly FIST.

Sorry about the logistics comment, I was still confused by your format when I wrote that.

UAVs cannot replace recon units, especially if they're not even in the same branch.

You have six artillery pieces to 10,000 men. This is a tiny amount. Most armies have an artillery unit the same level as their line units - for instance, a BCT would have an artillery battalion (with more guns than you have in a division) on the same level as it's infantry battalions.

I'm afraid to say more until I see the revision as my comments might not apply.

[The UK in Exile]

Would it be a poor idea to combine my army and airforce?

it would increase the ability and effectiveness of aviation at the sharp end and degrade the tail end and maintance.

my theory is this. once the army and the air force are effectively on the same team, they practice together more regularly and the air force focuses on intimate co-operation with army units rather than higher level co-operation. because of that working together on the battlefield improves. however the airlift capacity will get worse. (army priorities will not produce effective air fleet management.) further, now that the air force and army have the same recruiting channel the air force will find it harder to select the right people for the other ranks and also harder to train them to the required standard (which is much higher than most army units). with a knock on effect on maintainance.

[Crookfur]

Random question time.

We all know of the V-22, and for those that don't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22 Good or bad, the aircraft is quite an interesting piece of equipment. Now, recently I ran into something else along the same lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31

Assuming for a moment that the later were given the same development treatment the V-22 got. How do you think the resulting craft would compare? And is there any realistic use for said resulting aircraft or its modern equivalent in the NS battlefield?

Using direct jet lift tends to be a far from ideal solution. if they could have built the DO-31 with later generation pegasus engines it might have had more of a future but with seperate lift engines it was never going to be succesful.

Even witha pair of late mdoel pegasus engiens you woudl end up with aircraft thats a fair bit faster than the V-22 but also consumes a lot more fuel and has the potential for very serious hot gas injestion and landing surface errosion issues which will hamper its ability to operate from anything worse than semi prepared locations. The hot exhuast issues could also be a major concern for laoding and laoding troops in a tactical enviroment.

[Valita]

@Air force discussion: I believe that the main air force should be under the army, with strategic assets in their own corp.

http://z4.invisionfree.invalid.com/NSDraftroom/ ... =8054&st=0

[The Germania Alliance]

Before this discussion continues (and this isn't aimed at anyone), there are no 'AA', or 'Anti-Air' units in existence anymore (at least with the U.S., anyway). It's all 'ADA,' or 'Air Defense Artillery.' No, it's not the same as conventional artillery with air defense elements.

ADA is what you see today with the U.S. Army; Patriot missile launchers, Avengers, Stingers, and et cetera, and are directly related to the ADAM Cell (EDIT: I know SPAAGs and other guns exist, though they fall under 'ADA' today).

To get a better idea what an ADAM Cell is, look no further; http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA%20In%20Action/IraqFreedom/OIF/ADAMCell.pdf

ADA and ADAM Cell are the guys I work with everyday. I get to train them.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

@the continuing airforce discussion

What if I lumped my combat aircraft into the army, like the marine aviators, and left strategic airlift to the airforce?

On a side note, can my MT military have fully autonamos UCAV interceptors?

[The UK in Exile]

@the continuing airforce discussion

What if I lumped my combat aircraft into the army, like the marine aviators, and left strategic airlift to the airforce?

On a side note, can my MT military have fully autonamos UCAV interceptors?

you get a massive turf war over assets that don't obviously belong to only one side. plus the airforce poach all the really good recruits.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Random question time.

We all know of the V-22, and for those that don't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22 Good or bad, the aircraft is quite an interesting piece of equipment. Now, recently I ran into something else along the same lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31

Assuming for a moment that the later were given the same development treatment the V-22 got. How do you think the resulting craft would compare? And is there any realistic use for said resulting aircraft or its modern equivalent in the NS battlefield?

Jets do not unto providing efficient thrust at low speeds. At lift off and at low speeds which are most relevant to this kind of aircraft, the Do31 will use anywhere from 30%-70% more fuel than the V-22 for really no performance gains. In fact unless you start getting into higher subsonic speeds or you carry passengers which demand no cabin noise and vibration, jets won't provide any advantages over turboprops.

[Vitaphone Racing]

On a side note, can my MT military have fully autonamos UCAV interceptors?

No. That tech is a fair way off yet, if it ever comes to fruition.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

On a side note, can my MT military have fully autonamos UCAV interceptors?

No. That tech is a fair way off yet, if it ever comes to fruition.

Fair enough

[Euladis]

The poor mans aircraft carrier

Looks like I could put six Sea Harriers aboard her and have it act as a V/STOL carrier, giving my country some power projection...

Y/N?

Repost

[The Kievan People]

Would it be a poor idea to combine my army and airforce?

it would increase the ability and effectiveness of aviation at the sharp end and degrade the tail end and maintance.

my theory is this. once the army and the air force are effectively on the same team, they practice together more regularly and the air force focuses on intimate co-operation with army units rather than higher level co-operation. because of that working together on the battlefield improves. however the airlift capacity will get worse. (army priorities will not produce effective air fleet management.) further, now that the air force and army have the same recruiting channel the air force will find it harder to select the right people for the other ranks and also harder to train them to the required standard (which is much higher than most army units). with a knock on effect on maintainance.

I don't see how being part of the army will improve any mission but CAS.

[Crookfur]

The poor mans aircraft carrier

Looks like I could put six Sea Harriers aboard her and have it act as a V/STOL carrier, giving my country some power projection...

Y/N?

Repost

Unless you were buying the container ships at seriously knocked down prices off the used amrket you would proabably be cheaper just to build purposed designed through deck cruisers/light carriers/helicopter carriers.

Containership conversions are really for when you need hulls in the water yesterday and can afford to skimp on safety and operational capability.

[Lubyak]

Browsing wiki, I came upon this proposal.

I previously thought a 'Mobile Offshore Base' of this nature was the realm of things like EndWar and other such pieces of media, however, given that the DoD considered such a thing, I have to ask if--in NS--this thing would have any kind of utility?

Thanks.

[Crookfur]

Browsing wiki, I came upon this proposal.

I previously thought a 'Mobile Offshore Base' of this nature was the realm of things like EndWar and other such pieces of media, however, given that the DoD considered such a thing, I have to ask if--in NS--this thing would have any kind of utility?

Thanks.

MOBs and JMOBs are so '04 At one time the NS oceons were so full of MOBs and Super dreads/Caps that you could proabably have walked from any given island nation to another...


I'll need to dig up some of the stuff about the OMP regional MOBs.

[Purpelia]

Here is a thought. You know how each squad will have an assault section and a support section. And the support section will as a rule consist of several heavy weapons guys with their assistants. For example, my squad looks something like this:

IFV (IFV/Squad Commander, IFV Gunner, IFV Driver)

Assault Section
1x Rifleman (Rifle, UGL)
1x Rifleman (Rifle, Shotgun)
1x RPG Rifleman (Rifle, RPG-7)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the RPG and UGL)

LMG Section
1x LMG operator (LMG)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the LMG)

Grenade Rifle Section
1x Grenade Rifle operator (Grenade rifle)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the grenade rifle)

Now, my idea and indeed question is this. Would it pay off to have the underlined squad members be equipped with a DMR instead of a standard rifle? Nothing that my DMR would be a very accurate version of my standard battle rifle, so still fully auto capable but just with a better scope and maybe some sort of light bipod.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Here is a thought. You know how each squad will have an assault section and a support section. And the support section will as a rule consist of several heavy weapons guys with their assistants. For example, my squad looks something like this:

IFV (IFV/Squad Commander, IFV Gunner, IFV Driver)

Assault Section
1x Rifleman (Rifle, UGL)
1x Rifleman (Rifle, Shotgun)
1x RPG Rifleman (Rifle, RPG-7)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the RPG and UGL)

LMG Section
1x LMG operator (LMG)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the LMG)

Grenade Rifle Section
1x Grenade Rifle operator (Grenade rifle)
1x Assistant (Rifle, ammo for the grenade rifle)

Now, my idea and indeed question is this. Would it pay off to have the underlined squad members be equipped with a DMR instead of a standard rifle? Nothing that my DMR would be a very accurate version of my standard battle rifle, so still fully auto capable but just with a better scope and maybe some sort of light bipod.

1: Why do you have an RPG, UGL, and grenade rifle? They all do the same thing.

If the RPG is for AT, that's better served in specialized units at a higher level.

2: Assistants to heavier weapons do well with automatic carbines and grenades, very good for impromptu protection.

Honestly, a LMG, Assistant, DMR, and NCO as the gun team, the rest as assult is pretty standard.

Or you can skip an LMG, run SAW or autorifle, and keep firepower organic to two identical squads.

Or go overboard and do both, like me.

[Purpelia]

1: Why do you have an RPG, UGL, and grenade rifle? They all do the same thing.

Not exactly. Each actually does its own thing.

The RPG is not only there for AT work. Instead, it is more of a general purpose hand held artillery piece. The RPG-7 is renowned for its HEFRAG rounds and I am certain I can develop a thermobaric round as well making it even more deadly. That's part of the reason why I put it in the assault section. It's supposed to blast the way forward for the infantry.

The UGL is there to act as a grenade launcher flinging grenades into windows and trenches.

The Grenade rifle is something like this: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/ch/qlb-06-qlz-7b-e.html
It's a semi automatic rifle firing 35mm grenades designed to suppress enemies and blast apart stuff.

They each have their own role seperate from one another.

2: Assistants to heavier weapons do well with automatic carbines and grenades, very good for impromptu protection.

I always figured that since these weapons would be doing suppression work over a distance impromptu protection would not be that common of an occurrence.

Or you can skip an LMG, run SAW or autorifle, and keep firepower organic to two identical squads.

SAW's are overrated if you ask me. There is absolutely no reason not to spring for something like a M60 or MG3 when my squads are already all firing full auto bullpup battle rifles in 7.5 Swiss.

[Immoren]

2: Assistants to heavier weapons do well with automatic carbines and grenades, very good for impromptu protection.

I always figured that since these weapons would be doing suppression work over a distance impromptu protection would not be that common of an occurrence.

They are still relatively close to assault team. And giving assistant DMR just distracts him from his job of protecting weapon operator and serving gun.

[Dostanuot Loj]

1: Why do you have an RPG, UGL, and grenade rifle? They all do the same thing.

Not exactly. Each actually does its own thing.

The RPG is not only there for AT work. Instead, it is more of a general purpose hand held artillery piece. The RPG-7 is renowned for its HEFRAG rounds and I am certain I can develop a thermobaric round as well making it even more deadly. That's part of the reason why I put it in the assault section. It's supposed to blast the way forward for the infantry.

The UGL is there to act as a grenade launcher flinging grenades into windows and trenches.

The Grenade rifle is something like this: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/ch/qlb-06-qlz-7b-e.html
It's a semi automatic rifle firing 35mm grenades designed to suppress enemies and blast apart stuff.

They each have their own role seperate from one another.

2: Assistants to heavier weapons do well with automatic carbines and grenades, very good for impromptu protection.

I always figured that since these weapons would be doing suppression work over a distance impromptu protection would not be that common of an occurrence.

Or you can skip an LMG, run SAW or autorifle, and keep firepower organic to two identical squads.

SAW's are overrated if you ask me. There is absolutely no reason not to spring for something like a M60 or MG3 when my squads are already all firing full auto bullpup battle rifles in 7.5 Swiss.

Actually, the GR and UGL fill exactly the same roles. There is no reason to have both.

RPG fills this role as well, but can be kept because it's so large. But simply issuing LAWs to everyone would be better, as it doesn't take a dedicated gunner.

[Purpelia]

Actually, the GR and UGL fill exactly the same roles. There is no reason to have both.

How can a weapon that fires 40mm grenades some 50m perform the same role, or be designed for the same role as a rifle firing 35mm grenades 800m? That just does not compute. One is a heavy weapon meant for suppression while the other is just a way to chuck a hand grenade a bit further away.

RPG fills this role as well, but can be kept because it's so large. But simply issuing LAWs to everyone would be better, as it doesn't take a dedicated gunner.

A proper RPG is both far more accurate than a LAW or similar weapon and more versatile as you only have to carry one launcher and can switch between the different missiles as you please. And you can carry far more ammunition since the rounds them self are much lighter than a whole launcher.

Disposable launchers are all fine and well to have in your vehicle if you want but a RPG is where it's at.

[Valita]

The point of a grenade rifle is the same as a UGL, just be better at it.