NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Galla-]

They might try to but it wouldn't necessarily work, their is lag in finding out the missiles are coming, lag in ordering the launch, lag in those orders being distributed and then lag in the actual launch. The main thing is that both sides have nukes that are almost impossible for the opponent to reach in various forms, one of those being the submarines.

So then why build/place those ICBM's in those nice bunkers in the Midwest in the first place?

Because it is flat and easy to maintain the facilities since you don't have to climb a few mountains, and it's easy to move ICBMs via roadways and aircraft to be placed into silos.

[The Akasha Colony]

They might try to but it wouldn't necessarily work, their is lag in finding out the missiles are coming, lag in ordering the launch, lag in those orders being distributed and then lag in the actual launch. The main thing is that both sides have nukes that are almost impossible for the opponent to reach in various forms, one of those being the submarines.

So then why build/place those ICBM's in those nice bunkers in the Midwest in the first place?

ICBMs predated SLBMs, which required great strides to be made in miniaturization before being viable. Even then, until the most recent generation of missiles, ICBMs were more accurate, and had a longer range, making them more desirable as first-strike weapons than the less-accurate SLBMs, which also required their launch vehicles to get closer to their targets. Politically, ICBMs were the domain of the Air Force, while SLBMs were the domain of the Navy, and both heavily lobbied Congress to maintain their own nuclear arsenals, since both feared becoming irrelevant in a nuclear exchange. The Army had nuclear artillery, but as perhaps the most basic combat force, was hardly in any danger of being abolished.

Geographically, the Midwest was ideal since it wasn't located near any major cities, and had lots of land to space the silos out reasonably far from each other. With few people in the area, it would also be easy to police, and civilians wouldn't have to protest them for making the enemy target their cities with even more nukes. It also forced a dilution of the enemy's nuclear arsenal, since now they had to hit both the isolated nuclear sites (which otherwise would've been passed over) and the conventional cities, industrial bases, and military facilities. The Midwest also allows a shorter travel distance to reach the USSR via the North Pole.

The bunker configuration came about through politics. Originally, silos were used because they were an easy way to keep missiles out of the elements and protect them from attack, since weaker nukes could be more easily defended against. Later, when the Soviet nuclear arsenal reached a size that allowed it to send multiple nukes against each American base, and reached a yield that made hardening impractical, other configurations were tested, such as the road-mobile Midgetman and the initial plans for the rail-mobile Peacekeeper. But the Midgetman never entered service, and the Peacekeeper was eventually turned into a conventional silo-based missile, alongside the Minuteman III, its older relative. Rather flawed thinking claimed that clustering the missiles together would lead to 'fraticide' by the incoming Soviet missiles, which was obviously never tested.

Nowadays, nuclear weapons have taken a clear backseat to conventional weapons in terms of development funds, so there are no new systems to replace the old silo-based ones. Most nations are moving toward a nearly exclusively submarine-based deterrent, as SLBMs now have the same range and accuracy as land-based missiles, and treaties like START limit the number of MIRVs they can carry, the last advantage possessed by ICBMs.

[Cresilia]

So then why build/place those ICBM's in those nice bunkers in the Midwest in the first place?

ICBMs predated SLBMs, which required great strides to be made in miniaturization before being viable. Even then, until the most recent generation of missiles, ICBMs were more accurate, and had a longer range, making them more desirable as first-strike weapons than the less-accurate SLBMs, which also required their launch vehicles to get closer to their targets. Politically, ICBMs were the domain of the Air Force, while SLBMs were the domain of the Navy, and both heavily lobbied Congress to maintain their own nuclear arsenals, since both feared becoming irrelevant in a nuclear exchange. The Army had nuclear artillery, but as perhaps the most basic combat force, was hardly in any danger of being abolished.

Geographically, the Midwest was ideal since it wasn't located near any major cities, and had lots of land to space the silos out reasonably far from each other. With few people in the area, it would also be easy to police, and civilians wouldn't have to protest them for making the enemy target their cities with even more nukes. It also forced a dilution of the enemy's nuclear arsenal, since now they had to hit both the isolated nuclear sites (which otherwise would've been passed over) and the conventional cities, industrial bases, and military facilities. The Midwest also allows a shorter travel distance to reach the USSR via the North Pole.

The bunker configuration came about through politics. Originally, silos were used because they were an easy way to keep missiles out of the elements and protect them from attack, since weaker nukes could be more easily defended against. Later, when the Soviet nuclear arsenal reached a size that allowed it to send multiple nukes against each American base, and reached a yield that made hardening impractical, other configurations were tested, such as the road-mobile Midgetman and the initial plans for the rail-mobile Peacekeeper. But the Midgetman never entered service, and the Peacekeeper was eventually turned into a conventional silo-based missile, alongside the Minuteman III, its older relative. Rather flawed thinking claimed that clustering the missiles together would lead to 'fraticide' by the incoming Soviet missiles, which was obviously never tested.

Nowadays, nuclear weapons have taken a clear backseat to conventional weapons in terms of development funds, so there are no new systems to replace the old silo-based ones. Most nations are moving toward a nearly exclusively submarine-based deterrent, as SLBMs now have the same range and accuracy as land-based missiles, and treaties like START limit the number of MIRVs they can carry, the last advantage possessed by ICBMs.

Very informative. I hope you guys don't mistake my curiosity for ignorance, I was merely interested. Did the USSR/Russian Federation have silos in the middle of Siberia?

[Transnapastain]

Siberia, for reference.

If this old image is to be believed, and my geography skills have not failed me, I believe they did, at least in the Eastern Siberian districts, like up in the Urals. It looks to me like most of them are further to the east,

[Spirit of Hope]

ICBMs predated SLBMs, which required great strides to be made in miniaturization before being viable. Even then, until the most recent generation of missiles, ICBMs were more accurate, and had a longer range, making them more desirable as first-strike weapons than the less-accurate SLBMs, which also required their launch vehicles to get closer to their targets. Politically, ICBMs were the domain of the Air Force, while SLBMs were the domain of the Navy, and both heavily lobbied Congress to maintain their own nuclear arsenals, since both feared becoming irrelevant in a nuclear exchange. The Army had nuclear artillery, but as perhaps the most basic combat force, was hardly in any danger of being abolished.

Geographically, the Midwest was ideal since it wasn't located near any major cities, and had lots of land to space the silos out reasonably far from each other. With few people in the area, it would also be easy to police, and civilians wouldn't have to protest them for making the enemy target their cities with even more nukes. It also forced a dilution of the enemy's nuclear arsenal, since now they had to hit both the isolated nuclear sites (which otherwise would've been passed over) and the conventional cities, industrial bases, and military facilities. The Midwest also allows a shorter travel distance to reach the USSR via the North Pole.

The bunker configuration came about through politics. Originally, silos were used because they were an easy way to keep missiles out of the elements and protect them from attack, since weaker nukes could be more easily defended against. Later, when the Soviet nuclear arsenal reached a size that allowed it to send multiple nukes against each American base, and reached a yield that made hardening impractical, other configurations were tested, such as the road-mobile Midgetman and the initial plans for the rail-mobile Peacekeeper. But the Midgetman never entered service, and the Peacekeeper was eventually turned into a conventional silo-based missile, alongside the Minuteman III, its older relative. Rather flawed thinking claimed that clustering the missiles together would lead to 'fraticide' by the incoming Soviet missiles, which was obviously never tested.

Nowadays, nuclear weapons have taken a clear backseat to conventional weapons in terms of development funds, so there are no new systems to replace the old silo-based ones. Most nations are moving toward a nearly exclusively submarine-based deterrent, as SLBMs now have the same range and accuracy as land-based missiles, and treaties like START limit the number of MIRVs they can carry, the last advantage possessed by ICBMs.

Very informative. I hope you guys don't mistake my curiosity for ignorance, I was merely interested. Did the USSR/Russian Federation have silos in the middle of Siberia?

If I remember correctly the USSR had its silos placed in the Ural mountains, which during the beginning of nuclear missile times was sorta a bad idea as technology progressed it became a better idea. The US used the plains wich for he above started reasons was a good idea, and at first ICBMs had accuracy measured in hundreds of meters or worse, so the enemy missiles might not even hit the silo. Then missiles got more accurate and it was realized that mountains could act as a shield to partially protect the silos from incoming enemy missiles.

[The Kievan People]

That's wrong.

The first Soviet ICBM base was at Baikonaur which was founded for that purpose. The first Soviet ICBM was controlled by Radio commands and mountains would have caused unnecessary LOS complications.

[Dtn (Ancient)]

Plus unless you build silos into actual mountaintops, putting them in mountainous regions will actually increase their vulnerability.

Mobility is a good defense but expensive for a large force. A roadmobile launcher for Minuteman was built, but not deployed. MX proposals included ranged from conventional TELs to underground railway networks to armored rocket-boosted hovercraft missile carriers.

If you have a small force then mobility and secrecy is probably the best option. Nobody even knows what Israeli TELs look like.

[El Gran Tropico]

What would the operating cost be for a single SSBN?

[Dtn (Ancient)]

Approximately $68,759,346.

[Kouralia]

It's a utility helicopter really, though, as I understand these things. Meaning that it can be armed enough to do the attack schtick, but whether it's a better option than a dedicated platform like the Tiger, Apache (Westland license-built version, for preference), Black Shark or Viper is doubtful.

Anyone with more knowledge of helicopters than me want to help out?

S-67 was a dedicated gunship. Insert ad here

It was supposed to carry up to 24 TOW missiles for anti-armour missions, 8 LAU-19 rocket pods, or any combination of that, and could also mount wing-tip Sidewinders, a 30mm chaingun (or 40mm grenade launcher, or anything that would fit in the modular turret), but had an internal compartment with 8 seats for infantrymen.

Seems like a lot of weight, but the S-67 was derived from the S-61 Sea King, so it had a fair bit of lifting capacity with those two engines.

So, my line-arting time was not in vain! I shall replace my Eurocopters with this sexy helicopter as soon as the design is finished! Oh, and that video's nice! The only one even about the S-67 when I searched 'S-67 Blackhawk' was the 'S67 BlackHawk Wings Gunship Recon Team Insertion dynmicpara' video by the titular crow-bag.

S-67 is an attack helicopter derp derp

The Sikorsky UG-60 Black Hawk helicopter is a utility helicopter

I was worried this would happen, that people would think I was trying to turn a transport helicopter into an attack helicopter, that's why I linked to the S-67 article on wikipedia...

[Dtn (Ancient)]

Also, the S-71, a Black Hawk-derived attack helicopter. Only a mockup, but much cooler than the Battlehawk proposals.

Interestingly, the Black Hawk is one of the few Army rotorcraft not to be named after an Indian/Amerindian/Native American/First People/whatever tribe.

[The Reliquary]

(Image)

Also, the S-71, a Black Hawk-derived attack helicopter. Only a mockup, but much cooler than the Battlehawk proposals.

Interestingly, the Black Hawk is one of the few Army rotorcraft not to be named after an Indian/Amerindian/Native American/First People/whatever tribe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk ... _leader%29

[Manoka (Ancient)]

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as nuclear war.

In 26 minutes it would be all over.

[Immoren]

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as nuclear war.

In 26 minutes it would be all over.

26 minutes seems pretty darn specific. Also source?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Does anyone see any insurmountable mechanical issues with my rifles magazine well being canted ~120 degrees or so rearward?

Isn't canting 120 degrees rearwards having them pointing backwards, but also upwards by 30 degrees?

[Amastol]

I believe hes referring to 120 degrees from horizontal, 90 degrees being vertical, 120 degrees being a 30 degree tilt rearward.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Ahh right.
I still don't believe that would be entirely conducive to loading, since most magazines are straight in or canted forwards.

[Amastol]

Well it depends really, its not going to make loading any easier, that's for sure, but it shouldn't be insurmountable. A longer feedramp and thus longer action would be necessary. The drawback beyond longer cycling action is of course a higher chance of jamming as the path between magazine and chamber allows a higher chance of twisting, misfeed, collecting grime, etc.

This is assuming of course he isn't using a titled follower in the magazines to allow traditional linear feeding from an angled magazine (ala Luger), which will reduce the magazines overall capacity, but would mean it doesn't have to worry about complications of a point down load cycle.

Throwing all that out entirely he could be using a Boberg/Mars style rear-extraction method which would make all that somewhat irrelevant as 30 degrees would load probably just fine.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The obvious question is of course, why not go for the simple option?

But that Boberg action looks very interesting for 'super-compact' handguns.

[Amastol]

Well, that's always the question though isnt it? if I had to guess though, either vertical space saving or Aesthetics.

Off-topic: The Boberg/Mars system is rather nifty, the advantage of increased barrel length in the same OAL length is nice, but obviously the trade off is increased complexity. Amusingly its operation is almost identical to the system used on the FN F2000 for extraction and feed into the ejection tube, just flipped upside down.

[Allmann]

Hi, I was thinking of machine guns.
What is the main difference between a light and a medium machine gun? Is it a weight issue?
Could a medium work as a Squad Automatic Weapon or are they usually too heavy?

FN MAG looks to me as a good choice.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I don't think the term MMG is particularly used anymore, GPMG seems to go in its place more.

I personally feel that a light machine gun uses the same cartridge as your standard infantry rifle for ammunition sharing concerns, and can take the form of a belt-fed weapon, or an 'automatic rifle' variant of the standard infantry rifle, a la RPK and AK. This gives you massive parts commonality and excellent familiarity between the two weapons, but belt-fed weapons have much greater ammunition capacity, are possibly more reliable and can typically reach higher rates of fire.
The GPMG, to me, fires a battle rifle cartridge and is exclusively belt fed, with provision for bipod, and also tripod mounting lugs.

The Russians use the PKM/PKP (which fits the definition of GPMG) as an LMG alongside the RPK-74M, so it's not undoable, but the PK series of weapons are lighter than the Western equivalents.

[Crookfur]

I wanna launch this from a really big amphibious assault ship.

I do in my Navy. IIRC (and I may not be, numbers aren't my strong suit) its dimentions were bigger, but not terribly bigger, than the well dock for a Wasp class. I imagine an assault ship could be built to carry it. As it stands, I only carry one, and half the usual amount of AAV's to compensate for its lolhuge size.

I'm pretty sure it can be loaded onto some kind of carrying craft (It looks like it might need to retract/remove its radar and antenna mast to fit properly)

Thats actually just a quay side.

IIRC the whole point of Zubr was that it didn't need a transport vessel for its relatively limited role of quick dashes across the black, aegean and adiratic seas.

it is a truely massive beast, you are looking at roughly a 26-27m wide well deck (as oppsoed to the Wasp's 152m wide well deck) which could easily translate into a 45m beam for the carrying ship i.e. the carrying ship would be a huge bugger

[Crookfur]

Hi, I was thinking of machine guns.
What is the main difference between a light and a medium machine gun? Is it a weight issue?
Could a medium work as a Squad Automatic Weapon or are they usually too heavy?

FN MAG looks to me as a good choice.

role and thus weight.

A medium machine gun is built to carry out sustained fire tasks for extended periods of time whilst a LMG is typcially designedto be as light and portable as possible whilst still being capable of regular short bursts of fire.

Thus a medium MG tends to be very heavy (until the arrival of the likes of the .50cal M2, medium MGs were often called heavy mgs).

The gap between a medium MG and a light machine gun was bridged by the Universal or General Purpose MG (i.e. GPMG) i.e. a fairly light machien gun that could be configured to act as a slightly heavy light machine gun or as a slightly light and limtied medium machine gun i.e. what are typically known as the light role and sustained fire role configurations. A true GPMG should (and many of them have) be able to function as a squad level weapon.


Currently there is a bit of thought and developement going into a new breed of medium MGs which are basically GPMGs chambered for ammo that is more powerful than the standard Full Power Full Calibre rifle ammo (i.e. 7.62x51mm/7.62x54mmR/8mm mauser) but not as powerful as true HMG ammo (i.e. .50 BMG) i.e. stuff in the 8-9mm magnum range with .338 Norma Magnum currently doing the rounds in General Dynamics' Light Medium Machine Gun (LMMG) concept demosntrator/prototype/marketing toy .

[Kanslavia]

This

Or this