NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The British Army deployment at Sangin is probably going to be pretty permanent. The BA District Centres all probably class as forts, since when the British leave, the ANA and ANP will most likely take them over.

[The UK in Exile]

What is an FOB/Platoon 'house' if it isn't a fort?

I'm just going to use Wikipedia as signpost here: "Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility."

Is there something permanent about a FOB-Platoon 'house' that I don't know about?

cheyenne mountain. strategic emplacement.

[Kouralia]

Okay, I've kinda got my restructuring underway: I've got a few problems though...

Basically, I'm changing what my army uses as their equipment and I need some advice on good quality vehicles and stuff:

Light Utility Vehicle - Land Rover
APC/IFV - ? (Must be able to carry 9 passengers and a reasonable armament)
Recon Tank - Alvis CVR(T)
MBT - Kouralian Developed
Heavy Utility Vehicle (truck) - Iveco ACTL
Self-Propelled Gun - ?
Missile Artillery - ?
Misc Vehicles (AAA, Heavy Transport etc.) - Kouralian Developed

Recon/Utility Helo - Kouralian Developed Kiowa Warrior
Medium Transport Helo - UH64
Cargo Helo - Chinook CH-5
Attack Helo - Hind, modified

Strategic Transport - C-17
Tactical Transport - C-130
Carrier Based fighter - Crookfur Arms 'Terrier'
Main Strike FIghter - Tornado GR4

Carrier - ?
Helicopter Carrier - 3x Crookfur Adamantine class
ATDs - 10x San Antonio Class ATDs (going to be supplemented/replaced by, like 20 renamed Wasp Class AASs)
Cruisers - ?
Destroyers - ?
Corvettes - ?
Frigates - ?
Smaller Patrol Vessels - 48x Crookfur 'CNM Erica'
Missile Submarine - 1x Borei Class Nuclear Sub

Are these vehicles I've chosen good choices? Can someone recommend things to fill the gaps? (and, in conjunction with the 'size' problem, could someone recommend numbers to use for the naval vessels)

I've set out my unit sizes, but how many support staff will I need for, say, the unit size 'Battalion', at a total size of 1,500 men (not including support staff, however vehicle crews, aircrews and command/signallers is included in that). The support staff including mechanics, cooks and other roles in a large military unit.

I'm going to RP with a pop of 400,000,000 for the moment ( a bit higher than my actual one, but I'm rounding up since I'll soon reach that number), so assuming I'm going for 2% population in the military, how would you arrange this 8 million strong force between: The Army, The Navy, The Air Force? The army will the main one, followed by the navy and then air force last. Also, how much of the given amount could I put into active combat units, or: if I had 2 million in the army, how many could I realistically use in battalions in the field?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

It must have been something other than one of France's most crushing defeats of the 20th Century!

lolololololololol
Oh yeah, France hadn't had any defeats near that bad during the 20th century. </sarcasm>

Also, consider how much worse the situation would have been if the French troops had been left out in the open. While we give actual examples of their usefulness, you give one terrible example of their supposed uselessness. Consider this, in addition to the higher Vietnamese losses, the French were able to hold out for two months, and the Vietnamese had to invest almost 5 times as many soldiers as the French in the region to capture the positions. Honestly, if I can tie down almost 50K men with just 10K of my own for two months I would consider that a win no matter what. At Khe Sanh even the Vietnamese estimates of their dead outnumbers the US and ARVN by about 2 to 1, and managed to hold out for 5 months.

Generally speaking if you are attacking a defensive position you should outnumber the enemy at least 3 to 1, so by setting up a base you give an enemy force three options, bypass the base and let them harry your supply lines, assault the base, suffer high casualties, and temporarily take 3 times as many men as them out of service in other areas, or lay siege to the fort, forcing you to invest men and supplies simply to keep a static situation. None of those situations are really nice for the attacker.

[The UK in Exile]

It must have been something other than one of France's most crushing defeats of the 20th Century!

lolololololololol
Oh yeah, France hadn't had any defeats near that bad during the 20th century. </sarcasm>

Also, consider how much worse the situation would have been if the French troops had been left out in the open. While we give actual examples of their usefulness, you give one terrible example of their supposed uselessness. Consider this, in addition to the higher Vietnamese losses, the French were able to hold out for two months, and the Vietnamese had to invest almost 5 times as many soldiers as the French in the region to capture the positions. Honestly, if I can tie down almost 50K men with just 10K of my own for two months I would consider that a win no matter what. At Khe Sanh even the Vietnamese estimates of their dead outnumbers the US and ARVN by about 2 to 1, and managed to hold out for 5 months.

Generally speaking if you are attacking a defensive position you should outnumber the enemy at least 3 to 1, so by setting up a base you give an enemy force three options, bypass the base and let them harry your supply lines, assault the base, suffer high casualties, and temporarily take 3 times as many men as them out of service in other areas, or lay siege to the fort, forcing you to invest men and supplies simply to keep a static situation. None of those situations are really nice for the attacker.

not to mention dien bien phu was dug in almost entirely by hand using pretty much only local resources, the real lesson is how effective wood and dirt proved to be against Giaps artillery.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

A great example. French casualties were between 1600a and 2200 dead, while Vietnamese casualties were between 4,000 and 22,000.

But there are far better examples of the use of fortifications in defense. The Battle for Damansky Island seems more appropriate here, or the Soviet regiment (whose name I cannot off-hand remember) that held its fort for 900 days of constant Mujahedin attacks in Afghanistan.

Ah, right, since the French were able to kill more Vietnamese than the other way around, it must've been a victory; right? It must have been something other than one of France's most crushing defeats of the 20th Century! That thinking worked so well for Westmoreland.

Khe Sanh was a crushing defeat.

[The Amyclae]

I'm just going to use Wikipedia as signpost here: "Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility."

Is there something permanent about a FOB-Platoon 'house' that I don't know about?

cheyenne mountain. strategic emplacement.

When I think a 'fort' I think something that can actively defend itself and is capable of staging offensive operations. Cheynee Mountain certainly doesn't do either, considering it's a glorified command center. More importantly, however, it was built in the 50's. I'll keep saying it until it makes sense to you, no modern military builds forts.

Also, consider how much worse the situation would have been if the French troops had been left out in the open.

Haha, oh boy.

I suggest you buy this: http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Coun ... 0226841510

I'm sure there's an opensource copy running around somewhere you can buy, and I suggest you do. I can copy at length from it, but I don't think it'd do much help. Suffice to say, it basically lays out the first rule of a COIN operation, such as the French in IndoChina, is that you cannot (you absolutely cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot and ect) lock anti-insurgent forces in a fixed position.

To repeat, you cannot, cannot, cannot stay in a protected position.

Cannot, cannot, cannot.

In short, what they should have done is "been left out in the open." They should have been fighting to get those hearts and minds, not airlifting out into the middle of the damn jungle to build a fort based on your sort of antiquated military "strategy."

While we give actual examples of their usefulness, you give one terrible example of their supposed uselessness. Consider this, in addition to the higher Vietnamese losses, the French were able to hold out for two months, and the Vietnamese had to invest almost 5 times as many soldiers as the French in the region to capture the positions. Honestly, if I can tie down almost 50K men with just 10K of my own for two months I would consider that a win no matter what. At Khe Sanh even the Vietnamese estimates of their dead outnumbers the US and ARVN by about 2 to 1, and managed to hold out for 5 months.

And that's the sort of logic that lost both those wars. You should really read Colin Powell's work on the subject.

Honestly, on one hand there's you... And on the other there's the countless works that have basically refuted everything you say. I'm certainly no military expert, but there's no modern military manual that explains "oh, yeah, forts; do it!" My only question is... Where did you get the idea that field fortifications or killing a ton of counter-insurgents are the way to go on COIN operations? Links?

[Sevvania]

I'm just going to use Wikipedia as signpost here: "Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility.

Sooo... erm... yeah. Going by that definition, what'd be some good functions for specialized military facilities?

*braces for another argument*

[The Amyclae]

I'm just going to use Wikipedia as signpost here: "Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility.

Sooo... erm... yeah. Going by that definition, what'd be some good functions for specialized military facilities?

*braces for another argument*

Um... Anything you want? You understand this isn't real life and NS has specialty facilities for... Everything?

Edit: Hell, throw a ton of artillery and throw up some sort of IADS then put up some massive berms or walls or something and call it a fort. Doesn't mean it'd be realistic but... This is NS. Who cares if someone throws a tactical nuke on you, at least you got a nice 'fort.'

[Crookfur]

I'm just going to use Wikipedia as signpost here: "Forts in modern usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility.

Sooo... erm... yeah. Going by that definition, what'd be some good functions for specialized military facilities?

*braces for another argument*

That definition really covers any type of permanent military (mostly army) facility and is priamrily a feature of North America (inc USA and canada) where a fort was any military base/outpost regardless of any actual fortification. Today most of these forts are training and garrison bases. In the Uk thsoe historical forts which are still sued by the armed forces serve almost entirely as garrisons/barracks

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

In short, what they should have done is "been left out in the open." They should have been fighting to get those hearts and minds, not airlifting out into the middle of the damn jungle to build a fort based on your sort of antiquated military "strategy."

Yeah because actively trying to win the hearts and minds of people who hates you works so well. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Thing are finally starting to calm down and it only took a decade or so. Also, I never stated that you should dig in and sit there when fighting a guerrilla war (although strategic outposts can be very helpful in molesting them, sitting there and getting bombarded is a bad idea in a guerrilla war). If you want to look at how to handle a guerrilla war look at the Brits, they know how to put down an uprising.

Look up the second Boer war and the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, the British managed to put down both revolts relatively quickly. Hell the Britih were very creative when it came to the Mau Mau uprising, the Mau Mau rebels actually were made to take an oath when they enlisted that prevented them from surrendering or giving up. What did the British do? They created a ritual that supposedly undid the oath and the rebels bought it. Stuff like that, combined with constant sweeps, double agents (British would capture rebels, bribe them to lead their forces into ambushes and release them), and blocking routs of travel hindered the Mau Mau and Boers to no end. Eventually the Boers were forced to surrender and the Mau Mau uprising just slowly ended as more commanders were hunted down and more soldiers surrendered.

tl;dr. Don't sit there and take it like a bitch, don't try to win their hearts like some woman, go out there and hunt them down while blocking their routs of escape and preventing anyone from supporting them. If you find out that a farmer fed some rebels, burn his crops and lock him up, if you found out that the rebels are using a road, set up a fort next to it so they can't use it, if you capture a rebel, make him a double agent, all the while hunting them down and killing their leaders.

Honestly if you wanted to truly revolt some nice words wouldn't dissuade you, but seeing that 4 officers just purposely turned their entire units in to the enemy for 50 grand might. A new school wouldn't keep you from fighting for your freedom, but having no food, scabies, and constantly being shot at might.

[Kouralia]

tl;dr. Don't sit there and take it like a bitch, don't try to win their hearts like some woman, go out there and hunt them down while blocking their routs of escape and preventing anyone from supporting them. If you find out that a farmer fed some rebels, burn his crops and lock him up, if you found out that the rebels are using a road, set up a fort next to it so they can't use it, if you capture a rebel, make him a double agent, all the while hunting them down and killing their leaders.

Aha...

You sound exactly like the ex-squadie staff at my Cadet unit.

Incidently, would someone look at my prev post (near the top of this page), please? I fear my queries have been covered over by the foundations for the forts you're so happily arguing over...

[The Reliquary]

Incidently, would someone look at my prev post (near the top of this page), please? I fear my queries have been covered over by the foundations for the forts you're so happily arguing over...

IFV=VCBI
SPH=AS90/Pzh2000

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You sound exactly like the ex-squadie staff at my Cadet unit.

Not sure if that is a good thing.

[The UK in Exile]

cheyenne mountain. strategic emplacement.

When I think a 'fort' I think something that can actively defend itself and is capable of staging offensive operations. Cheynee Mountain certainly doesn't do either, considering it's a glorified command center. More importantly, however, it was built in the 50's. I'll keep saying it until it makes sense to you, no modern military builds forts.

well theres no need to is there? is not like theres a "storm by" date. they use forts from previous eras. unless they need them in a new place in which case they build them. like in afghanistan.

[Immoren]

APC/IFV - Patria AMV.

[The Kievan People]

words

You know you can LEAVE a fort, and you have to do things like repair vehicles and sleep somewhere.

Having a fortified position to operate out of during COIN is common sense.

[Allanea]

Ah, right, since the French were able to kill more Vietnamese than the other way around, it must've been a victory; right? It must have been something other than one of France's most crushing defeats of the 20th Century! That thinking worked so well for Westmoreland.

Obviously you can bring up examples of people losing in forts (and winning too). But that's true for any weapon.

The fact is that – as at Dien Bien Phu – the defender benefits from using fixed positions wisely (rather than tying himself to them by the leg). A defender in a fort will have less casualties, all else equal, than a defender in the open. This is useful and can (not necessarily will) be translated into a victory. Further, in NS, military conflicts are not limited to COIN.

But let us look at COIN.



This is a modern-day military base in Iraq.



This is an IDF fort near Hebron.

Forts and permanent fortifications are still used today in warfare.

[The Amyclae]

Ah, right, since the French were able to kill more Vietnamese than the other way around, it must've been a victory; right? It must have been something other than one of France's most crushing defeats of the 20th Century! That thinking worked so well for Westmoreland.

Obviously you can bring up examples of people losing in forts (and winning too). But that's true for any weapon.

The fact is that – as at Dien Bien Phu – the defender benefits from using fixed positions wisely (rather than tying himself to them by the leg). A defender in a fort will have less casualties, all else equal, than a defender in the open. This is useful and can (not necessarily will) be translated into a victory. Further, in NS, military conflicts are not limited to COIN.

But let us look at COIN.



This is a modern-day military base in Iraq.



This is an IDF fort near Hebron.

Forts and permanent fortifications are still used today in warfare.

Thanks for proving my point.

On one hand we have some prefab walls that, by the looks of them, aren't going to make them out for the year and... An air control tower Something designed to annoy Palestinians? With some stones piled near it.

Yes, clearly, both forts. Heh.

Edit:
As I said before, you can call a 'fort' whatever you want. I mean, there's pillow forts aren't there? But, those aren't this and most people recognize that.

[Allanea]

No. It's not an air control tower. It does not do air control.

[The UK in Exile]

As I said before, you can call a 'fort' whatever you want. I mean, there's pillow forts aren't there? But, those aren't this and most people recognize that.

ironic that you should post a picture of edinburgh castle.

a castle isn't the same thing as a fort. whatever most people think.

[Allanea]

Let's not play amusing games where we both imply the other one is stupid just subtly enough to avoid triggering mod wrath.

Obviously, medieval-style forts are dead. THey got killed by artillery by the 20th century. The OP specifically said he wasn't talking about medieval-style forts.

But permanent fortifications of various kinds, made out of concrete or sand or whatever, are here to stay.

The above image is that of an IDF outpost, with firing positions and observation posts on top.

I don't see why this is so controversial.

[The Grand World Order]

OP Restrepo, anyone?

(It's in parts, because the English full version got taken down.)

The establishment of a fortified defensive position changed the outcome of the US's operations in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan. To say that forts have no use it utter crap, sorry.

[Allanea]

Honestly, on one hand there's you... And on the other there's the countless works that have basically refuted everything you say. I'm certainly no military expert, but there's no modern military manual that explains "oh, yeah, forts; do it!" My only question is... Where did you get the idea that field fortifications or killing a ton of counter-insurgents are the way to go on COIN operations? Links?

1. Who said anything about COIN? We're in NS. In the real world COIN is the main form of combat, but this isn't RL.

2. Even in the real-world every single army in the world uses some kind of field fortifications. Using field fortifications does not equate to sitting in them all the time and letting the insurgents rule the country.

3. Nobody argued that field fortifications and permanent fortifications are the go-to-solution to win wars. Merely that they are a useful tool in modern warfare. Which, guess what, is true.

[The Amyclae]

As I said before, you can call a 'fort' whatever you want. I mean, there's pillow forts aren't there? But, those aren't this and most people recognize that.

ironic that you should post a picture of edinburgh castle.

a castle isn't the same thing as a fort. whatever most people think.

Sort of irrelevant to the point that I was trying, and a misapplication of the word ironic (which doesn't surprise me all that much). If it makes you feel better you can replace the nice picture of Edinburgh with this.