NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Tongola]

Do you think you would have the industrial base to put some stuff together from spare parts shipped covertly? It would be more costly for me (and therefore you would get a smaller volume than if I were just supplying surplus directly), but hey, it's better than nothing.

Currently I'm about as developed as Senegal so probably not

[United Marxist Nations]

Do you think you would have the industrial base to put some stuff together from spare parts shipped covertly? It would be more costly for me (and therefore you would get a smaller volume than if I were just supplying surplus directly), but hey, it's better than nothing.

Currently I'm about as developed as Senegal so probably not

In that case, I'd go with technicals.

[Tongola]

Currently I'm about as developed as Senegal so probably not

In that case, I'd go with technicals.

Thats probably what I'm going to be doing until I can develop a bit of industry

[Yukonastan]

Uparmored Hiluxes gogogo.

[Allanea]

Horse artillery is mobile, so mounted infantry is. It's easier to find forage for mounts than obtain vehicles and fuel

Horse artillery and mounted infantry are not more maneuverable than trucks. This might have been true at the dawn of trucks, it is not so today.

1. Forage was easier to obtain than gasoline in the era when horses were extremely common in agriculture and even in industry, and thus everywhere there were facilities for care of horses and food for them.

2. Modern artillery requires heavier ammunition than artillery did in the period in which the horse was common. For example, the WW2 Soviet divisional gun was a 76mm howitzer weiging 1.85 tons and firing shells that weighed 6.3 kilograms each. Its modern successor is the D-30 towed howitzer, weighing 3.2 tons, and the shells are 21 kilograms each.

3. Note here that a modern horse-cart can carry up to 750 kilograms of gear. (Special, heavy payload, horse-carts exist that can do two tons). Now let's compare a Soviet Parachute Battalion (i.e. light infantry). The battalion uses for transportation

x21 Ural-375 truck (4.5 ton capacity each), and 4 5-ton trailers. 3 of these carried ammunition, and one carried parachutes. You do not need parachutes, so we will charitably here think of only the 110 tons of assorted supplies.
x16 staff cars (a capacity for up to 4 men each)
x5 Gaz-66 trucks (2-ton capacity
x5 water trailers (You still need water. You probably need more water, since you are riding horses.)
x1 mobile kitchens

Ignoring for simplicity the need to feed the horses and to carry food for them, you need to transport 30.5 tons of gear, 5 water trailers, and a mobile kitchen - the rough equivalent of 56 horse carts where previously 25 trucks sufficed. And the staff cars need to be replaced with, shall we say, a light cart each. You will require at least 72 horses (excluding any spares, and excluding the likely need to tow the heavy carts with 2 horses each.). You now need 72 drivers. There are also 18 towed mortars that now need to be towed by horse, so that's another 18 drivers. The trailers also need to be town. So does the field kitchen... we are now at a bare minimum of 90 horses and drivers and we've not even getting started yet.

Note: originally the Material Support Platoon had 20 men, 8 trailers, and 12 trucks, 4 of them being Ural 375s. Removing one of the trucks that is a parachute-carrying truck... we're at 11 trucks, three of them Ural 375s. These now need to be replaced by 22 carts towed by at least 22 forces, and 22 horse-drivers... and then you also need commanders, armorers, etc.

And your battalion has 452 men, most of whom require horses. You are going to need somewhere in the vicinity of five hundred horses if this light infantry battalion is to retain its firepower.

How are you going to feed these five hundred horses? Where will you house the five hundred horses? How will you conceal those horses from enemy UAVs and aviation attacks?

2. Unlike legend, horses do not have better mobility than modern military trucks. This was sort of true when trucks were unreliable, crappy, and expensive. Modern military trucks, or even fairly old trucks, like the Unimog, wiill best the humble equine at any terrain other than some complex mountain environments.

3. A modern roadlayer machine can lay down dirt roads faster than a horse will move when carrying any kind of meaningful load. (except at a gallop, which you cannot maintain for an extended period of time.

4. Horses require - unlike trucks - assistance by veterinarians.

5. Trucks can be essentially driven for days, with two men in the cabin changing at te wheel, stopping only to refuel. Horses require rest.

6. Horses require housing. They can die of exposure.

[Triplebaconation]

Horses are PMT.

[Vancon]

Horses are PMT.

Militarized Horses for FT Aristocrats?
y/n?

[Yukonastan]

While on technicals, apparently the US Army Special Forces have been using Tacomas in OIF and OEF.

American special forces use

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, multiple Toyota Tacomas have been observed in use by special forces units of the U.S. Army. Typically, they have been Double Cab models, with SR5 and TRD packages.

Despite the fact that the Hilux, from which the Tacoma is descended, is extremely common in the Middle East, the special forces found it to be easier to purchase Tacomas from American dealerships, modify them appropriately, and ship them to their areas. The gasoline engine used is significantly quieter than the diesel engines used in the HMMWV and some Hilux models. These were modified by eliminating the factory radio, along with almost all exterior lights and door buzzers. The front headlights have been modified to work in IR, in order to work with night vision. The engines are unmodified, but the vehicles have been fitted with brush guards, Warn winches, and a rollbar with a machine gun mount.

Should I do something similar to this for shits 'n giggles?

[Calla]

Horse artillery is mobile, so mounted infantry is. It's easier to find forage for mounts than obtain vehicles and fuel

And your battalion has 452 men, most of whom require horses. You are going to need somewhere in the vicinity of five hundred horses if this light infantry battalion is to retain its firepower.

How are you going to feed these five hundred horses? Where will you house the five hundred horses? How will you conceal those horses from enemy UAVs and aviation attacks?

Let's also complicate matters by the fact that you cannot ride one horse, all day, every day. That will kill a horse in only a handful of days. They were not made to carry a 175lb soldier, with another 80lbs of gear, period. Let alone for long distance travel. To keep the horses healthy, you need a remount heard, and each soldier having 3-4 horses to cycle on during a day. 4 would be best, so that each horse can have a day of solid rest.

This goes the same with all of the horses used to move, or any significant load.

Some of this can be mitigated, as remounts can still carry a light load of cargo, and get the rest they need to stay healthy. But for this infantry battalion, you are looking at 1500-2000 horses realistically.

Worst of all, you also have to train these horses. Otherwise, when you get ambushed, you will have far more casualties from soldiers falling off terrified horses, being trampled, etc, than you would lose to the attack itself. Training horses costs money, time, and more space and equipment.

[United Marxist Nations]

I drew up a WIP doctrine, do you guys mind helping me out with it?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297768

[The Akasha Colony]

I drew up a WIP doctrine, do you guys mind helping me out with it?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297768

The offensive doctrine is pretty vague. All it basically says is "we attack with combined arms." The defensive doctrines are equally vague.

First, you want to identify what your objective is, as this is what your doctrine is meant to achieve. Is it to break through to the enemy's rear area? To encircle the enemy's center of mass and crush it? To keep the enemy off balance? Are there other considerations, such as keeping casualties to a minimum (important to democracies) or a strong numerical or technological disparity?

Once this is identified, then you can construct a plan to achieve it, which is your doctrine. What role does each branch or section play in achieving that goal? Yes, they will all "attack," but what is the primary combat arm? Tanks? Infantry? Which are the supporting arms? How will you overcome your opponent's strengths, and how will you emphasize your own?

[United Marxist Nations]

I drew up a WIP doctrine, do you guys mind helping me out with it?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297768

The offensive doctrine is pretty vague. All it basically says is "we attack with combined arms." The defensive doctrines are equally vague.

First, you want to identify what your objective is, as this is what your doctrine is meant to achieve. Is it to break through to the enemy's rear area? To encircle the enemy's center of mass and crush it? To keep the enemy off balance? Are there other considerations, such as keeping casualties to a minimum (important to democracies) or a strong numerical or technological disparity?

Once this is identified, then you can construct a plan to achieve it, which is your doctrine. What role does each branch or section play in achieving that goal? Yes, they will all "attack," but what is the primary combat arm? Tanks? Infantry? Which are the supporting arms? How will you overcome your opponent's strengths, and how will you emphasize your own?

I think I answer some if those; I do say that the goal of the offensive doctrine is to create confusion in enemy ranks, and I also do label, albeit vaguely, "mechanized troops" (tanks, IFV's) as the main arm, with artillery and aircraft supporting both in operations in tandem with AA.

Your criticism is still note; however, I will not be able to implement for a while because it is late here.

[The Akasha Colony]

I think I answer some if those; I do say that the goal of the offensive doctrine is to create confusion in enemy ranks, and I also do label, albeit vaguely, "mechanized troops" (tanks, IFV's) as the main arm, with artillery and aircraft supporting both in operations in tandem with AA.

I suppose the questions were too vague. The point is to delineate the roles of each arm within the grand scheme.

For example: How is the artillery used? Is it a very artillery-heavy force because it is a vital part of the doctrine, or comparatively lighter with a focus on greater mobility and flexibility over raw firepower? Is it available at lower levels, or reserved at the highest levels to be concentrated for major offensives?

How does the primary combat arm create the desired effect? Does it rely on mobility, rapid strikes, and flexibility, or brute force assaults to break up the enemy's positions? With both tanks and mechanized infantry, who takes precedence? Do the tanks support the infantry or the infantry support the tanks?

[Questers]

I drew up a WIP doctrine, do you guys mind helping me out with it?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297768

This is a tactical doctrine. Not that it's "wrong", but start large and work small.

The first question every doctrine answers - what is a military and why do we have it?

[Imperializt Russia]

The "deep battle" or "deep operation" was a great doctrine, quite flexible and utilizing all the goodies one might get in those days. Still, it's an aggressive doctrine, suitable for those who want to attack. It might, when used properly, be quite benefitial in defence, but it's a good choice for attacking side.

How might I utilize "deep battle" or "deep operation" in a defensive war?

Offensive operations conducted as a part of a defensive campaign can break the advancing enemy's line and stall his attack. Breaking through his line and flooding his rear area with tanks, as Deep Battle called for, will induce just as much panic to an enemy on the advance as an enemy in retreat.

If you can get Division-sized units to breach the enemy's line at multiple points on a wide front, keep the gaps open and keep flooding troops in reserve through them, you could shatter the entire offensive - you certainly will force adjacent units to respond to the incursion, and abandon their own advance. Continuing the advance as the line is broken on either side of them, Hitler's main response, is suicidal as if the counter-attack is successful your unit will be encircled and destroyed.

[Vedria]

What do you guys think of using this as a teaching tool for would-be officers?

[Questers]

Attack is not the only form of defence. All things matter in context. Counterattacks won't necessarily change the tide - see Arras for a good example of why not.

What matters is the initiative.

Scenario: Man breaks into your house and begins to chase you. To which room do you run: the room with the big fucking german shepherd that will tear his head off or the living room where he will shoot you and take your dollars to buy crack?

An enemy that feels he is succeeding by interpretation of his opponent's move may not necessarily be succeeding. He may be running into an operational trap. So long, of course, as you have the initiative.

Deep battle is the idea that once you're in, you're in, and that your successes should be exploited with reserves rather than your failures bolstered. It's not necessarily a good immediate transfer to modern warfare. Tukhachevsky was a genius, but he was a genius in the 1930s, not the 1980s or 2000s. The problem with deep running spearheads - as you will see in all good cold war hot literature - is that the shoulder of such offensives is extremely vulnerable.

[Auroya]

How much fuel would a typical western MBT require per day of combat operations?

[The Kievan People]

How much fuel would a typical western MBT require per day of combat operations?

1500-2000 liters a day. At least.

[Alexandreon]

How much fuel would a typical western MBT require per day of combat operations?

1500-2000 liters a day. At least.

I'd say that's a bare minimum- usually a tank should have its internal fuel tanks filled and have at least one additional refuel-enough supply at relatively close range. That would be a preferable situation

[Imperializt Russia]

How much fuel would a typical western MBT require per day of combat operations?

A US armoured division of 348 MBTs (plus many other vehicles and some aircraft) requires half a million gallons a day.

[Tule]

How much fuel would a typical western MBT require per day of combat operations?

1500-2000 liters a day. At least.

...

The fuel tanks at the gas station I work at hold 20,000 liters each (One for Gasoline, one for Diesel) and are usually re-filled every 5 days or so.

So much for exploiting civilian sources of fuel in an invasion.

[Inyourfaceistan]

1500-2000 liters a day. At least.

...

The fuel tanks at the gas station I work at hold 20,000 liters each (One for Gasoline, one for Diesel) and are usually re-filled every 5 days or so.

So much for exploiting civilian sources of fuel in an invasion.

But how many gas stations are in your nearby area?

It might not be a battle plan to rely on, but if the gas is there then take as much as you can...

[Spirit of Hope]

1500-2000 liters a day. At least.

...

The fuel tanks at the gas station I work at hold 20,000 liters each (One for Gasoline, one for Diesel) and are usually re-filled every 5 days or so.

So much for exploiting civilian sources of fuel in an invasion.

If it is 2,000 Liters a day, and your gas station has 20,000 liters you could support the forward movement of about half a company. Of course this is requiring that the gas station be full, but you certainly could get some fuel from civilian sources. After all if you are either attacking or defending it is unlikely you will need to be using the same civilian gas station for more than one day.

[San-Silvacian]

...

The fuel tanks at the gas station I work at hold 20,000 liters each (One for Gasoline, one for Diesel) and are usually re-filled every 5 days or so.

So much for exploiting civilian sources of fuel in an invasion.

But how many gas stations are in your nearby area?

It might not be a battle plan to rely on, but if the gas is there then take as much as you can...

There are like 2 gas stations in Iceland.

There is the one on the base,

then is one on the other side of the island.

Then they have some guy with a jerry can in the Westman Islands.

*nods*