NationStates

Tongola wrote:

Aelas wrote:
I also really like the seal. Very nice design.

Sadly its not of my own design, its from communist Afghanistan lol. Its a placeholder while I come up with my own, which will probably be pretty similar-

Another military question because we're getting off topic: given that having officers selected by vote wouldn't produce the best results, would giving ever person in the military equal/ no pay have that many negative effects in a total communist state? I'm trying to keep the idea of total equality and classless society-

What I did in my original NationState, which was very very Socialist, was give everyone the same stipend which they'd be entitled to from birth to death, so it functioned also as child support from the State and as retirement. Then small modifications to the stipend were granted depending on their job, the level of hazard, etc, their place in the state's meritocracy ranking system ... but they were very minor, everybody received a "Living Wage" level stipend.

You can also do as the Soviets did originally and abolish traditional military ranks in favor of titles / appointments ... i.e. "BatCom" (Battalion Commander) instead of Major, etc. And in an army like yours, i would definitely have at least everything up to Company commander be an elective position. The Soviets elected their officers originally too I believe.

I can into conscript/volunteer armies too.

Yukonastan Defense Force makes up most of my army, is fully conscripted, except for commissioned officers, who are volunteers.
All able-bodied citizens of Yukonastan must serve for three years.

Yukonastan Expeditionary Force makes up what's left, and is fully volunteer-based.
YDF veterans may choose to enlist in YEF. Their rank gets "reset".

We only allow voluntary agricultural collectivization. We view forced agricultural collectivization as little more than serfdom in disguise.

The High Tatras wrote:We only allow voluntary agricultural collectivization. We view forced agricultural collectivization as little more than serfdom in disguise.

We just do one better and have actual serfs

Aelas wrote:(...)
You can also do as the Soviets did originally and abolish traditional military ranks in favor of titles / appointments ... i.e. "BatCom" (Battalion Commander) instead of Major, etc. And in an army like yours, i would definitely have at least everything up to Company commander be an elective position. The Soviets elected their officers originally too I believe.

You're right, that was commonplace practice during the Civil War, although with the transformation of haphazardly organized Red Guards and first units of RKKA into central-commanded Red Army the elections of even low-echelon officers were abolished.

But formally Red Army re-introduced personal military ranks as late as in 1935, with the introduction of Marshal of USSR rank and reform of 1940. Up to those moments, Soviet army had only ranks for functions, like Army Military Lawyer of the 2nd Class or Komkor (commander of a corps)- they would have similar distinctions, but they won't be equal, technically speaking. Shoulder tabs had their great comeback in 1943, replacing old collar-tab system.

Alexandreon wrote:

Aelas wrote:(...)
You can also do as the Soviets did originally and abolish traditional military ranks in favor of titles / appointments ... i.e. "BatCom" (Battalion Commander) instead of Major, etc. And in an army like yours, i would definitely have at least everything up to Company commander be an elective position. The Soviets elected their officers originally too I believe.

You're right, that was commonplace practice during the Civil War, although with the transformation of haphazardly organized Red Guards and first units of RKKA into central-commanded Red Army the elections of even low-echelon officers were abolished.

But formally Red Army re-introduced personal military ranks as late as in 1935, with the introduction of Marshal of USSR rank and reform of 1940. Up to those moments, Soviet army had only ranks for functions, like Army Military Lawyer of the 2nd Class or Komkor (commander of a corps)- they would have similar distinctions, but they won't be equal, technically speaking. Shoulder tabs had their great comeback in 1943, replacing old collar-tab system.

Yeah, but the haphazard semi-formal semi-militia "people's army" system of the Civil War period sounds perfect for our erstwhile African comrade here. Plus it's different and hipsterish, which is always a plus.

Alexandreon wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:Presuming these insurgents don't simply sabotage the tracks.

As German experience from the Eastern front shows, well-trained Railway Troops are quite capable of repairing the damages caused by insurgents. Still, armoured trains might be extremely handy as "mobile fortresses" with great firepower and unrestricted range (depending only on the railway infrastructure).

Besides, an armoured train would usually be accompanied by a handful of armoured draisines and detached infantry units...

The problem when fighting an insurgency with trains is that one is limited to a series of tracks, and the other is not. A well-developed railway infrastructure is a double-edged sword: it provides greater mobility and flexibility to the trains at the expense of being much easier to target and harder to defend as a whole than a smaller network.

Ultimately, in the modern day an "armored train" would functionally be the same as an MBT, but with less strategic and tactical maneuverability and greater vulnerability to sabotage. You can get the same "mobile fortress" capability by sending a platoon of tanks along, and the tanks will be generally more useful vehicles in all situations. Insurgents setting off an IED on a railway delays the entire train until not only the railway is fixed, but the locomotive replaced (unless it's a DMU with multiple control cabs). An IED disabling the lead vehicle in a road convoy still allows the rest of the convoy to proceed along while the first vehicle is recovered by engineers (or scuttled outright).

Aelas wrote:You can also do as the Soviets did originally and abolish traditional military ranks in favor of titles / appointments ... i.e. "BatCom" (Battalion Commander) instead of Major, etc. And in an army like yours, i would definitely have at least everything up to Company commander be an elective position. The Soviets elected their officers originally too I believe.

That all of these armies abolished their elective systems though I think speaks to their experiences with it. The egalitarianism of elections and equality clashes somewhat with the military need for efficiency and the selection of good leaders rather than pure demagogues or those most loyal to the party.

It wouldn't necessarily be completely crippling to an army's effectiveness, but I would not call it desirable, either.

Aelas wrote:You can also do as the Soviets did originally and abolish traditional military ranks in favor of titles / appointments ... i.e. "BatCom" (Battalion Commander) instead of Major, etc. And in an army like yours, i would definitely have at least everything up to Company commander be an elective position. The Soviets elected their officers originally too I believe.

That all of these armies abolished their elective systems though I think speaks to their experiences with it. The egalitarianism of elections and equality clashes somewhat with the military need for efficiency and the selection of good leaders rather than pure demagogues or those most loyal to the party.

It wouldn't necessarily be completely crippling to an army's effectiveness, but I would not call it desirable, either.

Yeah I definitely wouldn't advocate it if you're trying to build a professional world-class military. But if you don't really have the means to do that anyway --- not a lot of infrastructure or officer academies and whatnot, the benefits in morale and the elimination of enlisted/officer barriers I think is most definitely an advantage. Creates a strong sense of comraderie and "positive discipline" ... they work cohesively as a unit because they're personally close to one another, not out of fear of punishment.

Aelas wrote:

Alexandreon wrote:Yeah, but the haphazard semi-formal semi-militia "people's army" system of the Civil War period sounds perfect for our erstwhile African comrade here. Plus it's different and hipsterish, which is always a plus.

I concur, I only allowed myself to add a bit about my second kinky love- USSR and Red Army.

And speaking about the Russian Civil War and our African comrade... How about a Horse Army or Camel Army? Ridiculous as it may sound, it was cheap in maintenance, extremely manoeuverable formation with high morale and all necessary support. Tachankas with MGs might be cheaper equivalent of technical, an iconic element of every African war.

Horse artillery is mobile, so mounted infantry is. It's easier to find forage for mounts than obtain vehicles and fuel. And booy, a Horse Army, that would be truly hipsteric! (although I'm going to make something similar for my PT nation)

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Alexandreon wrote:
As German experience from the Eastern front shows, well-trained Railway Troops are quite capable of repairing the damages caused by insurgents. Still, armoured trains might be extremely handy as "mobile fortresses" with great firepower and unrestricted range (depending only on the railway infrastructure).

Besides, an armoured train would usually be accompanied by a handful of armoured draisines and detached infantry units...

The problem when fighting an insurgency with trains is that one is limited to a series of tracks, and the other is not. A well-developed railway infrastructure is a double-edged sword: it provides greater mobility and flexibility to the trains at the expense of being much easier to target and harder to defend as a whole than a smaller network.

Ultimately, in the modern day an "armored train" would functionally be the same as an MBT, but with less strategic and tactical maneuverability and greater vulnerability to sabotage. You can get the same "mobile fortress" capability by sending a platoon of tanks along, and the tanks will be generally more useful vehicles in all situations. Insurgents setting off an IED on a railway delays the entire train until not only the railway is fixed, but the locomotive replaced (unless it's a DMU with multiple control cabs). An IED disabling the lead vehicle in a road convoy still allows the rest of the convoy to proceed along while the first vehicle is recovered by engineers (or scuttled outright).

I agree completely that in MT armoured trains are not such a good idea, but in the PT up to Korean War? That would be another story, I guess.

Aelas wrote:

Alexandreon wrote:
You're right, that was commonplace practice during the Civil War, although with the transformation of haphazardly organized Red Guards and first units of RKKA into central-commanded Red Army the elections of even low-echelon officers were abolished.

But formally Red Army re-introduced personal military ranks as late as in 1935, with the introduction of Marshal of USSR rank and reform of 1940. Up to those moments, Soviet army had only ranks for functions, like Army Military Lawyer of the 2nd Class or Komkor (commander of a corps)- they would have similar distinctions, but they won't be equal, technically speaking. Shoulder tabs had their great comeback in 1943, replacing old collar-tab system.

Yeah, but the haphazard semi-formal semi-militia "people's army" system of the Civil War period sounds perfect for our erstwhile African comrade here. Plus it's different and hipsterish, which is always a plus.

Sometimes I imagine my nation's army being a little bit like that.

Alexandreon wrote:

Aelas wrote:

I concur, I only allowed myself to add a bit about my second kinky love- USSR and Red Army.

And speaking about the Russian Civil War and our African comrade... How about a Horse Army or Camel Army? Ridiculous as it may sound, it was cheap in maintenance, extremely manoeuverable formation with high morale and all necessary support. Tachankas with MGs might be cheaper equivalent of technical, an iconic element of every African war.

Horse artillery is mobile, so mounted infantry is. It's easier to find forage for mounts than obtain vehicles and fuel. And booy, a Horse Army, that would be truly hipsteric! (although I'm going to make something similar for my PT nation)

I like the idea of a rank-less army where people are simply appointed to a position but hold no actual rank, it seems like it would fit my nation extremely well. I'm sure I could collectivize plenty of technicals and I've gotten a fair amount of horses so that seems like a good way of getting troops moved.
(thanks everyone who contributed )
Speaking of horse armies

Now that you're back, about motorizing your military...

Is it just infantry you need help motorizing, or do you also need help with armored and logistic support? What about artillery? Is fuel an issue?

Tongola wrote:

Alexandreon wrote:
I concur, I only allowed myself to add a bit about my second kinky love- USSR and Red Army.

And speaking about the Russian Civil War and our African comrade... How about a Horse Army or Camel Army? Ridiculous as it may sound, it was cheap in maintenance, extremely manoeuverable formation with high morale and all necessary support. Tachankas with MGs might be cheaper equivalent of technical, an iconic element of every African war.

Horse artillery is mobile, so mounted infantry is. It's easier to find forage for mounts than obtain vehicles and fuel. And booy, a Horse Army, that would be truly hipsteric! (although I'm going to make something similar for my PT nation)

I like the idea of a rank-less army where people are simply appointed to a position but hold no actual rank, it seems like it would fit my nation extremely well. I'm sure I could collectivize plenty of technicals and I've gotten a fair amount of horses so that seems like a good way of getting troops moved.
(thanks everyone who contributed )
Speaking of horse armies

Of course man, happy to help - I always enjoy helping people out with original ideas. Plus my History Major has to be good for something, haha!

Tongola wrote:I like the idea of a rank-less army where people are simply appointed to a position but hold no actual rank, it seems like it would fit my nation extremely well. I'm sure I could collectivize plenty of technicals and I've gotten a fair amount of horses so that seems like a good way of getting troops moved.
(thanks everyone who contributed )
Speaking of horse armies

Always glad to help!

United Marxist Nations wrote:Now that you're back, about motorizing your military...

Is it just infantry you need help motorizing, or do you also need help with armored and logistic support? What about artillery? Is fuel an issue?

Fuel currently inst an issue, I have a very small oil industry but with my lack of motorization it hasn't been a problem and if it is I can import fuel. My main goal is to motorize my infantry and support structure then from that I'll work on my artillery (which isn't god awful, I have a number of serviceable American guns and spgs which are really old but still usable) then armor. A big part of my party line is internationalism, so my forces need to be able to move into neighbouring countries to assist local communist revolutionaries.


(the sanctions bar any military material from entering Tangola for fears that it will end up in the hand of terrorists, civilian goods are slightly less restricted)

Aelas wrote:Of course man, happy to help - I always enjoy helping people out with original ideas. Plus my History Major has to be good for something, haha!

Only thing mine's been good for is being one of three people a year that gets the dates of the Korean War right on DC monument tours.

When it comes to military doctrines, I am interested in learning more about "Soviet Deep Battle". It seems to have worked quite well once the Soviets were actually able to properly put it into action. However, I am unsure how to tell whether it is suitable for my nation's own situation.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Aelas wrote:Of course man, happy to help - I always enjoy helping people out with original ideas. Plus my History Major has to be good for something, haha!

Only thing mine's been good for is being one of three people a year that gets the dates of the Korean War right on DC monument tours.

Mine has only been good for arguing over whether stirrups or other changes to the saddle led to the rise of the heavy cavalry in europe. So at least you can impress people.

The High Tatras wrote:When it comes to military doctrines, I am interested in learning more about "Soviet Deep Battle". It seems to have worked quite well once the Soviets were actually able to properly put it into action. However, I am unsure how to tell whether it is suitable for my nation's own situation.

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.

Tongola wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Now that you're back, about motorizing your military...

Is it just infantry you need help motorizing, or do you also need help with armored and logistic support? What about artillery? Is fuel an issue?

Fuel currently inst an issue, I have a very small oil industry but with my lack of motorization it hasn't been a problem and if it is I can import fuel. My main goal is to motorize my infantry and support structure then from that I'll work on my artillery (which isn't god awful, I have a number of serviceable American guns and spgs which are really old but still usable) then armor. A big part of my party line is internationalism, so my forces need to be able to move into neighbouring countries to assist local communist revolutionaries.


(the sanctions bar any military material from entering Tangola for fears that it will end up in the hand of terrorists, civilian goods are slightly less restricted)

Who is imposing the sanctions, and at what level are the sanctions enforced on countries that violate them?

Currently the EU and the US are the major nations imposing sanctions, a bunch of my neighbours really don't like me and are also imposing their pseudo blockade

Enforcement is exceptionally harsh-

Tongola wrote:Currently the EU and the US are the major nations imposing sanctions, a bunch of my neighbours really don't like me and are also imposing their pseudo blockade

Enforcement is exceptionally harsh-

Well then, bar the occasional smuggling in of things, you might be out of luck on that front.

Alexandreon wrote:

The High Tatras wrote:When it comes to military doctrines, I am interested in learning more about "Soviet Deep Battle". It seems to have worked quite well once the Soviets were actually able to properly put it into action. However, I am unsure how to tell whether it is suitable for my nation's own situation.

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?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Tongola wrote:Currently the EU and the US are the major nations imposing sanctions, a bunch of my neighbours really don't like me and are also imposing their pseudo blockade

Enforcement is exceptionally harsh-

Well then, bar the occasional smuggling in of things, you might be out of luck on that front.

yeah

I could probably get some equipment by way of the Sudan...

Tongola wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Well then, bar the occasional smuggling in of things, you might be out of luck on that front.

yeah

I could probably get some equipment by way of the Sudan...

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.