The Akasha Colony wrote:Forenet Skandinavien wrote:My country has good infrastructure, both civilian and military, though ten million may be a bit much for it to handle in the course of six months. Perhaps, parts of the total conscripted force are trained every six months, so that, say, 1.25 million soldiers get trained every six months, so not to overwhelm the training depots. Would that be plausible for a modern, first-world superpower?
It would be more than a ten-fold increase. The US military takes in roughly 150,000 new recruits annually. Going to 2.5 million would be no easy feat.
The problem is that some specialties take much longer to train than others. Artillerymen take longer to train than infantrymen. But you need artillerymen otherwise you end up with a bunch of infantrymen with no support. Some are also more resource intensive than others. You can shorten the training regimes of course, and probably would have to, but this would likely have negative effects on the competency of the troops in their given specialty.
So, would it be realistic to train, in a situation of necessity such as this, 300,000 recruits per year, while still retaining some semblance of quality in the training of my armed forces? Granted, yes, the draftees would go through shortened training programs in order to get them out onto the battlefield quicker, which would lower the quality of their combat skill and discipline, but would that be plausible? In any case, I imagine that the first large campaigns in the war will be fought mostly by the standing army and reservists, as they'll have the most training.
As for officers, there are a steady supply coming out of military academies. Would it be reasonable to assume that officers would also be trained in the draft, or am I not understanding something correctly?
That steady supply will presumably be benchmarked to maintain replacement rates for the peacetime force, not the draft force. And increasing that supply will likely take years (depending on how long the service academies take from matriculation to graduation).
Men can be drafted to become officers, but the trouble is at the higher levels. You can draft a man, put him through basic training, then put him through officer candidate school and his specialty school within a year (presuming his specialty doesn't take that long to train for), and create a basic second lieutenant. But where do you get the higher-ranking officers? You don't draft men directly to become captains and colonels and generals.
The US dealt with this in WWII by creating two forces: the Army of the United States for draftees while retaining the Regular Army for professional soldiers. Regular Army soldiers then received ranks in the Army of the United States that were much higher than their original ranks (which they would revert to after the war ended and the draftees discharged). For instance, by early 1943 Dwight D. Eisenhower was a 4-star general in the Army of the United States, but only a colonel in the Regular Army.
The downside to this of course is that promoting an officer from command of a battalion to command of a division may be rather overwhelming if they are unprepared for such a task. The likelihood of a lapse in quality increases, and you still have a bit of a lag time as the newly-promoted officers become accustomed to their new responsibilities.
A system similar to that would probably be the most beneficial for my country's situation. Though, as you said, there would be a decrease in quality as officers get used to their new positions and responsibilities, it should likely be beneficial in the long run because it allows for the rate of officer gain to keep up with the rate of draftee gain.
Most, if not all of the superpowers in question already have large navies, so naval poeer is something that we all already have. One of the opposing superpowers is in close proximity to my country, so my country can be used as a staging ground for the invasion of that enemy. For the others, there are several possible staging grounds for my country to use, though I have not secured any deals with them as of now.
The presence of navies is a bad thing. Especially submarines, which are difficult, expensive, and time consuming to hunt while being a sufficient threat to severely impede any expeditionary efforts.
So, I take it that my efforts, navally, at least, would be best spent on ensuring that I can land troops safely, and to sink as many submarines as possbile? Navally, I'm fairly certain that my side of the war (once all of the superpowers officially declare what side they're on) has both the larger and the more modern navy.
[/quote]I'm beginning to doubt the effectiveness of mass conscription as a strategy in modern warfare. Would, perhaps, mobilising the reserves and training a small, manageable amount of conscripts be the better way to go? It certainly sounds more manageable, both in terms of infrastructure and the economy. Plus, the logistics for such a force would, theoretically, be easier because less supplies would need to be transported to them. Furthermore, this option seems to fit the goal I had in mind for my country's military: a bit on the small side as far as the world's top powers go, but a formidable fighting force because of its training, discipline, and modern technology.
The question is whether you can equip and support them properly. Modern munitions are getting increasingly capable, but also increasingly expensive with longer production times and lower procurement quantities. If you train a million new tank crewmen but only have tank stockpiles for a hundred thousand of them, why bother? This can be changed of course if you're willing to spend the cash, but on top of supporting a massive draft force, this is the kind of expenditure you make only when your nation is existentially threatened by another. One where complete bankruptcy and the devastation of the economy is a more desirable outcome than the alternative.
Considering that this war will likely result in the removal of my government from power, the sending of a large portion of my citizens into poverty, and the possible balkanisation of my country if I lose, economic troubles would be a welcome tradeoff. In addition, there is a hostile superpower in close proximity to my country, so one of the objectives of the war is to neutralise the threat that it poses and take buffer states as puppets to provide extra distance between our two countries. Said hostile superpower is newly formed, having achieved independence (by vote, and from my ally too...) the previous September, so would there be any possible turmoil that I could take advantage of in order to make the war go more smoothly for my country?
