NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[United Earthlings]

I am going to outline some stuff about my military history during the 20th century here. Or rather my ideas for it. And I need you guys to tell me what you think.

So, what are your thoughts? Plausible? Good? Stupid?

Ever since the olden days before the army was unified the Cavalry and Army branches of my various ducal armies were jostling for prestige and supremacy over one another. Nothing unstandard here. And after the army was unified in the mid 19th century this rivalry did not go away. In fact it intensified.

This rivalry reached its apex during the first decade of the 20th century where new weapons such as the machine gun threatened to make the horse and rider obsolete. The army even bought what many would call a useless weapon, a 2cm machine gun, just for the express purpose of sticking it to the cavalry. The thing was advertized as, and I quote "capable of penetrating horse, rider and another few behind". The troops hated it.

The cavalry meanwhile was undergoing its own transformation. By the 1900's all Purpelian cavalry units were effectively dragoons with light and heavy cavalry being integrated as support units rather than independent regiments. Their claim to fame was that in a fast maneuver war that was obviously to be the way the next war would be fought they would have the upper hand in speed and mobility.

However there was also an alternate branch of the cavalry who felt that the traditional roles of the horse and rider could not be abandoned. And one of them lead by, at the time colonel, Gargamel (that name will come up later) proposed the used of the automobile in these roles. This is where it gets hazy because I've not figured things out much. But fast forward to 1910 and the cavalry is experimenting with the concept of armored cars acting as the lancer and cuirassier equivalent to support its dragoons.
Of course, these are isolated experiments at a glacial pace. The vehicles of the time are not that good. And really nothing comes of it. But it happens.

---

Nothing that is until WW1. As well all know this was not the war to end all wars. But it was a, shall we say sobering experience for cavalry theorists. And by the time it became clear that the war would not be done by the next solstice the cavalry was becoming acutely aware that if they did not find a way to claw their way back into importance they would end up being dissolved. Or at the very least they would become a broken shell of the prestigious branch that they were.
And so they returned to those early experiments. And the, by this point General, Gargamel (yes, him again) was put in charge.

Now this guy is basically the father of the Purpelian tank corps. And its him who makes sure that the Purpelian cavalry is the one and only part of the army that actually deploys tanks during this conflict. The army does take a look at them but basically has neither the budget nor inclination to divert resources to them until such a point that they prove useful. And when they do they really, really do and it's kind of too late to jump on the gravy train.

The war than ends, and budgets are slashed. And everyone experiments. And stuff happens. Hazy again...

---

Come the 1930's and the cavalry has perfected, at least in theory the idea of the tank-cavalry force. For the uninitiated the short of it is that its basically a Soviet style mechanized cavalry forces. As in cavalry dragoons acting as infantry in a combined arms formation. So basically motor rifles but with horses.
They are also experimenting with proper motor rifle formations that use trucks. But these are still a tad too expensive for army sized deployments. Prices however are dropping.

Their concept of tanks is that their job is to be the cavalry of old. They need to be mobile, hard hitting and in general everything an armored knight was. Their job is to punch into the enemy, punch a hole through and keep going. The dragoons, horse or motor will follow up.


The army meanwhile is pursuing motorization in a different way. They want tanks, definitively. But they want tanks that are the polar opposite of what the cavalry does. They want stuff that's going to move at walking pace and blow big holes into things. You know, the bog standard WW2 infantry tanks. And their idea of motorization is to try and get the supply and support services motorized. They don't care about making sure the army moves quickly. Their fear is that come WW1 2.0 they won't have enough metal horses to keep the supplies going.

Now obviously, by WW2 both forces really want a fully motorized all truck and tank force. But let's be real, that ain't happening on this budget.
It does eventually happen. And when it does it's the cavalry doctrine of mobile fighting tanks that prevails. And the rest is history.

---

The end result of this is that by the 50's its paradoxically the army that starts loosing prominence. By 1945 the difference between a cavalry division and an infantry division on paper was basically nonexistent. And since the cavalry is doing this motor rifle thing with trucks, tanks and stuff and they are doing a great job of it the question on everyone's lips is "do we really need two forces doing the same thing?"

So the army gets downsized and the cavalry becomes the primary combat arm of the Purpelian military.

The end result of this is that all modern mechanized and tank divisions are cavalry divisions. The army still exists but is relegated to specialist branches such as mountain forces and other stuff. Basically it's a reverse of what happened in most armies where the cavalry was disbanded in favor of a beefed up infantry branch.

Slight quibble in need of clarification on your part, you mention it this way numerous times throughout your history outline, but when you mention army I’m under the assumption that you actually mean infantry because once your land forces were unified, cavalry would be {should have been} integrated into and fall under army command as a independent service branch in addition to any other independent service branches that existed prior to unification like the infantry branch, artillery branch, etc… or branches that will be created in the future with more on those later.

Depending on what exact path you decide to take when you start developing your mechanized forces, but from what you’ve written it sounds like your cavalry branch of your army is so dominate that instead of creating a new armour branch that could possibly act as another rival branch for influence and funds, one path I envision is your cavalry simply renaming themselves as the armoured cavalry branch. As air power takes greater prominence, calling it air cavalry would be another way for this branch to further cement their influence within the hierarchy of the army command structure. Eventually, this could allow the cavalry branch and its offshoots to claim credit for creating airborne, air assault, etc… type divisions through the 1930s-1960s, if your nation does indeed decide to create these types of divisions.

As part of this renamed armoured cavalry branch, which would allow you to as stated assume control over infantry forces to create combined arms groups which leads you to create cavalry-mechanized groups. Furthermore, though you never stated it, I assume these mixed divisions would be organized along as a square division structure.

Side note, Glantz has a good TOE breakdown of these cavalry-mechanized groups should you so desire I can post them.

And finally, besides adapting armoured cars and trucks considering the budget constraints you’ve imposed on your mechanized forces, I expect your cavalry branch if not your infantry branch then would be an early and enthusiastic supporter of tankettes.

[Puzikas]

This is a gross oversimplification that has no basis in reality.

I'm sure you knew it without it
But
I'm just glad someone paid attention to my compare and contrast on the employment of the Machine Guns in German squads :')

[Southern Sovereignties]

So I wanted to re-ask my question from a few days ago. Does anybody have any information, or could you point me in the direction of, how polygonal forts functioned, both day to day, and during battle? An additional question, what eventually replaced them?

1: This would vary by country, situation, time period, and between forts. Different forts in roughly the same area would operate differently, and would do so at different times.

2: Trenches.

Could you maybe point me to any research material on polygonal forts? Google has come up with very little useful information.

2: There must have been an intermediary, because trenches were nothing new when the Great War broke out. I know the Austro-Hungarians had a few fortresses (I can't spell any of their names, though, but one was in the Alps and the Russians laid siege to it once or twice, might've been the Serbs). What kind of "fortress" would it be? It sure as hell wasn't trenches...

[Dostanuot Loj]

This is a gross oversimplification that has no basis in reality.

I'm sure you knew it without it
But
I'm just glad someone paid attention to my compare and contrast on the employment of the Machine Guns in German squads :')

I did.
But I still enjoyed your post.
Look forward to many more.

[Dostanuot Loj]

1: This would vary by country, situation, time period, and between forts. Different forts in roughly the same area would operate differently, and would do so at different times.

2: Trenches.

Could you maybe point me to any research material on polygonal forts? Google has come up with very little useful information.

2: There must have been an intermediary, because trenches were nothing new when the Great War broke out. I know the Austro-Hungarians had a few fortresses (I can't spell any of their names, though, but one was in the Alps and the Russians laid siege to it once or twice, might've been the Serbs). What kind of "fortress" would it be? It sure as hell wasn't trenches...

They weren't really run any differently than star forts, or any other artillery forts. You would have to look at individual firt histories to get any real detail.

And yes, trenches did exist before WW1, that does not change things. When artillery range became too great for forts to enforce, or rather non fort artillery became able to engage the forts on equal footing, their role dried up. The protective role was taken over by trenches and more mobile options like barbed wire, and artillery kept pounding. This all happened in the second half of the nineteenth century.

[Puzikas]

I did.
But I still enjoyed your post.
Look forward to many more.

If anyone ever asks a question that properly merits it i suppose :/

[Allanea]

To some extent, the previous poster is incorrect. Star forts were replaced by Fortified Areas.

[Purpelia]

Slight quibble in need of clarification on your part, you mention it this way numerous times throughout your history outline, but when you mention army I’m under the assumption that you actually mean infantry because once your land forces were unified, cavalry would be {should have been} integrated into and fall under army command as a independent service branch in addition to any other independent service branches that existed prior to unification like the infantry branch, artillery branch, etc… or branches that will be created in the future with more on those later.

Yea, it's infantry. English is not my first language and I made a silly mistake when translating.

Basically it's the rivalry between the infantry and cavalry branch of the ground forces of the armed forces. By 1914 the complete armed forces would have also included an airship division and a river navy. No proper navy though since I am landlocked.

Depending on what exact path you decide to take when you start developing your mechanized forces, but from what you’ve written it sounds like your cavalry branch of your army is so dominate that instead of creating a new armour branch that could possibly act as another rival branch for influence and funds, one path I envision is your cavalry simply renaming themselves as the armoured cavalry branch.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Basically for the cavalry I am drawing inspiration from the Soviet style Cavalry mechanized groups of WW2. I've always had a fascination with them as just frankly being cool. What's cooler than a bunch of horse dragoons supported by tanks? So the cavalry sort of just organically becomes more and more armored without officially changing anything.

But the infantry is not giving up yet. At least not until the late 40's. So during the interwar period and the 40's both are going to have their own separate tank forces. This is very much like the infantry and cavalry split in american pre war forces.

As air power takes greater prominence, calling it air cavalry would be another way for this branch to further cement their influence within the hierarchy of the army command structure. Eventually, this could allow the cavalry branch and its offshoots to claim credit for creating airborne, air assault, etc… type divisions through the 1930s-1960s, if your nation does indeed decide to create these types of divisions.

I am toying with having those sort of forces be a third separate thing altogether. Basically the airship force I mentioned before gets really important during WW1 for obvious reasons. And of course it gobbles up all the fighters, bombers and other stuff in the air whilst doing so. And so by the 30's the air force decides it wants to have its own infantry to compete with the other two.

As part of this renamed armoured cavalry branch, which would allow you to as stated assume control over infantry forces to create combined arms groups which leads you to create cavalry-mechanized groups. Furthermore, though you never stated it, I assume these mixed divisions would be organized along as a square division structure.

Basically those are my main inspiration for my cavalry. They are just awesome.

Side note, Glantz has a good TOE breakdown of these cavalry-mechanized groups should you so desire I can post them.

YES, PLEASE DO.

And finally, besides adapting armoured cars and trucks considering the budget constraints you’ve imposed on your mechanized forces, I expect your cavalry branch if not your infantry branch then would be an early and enthusiastic supporter of tankettes.

My budget constraints are basically what every nation had back in the day. Purpelia has a strong economy and all but no foreign colonies feeding it resources. And the interwar period was tough for all armies.

But yea, various tankettes and light tanks are something I just adore.

[Southern Sovereignties]

Could you maybe point me to any research material on polygonal forts? Google has come up with very little useful information.

2: There must have been an intermediary, because trenches were nothing new when the Great War broke out. I know the Austro-Hungarians had a few fortresses (I can't spell any of their names, though, but one was in the Alps and the Russians laid siege to it once or twice, might've been the Serbs). What kind of "fortress" would it be? It sure as hell wasn't trenches...

They weren't really run any differently than star forts, or any other artillery forts. You would have to look at individual firt histories to get any real detail.

And yes, trenches did exist before WW1, that does not change things. When artillery range became too great for forts to enforce, or rather non fort artillery became able to engage the forts on equal footing, their role dried up. The protective role was taken over by trenches and more mobile options like barbed wire, and artillery kept pounding. This all happened in the second half of the nineteenth century.

You still have yet to answer the second question.

[Dostanuot Loj]

They weren't really run any differently than star forts, or any other artillery forts. You would have to look at individual firt histories to get any real detail.

And yes, trenches did exist before WW1, that does not change things. When artillery range became too great for forts to enforce, or rather non fort artillery became able to engage the forts on equal footing, their role dried up. The protective role was taken over by trenches and more mobile options like barbed wire, and artillery kept pounding. This all happened in the second half of the nineteenth century.

You still have yet to answer the second question.

I can't make it any more clear.
Polygon forts were replaced by trenches, barbed wire, and so on.

Allanea is actually incorrect in his claim that I am incorrect, as fortified areas are a further application of trenches and barbed wire. Aka, the same thing in this context.

But how much more clearly can I answer your question?

[Western Weyard]

After talking to Arthurista about Heeresstruktur IV and his ORBAT, I decided to get off my ass and finally visualize my own not!Bundeswehr armored division:



Armored Reconnaissance Battalion: 28x M8A1 Tiamat MBT, 18x M20A1 Megära CFV, 12x M418A1 CRV, 6x 120mm mortars, 8x RQ-7 Shadow
Armor Battalion: 54x M8A1 Tiamat MBT
Armored Infantry Battalion: 54x M20A1 Megära CFV, 12x 120mm mortars
Armored Artillery Battalion: 24x M2000A1 Mjolnir SPH

Rocket Artillery Battalion: 24x M455A2 Hellfire MLRS

Combat Aviation Battalion: 24x AH-75B Vulture, 15x OH-72B Sparrowhawk
General Aviation Battalion: 48x UH-101C Merlin, 12x CH-62H Super Dragon/CH-74A Ashla

Air Defense Battalion: 32x M850A1 Atalanta SPAAG, 32x M815A1 Jupiter TLAR

UAV Company: 12x MQ-15C Heron

[Crookfur]

You still have yet to answer the second question.

I can't make it any more clear.
Polygon forts were replaced by trenches, barbed wire, and so on.

Allanea is actually incorrect in his claim that I am incorrect, as fortified areas are a further application of trenches and barbed wire. Aka, the same thing in this context.

But how much more clearly can I answer your question?

I suppose there was a slight evolution to completely under ground fortifications where only the firing positions/turrets were above ground and you have fun stuff like the fahrpanzer/Panzerlafette deployable turret positions but yeah basically it was trenchs and barbed wire with bunkers and blockhouses.


As to the operation of forts, i suppose it depends what is meant by "operate", i imagine in peace time they are all pretty similar in that the sentries swap watches, garrison parades for mornign inspection and then goes about maintenance/cleaning/inevntory/whatever jobs can be found to stop them being idle and at some point some drill and training is carried out.

[Kazarogkai]

KT-36
Type: M Tank
Place of orgin: Kazarogkai
Produced 1939-onward
Weight: 25 Tonnes
Crew 4(Gunner, Loader, Driver, Commander)
Armour: front(3-Inch)
1st Armament: 3-Inch/76.2 mm KATG-36
2nd Armament: KMG-24/50
Engine: Diesel Model K Engine 400 hp
P/W: 16 hp/tonne
Suspension Christie
Operational Range: 200 Miles
Speed: 25 MPH

Just made a stat block for tank developed right before the WW2 era. Wanted something that was primarily aimed towards killing tanks and exploiting gaps in the enemy lines which atleast would have been pretty good in the beginning of the era and remained decent enough till the end of the war. I more or less modeled it after the T-34, minus the sloped armour and lacking a little bit in the maneuverability department.

[The Gamindustrian Union]

Which set of sleeve insignia looks better? My current ones or the ones with executive curls?

[Allanea]

You still have yet to answer the second question.

I can't make it any more clear.
Polygon forts were replaced by trenches, barbed wire, and so on.

Allanea is actually incorrect in his claim that I am incorrect, as fortified areas are a further application of trenches and barbed wire. Aka, the same thing in this context.

But how much more clearly can I answer your question?

That is all.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I can't make it any more clear.
Polygon forts were replaced by trenches, barbed wire, and so on.

Allanea is actually incorrect in his claim that I am incorrect, as fortified areas are a further application of trenches and barbed wire. Aka, the same thing in this context.

But how much more clearly can I answer your question?

That is all.

This is still part of trench development.

When polygon forts went underground, they became trenches (and dugouts/bunkers).

Area defense was a feature of warfare for star forts that eventually led to star forts being replaced by polygon forts (They are different).
Area defense, key to the evolution from star to polygon forts, was an intimate aspect of the concept of how polygon forts were supposed to work.
You can't replace something you are a part of.

[The Kievan People]

Trenches are really the linear descendant of... trenches.


http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Brit ... esses.html

There is more than a passing similarity between the earthworks constructed to besiege polygonal forts and what would later become the trench lines. There is no "intermediary" between fortresses and trench systems because trench systems evolved out of the techniques used to reduce fortresses. The basic layout and function of trench systems on the western systems would have been immediately recognizable to Vauban, even if the weapons and purpose of things was quite different and the scale was far beyond anything he imagined.

[Arthurista]

After talking to Arthurista about Heeresstruktur IV and his ORBAT, I decided to get off my ass and finally visualize my own not!Bundeswehr armored division:

([url=http://fs5.directupload.net/images/user/160726/fkuoata3.png]Image)[/url]

Armored Reconnaissance Battalion: 28x M8A1 Tiamat MBT, 18x M20A1 Megära CFV, 12x M418A1 CRV, 6x 120mm mortars, 8x RQ-7 Shadow
Armor Battalion: 54x M8A1 Tiamat MBT
Armored Infantry Battalion: 54x M20A1 Megära CFV, 12x 120mm mortars
Armored Artillery Battalion: 24x M2000A1 Mjolnir SPH

Rocket Artillery Battalion: 24x M455A2 Hellfire MLRS

Combat Aviation Battalion: 24x AH-75B Vulture, 15x OH-72B Sparrowhawk
General Aviation Battalion: 48x UH-101C Merlin, 12x CH-62H Super Dragon/CH-74A Ashla

Air Defense Battalion: 32x M850A1 Atalanta SPAAG, 32x M815A1 Jupiter TLAR

UAV Company: 12x MQ-15C Heron

That looks great!

I'm in a pop-capped region, so my setup is far more austere. I aimed to keep division size somewhere between 15-18k to economise on manpower.

I attach an attack helicopter regiment (battalion) of 32 per division, but helicopters are for me primarily a corps asset. I don't see them as survivable enough to justify massive investment in rotary-wing aviation and I use them mostly as stand-off tank destroyers. My most numerous model is essentially a Aérospatiale Puma with some missile racks for Brimstones welded on the side plus sensors and FCS strapped on.

As part of my restructuring I think I'm also going to reduce light infantry to a brigade of paras per each of my three corps. They're nominally trained for the airborne role, though in practice I see their main niche as being an airmobile anti-tank screen which may be deployed in a hurry, or reinforce whichever division which finds itself in rough/urban terrain.

[Purpelia]

Youtube has taught me that modern shooters obsess to a nearly pathological degree over hearing protection no matter what weapons they are using. But there was no such thing back in the day. Hell, I have not even modern armies, let alone their WW2 or earlier counterparts use any protection for the ears even when doing things such as sitting inside a reverberating metal box cramped around a big gun.

So is hearing damage a serious concern in modern warfare? Anyone have any data about that? Like did WW1 and WW2 armies suffer attrition from artillerymen being deafened?

[The Akasha Colony]

Youtube has taught me that modern shooters obsess to a nearly pathological degree over hearing protection no matter what weapons they are using. But there was no such thing back in the day. Hell, I have not even modern armies, let alone their WW2 or earlier counterparts use any protection for the ears even when doing things such as sitting inside a reverberating metal box cramped around a big gun.

So is hearing damage a serious concern in modern warfare? Anyone have any data about that? Like did WW1 and WW2 armies suffer attrition from artillerymen being deafened?

Yes, it's a problem. The CDC determined that roughly 10% of veterans suffer from severe hearing impairment, four times the rate of the general civilian population except for those working in other industrial fields where high noise levels are common. And there's lots of other coverage. Huge amounts of money are spent on dealing with hearing impairment among veterans.

But it's not as obvious as other "flashier" but rarer forms of injury, like lost limbs or even PTSD. And unlike a physical injury, happens slowly over time during prolonged exposure during service and thus may not be readily obvious until leaving the service and transitioning to a quieter life. Or it may be present but not severe enough to be worthy of discharge or transfer. US troops are normally issued foam ear plugs but from what I have heard are generally loathe to use them in combat since they muffle all sounds, including orders and other auditory cues they may need to respond to. Some may have headsets for communication, but these are also usually not designed specifically for hearing protection. There's programs in the works to develop special active noise cancellation systems that specifically avoid the human voice and other select frequencies while tuning out or reducing the magnitude of gunfire or explosions etc., but these currently bring more cost and logistical issues.

It's not just an active combat thing either since even troops deployed abroad will likely expend more rounds in training than they will in active combat with the enemy. Young enlisted men will generally bounce back relatively quickly from temporary tinnitus and what not but over time it will catch up with them, especially as hearing naturally worsens with age.

[Western Weyard]

I attach an attack helicopter regiment (battalion) of 32 per division, but helicopters are for me primarily a corps asset. I don't see them as survivable enough to justify massive investment in rotary-wing aviation and I use them mostly as stand-off tank destroyers. My most numerous model is essentially a Aérospatiale Puma with some missile racks for Brimstones welded on the side plus sensors and FCS strapped on.

Given the fact that I don't have ground-based TDs in my heavy division, the attack helos are there for a reason.
Also, yes, the General Aviation Battalions normally don't see much use in a heavy division.

As part of my restructuring I think I'm also going to reduce light infantry to a brigade of paras per each of my three corps. They're nominally trained for the airborne role, though in practice I see their main niche as being an airmobile anti-tank screen which may be deployed in a hurry, or reinforce whichever division which finds itself in rough/urban terrain.

Don't forget Jagdkampf - fucking up the enemy's shit behind his lines and keeping him from doing the same to you.

[Prosorusiya]

So, between the three, would you guys suggests using the Su-22M4, MiG-27, or MiG-23BN as my primary fighter bomber? I am looking to task them mainly with SEAD and counter air operations, with a possibility of precision strike as well.

[Takhshiyt]

So I am a small nation, rather small indeed. I have enemies that hate me on my borders, although at least one of them has an incompetent military compared to mine. I was wondering about my divisional structures: should I use brigades as my main maneuver forces, or should divisions constitute my main maneuver force? My standing forces number at 4 divisions (2 infantry 2 armoured) and one para brigade. Should I constitute those divisions of completely self sufficient brigades like the BCT, or should I design my divisions around maneuvering as a whole with divisional artillery and other services concentrated at the divisional level?

My military doctrine emphasizes initiative at lower levels, mission type command, attacking rear areas, indirect approach, maneuverist approach, using all areas of combat to maximum effect. I have a professional looking military, but I do utilize conscription.

[Allanea]

That is all.

This is still part of trench development.

When polygon forts went underground, they became trenches (and dugouts/bunkers).

Area defense was a feature of warfare for star forts that eventually led to star forts being replaced by polygon forts (They are different).
Area defense, key to the evolution from star to polygon forts, was an intimate aspect of the concept of how polygon forts were supposed to work.
You can't replace something you are a part of.

There are essential differences between trenches (and the overall forms of fortifications associated with them) and permanent fortifications (of which forts are a form). Forts and fortified areas exist to this day.

[Questers]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Perhaps I ought to transition to this 80s-Bundeswehr style division (http://i.imgur.com/YbmmB5o.png).

Stryker brigades were designed for rapid deployment (isnt it 96 hrs by airlift?) so comparing them to a motor rifle regiment or brigade, which is an all-arms mechanised unit formed to operate as part of a nucleus of something else is unreasonable.