NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Imperializt Russia]

His head was put on a pike wasn't it? I assumed he was murdered first.

[The Arthurian Isles]

It's the British Army because the New Model Army was created by the Parliamentarians during the Civil War.

who cut the king's head off.

The Royal Navy on the other hand has ties to significantly older institutions all the way back to Alfred the Great.

Forgive me for interrupting. It was my understanding that the British Army is so called because its subordinate units are given the title of royal - the Royal Artillery, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Scotland etc. are the organisational units to which the prenominal royal is applied and all together form the Army which, to differentiate it from the Danish equivalent (for example) is termed the British Army.

You are correct about the Royal Navy's origins. If one visits the Senior Gunroom in Britannia Royal Naval College, above the main entrance is carved the battle honours afforded to Alfred in his defence of the British Isles against the Vikings. This is listed alongside other battle honours such as Trafalgar, the Nile and (regrettably) Copenhagen. It may be a stretch of the imagination, but British sailors are in some ways told that their history stretches back well over a millennium. In actual fact, this was done in the reign of Queen Victoria so that the Royal Navy could claim that it had been defending English (and later British) freedom for one thousand years. It rather squashes Hitler's 'Thousand Year Reich'.

[Laritaia]

it's literally because the British army is descended from the professional New Model Army, so individual regiments can have Royal patronage but the army itself does not.

[Crookfur]

His head was put on a pike wasn't it? I assumed he was murdered first.

Nah they dug up his body and hung it in chains. Similar fates befell the bodies of several other parliamentarian leaders. Those signatories of the Royal death warrant still alive all tended to get hung drawn and quartered...

[Inyourfaceistan]

I had a question to ask but now that I'm here I forgot what it was...

So I guess this is a de facto tag for later...

[Imperializt Russia]

I had a question to ask but now that I'm here I forgot what it was...

So I guess this is a de facto tag for later...

You know it was the effectiveness of tanks in seaborne landings, don't lie.

[The Corparation]

I had a question to ask but now that I'm here I forgot what it was...

So I guess this is a de facto tag for later...

You know it was the effectiveness of tanks in seaairborne landings, don't lie.

Fixed.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know it was the effectiveness of tanks in seaairborne landings, don't lie.

Fixed.

[triggering intensifies]

[The Corparation]

Fixed.

[triggering intensifies]

I posted as a joke but now I've started rewatching sparky videos.

plz send help

[Imperializt Russia]

[triggering intensifies]

I posted as a joke but now I've started rewatching sparky videos.

plz send help

#MessWebley

[Kassaran]

Woot for finding this again.

[Versail]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

[Spirit of Hope]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

That sounds like an invitation for the military units to tern against each other or the state.

[Crookfur]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

Not a brilliant idea in my opinion but it depends how high the segregation goes. It could work if you stuck to regiments that recruit from specific areas so tend to be majority single ethnicity but after that the army is essentially ethnically blind and you move officers and specialists about as per army requirements dictate.

Of course geographical recruitment only works for a limited number of unit types. More specialist branches are going to have to be ethnically blind anyway.

At the end of the day you want to promote an attitude of "you don't have an ethnicity anymore, you have the army".

Of course ethnic politics and general fuckery could mean you are stuck with a more segregated armed forces.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

Something very similar was practiced by the British colonial administration in Burma.

When Burma was granted her independence, the BNA, which became the Tatmadaw, retained the system of "Class Battalions" based on ethnicity.

You can guess what happened after that when some of the ethnic minorities decided they didn't want to be a part of Burma.

[Purpelia]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

The only reason why you might realistically want to do this is if you have a bunch of rebellious minorities and you need to use your army to suppress them. That way you can have say the Hindu battalion policing the jewish regions and the Arab battalion policing the Spanish regions or what ever. And the troops will find it difficult to side with the locals.

[Spirit of Hope]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

The only reason why you might realistically want to do this is if you have a bunch of rebellious minorities and you need to use your army to suppress them. That way you can have say the Hindu battalion policing the jewish regions and the Arab battalion policing the Spanish regions or what ever. And the troops will find it difficult to side with the locals.

Then you are just setting your self up for the troops to have major friction with the civilian population, coming from different customs, traditions, religion, potential language barriers, and simple dislike from one ethnic group to another. Even incidents that would potentially go unnoticed from troops of the same ethnicity would likely draw attention if carried out by foreign troops.

[Kazarogkai]

It could work, such a thing was done in the united states for a pretty long time and it went relatively ok(we haven't had a lot of military rebellions). In some cases it may just be essential. One tribe hates another tribe and so on. This could theoretically be used as a means to use said strong tribal ties productively with the regiments in question, I'm assuming that will be the system you are using, having that infamously good esprit de corps that they are known for. This does mean you will have to worry about Group rivalries and the like but so long as you have a relatively stable political scene(usa) you should be okish. Grouping people off the basis of ethnicity is no more ridiculous than doing so on the basis of geography or political affiliation for that matter. They are all dumb in their own way, everyone knows the only real thing that matters is Nationality

[Purpelia]

Then you are just setting your self up for the troops to have major friction with the civilian population, coming from different customs, traditions, religion, potential language barriers, and simple dislike from one ethnic group to another. Even incidents that would potentially go unnoticed from troops of the same ethnicity would likely draw attention if carried out by foreign troops.

I'd say that by the time you start using your army to suppress ethnic population the ship of good relations has long sailed.

[NeuPolska]

I don't know about different ethnicities, but recruiting by regions or provinces works pretty well. The Swedish Caroleans were recruited by province and they were some of the best if not the best soldiers of their time.

[Husseinarti]

Assuming that my country has multiple ethnic groups who historically been in conflict, would having them in segregated military units be a good idea or a bad idea?
Like having Russians in one regiment but having Poles in a separate regiment.

You should promote mixing within the armed forces.

However if you have problems i.e. Sudten-shitlords vs Czechs, you can be iffy. The armored regiments and armored divisions of the Czechoslovak Army were mostly drawn from selected Czech nationals as per an example.

[The Akasha Colony]

I don't know about different ethnicities, but recruiting by regions or provinces works pretty well. The Swedish Caroleans were recruited by province and they were some of the best if not the best soldiers of their time.

This has nothing to do with how they were recruited and much more with how they were trained and employed.

[NeuPolska]

I don't know about different ethnicities, but recruiting by regions or provinces works pretty well. The Swedish Caroleans were recruited by province and they were some of the best if not the best soldiers of their time.

This has nothing to do with how they were recruited and much more with how they were trained and employed.

It was meant to promote camaraderie and patriotism, which along with religion was what made them essentially fearless against enemy volleys and artillery.

[The Akasha Colony]

This has nothing to do with how they were recruited and much more with how they were trained and employed.

It was meant to promote camaraderie and patriotism, which along with religion was what made them essentially fearless against enemy volleys and artillery.

This, again, has nothing to do with recruitment and everything to do with organization and training.

Keeping soldiers from the same region in a unit together was hardly unique, it is the foundation of the regimental system that dominated armies for centuries. It was how practically every army of the time operated. Even the ones the Swedes defeated.

Later, it was found that mixing and reassigning soldiers as needed was useful in balancing personnel allocations, as the army could then begin to behave as a single unit with a common pool of soldiers rather than a bunch of individual units with individual pools. Men could be transferred wherever they were needed and units with a shortage of personnel could have new recruits assigned to them from wherever they were available, rather than being forced to continue recruiting from a specific region that might now be rather short of manpower due to changing demographics.

[Purpelia]

Quite. If you want to look up a really recent example check out the english Pals Battalions from WW1. Also a good case study in why this sort of thing isn't done any more.