NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Langenberg]

Intense enough that everyone would decide to forgo this option in favour of bombing them to death for a month.

Basically. One of the reasons we did bomb them so much before launching the ground forces, as I understand it, was we expected an almost inhumanly fierce resistance.

In order to combat a possible beach landing, do dedicated coastal fortresses still make any sense, or should I just roll artillery to the coasts as necessary?

[Imperializt Russia]

It wasn't going to be "inhumanly fierce", it was predicted to be a big ol' slog.
We were going up against one of the largest armies in the world, which was a pretty motivated army.

Whether or not the coalition would win was never in any real doubt.

IIRC Russian coastal artillery intends to just drive up to the beach when necessary. I may be reading too deeply into the marketing for the A-222 coastal artillery vehicle.
Coastal fortifications could be useful, but Atlantic Wall-style pillboxes will be the first things being knocked out by LGBs or cruise missiles.

[Langenberg]

It wasn't going to be "inhumanly fierce", it was predicted to be a big ol' slog.
We were going up against one of the largest armies in the world, which was a pretty motivated army.

Whether or not the coalition would win was never in any real doubt.

Victory was not in doubt, but we expected a much harder fight, and heavier losses.

IIRC Russian coastal artillery intends to just drive up to the beach when necessary. I may be reading too deeply into the marketing for the A-222 coastal artillery vehicle.
Coastal fortifications could be useful, but Atlantic Wall-style pillboxes will be the first things being knocked out by LGBs or cruise missiles.

Okay. I'll just roll the 155 guns to the beaches then.

[Gallia-]

Intense enough that everyone would decide to forgo this option in favour of bombing them to death for a month.

Basically. One of the reasons we did bomb them so much before launching the ground forces, as I understand it, was we expected an almost inhumanly fierce resistance.

They probably would still have surrendered in droves. Iraqis are not particularly competent or anything. Tawakalna would just be able to defend itself for a few minutes or hours more. Maybe.

The reason was that the ground troops weren't prepared until February. Ir'n Mtns require time, and without Ir'n Mtns, the ground troops wouldn't be able to do anything anyway. The air forces had already arrived, of course, so why let them sit on their butts? The Iraqis were incapable of seriously attacking when the Americans were weak in December '90.

No one really expected "inhumanly fierce resistance". They probably expected someone who could just fight reasonably OK, like the Egyptians in 1973. Unfortunately Iraq was using the latest tactics this side of 1916 and didn't understand modern technology's implications wholly. They were also quite cowardly and poorly motivated.

Further, the wild estimates of super casualties were worst-case scenario. There were other models that predicted a total roflstomp of the Iraqis too, in the opposite end of the spectrum, they just never got headlined because good news is bad.

You're talking out your ass really.

Victory was not in doubt, but we expected a much harder fight, and heavier losses.

No, not really.

Trevor Dupuy said that the Iraqis would kill like 10,000 Americans or something. He more or less back-pedaled after the war and claimed that he was right post-war in predicting the low casualty number, though, so it's a bit tendentious. Dupuy is kind of like the 4th Generation War people I guess. The Allies stockpiled close to 20,000 beds in 65 hospitals to support the wave of casualties that would be swamping doctors from the meat grinder or whatever. Unfortunately it would lack chemical weapons so it's not as badass as National Training Center.

Ultimately Dupuy over-estimated the Iraqis as being some kind of reasonably competent foe and mostly tried to sell . In reality they were total incompetents who couldn't do their jobs, and when they actually did fight, they lacked the technology to beat Western troops anyway. The one time they did actually stonewall Western forces was because the former had suffered a bit of a boner and blundered into them accidentally.

Most people probably "expected" a roflstomp, if you expect anything in such a situation at all. The Americans prepared for the worst case scenario, and planned to prevent that. The first phase of the planning was to destroy Iraqi C3 nodes with a month long bombing campaign, so you aren't really getting out of that.

[Spirit of Hope]

I mean if you have overwhelming aerial superiority why not spend the time to blow up some enemy forces? It wasn't like the coalition was faced with a major time issue, and there wasn't much the Iraqi army could do to stop the aerial campaign.

[The Kievan People]

The Iraqi's had plenty of problems independent of being bombed.

• Very poor shooting skills all around, they rarely engaged first and usually missed when they did, this was as true of riflemen as it was of T-72s
• No ability to coordinate fire support except against fixed, pre-arranged points
• No familiarity with the capabilities and limitations of FLIRs or GMTI and no understanding of how to conceal themselves from them
• Low morale, poor discipline
• Ineffective reconnaissance
• Intelligence (which wasn't great) flowed up to the supreme command, but not down to the frontline units
• They rarely moved either prior to or in combat

The Iraqi's failed at the basic tactical competencies of ground forces: They shot poorly, they could not coordinate fire and movement, they could not make effective use of cover.

There were still plenty of opportunities to inflict damage on coalition forces in the first Gulf War, as lopsided as it was. They failed to exploit them without exception because of their very low level of skills. Even when they surprised coalition troops at close range they could not inflict meaningful damage.

[Langenberg]

There were still plenty of opportunities to inflict damage on coalition forces in the first Gulf War, as lopsided as it was. They failed to exploit them without exception because of their very low level of skills. Even when they surprised coalition troops at close range they could not inflict meaningful damage.

I suppose that happens when you try to field an army of poorly-trained conscripts who don't even want to be their against well-trained professionals.

Who knew?

[Gallia-]

The reverse happened in WW2.

[Republic of Washinton]

Hello again! It's been a while I suppose. My question today has to do with naval blockades. What is the best way to possibly defeat a naval blockade of an entire coastline (say from Northern British Columbia to Southern Oregon)? If this were to occur, would the Navy or Air Force be better for this issue? Keep in mind this is a distant blockade out at sea, not a direct blockade at the mouths of harbors or straits.

[Pharthan]

Hello again! It's been a while I suppose. My question today has to do with naval blockades. What is the best way to possibly defeat a naval blockade of an entire coastline (say from Northern British Columbia to Southern Oregon)? If this were to occur, would the Navy or Air Force be better for this issue? Keep in mind this is a distant blockade out at sea, not a direct blockade at the mouths of harbors or straits.

If they're blockading you, it means they likely have naval superiority or combat hasn't occurred or has only just occurred. A naval slugfest can end poorly for you.

Depending on how distant the blockade is, land-based aircraft will be great as they will traditionally be better than carrierborne aircraft.
The other option is to use submarines, which will probably be the best answer; once you take out key targets with the subs, go in with the rest of your naval forces and air force.

[Kazarogkai]

The reverse happened in WW2.

I'm pretty sure no one fielded a proper professional volunteer force outside the Anglo nations, and even then they eventually resorted to conscription just like everyone else.

One problem I've heard about Iraqi and in general Arab forces is cultural. There is legitimate cultural issues at hand that in some ways prevent Arabian armies from being good at modern western style conventional conflicts. Though on the otherhand the same quirks seem to make them good at irregular warfare so there is some silver lining. Never the less I was just wondering do the same problems exist elsewhere, aka do certain cultural quircks inhibit other culture groups from being effective at modern conventional conflicts? For example African and Far Eastern cultures?

[Gallia-]

The reverse happened in WW2.

I'm pretty sure no one fielded a proper professional volunteer force outside the Anglo nations

They were poorly trained conscript armies. With conscript soldiers and conscript NCOs.

Fascism had very highly trained conscript armies, and Germany in particular was stocked with professional NCOs and officers.

[Kazarogkai]

I'm pretty sure no one fielded a proper professional volunteer force outside the Anglo nations

They were poorly trained conscript armies. With conscript soldiers and conscript NCOs.

Fascism had very highly trained conscript armies, and Germany in particular was stocked with professional NCOs and officers.

Japan is arguably fascist, and Germany was the only proper one of the bunch that fits your narrative.

[The Kievan People]

The link between professionalism or conscripts and combat worth is very, very weak.

There have been plenty of worthless professional armies in history, and plenty of great conscripts. And vice versa.

[Republic of Washinton]

Hello again! It's been a while I suppose. My question today has to do with naval blockades. What is the best way to possibly defeat a naval blockade of an entire coastline (say from Northern British Columbia to Southern Oregon)? If this were to occur, would the Navy or Air Force be better for this issue? Keep in mind this is a distant blockade out at sea, not a direct blockade at the mouths of harbors or straits.

If they're blockading you, it means they likely have naval superiority or combat hasn't occurred or has only just occurred. A naval slugfest can end poorly for you.

Depending on how distant the blockade is, land-based aircraft will be great as they will traditionally be better than carrierborne aircraft.
The other option is to use submarines, which will probably be the best answer; once you take out key targets with the subs, go in with the rest of your naval forces and air force.

Yeah, as of 2016 (our regional timeline) he has more vessels than I do (I have a two ocean navy and he only really has to worry about the Pacific). So submarine attacks and land based aircraft would be the best options. His blockade he mentioned would happen as soon as hostilities start.

[Gallia-]

They were poorly trained conscript armies. With conscript soldiers and conscript NCOs.

Fascism had very highly trained conscript armies, and Germany in particular was stocked with professional NCOs and officers.

Japan is arguably fascist, and Germany was the only proper one of the bunch that fits your narrative.

Nah my narrative is fine.

Conscripts vs. professionals is ultimately an economic argument more than anything.

[Kazarogkai]

The link between professionalism or conscripts and combat worth is very, very weak.

There have been plenty of worthless professional armies in history, and plenty of great conscripts. And vice versa.

I don't think I contradicted that statement in any way... did I? I was just saying Germany was the only one of the properly fascist nations(Romania, Hungary, Italy, Spain...) that had a decent military. Everyone else was just different degrees of suck, ranging from less so(Spain) to utterly and completely so(Italy).

[The Kievan People]

I wasn't really replying to you.

It just takes awhile for me to write posts.

[Langenberg]

The link between professionalism or conscripts and combat worth is very, very weak.

There have been plenty of worthless professional armies in history, and plenty of great conscripts. And vice versa.

Hence the "poorly trained" qualifier, bruh. If the training is solid and the soldiers well-motivated, a conscript army can acquit itself well.

[Rhodesialund]

The link between professionalism or conscripts and combat worth is very, very weak.

There have been plenty of worthless professional armies in history, and plenty of great conscripts. And vice versa.

Hence the "poorly trained" qualifier, bruh. If the training is solid and the soldiers well-motivated, a conscript army can acquit itself well.

Yep, like Gayla said, it's more of an economics question.


Anyone can conscript the fuck out of their population, the real problem is being able to pay their salaries, equip, and train them properly.

[Gallia-]

why would you pay conscripts?

[Langenberg]

why would you pay conscripts?

Because then you can quell the "Conscription = slavery" arguments in wider society. You don't pay slaves, after all.

Not to mention conscripts often have families, and while most of their own material needs are met during training and service, they can send the pay home. Alternatively, they can use it to buy luxuries not available through military issue, or to have spending money when they go on leave.

[Kazarogkai]

I wasn't really replying to you.

It just takes awhile for me to write posts.

Sorry.

I think I feel your pain... it took me till I was ten before I could read ...

[Kazarogkai]

why would you pay conscripts?

Because then you can quell the "Conscription = slavery" arguments in wider society. You don't pay slaves, after all.

Not to mention conscripts often have families, and while most of their own material needs are met during training and service, they can send the pay home. Alternatively, they can use it to buy luxuries not available through military issue, or to have spending money when they go on leave.

Are't most conscripts pretty young; like in the 15-25 range? Outside of reserve conscripts it's doubtful they would have families unless your talking about their parent's and siblings. Still it seems like a good idea to pay them, let them buy something nice and have some experience dealing with money. Since for some it might be the first time they got a proper wage.

[Gallia-]

15 y/o conscripts lol

why is kaz so obsessed with child soldiers rly

most conscripts are 18+ adults

the most pure society israel pays its conscripts essentially stipends with the expectation that theyll be partially supported by their parents or something

israel cannot really be considered "poorly trained" although it has only ever fought arabs which is like the tutorial level of war so maybe theyre just overly inflated