NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Daenya]

Can anyone suggest how many men should I have in the marksmen/sniper wing of my army. Since my terrain is mostly mountainous, my defence tactic is to just turn the entire country into a bowl of sniper filled valleys. Also, I'm not sure what rifle I should have for the sniper wing, or what rifle the regular infantry should have. Any suggestions?

[-St George]

Got a question on total military size vs. a nation's total population. Let's say you had a state with a total population of 200 million, with total available manpower fit for military service around say...50 million. Would a military of 3 million active personnel be feasible if support roles were filled by universal conscription and combat roles were filled by volunteers?

If it's not feasible, what kind of total manpower would the country need to meet that quota?

If an army of 3 million is doable, what kind of reserves might the nation be able to call upon, if any? Could any army that size be equipped as well as say...the US military?

The US has a population of 300 million or so, and has 60 million or so fit for military service. It has almost 1.5 million active military personnel and the same again in reserve. It also has a mahoosive military budget (admittedly, going on NS Stats *shudders* most nations end with higher budgets).

[-St George]

Can anyone suggest how many men should I have in the marksmen/sniper wing of my army. Since my terrain is mostly mountainous, my defence tactic is to just turn the entire country into a bowl of sniper filled valleys. Also, I'm not sure what rifle I should have for the sniper wing, or what rifle the regular infantry should have. Any suggestions?

For lolsnipers perhaps the SVU a bullpup configuration of the frankly overused SVU?

[Germania Alliance]

Got a question on total military size vs. a nation's total population. Let's say you had a state with a total population of 200 million, with total available manpower fit for military service around say...50 million. Would a military of 3 million active personnel be feasible if support roles were filled by universal conscription and combat roles were filled by volunteers?

If it's not feasible, what kind of total manpower would the country need to meet that quota?

If an army of 3 million is doable, what kind of reserves might the nation be able to call upon, if any? Could any army that size be equipped as well as say...the US military?

The US has a population of 300 million or so, and has 60 million or so fit for military service. It has almost 1.5 million active military personnel and the same again in reserve. It also has a mahoosive military budget (admittedly, going on NS Stats *shudders* most nations end with higher budgets).

However, if you look at China, they have a population of over a billion and only have 2.25 million members in the active military. The majority of the personnel don't even fill combat roles, but are cooks, mechanics, etc..

The size of your nation doesn't necessarily define the number of military personnel you should have. Just go with what you think is best (and relatively realistic).

[Hittanryan]

The US has a population of 300 million or so, and has 60 million or so fit for military service. It has almost 1.5 million active military personnel and the same again in reserve. It also has a mahoosive military budget (admittedly, going on NS Stats *shudders* most nations end with higher budgets).

I'm aware of the military statistics of the US, that's where I started from. Suppose we skimped on the gigantic, sometimes dead-end R&D projects that the US is known for? Navy would be less than half the size of the USN, no global commitments to justify fielding 10 goddamn supercarriers. Redirecting funds from there might help with procurement and upkeep. Would conscription count for anything, if it covered support personnel and there was significant volunteer enlistment?

[The Kievan People]

Can anyone suggest how many men should I have in the marksmen/sniper wing of my army. Since my terrain is mostly mountainous, my defence tactic is to just turn the entire country into a bowl of sniper filled valleys. Also, I'm not sure what rifle I should have for the sniper wing, or what rifle the regular infantry should have. Any suggestions?

Honestly that's a rather bad plan.

Snipers can harass but they won't come close to halting a determined attacker. In the Kargil war for example, which featured heavy fighting in the Himalayas, the decisive weapon and main cause of Pakistani casualties was Indian artillery.

[Hittanryan]

Can anyone suggest how many men should I have in the marksmen/sniper wing of my army. Since my terrain is mostly mountainous, my defence tactic is to just turn the entire country into a bowl of sniper filled valleys. Also, I'm not sure what rifle I should have for the sniper wing, or what rifle the regular infantry should have. Any suggestions?

Honestly that's a rather bad plan.

Snipers can harass but they won't come close to halting a determined attacker. In the Kargil war for example, which featured heavy fighting in the Himalayas, the decisive weapon and main cause of Pakistani casualties was Indian artillery.

Not to mention the standard operating procedure for clearing out snipers, IIRC, is artillery bombardment.

[Novraslavia]

Why does everyone have unrealistically huge militaries? My military population is just under a million, which only about half of which are active. And I have a pretty big military.

[Germania Alliance]

Honestly that's a rather bad plan.

Snipers can harass but they won't come close to halting a determined attacker. In the Kargil war for example, which featured heavy fighting in the Himalayas, the decisive weapon and main cause of Pakistani casualties was Indian artillery.

Not to mention the standard operating procedure for clearing out snipers, IIRC, is artillery bombardment.

In mountainous terrains, it makes more sense to dig in with conventional forces in the passes then to lure your enemy in and take them out with snipers. That being said, the enemy would have an extremely difficult time of invading if you blew the bridges and passes, and fortified mountainsides with bunkers and air defenses. The snipers would be the icing on the cake then, but are ineffective alone.

[Arkania 5]

The fact that your Armed Forces still use katanas is quite unrealistic in modern warfare.
Just forget about it entirely, and BAM! Speed problem solved.

Or choose a smaller weapon. Katanas are bloody huge.

Use a Gunblade. dwi.

Also, Katanas can cut through Chobham?

[Kazomal]

Or choose a smaller weapon. Katanas are bloody huge.

Use a Gunblade. dwi.

Also, Katanas can cut through Chobham?

Depends, can you convert Chobham to pig/criminal bodies? What's the ratio? I've seen katanas that can do through a lot of pig corpses in a single cut.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Why does everyone have unrealistically huge militaries? My military population is just under a million, which only about half of which are active. And I have a pretty big military.

Because my nation has an Israeli-style reserves programme, in which every fit teenager aged 16 must serve three years' compulsory service. Then, if they don't continue as regular forces upon becoming 19, they must sign on as a life reservist.

And then... I just like huge armies. I think I have a total military size of something like 10-12 million active, with regular reserves of maybe 8-16 million more, and then the rest of the able population is an emergency reservist. I can, theoretically, muster 70% of my population to fight. Since the majority will be irregular forces, the entirety of the manpower can be fully deployed in just a few weeks, some of the irregular forces deploying in a few hours (each), in local platoon-sized units.

lololwank
I came up with that well before I joined the forums, I've just not the heart to retcon it. I like it. It just means I can't RP much.

[Minroz]

I got random question for, in which I need some help; it’s about Banzai charges. I want to know how useful they are and where they should apply. I did some research on it, found out they’re too costly.

So I want to know your opinion or critiques or whatsoever you want to bring up about it. I'm just curious.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Use a Gunblade. dwi.

Also, Katanas can cut through Chobham?

Depends, can you convert Chobham to pig/criminal bodies? What's the ratio? I've seen katanas that can do through a lot of pig corpses in a single cut.

Swords as a whole in MT combat are pretty useless anyway, if you do use them just make them ceremonial like Sabres or (if you are based off of Japan) Katanas.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I got random question for, in which I need some help; it’s about Banzai charges. I want to know how useful they are and where they should apply. I did some research on it, found out they’re too costly.

So I want to know your opinion or critiques or whatsoever you want to bring up about it.

They weren't effective in WWII, they certainly won't be effective today. All I can think of right no is "10-plus foot mobiles", as dominating air power and artillery wipes out the bayonet-wielding charging infantry before they even reach the infantry line.

[Germania Alliance]

I got random question for, in which I need some help; it’s about Banzai charges. I want to know how useful they are and where they should apply. I did some research on it, found out they’re too costly.

So I want to know your opinion or critiques or whatsoever you want to bring up about it.

In a modern conflict, they aren't useful at all (unless you somehow manage to get extremely close without the enemy noticing somehow). Banzai charges, along with bayonet charges, haven't been the preferred methods of warfare since the trenches.

They're great to use if you aren't MT, as such attacks were performed by all sides up until just after Vietnam. After the war, bayonet/Banzai charges became rather redundant.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Whilst a bayonet charge is no longer an effective tactic, the use of bayonets still is. That additional reach and added lethality are slight force multipliers in close quarters.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Whilst a bayonet charge is no longer an effective tactic, the use of bayonets still is. That additional reach and added lethality are slight force multipliers in close quarters.

A bayonet charge is still effective.

The last bayonet charge that American troops have done, that I know of, was in Iraq, 2003, when the US Marines fixed cold steel and rushed a contingent of Feyadeen Saddam. The British have been known to use bayonet charges in Afghanistan AND Iraq multiple times to great effect.

Or did you miss those BBC articles?

I got random question for, in which I need some help; it’s about Banzai charges. I want to know how useful they are and where they should apply. I did some research on it, found out they’re too costly.

So I want to know your opinion or critiques or whatsoever you want to bring up about it.

In a modern conflict, they aren't useful at all (unless you somehow manage to get extremely close without the enemy noticing somehow). Banzai charges, along with bayonet charges, haven't been the preferred methods of warfare since the trenches.

They're great to use if you aren't MT, as such attacks were performed by all sides up until just after Vietnam. After the war, bayonet/Banzai charges became rather redundant.

There is nothing wrong with trenches and bayonets.

If anything, in these wars of PGMs and laser guided missiles, a well concealed trench is more important than anything else.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

I got random question for, in which I need some help; it’s about Banzai charges. I want to know how useful they are and where they should apply. I did some research on it, found out they’re too costly.

So I want to know your opinion or critiques or whatsoever you want to bring up about it. I'm just curious.

In terms of manpower, yes, they are too costly, and one need only rain death from above to cut the banzai charge (or human wave attack) down.

[Germania Alliance]

Whilst a bayonet charge is no longer an effective tactic, the use of bayonets still is. That additional reach and added lethality are slight force multipliers in close quarters.

A bayonet charge is still effective.

The last bayonet charge that American troops have done, that I know of, was in Iraq, 2003, when the US Marines fixed cold steel and rushed a contingent of Feyadeen Saddam. The British have been known to use bayonet charges in Afghanistan AND Iraq multiple times to great effect.

Or did you miss those BBC articles?

In a modern conflict, they aren't useful at all (unless you somehow manage to get extremely close without the enemy noticing somehow). Banzai charges, along with bayonet charges, haven't been the preferred methods of warfare since the trenches.

They're great to use if you aren't MT, as such attacks were performed by all sides up until just after Vietnam. After the war, bayonet/Banzai charges became rather redundant.

There is nothing wrong with trenches and bayonets.

If anything, in these wars of PGMs and laser guided missiles, a well concealed trench is more important than anything else.

The fact that I've served in Afghanistan, and haven't heard of such shenanigans, is both shocking and revolting. They must have balls of steel. I'll have to ask around the office on Monday.

Trenches... I've always hated them, but we never had to conceal them. We actually found it beneficial to let the enemy see where the gun-line is, instead of putting up fences and hiding. Of course, our living quarters weren't so open, mind you.

EDIT: When I talked about the "trenches," I was referring to trench warfare, not trenches in general.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Whilst a bayonet charge is no longer an effective tactic, the use of bayonets still is. That additional reach and added lethality are slight force multipliers in close quarters.

A bayonet charge is still effective.

The last bayonet charge that American troops have done, that I know of, was in Iraq, 2003, when the US Marines fixed cold steel and rushed a contingent of Feyadeen Saddam. The British have been known to use bayonet charges in Afghanistan AND Iraq multiple times to great effect.

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have no access to armour, air power, and very rarely do they have access to artillery usable in a supporting role required to stop a bayonet charge, or the manpower with which to hold a line against it. A bayonet charge is only effective today in FIBUA, which is what the 2003 charge was, IIRC. In the early stages of the Afghan war, the Taliban would launch masses bayonet charges at British and American positions, only to be obliterated by, again, air armour artillery and infantry fire.

In a first world v first world conflict, the side with the bayonet charge will be cut down by the air, armour and artillery and even opposing infantry of the side it attacks, because they have broken cover to engage at close quarters, allowing all components of the OpFor to engage them in the open.

[Mediterreania]

tag

[Germania Alliance]

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have no access to armour, air power, and very rarely do they have access to artillery usable in a supporting role required to stop a bayonet charge, or the manpower with which to hold a line against it. A bayonet charge is only effective today in FIBUA, which is what the 2003 charge was, IIRC.

In a first world v first world conflict, the side with the bayonet charge will be cut down by the air, armour and artillery and even opposing infantry of the side it attacks, because they have broken cover to engage at close quarters, allowing all components of the OpFor to engage them in the open.

Actually, the insurgents seem to have a never-ending supply of mortars and RPGs, probably worse than if they had actual artillery..

During WWI, bayonet charges were met with astounding failure and success. In order for a charge to be considered a success, the troops would have to make it across no-mans land and force the enemy to retreat to another set of trenches. For this to happen, the bayonet charge would only happen after the enemy was bombarded for hours straight, followed by gas attacks (and through the gas would come the bayonet charge).

[The Northwest Wind]

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have no access to armour, air power, and very rarely do they have access to artillery usable in a supporting role required to stop a bayonet charge, or the manpower with which to hold a line against it. A bayonet charge is only effective today in FIBUA, which is what the 2003 charge was, IIRC.

In a first world v first world conflict, the side with the bayonet charge will be cut down by the air, armour and artillery and even opposing infantry of the side it attacks, because they have broken cover to engage at close quarters, allowing all components of the OpFor to engage them in the open.

Actually, the insurgents seem to have a never-ending supply of mortars and RPGs, probably worse than if they had actual artillery..

During WWII, bayonet charges were met with astounding failure and success. In order for a charge to be considered a success, the troops would have to make it across no-mans land and force the enemy to retreat to another set of trenches. For this to happen, the bayonet charge would only happen after the enemy was bombarded for hours straight, followed by gas attacks (and through the gas would come the bayonet charge).

I think you mean World War 1, gas wasn't used in WW2.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have no access to armour, air power, and very rarely do they have access to artillery usable in a supporting role required to stop a bayonet charge, or the manpower with which to hold a line against it. A bayonet charge is only effective today in FIBUA, which is what the 2003 charge was, IIRC.

In a first world v first world conflict, the side with the bayonet charge will be cut down by the air, armour and artillery and even opposing infantry of the side it attacks, because they have broken cover to engage at close quarters, allowing all components of the OpFor to engage them in the open.

Actually, the insurgents seem to have a never-ending supply of mortars and RPGs, probably worse than if they had actual artillery..

The RPG is actually a terrible anti-infantry weapon, unless using a specialised anti-infantry loading. Its HEAT warhead limits its ranges of effect to a cone ahead of the warhead, instead of a more spherical detonation. The mortars and Wombats they do possess aren't in significant quantity to be used to suppress an enemy advance, and are only deployed to harass dug-in infantry. They probably wouldn't try to use them in such a way, not only do they have little experience in doing so, it makes little sense and doesn't fit with most of their shoot-and-scoot doctrine.

But of course, of the two of us, only the one has been there...
I make my points based on personal 'logic' and from the novelised (yet true) accounts of a British airman.