NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #2

[Liugark]

It should act as a general outline for the History of the Liu.I actively decided against going into detail.

He will get his own factbook entries,depicting his life and how he conquered the world
in detail.Where and by whom he was born,how he succeded his father.How he reformed his
military and so on.

Okay, but you're still focusing on the 'when' and the 'how'. 'When's and 'how's are for history books. For an interesting character people want to read about, you need to tell us the Why.

Thats what I want to archieve in his factbook entries.For the overall History of the Liu his conquests on a wider scale are much more important than why he decided to conquer to the west.

History Books would be a pretty good description of these Factbooks entries.They are not depicting the Life of this single Emperor,but what his archievements meant for the Liu Empire.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Many of the gains the Romans made was long before the Marian reforms and the birth of the professional legionary. And in all honesty, the Roman legionnaire proved themselves (and any well trained heavy infantry could do this) against Parthian Cataphracts. So I believe Roman legionnaire infantry would, properly trained, equipped and led, have no trouble facing medieval cavalry.

Also, one of the reasons Romans abandoned the spear idea was that, despite the phalanx being the epitome of spear/pike armed troops in that era and everyone used it, it was pretty poor on uneven ground which was the norm in Latium, and top have really effective spear troops its best to have flat ground and a single, unified front. Of course you don't need these things, but its handy to have them. Therefore, they used something that was far more maneuverable in combat, and therefore able to overcome these terrain disadvantages, without becoming light infantry.

Roman Triarii fought in a shallow phalanx formation, but that was before Marian, iirc.

Also, the segmentata lorica, the stereotypical Roman armor, was probably provided mostly to the heavy infantry, the Legionnaires and Centurions. Auxilia wore scale armor. Some people say the segmentata is used only for parades, like the helmet crests, but that wouldn't make sense considering they're really expensive.

Wikipedia seems to think they were made of iron and brass buckles; I'm pretty sure iron could stop a dory, but I've never tried. The wicker scutum was a good enough shield, and might have stopped some swords and provided infinite protection against any missiles less than a pila, but was far less durable than the Greek aspis, even if it did provide more coverage for less weight. The Greeks likes to cover their shields with a thin brass face, which dramatically increased the strength even if the thing weighed over twenty pounds.

The Roman testudo was geared to provide full protection to a lot of soldiers in a small space. A lot like the phalanx, they could push against the enemy's lines with men backing them up. However, they did not use the testudo exclusively, as Hellenic armies did with the phalanx, and individual legionnaires were far more flexible than individual Greeks or Macedonians. Like Nukanor said, the phalanx would suffer when there was uneven ground, as Polybus agrees. I'd be interested to see how Romans and Lacedaemonians fared against each other, both at the height of their power, because both were incredible armies.

Romans, after Marian reforms, could very well fight against medieval armies. Medieval armies typically just ran at each other in battle while archers shot away. While it's not terribly different in Roman times, they took large-scale troop formations into heavy account. Medieval warfare also relied heavily on the knight, and relegated the infantry to not much better than militia forces. In the Crusades, where there weren't knights, there were average joes with pitchforks. The Anglo-Saxons had the fyrd, farmers and lower-class guys, for example. While they did have shield walls, these were of poor quality compared to Roman or Hellenic ones.

Romans also fought very conservatively. The gladius was tailor-made for short, stabbing attacks, when their primary enemies, like the Gauls, were superb individual fighters but entirely lacked tactics. A single knight would easily lose to two or three Romans, because the longsword required great, big sweeps to lay about, and the gladius didn't. The knight's armor, also protected them to the fullest extend but didn't offer much maneuverability.

I'm not an expert. Just my thoughts.

Essentially, you are correct. This is what I was trying to say, just with less words because of having less time.

[Liugark]

Roman Triarii fought in a shallow phalanx formation, but that was before Marian, iirc.

Also, the segmentata lorica, the stereotypical Roman armor, was probably provided mostly to the heavy infantry, the Legionnaires and Centurions. Auxilia wore scale armor. Some people say the segmentata is used only for parades, like the helmet crests, but that wouldn't make sense considering they're really expensive.

Wikipedia seems to think they were made of iron and brass buckles; I'm pretty sure iron could stop a dory, but I've never tried. The wicker scutum was a good enough shield, and might have stopped some swords and provided infinite protection against any missiles less than a pila, but was far less durable than the Greek aspis, even if it did provide more coverage for less weight. The Greeks likes to cover their shields with a thin brass face, which dramatically increased the strength even if the thing weighed over twenty pounds.

The Roman testudo was geared to provide full protection to a lot of soldiers in a small space. A lot like the phalanx, they could push against the enemy's lines with men backing them up. However, they did not use the testudo exclusively, as Hellenic armies did with the phalanx, and individual legionnaires were far more flexible than individual Greeks or Macedonians. Like Nukanor said, the phalanx would suffer when there was uneven ground, as Polybus agrees. I'd be interested to see how Romans and Lacedaemonians fared against each other, both at the height of their power, because both were incredible armies.

Romans, after Marian reforms, could very well fight against medieval armies. Medieval armies typically just ran at each other in battle while archers shot away. While it's not terribly different in Roman times, they took large-scale troop formations into heavy account. Medieval warfare also relied heavily on the knight, and relegated the infantry to not much better than militia forces. In the Crusades, where there weren't knights, there were average joes with pitchforks. The Anglo-Saxons had the fyrd, farmers and lower-class guys, for example. While they did have shield walls, these were of poor quality compared to Roman or Hellenic ones.

Romans also fought very conservatively. The gladius was tailor-made for short, stabbing attacks, when their primary enemies, like the Gauls, were superb individual fighters but entirely lacked tactics. A single knight would easily lose to two or three Romans, because the longsword required great, big sweeps to lay about, and the gladius didn't. The knight's armor, also protected them to the fullest extend but didn't offer much maneuverability.

I'm not an expert. Just my thoughts.

Essentially, you are correct. This is what I was trying to say, just with less words because of having less time.

The only thing I don´t like about this is where he described medieval tactics.There were many
different manuveurs and plans in the dark ages.

[Strolingrad]

I was wondering, how large each of my military branches are in terms of man power?

Combined, Military & Reserves I have 4,402,123 servicemen and women. I don't know if it makes a difference but the majorty of my military funding goes to the Airforce.

That depends on how many are regular force, and reserve, how good your tech is (I'm guessing older tech, seeing as that's almost exactly 5% of your population) But really, it's entirely up to you, Just remember that for each fighting unit, you need a bunch of logistical pers.

I have compulsory military service but after serving for a one year period you have the option to countinue serving. The people who decide to countinue to serve are part of the regular forces.

[El Gran Tropico]

If something went wrong you would have horrible casualities.
Archers just have longer range.Sure,the impact is lesser (even though Composite
Bows were pretty powerful),but the danger for the archer is minimal if protected
by other troops.

Legionaires with Pilla would be perfect for penetrating enemy cavalry with Javelins.

As your nation is using Crossbows,these would be perfect for such a task.Pavise Crossbowmen
would handle enemy cavalry pretty fast.

Also it depends on which type of armour the horses are armed with. Plate would be pretty effective
against arrows due to its shape and consistense,but mail or scale could be penetrated.

Yes, shooting horses works pretty well against unarmored cavalry. However, a few things bear consideration.

1) Archers are generally auxiliary troops, and not trained for fierce close-in fighting (particularly against mounted opponents). They tend to break and run when faced with a cavalry charge, potentially abandoning their weapons, arrows, etc. in their panic. Thus, you need to protect your archers, preferably with either a wall of spearmen, or a ditch and stakes.

2) If protecting your archers with spearmen, you want to use indirect fire weapons (longbows or composite bows). Crossbows fire at a very shallow angle, and your risk hitting your spearmen, even if they are not engaging the enemy cavalry.

3) Javelin-throwers are also generally auxiliaries. However, they have a much shorter effective range, placing them even more at risk of a cavalry charge. They also should not be used alone to face cavalry. Because of the lower overall speed a javelin achieves compared to an arrow, they will also miss more against moving targets like cavalry. Javelins also weigh more than arrows, meaning troops using them have strongly limited ammunition. All these factors make javelins less-than-ideal for medieval-style combat. There's a reason javelins were not adopted en mass during the Middle Ages, even though they would be good at penetrating the plate armor of the time.

4) Mounted archers can be extremely effective against heavy cavalry. You just lead them on until their horses tire, pepper them with arrows while doing so, then close in for the kill hand-to-hand after the enemy ranks have been sufficiently thinned. Out of all the proposed strategies to combat heavy cavalry, this is the one I think has the most chance of success. You just need to room to maneuver, and good scouts to ensure you won't be ambushed by a second force of cavalry or foot-soldiers. It also will help if you have exceptional horsemen and horses with exceptional endurance.

5) Pavise crossbowmen make no sense as a response to heavy cavalry. Why do you need to shield your crossbowmen from arrows if the enemy is only carrying lances and swords? Drop the pavise and give your crossbowmen stakes and shovels. In the end this will make them much more effective against horsemen.

6) In lieu of all of the above comments, rank upon rank of pikes or halberds is a pretty damned-effective defense against cavalry. Just ask the Scotts. Because of the simplicity and effectiveness of pikes, they persisted well into the gunpowder age.

[Lubyak]

Pike and shot is indeed a truly wonderful form of warfare. Also one that I see very little RP in...it makes me sad...

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

[The Kievan People]

@The Kievan People
I honestly don't understand why you are saying what you are saying. It just makes no sense to me. I have tried elaborating why. But now I am flat out lost. I just give up. So just go ahead, write an essay or something. Explain your logic to me.

What I don't understand is how I need to get rid of the ability of a metal pipe to launch one type of missiles in order to preserve it's ability to launch another type. Since that is what this thing is. It's a metal pipe with an ignition system to fire up a rocket, any rocket that I shove into it. That pipe is than put on an artillery like 360 degrees traverse mount that can elevate as well. It has no optics or any sort of sensors of it's own. And that's it. It's a metal pipe.

Sure if it's actually expected to act in the AA role than yes it would get all the fancy AA radar and guidance package. But I don't see how the ability to attach external sensors and external equipment to a metal pipe to make it do something else detracts from it's ability to be used as a metal pipe when that other stuff is not attached. It's like saying that if your gun is designed so that you can stick a knife on it to stab people, than it can't be good as a gun any more even without the knife. I just don't get the logic of what you are saying.

Now you know my pain.

A convertible AA/AT/Artillery battery is silly. Nobody needs it. It's not economical. It's not tactically, operationally or strategically useful. There are much better ways to tailor the capabilities of units and subunits.

[Galla-]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortars (unless you're France, then your squads get mortars) and rocket launchers like SMAW, mostly.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortars (unless you're France, then your squads get mortars) and rocket launchers like SMAW, mostly.

And support staff, like MP's, chaplains, etc.?

[Galla-]

Mortars (unless you're France, then your squads get mortars) and rocket launchers like SMAW, mostly.

And support staff, like MP's, chaplains, etc.?

Are separate? Usually attached at brigade HQ, for the US Army, iirc.

[The Akasha Colony]

@The Kievan People
I honestly don't understand why you are saying what you are saying. It just makes no sense to me. I have tried elaborating why. But now I am flat out lost. I just give up. So just go ahead, write an essay or something. Explain your logic to me.

What I don't understand is how I need to get rid of the ability of a metal pipe to launch one type of missiles in order to preserve it's ability to launch another type. Since that is what this thing is. It's a metal pipe with an ignition system to fire up a rocket, any rocket that I shove into it. That pipe is than put on an artillery like 360 degrees traverse mount that can elevate as well. It has no optics or any sort of sensors of it's own. And that's it. It's a metal pipe.

Sure if it's actually expected to act in the AA role than yes it would get all the fancy AA radar and guidance package. But I don't see how the ability to attach external sensors and external equipment to a metal pipe to make it do something else detracts from it's ability to be used as a metal pipe when that other stuff is not attached. It's like saying that if your gun is designed so that you can stick a knife on it to stab people, than it can't be good as a gun any more even without the knife. I just don't get the logic of what you are saying.

Because at the end of the day, the only thing that ends up being common is the metal pipe itself. The mounts must be different, and swapped out for different platforms. The sensors must be different, and also swapped out for different roles. The ammunition is different. So now you've managed to make a single $50 metal pipe common to a system that itself costs hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per configuration to develop, and whose configurations don't share very much else in common. You have, for all intents and purposes, developed multiple systems that only happen to share the same caliber and ignition system. Nothing was really saved in the endeavor, and your own explanation lists them as having very different intended uses in any event.

The big point of this system seems to be commonality of caliber between different ammunition types. But the biggest benefit of commonality is negated when it is deployed alongside existing weapons. Now, you just have yet another type of round to stock in your supply depots, alongside the existing SAM, MLRS, and ATGM ammunition. Which means you have to also develop new SAMs, rockets, and ATGMs to fit the caliber, since if it were already a common caliber between all of these weapons, you wouldn't need a new system. The benefit of consolidation might make such a vehicle useful, but you're not consolidating your forces on it, so that benefit is lost.

This was the key to ADATS. Every ADATS missile was multi-role, and ADATS would have been alone in its role had the US Army adopted it. ADATS carried eight missiles, all of which could be launched against tanks or against helicopters without any changes, extra systems, or ammo swaps. You can do the same here and consolidate your ATGM and SAM roles into a single missile, but that won't mesh well with the unguided rockets, which are supposed to be cheap and expendable. As it stands, if you lose any part of the system, you lose a big part of its capability. If you have the wrong ammo, you're sunk. If you don't have the sensors, you're sunk. ADATS kept everything it needed for every role it was expected to fill onboard, on one platform. That was its selling point. It was more expensive than a dedicated ATGM system, or a dedicated SAM system, but it was hoped to save money by eliminating the need for separate systems, allowing a single supply chain and vehicle to fill both roles.

Thus, if you're still considering this, my suggestion is that at a minimum, roll your ATGM and SAM roles into a single missile, and have this vehicle replace any vehicles of similar capability in your military. Not supplement, replace. Otherwise it's not worth the logistics cost.

[The Kievan People]

^^^Akasha wins the page for clearly articulating what my rage-addled brain could not.

[Ularn]

Pike and shot is indeed a truly wonderful form of warfare. Also one that I see very little RP in...it makes me sad...

I feel kind of bad for quoting this post instead of the incredibly helpful, albeit massive one from El Gran Tropico. Admittedly, he seems to be considering a relatively poorly disciplined army of auxiliaries as was common in the middle ages, rather than the trained and professional army of career soldiers featured in the Roman Legionaries on which I'll be basing my nation, so some of the issues with discipline among archers and javelin throwers may not be as significant. Though I'm not for a minute suggesting that a career bowman wouldn't run from cavalry (it's the only sensible thing to do, after all) I expect they might be able to get off another volley or two before commencing their tactical retreat.

Anyway, the bit about pikes interested me, so I drew one (far left) to go with the rest of the stuff I've drawn so far. The figures are (clockwise from top left) an Army soldier, an Army Officer in full plate (WIP), a Justice of the Peace (WIP; I have them imagined as a sort of medieval Judge Dredd) and City Watch Guard. Weapons wise I've got a pike, a halberd, a broadsword and a fancy officer's broadsword.

[Immoren]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

[Liugark]

If something went wrong you would have horrible casualities.
Archers just have longer range.Sure,the impact is lesser (even though Composite
Bows were pretty powerful),but the danger for the archer is minimal if protected
by other troops.

Legionaires with Pilla would be perfect for penetrating enemy cavalry with Javelins.

As your nation is using Crossbows,these would be perfect for such a task.Pavise Crossbowmen
would handle enemy cavalry pretty fast.

Also it depends on which type of armour the horses are armed with. Plate would be pretty effective
against arrows due to its shape and consistense,but mail or scale could be penetrated.

Yes, shooting horses works pretty well against unarmored cavalry. However, a few things bear consideration.

1) Archers are generally auxiliary troops, and not trained for fierce close-in fighting (particularly against mounted opponents). They tend to break and run when faced with a cavalry charge, potentially abandoning their weapons, arrows, etc. in their panic. Thus, you need to protect your archers, preferably with either a wall of spearmen, or a ditch and stakes.

2) If protecting your archers with spearmen, you want to use indirect fire weapons (longbows or composite bows). Crossbows fire at a very shallow angle, and your risk hitting your spearmen, even if they are not engaging the enemy cavalry.

3) Javelin-throwers are also generally auxiliaries. However, they have a much shorter effective range, placing them even more at risk of a cavalry charge. They also should not be used alone to face cavalry. Because of the lower overall speed a javelin achieves compared to an arrow, they will also miss more against moving targets like cavalry. Javelins also weigh more than arrows, meaning troops using them have strongly limited ammunition. All these factors make javelins less-than-ideal for medieval-style combat. There's a reason javelins were not adopted en mass during the Middle Ages, even though they would be good at penetrating the plate armor of the time.

4) Mounted archers can be extremely effective against heavy cavalry. You just lead them on until their horses tire, pepper them with arrows while doing so, then close in for the kill hand-to-hand after the enemy ranks have been sufficiently thinned. Out of all the proposed strategies to combat heavy cavalry, this is the one I think has the most chance of success. You just need to room to maneuver, and good scouts to ensure you won't be ambushed by a second force of cavalry or foot-soldiers. It also will help if you have exceptional horsemen and horses with exceptional endurance.

5) Pavise crossbowmen make no sense as a response to heavy cavalry. Why do you need to shield your crossbowmen from arrows if the enemy is only carrying lances and swords? Drop the pavise and give your crossbowmen stakes and shovels. In the end this will make them much more effective against horsemen.

6) In lieu of all of the above comments, rank upon rank of pikes or halberds is a pretty damned-effective defense against cavalry. Just ask the Scotts. Because of the simplicity and effectiveness of pikes, they persisted well into the gunpowder age.

To all points.

I knew of these tactics already.English archers often planted stackes infront of them.

Darius ordered his men to remove all rubbel and brush of the ground before he fought against Alexander so that his chariots and cavalry
were at maximum effectiveness.

Archers shouldn´t be alone.You could place them in a line close infront of heavier infantry (preferably Spearmen) and let them shoot when the
enemy is at a safe distance.Then they should move behind the Spearmen.

And the time of Pike and Shoot was the end of the Medieval times.It introduced the world into the next era.

And please note that I have already said that Horse Archers are the best way to deal with enemy cavalry,especially Heavy Cavalry.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

And if I were to use American organizational doctrines...?

[Jagalonia]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

Mortars and GPMG should be platoon.
Same with AT weapons.

[Galla-]

Which support units can one see beginning at the company level? I intend to put some organization in my Assault Divisions.

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

81mm @ company weapons? Seems a bit heavy. Then again, I pack 60mm commandos @ platoon. >:

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

And if I were to use American organizational doctrines...?

American companies definitely have M240s, SMAW/Javelin, and 60mm mortars @ company, at least. 81mms, Stingers, sniper teams, and sappers start at battalion.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Mortar squad/platoon (51, 60, 81 or 82 ones)
AT-squad (RPGs, recoilless guns or ATGMs)
general purpose machine gun squad,
sniper team/squad,
engineering squad.
AA-team/squad (heavy machine gun or MANPADS).

Chaplains are part of Brigade HQ. I am not sure whether in Finnish army only brigade HQ-company has MP-platoon or does every HQ-company have their own MP-platoon.

81mm @ company weapons? Seems a bit heavy. Then again, I pack 60mm commandos @ platoon. >:

And if I were to use American organizational doctrines...?

American companies definitely have M240s, SMAW/Javelin, and 60mm mortars @ company, at least. 81mms, Stingers, sniper teams, and sappers start at battalion.

Medics start at what level?

[Galla-]

81mm @ company weapons? Seems a bit heavy. Then again, I pack 60mm commandos @ platoon. >:



American companies definitely have M240s, SMAW/Javelin, and 60mm mortars @ company, at least. 81mms, Stingers, sniper teams, and sappers start at battalion.

Medics start at what level?

Every soldier is trained in medical skills as combat lifesavers.

Battalion level for 68W.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'd guess Company.
No medics per se (I think), only designated doctors and surgeons I believe. All infantry are trained in relevant first aid anyway.

[Galla-]

I'd guess Company.
No medics per se (I think), only designated doctors and surgeons I believe. All infantry are trained in relevant first aid anyway.

No. US military disperses 6 combat medics/corpsmen, a doctor, and a physician's asst. to each battalion HQ for the battalion's aid station, which is the lowest form of medical care that doesn't involve stuffing QuikClot treated gauze into your wound and shaking you like a ragdoll.

There are combat medics, they're just usually sent out in MEVs to collect casualties and make sure they make it to the Aid Station alive. Combat lifesavers are trained to put a bandage on and apply pressure, while 68W and Corpsmen are trained to similar levels to Paramedics and do the actual lifesaving part.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

Never mind, Shinobi'd.

[Empire of Avalon]

I made this ship. It's designed to really spoil any beach walker's day.
What do y'all think?


Some credit should go to shipbucket and the artists there.