NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #3

[Rich and Corporations]

Would it be realistic for a wartime conscription nation to have 15% of it's population in the military? Maybe more if it's been invaded? What be a realistic number if this is not. BTW running two countries one that is akin to the U.S.S.R during the Stalingrad time period of WW2 and the other that's like the German army during the blitzkrieg part of the war hoping you could help me figure realistic numbers for both if both have conscription and the Russian likeness has been invaded.

Only if you have allies supplying you. Unlike NS autarchies, the Soviet Union was supplied by the allies.
15% conscription really is the o-shit level of the spectrum. Not even the Nazis had 15% simultaneously, although they had roughly 15% of their population as veterans after the war.

[Questers]

misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

[Galla-]

misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

rip otan

[Tule]

misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

So elegantly simple.

It starts out as a typical fist fight until:

Warsaw pact: "Hey! What's that over there!?"
NATO: "huh?
Warsaw pact: *stab* *stab*

[San Benedict e San Francesco]

So, before I blow my whole budget on vehicles and forget the essentials, can anyone tell me if there's a general ratio you should keep your costs to, between vehicular concerns and infantry equipment, roughly?

[The UK in Exile]

misha youre not stuck

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rength.png

So elegantly simple.

It starts out as a typical fist fight until:

Warsaw pact: "Hey! What's that over there!?"
NATO: "huh?
Warsaw pact: *stab* *stab*

step 2: - airdrop behind enemy lines.
step 3: - airborne element eleminated.

[Galla-]

So elegantly simple.

It starts out as a typical fist fight until:

Warsaw pact: "Hey! What's that over there!?"
NATO: "huh?
Warsaw pact: *stab* *stab*

step 2: - airdrop behind enemy lines.
step 3: - airborne element eleminated.

step 4: - soviets penetrate now weakened frontline perimeter due to redeployment of armoured reserves to deal with airborne incursion
step 5: - Bonn capitulates, NATO surrenders.

[Elan Valleys]

So elegantly simple.

It starts out as a typical fist fight until:

Warsaw pact: "Hey! What's that over there!?"
NATO: "huh?
Warsaw pact: *stab* *stab*

step 2: - airdrop behind enemy lines.
step 3: - airborne element eleminated.

Part of the plan. Airborne army sacrifices itself to enable the main thrust to succeed.

[The UK in Exile]

step 2: - airdrop behind enemy lines.
step 3: - airborne element eleminated.

Part of the plan. Airborne army sacrifices itself to enable the main thrust to succeed.

Oh I wasn't criticising it as a plan just amused that they didn't even bother to maintain the pretence that their mission was anything more than be slaughtered over the space of 12 hours.

"Comrade, your Mission is two fold, firstly to land behind enemy lines, second step, is to die to the last man."
"......but to die fighting for tactical purpose, right comrade?"
"yeah, if you like, have some fun with it."

[Elan Valleys]

Part of the plan. Airborne army sacrifices itself to enable the main thrust to succeed.

Oh I wasn't criticising it as a plan just amused that they didn't even bother to maintain the pretence that their mission was anything more than be slaughtered over the space of 12 hours.

"Comrade, your Mission is two fold, firstly to land behind enemy lines, second step, is to die to the last man."
"......but to die fighting for tactical purpose, right comrade?"
"yeah, if you like, have some fun with it."

Ah, you tell the airborne that a massive armoured thrust is coming to relieve them.

And hope they've never seen A Bridge Too Far.

[Questers]

I'm not sure about the paratroops. Landing them there kind of implies that's where my major thrust would be. Maybe they should go on the right hand side instead. http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Questarian_Army_Doctrine that's the page about it.

[Questers]

Part of the plan. Airborne army sacrifices itself to enable the main thrust to succeed.

Oh I wasn't criticising it as a plan just amused that they didn't even bother to maintain the pretence that their mission was anything more than be slaughtered over the space of 12 hours.

"Comrade, your Mission is two fold, firstly to land behind enemy lines, second step, is to die to the last man."
"......but to die fighting for tactical purpose, right comrade?"
"yeah, if you like, have some fun with it."

Tbf, 'destroyed' doesnt mean everyone is dead it just means the formation is inoperable.

[Questers]

"A Questarian staff manual is known to have said: "If you can throw away a division of aircraft (>100 airframes) in exchange for a regimental headquarters and its organic assets, do so immediately and without question."

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm not sure about the paratroops. Landing them there kind of implies that's where my major thrust would be. Maybe they should go on the right hand side instead. http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Questarian_Army_Doctrine that's the page about it.

But surely, if they land on the East side then the OPFOR will redirect forces from its eastern side to deal with them. Then, when the main thrust occurs in the west, they're attacking a full-strength position.

?

[Rich and Corporations]

"A Questarian staff manual is known to have said: "If you can throw away a division of aircraft (>100 airframes) in exchange for a regimental headquarters and its organic assets, do so immediately and without question."

That would only delay the enemy for for several days, while those airframes take much longer to build.

[Questers]

"A Questarian staff manual is known to have said: "If you can throw away a division of aircraft (>100 airframes) in exchange for a regimental headquarters and its organic assets, do so immediately and without question."

That would only delay the enemy for for several days, while those airframes take much longer to build.

The war will be over in a few days.

[Questers]

I'm not sure about the paratroops. Landing them there kind of implies that's where my major thrust would be. Maybe they should go on the right hand side instead. http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Questarian_Army_Doctrine that's the page about it.

But surely, if they land on the East side then the OPFOR will redirect forces from its eastern side to deal with them. Then, when the main thrust occurs in the west, they're attacking a full-strength position.

?

On the other hand, the point is not to shy away from a full-strength attack, the aim is actually to fight a battle of annihilation - the operational theory is just how to fight the battle of annihilation on my terms and not somebody elses.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

That would only delay the enemy for for several days, while those airframes take much longer to build.

The war will be over in a few days.

And if it isn't?

I'm also confused by the disparate nature of the units involved.
One hundred aircraft lost for the command element of a paltry two thousand infantry?

[Questers]

The war will be over in a few days.

And if it isn't?

I'm also confused by the disparate nature of the units involved.
One hundred aircraft lost for the command element of a paltry two thousand infantry?

Well, it's hyperbole, or semi-humorous, I'm not sure. I think 100 is more appropriate for a divisional HQ - but the thing is look at this way.

If the enemy uses a divisional org: If you disable the regimental HQ of one regiment of a division, that regiment is either abandoned by the division commander (its made combat incapable) or the division commander does whatever he can to help it - that means he has to force his reserves and attention in a place of my choosing.

If he uses a brigade org - well, the whole brigade is paralysed. That's good. It doesn't need to be paralysed for more than a few days.

I think the first question is a little inane - "If your doctrine doesn't work, then what?" Well, then you lose the war.

[Oaledonia]

The Boeing x-32 is now my main VTOL, I dare any of you to find a flaw in my logic!

[The UK in Exile]

But surely, if they land on the East side then the OPFOR will redirect forces from its eastern side to deal with them. Then, when the main thrust occurs in the west, they're attacking a full-strength position.

?

On the other hand, the point is not to shy away from a full-strength attack, the aim is actually to fight a battle of annihilation - the operational theory is just how to fight the battle of annihilation on my terms and not somebody elses.

true but you need to be close enough to to co-operate with the main element anyway, theres no point in distracting units who are not going to be involved in the battle.

[Rich and Corporations]

And if it isn't?

I'm also confused by the disparate nature of the units involved.
One hundred aircraft lost for the command element of a paltry two thousand infantry?

Well, it's hyperbole, or semi-humorous, I'm not sure. I think 100 is more appropriate for a divisional HQ - but the thing is look at this way.

If the enemy uses a divisional org: If you disable the regimental HQ of one regiment of a division, that regiment is either abandoned by the division commander (its made combat incapable) or the division commander does whatever he can to help it - that means he has to force his reserves and attention in a place of my choosing.

If he uses a brigade org - well, the whole brigade is paralysed. That's good. It doesn't need to be paralysed for more than a few days.

I think the first question is a little inane - "If your doctrine doesn't work, then what?" Well, then you lose the war.

You're supposing that there's only one main line of communication, and it is through the regimental HQ. I'm sure blitzkrieg has neutralized a few HQ.

[Questers]

Im not saying that the regimental HQ would be the only thing I would attack.

[The Kievan People]

Could I ask for a link to some of these documents on Soviet tactical/strategic thinking?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t9hwskxn7zyr1a5/xqirjTKd04

[Velkanika]

over by christmas is another old saw you'd have thought WW1 finished off.

The massive use of atomic weapons on the French border will make it Christmas in August.

Don't eat the glowing snow. ):

Even a strategic nuclear exchange wouldn't cause a world war to end immediately. All it would do is destroy massive quantities of civilian infrastructure, generate tremendous casualties among civilians, and generally ruin every major city of note in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. The European combatants in WWII were able to deal with similar levels of destruction, massive civilian casualties, and firebombed cities and continue to support their armies in the field just fine for years.

In the lead up to WWI, it was said the war would be short and violent due to the incredibly deadly advances in technology. In WWII, they thought it would be over just as soon after the Battle of France and the demonstration of developments in air power. Who's to say WWIII would buck the trend when nations have demonstrated a capacity to absorb the kind of damage a nuclear exchange would deal and keep on fighting?