NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #4

[Transnapastain]

OK, so that's a 50 SS/ Pilot ratio, but what about for armoured and infantry formations?

I think I recall reading that ground forces tend a run a 1:7 to 1:10 ratio of infantrymen to support personal.

[Imperializt Russia]

The issue is though, that's just one of those commonly quoted figures no-one's really sure the origin of.

[Transnapastain]

The issue is though, that's just one of those commonly quoted figures no-one's really sure the origin of.

Dare I say it's close enough for government work?

[Allanea]

As people explained many times, the definition of infantrymen and support personnel are both extremely blurry.

[The Kievan People]

Especially since "support" personnel can easily end up in combat.

[Lolder]

OK, so one support staff per 7 infantry. Excellent, I shall edit my factbook at once. Now all I need is for the armoured ratio.

[Spirit of Hope]

OK, so one support staff per 7 infantry. Excellent, I shall edit my factbook at once. Now all I need is for the armoured ratio.

Its the other way around, with the general figure being 1 "combat personnel" to 7 or 10 "support personnel"

The problem is we don't have any solid base for these figures outside of the fact that they are commonly thrown around by pretty much everyone looking at this ratio. Its made worse by carrying definitions of "support personnel"

[Lolder]

So I would need.... No wonder its so hard to finance an army. That means for 1 000 000 infantry I would need 7 000 000 support personnel?

[Immoren]

So I would need.... No wonder its so hard to finance an army. That means for 1 000 000 infantry I would need 7 000 000 support personnel?

Or even more.
Or less.
It depends on tech level.

[Radictistan]

When you end up with 30,000 men per maneuver brigade something's wrong with the received wisdom.

[Lubyak]

When you end up with 30,000 men per maneuver brigade something's wrong with the received wisdom.

It doesn't mean that for every combatant in a formation there are seven support personnel within that formation. It means that on the whole, including people like, administrators, staff officers, bureaucrats, etc. there are going to be ~7 'support' personnel for every man in the front with a gun or driving a tank.

[Allanea]

When you end up with 30,000 men per maneuver brigade something's wrong with the received wisdom.

It doesn't mean that for every combatant in a formation there are seven support personnel within that formation. It means that on the whole, including people like, administrators, staff officers, bureaucrats, etc. there are going to be ~7 'support' personnel for every man in the front with a gun or driving a tank.

And is there proof of this?

[Lubyak]

It doesn't mean that for every combatant in a formation there are seven support personnel within that formation. It means that on the whole, including people like, administrators, staff officers, bureaucrats, etc. there are going to be ~7 'support' personnel for every man in the front with a gun or driving a tank.

And is there proof of this?

The ~7 ration was just something I was using given that it was the number we were talking about. I'm not sure what the actual ratio of support-to-combatant is, and it's likely going to be very different depending on who you count as 'support' versus who you count as 'combatant', and the nature of the military you're talking about. I was trying to just trying to point out that the 'combat to support' ratio is not just meant to apply to the soldiers in a manuever formation with its attached logistical chain, but the larger scale military bureaucracy, high command, and support structures that exist outside the field maneuver formations.

[Radictistan]

When you end up with 30,000 men per maneuver brigade something's wrong with the received wisdom.

It doesn't mean that for every combatant in a formation there are seven support personnel within that formation. It means that on the whole, including people like, administrators, staff officers, bureaucrats, etc. there are going to be ~7 'support' personnel for every man in the front with a gun or driving a tank.

I divided the number of personnel by the number of brigades. I didn't mean to imply there were 30k in every brigade.

[Rich and Corporations]

I agree with most of this, surprisingly, but I will point out that even a sophisticated mine countermeasure fleet still would have several problems: 1) Assuming the mines are being laid by submarine, the enemy might not know that their harbour has been mined until a ship hits one. 2) The mineclearing assets are on hand. Mineclearing assets can't be everywhere at once, and if the minesweepers are at a strait attempting to clear minefields there, they can't also be at home keeping the harbours clear. 3) Even if the enemy has sufficient minesweepers to cover the homefront and the frontlines, it will still take time for the minesweepers to arrive, sweep the field, and then sweep it to the extent that the enemy is willing to allow their expensive warships to sail out, or civilian vessels to sail.

As for the argument that if you're laying mines with a submarine why not just use the sub to sink the carrier? The answer for me is stealth. A torpedo or cruise missile out of a submarine operating in a harbor will reveal the location of the sub, and might be what allows the enemy to destroy it. Laying mines would be much quieter, and enable the sub to drop mines and then sail away, leaving the enemy none the wise until something--hopefully something expensive-trips a mine and is sunk/damaged.

A submarine?? Yes, submarines are pure stealth. Can't detect one.

When you end up with 30,000 men per maneuver brigade something's wrong with the received wisdom.

It depends if you nationalize your defense industry and have labor armies. Also, many brigade supporting assets are located inside the division.

Besides, it is also possible to have a brigade in name only.

[Immoren]

Also, many brigade supporting assets are located inside the division.

That completely depends on force, doesn't it?

[Lubyak]

It doesn't mean that for every combatant in a formation there are seven support personnel within that formation. It means that on the whole, including people like, administrators, staff officers, bureaucrats, etc. there are going to be ~7 'support' personnel for every man in the front with a gun or driving a tank.

I divided the number of personnel by the number of brigades. I didn't mean to imply there were 30k in every brigade.

Well, just looking at it...The US Army has ~550 thousand active duty personnel. It has 10 active divisions, and four independent brigades/regiments. Combining the four independents into an extra 'division' for counting purposes for 11 total divisions, it comes out to about ~50k men per divisions. If we do it by brigade, then excluding special forces, there are about 52 brigades/regiments active in the US Army, and when we divide it in, about 10.5k men per brigade.

Given that these are the real world numbers, then the ratio is looking 'decent'. Given that I've lumped Armoured, Cavalry, Infantry, Mountain, and Airborne divisions into one lump number and all the different brigades of the US army together, and not counted special forces as 'combatants', I'm not going to try and draw up a new ratio here...but yeah, perhaps 1:7 is a bit much? When I first joined NS the rule of thumb was 1:4 I think.

[Allanea]

How many men are in a US brigade, approximately?

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, just looking at it...The US Army has ~550 thousand active duty personnel. It has 10 active divisions, and four independent brigades/regiments. Combining the four independents into an extra 'division' for counting purposes for 11 total divisions, it comes out to about ~50k men per divisions. If we do it by brigade, then excluding special forces, there are about 52 brigades/regiments active in the US Army, and when we divide it in, about 10.5k men per brigade.

Given that these are the real world numbers, then the ratio is looking 'decent'. Given that I've lumped Armoured, Cavalry, Infantry, Mountain, and Airborne divisions into one lump number and all the different brigades of the US army together, and not counted special forces as 'combatants', I'm not going to try and draw up a new ratio here...but yeah, perhaps 1:7 is a bit much? When I first joined NS the rule of thumb was 1:4 I think.

Although not everyone in those units are necessarily combatants themselves. Each level above company adds command overhead as HQ personnel get more specialized away from combat roles.

It also depends how much a military wants to do things 'in house' rather than subcontract. Nowadays, the US has been doing all it can to push support and non-combat services onto contractors, whereas previously these roles were handled by military personnel directly. Construction and operation of base facilities, and even rather important roles like staffing the Military Sealift Command have all been spun off to varying degrees.

It also varies by branch; the USN has roughly 28,000 personnel per carrier group, but a large group requires less than 8,000 actual personnel to man, excluding the MSC-flagged support ship.

How many men are in a US brigade, approximately?

~3,800 for an armored BCT, ~3,300 for infantry, and ~3,900 for a Stryker BCT.

[Primordial Luxa]

So i'm starting the the battalion level.
Any advice?

• Combined Arms Battlion
o Headquaters and Headquarters Company
o MBT Armor Company
 Headquarters w/MBT
 MBT Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ MBT
• Aries MBT (x4)
o IFV Armor Company
 Headquarters w/IFV
 IFV Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ IFV
• Leo IFV (x4)
o Rifle Company (x 2)
 Headquarters
 Mechanized Infantry Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ APC
• Ten Man Rifle Squad w/ APC (x 3)
• Ten Man Heavy Weapon Squad w/ APC
 Ten Man Assault Squad w/ APC

• Field Artillery
o Headquaters and Headquarters Battery
o Sagittarius Howitzer 155mm Battery (x 2)
 Headquarters w/ APC
 Sagittarius-HMO (x6)
o Missile Battery
 Headquarters w/ Lyra Mobile Radar
 Centaurus Modular Missile Platform (x 6)
o Target Acquisition Platoon

• Armored Reconnaissance Squadron
o Headquarters and Headquarter Company
o Sniper Company
 Headquarters w/ APC
 Sniper Platoon (x3)
• Headquarters w/ LAV
• Five Man Sniper Team w/LAV (x3)
o Scout Company
 Headquarters w/ APC
 Scout Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ LAV
• Ten Man Scout Squad w/ APC
o Scorpio Armor Company
 Headquarters w/Scorpio
 Scorpio Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ Scorpio
• Scorpio Recon Tank (x4)

[Imperializt Russia]

What differentiates the Assault Squad from the Rifle Squad?
This implies that the two manoeuvre sections of a platoon are meant to do different things, effectively halving your platoon's mobility if doubling their apparent firepower.

Integrating twelve tanks at the Battalion sounds like a low level to me.
I feel that this MBT unit would be better replaced with air defence, anti-tank and mortar platoons.

In the Soviet force, tanks were not attached to Rifle units until the Regimental level as a Battalion of 40 tanks.

[Immoren]

o IFV Armor Company
 Headquarters w/IFV
 IFV Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ IFV
• Leo IFV (x4)
o Rifle Company (x 2)
 Headquarters
 Mechanized Infantry Platoon (x 3)
• Headquarters w/ APC
• Ten Man Rifle Squad w/ APC (x 3)
• Ten Man Heavy Weapon Squad w/ APC
 Ten Man Assault Squad w/ APC

IFV armour company and rifle company? Uuum?

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm assuming "light tank", rather than IFV in the sense of fighting troop transport, tbh.

[Immoren]

Integrating twelve tanks at the Battalion sounds like a low level to me.
I feel that this MBT unit would be better replaced with air defence, anti-tank and mortar platoons.

In the Soviet force, tanks were not attached to Rifle units until the Regimental level as a Battalion of 40 tanks.

Perhaps terrain he fights in makes taking advantage of larger tank formations harder.
Or His forces play with lot of tiny beestings, so tanks are in combined arms battalions.
Or just need for generic flexibility over brute force.

[Primordial Luxa]

Perhaps terrain he fights in makes taking advantage of larger tank formations harder.
Or His forces play with lot of tiny beestings, so tanks are in combined arms battalions.
Or just need for generic flexibility over brute force.

A mixture of all of those actually.
I rarely fight outside of large urban cities as most all of my war involve invading major coastal cities and then making a bee line for the capitol. I rarely have the maneuverability or space for many tanks.

When I say IFV think BMPT.
The Idea is that the combined arms battalion would be the main attack force with a support battalion and two motorized infantry battalions.

The Assault Squads are urban combat specialist. They dont differ too much from my riflemen except for some extra training and armor.