NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[The Akasha Colony]

The problem is that there has been a significant shift in the pace and nature of warfare since the 1940s. Overlord succeeded for a number of reasons, but among them was meticulous Allied planning and a very long timescale for preparation that allowed for much more detailed analysis of the target region than would be available today, along with the ability to immediately ferry follow-on troops from England with little to no delay.

But for an invader across the seas, especially an invader today, the ability to seize "overwhelming" superiority, land such a force of men, and then to provide follow-on support is extremely limited. The cost of equipment has significantly increased, meaning that fielding the same quantity is difficult. Infantry weapons have gotten significantly more powerful, while modern landing craft and aircraft are not much more durable than they were in 1944 (despite how much the value of their cargo has increased).

Imagine for instance you had just five ATGM teams. Each team manages to hit three LCACs each carrying one tank. Congratulations, you have wiped out the entire armored contingent of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (actually only 14 tanks), along with 1/6th of the USN's fleet of landing craft. Every amphibious assault vehicle killed is nearly 30 Marines lost. Unsurprisingly, an assaulting force cannot sustain these losses for long at all, and these were inflicted by a force smaller than a standard USMC rifle squad. Double this to ten teams and you can inflict enough damage that the brigade would almost certainly be forced to abort the landing.

Of course, if the attacker tries to clear the beach, there will be casualties for the defenders and such, but given how much havoc just a small force of survivors can wreak, the attacker needs to essentially wipe out every last defender to not take serious losses. And this is very difficult to do if all you can rely on is limited naval gunfire and air power. As has already been discussed in this thread, even a basic series of trenches can significantly reduce the effectiveness of these fire support platforms, no need for a fancy network of concrete bunkers like the Atlantic Wall. A small force at the beach can turn back a disproportionately large attacker, which is a significantly more efficient use of resources than keeping some giant force in reserve while outright ceding the initiative (and giving your enemy the chance to have fun with your local population and industry while you try to organize and commence a counterattack).

Germany wasn't prepared for the Normandy invasion because the Allies pulled off one of the greatest deceptions of all time. Saying it was because the Germans were idiots is extremely insulting to all the Allied intelligence agents and special forces who had the Germans convinced that Normandy was a distraction from the real invasion.

They weren't ready because they didn't have the time. The Germans were fully aware that a landing could come in Normandy. If the Germans had the choice, they had plans to continue improving Normandy's fortifications alongside those of Calais (and other locations, such as Norway). In fact, there were a number of German officers who were convinced the landing would be at Normandy, but Hitler was more prone to believing his intelligence agents, all of whom had either been turned or were double-agents from the start.

Wire guided can't be jammed, and is controlled by a human, which means that IR and radar tricks are less efficient.

And that tank has to give off heat of some sort, but it probably uses a verity of tricks to try and reduce the signature it is giving off, and the direction in which it is giving that signal off.

And you forgot radar guided munitions.

Wire-guided just means it has a wire. It can be full ACLOS and still be wire-guided.

[Freihafen]

Why not mount hardkill countermeasures on landing craft? The cost is probably marginal compared to the cost of the craft and the value of its payload.

Oh and once more: could the hydragas suspension be useful in AFV applications?

[Crookfur]

Jamming a wire guided SACLOS atgm isn' t as simple as just popping off a flair or using a cheap IR "jammer" if it was the various iraqi schemes might have worked during gw2. No you need something much more complicated like shtora and iirc even it's not guaranteed.
ATGM guidance is mostly semi active laser homing, laser beam riding or IR imaging (not straight heat seeking ala ye olde sidewinder) these days but there are still a bajillion older SACLOS and MACLOS missiles out there along with other different systems.

[Lamoni]

Oh and once more: could the hydragas suspension be useful in AFV applications?

You would have to make a much heavier-duty version, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

[The Soodean Imperium]

The problem is that there has been a significant shift in the pace and nature of warfare since the 1940s. Overlord succeeded for a number of reasons, but among them was meticulous Allied planning and a very long timescale for preparation that allowed for much more detailed analysis of the target region than would be available today, along with the ability to immediately ferry follow-on troops from England with little to no delay.

But for an invader across the seas, especially an invader today, the ability to seize "overwhelming" superiority, land such a force of men, and then to provide follow-on support is extremely limited. The cost of equipment has significantly increased, meaning that fielding the same quantity is difficult. Infantry weapons have gotten significantly more powerful, while modern landing craft and aircraft are not much more durable than they were in 1944 (despite how much the value of their cargo has increased).

Imagine for instance you had just five ATGM teams. Each team manages to hit three LCACs each carrying one tank. Congratulations, you have wiped out the entire armored contingent of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (actually only 14 tanks), along with 1/6th of the USN's fleet of landing craft. Every amphibious assault vehicle killed is nearly 30 Marines lost. Unsurprisingly, an assaulting force cannot sustain these losses for long at all, and these were inflicted by a force smaller than a standard USMC rifle squad. Double this to ten teams and you can inflict enough damage that the brigade would almost certainly be forced to abort the landing.

Of course, if the attacker tries to clear the beach, there will be casualties for the defenders and such, but given how much havoc just a small force of survivors can wreak, the attacker needs to essentially wipe out every last defender to not take serious losses. And this is very difficult to do if all you can rely on is limited naval gunfire and air power. As has already been discussed in this thread, even a basic series of trenches can significantly reduce the effectiveness of these fire support platforms, no need for a fancy network of concrete bunkers like the Atlantic Wall. A small force at the beach can turn back a disproportionately large attacker, which is a significantly more efficient use of resources than keeping some giant force in reserve while outright ceding the initiative (and giving your enemy the chance to have fun with your local population and industry while you try to organize and commence a counterattack).

This discussion has been very interesting to read through. And, as it's kind of relevant to my still-developing doctrine, I'd like to learn a little more.

Given what you've described, it seems that the first-echelon force has a rather unique set of tasks and priorities; rather than rapidly advancing over open terrain, it's mostly fighting from a concealed, entrenched position, and is tasked with preparing minefields and obstacles and knocking out enemy units over a long range and a clear field of fire. If, again, countering amphibious assaults is a big part of my doctrine but isn't all of it, would it be advantageous for me to develop specialized coastal-defense units with different organization and equipment? For example, a lower level of mechanization, or larger numbers of anti-tank weapons including long-ranged ATGMs or simple recoilless rifles (less accuracy and less penetration would presumably be less of an issue when firing on large, soft LCACs). Or would it be better to make sure that any regular unit is ready to take up this role if needed?

Likewise, it's already been argued that amassing a large counterattack force far from the front means tying up resources that won't be able to reach the beachhead in time. But what about dispersing smaller second-echelon units a few kilometers back from the coast, with the expectation that they will be able to react quickly to news of a landing and show up to repel the surviving enemies that made it ashore? Or, better yet, to arrive at the defensive line and reinforce the first echelon before the LCACs appear? This seems like it would offer greater flexibility, as the attacker in an amphibious warfare scenario generally has greater leeway in choosing the time and place of the engagement, without tying up entire Army Corps in situations where they take days to arrive at the then-fortified beachhead.

Finally, I've noticed that in both scenarios it's admitted that the attacker can't execute an amphibious landing in force without first securing air superiority. This seems to suggest that the defender should place a large priority on denying air superiority to the enemy, through long-range SAM networks and land-based aviation (as, presumably, the attacker will be limited to a few carriers while the defender will have airbases throughout the area). Maritime reconnaissance aircraft could also be used to locate an approaching fleet and cause even greater damage by sinking or mission-killing its transport ships with air- or land-based AShMs. Is this reasoning correct? Or will the attacker's ability to choose the time and place of the assault make it too difficult to deny them air superiority in this manner?

[New Vihenia]

35 or 94 Ghz for APS radar frequency ?

My previous little adventure in APS radar selects 30-35Ghz by the fact it less absorbed by atmosphere, Thus may require less power to achieve my required range. Another consideration is that the industry for typical T-R module in this frequency is mature and have high PAE (Power Added Efficiency) For output power per module which i desire (2-3 watt/module) Which should be at least 40% or more. It'll easily fit MT consideration, making easy for me to club any detractors.

Another reason is purely technical limit.. POFACETS seems refused to model RCS of anything above 30 Ghz I need better software.

Nonetheless i open to suggestion why i should consider higher frequency say 94 Ghz or more, some merit of consideration i see however includes :

-Even smaller antenna is possible without sacrificing gain and resolution. Making the external antenna smaller, thus less vulnerable to enemy fire.
-Less clutter or multipath problem because the beam would be so narrow that it won't hit the ground, possibly alleviating need of providing special Low-E modes, this will reduce cost of the computer.

Nonetheless MMIC module technology for 94 Ghz appears to be more suitable for communication of automotive radar purpose, the PAE for 94 Ghz frequency seems to be less than 20% Which essentially will make my APS suck up even moar power from engine. That's the main reason i reject 94 Ghz for APS application.

[Questers]

I think the obvious thing is the dynamic of the attack has changed - the attacker has to control a serious port to bring in sufficient supplies for a modern military and has to hold it until the bridgehead has been made. That doesn't require a beach or anything, but it demands speed and strength. In other words an attack has to be narrow rather than wide. Elite infantry units can attack a port and capture and hold it, but the problem is defending it from a counterattack by, say, TBM or something. Helo lifted SAM could be useful.

[The Kievan People]

How do the majority of anti tank missiles home in on their target?

The great majority of ATGMS are Command Line of Sight. The missile is tracked by the operator (computer or human) who attempts to keep the missile in the center of their field of view, and their field of view centered on the desired target. If the missile deviates from the center the operator generates a guidance command which is transmitted to the missile by a wire, radio signal or modulated laser beam. As long as the missile and target remain centered the missile will hit.

One important subset of CLOS guidance is MCLOS, manual command line of sight. There is no guidance computer (though some MCLOS missiles incorporate a basic autopilot inside the missile to increase accuracy) and the operator has sole control over the missile. Historically this was a very popular guidance system because it is simple to implement and cheap. It was extremely inaccurate compared to later guidance systems however and required a considerable amount of skill by the operator to guide the missile. Because of the low hit probability and how difficult it was to use it has been almost completely replaced by SACLOS, Semi-Automatic Command Line of Sight, guidance.

Some ATGMs are Beamriders. This can be thought of as an inverted Command Line of Sight guidance system. The firing platform projects a laser or radar beam which is coded or modulated. The missile has a backwards looking receiver which can decode the beam to measure it's position within the beam, it will attempt to remain in the center of the beam and if it deviates it will automatically return. As with Command Line of Sight guidance the operator keeps the beam centered on the target, which will guarantee a hit.

Another relatively common form of guidance is Semi-Active Laser. The missile contains a four quadrant detector in the seeker head which can detect scattered light and precisely determine it's angle of arrival by measuring the relative strength of the signal on each of the four detector quadrants. The firing platform projects a powerful laser beam which is scattered by the target and detected by the missile seeker. When the missile has detected the laser spot it will automatically put itself on a course to hit the target.

An increasingly common form of guidance is Imaging Infrared and Electro-Optical. In spite of the name the only difference between the two is the former operates in either of the thermal infrared bands (LWIR or MWIR) while the later operates in the visible and near infrared bands (VIS/NIR). IIR and EO missiles contain a camera and a sophisticated computer processing system. The operator centers the FOV of the missiles seeker on the desired target and the computer processor locks on to image of the target. The missile can then be guided to the target.

A subset of Imaging Infrared and Electro-Optical guidance is the misleadingly named Fiber-Optic guidance system. Functionally this is identical to IIR and EO guidance except the computer processing is not performed inside the missile. The image captured by the camera in the seeker is transmitted to the firing post, commonly but not necessarily by a fiber optic cable (radio is another option), which processes the image/locks the target/generates the guidance command. Because the missile is in constant contact with the ground it is also possible for a human operator to control the missile directly. Some missiles are hybrids, with a fiber-optic link for remote control and an internal processor for pure fire and forget guidance.

A rare form of guidance is Millimeter Wave Radar. The missile has a compact 35 or 94ghz radar set installed, typically a monopulse radar, that can detect and accurately measure the range/angle/doppler shift of the target.

CLOS, Beamrider, SAL and Fiber-Optic guidance systems are all what is called man-in-the-loop. A human operator can exert direct control over what the missile strikes. IIR, EO and MMW Radar missiles are fire-and-forget. A human operator cannot directly control what the missile strikes. But they do not require any human input after launch either.

CLOS and Beamrider missiles use a Line of Sight (LOS) Guidance Law. While IIR, EO, SAL and MMW Radar missiles usually use the Proportional Navigation guidance law. Proportional Navigation, also called Constant Bearing Decreasing Range, means that the missile will attempt to keep the angle of the target constant as it approaches it. As long as it does it will strike the target. LOS guidance law means that missile will always keep itself on a straight line between the target and launch platform. The main difference between these two is that PN guidance is significantly more effective against fast-moving targets. When a target is rapidly crossing the line of sight it can require a very high rate of turning by the missile using the LOS law to keep up. This is not a big deal when engaging ground targets, but when engaging helicopters or UAVs it will be tactically relevant.

[Tule]

Hey, so on my same topic, if the person has 74 million soldiers, is it ok to conscript to eight percent of my population (over a hundred million, don't recall how much), for temporary defencive reasons, with limited deployment?

Do they have previous military training? Do you have the equipment to arm them and support them?

If not, it will take months, probably years, to prepare them for battle.

Also, a given percent of the population doesn't say everything, if your population is disproportionately old, you may not be able to draft 8%.

If you have a large proportion of young adults on the other hand, you can probably fight harder than you could otherwise.

[Allanea]

The equipment is the crucial part. A man can be trained as a (very bad) infantryman within 3 weeks. 3 months will give you a rather decent infantryman or artilleryman. A tank crew can be trained (in a passable, rather than good manner) within a month.

[Athaea]

[Edit: Deleted by poster due to invalidity]

[Roski]

Hey, so on my same topic, if the person has 74 million soldiers, is it ok to conscript to eight percent of my population (over a hundred million, don't recall how much), for temporary defencive reasons, with limited deployment?

Do they have previous military training? Do you have the equipment to arm them and support them?

If not, it will take months, probably years, to prepare them for battle.

Also, a given percent of the population doesn't say everything, if your population is disproportionately old, you may not be able to draft 8%.

If you have a large proportion of young adults on the other hand, you can probably fight harder than you could otherwise.

I estimated five years, based on lack of training (and training facilities)

[Voltrovia]

Hey, so on my same topic, if the person has 74 million soldiers, is it ok to conscript to eight percent of my population (over a hundred million, don't recall how much), for temporary defencive reasons, with limited deployment?

Do they have previous military training? Do you have the equipment to arm them and support them?

If not, it will take months, probably years, to prepare them for battle.

Also, a given percent of the population doesn't say everything, if your population is disproportionately old, you may not be able to draft 8%.

If you have a large proportion of young adults on the other hand, you can probably fight harder than you could otherwise.

It depends on what kind of a war you are willing to fight. If you have arms already in your national inventories, your population has gone through national service and you are willing to endure severe damage to the civilian economy, it could be done in two to three years, possibly.

The Soviet Union reached those levels of conscription in around two years, IIRC [edit: 1941-3]. If you aren't very highly militarised and don't have national service it might take significantly longer though. Starting from a more rationalised social and economic standpoint, it might take five years, or more.

[The Akasha Colony]

Given what you've described, it seems that the first-echelon force has a rather unique set of tasks and priorities; rather than rapidly advancing over open terrain, it's mostly fighting from a concealed, entrenched position, and is tasked with preparing minefields and obstacles and knocking out enemy units over a long range and a clear field of fire. If, again, countering amphibious assaults is a big part of my doctrine but isn't all of it, would it be advantageous for me to develop specialized coastal-defense units with different organization and equipment? For example, a lower level of mechanization, or larger numbers of anti-tank weapons including long-ranged ATGMs or simple recoilless rifles (less accuracy and less penetration would presumably be less of an issue when firing on large, soft LCACs). Or would it be better to make sure that any regular unit is ready to take up this role if needed?

As always, it depends on the likelihood of their use and the availability of manpower and equipment. Are you willing to invest these men in such a specialized role? Would they have noticeably better usefulness than your existing light infantry? They'd still need to be motorized after all, since this would allow them much more flexibility to cover a wider section of coast without risking expensive armored vehicles that would be the perfect targets for enemy air cover.

Likewise, it's already been argued that amassing a large counterattack force far from the front means tying up resources that won't be able to reach the beachhead in time. But what about dispersing smaller second-echelon units a few kilometers back from the coast, with the expectation that they will be able to react quickly to news of a landing and show up to repel the surviving enemies that made it ashore? Or, better yet, to arrive at the defensive line and reinforce the first echelon before the LCACs appear? This seems like it would offer greater flexibility, as the attacker in an amphibious warfare scenario generally has greater leeway in choosing the time and place of the engagement, without tying up entire Army Corps in situations where they take days to arrive at the then-fortified beachhead.

It all depends on your infrastructure, as well as how easy the terrain is to traverse. The fields the Germans flooded at Normandy to try to restrain a potential landing was a double-edged sword, since they would be stuck counterattacking along a handful of roads and bridges as well. If you have good infrastructure and your units have good offroad mobility, and the terrain isn't particularly difficult, this may be useful, but they will be withing range of the enemy's covering air power, and certainly targets for first-echelon attack.

Finally, I've noticed that in both scenarios it's admitted that the attacker can't execute an amphibious landing in force without first securing air superiority. This seems to suggest that the defender should place a large priority on denying air superiority to the enemy, through long-range SAM networks and land-based aviation (as, presumably, the attacker will be limited to a few carriers while the defender will have airbases throughout the area). Maritime reconnaissance aircraft could also be used to locate an approaching fleet and cause even greater damage by sinking or mission-killing its transport ships with air- or land-based AShMs. Is this reasoning correct? Or will the attacker's ability to choose the time and place of the assault make it too difficult to deny them air superiority in this manner?

Yes. Air power is very efficient in this regard; a handful of air bases can cover a very large area and make a sustained landing extremely difficult. The Germans were concerned that the Allies would land in the Bay of Biscay (among other targets), but the Allies themselves had rejected this plan as it would be too far to receive the kind of land-based air support they were expecting. Strategic bombers and transports could make it, but the tactical air support used to hit the beach defenses and cover the actual landing would be unavailable.

[The Kievan People]

So laser and IR, which is basically heat.

Any tank will give off heat, unless it is completely shut down and has been for awhile. There are ways to reduce your heat signature, but not to eliminate it completely.

It should be stressed that IR is not heat anymore than visible light is. Thermal infrared wavelengths just happen to be emitted by blackbodies heated to terrestrial temperatures.

Two objects at identical temperatures can have very strong infrared contrast because radiation emissions are only directly linked to temperature if the object is a black body or like a black body. Most terrestrial objects do not approximate black bodies. This can easily be observed in the sky, which has an apparent temperature of minus 100-something degrees celsius when viewed through a FLIR. Obviously the air is not that cold, but because the gasses that make up air have distinct emission/absorption spectra that are not detected by LWIR or MWIR FLIRs the sky looks "cold" and provides extreme contrast with room-temperature objects.

Most metals are also essentially infrared mirrors and their apparent temperature will be lower than their real temperature. They can also reflect infrared light from other sources in the background (which is everything really) like the sun which appears ultra hot, or the sky which is extremely cold. This can make a bare metal object highly visible to FLIRs even when it has no internal heat source at all.

This is why infrared camouflage is hard and FLIRs are so great. Eliminating infrared contrast is far more difficult than eliminating temperature difference.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Would it be effective and rational - if you have the assests present and aware - to target an LCAC with an AGM-114 Penguin missile?

[The Kievan People]

Would it be effective and rational - if you have the assests present and aware - to target an LCAC with an AGM-114 Penguin missile?

Yes and yes.

[Erusuia]

My nation is extremely large (a bit larger then Russia) and an extremely low population comparatively, so my standing army is fairly small for the amount of territory it has to protect, so my idea is this: A large portion of my population (around 30%) is comprised of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal groups who for historical reasons are exempt from mandatory military service, and while they are encouraged to join many chose to stay with their tribes as is customary. These tribal groups are located in an extremely vast hilly steppe area where around 45% of my boarder is located, so my idea is to have these tribal groups be part of a sort of "Frontier army". This frontier army would be something like a reserve force/ national guard comprised mostly of people from the tribal groups who's only obligations are to show up for bi-monthly inspections and whatnot from the Federal Military and to be ready for combat if they run into hostile forces when they're roaming around. They would be carry they're service weapons with them as they roamed around and would be supported by depots supplied with heavier equipment encase there is any sort of trouble.

The whole idea is that these state sponsored irregular forces would be the first forces able to respond to a hostile invasion while federal troops are moved in from across the country, and they would use mainly gorilla tactics to try and wear hostile forces down. The only problems I can see with creating a "Frontier Army" is that tribal infighting might become a problem when I start handing out automatic weapons to nomads, but other then that I think it's a pretty good idea

[Roski]

My nation is extremely large (a bit larger then Russia) and an extremely low population comparatively, so my standing army is fairly small for the amount of territory it has to protect, so my idea is this: A large portion of my population (around 30%) is comprised of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal groups who for historical reasons are exempt from mandatory military service, and while they are encouraged to join many chose to stay with their tribes as is customary. These tribal groups are located in an extremely vast hilly steppe area where around 45% of my boarder is located, so my idea is to have these tribal groups be part of a sort of "Frontier army". This frontier army would be something like a reserve force/ national guard comprised mostly of people from the tribal groups who's only obligations are to show up for bi-monthly inspections and whatnot from the Federal Military and to be ready for combat if they run into hostile forces when they're roaming around. They would be carry they're service weapons with them as they roamed around and would be supported by depots supplied with heavier equipment encase there is any sort of trouble.

The whole idea is that these state sponsored irregular forces would be the first forces able to respond to a hostile invasion while federal troops are moved in from across the country, and they would use mainly gorilla tactics to try and wear hostile forces down. The only problems I can see with creating a "Frontier Army" is that tribal infighting might become a problem when I start handing out automatic weapons to nomads, but other then that I think it's a pretty good idea

Worked in Nam.

[The Akasha Colony]

Worked in Nam.

No it didn't. The US smashed the NLF at every turn, and beat back the PAVN as well. When South Vietnam fell to the north, it wasn't because of guerrillas, it was because it was outright invaded on land by the PAVN.

My nation is extremely large (a bit larger then Russia) and an extremely low population comparatively, so my standing army is fairly small for the amount of territory it has to protect, so my idea is this: A large portion of my population (around 30%) is comprised of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal groups who for historical reasons are exempt from mandatory military service, and while they are encouraged to join many chose to stay with their tribes as is customary. These tribal groups are located in an extremely vast hilly steppe area where around 45% of my boarder is located, so my idea is to have these tribal groups be part of a sort of "Frontier army". This frontier army would be something like a reserve force/ national guard comprised mostly of people from the tribal groups who's only obligations are to show up for bi-monthly inspections and whatnot from the Federal Military and to be ready for combat if they run into hostile forces when they're roaming around. They would be carry they're service weapons with them as they roamed around and would be supported by depots supplied with heavier equipment encase there is any sort of trouble.

The whole idea is that these state sponsored irregular forces would be the first forces able to respond to a hostile invasion while federal troops are moved in from across the country, and they would use mainly gorilla tactics to try and wear hostile forces down. The only problems I can see with creating a "Frontier Army" is that tribal infighting might become a problem when I start handing out automatic weapons to nomads, but other then that I think it's a pretty good idea

In the steppes these guerrillas would be relatively easy to deal with and would be insufficiently mobile to seriously threaten a modern attacking army. The invaders would simply roll past them, kill any of them who try to attack, then just round up the tribes and confine them. Guerrillas need a large enough population base and density from which to recruit and hide within, since they will sustain high casualty rates. You don't have that.

[Questers]

A pleasure, gents. I am in the process of creating a military, with doctrine, from scratch. Because of this, I will probably be posting here relatively often to verify that what I am doing is not unrealistic/unreasonable. If you happen to need more clarification on a topic, the links should give you more than you ever wanted to know about that part of this system.

Here is the situation, with assumed premises.

Military training has been integrated into the standard education system. After completion of secondary school, all non-exempt students attend Basic Combat Training (BCT), followed by Advanced Infantry Training (AIT). Recruits are then assessed to determine suitability to attend Combat Operations Training (COT). This assessment is explained in the last decent-sized paragraph at the end of the AIT article. Those who are determined to be unsuitable are to attend other specialty training (SOC).

Given that BCT lasts anywhere from six to seven months, and AIT lasts approximately another six months, prior to any training in their given specialty, any given Athaean soldier ought be able to act in an Infantry capacity, should the need arise. At the current (read:unmodified) attrition rates, four out of ten recruits are deemed to be unsuitable for COT. Of the six who attend COT, three succeed in completing the training. Note that CODs undergo training typically the exclusive purview of special forces units. For clarification, those assignments which, by nature, would involve foreign deployment to engage a militarized enemy in a hostile environment are restricted to Combat Operations Detachments. Large-scale deployments are incredibly rare, as such must be the most efficient and cost-effective means to attain the campaign objective.

Let's be honest; efficient and cost-effective, they are not.

Is this attrition rate reasonable for Combat Operations Training? Could it be increased or decreased? If so, on what grounds?
If there is anything else that is of questionable realism that someone happened to find in my archives, please feel free to bring it up.

Conscription sort of mandates reduced training in non-specialist units or arms. It's not that it's unrealistic, but it is inefficient and super expensive (and frankly pointless) especially since your basic training lasts apparently seven months (a huge time - the most professional volunteer armies are between 12 and 14 weeks.) It costs around $100,000 to train a soldier in a Western Army, and if you train them for twice as long then you need to double it. $200,000. The cost of educating a child is around $10,000. If you educate someone for 14 years you're still spending more on them in those seven months of training than you did for their whole education. It more than doubles the cost of educating a child.

The military structure section is also considerably flawed. Just to start with, the problems are: the units scale linearly, they are very small, and divisions are strategic (and battalions operational!)

As a factbook it doesn't give much in the way of useful information. It has a separate page for a tactical handgun but no order of battle; it explains advanced infantry training but does not say what the raison d'etre for your army is.

Edit - your Army seems to exist of only special forces. This is not only unrealistic, it is extremely silly (if it is indeed true.)

[Spirit of Hope]

The problem is that there has been a significant shift in the pace and nature of warfare since the 1940s. Overlord succeeded for a number of reasons, but among them was meticulous Allied planning and a very long timescale for preparation that allowed for much more detailed analysis of the target region than would be available today, along with the ability to immediately ferry follow-on troops from England with little to no delay.

But for an invader across the seas, especially an invader today, the ability to seize "overwhelming" superiority, land such a force of men, and then to provide follow-on support is extremely limited. The cost of equipment has significantly increased, meaning that fielding the same quantity is difficult. Infantry weapons have gotten significantly more powerful, while modern landing craft and aircraft are not much more durable than they were in 1944 (despite how much the value of their cargo has increased).

Imagine for instance you had just five ATGM teams. Each team manages to hit three LCACs each carrying one tank. Congratulations, you have wiped out the entire armored contingent of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (actually only 14 tanks), along with 1/6th of the USN's fleet of landing craft. Every amphibious assault vehicle killed is nearly 30 Marines lost. Unsurprisingly, an assaulting force cannot sustain these losses for long at all, and these were inflicted by a force smaller than a standard USMC rifle squad. Double this to ten teams and you can inflict enough damage that the brigade would almost certainly be forced to abort the landing.

Of course, if the attacker tries to clear the beach, there will be casualties for the defenders and such, but given how much havoc just a small force of survivors can wreak, the attacker needs to essentially wipe out every last defender to not take serious losses. And this is very difficult to do if all you can rely on is limited naval gunfire and air power. As has already been discussed in this thread, even a basic series of trenches can significantly reduce the effectiveness of these fire support platforms, no need for a fancy network of concrete bunkers like the Atlantic Wall. A small force at the beach can turn back a disproportionately large attacker, which is a significantly more efficient use of resources than keeping some giant force in reserve while outright ceding the initiative (and giving your enemy the chance to have fun with your local population and industry while you try to organize and commence a counterattack).

1) While military equipment has gotten more expensive we (humans) have also gotten more productive. In the case where a nation needs to make a large scale landing happen against a parity force, I don't imagine it will happen without build up and preparation. It might not be the same level of preparation D-Day saw, but their will still be preparations and intelligence gathering.

2) Landing craft have gotten more durable, they have certainly gotten faster, more maneuverable and are more able to deal with obstructions under the water. Additionally any amphibious invasion will include the use of helicopter forces, which further increases the landers speed and maneuverability.

3) Yes infantry can create havoc and damage the landing force, and yes they will survive even the most rigorous pre landing bombardment. But I disagree to the size of the threat. With the speed a modern landing force can achieve the defenders won't have the time to properly engage the force, especially if the attackers are willing to keep up a bombardment as the landing force closes.

To me the simple mater is this, infantry have gotten more deadly, so have planes, and ships, landing methods have also gotten faster and less restricted. The attacker can choose the battlefield and time. The defender is stuck reacting, and there is little way they can defend their entire coast with enough force to turn back a determined invader. They may be able to restrict an invaders choices of landing zones, but they can't stop it entirely.

[Doppio Giudici]

My nation is extremely large (a bit larger then Russia) and an extremely low population comparatively, so my standing army is fairly small for the amount of territory it has to protect, so my idea is this: A large portion of my population (around 30%) is comprised of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribal groups who for historical reasons are exempt from mandatory military service, and while they are encouraged to join many chose to stay with their tribes as is customary. These tribal groups are located in an extremely vast hilly steppe area where around 45% of my boarder is located, so my idea is to have these tribal groups be part of a sort of "Frontier army". This frontier army would be something like a reserve force/ national guard comprised mostly of people from the tribal groups who's only obligations are to show up for bi-monthly inspections and whatnot from the Federal Military and to be ready for combat if they run into hostile forces when they're roaming around. They would be carry they're service weapons with them as they roamed around and would be supported by depots supplied with heavier equipment encase there is any sort of trouble.

The whole idea is that these state sponsored irregular forces would be the first forces able to respond to a hostile invasion while federal troops are moved in from across the country, and they would use mainly gorilla tactics to try and wear hostile forces down. The only problems I can see with creating a "Frontier Army" is that tribal infighting might become a problem when I start handing out automatic weapons to nomads, but other then that I think it's a pretty good idea

This won't work, there is nowhere to hide and there isn't much you can do if a strong force pushes in to get you.

Your best bet is to avoid war and simply not Rp with anyone who would attack you. If you want to be realistic and actually get invaded, your best bet is to have a larger superpower step in. I think it's time to start making friends with superpowers that start with d and end with i.

Wink wink.

[Questers]

muh orbat
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... Battle.txt

[New Korongo]

Hello, I am considering using the Patriot system for long-range air defense and I do not know whether I should use the -104D or the -104F. As I understand it, the -104F or PAC-3 has been optimized for intercepting ballistic missiles. Has this optimization negatively affected the system's capabilities against aircraft or the maximum range? Also, while I am here, would deploying some kind of c-ram system alongside a Patriot battery be beneficial or a waste of resources?