NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Celibrae]

Ok, so how should I structure my military divisions?

What is the role of the division within your military? There are lots of potential ways to organize them. Questers has posted a number of his divisions, and you can find lots of examples online of IRL divisions. I have a TO&E for a division as well.

Well, it is designed to be the biggest tactical unit in operation, and can be either mechanised or armoured. The most likely scenario of their usage is in a total war against a peer-level enemy conducted over the border. I'd like to be able to strike first.

I'm also trying to stick to the British Army structure, but I'm not sure if that is suitable for the task.

[Immoren]

What is the role of the division within your military? There are lots of potential ways to organize them. Questers has posted a number of his divisions, and you can find lots of examples online of IRL divisions. I have a TO&E for a division as well.

Well, it is designed to be the biggest tactical unit in operation, and can be either mechanised or armoured. The most likely scenario of their usage is in a total war against a peer-level enemy conducted over the border. I'd like to be able to strike first.

I'm also trying to stick to the British Army structure, but I'm not sure if that is suitable for the task.

So corps (equivalent ) is smallest formation in indented fo operations at operative level?

[Radictistan]

the civil government has begun to weed out those military officers who possess coupist views – although only if their military track records are not up
to scratch.

[Celibrae]

Well, it is designed to be the biggest tactical unit in operation, and can be either mechanised or armoured. The most likely scenario of their usage is in a total war against a peer-level enemy conducted over the border. I'd like to be able to strike first.

I'm also trying to stick to the British Army structure, but I'm not sure if that is suitable for the task.

So corps (equivalent ) is smallest formation in indented fo operations at operative level?

Yes, and there are roughly two-three corps in an army.

[The Akasha Colony]

What is the role of the division within your military? There are lots of potential ways to organize them. Questers has posted a number of his divisions, and you can find lots of examples online of IRL divisions. I have a TO&E for a division as well.

Well, it is designed to be the biggest tactical unit in operation, and can be either mechanised or armoured. The most likely scenario of their usage is in a total war against a peer-level enemy conducted over the border. I'd like to be able to strike first.

I'm also trying to stick to the British Army structure, but I'm not sure if that is suitable for the task.

Most modern Western armies are moving away from the "total war" optimization and toward a more multipurpose, flexible, and independent organization, for a lot of reasons. It allows smaller parcels of troops to be deployed for small brushfire conflicts without requiring reorganization or retraining, and allows forces to be more easily upscaled or downscaled as the budget demands (usually the latter). It also allows them to more efficiently respond to other threats aside from the historical Soviet tank columns rolling through the Fulda Gap.

How large is this army? Much of the current structure of Western armies is also due to the fact that none of them save the US can even field a corps' worth of troops in combat anymore, so in order to have more than one maneuver element, they have to be organized on the brigade/regiment level.

[Spirit of Hope]

the civil government has begun to weed out those military officers who possess coupist views – although only if their military track records are not up
to scratch.

I think he is saying you can avoid being purged if you are a good enough officer. Makes some kind of sense, you don't want to eliminate your armies fighting potential just because some officers disagree with you.

[Celibrae]

Well, it is designed to be the biggest tactical unit in operation, and can be either mechanised or armoured. The most likely scenario of their usage is in a total war against a peer-level enemy conducted over the border. I'd like to be able to strike first.

I'm also trying to stick to the British Army structure, but I'm not sure if that is suitable for the task.

Most modern Western armies are moving away from the "total war" optimization and toward a more multipurpose, flexible, and independent organization, for a lot of reasons. It allows smaller parcels of troops to be deployed for small brushfire conflicts without requiring reorganization or retraining, and allows forces to be more easily upscaled or downscaled as the budget demands (usually the latter). It also allows them to more efficiently respond to other threats aside from the historical Soviet tank columns rolling through the Fulda Gap.

How large is this army? Much of the current structure of Western armies is also due to the fact that none of them save the US can even field a corps' worth of troops in combat anymore, so in order to have more than one maneuver element, they have to be organized on the brigade/regiment level.

The army has roughly 1.5 million active personnel and around 1.5 million reserves, bearing in mind that the military is conscripted.

[The Akasha Colony]

The army has roughly 1.5 million active personnel and around 1.5 million reserves, bearing in mind that the military is conscripted.

TBH, you probably have to figure out your doctrine first, which will determine where you place command authority, where supporting arms like artillery and rotary-wing support are attached, and the types of divisions you will need.

[Celibrae]

The army has roughly 1.5 million active personnel and around 1.5 million reserves, bearing in mind that the military is conscripted.

TBH, you probably have to figure out your doctrine first, which will determine where you place command authority, where supporting arms like artillery and rotary-wing support are attached, and the types of divisions you will need.

I've already got a rough idea - I'll get to work. Thanks for the help.

[Crookfur]

TBH, you probably have to figure out your doctrine first, which will determine where you place command authority, where supporting arms like artillery and rotary-wing support are attached, and the types of divisions you will need.

I've already got a rough idea - I'll get to work. Thanks for the help.

This page has the current UK info:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armyindex.php#.VVUe_0ags8A

and thanks to the wayback machine some details on the previous stuff

http://web.archive.org/web/201310200823 ... yindex.htm

[Celibrae]

Is it necessary to have brigade-level artillery, or can that be handled on a divisional level and be distributed as-hoc to suit the various brigade's needs?

I've already got a rough idea - I'll get to work. Thanks for the help.

This page has the current UK info:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armyindex.php#.VVUe_0ags8A

and thanks to the wayback machine some details on the previous stuff

http://web.archive.org/web/201310200823 ... yindex.htm

Thanks.

[Democratic Koyro]

Is it necessary to have brigade-level artillery, or can that be handled on a divisional level and be distributed as-hoc to suit the various brigade's needs?

This page has the current UK info:

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armyindex.php#.VVUe_0ags8A

and thanks to the wayback machine some details on the previous stuff

http://web.archive.org/web/201310200823 ... yindex.htm

Thanks.

You will want your Brigades/Regiments to have their own organic artillery. A battalion of 18 or 24 105mm or 122mm guns will do.

[Forenet Skandinavien]

For a modern country of 185,000,000 people with a standing military of 1,500,000 personnel, would drafting 10,000,000 into my military be acceptable in a world war situation? To be more specific, the number comes from data I could find on the Red Army and the US Armed Forces during WWII, since I'll need to invade other superpowers overseas, and possibly defend my country from an invasion. If the mass conscriptions aren't practical in a modern context (though, IC'ly thee hasn't been a major world war since the early 1900's), then what would be more practical?

[Questers]

Is it necessary to have brigade-level artillery, or can that be handled on a divisional level and be distributed as-hoc to suit the various brigade's needs?


Thanks.

You will want your Brigades/Regiments to have their own organic artillery. A battalion of 18 or 24 105mm or 122mm guns will do.

There's nothing wrong with distributing artillery on an ad-hoc basis from a centralised artillery unit. A beneficial consequence of this is that the commander of this unit maintains control over all the guns in the division while the division's subunits still receive their own artillery.

[Questers]

Repost because it got lost in kindergarten (as americans would call it...)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... DF_NMA.pdf
PDF outlines my military reforms and structure

Is it a fair assumption after reading that the intention is to remove as much as possible great commander independence at the lower levels, centralizing things, to maintain the ability for the reservists to readily jump into the formation when needed?

It seems like an interesting solution to the dilemma of introducing reserve forces into combat when they are needed. Less flexibility in the region of the unit commander may have downsides, but you will have the ability to readily integrate reservists, which would mean your flexibility in terms of operational power would be greater.

Yes, although the reserves would be called up before the war actually happens (hopefully...) That's one of the main advantages - rapid expansion.

[The Akasha Colony]

For a modern country of 185,000,000 people with a standing military of 1,500,000 personnel, would drafting 10,000,000 into my military be acceptable in a world war situation? To be more specific, the number comes from data I could find on the Red Army and the US Armed Forces during WWII, since I'll need to invade other superpowers overseas, and possibly defend my country from an invasion. If the mass conscriptions aren't practical in a modern context (though, IC'ly thee hasn't been a major world war since the early 1900's), then what would be more practical?

If they aren't already trained and in the reserves, it's unlikely they'll have time to be trained and readied for war after it starts. Do note also that the USSR's war was not even remotely "global," most of it took place on its own territory with equipment supplied by foreign powers and it came out of the war an economic wreck that recovered mostly by stealing equipment, expertise, and industry from others. It is unlikely we will ever see such mobilization rates again even in a global conflict, largely because they'd also be unnecessary. But saying anymore is rather difficult with such a limited picture.

[Forenet Skandinavien]

For a modern country of 185,000,000 people with a standing military of 1,500,000 personnel, would drafting 10,000,000 into my military be acceptable in a world war situation? To be more specific, the number comes from data I could find on the Red Army and the US Armed Forces during WWII, since I'll need to invade other superpowers overseas, and possibly defend my country from an invasion. If the mass conscriptions aren't practical in a modern context (though, IC'ly thee hasn't been a major world war since the early 1900's), then what would be more practical?

If they aren't already trained and in the reserves, it's unlikely they'll have time to be trained and readied for war after it starts. Do note also that the USSR's war was not even remotely "global," most of it took place on its own territory with equipment supplied by foreign powers and it came out of the war an economic wreck that recovered mostly by stealing equipment, expertise, and industry from others. It is unlikely we will ever see such mobilization rates again even in a global conflict, largely because they'd also be unnecessary. But saying anymore is rather difficult with such a limited picture.

Technically, even though the war has started, it isn't in full force and only two of the warring superpowers are actively at war with each other in a small area of the world. The draft was instated at the beginning of February, and earlier on this thread I asked how long it takes to train troops in a modern country, and the answer I recieved was 6-12 months.

What information would be helpful to giving you a better insight to this situation?

[The Akasha Colony]

If they aren't already trained and in the reserves, it's unlikely they'll have time to be trained and readied for war after it starts. Do note also that the USSR's war was not even remotely "global," most of it took place on its own territory with equipment supplied by foreign powers and it came out of the war an economic wreck that recovered mostly by stealing equipment, expertise, and industry from others. It is unlikely we will ever see such mobilization rates again even in a global conflict, largely because they'd also be unnecessary. But saying anymore is rather difficult with such a limited picture.

Technically, even though the war has started, it isn't in full force and only two of the warring superpowers are actively at war with each other in a small area of the world. The draft was instated at the beginning of February, and earlier on this thread I asked how long it takes to train troops in a modern country, and the answer I recieved was 6-12 months.

What information would be helpful to giving you a better insight to this situation?

The problem is whether your infrastructure and troop training system is ready to suddenly balloon its force sixfold in the course of only a few months. Do you have enough training depots? Training equipment? Instructors? What about a ready supply of officers to organize and lead the new units? You might have a host of new privates, but where are the officers to lead them? The bases to house them?

In any event, fighting an overseas war against a distant superpower is going to be near impossible unless you already have an ally in the vicinity of the target to use as a staging ground. Even then, wresting control of the seas is the crucial part, and modern warships take quite a bit of time and money to build.

[Forenet Skandinavien]

Technically, even though the war has started, it isn't in full force and only two of the warring superpowers are actively at war with each other in a small area of the world. The draft was instated at the beginning of February, and earlier on this thread I asked how long it takes to train troops in a modern country, and the answer I recieved was 6-12 months.

What information would be helpful to giving you a better insight to this situation?

The problem is whether your infrastructure and troop training system is ready to suddenly balloon its force sixfold in the course of only a few months. Do you have enough training depots? Training equipment? Instructors? What about a ready supply of officers to organize and lead the new units? You might have a host of new privates, but where are the officers to lead them? The bases to house them?

In any event, fighting an overseas war against a distant superpower is going to be near impossible unless you already have an ally in the vicinity of the target to use as a staging ground. Even then, wresting control of the seas is the crucial part, and modern warships take quite a bit of time and money to build.

My country has good infrastructure, both civilian and military, though ten million may be a bit much for it to handle in the course of six months. Perhaps, parts of the total conscripted force are trained every six months, so that, say, 1.25 million soldiers get trained every six months, so not to overwhelm the training depots. Would that be plausible for a modern, first-world superpower?

As for officers, there are a steady supply coming out of military academies. Would it be reasonable to assume that officers would also be trained in the draft, or am I not understanding something correctly?

Most, if not all of the superpowers in question already have large navies, so naval poeer is something that we all already have. One of the opposing superpowers is in close proximity to my country, so my country can be used as a staging ground for the invasion of that enemy. For the others, there are several possible staging grounds for my country to use, though I have not secured any deals with them as of now.

I'm beginning to doubt the effectiveness of mass conscription as a strategy in modern warfare. Would, perhaps, mobilising the reserves and training a small, manageable amount of conscripts be the better way to go? It certainly sounds more manageable, both in terms of infrastructure and the economy. Plus, the logistics for such a force would, theoretically, be easier because less supplies would need to be transported to them. Furthermore, this option seems to fit the goal I had in mind for my country's military: a bit on the small side as far as the world's top powers go, but a formidable fighting force because of its training, discipline, and modern technology.

[Transoxthraxia]

Alright, so I've recently been getting into a little bit of original lineart, and I tried to make an oscillating turret. Without asking why I'd ever want one, could I please have some feedback as to how these are, and which of the bottom two I should select to put on a tank? (Wider vs. shorter base.)

[The Akasha Colony]

My country has good infrastructure, both civilian and military, though ten million may be a bit much for it to handle in the course of six months. Perhaps, parts of the total conscripted force are trained every six months, so that, say, 1.25 million soldiers get trained every six months, so not to overwhelm the training depots. Would that be plausible for a modern, first-world superpower?

It would be more than a ten-fold increase. The US military takes in roughly 150,000 new recruits annually. Going to 2.5 million would be no easy feat.

The problem is that some specialties take much longer to train than others. Artillerymen take longer to train than infantrymen. But you need artillerymen otherwise you end up with a bunch of infantrymen with no support. Some are also more resource intensive than others. You can shorten the training regimes of course, and probably would have to, but this would likely have negative effects on the competency of the troops in their given specialty.

As for officers, there are a steady supply coming out of military academies. Would it be reasonable to assume that officers would also be trained in the draft, or am I not understanding something correctly?

That steady supply will presumably be benchmarked to maintain replacement rates for the peacetime force, not the draft force. And increasing that supply will likely take years (depending on how long the service academies take from matriculation to graduation).

Men can be drafted to become officers, but the trouble is at the higher levels. You can draft a man, put him through basic training, then put him through officer candidate school and his specialty school within a year (presuming his specialty doesn't take that long to train for), and create a basic second lieutenant. But where do you get the higher-ranking officers? You don't draft men directly to become captains and colonels and generals.

The US dealt with this in WWII by creating two forces: the Army of the United States for draftees while retaining the Regular Army for professional soldiers. Regular Army soldiers then received ranks in the Army of the United States that were much higher than their original ranks (which they would revert to after the war ended and the draftees discharged). For instance, by early 1943 Dwight D. Eisenhower was a 4-star general in the Army of the United States, but only a colonel in the Regular Army.

The downside to this of course is that promoting an officer from command of a battalion to command of a division may be rather overwhelming if they are unprepared for such a task. The likelihood of a lapse in quality increases, and you still have a bit of a lag time as the newly-promoted officers become accustomed to their new responsibilities.

Most, if not all of the superpowers in question already have large navies, so naval poeer is something that we all already have. One of the opposing superpowers is in close proximity to my country, so my country can be used as a staging ground for the invasion of that enemy. For the others, there are several possible staging grounds for my country to use, though I have not secured any deals with them as of now.

The presence of navies is a bad thing. Especially submarines, which are difficult, expensive, and time consuming to hunt while being a sufficient threat to severely impede any expeditionary efforts.

I'm beginning to doubt the effectiveness of mass conscription as a strategy in modern warfare. Would, perhaps, mobilising the reserves and training a small, manageable amount of conscripts be the better way to go? It certainly sounds more manageable, both in terms of infrastructure and the economy. Plus, the logistics for such a force would, theoretically, be easier because less supplies would need to be transported to them. Furthermore, this option seems to fit the goal I had in mind for my country's military: a bit on the small side as far as the world's top powers go, but a formidable fighting force because of its training, discipline, and modern technology.

The question is whether you can equip and support them properly. Modern munitions are getting increasingly capable, but also increasingly expensive with longer production times and lower procurement quantities. If you train a million new tank crewmen but only have tank stockpiles for a hundred thousand of them, why bother? This can be changed of course if you're willing to spend the cash, but on top of supporting a massive draft force, this is the kind of expenditure you make only when your nation is existentially threatened by another. One where complete bankruptcy and the devastation of the economy is a more desirable outcome than the alternative.

[Vancon]

Alright, so I've recently been getting into a little bit of original lineart, and I tried to make an oscillating turret. Without asking why I'd ever want one, could I please have some feedback as to how these are, and which of the bottom two I should select to put on a tank? (Wider vs. shorter base.)

If you want a smaller vehicle, then the smaller one.

Otherwise, the larger of it is, the more stable it'll be, but it'll also take a bit longer to turn.

How big is the whole gun apparatus?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Yes, although the reserves would be called up before the war actually happens (hopefully...) That's one of the main advantages - rapid expansion.

I very much like it! Outside the box for conventional NS thinking, and I always love to see that.
Will you be considering a selection of high mobility units based around just volunteers for rapid reaction? With the speed of mobilization you could achieve, or even better skipping reserve mobilization if you absolutely had to, you would not need many rapid reaction forces to maintain a significant capability. So costs in both capital and manpower would be kept down.

Most modern Western armies are moving away from the "total war" optimization and toward a more multipurpose, flexible, and independent organization, for a lot of reasons. It allows smaller parcels of troops to be deployed for small brushfire conflicts without requiring reorganization or retraining, and allows forces to be more easily upscaled or downscaled as the budget demands (usually the latter). It also allows them to more efficiently respond to other threats aside from the historical Soviet tank columns rolling through the Fulda Gap.

How large is this army? Much of the current structure of Western armies is also due to the fact that none of them save the US can even field a corps' worth of troops in combat anymore, so in order to have more than one maneuver element, they have to be organized on the brigade/regiment level.

It might be worth noting that I structured what is arguably the largest tank force on NS around a brigade-centric combined arms unit.
There are many ways to achieve the same goals, and they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Military structure especially is often a complex mash of very nuanced realities and objectives.

[Imperializt Russia]

The problem is whether your infrastructure and troop training system is ready to suddenly balloon its force sixfold in the course of only a few months. Do you have enough training depots? Training equipment? Instructors? What about a ready supply of officers to organize and lead the new units? You might have a host of new privates, but where are the officers to lead them? The bases to house them?

In any event, fighting an overseas war against a distant superpower is going to be near impossible unless you already have an ally in the vicinity of the target to use as a staging ground. Even then, wresting control of the seas is the crucial part, and modern warships take quite a bit of time and money to build.

My country has good infrastructure, both civilian and military, though ten million may be a bit much for it to handle in the course of six months. Perhaps, parts of the total conscripted force are trained every six months, so that, say, 1.25 million soldiers get trained every six months, so not to overwhelm the training depots. Would that be plausible for a modern, first-world superpower?

No.
Not without a major impact on the quality of training.

You want to draft ten million. Your forces total 1.5 million, and as Akasha pointed out above if we compare this to the US then you may have about 150,000 recruits annually on a 6-12 month training programme.
You have the resources and infrastructure to handle 150,000 recruits annually. Maybe 300,000 with squeeze.

If you shunt around training and instruction personnel to service bases and open those facilities up to training, you might be able to double that number with some impact on standard, or quadruple with significant impact.

[Questers]

Yes, although the reserves would be called up before the war actually happens (hopefully...) That's one of the main advantages - rapid expansion.

I very much like it! Outside the box for conventional NS thinking, and I always love to see that.
Will you be considering a selection of high mobility units based around just volunteers for rapid reaction? With the speed of mobilization you could achieve, or even better skipping reserve mobilization if you absolutely had to, you would not need many rapid reaction forces to maintain a significant capability. So costs in both capital and manpower would be kept down.

Well, volunteers are one thing. Few people will volunteer for enlisted ranks in the GSRDF.

I do have some volunteer rapid-reaction units, but they're light infantry. Republican Marine Commandos (so original) which belong to the Navy (three battalion groups), and 43 Infantry Brigade which consists solely of RVR (basically my Gurkhas) http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Rochehautese_Volunteer_Rifles

The divisions themselves are always manned by conscripts, so like it says, they are sufficiently sized to fight - but it's just the reservists who come in who build it up to a proper structure, and as you've noticed, the C3 centralisation helps bring those reservists in quickly and efficiently. But in theory the Divisions can fight without the reservists. I do not have any mechanised rapid reaction units. Perhaps that deserves amending!