NationStates

Ulfr-Reich wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Let's keep the political discussion out of the mil thread, as DLN advised. If we want to have this argument, we always have the Soc & Com thread.

> Vatnik detected.

Its been a while since you've been warned or banned, so a *** warning for flamebaiting will suffice *** here.

Rhoderberg wrote:RIDF detected.

(Image)

Rhoderberg wrote:In case you're illiterate, which wouldn't surprise me, it stands for Russian Internet Defense Force.

You, on the other hand, have had plenty of chances to improve your attitude and taken none of them. *** Seven day ban *** while we discuss your future here.

Transnapastain wrote:le pain

Estovnia wrote:With how the Ukraine is panning out, European countries should still consider Russia the clear enemy :c

Twins?

Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

The Kievan People wrote:Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

Is medic normal for a squad-level infantry unit?

The Kievan People wrote:Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

What's everyone's opinion on the Venezuelan military? Do you think three literally butthurt mercenaries can take it down?

Nope, usually at a higher level.

Is there any precedent for wholesale importation of shipbuilding capacity? As in signing a contract not just for a series of ships but also for the facilities to build and maintain them along with the personnel to do so?

I ask because my nation borders the Caspian and has little experience in building anything larger than FACs. It is unlikely that a contract could/would be secured with any Russian or Iranian firm.

The United Remnants of America wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

Is medic normal for a squad-level infantry unit?

Put your medics at the platoon or company level.

Korva wrote:Is there any precedent for wholesale importation of shipbuilding capacity? As in signing a contract not just for a series of ships but also for the facilities to build and maintain them along with the personnel to do so?

I ask because my nation borders the Caspian and has little experience in building anything larger than FACs. It is unlikely that a contract could/would be secured with any Russian or Iranian firm.

Yes, it has been done before. Notably it was done for some African nations post-colonialism, but they usually sent their ships to the manufacturer's nation for anything really severe until their local shipyards could handle it. The best way to gain the capability to maintain a warship is to develop the industrial base to build warships. National security concerns for whatever nation is teaching you how to do it are the primary obstacle, but that can be overcome with diplomacy.

Put your medics at the platoon or company level.

This. Medics are too valuable to hand them out to individual squads, and they need to be able to bounce around between elements as needed. Officers have to do something similar, so attaching them to headquarters is a decent option.

Korva wrote:Is there any precedent for wholesale importation of shipbuilding capacity? As in signing a contract not just for a series of ships but also for the facilities to build and maintain them along with the personnel to do so?

I ask because my nation borders the Caspian and has little experience in building anything larger than FACs. It is unlikely that a contract could/would be secured with any Russian or Iranian firm.

There is always Stahn.

The Kievan People wrote:Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

Its always my fault

I would complain about losing respect, but you cannot lose what you never gained lol

---

Here's a question I've had for a while; on the modern battlefield is there such a thing as defense through extreme strategic depth? In the past having an extremely vast amount of territory was a kind of defense in an of itself because of how primitive logistics were, or so I understand it at least, but today with strategic cargo aircraft and fully motorized logistics is it really a defense anymore? Obviously it makes operations more difficult, but it seems like simply retreating and leaving scorched earth would be almost totally useless today

Korva wrote:I ask because my nation borders the Caspian and has little experience in building anything larger than FACs. It is unlikely that a contract could/would be secured with any Russian or Iranian firm.

What sort of ships are you interested in building? If this is related to the LHD you mentioned earlier, I'm skeptical as to whether you would need something of that nature if you only border on the Caspian Sea.

The Soodean Imperium wrote:

Korva wrote:I ask because my nation borders the Caspian and has little experience in building anything larger than FACs. It is unlikely that a contract could/would be secured with any Russian or Iranian firm.

What sort of ships are you interested in building? If this is related to the LHD you mentioned earlier, I'm skeptical as to whether you would need something of that nature if you only border on the Caspian Sea.

nothing larger than a frigate, but I border both the Black Sea and Caspian


the LHD is to replace/retcon my usage of decommissioned U.S. stuff

trying to move away from purely real world stuff

Padnak wrote:Here's a question I've had for a while; on the modern battlefield is there such a thing as defense through extreme strategic depth? In the past having an extremely vast amount of territory was a kind of defense in an of itself because of how primitive logistics were, or so I understand it at least, but today with strategic cargo aircraft and fully motorized logistics is it really a defense anymore? Obviously it makes operations more difficult, but it seems like simply retreating and leaving scorched earth would be almost totally useless today

It depends who you're trying to stop. If you're trying to stop the US military, which is prepared to fight a war thousands of miles away and has a robust air and sealift capacity, unlikely. Even in undeveloped Afghanistan, the US was still able to supply its outposts and troops, albeit with greater difficulty. The greater issue is not one of physical depth, but one of infrastructure. A "shallow" country with no roads or airports is a bigger issue than a "deep" one with an autobahn/interstate highway system and well developed network of airports and airbases available for use.

Is there any mention of PTSD in ancient warfare? Or is it more recent? I mean they did have changed control of their fate back then, no missiles and shit.

Zeinbrad wrote:Is there any mention of PTSD in ancient warfare? Or is it more recent? I mean they did have changed control of their fate back then, no missiles and shit.

Of course they did. They probably had more of it, in fact. Ancient warfare consisted of going up to people and stabbing them with glorified sticks until they were dead, or your arm's tendons snapped. It wasn't until the invention of muskets that you could kil them from far enough away to to not see their jaws break open.

Zeinbrad wrote:Is there any mention of PTSD in ancient warfare? Or is it more recent? I mean they did have changed control of their fate back then, no missiles and shit.

It almost certainly has always existed; it is absent in a lot of ancient texts because the histories of old often have more to do with events on a large scale, far more-so than on the individual level of a single soldier. However, there is possibly some mention of it, in a Shakespeare play (I got info from wiki, so if it is faulty, feel free to tell me so), History of Henry IV, Part I, Act II, Scene 3



I also recall reading an account from the Roman-Makedonian Wars in which the Makedonians were particularly horrified and dismayed at the sight of their fellow soldiers killed by Roman weapons. As well as some accounts of how slaves were utterly distraught at the sight of the rebels in the Third Servile War being crucified along the street. Unfortunately, I do not remember the authors of these accounts or the resource from which I found it, as it was some years ago.

Padnak wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:Why don't we talk about something else?

As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.

Its always my fault

I would complain about losing respect, but you cannot lose what you never gained lol

---

Here's a question I've had for a while; on the modern battlefield is there such a thing as defense through extreme strategic depth? In the past having an extremely vast amount of territory was a kind of defense in an of itself because of how primitive logistics were, or so I understand it at least, but today with strategic cargo aircraft and fully motorized logistics is it really a defense anymore? Obviously it makes operations more difficult, but it seems like simply retreating and leaving scorched earth would be almost totally useless today

At least you've got a sense of humor and don't repeatedly get the thread locked when we say something you don't like.

Sure, you can trade space for time to organize a proper defense. The trick is to keep in contact with the enemy and slow them down with skirmish tactics. For example, a tank division could be seriously slowed down if every time their vanguard force comes around a corner or exit a tree line they get attacked with ATGMs and loose a platoon or company commander. It'll take a few minutes to reorganize the chain of command, and they can't advance in good order until they do so. That in turn slows down the entire vanguard, which forces the main body to slow down as well.

Velkanika wrote:

Padnak wrote:

Its always my fault

I would complain about losing respect, but you cannot lose what you never gained lol

---

Here's a question I've had for a while; on the modern battlefield is there such a thing as defense through extreme strategic depth? In the past having an extremely vast amount of territory was a kind of defense in an of itself because of how primitive logistics were, or so I understand it at least, but today with strategic cargo aircraft and fully motorized logistics is it really a defense anymore? Obviously it makes operations more difficult, but it seems like simply retreating and leaving scorched earth would be almost totally useless today

At least you've got a sense of humor and don't repeatedly get the thread locked when we say something you don't like.

Sure, you can trade space for time to organize a proper defense. The trick is to keep in contact with the enemy and slow them down with skirmish tactics. For example, a tank division could be seriously slowed down if every time their vanguard force comes around a corner or exit a tree line they get attacked with ATGMs and loose a platoon or company commander. It'll take a few minutes to reorganize the chain of command, and they can't advance in good order until they do so. That in turn slows down the entire vanguard, which forces the main body to slow down as well.

I haven't reported anyone for saying things I don't like; I reported them for directly insulting me and griefing me for making a goddamn moderation report. What I like even less is this passive-aggressive shit that is directly referencing me with the intent to make me angry. I don't want the thread to be locked, and I don't dislike the people here. I even like Gallia; he has been very helpful in providing information. We had moved past this. I am not the topic of the fucking thread, I just want to lurk here and read stuff about interesting things without being insulted and slighted. If you want to insult me, go to an IRC or Skype message; that's what most people do, and I know people have insulted me in NS IRC's before, but it isn't here. It is out of sight, out of mind.

stahp

how many bans/locks are we going to get today

3-peat
3-peat
3-peat

!!!!!

Yalos wrote:

I’m writing up military numbers and equipment for a region that I’m currently in the process of applying for, and would appreciate some advice or feedback before adding these details to the application. The application asks for military details, but I’d like to refrain from just posting random numbers and without rationale. In short, I’d like to discuss all the decisions I make here.

The idea is that my nation will be a large, rural multi-ethnic/cultural empire with the second largest population in the region; 135 million people. I would also have one of the largest, if not the largest continental, uninterrupted landmass in the region, ala Russia. It would happen to have one of the lower GDP per capitas, at $11,259, for a total GDP of $1.52 trillion, but undergoing stable, consistent economic growth, with the possibility of an extreme program of state investment and development.

The imperial government is highly autocratic, with an ancient dynasty of ruling Emperors spanning back several centuries. Aside from the overwhelming Yalosii majority, (like, 95% of the population or something) there are at least two dozen ethnic and cultural groups that are recognized within national borders, with several more that have been withheld recognition for opposition against the state--in short, it’s a rather diverse, confusing arrangement. Religious tension, class struggle and popular resentment against the imperial government has been bottling up for decades with the possibility of erupting into civil war. The nation lacks infrastructure, and the major intra national means of transportation lies in a few dirt roads and a transnational railroad in the shadow of the Western mountains.

Most of the landmass is comprised of semi-arid grasslands, with a massive desert on my southern border, a majestic mountain range on my Western border, probably a rain-forest or river (or both) on my northern neighbor, and a long Eastern coastline. To my north would lie a relatively prosperous Japan-esque nation with a powerful economy and small--but elite-- military force of 275,000, and beyond the Western mountains would lay a Taiwan?-esque nation with a highly seasoned, tested military of about half a million, with an even larger of combat-hardened non-active or reserve civilians due to a recent military conflict. They both have much larger economies, but much smaller populations than my own nation.

Now, because I’m entertaining the possibility of having a rapid, tumultuous popular uprising and subsequent revolutionary government, I want to plan a military structure for both a pre-revolutionary (aka, the Imperial government) and a revolutionary state.

Because most of my potential neighbors seem to be relatively benevolent, or at least somewhat uninterested in armed conflict (in fact, I’m talking to one of my potential neighbors and it looks like our nations might have strong cultural and religious ties) I’m actually not sure what kind of military I’d need. I’d need to develop a military able to administer to a really wide land-mass and conduct anti-terror/insurgency operations with limited infrastructure. I’d also need to be able to ensure the survival of the imperial regime by being able to counter potential invasion, but this would be a secondary concern for me. In general, merely keeping the regime alive is enough. I’m guessing that lots of artillery bases, motorized infantry and secret/military police could do it?

Also, I’m considering of having my first, or one of my first RPs in the region be a popular uprising by Yalosii nationalists, populists and religious factions, all of whom are frustrated by government inefficiency, lavish spending, state-mandated secularism and a series of famines about which the government has done absolutely nothing. In effect, however, this will probably be in conflict with the nation’s neighbors and many regional powers/super powers. Thus, after the revolution, my nation will need to be able to take the former military structure and transform it into a capable defense force, or at least one strong enough to keep the regime afloat long enough to build itself in, gain some credibility and unite the Yalosii people. Of course, such a revolutionary government would be in conflict with minorities and religious groups, most of whom would be re-educated and repressed. Again, not really sure how my revolutionaries would organize their military here.

This is my situation, and it’d be great if I could get some advice/input, however limited, ranging from military vehicles/technologies to look into, etc. I’m assuming that my nation can produce domestic equipment and etc, but none of it is all together that amazing.

There's a few ways you could go about organizing and equiping your forces. If sounds like the main threat facing your nation (pre-revolution at least) is a popular uprising in the countryside and or conflict between different ethnic groups and for this I would aim to create a large, mostly motorized, conscripted military built around a smaller core of highly loyal and well trained troops. Given that your nation sounds like it doesn't want to break the bank on military spending (possibly in order to expand infrastructure, which would be ideal for your nation if its reliant purely on rail for mass transport) I would go for a somewhat static "regionialized" military.

A "regionalized" (for want of a better word) military is a military that lacks allot of strategic mobility so instead focus on mobility within an operating region or military district, with the possibility of reciving support from neighboring districts. What this means is that you will have to built allot of somewhat redundant military facilities across your country, around population centers and strategically significant areas, where you can base large numbers of troops and large amounts of equipment with the expectation that if the military district comes under attack the forces located in it will have to fight on their own without support for a fairly long duration of time before reinforcements can be drawn from other districts. I would establish military regions along the lines of existing states or provinces and would, if your military intends to fight an insurgency or popular uprising, make law enforcement and paramilitary forces within that state or province subservient to the military districts command.

Forces within a military district should have a high degree of mobility within the district. What I mean by that is that troops should be able to rapidly move to any location within the district from their bases in the event of insurgent activity or an incursion by a hostile foreign nation. To best accomplish this I would spread the forces within the district throughout the district along major roadways in battalion to brigade sized groups, hopefully at bases connected by rail. If troops can arrive almost anywhere within the military district rapidly the disadvantage of lacking strategic mobility is somewhat lessened because troops wont have to be drawn from other parts of the country to counter local problems. To make this work you will need a very large number of troops, but not necessarily a very large amount of expensive equipment; in district mobility (especially against insurgents and other non-state actors) can be provided by truck and jeep. Within each military district I would aim to have at least one air field and a network of military only roads connecting bases and strategically significant locations. The last thing you probably want is your army getting caught in traffic while insurgents run amok. Base small contingents of troops of company size and smaller at every settlement and provide them with radio communications to call for air support or the support of larger military units within the district. From a counter insurgency point of view its best to have many overlapping area's of operation where units can mutually support each other in the event of hostile contact. If any sort of active insurgency starts up establish fire bases throughout each district that can provide all units operating within the district with fire support whenever required. Having police subservient to the army is a highly valuable asset when fighting an insurgency because it frees up troops from detaining and questioning possible leads on the enemy.

At the center of your nation, your capital, I would create an "elite" military force comprised mostly of whatever ethnicity is considered most loyal to the government. This force should be totally armored and mechanized and capable of operations anywhere in the country or offensive operations outside of the country. The "capital" force's main purpose is to protect the capital (obv), provide a fairly rapid reaction force to support forces in other military districts should there be a problem that cannot be handled by the forces within the district and surrounding districts, to counter disloyal military units in other districts and to conduct military operations outside of the country. Equip this force with your the best equipment available. I assume your nations rail lines all end up in the capital at some point, so hopefully the "capital" force would be able to rapidly react to treats throughout the country. Make this force an army group or larger. I would aim to have most of your reserve forces and equipment for your reserve forces in the capital and at other cities mostly populated by government loyalists so that in the event of an uprising or attack reserve units can be quickly formed up and the possibility of large equipment stockpiles falling into enemy hand is lessened.

In terms of your air force I would aim for a force mostly equipped for ground support and air supremacy. Strategic mobility would be an asset and can be provided fairly effectively by aircraft, but for a nation like yours it would probably make the most sense to aim for supporting the ground forces above all else.

I can into the reading of the field manuals and interpreting them poorly

Korva wrote:stahp

how many bans/locks are we going to get today

Not sure but if we get one more banned player on our punch card today, we could win a FREE locked thread!!!

The "Ignore" feature is thing, after all.

United Marxist Nations wrote:I haven't reported anyone for saying things I don't like; I reported them for directly insulting me and griefing me for making a goddamn moderation report. What I like even less is this passive-aggressive shit that is directly referencing me with the intent to make me angry. I don't want the thread to be locked, and I don't dislike the people here. I even like Gallia; he has been very helpful in providing information. We had moved past this. I am not the topic of the fucking thread, I just want to lurk here and read stuff about interesting things without being insulted and slighted. If you want to insult me, go to an IRC or Skype message; that's what most people do, and I know people have insulted me in NS IRC's before, but it isn't here. It is out of sight, out of mind.

Given your dragging of politicking into this thread, and the fact that your actions have directly resulted in the (temporary) ban of someone these people seem to like... you shouldn't be surprised when people here voice their thinly-veiled displeasure of you.

Zeinbrad wrote:Is there any mention of PTSD in ancient warfare? Or is it more recent? I mean they did have changed control of their fate back then, no missiles and shit.

It most certainly existed back then, however given the understanding of medicine at the time it is likely they confused it for something else, like possession or just plain insanity.