Rich and Corporations wrote:A sufficient tree density can stop a tank however.
IMO, an upgunned IFV would be essentially as well armed and as expensive as the original Sherman, and as well armored as the original Sherman against the Panther.
Tree density itself in the modern age isn't really the problem anymore, as most tanks have a pretty good power to weight ratio that combined with a dozer blade can clear away most vegetation. Furthermore, trees with sufficient girth to prevent knocking them down generally aren't that densely cluster to begin with since they tend to deprive nearby trees of one of the necessary ingredients for life: Sunlight.
Also, this may be news to you, but humans tend to be self destructive and are especially good at destroying forests/jungles among many other things. Watching Nova, Frontline and Vice tend to be kind of depressing, just yesterday some French lady was talking about how the acidic PH levels in the ocean are killing the coral reefs. NSMR needs to start a topic on disaster relief or at the least how modern wars would be fought over basic resources like food and water supplies.
But, back from the rant, it's still the actual ground terrain that's going to stop a tank and not generally tree density specifically. Tanks still don't operate well in boggy/marshy/swampy areas as well as one's with heavily sloped with many different degrees of converging angles.
Also, on the second point, considering the Sherman proved to be a superior war machine in the end that could be produced more cheaply {a plus with modern defense budgets being what they are}, more quickly and more numerously, modern IFVs armed with a 105/120mm gun are a threat not best ignored, because tanks no matter how frakking awesome they are, like any weapon they still have weak points that can be exploited.
Very good write up and read, I especially liked the not readily apparent exploitable weaknesses parts of it.
As a curtsey, here's but, one example quoted from your write-up for context:
"More than ever, the GSR Defence Forces continue the Gallo-Questarian Military Tradition
(GKMT), emphasising planning and centralised preparation. Questarian military operations
are characterised by meticulous levels of planning and preparation, and the broad tactical
success of Operation Neptune has consolidated this opinion in the General Staff. A
Morivaine General who worked with the Questarians on exercises had this to say:
They are obsessed with plans and details. No minor detail escapes them, and plans
are rife with schematics to be consumed by their huge staff. Layers of contingencies
and exceptions cover all decisions. Decisions that deviate from plans are rarely
made without consultation to plans and superior commanders. It is intensely
frustrating.
Mission-type tactics and officer initiative-focus is less important in this system than
adherence to plans which are designed around logistical and temporal needs and
objectives. Preparation is the key word, and this is not just a second-best for a system that
uses conscripted officers. It is part and parcel of the military culture."
While meticulous levels of planning and preparation make sense given the military culture & legacy of GSR Defence Forces, no war in history has ever gone according to plan and when your military forces face opponents who do place a high value on mission-type tactics and individual initiative to say the least your going to find out the hard way that all that meticulous planning and preparation counted for {forgive my French} SHIT. That stated, failure is a great teacher and I'm sure your forces will be triumphant in the end even after learning the hard way that "No plan survives contact with the enemy."
On the divisions themselves, with the reserves added, maybe it's just me, but a divisional strength of 24,000 seems a tad unwieldy to control effectively as even the greatness that is the Royal Commonwealth Defence Forces, the largest division is around 15,500 with all attachments and generally around 14,000 basic. The Armored Division is even smaller at around between 13,300-13,500 depending on if it's a standard armored division or a heavy armored division.
Furthermore, as one more good example, I noticed you made no mention of women, whereas the Commonwealth Kingdom being a more egalitarian society both accepts and conscripts both men and women into service. So, I do hope your society can handle the fact of being defeated in battle by women or just even for the lulz of it by an entire division composed of lesbians, yes seriously our military as an organizational experiment created an entire division composed of self-declared lesbians among other strange oddities you'd expect to find in a Civil Rights Lovefest.
Questers wrote:I do not have any mechanised rapid reaction units. Perhaps that deserves amending!
Yes, yes it does if only to match the superiority that is the Commonwealth Kingdom.
I haven't gotten time to fully work everything out, which of course is saying a lot since the project will never be satisfactory completed, but what I was envisioning was this:
6 to 12 of what I've so far decided to call Mechanized Combat Regiments or MCRs for short with each composed of a single battalion of: armour, armoured infantry {IFVs of either tracked or wheeled with four at least of the regiments being tracked and two wheeled} & armoured artillery plus aviation assets & various supporting companies.
4 to 6 Air Assault Regiments
The above would all be part of the volunteer active army in addition to many other assets.
Imperializt Russia wrote:The Commonwealth was built on stealing other country's things and claiming them as our own.
But, One of the reasons why I call {claimed} my nation as the Commonwealth. Have my way, I shall be the last NS Commonwealth standing as to paraphrase an old movie.
There can be only one Commonwealth!
Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 12:59 am