NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Gallan Systems]

how many mortar is box

and how many is amos

the real questions are being asked

e: for the above i eventually decided that 2/3rds of the mortars are "mortars in a box" like m113 or w/e and they live in the maneuver companies and 12 amos in the DS mortar battery, supported three 6-gun batteries in the brigade

[Minroz]

I'm thinking of utilising 9a52-4 Tornado Multiple rocket launch system as staple of my Minrozian artillery forces. While in cases of towed guns, 152mm howitzer 2A65. I did it based on recommendations of my NS buddy a while ago during my search for good artilleries to suit my Armed Forces which are mainly cosmetically Eastern.

[Prosorusiya]

Ok, so I've been doing some reading on the MiG-23, and I've seen some sources say the MiG-23MLD variant could not use the R-27, and some say that it could. How critical is the loss of a long range missile for the MiG-23MLD? Currently I don't have a stockpile of R-23s lying about, as I thought I could upgrade to the R-27 instead.

Also, is it worth fitting R-77s to my MiG-29As, or do they lack the required equipment to carry them?

[Spirit of Hope]

Have a sketchy outline of my navy, here. I've just realized I don't have any frigates, which I should probably invest in.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Well, the Bundeswehr uniforms and parades look rather gross. But still, any evidence of this "healthy dose of resentment" towards militaries in Western countries? Not that I'm disagreeing with you but I haven't really seen much mention of said resentment.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 2 seems more to articulate the SPD's own stance regarding sanctions on Russia rather than anti-Bundeswehr sentiment. Otherwise, fairly disconcerting stuff.

While we're on the subject of artillery:
24 not-PzH2000 SPGs and 36 120mm mortar carriers per Armored (Infantry) Brigade - Overkill Y/N?

Seems fine. My own Panzergrenadier regiments field 24 PzH 2000s, 24 Wiesel mortar systems (or alternatively, Soltam K6 120mm mortars on trucks) and 8 M270 MLRSs. Which makes me wonder whether that's too little or too much firepower for a mechanised regiment.

[Arkandros]

Have a sketchy outline of my navy, here. I've just realized I don't have any frigates, which I should probably invest in.

Frigates can be useful, but aren't absolutely essential for a standing navy. Their job can be rolled into destroyers during peacetime, but you should have some DEs of FFs in active or inactive reserves. My bigger concern is your number of SSBNs and carriers. You have more SSBNs than the US navy currently does (14), which means you need a seriously justifiable strategic threat. The carrier numbers are unreasonable relative to the number of destroyers and cruisers you have, but based on the fact you're currently building three carriers, I'll assume you're in between classes and are going to phase out old carriers relatively soon. With your cruiser/destroyer numbers, you should probably only have 11 or fewer carriers (less if you have surface combatant heavy carrier groups), because your cruisers won't be devoted to your carriers full time.
EDIT: your amphibious assault ships should also be broken down further by class; LHDs or LPDs, for example, are a lot more versatile (and more expensive) than LSDs, and could be treated as small or specialized carriers. On a similar note, your landing ship numbers seem low. You should have 2-3 per amphib (depending on how many they hold), plus 10% of that number, for something like 30-35 landing ships (as a bare minimum;landing ships would take heavy losses in combat)

[Tekeristan]

How should one go about effectively using military advisers to support another nation or group?

[Allanea]

The term "military advisors" might mean different things in different contexts.

Sometimes it's a polite term for "we have soldiers deployed in the region". SSometimes its SF commandos training and leading a guerrilla movement. Sometimes it's literally instructors and trainers providing technical expertise and leadership.

[Tekeristan]

The term "military advisors" might mean different things in different contexts.

Sometimes it's a polite term for "we have soldiers deployed in the region". SSometimes its SF commandos training and leading a guerrilla movement. Sometimes it's literally instructors and trainers providing technical expertise and leadership.

In this case - the last option. My apologizes!

[Allanea]

Right, there are two effective ways you can do this.

The first one is to organize (with local help) some manner of classes or training facilities where your advisors will train local troops. The most effective example I know is the people who trained Egyptian artillerymen before the Yom Kippur War, where they actually managed to get artillery crews trained to near-Soviet standards (which actually were fairly good at the time). Really any country which is developed enough to have universal 10-grade education can have its population trained into passably good tankers and artillery unless there's some awful cultural issue (for example, the Soviets ran into problems with Ethiopians because many of them were from less-developed areas of the country and thus were very superstitious and had an awful work ethic). If the country is very undeveloped (like Afghanistan) you're going to have incredible amounts of trouble and you're going to end up doing most of the hard work yourself.

[Minroz]

The term "military advisors" might mean different things in different contexts.

Sometimes it's a polite term for "we have soldiers deployed in the region". SSometimes its SF commandos training and leading a guerrilla movement. Sometimes it's literally instructors and trainers providing technical expertise and leadership.

In my case, my IC nation goes with the latter especially the target countries are my allies or places of interests requiring local cooperation or to obtain future allies.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

[Crookfur]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

He doesn't so much mean hard in regard to physical but in regard to having to do all the difficult/complicated stuff.

[Husseinarti]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

Yeah probably but the Afghan would stone a woman to death because she showed her feet.

[Questers]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

You'd think that.

But it's probably not true.

[Rhodesialund]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

There is no such thing as "hardier" workers. Only industrialization and infrastructure. Work ethics and cultural identity of workers is simply an effect of said industrialization and infrastructure.

Take a look at the economic situation in Afghanistan. Around 35% of the population is unemployed. On top of that, the main driving force behind it's economy is agriculture, despite only 12% of the country being arable, half of that is currently cultivated. The main killing factor behind it not being more productive is how it's not industrialized like the US. It's infrastructure sucks, and farmers don't always have machinery capable of making their productivity skyrocket. Neither do they have the means of utilizing the most out of it's erratic winter snows and spring rains.

There are no major processing plants and so the market relies on exporting to India to process and then sell, many of them under the guise of "Indian" packaging. India does buy said products for practically pennies while marketing it at higher prices. This would be avoided should the government of Afghanistan, after they finish up their infrastructure problems, focus on forming a suitable marketing and processing industry.


TL;DR

Infastructure and Industrialization Sucks compared to the US, they be smart to invest in said infrastructure and industrialization. There are no such thing has "hardy" workers.

[Gallan Systems]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

You'd think that.

But it's probably not true.

[The Akasha Colony]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

If you've spent your entire life essentially being your own boss and tilling your own farm on your own terms, that generally does not prepare you very well for the regulated, authoritarian environment experienced in the military. This is especially true if education is lacking. A white-collar Westerner is more accustomed to working as part of a larger organization, understanding responsibilities that are given to him by that organization and the need to respect the hierarchy and work toward the bigger picture.

It's also not for nothing that we have modern vaccines and better understanding of nutrition and physical fitness (even if some choose to ignore these options). Living a rural life with no modern medicine or nutritional information doesn't necessarily make on "hardy" except that it just tends to kill or incapacitate those who aren't lucky enough to survive. A modern office worker who exercises moderately and eats reasonably well will almost certainly be in better physical shape than your average Afghan farmer, who has probably never heard of the food pyramid or even the word "carbohydrates."

And this was found to be true during the Civil War, when despite expectations that Southerners with their hardy, more outdoorsy lifestyle would make better soldiers, it was actually Northern troops that had lower rates of disease and better discipline, being more accustomed to living in close quarters with others (building up their immune system) and working a disciplined job with direct supervision and a clear chain of command. The army of clerks and factory workers was better than the army of farmers.

[Purpelia]

Also if you want someone to be proficient at using and maintaining modern firearms or armored vehicles it helps to have the person be experienced with equipment more complex than a sickle or ox drawn plow.

[Gallan Systems]

How would an underdeveloped nation produce less hard workers? I'd think someone who grew up in Afghanistan would be far hardier than any western desk jockey.

If you've spent your entire life essentially being your own boss and tilling your own farm on your own terms, that generally does not prepare you very well for the regulated, authoritarian environment experienced in the military.

It's mostly because stereotypical "built like an ox" farmhands have low IQ and diminished curiosity really. It should go without saying that a dumb farmboy (or dumb anyone) is worse than sedentary sperg as a fighting man.

Also if you want someone to be proficient at using and maintaining modern firearms or armored vehicles it helps to have the person be experienced with equipment more complex than a sickle or ox drawn plow.

Rice farmers use plows built with lawnmower engines now. Get with the times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_N_AqBNj9c

[Rich and Corporations]

It's mostly because stereotypical "built like an ox" farmhands have low IQ and diminished curiosity really. It should go without saying that a dumb farmboy (or dumb anyone) is worse than sedentary sperg as a fighting man.

naturally most fighting men don't actually fight nowadays

[Kazarogkai]

I think the old narrative of warriors vs soldiers kinda applies here. The Goths were warriors while the Romans were soldiers, while on an individual level the average Goth could tear a Roman apart they in contrast to the Romans were not nearly as good at fighting as a collective unit and as such in a large scale battle would typically lose. The same sorta applies towards those Afghan or a Zulu tribesmen who may individually be rather strong just end up being outclassed when faced with a more modern population(Americans/British).

Gone are the days when blood and brawn and the fire within your belly were all that was necessary to win. Now you gotta be smart and crafty on the modern battlefield.

[Gallan Systems]

It's mostly because stereotypical "built like an ox" farmhands have low IQ and diminished curiosity really. It should go without saying that a dumb farmboy (or dumb anyone) is worse than sedentary sperg as a fighting man.

naturally most fighting men don't actually fight nowadays

I'm talking about infantrymen specifically, obviously, but it probably applies to armour crewmen and other combat arms.

Stupid people are easy to spook and stay spooked. Smart people are able to rationalize their fears. This translates to dumb people fleeing from bullets and smart people staying put, or if we're using a modern metric, dumb people getting benefits for a variety of mental disorders and smart people getting employed post-service.

I think the old narrative of warriors vs soldiers kinda applies here. The Goths were warriors while the Romans were soldiers, while on an individual level the average Goth could tear a Roman apart they in contrast to the Romans were not nearly as good at fighting as a collective unit and as such in a large scale battle would typically lose. The same sorta applies towards those Afghan or a Zulu tribesmen who may individually be rather strong just end up being outclassed when faced with a more modern population(Americans/British).

Gone are the days when blood and brawn and the fire within your belly were all that was necessary to win. Now you gotta be smart and crafty on the modern battlefield.

Who carved up the Western Roman Empire and continued civilization until the Greeks fucked everything up again?

[EsToVnIa]

I think the old narrative of warriors vs soldiers kinda applies here. The Goths were warriors while the Romans were soldiers, while on an individual level the average Goth could tear a Roman apart they in contrast to the Romans were not nearly as good at fighting as a collective unit and as such in a large scale battle would typically lose. The same sorta applies towards those Afghan or a Zulu tribesmen who may individually be rather strong just end up being outclassed when faced with a more modern population(Americans/British).

Gone are the days when blood and brawn and the fire within your belly were all that was necessary to win. Now you gotta be smart and crafty on the modern battlefield.

This has been true since the 2nd century BC

[Purpelia]

I think the old narrative of warriors vs soldiers kinda applies here. The Goths were warriors while the Romans were soldiers, while on an individual level the average Goth could tear a Roman apart they in contrast to the Romans were not nearly as good at fighting as a collective unit and as such in a large scale battle would typically lose. The same sorta applies towards those Afghan or a Zulu tribesmen who may individually be rather strong just end up being outclassed when faced with a more modern population(Americans/British).

Gone are the days when blood and brawn and the fire within your belly were all that was necessary to win. Now you gotta be smart and crafty on the modern battlefield.

Except that given their higher infrastructure and standard of living in general combined with the relatively high standards for joining the Roman military (until it started going down the drain that is) meant that the average Roman soldier was probably physically superior to his barbaric counterpart.

The whole warrior vs soldier thing is so bunk it's not even funny. Time and time again history shows that it does not matter what kind of culture you have but what kind of money you can throw at a war. That's the only thing that counts.