NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Gallan Systems]

the most right person so far is probably The Notorious M.A.T.

[Auroya]

but what kind of money you can throw at a war. That's the only thing that counts.

Vietnam isn't real.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Have you seen office workers in the UK? I know you've been away like a decade, but still.

[Tule]

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.

The accounts I've read from soldiers deployed in Afghanistan describe a country full of people which would be seen as brain damaged in the developed world.

Hell, a lot of them probably are thanks to severely stunted development, both in terms of physiology and lack of any education.

Can't even train them to shoot straight because "Allah will guide my bullets".

[Gallan Systems]

You'd think that.

But it's probably not true.

Have you seen office workers in the UK? I know you've been away like a decade, but still.

So what? It's easier to fix fat than to fix stupid.

Making someone cleverer is a lot harder than doing swimming exercises for 8 weeks or whatever.

A lot drier too. And less witty/flirtatious. All around worse by far.

[Chinese Peoples]

I think the old narrative of warriors vs soldiers kinda applies here.

This is one area in which I think the classical Chinese armies are under-appreciated. From the 13th C. B.C.E. there are records of soldiers instead of warriors, like this one:

The King summons three divisions, the right division, the centre division, and the left division.

[Spirit of Hope]

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?

By the time Rome fell they were no longer using Roman citizen soldiers but instead hired barbarian mercenaries. Which in part lead to the mercenary having more loyalty to their commanders, thus helping those commanders tear Rome apart whenever they decided they would make a better Emperor. It helped that Rome never actually defined how a new emperor was chosen.

[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.

This has been true since the 2nd century BC

Sorta Kinda

It wasn't until modern when the individual rank and file troops had true relevance and had to be smart, crafty, and highly technical. In the days of yore so long as the officers/leadership were smart and able it didn't really matter if there armies were mostly dumb, inbred, raging tribesmen . What is in effect by modern standards a functional retard would make a fine solder in a Napoleonic era army: so long as you could listen to orders and were able to point your weapon in the general direction of the enemy you would of been more or less OK. Now the average soldier requires extensive training and a good education to be up to snuff by modern standards.

[Triplebaconation]

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.

"Army of clerks and factory workers" lol.

The Union Army had a larger percentage of factory workers, but it was still half farmers. Percentages of clerks and other professionals were virtually the same in both armies - minuscule.

The North had an overwhelming advantage in industry but it was still an agrarian nation.

People in non-developed countries aren't bad soldiers because they're stupid, it's because they're smart. What kind of idiot would want to die for Hamid Karzai or Buhari or someone?

[New Axiom]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

You just give people sets of fatigues in woodland and desert patterns, nbd

e: wow ODS vets are grandfathers now

[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.

The accounts I've read from soldiers deployed in Afghanistan describe a country full of people which would be seen as brain damaged in the developed world.

Hell, a lot of them probably are thanks to severely stunted development, both in terms of physiology and lack of any education.

Can't even train them to shoot straight because "Allah will guide my bullets".

There was an article that I read that heavily suggested most of the mental deficiencies found in Arabic societies are side-effects of inbreeding tendencies. But then again, what do I know?

[Gallia-]

Arabic "mental deficiencies" are likely representative averages for global human intelligence.

The developed world has massive amounts of stacked bonuses like "clean water", "large amounts of food", and "modern medicine" that keeps early childhood developmental problems arising from sickness, or whatever, to a relative minimum. The benefits of compulsory, public education in giving children (even rudimentary) literacy is pretty potent too. These only became significant factors in the post-war era, though. The United States still had swathes of land in the Deep South (Louisiana comes to mind) where large portions of the under-14 child population was affected by illiteracy in 1960. Malaria was eradicated in the '50s, polio still existed through the Vietnam War, etc. It hardly need be the result of mass inbreeding by mutant morons or whatever, the same factors existed in parts of the United States until very recently, and are most definitely still within living memory.

The advancement on the front of combating illiteracy and infant mortality a country like Bahrain or Kuwait has made is far more substantial than the United States made in the same period (say, 1940-2000) with the same metrics. It seems development has an exponential increase when industrializing, and rapidly reaches diminishing returns. Kuwait did in 30 years what it took the United States to do in twice the time, from a much worse starting position (1960 infant mortality in Kuwait was 90 per 1,000, 2000 was 9 per 1,000) to functionally equivalent by the millennium.

It's easy to take something for granted if you don't understand the history behind it, though.

[Minroz]

I do believe another factors to "mental deficiencies" of 3rd World Countries is Western Imperialism and colonialism. Adding to that, dickhead dictators. All of these caused much of today's IRL problems. Granted, some countries are better off than others. But not everyone has an luxury we've enjoyed.

It's easy to take something for granted if you don't understand the history behind it, though.

Like he said.

[The United Remnants of America]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

[Roski]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

Its too fucking expensive.

[Pharthan]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

Depends on your nation and what it's doing.

If your nation can reasonably expect to deploy in both woodland and desert scenarios, yes. Like with America - if much of your domestic territory is one color, yet most of the foreign locations you deploy to are another, issue both. If it's purely domestic dichotomy in landscape, you can afford to do one or the other and just rely on your troops buying the appropriate uniform when transferring duty stations.

So, yes, in the situation America was in, it would have made sense to do both. It may not make sense for your nation to do so.

[Husseinarti]

The US developed desert camo befote GW1, it couldn't scale production fast enough to meet the demand of 400,000+ personnel that needed the uniforms.

Even in OEF and later OIF the armed forces suffered from a critical shortage of desert uniforms which was why the army just said fuck it and spent like 2 billion on developing UCP to replace it all.

[Takhshiyt]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

Their economy will suffer as a result. Every single war in history has wrecked economies (although post war sometimes places like America and the Soviets grow a lot), and investors don't like to invest in places that are in continual war. There is a reason humanity stops wars, because one side or the other runs out of money (or resources).

[Altito Asmoro]

but what kind of money you can throw at a war. That's the only thing that counts.

Vietnam isn't real.

wat

vietnam is real

[Auroya]

Vietnam isn't real.

wat

vietnam is real

I was actually sarcastic.

[New Axiom]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

You just give people sets of fatigues in woodland and desert patterns, nbd

e: wow ODS vets are grandfathers now

To be fair my grandpa joined the army in the 60s, ODS was his last deployment.

[New Axiom]

Would it make sense for an army to issue its men desert AND woodland printed uniforms and gear? I'm not sure how this works in real life, but my grandfather, a Desert Storm veteran, says they were deployed so fast that some gear wasn't in desert print. So if you issued your soldiers woodland and desert gear, they would be ready for deployment anywhere, right?

Depends on your nation and what it's doing.

If your nation can reasonably expect to deploy in both woodland and desert scenarios, yes. Like with America - if much of your domestic territory is one color, yet most of the foreign locations you deploy to are another, issue both. If it's purely domestic dichotomy in landscape, you can afford to do one or the other and just rely on your troops buying the appropriate uniform when transferring duty stations.

So, yes, in the situation America was in, it would have made sense to do both. It may not make sense for your nation to do so.

Cool, thank you!

[The Akasha Colony]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

There is simply nothing to be gained from it. It should say something that the idea of perpetual war is one that only shows up in dystopian fiction and Hitler's Aryan fantasies. As they say, Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a warning, not a guidebook.

And meanwhile, there is a lot to lose. Weapons are expensive, people even more so. And you will lose and expend many of both in a high-intensity conflict. This isn't the Hundred Years' War or the Thirty Years' War or whatever, modern wars are fast and decisive and simply cannot go on forever. Even the big war between East and West in the Cold War probably would have been decided in weeks, a few months at the most maybe in some more distant theaters. Prolonging a war thus requires intentionally bad tactical and strategic decisions that intentionally waste equipment and lives so that both sides intentionally avoid just winning the war outright. And unsurprisingly, the people whose lives are being wasted are probably not going to be especially happy that they're the ones who get to die for literally no reason in the most pointless war conceivable.

Prolonged war may also have deleterious societal effects. This is especially true in democracies, which tend to not like long wars and may tend to slide into authoritarianism during such conflicts, especially if the people are not sated with substantial victories that actually move them closer to ending the war. But it's also true of other governments, where the needs of the war limit the attention the government can give to domestic matters and provide a convenient excuse to limit social and political freedoms.

[Kazarogkai]

So my allies have started this trend of trying to attain a state of perpetual active war with their specific rival nation.

Can... Can someone put into words for me why this is a terrible decision? I can't find the words anymore and at this point I'm just berating them with insults for their ineptitude.

Please. I need help from someone more loquacious than I am to explain this correctly.

If were talking a modern conventional western style conflict then what everyone else is quite correct. Too resource intensive, bad for population growth, economic troubles, and in general it is just too dang expensive.

Now if were talking more on the lines of third world style proxy conflicts whereby one will host, arm, and fund less desirable elements from your rival's lands that could be doable. Such "states of tension" are good if you wish to destabilize them a little but aren't willing to engage in a full scale shooting war.