NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Laritaia]

why not just mount a stinger on a tripod

[Gallia-]

can i shoot it out of a cannon?

i want an anti-helicopter mine that can be used to interdict helicopters

so i can sent out multispectral three dimensional barrier minefields using gun- and rocket-launched jammers, anti helicopter mines, and FASCAM

[Laritaia]

can i shoot it out of a cannon?

i want an anti-helicopter mine that can be used to interdict helicopters

so i can sent out multispectral three dimensional barrier minefields using gun- and rocket-launched jammers, anti helicopter mines, and FASCAM

can you shoot hornet out of a gun?

AT2 was only like 2.5kg and a MLRS rocket could only carry 28

[Gallia-]

hornet is small enough to fit inside a cargo shell yes

that was the point of DA Hornet

[Laritaia]

hornet is small enough to fit inside a cargo shell yes

that was the point of DA Hornet

yeah but it's going to be like 1 mine per shell

it would take forever to deploy a field of sufficient size like that

[Gallia-]

that is true

i suppose galla's mine arsenal will have to be split between hand emplaced, gun launched, and rocket delivered

and i guess that three dimensional minefields will be a rocket artillery thing

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

I’m fine with my nation having the moral high soapbox in this case.

Wouldn't not conscripting people give you a better moral high ground?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Not everyone loves to hear this, but embrace the downsizing this re-scaling permits for opportunities. For ex. with less of a need for conscripts you could reorganize you’re Navy into an all volunteer service without any loss in capability {given time for transition}, in fact if budgeted right you could in theory expand the operational capabilities of the Navy by freeing up funds for naval procurement of more sophisticated platforms. Navies also tend to be along with the Air Force more technocentric, so a shift towards the volunteer side in your nation’s navy would harness its greater technical capabilities of what it’s already inclined towards. This seems to be the direction your taking your nation’s military forces anyway.

The current change in active force as a % of population is happening OOCly, not ICly. ICly, the MoD is considering an eventual transition toward an all-volunteer active force, but for the time being it's content to incorporate larger numbers of volunteers into the active forces while gradually lowering the number of conscripts.

Under the current system, pilots in Army Aviation and Navy Aviation would be volunteers, if commissioned, as would e.g. radar and sonar operators on warships. The MoD would aim to assign volunteers to more technical and high-skilled roles, where years of accumulated experience pay off more.

Vary the conscription term, while personally I decided to settle on 21 months as the term of service, depending on your nation’s exact requirements and the conscripted individuals MOS/MOC you could have a variable term of between 12 to 24 months.

Under selective conscription and with a larger population, Menghe's conscription term would be 30 months in total - 4 in basic training, 24 in an active unit, and up to 2 being familiarized with your reservist unit's equipment and organization. Volunteers signing on for a second term would have a four-year contract, I guess, and reserve familiarization after that.

I read from your wiki if it’s still in effect that your nation and I quote, “In addition to a Reserve Officers' Training Corps, both the Army and the Navy offer a limited number of "contract scholarships" every year, in which they pay full tuition and allow a deferral of service until university graduation in exchange for a guarantee that the student will major in a relevant degree and serve at least four years in the military upon graduating. This system is usually used to fill highly skilled roles, such as nuclear reactor operators, military doctors, and certain engineering roles, in which a college degree is deemed necessary”. Apply this incentive on a grander scale down to your conscripts, something to the effect that those who pursue a higher skilled MOS while conscripted will be granted credit for university courses completed in their field specialty. The variable ways you could configure this could fill an entire chapter in a book.

Part 3: On the topic of “contract scholarships”, how you have it structure may be at a disincentive for your forces, with those for deferments wishing to complete university education, if this deferment is only temporary, just as said graduate would start to convert their knowledge learned in university into labor market experience and expertise, they would be pulled off the private labor market and upon reentry years later, the knowledge they had acquired may have depreciated and would need to be recouped before being put to good use.

The wiki passages in question were written before the current changes, i.e. when conscription was still universal, and are somewhat outdated. Sadly iiWiki doesn't seem to be compatible with the {{update|inaccurate=y}} code, though I guess {{Under construction}} would get the same point across? I'm in the process of writing up the new system's details here, but it's still very WIP.

In both cases, the general aim of the military's university education deferrals is not to create incentives for enlistment, but to create skilled personnel who will stay in their volunteer roles for a long time. The implicit contract is e.g. "we will help you study chemistry, and in return you will apply those skills in our CBRN detection and decontamination units." It's roughly analogous to X corporation offering a scholarship and an entry-level position in return for an implicit guarantee that the student will remain with the company. Deprecation of knowledge not applicable outside the military is if anything an advantage from the military's point of view, as it makes that skilled technician more likely to sign up for a second four-year term as a volunteer.

I'm less certain about whether the military should give university credit or scholarships after graduation. Given Menghe's level of development, the tertiary gross enrollment ratio is probably in the 50-60% range, and the Ministry of Education works very hard (probably too hard) to make sure these are the very best 50-60% of high school graduates. Having gone over the numbers again, probably only like 30% of HS graduates will get conscripted anyway, so I can maybe work in an exemption for students accepted to the top 20 universities, or those accepted with certain other scholarships, or something.

TBH my other concern would be people who get put on the technical school track and then spend two years six months without seeing a lathe. Though I guess this is what maintenance and construction units are for?

Switching gears slightly on the incentive for conscript turnover rates, another method I adapted for my nation you might want to consider in some form is in allowing the conscripted individual to select not only what branch they want to serve in {if you decide to continue to use conscripts for your Navy, Army or both}, but also their service occupation. Someone who dreams of becoming a doctor, pilot, etc... will be more productively inclined even if conscripted if while conscripted they are allowed to pursue jobs and skills that match their future endeavors they wish to pursue. You can’t get more incentivized than understanding a person’s psychological motivations. As a weird Socialist State, I could even image your army having an entire departmental staff devoted to psychological motivating your conscripts.

How does this work in RL volunteer militaries? i.e., if 50,000 incoming personnel choose "armored forces" when enlisting, but there are only 10,000 armored forces openings that year. Or if someone wants to be in signal troops but their pre-conscription examination suggested they would be very fit as front-line infantry.

Since, you touch on this a little in your posts and in your nation’s wiki page, if you’re so inclined to have a volunteer force, then it may be time to embrace it given the parameters of your nation have changed in your benefit. However, if you still feel a sentimentality towards conscription, one method might be to split the difference. Have all your active forces be all-volunteer and the reserves the conscripts, which is the method I adapted minus a few tweaks in places. For some time during the transition, your active forces will be smaller, but once the transition to a professional all-volunteer force is complete, even a smaller active force will be highly competitive not to mention eventually more economically productive per soldier as a professionally staffed military would have a higher capital to labor ratio, i.e. more firepower per soldier than a conscript one.

It's less OOC sentimentality, and more a recognition that I need just enough turnover to staff the mobilization reserves. As well as some IC sentimentality on the part of the Ministry of Defense, as Menghe has had conscription on and off since 1928 and a lot of Party officials are under the illusion that it will create more disciplined and loyal citizens.

As I argued earlier, my main (OOC) objection to volunteer active forces and conscripted reserves is that it even if the reserve forces get the same basic training and refresher exercises under both systems, ex-conscript reserves will have the added benefit of having served in a similar role for two years. And based on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge, I can only assume this is enough to make a noticeable difference when the mobilization reserves are abruptly shipped off to their units and told to be ready for a massive conventional war in a week or less.

"All volunteer-military" (or at least all-volunteer active troops with conscripted reserves) is something I may use as the "future prospects" section in writeups, something the Ministry of Defense is periodically debating and increasingly favorable toward but has not yet put into practice.

And lastly, probably not applicable to your nation from what I’ve read, but you could always increase your potential recruit base by introducing conscription to women also. If not, I’m fine with my nation having the moral high soapbox in this case.

At the moment "limited recruit base" is the opposite of my problem, but the Menghean armed forces do accept women as volunteers, including for combat roles, provided they can pass physical examinations at the same standards.

I’m fine with my nation having the moral high soapbox in this case.

Wouldn't not conscripting people give you a better moral high ground?

If by "moral high ground" you mean "moral high ground in the context of a contemporary neoliberal Western democracy," then probably.

Otherwise, it's a normative standard. One could just as easily argue that it's morally better for soldiers to serve purely out of intrinsic duty and love of the homeland. Or that the composition of the military should proportionally reflect all social classes and ethnic groups in a country, rather than only those who choose to serve. Or even that volunteers are only a hair's breadth away from mercenaries who care only about the next paycheck. All of these arguments have been made, usually by different people from the ones espousing free choice as a goal in itself.

A better way to phrase the question is which of these would resonate more with a given country's values - values which are themselves a product of the education system, mass media, and whatever the previous generation has passed on.

[Greater Allidron]

On a related note, how do you run the numbers in regard to conscription? I.e. determining how many conscripts you get based on the policies put in place.

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

If by "moral high ground" you mean "moral high ground in the context of a contemporary neoliberal Western democracy," then probably.

Conscription is a fairly new concept, the British didn't have conscription during the start of WW1 and their professional, motivated, and well drilled army made an excellent account of itself in the early battles of the war, not to mention the US never had peacetime conscription. Even then Britain didn't start conscription until 1916 and allowed it to lapse after 1920 up until 1939 where they attempted to have conscripts drafted into essentially the equivalent of the national guard rather than being full time soldiers (obviously WW2 scrapped those plans). I mean peace time conscription may be necessary depending on your strategic situation, but volunteer militaries are hardly a new concept created by neoliberals, especially in the Anglosphere where peacetime conscription was very rare.

[The Akasha Colony]

If by "moral high ground" you mean "moral high ground in the context of a contemporary neoliberal Western democracy," then probably.

Conscription is a fairly new concept, the British didn't have conscription during the start of WW1 and their professional, motivated, and well drilled army made an excellent account of itself in the early battles of the war, not to mention the US never had peacetime conscription. Even then Britain didn't start conscription until 1916 and allowed it to lapse after 1920 up until 1939 where they attempted to have conscripts drafted into essentially the equivalent of the national guard rather than being full time soldiers (obviously WW2 scrapped those plans). I mean peace time conscription may be necessary depending on your strategic situation, but volunteer militaries are hardly a new concept created by neoliberals, especially in the Anglosphere where peacetime conscription was very rare.

Conscription in the United States started over a year before the United States entered WWII, when the nation was still at peace.

It's a much older practice in any event, and the modern incarnation of the system can be more or less directly traced back to the levée en masse of Revolutionary France in the 1790s. Oddly enough it happened to appear alongside the emergence of the second modern democracy in the Western world.

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

Conscription in the United States started over a year before the United States entered WWII, when the nation was still at peace.

Still not long term peacetime conscription like Sood is talking about. There is a difference between preparing for an inevitable war and drafting people when there are no signs of war on the horizon.

[Austrasien]

France at various times had some of the most comprehensive universal service laws in the world.

Universal service was commonly held to be inherently democratic and republican in the late 19th and early 20th century because it meant the Army would of the masses. Conservative states like Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary all had fairly restricted draft systems because large fractions of the population - especially in the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary - were not felt to be reliable. French conservatives also fought universal service for a very long time. The English-speaking world is, in fact, exceptional because of Britains tradition of small volunteer peacetimes armies. America is doubly exceptional because it did not inherit British aristocracy and the contrast of a professional/aristocratic army and a conscript/commoner army that featured bigly in the debates on the continent was a non-thing.

[The Soodean Imperium]

If by "moral high ground" you mean "moral high ground in the context of a contemporary neoliberal Western democracy," then probably.

Conscription* is a fairly new concept,

*modern mass conscription.

Even before Napoleon's Levée en masse, political units practiced various forms of coerced military service, ranging from part-time levies of peasants to selective conscription for life. "Volunteer" soldiers, broadly defined, have a long history as well, but coerced service goes back nearly as far as writing itself.

At any rate, the question is not whether modern Menghe resembles pre-WWI England, but whether it resembles a late-20th-century bureaucratic state organized along nominally Socialist and effectively Corporatist lines and facing a parity peacetime rival. In which case, the answer is yes on all points.

Conscription in the United States started over a year before the United States entered WWII, when the nation was still at peace.

Still not long term peacetime conscription like Sood is talking about. There is a difference between preparing for an inevitable war and drafting people when there are no signs of war on the horizon.

While Menghe is not currently at war, I would hesitate to call its situation "no signs of war on the horizon." Hence my stated need for not only a large standing army but also a large and relatively high-readiness reserve force.

As far as I'm aware, all significant Northern and Western European militaries with the exception of Britain practiced conscription throughout the Cold War, and only transitioned to all-volunteer composition after the Soviet threat disappeared. Norway and Finland, as far as I can tell, never gave it up, and Sweden is getting ready to bring it back.

[Halfblakistan]

And even during the Early Modern period (1300s-1910s), the Ottomans were conscripting young Christians from the Balkans. Non-military conscription dates back to the Babylonians.

The way your conscript force will operate depends on things like how advanced your civil service is, how vital it is to have a standing army, that sort of thing. If I remember correctly, Sweden is re-instituting conscription to meet the Russian threat.

In my country, conscription is a tool for nationbuilding and a way to keep kids out of gangs. Unfortunately, the gangs are infiltrating the military, making unit cohesion and espirit du corps a problem.

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

Still not long term peacetime conscription like Sood is talking about. There is a difference between preparing for an inevitable war and drafting people when there are no signs of war on the horizon.

While Menghe is not currently at war, I would hesitate to call its situation "no signs of war on the horizon." Hence my stated need for not only a large standing army but also a large and relatively high-readiness reserve force.

As far as I'm aware, all significant Northern and Western European militaries with the exception of Britain practiced conscription throughout the Cold War, and only transitioned to all-volunteer composition after the Soviet threat disappeared. Norway and Finland, as far as I can tell, never gave it up, and Sweden is getting ready to bring it back.

I'm not even condemning conscription, I simply made a joke that having no conscription should give you a moral high ground over people that do, since you know forcing people to fight and die in wars generally isn't a nice thing. I don't even know why I'm still defending a position I don't care about.

[Arthurista]

Are major military operations inside a megacity (i.e. north of 10 mil) remotely possible without China/India-levels of manpower?

[Allanea]

]

He has a range of 200 meters though, so I'm guessing he is hand emplaced only.

This looks like Russia's PVM Boomerang.

PVM can be emplaced from the air or from artillery as well as by hand, claims the manufacturer, but I'm not clear how it fits into artillery rounds.

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

Are major military operations inside a megacity (i.e. north of 10 mil) remotely possible without China/India-levels of manpower?

Depends on the kind of operation. Are we talking about black hawk down snatch a warlord and leave? Than you only need 20 good men. Are we talking about attacking a city with an entire army group defending it with the population joining in? You probably want a numerical advantage as well air and heavy artillery support so you might need anywhere from a couple hundred thousand to a few million. Also depends on how spread out the city is, a very built up city might not need many troops to capture if you don't mind shelling it to level skyscrapers, but a city that has a relatively low population density but covers a wide area for example the New York Metro is about twice the size of the Tokyo metro despite having about 1/5th as many people.

[-Celibrae-]

I'm pretty sure shelling cities into oblivion makes them harder to capture because it creates more cover and places to hide, and generally makes the city more defensible.

[Neo-Pontic Empire]

I'm pretty sure shelling cities into oblivion makes them harder to capture because it creates more cover and places to hide, and generally makes the city more defensible.

It also kills people, and fighting fewer people makes things easier. Especially once you consider thermobaric and incindiary munitions artillery really does help make assaulting a city easier. Besides it isn't like there aren't places to hide in an intact city.

Beyond that being willing to collapse major buildings means your soldiers don't have to spend three weeks fighting their way up the Burj Khalifa or whatever even larger buildings NS countries build.

[Austrasien]

Are major military operations inside a megacity (i.e. north of 10 mil) remotely possible without China/India-levels of manpower?

Yes. Unless you are facing a correspondingly large numbers of defenders, there would be no need for such massive forces.

But this is true in any kind of terrain really.

[The Soodean Imperium]

While Menghe is not currently at war, I would hesitate to call its situation "no signs of war on the horizon." Hence my stated need for not only a large standing army but also a large and relatively high-readiness reserve force.

As far as I'm aware, all significant Northern and Western European militaries with the exception of Britain practiced conscription throughout the Cold War, and only transitioned to all-volunteer composition after the Soviet threat disappeared. Norway and Finland, as far as I can tell, never gave it up, and Sweden is getting ready to bring it back.

I'm not even condemning conscription, I simply made a joke that having no conscription should give you a moral high ground over people that do, since you know forcing people to fight and die in wars generally isn't a nice thing. I don't even know why I'm still defending a position I don't care about.

The problem is that your "moral claim" is really just a textbook example of begging the question. "Why is conscription bad?" "Because requiring people to serve in the military is bad." All it does is rephrase the original claim and use the rephrased version as proof.

Conversely, if your moral philosophy is that military service is a vital part of citizenship and the armed forces must reflect all strata of society, then it is self-evident that (universal) conscription is morally defensible. This, too, ultimately boils down to a normative statement that "conscription is good because conscription is good."

In practical terms, it's perfectly plausible to have a situation in which a volunteer army marches up against a conscript army and soldiers (or, at least, officers) on both sides believe that their system is morally defensible. Significant moral issues only start to arise when a country engages in conscription even though a large share of the population is openly, morally opposed to it - which was famously the case for the United States in Vietnam.

I'm pretty sure shelling cities into oblivion makes them harder to capture because it creates more cover and places to hide, and generally makes the city more defensible.

I'm also pretty sure we've covered the fact that modern cities (esp. those "north of 10 mil") are considerably larger than their WW2 counterparts, and that modern mid-size apartment blocks made from brick and concrete and built to more recent construction standards are surprisingly hard to "level" outright.

Unless you're locked in a siege and have resorted to terror bombing, a more effective use of air support and artillery is to bombard specific targets in support of the ground forces' advance, rather than evenly distributing fire across the city as a whole.

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm pretty sure shelling cities into oblivion makes them harder to capture because it creates more cover and places to hide, and generally makes the city more defensible.

It also kills people, and fighting fewer people makes things easier. Especially once you consider thermobaric and incindiary munitions artillery really does help make assaulting a city easier. Besides it isn't like there aren't places to hide in an intact city.

Beyond that being willing to collapse major buildings means your soldiers don't have to spend three weeks fighting their way up the Burj Khalifa or whatever even larger buildings NS countries build.

Generally speaking, experience has shown this to not be true.

The number of people killed in an artillery bombardment of a reasonably dense city is quite low, certainly not worth the expenditure of ammunition for this purpose alone. And it creates a plethora of hiding spaces and basically barricades all the roads so mechanized advances grind to a halt, which is more beneficial to the defenders than it is to the attackers. This is why barricading the streets is usually the first order of business for a defender, regardless of whether they're a revolutionary rabble or a professional army.

No one is arguing that artillery is somehow not useful when assaulting an built-up environment, but "shelling it to level skyscrapers" is a waste of ammunition for no tactical gain. It is unlikely that skyscrapers would even be favored as a particularly good hiding space for a defending force; modern glass skyscrapers provide virtually zero protection or even concealment from enemy fire for troops trying to fight from inside the building.

[Husseinarti]

If by "moral high ground" you mean "moral high ground in the context of a contemporary neoliberal Western democracy," then probably.

Conscription is a fairly new concept

nigga no it isn't, who told you that.

The Romans, when pressed by Hannibals armies, were fielding armies which while they had allot of the normal elements of a Polybian Legion, were also getting kids and slaves as like skirmishers and stuff.