NATION

PASSWORD

NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Laritaia
Senator
 
Posts: 3943
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:16 pm

Western Pacific Territories wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAOITDzehLo

Is Lindybeige still viable?


no

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20812
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:17 pm

Lindybeige is good because he is an honest sperg who likes sperg for sperg's sake.

He is only really able to contribute to dancesperg and some psychsperg.

User avatar
Laritaia
Senator
 
Posts: 3943
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:26 pm

Gallia- wrote:Lindybeige is good because he is an honest sperg who likes sperg for sperg's sake.

He is only really able to contribute to dancesperg and some psychsperg.


when he stays within his wheelhouse he's ok

it's when he's talking about stuff that he obviously only has surface level knowledge about that his videos go down hill

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 2543
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:15 pm

Gallia- wrote:Anyway I wonder if it's possible for a radio-heavy army to ever learn how to undo that and start using standardized tactics. Did the USSR ever grow radios or whatever to the extent that USA or UK did in WW2?


They could. But this would require accepting there would not always be clear accountability for what happens on the battlefield. Unthinkable to the lawyerly Anglo mind. The faux "killer robot" "debate" (really a make work project for activists and ethicists) was not a good sign at all because it just re-emphasized Western militaries will not trust things which kill on their own. Neither was the capitulation on AP mines and ICMs - though the US had the good sense to resist signing these treaties, they are still trying to implement them in spirit.

Big changes like this probably will only happen after a war. Maybe a lost war.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20812
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:27 pm

Do standardized tactics really reduce accountability?

Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?

User avatar
Federated Kingdom of Prussia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 149
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Federated Kingdom of Prussia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:14 pm

Are continental European militaries better at doing stuff without constant communication? I also remember someone here saying that the US military has an over-reliance on air and artillery support while being poor at accepting high casualties to get the job done.

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 2543
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:19 pm

Gallia- wrote:Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?


Yes. If a unit it out of contact, initiates an attack on their own authority and blows up a school bus full of children who is legally responsible for this?

The men in the unit can say they were just doing precisely what they had been trained to do in that situation. They can plausibly argue there was no intent to violate the laws of war since they had no access to intelligence that indicated there was a school bus full of refugee children in the area when the decision was made to launch the attack and the attack was executed in the way they had been trained to act in that situation.

The superior commander can say he wasn't actually in touch with the unit. He can plausibly argue since he never gave the order to attack or attack in that way he is not responsible for what occurred.

And they are both right to an extent. To coordinate without constant communication decisions must be to some degree self-executing, they must be autonomous. Battle drills and school solutions are one way to make decision making autonomous. But when autonomy enters the decision-making process there is a real possibility that decisions will be made which violate the laws of war, possibly severely, without anyone involved having mens rea. This is not reconcilable with a requirement a military force be rigorously accountable to the laws of war. Either it must be accepted "things happen" or there must be more restrictions on autonomous action.

To date well the US military has not descended to the absurdity of some European countries in prosecuting their own soldiers when push comes to shove the US has always moved towards more oversight and restriction on troops actions in combat and weapons which cannot be precisely controlled have been deprecated.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20812
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:24 pm

Oic now.

Yeah, that seems like an unmovable obstacle tbh.

User avatar
Laritaia
Senator
 
Posts: 3943
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:38 pm

the British Army will probably never recover from Phil Shiner, their ability to actually wage war against an enemy is now basically non existent due to every potential action being overanalyzed for potential legal weaknesses
Last edited by Laritaia on Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20812
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:40 pm

Lawyers and their confederates should be rounded up and put into reeducation centers.

To correct their subversive tendencies.

Oh wait that's not very "legal". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's hope another world war comes sooner rather than later so we can arrest them all under martial law and emergency war powers. Then we can work on annihilating the most cancerous aspect of Angloism: legal sperg.
Last edited by Gallia- on Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 2543
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:49 pm

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Are continental European militaries better at doing stuff without constant communication? I also remember someone here saying that the US military has an over-reliance on air and artillery support while being poor at accepting high casualties to get the job done.


Some might have better tactics in principle, but a recurring problem with troops from continental Europe in Afghanistan was they refused to engage because they feared the legal and political consequences if they killed a civilian by mistake. And the British are moving swiftly in this direction. Even if some NATO armies have more flexible, less radio dependent, tactical systems it is doubtful they would actually be able to use it because the legal/political constraints they are under are far more draconian; the American public to its credit has no interest in prosecuting American soldiers. The same cannot be said of the German public.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Laritaia
Senator
 
Posts: 3943
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:51 pm

Austrasien wrote:And the British are moving swiftly in this direction.


yeah that's the Phil Shiner thing, the man is gone now and is going to be lucky to escape doing time but the damage is done.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20812
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Laritaia wrote:
Austrasien wrote:And the British are moving swiftly in this direction.


yeah that's the Phil Shiner thing, the man is gone now and is going to be lucky to escape doing time but the damage is done.


USA will move in this direction in the future.

Presumably PRC will professionalize and be our next world policeman.

I for one am 100% ready for Bishi Spacegun Army.

User avatar
Laritaia
Senator
 
Posts: 3943
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:58 pm

apparently Phil Shiner is now persona non grate in the British Legal community and no one is willing to represent him


so there is some small measure of justice in this world

User avatar
Western Pacific Territories
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13885
Founded: Apr 29, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Western Pacific Territories » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:21 pm

Austrasien wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?


Yes. If a unit it out of contact, initiates an attack on their own authority and blows up a school bus full of children who is legally responsible for this?

The men in the unit can say they were just doing precisely what they had been trained to do in that situation. They can plausibly argue there was no intent to violate the laws of war since they had no access to intelligence that indicated there was a school bus full of refugee children in the area when the decision was made to launch the attack and the attack was executed in the way they had been trained to act in that situation.

The superior commander can say he wasn't actually in touch with the unit. He can plausibly argue since he never gave the order to attack or attack in that way he is not responsible for what occurred.

And they are both right to an extent. To coordinate without constant communication decisions must be to some degree self-executing, they must be autonomous. Battle drills and school solutions are one way to make decision making autonomous. But when autonomy enters the decision-making process there is a real possibility that decisions will be made which violate the laws of war, possibly severely, without anyone involved having mens rea. This is not reconcilable with a requirement a military force be rigorously accountable to the laws of war. Either it must be accepted "things happen" or there must be more restrictions on autonomous action.

To date well the US military has not descended to the absurdity of some European countries in prosecuting their own soldiers when push comes to shove the US has always moved towards more oversight and restriction on troops actions in combat and weapons which cannot be precisely controlled have been deprecated.

Read a good book which mentions a situation like this. Platoon of Marines in Ramadi goes in to arrest two guys (father and son) selling gas illegally. Father flees and they arrest the son. A squad of Marines and a officer drive off in a Humvee to catch the father, who gets into a car and drives into a busy section of highway. The officer gives a unknown order: He claims he said "Stop him!", but the squad all says they each heard "Shoot him!". The squad shoots the father - but nobody is held accountable because the conclusion is that due to the heavy amount of noise generated by traffic on the highway, it just wasn't possible for the Marines to hear the order correctly.

User avatar
Ascoobis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 711
Founded: Mar 19, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ascoobis » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:26 pm

I'm not quite as well informed as others on this thread so I wished to ask to purpose of the spherical object on this SAM system. Is it RADAR or some other detection system? I've seen it a few times and wondered what it's purpose was.

files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bu50127354.jpg
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
-Christopher Dawson

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind."
-Mahatma Gandhi

"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist."
-George Carlin



User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33876
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Corporate Police State

Postby The Corparation » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:34 pm

It's an optical tracking system.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65, CA Health & Safety
This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
Forest State
Minister
 
Posts: 3470
Founded: Aug 23, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Forest State » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:47 am

Do any administration and organization experts around here have a moment to help me out? I'm wondering what the structure would roughly look like if I was going to send an army abroad to defend an allied country. Would I be breaking units off from a corps that I have and sending them as their own independent force, or would the organization mostly reflect the higher group that the units are a part of like a corps or an army group, or would a theater be established in the country and units would be assigned to that, or what? I've never been great at the organizational side of things, sorry if this sounds confusing. I just want to make sure I'm sticking to the common RL conventions.
e d g e l o r d
'i don't hate him lol, he just does very memeable things'

For: America, Tea Party, Not Stepping On Snek, Anime
Anti: Catgirls, EU, Wehrabooism/Prussiabooism

User avatar
Greater Allidron
Diplomat
 
Posts: 813
Founded: Nov 03, 2015
Corporate Police State

Postby Greater Allidron » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:46 pm

Forest State wrote:Do any administration and organization experts around here have a moment to help me out? I'm wondering what the structure would roughly look like if I was going to send an army abroad to defend an allied country. Would I be breaking units off from a corps that I have and sending them as their own independent force, or would the organization mostly reflect the higher group that the units are a part of like a corps or an army group, or would a theater be established in the country and units would be assigned to that, or what? I've never been great at the organizational side of things, sorry if this sounds confusing. I just want to make sure I'm sticking to the common RL conventions.

How many troops can you commit and how many troops do you want to commit and how many troops do you need to commit?

There is after all a difference between defending from a Soviet Union and a Taliban.
Questers wrote:An Army without MBTs is not an Army. It is a glorified police force.

"[The] Realist interpretation of international treaties is that they codify the current balance of power. When the power balance shifts, [the] treaty starts to break. One party withdraws or starts to interpret the treaty more freely."
Political Compass Results Civic Nationalist
Ordis is my home region.

User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Antiquity
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hrstrovokia » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:05 pm

Guys how would an artillery brigade be organized in a military today? Couple of Artillery Battalions and MLRS plus Anti-Tank? What size of Air Defence might be included?

User avatar
United Muscovite Nations
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16358
Founded: Feb 01, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby United Muscovite Nations » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:11 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:Guys how would an artillery brigade be organized in a military today? Couple of Artillery Battalions and MLRS plus Anti-Tank? What size of Air Defence might be included?

Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk
Formerly United Marxist Nations, Dec 02, 2011- Feb 01, 2017. +33,837 posts Eastern Orthodox Christian. Christian Anarchist and Monarchist. Supporter of Pan-Arabism.
Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism.
Pro and Anti: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=uni ... id=1166847

User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Antiquity
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hrstrovokia » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:16 pm

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk


MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

User avatar
The Soodean Imperium
Senator
 
Posts: 4856
Founded: May 10, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Soodean Imperium » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:56 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:Guys how would an artillery brigade be organized in a military today? Couple of Artillery Battalions and MLRS plus Anti-Tank? What size of Air Defence might be included?

According to FM 100-60, an OPFOR 152mm self-propelled gun brigade would have
- HQ& control battery
- SP gun battalions (either 4x 24 guns each or 5x 18 guns each)
- Target acquisition battery or battalion
- AA gun battery
- Engineer platoon
- Chemical defense platoon
- Materiel support company
- Maintenance company
- Medical platoon

The AA gun battery was eight (8) ZU-23s. Not Shilkas, the actual towed, manually aimed twin mounts.

Soviet practice was to keep MLRS and actual gun artillery in separate units, so a Mechanized Army (XXX size) might get one of these plus one separate MRL regiment with Uragans. The MRL regiment did not have AA defense. MRL brigades, which lived at the Front level (XXXX size) did get AA defense, it was eight ZU-23s as above. Presumably air defense from these units would come from front-line divisions' own SPAAGs and SAMs, which would prevent enemy aircraft from getting through, and long-range SAM units at the Army and Front level.

IDK what NATO practice was in this regard.

Hrstrovokia wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk


MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

you could call it an eye-popping solution
Last harmonized by Hu Jintao on Sat Mar 4, 2006 2:33pm, harmonized 8 times in total.


"In short, when we hastily attribute to aesthetic and inherited faculties the artistic nature of Athenian civilization, we are almost proceeding as did men in the Middle Ages, when fire was explained by phlogiston and the effects of opium by its soporific powers." --Emile Durkheim, 1895
Come join Septentrion!
ICly, this nation is now known as the Socialist Republic of Menghe (대멩 사회주의 궁화국, 大孟社會主義共和國). You can still call me Soode in OOC.

User avatar
Forest State
Minister
 
Posts: 3470
Founded: Aug 23, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Forest State » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:04 pm

Greater Allidron wrote:
Forest State wrote:Do any administration and organization experts around here have a moment to help me out? I'm wondering what the structure would roughly look like if I was going to send an army abroad to defend an allied country. Would I be breaking units off from a corps that I have and sending them as their own independent force, or would the organization mostly reflect the higher group that the units are a part of like a corps or an army group, or would a theater be established in the country and units would be assigned to that, or what? I've never been great at the organizational side of things, sorry if this sounds confusing. I just want to make sure I'm sticking to the common RL conventions.

How many troops can you commit and how many troops do you want to commit and how many troops do you need to commit?

There is after all a difference between defending from a Soviet Union and a Taliban.

It's looking like this is going to turn into a major conflict involving a lot of forces committed from both sides. We're not the main faction so we don't need to put as many forces out as the country being invaded, but still a large commitment. I'm thinking a couple of brigades to start with.
e d g e l o r d
'i don't hate him lol, he just does very memeable things'

For: America, Tea Party, Not Stepping On Snek, Anime
Anti: Catgirls, EU, Wehrabooism/Prussiabooism

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9312
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:30 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk


MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

You can and will force an A-10 to make an emergency landing with just Iglas (happened in Iraq 2003, said A-10 came home gears up and with no hydraulics).
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grand-Borinage, Kisinger, Mekenamenamarifah, Victores

Advertisement

Remove ads