NationStates

RIP Big Five, a better legend than even Big Boss.

Galla's acquisition programs are just a series of eternal Big Fives.

Or Big Sevens maybe.

Gallia- wrote:RIP Big Five, a better legend than even Big Boss.

Galla's acquisition programs are just a series of eternal Big Fives.

Or Big Sevens maybe.

the general gist i'm getting from this is "don't dwell on the failures"

Laritaia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:RIP Big Five, a better legend than even Big Boss.

Galla's acquisition programs are just a series of eternal Big Fives.

Or Big Sevens maybe.

the general gist i'm getting from this is "don't dwell on the failures"

No, it's the opposite.

He's emphasising the failures so people realize that Big Five wasn't a golden age. It's a "warts and all" analysis.

e: Apache/Advanced Attack Helicopter is especially egregious since it cost more than the entire FCS fiasco at an astonishing $22 billion FY12.

The U.S. Atomic Force needs this as its theme song. Perfect for Atomic Cowboys riding Atomic Horses across the skies to nuke Moscow.

Mr. Trump pls make Atomic Force.

I will make atomic thunders my ringtone now. Those two lines are incredible.

Gallia- wrote:

Laritaia wrote:
the general gist i'm getting from this is "don't dwell on the failures"

No, it's the opposite.

He's emphasising the failures so people realize that Big Five wasn't a golden age. It's a "warts and all" analysis.

e: Apache/Advanced Attack Helicopter is especially egregious since it cost more than the entire FCS fiasco at an astonishing $22 billion FY12.

i meant what he was saying was that use the DoD has been beset by failures of late but that it has so in the past as well.

Would it be better to make the commander in chief a position separate from head of state and head of government, because I feel like putting one of them in charge of the nation's military could be risky when it comes to the balance of power.

I'm thinking about three scenarios: 1) The commander-in chief is a completely separate position, or is also a position held by the defense minister/war minister. 2) The entire government as a collective body can decide whether or not to go to war, or 3) the people are the ones who decide whether or not they want a war.

Laritaia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
No, it's the opposite.

He's emphasising the failures so people realize that Big Five wasn't a golden age. It's a "warts and all" analysis.

e: Apache/Advanced Attack Helicopter is especially egregious since it cost more than the entire FCS fiasco at an astonishing $22 billion FY12.

i meant what he was saying was that use the DoD has been beset by failures of late but that it has so in the past as well.

He's saying that Nunn-McCurdy should be destroyed as nearest he's saying anything specific to policy.

e: He also trashes the "revolution in military affairs" crowd but everyone has done that to death.

e2: He also shits on austerity and the sizing down of the Army arsenals and their literally irreplaceable engineering expertise.

Welskerland wrote:Would it be better to make the commander in chief a position separate from head of state and head of government, because I feel like putting one of them in charge of the nation's military could be risky when it comes to the balance of power.

I'm thinking about three scenarios: 1) The commander-in chief is a completely separate position, or is also a position held by the defense minister/war minister. 2) The entire government as a collective body can decide whether or not to go to war, or 3) the people are the ones who decide whether or not they want a war.

Commander in Chief doesn't decide to go to war or not, they are just the chief person responsible for the actions of the military.

For military maters you want a clear chain of command, and that generally means an individual (or small group) at the national level who can make command decisions, the commander in chief. Otherwise you end up with situations where military officers are unable to take appropriate action in the face of enemy attack. This makes it rather hard for option 2 or 3 to work, to many people involved to be able to make rapid decisions when they are necessary.

The problem with it being a different position, or a position held by the secretary of defense, is that does that other position have to answer to the commands of the head of state/government? If yes, then the head of state/government is de facto the commander in chief. If no, then the head of state/government is severely hampered in their ability to carry out their duties when it comes to international relations.

Gallia- wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:That's a joke desu yo ne?

Chinese Peoples seems to be like the type who could use some Vitamin D in his diet.

I take supplements regularly, thank you.

Welskerland wrote:Would it be better to make the commander in chief a position separate from head of state and head of government, because I feel like putting one of them in charge of the nation's military could be risky when it comes to the balance of power.

I'm thinking about three scenarios: 1) The commander-in chief is a completely separate position, or is also a position held by the defense minister/war minister. 2) The entire government as a collective body can decide whether or not to go to war, or 3) the people are the ones who decide whether or not they want a war.

Commanders-in-chief are not usually vested with the inherent power to unilaterally declare war. The US president is commander-in-chief but declaring war is the responsibility of Congress. In nearly all developed republics, the legislature holds the sole power to declare war, although in parliamentary systems this of course means the parliament has control over both declaring war and managing that war. A popular referendum on war is a good way to lose control of a situation and there are very good reasons why this is not standard practice in any modern country. The commander-in-chief should be a single person, who can be advised by as many people as he needs, but who is capable of making decisions individually rather than waiting for a vote of the legislature for every strategic move or even worse, a referendum.

Making the commander-in-chief separate is also a bit pointless, if not actively detrimental. Adding it to the defense minister's portfolio is irrelevant because that defense minister still answers to the prime minister or president, making the head of government still the de facto commander-in-chief. This is why heads of government are commanders-in-chief: it's hard to be the supreme leader when there's a leader above you.

Making it a separate position creates either the same problem (if they still answer to the executive) or creates a new problem in that the military doesn't answer to the government, which is a good way to significantly increase the chance of a coup or political infighting between the government and the military. And in wartime, it means that the government and the military will have a much harder time cooperating on how to manage the war.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:This is my Nomination. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nominee: Dostanuot Loj

Uh wow I even nominated you!

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but it's the only thread I can think of. I need some help with military realism in my region's RP, mostly my navy (which currently consists of one sailboat, but I'm talking about the navy we'll eventually build).

First, some background. Our region is in an alternate history, currently set in the interwar period. The relevant alternate detail for me is that Mexico's Alta California territories (not annexed by America because France kept Louisiana for a long time) gain independence in the early 1900s, and most of them, California included, form a country called Nearly Finland. We may have plenty of natural resources, we may have strong industries, we may have unrivaled standards of living, and we may have plenty of good'ol science points. What we don't have, though, are a lot of people. 1% of our 1,708,000 citizens are willing to volunteer for the military. Our primary threats are France and Russia, overseas powers, as Mexico's surprisingly really friendly with us (The French Louisiana territories became independent, they're friendly too). Therefore, the majority of our budget goes to the navy.

I want to build a "small warfare" navy. That means torpedo boats, small destroyers, super (meaning Le Fantasque-class style) destroyers, minesweepers, ASW frigates, coastal submarines, and fleet submarines. Despite the impracticality, we might also build a cruiser submarine (Surcouf-style) for awesomeness reasons. We're also adopting a mostly coast-defence approach. Air cover will be provided from air force installations on the California coast, using flying boats for long-range reconnaissance. The main reason I want a small ships-navy is because we simply don't have the personnel for any type of ship, but that brings up a question. What military personnel are needed besides the immediate ship crews? I have also heard that modern submarines have multiple crews, is the same true in the 20s and 30s? And is there any other helpful stuff anyone can tell me based on the information I've provided? Thank you very much.

Nearly Finland wrote:What military personnel are needed besides the immediate ship crews?

Lots?

It's a rather complicated answer if you want an exhaustive one, because militaries do lots of things. You need quartermasters to manage supplies, personnel to manage transfers, clerks to handle basic office tasks, trainers and drill instructors in your basic training and advanced training facilities, construction and maintenance crews both for the bases and for the ships and other equipment, a corps of staff officers to handle planning and support duties, security personnel to protect your bases, etc.

I have also heard that modern submarines have multiple crews, is the same true in the 20s and 30s?

Not really.

Multiple crews arose from the need to get more use out of modern submarines, particularly nuclear submarines. Nuclear submarines can spend months at sea and can be turned around for another cruise relatively quickly, but this is very taxing on the crew to spend months at sea out of contact with friends and family and then only a few days on land (during which they are inevitably busy resupplying the ship) before shipping out again. The answer is to use multiple crews, because it allows each crew to spend several months ashore in training and with their families between cruises. It also means both crews can work together to resupply the submarine when it returns to port, putting it back to sea more quickly.

Until the development of nuclear submarines this wasn't really so much of a problem. During peacetime, cruises were limited in length and during wartime the demands of the war meant that crews were just forced to keep sortieing as often as they could. And on top of this, submarines were still an emerging technology at the time and best practices were still being developed. WWII itself yielded a wealth of information because for most nations it was the first time they had operated submarines in combat in any serious capacity.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Nearly Finland wrote:What military personnel are needed besides the immediate ship crews?

Lots?

It's a rather complicated answer if you want an exhaustive one, because militaries do lots of things. You need quartermasters to manage supplies, personnel to manage transfers, clerks to handle basic office tasks, trainers and drill instructors in your basic training and advanced training facilities, construction and maintenance crews both for the bases and for the ships and other equipment, a corps of staff officers to handle planning and support duties, security personnel to protect your bases, etc.

Yeah, this stuff makes sense. But could I use civilian dockyard workers/contractors for maintenance without using up my precious military-recruitable population?

There is a bigger problem.

The West Coast wasn't really anything prior to WW2. Without the financial-industrial resources of the East it's highly improbable that it would be anything far into the future from that point, either. A broadly Mexican West would have Mexico's characteristics and makeup, rather than American, so you're probably going to buying foreign everything (including foreign governance from Western/Civilized world economic advisors) and not making much of anything. A million and a half people in 1930 isn't very many people, either. Especially not in the labor intensive, relatively unmechanized era of the Interwar/WW2. You're about a million off from Norway, for example, a well regarded military power at the time.

Basically, for California to be anything besides a scenic location for foreign filmmakers, it needs to be attached to another 47 American states in perpetual Union.

Natural resources are irrelevant. Without a strong financial market or large population (you do need both) you will not have strong industry. Since your country is very small, it is likely very poor, even if it has a high individual income, so it is likely unable to have a large military. Considering looking at the U.S. Coast Guard of the 1920s and 1930s as a model for your navy. Or possibly Norway if you want to sort of Mary Sue it up. Since weapons of the time require huge amounts of people to operate them, you are unlikely to have a much larger navy for want of people, even if you have enough money to pay for all the ships.

Nearly Finland wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Lots?

It's a rather complicated answer if you want an exhaustive one, because militaries do lots of things. You need quartermasters to manage supplies, personnel to manage transfers, clerks to handle basic office tasks, trainers and drill instructors in your basic training and advanced training facilities, construction and maintenance crews both for the bases and for the ships and other equipment, a corps of staff officers to handle planning and support duties, security personnel to protect your bases, etc.

Yeah, this stuff makes sense. But could I use civilian dockyard workers/contractors for maintenance without using up my precious military-recruitable population?

"Military recruitable" is "any male, able bodied and under 40," at the time.

So no.

And another question: Clearly, fighting an armada of French dreadnoughts head-on would be a strategic tragedy (stragedy) in a small-ship navy, but what sort of tactics would be best suited to my situation? I expect submarines would be involved, and lots and lots of sea mines, but what exactly would a surface fleet of destroyers be best suited to doing when faced with an enemy battle fleet?

EDIT: Posted this before I read the above post.

Nearly Finland wrote:And another question: Clearly, fighting an armada of French dreadnoughts head-on would be a strategic tragedy (stragedy) in a small-ship navy, but what sort of tactics would be best suited to my situation?

Not going to war is your only chance for survival.

Nearly Finland wrote:I expect submarines would be involved, and lots and lots of sea mines, but what exactly would a surface fleet of destroyers be best suited to doing when faced with an enemy battle fleet

Nothing.

The only thing that can defeat a battle fleet is a bigger battle fleet, or a carrier fleet, and you possess neither.

Nearly Finland wrote:And another question: Clearly, fighting an armada of French dreadnoughts head-on would be a strategic tragedy (stragedy) in a small-ship navy, but what sort of tactics would be best suited to my situation? I expect submarines would be involved, and lots and lots of sea mines, but what exactly would a surface fleet of destroyers be best suited to doing when faced with an enemy battle fleet?

EDIT: Posted this before I read the above post.

Let the US annex you and enjoy the newfound prosperity.

North Arkana wrote:

Nearly Finland wrote:And another question: Clearly, fighting an armada of French dreadnoughts head-on would be a strategic tragedy (stragedy) in a small-ship navy, but what sort of tactics would be best suited to my situation? I expect submarines would be involved, and lots and lots of sea mines, but what exactly would a surface fleet of destroyers be best suited to doing when faced with an enemy battle fleet?

EDIT: Posted this before I read the above post.

Let the US annex you and enjoy the newfound prosperity.

Problem. The US is super-irrelevant in this region's alternate history, for a buncha reasons.

Nearly Finland wrote:

North Arkana wrote:Let the US annex you and enjoy the newfound prosperity.

Problem. The US is super-irrelevant in this region's alternate history, for a buncha reasons.

Wow, must a be a pretty convenient list of reasons.

Nearly Finland wrote:

North Arkana wrote:Let the US annex you and enjoy the newfound prosperity.

Problem. The US is super-irrelevant in this region's alternate history, for a buncha reasons.

It really doesn't matter either way.

A country with the population of Kenya isn't going to be resisting anything. Norway had almost twice as many people as your country and it fell like a house of cards to the Nazi Empire.

It really doesn't matter how much money you have. Your population is simply too small to be serious. It might matter more in the modern world where a country with 1.7 million people can seriously threaten a neighbour with an order of magnitude more people, because modern weapons are actually singularly dangerous, but it doesn't matter in WW2 where industrial warfare is still ramping up [industrial warfare peaked IRL in the 1970s]. Your country might be a decent military power if it's very rich and it's the 1990s, but it's a nothing in the 1930s.