Page 497 of 497

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:04 pm
by Purpelia
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Was it normal for Soviet officers to be inexperienced?

It's kind of inevitable given that the average Soviet officer would have been too young to have fought in the last big one.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:07 pm
by Austrasien
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Was it normal for Soviet officers to be inexperienced?


Everyone was inexperienced, but NATO had a defensive posture. Defense is stronger than offence. The offence, especially the ultra-rapid offence the Soviets were planning for, is extremely unforgiving to mistakes.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:54 pm
by The Akasha Colony
Crysuko wrote:I have a structure for larger scale army formations, can I get some input on if they're any good

A regiment is formed from 3,000 men
5 regiments form a division of 15,0000
3 divisions form a corps of 45,000
And 4 corps form an army group of 180,000


Units do not add up neatly like that except at the squad and fireteam level, because there are inevitably command elements that are added and very often other support elements as well. And different units for different purposes are of different size.

For instance, a US Army combined arms battalion back in 2012 had 635 men, and there were three of these in a brigade. But the brigade had 4,743 men in total, meaning that less than half of the brigade's soldiers were in the line battalions. They had a reconnaissance battalion of 429 men, an engineering battalion of 440 men, an artillery battalion of 398 men, and a support battalion of 1,386 men, twice as large as any of the other battalions. And lastly, there was a headquarters unit to coordinate it all with 185 men.

In comparison, a US Army infantry brigade has three infantry battalions each with 702 men, a reconnaissance battalion of 407 men, an engineering battalion of 418 men, an artillery battalion of 408 men, a support battalion of 951 men, and a HQ company with 178 men, for a total of 4,468 men.

Both are combat brigades but their different roles mean they have different amounts of manpower assigned to different tasks. The infantry brigade has a much smaller support battalion because it doesn't have a huge fleet of heavy, maintenance intensive armored fighting vehicles to support, while conversely it has more men in its line battalions because infantry units are more reliant on warm bodies to do the fighting, rather than machines.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:42 pm
by The Manticoran Empire
Crysuko wrote:I have a structure for larger scale army formations, can I get some input on if they're any good

A regiment is formed from 3,000 men
5 regiments form a division of 15,0000
3 divisions form a corps of 45,000
And 4 corps form an army group of 180,000

It's good as a baseline. However, there are always additional formations. I'll link a TOE for a (now outdated) American divisional layout. A good thing to note is the fact that EVERY formation needs supporting sub-units. A battalion will typically have four or five companies, with three being line companies, one being headquarters, and one being support. A regiment/brigade will have three or four line battalions and two to three support battalions and a headquarters company. A division will have three line brigades, a divisional artillery brigade, an aviation brigade, possibly engineers (depends on who you ask and if you really want an extra 3,000 men), and a headquarters company. Divisions are generally, though, between 15,000 and 25,000 men, depending on how many sub-units they contain and how strong those sub-units are. Corps are generally 2 or more divisions, though they also have about a division's worth of other formations.

Division TOE from the late 90s for the US Army

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:39 pm
by Gallia-
Austrasien wrote:
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:Was it normal for Soviet officers to be inexperienced?


Everyone was inexperienced,


Soviet tier but they try to make up for their lack of training with raw elan. At least they are enthusiastic about defending the Republic. ;_;

e: And even then they can't elan properly because the guy at 10:16-10:17 sounds like he's trying to war cry while gargling a dick.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:18 pm
by Mazujotai
Is OWL ammunition current field viable for military operations? That is on a squad level where specific highly trained units would be using them for evaluation.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:20 am
by Kassaran
Mazujotai wrote:Is OWL ammunition current field viable for military operations? That is on a squad level where specific highly trained units would be using them for evaluation.

Stop posting here and post in the new thread.
Here's the link.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:22 pm
by Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502
What's the difference between combat life support and basic life support? Does CLS largely follow the same steps, except it also takes into account battlefield factors(having to move someone while under fire, specific attention paid to gunshot/shrapnel wounds, etc)?

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:36 pm
by Gallia-
68W is literally a paramedic with an M-16 and BDUs. If you're an experienced paramedic before joining the Army you'd have zero trouble passing 68W AIT and possibly vice-versa. There is no real difference except maybe an Army ambulance has more atropine, blood/plasma, and saline than a civil ambulance, because it's stocked out to deal with loads of stuff like traumatic amputations and gunshot wounds. A civil ambulance would be able to deal with it too, but probably with less throughput and more bottlenecks, at least initially. Every day for the Army is training for MCI, whereas civil paramedics only deal with MCIs during major car accidents or something.

The average American regional hospital has fewer helicopters and ambulances on call than a U.S. Army CSH. OTOH a CSH has fewer beds than a typical regional hospital (a CSH is modular, but it's usually less than 200 beds; whereas a typical U.S. regional hospital is about as large as a really big CSH). So you'd ultimately be shipping the worse guys from the CSH on a Boeing or something back stateside or to Germany or whatever where they can be put up in a civilian hospital and treated as a GSW, burn ward, or traumatic amputation patient.

If by "CLS" you mean "combat lifesaver" then that is basically a Red Cross CPR course plus "Asherman seal," "pressure on wound," and "NPA". So "nothing", really.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:11 pm
by Puzikas
See response in the actual NSMRC.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:40 pm
by Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502
Gallia- wrote:68W is literally a paramedic with an M-16 and BDUs. If you're an experienced paramedic before joining the Army you'd have zero trouble passing 68W AIT and possibly vice-versa. There is no real difference except maybe an Army ambulance has more atropine, blood/plasma, and saline than a civil ambulance, because it's stocked out to deal with loads of stuff like traumatic amputations and gunshot wounds. A civil ambulance would be able to deal with it too, but probably with less throughput and more bottlenecks, at least initially. Every day for the Army is training for MCI, whereas civil paramedics only deal with MCIs during major car accidents or something.

The average American regional hospital has fewer helicopters and ambulances on call than a U.S. Army CSH. OTOH a CSH has fewer beds than a typical regional hospital (a CSH is modular, but it's usually less than 200 beds; whereas a typical U.S. regional hospital is about as large as a really big CSH). So you'd ultimately be shipping the worse guys from the CSH on a Boeing or something back stateside or to Germany or whatever where they can be put up in a civilian hospital and treated as a GSW, burn ward, or traumatic amputation patient.

If by "CLS" you mean "combat lifesaver" then that is basically a Red Cross CPR course plus "Asherman seal," "pressure on wound," and "NPA". So "nothing", really.

How would the US Army have expected to deal with casualties in an 80's Cold War mega tank battle? I'd expect all hospitals, civilian and military, would very quickly be outstripped by the demand for medical care in a non-nuclear WWIII - certainly many would be flown to the US, but that leads to some grim mathematics about who gets to survive and who doesn't.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:41 am
by Kassaran
For those of you not aware, a certain word has recently come into effect as being declared verboten across the whole of NS. This word will not be named, but if you wish to know what it is, refer to the link below. Usage of the word is expressly forbidden and will result in bans for trolling as has been extensively demonstrated by Nationstates' Moderation. I don't recommend even referring to the word at all out of context or in context to what it is in the first place due to the apparently high-level offense it carries with its usage. For those otherwise left unbothered by this, feel free to go about your way, but for the rest of us whom are affected, having used the word repeatedly in the past... I'll recommend we carefully watch our words from herein. The Hive is watching us closely.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:20 am
by Purpelia
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:How would the US Army have expected to deal with casualties in an 80's Cold War mega tank battle? I'd expect all hospitals, civilian and military, would very quickly be outstripped by the demand for medical care in a non-nuclear WWIII - certainly many would be flown to the US, but that leads to some grim mathematics about who gets to survive and who doesn't.

I've seen an 80's documentary where they asked the same question and the answer was basically that they wouldn't. The war was absolutely expected to go atomic at least on the tactical level fairly quickly and the capacity simply was not there to save most of the casualties.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm
by Roskian Federation
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 wrote:
Gallia- wrote:68W is literally a paramedic with an M-16 and BDUs. If you're an experienced paramedic before joining the Army you'd have zero trouble passing 68W AIT and possibly vice-versa. There is no real difference except maybe an Army ambulance has more atropine, blood/plasma, and saline than a civil ambulance, because it's stocked out to deal with loads of stuff like traumatic amputations and gunshot wounds. A civil ambulance would be able to deal with it too, but probably with less throughput and more bottlenecks, at least initially. Every day for the Army is training for MCI, whereas civil paramedics only deal with MCIs during major car accidents or something.

The average American regional hospital has fewer helicopters and ambulances on call than a U.S. Army CSH. OTOH a CSH has fewer beds than a typical regional hospital (a CSH is modular, but it's usually less than 200 beds; whereas a typical U.S. regional hospital is about as large as a really big CSH). So you'd ultimately be shipping the worse guys from the CSH on a Boeing or something back stateside or to Germany or whatever where they can be put up in a civilian hospital and treated as a GSW, burn ward, or traumatic amputation patient.

If by "CLS" you mean "combat lifesaver" then that is basically a Red Cross CPR course plus "Asherman seal," "pressure on wound," and "NPA". So "nothing", really.

How would the US Army have expected to deal with casualties in an 80's Cold War mega tank battle? I'd expect all hospitals, civilian and military, would very quickly be outstripped by the demand for medical care in a non-nuclear WWIII - certainly many would be flown to the US, but that leads to some grim mathematics about who gets to survive and who doesn't.


Considering official soviet strategy in the later 80s was a tactical nuclear weapon fueled rush to the rhine and then to paris, it pretty much would have gone absolutely nuclear within a week

PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:31 pm
by Kassaran
Please stop posting here and begin posting in the current NSMRCT: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=425718