NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

that's why bodyguards exist

[New Axiom]

Bodyguards can possibly be bribed or participate in coupes. We also use them, but not neccesarily trust them.

[Triplebaconation]

are you of referring to "military photos" mayhaps?

or something before my time? ;_;

Mainly my hotornot account and my LORD scores.

[Allanea]

Not sure if this is the place for this question, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Is it logical to train your politicians-especially your leader-in firearm usage?
In New Axiom, our leader and many Imperial officials are trained in firearm usage to such a degree that a gunfight with one of them would rival the gunplay in the film Equilibrium. The Emporer and Ministers each carry two of my nations fictional version of the Desert Eagle and four extra magazines in visible hip holsters, even on international diplomatic duties. The reason for this is to discourage assassination attempts. Our politicians uniform is also armored and include visible knee high armored boots with knee pads, and their knee length trench coats use concealed armored played along the sides, chest, and back. Although not visible, their shape and thickness can be seen through the coat. I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly realistic, but considering my country is very hostile and aggressive, it makes sense. What do you guys think?

If you are having such a vastly corrupt society that your leader's personal bodyguards can be bribed and will participate in coups, your leader personally being a superb warrior will accomplish very little - especially in light of the fact that the gunplay in Equilibrium is not realistic not just in light of its choreographics (obviously it's a Hollywood movie!) but in light of its conceptual design - being really good at shooting doesn't make you much better at avoiding being shot, which is how Special Operations commandos get shot by Iraqi 16-year-olds.

Moreover, firearms skills need to be practiced to be retained. The level of practice that is necessary depends on how hardcore you want to be - someone who just carries a pistol for self-defense can get away with a range session every once in a while. Someone who wants to be SF-level hardcore, needs to constantly practice and remain fit. At which point, when does he actually do the business of the country?

Now, in a realistic universe I would not have senior public officials wear any body armor more than a light concealable vest (like Israeli PMs are sometimes made to wear in public), but, because Allanea does "big NS" and it is set in a much less 'sensible' setting than a real world, I do have my senior diplomats be armed at all times. This is however mostly due to the fact that in a typical II thread fights routinely break out during diplomatic conferences, In the real world, gunfights in diplomatic conference rooms are obviously rare, but in the sort of RP I participate them, they're far less so.

Most of my diplomats, however, I issued 9mm pistols and not Desert Eagles, I recommend that for practicality.

[Crookfur]

Not sure if this is the place for this question, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Is it logical to train your politicians-especially your leader-in firearm usage?
In New Axiom, our leader and many Imperial officials are trained in firearm usage to such a degree that a gunfight with one of them would rival the gunplay in the film Equilibrium. The Emporer and Ministers each carry two of my nations fictional version of the Desert Eagle and four extra magazines in visible hip holsters, even on international diplomatic duties. The reason for this is to discourage assassination attempts. Our politicians uniform is also armored and include visible knee high armored boots with knee pads, and their knee length trench coats use concealed armored played along the sides, chest, and back. Although not visible, their shape and thickness can be seen through the coat. I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly realistic, but considering my country is very hostile and aggressive, it makes sense. What do you guys think?

Yeah it's totally off the wall nonsense.

Allanea hit most of the high points but there are a couple of things to add:
Show up to a diplomatic engagement looking like a character from an action anime or HK blood opera? Yeah meeting is not happening and you probably won't be allowed off your plane.

Diplomacy is all about discretion and a display of trust so maybe a PPK and a bullet resistant sports/suit jacket/blazer or concealed carrier might be appropriate but even then be prepared to leave the gat at home.

Think bond, not the matrix.

[Allanea]

To be fair the levels of realism a re different where I hang out. Armed bodyguards are pretty common in II RPs.

[Imperializt Russia]

The only way you're damaging a nation's power grid to the point where the economy crashes and cities descend into chaos is with multiple high yield thermonuclear warheads detonating at high altitude which is what is needed in order to generate a powerful enough E3 pulse to knock out power stations. Assuming this is a US vs Russia/China exchange at this point you'll have a full scale nuclear war on your hands so the bank down the street being nonoperational is likely the least of your concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack

Someone tried to sabotage part of the US power and internet grids a few years back. I can guarantee that precautions have been taken to prevent a large-scale repeat.

If "not terrorists", then that surely points to sovereign citizens or some other part of the "down with big gub'mint" brigade.

But why try to knock out power?

Not sure if this is the place for this question, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Is it logical to train your politicians-especially your leader-in firearm usage?
In New Axiom, our leader and many Imperial officials are trained in firearm usage to such a degree that a gunfight with one of them would rival the gunplay in the film Equilibrium. The Emporer and Ministers each carry two of my nations fictional version of the Desert Eagle and four extra magazines in visible hip holsters, even on international diplomatic duties. The reason for this is to discourage assassination attempts. Our politicians uniform is also armored and include visible knee high armored boots with knee pads, and their knee length trench coats use concealed armored played along the sides, chest, and back. Although not visible, their shape and thickness can be seen through the coat. I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly realistic, but considering my country is very hostile and aggressive, it makes sense. What do you guys think?

His aim will probably be thrown off by the twenty jillion bodyguards bundling him into armoured cars at the first sign of trouble.

Bodyguards can possibly be bribed or participate in coupes. We also use them, but not neccesarily trust them.

You don't vet the bodyguards for the seat of power?

What impoverished, third-world hellhole do you roleplay as?

To be fair the levels of realism a re different where I hang out. Armed bodyguards are pretty common in II RPs.

II is dominated by hyperactive 12 year olds, or 18 year old sperglords with the same level of mental restraint.
Have you read the shit I used to post when I first came to this site?

[Allanea]

II is dominated by hyperactive 12 year olds, or 18 year old sperglords with the same level of mental restraint.
Have you read the shit I used to post when I first came to this site?

So?

[The Akasha Colony]

II is dominated by hyperactive 12 year olds, or 18 year old sperglords with the same level of mental restraint.
Have you read the shit I used to post when I first came to this site?

So?

I believe the point is that while you can make an argument that much-enhanced protective schemes and practices for heads-of-state can be justified in the context of II, it should also be considered that the context itself is rather illogical as it is run by adolescents and those with the same level of restraint as an adolescent. Thus, the solution may be logical, but it is a response to an illogical context.

Whether that is "good" or "bad" is a separate and unrelated matter, it is merely clarification that "logical" in the very specific context of II does not mean "logical" in every instance.

[Gallia-]

war rps are kinda gay

project management is much more riveting to read about

[Allanea]

war rps are kinda gay

project management is much more riveting to read about

Write one.

[Allanea]

So?

I believe the point is that while you can make an argument that much-enhanced protective schemes and practices for heads-of-state can be justified in the context of II, it should also be considered that the context itself is rather illogical as it is run by adolescents and those with the same level of restraint as an adolescent. Thus, the solution may be logical, but it is a response to an illogical context.

Whether that is "good" or "bad" is a separate and unrelated matter, it is merely clarification that "logical" in the very specific context of II does not mean "logical" in every instance.

Well yeah.

But realism is not binary and not all of us are 'hardcore realists', certainly I am not.

[Gallia-]

war rps are kinda gay

project management is much more riveting to read about

Write one.

i meant books

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a276887.pdf

or in this case, monographs

[Purpelia]

There’s no reason why a proper navy can’t be a riverine navy.

Well sure. But like it does mean no marines, no expeditionary warfare, colonies, battleships and all the good stuff. The biggest ships I'll ever use are some gunboats and delicious sexy river monitors.

Also, since you’re adapting Russian/Soviet Cavalry Mechanized Groups does that also mean you’ll be adapting Pre-war Soviet strategies and operational methods like deep battle/deep attack?

No, not really. I have my own ideas on how to do things. But it's too early to develop anything concrete due to the fact I lack a RP partner or several.

Hermann Göring would be quite elated that you’ve have adapted his inefficient use of manpower at the expansion of efficiency all in the name of parochialism.

RL example… Luftwaffe Field Division

I am not going to go as far as having proper infantry divisions fighting for the air force. Not that the AF does not want to mind you. They bloody do. But the infantry is holding on to its last shred of prestige and it's not giving a millimeter. But again it's politics at play here.

To understand Purpelia you must understand the Duchies. Basically in the olden days each duchy had its own army. But as they industrialized and than signed their armies away to a centralized force they still retained a lot of control in the sense that the dukes are rich industrialists. So say if one duke really fancies tanks or aircraft than that branch of the army gets a lot of funding from him and thus he gets a lot of influence in it. Also he gets a lot of prestige from showing the other dukes how good "his" forces can be.

And as it happens several of my dukes of the period are rather colorful characters. The Duke of Windir for example is basically just a rich industrialist with iron and money to throw around and relatives married off to a bunch of engineers. The Duke of Falke however is an aircraft enthusiast, engineer and flight pioneer (the first Purpelian to ever fly a heavier than air aircraft). So its under his tutelage that the air force flourishes and get a lot of support. And he has the idea of founding paratroop divisions to be the air forces "boots on the ground".
Famous quotes being "My aircraft don't get sick and die, they don't need tons of hay to eat and they don't get bogged down on roads." and "I can deliver a division over the South Purpelian mountains in less than a day."

So yes, my army politics of the early 20th century were somewhat of an interesting mess.

You can set your nation apart from real world events in an alternate reality. No Washington naval treaty, no Great Depression during the late interwar period, no world war 1 and the continuation of an early 20th century arms race. Or even multiple world war 1s.

The details of the period are still very hazy due to me not having RP partners yet. And there is no sign I'll ever get any. Certainly not in the foreseeable future.
So my current goal is to keep things grounded in the real world as much as possible. Just pretend Purpelia exists somewhere in eastern Europe in the period wedged in magically between the other nations or something.

Plus keeping things grounded in reality makes things much more interesting for me as it lets me do the thing I love most, worldbuilding.

[Heavonia]

On the subject of bodyguards, at what sort of level would senior military officers get MilPol close protection details, and what size would a close protection really be?

I can't imagine anyone under Colonel gets one, and I don't know about Brigadier (General)s, so I assume from Major General up, but I don't know how sizeable that would be.

[Imperializt Russia]

Schwarzkopf got SOF protection details in Iraq even when surrounded by the press. Not sure about "bodyguards" per se, but officers senior enough to have a command staff will have "protection" detail as part of their headquarters.

[Dostanuot Loj]

If your boots and trench coat are armoured you're not pulling off the crap in Equilibrium without shooting. Let alone shooting accurately.

[Purpelia]

If your boots and trench coat are armoured you're not pulling off the crap in Equilibrium without shooting. Let alone shooting accurately.

Why would you armor boots and a coat and not just have a bullet proof vest under said coat?

[Spirit of Hope]

If your boots and trench coat are armoured you're not pulling off the crap in Equilibrium without shooting. Let alone shooting accurately.

Why would you armor boots and a coat and not just have a bullet proof vest under said coat?

We're talking about Equilibrium here, sanity flies out the window.

Schwarzkopf got SOF protection details in Iraq even when surrounded by the press. Not sure about "bodyguards" per se, but officers senior enough to have a command staff will have "protection" detail as part of their headquarters.

You could argue that the units senior NCO in part acts as a bodyguard for the units senior officer.

[Purpelia]

We're talking about Equilibrium here, sanity flies out the window.

There is insanity and than there is just stuff that ain't practical. Like imagine trying to do any sort of fancy movie jumps with a coat that is flapping around dramatically and slamming into your body all the time all the while being lined with steel or ceramic plates!

[Kazarogkai]

Not sure if this is the place for this question, but I'm pretty sure it is.

Is it logical to train your politicians-especially your leader-in firearm usage?
In New Axiom, our leader and many Imperial officials are trained in firearm usage to such a degree that a gunfight with one of them would rival the gunplay in the film Equilibrium. The Emporer and Ministers each carry two of my nations fictional version of the Desert Eagle and four extra magazines in visible hip holsters, even on international diplomatic duties. The reason for this is to discourage assassination attempts. Our politicians uniform is also armored and include visible knee high armored boots with knee pads, and their knee length trench coats use concealed armored played along the sides, chest, and back. Although not visible, their shape and thickness can be seen through the coat. I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly realistic, but considering my country is very hostile and aggressive, it makes sense. What do you guys think?

National Conscription for the entire population in peace and war should do this well enough. That and as other said bodyguards bro.

[NeuPolska]

I'm new to this thread series, hi everyone

I do RPs with my region, we like to get basic plotlines down and agree on a few basics beforehand to prevent stupid arguments, and focus on character relationships and all that jazz in the actual RP. I'll be having a civil war of sorts, set in 2008-09, between a Republican government that has control of the capital and nearby regions (Warsaw), while a Monarchist government under an heir of the former monarchy (before the King and Queen were killed by Republicans) is set up in the historical old capital of Cracow/Kraków, and also has control of Vilnius/Wilno.

With that very stripped-down, basic background, I plan on having the war itself last around 3 months. Both armies are professional, though the Republic has mostly conscripts while the monarchy has better trained soldiers. Both also have former soldiers from before the revolution/civil war and fracturing of the military.

At most, counting both sides' numbers, the most recruited will be around 1 million, but deaths/wounded counts shouldn't extend anywhere close to even half of that, I figure most would be captured, go home, or desert. For a total population of about 44 million, and given city/region information, I figure the numbers are fine. Any input on this would be appreciated.

My main concern is how to justify a 3 month war given both sides have tanks, air support (though limited in number), and artillery. The fighting will mostly be concentrated in major battles when two major armies meet. 60,000-80,000 is about the rough number of troops in each army, I figure fighting would last at least a few days before any retreat would be made.

This brings me to two main questions, am I right in making the assumption that said forces could get bogged down for several days like that, even with tanks, infantry, and artillery? The second question is how viable trenches are? I understand that with modern tanks and armored transports mobility becomes too large a factor for anything like old-style trench warfare, but say a force gets dug-in and fortifies their positions with bunkers, and has access to supplies and reinforcements, could they hold out against another force for as long as a month? They would have infantrymen, anti-air batteries or vehicles, tanks, all kinds of artillery, and snipers would also play a role.

Any input on the situation would be appreciated. I tried to keep the details simplified, I could give more information if needed.

[Takhshiyt]

I'm new to this thread series, hi everyone

I do RPs with my region, we like to get basic plotlines down and agree on a few basics beforehand to prevent stupid arguments, and focus on character relationships and all that jazz in the actual RP. I'll be having a civil war of sorts, set in 2008-09, between a Republican government that has control of the capital and nearby regions (Warsaw), while a Monarchist government under an heir of the former monarchy (before the King and Queen were killed by Republicans) is set up in the historical old capital of Cracow/Kraków, and also has control of Vilnius/Wilno.

With that very stripped-down, basic background, I plan on having the war itself last around 3 months. Both armies are professional, though the Republic has mostly conscripts while the monarchy has better trained soldiers. Both also have former soldiers from before the revolution/civil war and fracturing of the military.

At most, counting both sides' numbers, the most recruited will be around 1 million, but deaths/wounded counts shouldn't extend anywhere close to even half of that, I figure most would be captured, go home, or desert. For a total population of about 44 million, and given city/region information, I figure the numbers are fine. Any input on this would be appreciated.

My main concern is how to justify a 3 month war given both sides have tanks, air support (though limited in number), and artillery. The fighting will mostly be concentrated in major battles when two major armies meet. 60,000-80,000 is about the rough number of troops in each army, I figure fighting would last at least a few days before any retreat would be made.

This brings me to two main questions, am I right in making the assumption that said forces could get bogged down for several days like that, even with tanks, infantry, and artillery? The second question is how viable trenches are? I understand that with modern tanks and armored transports mobility becomes too large a factor for anything like old-style trench warfare, but say a force gets dug-in and fortifies their positions with bunkers, and has access to supplies and reinforcements, could they hold out against another force for as long as a month? They would have infantrymen, anti-air batteries or vehicles, tanks, all kinds of artillery, and snipers would also play a role.

Any input on the situation would be appreciated. I tried to keep the details simplified, I could give more information if needed.

You could make your forces as incompetent as Iraq and Iran in the Iraq-Iran war.

[Prosorusiya]

This is a question that kinda touches on both civil and military themes, so I am posting it both here and on the military consultation thread.

Currently, my government operates a Tu-154 as the main "Air Force One" type plane, and has also used three Mi-8S VIP helicopters in support.

The Air Force also has two Tu-134s which it uses for personelle transport along with An-12s whilst deploying overseas.

My question is essentially the following: Would it make more sense for a small country like my own to operate two Tu-134s in the VIP role rather than a single Tu-154? The Tu-154 might be overkill given that it is significantly larger than the Tu-134, and presumably more expensive to operate, but the Tu-154 has a slightly greater range.

Also, given there unpressurized nature, are An-12s useful in transporting personelle long distances, like from one base to another?

[The Kievan People]

I'm new to this thread series, hi everyone

I do RPs with my region, we like to get basic plotlines down and agree on a few basics beforehand to prevent stupid arguments, and focus on character relationships and all that jazz in the actual RP. I'll be having a civil war of sorts, set in 2008-09, between a Republican government that has control of the capital and nearby regions (Warsaw), while a Monarchist government under an heir of the former monarchy (before the King and Queen were killed by Republicans) is set up in the historical old capital of Cracow/Kraków, and also has control of Vilnius/Wilno.

With that very stripped-down, basic background, I plan on having the war itself last around 3 months. Both armies are professional, though the Republic has mostly conscripts while the monarchy has better trained soldiers. Both also have former soldiers from before the revolution/civil war and fracturing of the military.

At most, counting both sides' numbers, the most recruited will be around 1 million, but deaths/wounded counts shouldn't extend anywhere close to even half of that, I figure most would be captured, go home, or desert. For a total population of about 44 million, and given city/region information, I figure the numbers are fine. Any input on this would be appreciated.

My main concern is how to justify a 3 month war given both sides have tanks, air support (though limited in number), and artillery. The fighting will mostly be concentrated in major battles when two major armies meet. 60,000-80,000 is about the rough number of troops in each army, I figure fighting would last at least a few days before any retreat would be made.

This brings me to two main questions, am I right in making the assumption that said forces could get bogged down for several days like that, even with tanks, infantry, and artillery? The second question is how viable trenches are? I understand that with modern tanks and armored transports mobility becomes too large a factor for anything like old-style trench warfare, but say a force gets dug-in and fortifies their positions with bunkers, and has access to supplies and reinforcements, could they hold out against another force for as long as a month? They would have infantrymen, anti-air batteries or vehicles, tanks, all kinds of artillery, and snipers would also play a role.

Any input on the situation would be appreciated. I tried to keep the details simplified, I could give more information if needed.

It seems plausible.

Virtually any force can become bogged down. Command failures, supply problems, technical inferiority are all possible reasons.

Entrenchment has kind of made a come back recently, so its not implausible in a modern combined arms context. There has been heavy use of entrenchment in Ukraine by both sides, and some use in Syria. Artillery has proved extremely devastating to IFVs and APCs in Ukraine and quite often attackers have been forced to do without them.