Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Manticoran Empire]

Would that be effective and light enough for units like the 82nd and 101st? That was my main goal with FCS. Equipping airborne and light infantry as FCS brigades, though since the whole networking thing is a dud I'm gonna need a Plan B.

The RSG and the FCS-BCT are basically hyper-fancy mechanized formations.

Not necessarily something airborne and air assault formations like the 82nd and 101st need or want to be.

But I forget, you're the guy who really, really wants to ape the VDV...

Well I would like to be able to operate airborne forces without them getting completely raped the minute tanks show up. Existing armored formations are heavy and logistical nightmares to deploy. Marines are too light. If an Airborne force is deployed, it could be a day or two before support reaches them, maybe longer. I'm not entirely convinced of the uselessness of making airborne forces mechanized.

[Allanea]

The RSG and the FCS-BCT are basically hyper-fancy mechanized formations.

Not necessarily something airborne and air assault formations like the 82nd and 101st need or want to be.

But I forget, you're the guy who really, really wants to ape the VDV...

Well I would like to be able to operate airborne forces without them getting completely raped the minute tanks show up. Existing armored formations are heavy and logistical nightmares to deploy. Marines are too light. If an Airborne force is deployed, it could be a day or two before support reaches them, maybe longer. I'm not entirely convinced of the uselessness of making airborne forces mechanized.

In what context?

Mechanized airborne forces are extremely difficult to airlift in quantities larger than a battalion at once (unless you are an BIG!NS-scale nation, but then you're fighting other BIG!NS-scale nations).

That said, there's any number of circumstances other than the Tom Clancy-esque situation where you are somehow battling waves of T-14s aboard your Stryker (something which, I note, has literally never happened in the past 50 years). The VDV has served Russia for something like 50 years, and the Stryker brigades have served the US for 16 years now. In the actual geopolitical realities in which they were used in real life, these organizations have done reasonably well for themselves (indeed the VDV has only really screwed up in situations where the country as a whole screwed up, and having 50-ton APCs would not have meaningfully helped).

In effect, mechanized light infantry are useful for when your need to be there NOW NOW NOW is so important that it overcomes a reduction of survivability.

If your nation is unable to deal with the reality that casualties may be somewhat higher (and in reality, unless you're incompetent, they're not going to be as high as people seem to imagine), it does not deserve to have overseas influence.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would that be effective and light enough for units like the 82nd and 101st? That was my main goal with FCS. Equipping airborne and light infantry as FCS brigades, though since the whole networking thing is a dud I'm gonna need a Plan B.

No. They would be the same weight as a regular mechanized formation, because that is what mechanized formations use.

Well I would like to be able to operate airborne forces without them getting completely raped the minute tanks show up. Existing armored formations are heavy and logistical nightmares to deploy. Marines are too light. If an Airborne force is deployed, it could be a day or two before support reaches them, maybe longer. I'm not entirely convinced of the uselessness of making airborne forces mechanized.

There are also lots of people who are not entirely convinced that WWII-style battleships are useless, but that doesn't make them right, either.

There comes a time when you simply have to accept the limits of what can be done, and just adjust your plans accordingly. That's what the US Army had to do when finally confronted with the inevitable truth that FCS wasn't going to work, not with the first $50 billion they spent on it, and not with another $50 billion either. Or $100 billion.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well I would like to be able to operate airborne forces without them getting completely raped the minute tanks show up. Existing armored formations are heavy and logistical nightmares to deploy. Marines are too light. If an Airborne force is deployed, it could be a day or two before support reaches them, maybe longer. I'm not entirely convinced of the uselessness of making airborne forces mechanized.

In what context?

Mechanized airborne forces are extremely difficult to airlift in quantities larger than a battalion at once (unless you are an BIG!NS-scale nation, but then you're fighting other BIG!NS-scale nations).

That said, there's any number of circumstances other than the Tom Clancy-esque situation where you are somehow battling waves of T-14s aboard your Stryker (something which, I note, has literally never happened in the past 50 years). The VDV has served Russia for something like 50 years, and the Stryker brigades have served the US for 16 years now. In the actual geopolitical realities in which they were used in real life, these organizations have done reasonably well for themselves (indeed the VDV has only really screwed up in situations where the country as a whole screwed up, and having 50-ton APCs would not have meaningfully helped).

In effect, mechanized light infantry are useful for when your need to be there NOW NOW NOW is so important that it overcomes a reduction of survivability.

If your nation is unable to deal with the reality that casualties may be somewhat higher (and in reality, unless you're incompetent, they're not going to be as high as people seem to imagine), it does not deserve to have overseas influence.

Well the way I see airborne forces is as a first strike force. They go in ahead of other forces. I know casualties will be higher than in a more traditional formation but that's the lot in life with airborne forces anyway. Adding additional firepower and mobility would, in my opinion, boost the survivability of airborne forces at least partially. They won't be invulnerable but they will be less vulnerable.

[Allanea]

The problem is that if your brigade without any support whatsoever for 2-3 days and fighting a fully-supported well-equipped mechanized force something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The problem is that if your brigade without any support whatsoever for 2-3 days and fighting a fully-supported well-equipped mechanized force something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

Murphy's Law applies in all circumstances.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well the way I see airborne forces is as a first strike force. They go in ahead of other forces. I know casualties will be higher than in a more traditional formation but that's the lot in life with airborne forces anyway. Adding additional firepower and mobility would, in my opinion, boost the survivability of airborne forces at least partially. They won't be invulnerable but they will be less vulnerable.

That's not actually how airborne forces are used though.

They're dropped on specific objectives, usually right on the objective, or as close to it as possible, and then secure it to let mechanized troops through. This means capturing things like bridges or fortresses, which is what paratroops were used for most commonly in WWII. The most famous airborne operations like Overlord, Varsity, and Market Garden all had paratroopers deployed basically right on their objectives with the expectation that they would be shortly relieved by heavy ground elements. And their targets were selected because they were vulnerable. This was also true of the Germans, who used paratroops and glider troops to great effect in seizing the Belgian border forts and bridges, which left France's northern border vulnerable.

They are not meant to land and then pretend like they're mechanized formations, conducting operational maneuvers and assaulting enemy positions like a heavy brigade. Because they aren't. And when they can't be relieved, or are used as an actual assault force rather than a capture-and-hold force, they get rekt like the did in Market Garden, Crete, and Dien Bien Phu.

[Allanea]

The problem is that if your brigade without any support whatsoever for 2-3 days and fighting a fully-supported well-equipped mechanized force something has gone horribly horribly wrong.

Murphy's Law applies in all circumstances.

You are familiar with the spinning tank story, right?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Well the way I see airborne forces is as a first strike force. They go in ahead of other forces. I know casualties will be higher than in a more traditional formation but that's the lot in life with airborne forces anyway. Adding additional firepower and mobility would, in my opinion, boost the survivability of airborne forces at least partially. They won't be invulnerable but they will be less vulnerable.

That's not actually how airborne forces are used though.

They're dropped on specific objectives, usually right on the objective, or as close to it as possible, and then secure it to let mechanized troops through. This means capturing things like bridges or fortresses, which is what paratroops were used for most commonly in WWII. The most famous airborne operations like Overlord, Varsity, and Market Garden all had paratroopers deployed basically right on their objectives with the expectation that they would be shortly relieved by heavy ground elements. And their targets were selected because they were vulnerable. This was also true of the Germans, who used paratroops and glider troops to great effect in seizing the Belgian border forts and bridges, which left France's northern border vulnerable.

They are not meant to land and then pretend like they're mechanized formations, conducting operational maneuvers and assaulting enemy positions like a heavy brigade. Because they aren't. And when they can't be relieved, or are used as an actual assault force rather than a capture-and-hold force, they get rekt like the did in Market Garden, Crete, and Dien Bien Phu.

Market Garden failed because the ground forces that are supposed to replace the last of three airborne forces were delayed mere hours. Crete was a resounding success that convinced Allied planners of the potential of airborne troops. Dien Bien Phu was a disaster from the start. Poor French planning combined with Viet Minh control of the high ground resulted in the complete annihilation of the French troops.

However, even in Capture and Hold operations, the ability to land directly on the target is not always possible and, as a result, some form of transportation is required. Additionally, since heavy forces may be delayed or may not be readily available in the event of a preemptive strike, it would be helpful for airborne forces to be able to offer some form of mobile resistance to the enemy.

I get the point of them not being meant to land and play Mechanized Soldier. That's why American airborne units are structured the way they are. However, it is not IMPOSSIBLE for them to be equipped as mechanized soldiers who can be airdropped. It is complicated and very, very risky but being a paratrooper is risky anyway you slice it.

Murphy's Law applies in all circumstances.

You are familiar with the spinning tank story, right?

No, I'm not.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Crete was so successful in fact that the German paras were never operationally dropped en masse again.

[Allanea]

Ostensibly this conversation occured at a Soviet military academy:

INSTRUCTOR. You hide in the trench. The tank passes on top of you and doesn't do you harm. Then you throw anti-tank grenades at it from behind.

CADET. What if it stops and spins on top of me and buries me alive?

INSTRUCTOR. It won't, Cadet Petrov.

CADET. But what if it does?

INSTRUCTOR. It won't.

CADET. But what if it does?

INSTRUCTOR. Cadet Petrov, you know... sometimes, at war, you get killed.

In other words, trying to design your vehicles for a catastrophic situation that should not at all be likely is not wise, and it compromises various aspects of their performance you do regularly need in normal situations, for only a tiny and insignificant gain in the catastrophic situation you've planned for.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Ostensibly this conversation occured at a Soviet military academy:

INSTRUCTOR. You hide in the trench. The tank passes on top of you and doesn't do you harm. Then you throw anti-tank grenades at it from behind.

CADET. What if it stops and spins on top of me and buries me alive?

INSTRUCTOR. It won't, Cadet Petrov.

CADET. But what if it does?

INSTRUCTOR. It won't.

CADET. But what if it does?

INSTRUCTOR. Cadet Petrov, you know... sometimes, at war, you get killed.

In other words, trying to design your vehicles for a catastrophic situation that should not at all be likely is not wise, and it compromises various aspects of their performance you do regularly need in normal situations, for only a tiny and insignificant gain in the catastrophic situation you've planned for.

Ah. Interesting.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Crete was so successful in fact that the German paras were never operationally dropped en masse again.

10,000 paras decisively defeated 40,000 British defenders with minimal support, allowing the German army to take control of Crete. The German's never dropped paras en masse because HITLER shit himself at the casualty rates. American and British forces looked at those and called them "Acceptable Losses".

[Xia-]

Crete was so successful in fact that the German paras were never operationally dropped en masse again.

10,000 paras decisively defeated 40,000 British defenders with minimal support, allowing the German army to take control of Crete. The German's never dropped paras en masse because HITLER shit himself at the casualty rates. American and British forces looked at those and called them "Acceptable Losses".

Hitler was right.

[Allanea]

A force of 20,000 men defeating 40,000 men in an entrenched position and losing less than 20% of its numbers is nothing short of a glorious victory for the ages.

Songs have been sung of lesser victories.

[Xia-]

No one said Pyrrhus won a great victory.

Crete cost the Germans their most important weapons: experienced transport aviation pilots and good NCOs. Since they lacked the ability to replenish these resources, the losses were more extensive than the robust replacement programs implemented by the Allies. Every German NCO or pilot dead is like losing a platoon or a squadron equivalent for the Allies.

[Allanea]

No one said Pyrrhus won a great victory.

I am impressed by the goalpost-teleportation technology.

It's wholly possible that the losses were unacceptable in a strategic sense.

But strategic acceptability is not an issue of operational or tactical success, but an issue of costs, benefits, and valuation.

[Xia-]

It's wholly possible that the losses were unacceptable in a strategic sense.

Which is the entire point.

But strategic acceptability is

All that matters. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks America won in Iraq and Vietnam, or is winning the war in Afghanistan, the only thing that matters is how best to use those paratroopers to advance your goals of establishing Lebensraum and exterminating the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. Throwing them into a meat grinder and proclaiming GLORIOUS VICTORY is not the best way to advance your goals, because you have lost your most important resource that cannot be easily replenished.

So, this "victory" directly diminishes your ability to actually achieve what you want to do.

[Allanea]

It's wholly possible that the losses were unacceptable in a strategic sense.

Which is the entire point.

But strategic acceptability is

All that matters. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks America won in Iraq and Vietnam, or is winning the war in Afghanistan.

And totally contextual.

It cannot be derived from the tactical events, unless you think America would have won Vietnam if it only issued a slightly diffterent rifle.

[Xia-]

It cannot be derived from the tactical events,

If Hitler had shot his entire airborne corps and all the Ju-52 pilots, he would have won the war faster?

Crete was an expensive waste of valuable resources.

unless you think America would have won Vietnam if

It had moved a few hundred miles north. You're either furthering a goal or hindering it. Crete was a big hindrance. Much like the entire Western Front.

The only reason Russia exists today is because the Germans were busy wasting steel, men, and money on building flak guns and dropping paratroopers on Crete.

[The Manticoran Empire]

10,000 paras decisively defeated 40,000 British defenders with minimal support, allowing the German army to take control of Crete. The German's never dropped paras en masse because HITLER shit himself at the casualty rates. American and British forces looked at those and called them "Acceptable Losses".

Hitler was right.

Perhaps. However, using him as an example for why Airborne troops as assault troops don't work isn't really fair since the Germans only ever launched one major airborne operation, as opposed to several operations launched by the US, Britain, and Russia.

[Allanea]

It cannot be derived from the tactical events,

If Hitler had shot his entire airborne corps and all the Ju-52 pilots, he would have won the war faster?

Crete was an expensive waste of valuable resources.

unless you think America would have won Vietnam if

It had moved a few hundred miles north. You're either furthering a goal or hindering it. Crete was a big hindrance. Much like the entire Western Front.

The only reason Russia exists today is because the Germans were busy wasting steel, men, and money on building flak guns and dropping paratroopers on Crete.

And this is an issue separate from that of the value of paratroopers in general.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Moving on, is the RSG any good to replace heavier formations, like ABCTs? I've been reviewing the powerpoint presentation about it from October 2016 and it is very interesting. My question is could it replace the Heavy Brigade Combat Team or would it serve more as a medium tier combat formation?

[Xia-]

Hitler was right.

Perhaps. However, using him as an example for why Airborne troops as assault troops don't work

Wrong.

Hitler's example is notable because it illustrates two levels of thinking: The stereotypical Anglo/Russian/French level of thinking that involves being "in the weeds" and the German high level of thinking that involves "march over the Alps". The Allies were impressed with Crete because, as Allanea says, it "won a great victory". Perhaps it's a facet of democracy, or maybe a facet of their language or nations or cultures, but this is actually impossibly myopic thinking. If they were given an eye exam they wouldn't be able to see the wall for the poster. The emphasis is on the paratroopers' battle effectiveness instead of what actually happened.

This is wrong. Literally the opposite of correct.

Hitler was right because Hitler saw the casualty lists, saw that a lot of Ju-52s and experienced NCOs were killed, and realized that his training and replenishment system would be incapable of replacing these losses as fast as the Allies. Every German death is like 10 Allied ones. The Germans can't afford to lose men because they're fighting outnumbered against the Russians and the British, they need every man they can get and that's the most important thing. The war isn't lost over Crete, but if Crete continues (hint: It did!) and manpower losses keep exceeding the enemy's ability to replace their own men and materiel, then the war will be completely lost.

Where the Western Allies were impressed by paratroopers because they were thinking on the micro-scale popular among myopics (such as military officers), Hitler was thinking along the most important scale of all: how does this help me win the war? The Airborne Corps in Germany certainly wasn't at all unhappy with the outcome of Crete, but they were overruled by Hitler who correct judged that the use of airborne troops was unsustainable for Germany's manpower turnover rates. If they could somehow figure out ways to triple or maybe quadruple their production of Ju-52 pilots and paratroopers, they might have been able to make a good case for it, but Crete was a disaster in the highest halls of German government for all the right reasons.

And this is an issue separate from that of the value of paratroopers in general.

No it isn't and you know exactly why. Crete was a portent of the future for Germany: unsustainable losses of manpower.

That is why it was a failure. Of course if you transplant paratroopers to an entirely different demographic situation, then they become suddenly useful, because when for every man who dies you have another 3 waiting in the wings to jump after him, the problems that faced Hitler and made paratroopers a dumb idea in the first place is done.

The argument is not "Hitler was wrong about paras", it's the idea that paratroopers are somehow innately validated by Crete. They aren't.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Perhaps. However, using him as an example for why Airborne troops as assault troops don't work

Wrong.

Hitler's example is notable because it illustrates two levels of thinking: The stereotypical Anglo/Russian/French level of thinking that involves being "in the weeds" and the German high level of thinking that involves "march over the Alps". The Allies were impressed with Crete because, as Allanea says, it "won a great victory". Perhaps it's a facet of democracy, or maybe a facet of their language or nations or cultures, but this is actually impossibly myopic thinking. If they were given an eye exam they wouldn't be able to see the wall for the poster. The emphasis is on the paratroopers' battle effectiveness instead of what actually happened.

This is wrong. Literally the opposite of correct.

Hitler was right because Hitler saw the casualty lists, saw that a lot of Ju-52s and experienced NCOs were killed, and realized that his training and replenishment system would be incapable of replacing these losses as fast as the Allies. Every German death is like 10 Allied ones. The Germans can't afford to lose men because they're fighting outnumbered against the Russians and the British, they need every man they can get and that's the most important thing. The war isn't lost over Crete, but if Crete continues (hint: It did!) and manpower losses keep exceeding the enemy's ability to replace their own men and materiel, then the war will be completely lost.

Where the Western Allies were impressed by paratroopers because they were thinking on the micro-scale popular among myopics (such as military officers), Hitler was thinking along the most important scale of all: how does this help me win the war? The Airborne Corps in Germany certainly wasn't at all unhappy with the outcome of Crete, but they were overruled by Hitler who correct judged that the use of airborne troops was unsustainable for Germany's manpower turnover rates. If they could somehow figure out ways to triple or maybe quadruple their production of Ju-52 pilots and paratroopers, they might have been able to make a good case for it, but Crete was a disaster in the highest halls of German government for all the right reasons.

So just scrap paratroops, then?