NATION

PASSWORD

Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Puzikas
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10914
Founded: Nov 24, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Puzikas » Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:39 pm

"this is part of your normal healing process"

-Viyk, on war
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;

Goodbye.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15175
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:35 am

Tantō bayonet or normal knife one? Or is it a matter of taste?


User avatar
Sevvania
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6868
Founded: Nov 12, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sevvania » Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:04 pm

Spike bayonet is best for bayoneting but 99% of the time you will not be bayoneting so you may as well use a knife.
"Humble thyself and hold thy tongue."

Current Era: 1945
NationStates Stat Card - Sevvania
OFFICIAL FACTBOOK - Sevvania
4/1/13 - Never Forget


User avatar
Danternoust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 589
Founded: Jan 20, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Danternoust » Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:56 am

Spade bayonet, obviously.

Serves many purposes that way.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:07 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Tantō bayonet or normal knife one? Or is it a matter of taste?

No bayonet. Issue soldiers a multi-tool. The multi-tool will be more useful than a bayonet.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.


User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:11 am

Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9965
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:55 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?


Aristocrats make no better or worse officers than any other population group with the same amount of training.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Crookfur
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10751
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Crookfur » Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:15 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Of course. Infantry officers should be promoted from the ranks and come from London or Yorkshire (depending on if you prefer the books or TV timeline) , although some exception can be made for the loyal sons of gentry/middle class families riven by Royal succession issues.
The Kingdom of Crookfur
Your ordinary everyday scotiodanavian freedom loving utopia!

And yes I do like big old guns, why do you ask?

User avatar
Kazarogkai
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8039
Founded: Jan 27, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Kazarogkai » Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:03 pm

If were going to be determining soldier career paths based on factors out of their control a better solution would be to base it on geography and education. Assuming one has a universal conscription system a simple three tier system would work nicely: Primary School graduates become regular enlisted, Secondary School graduates NCOs, and Tertiary/University Graduates Officers. Upon being initially conscripted soldiers will start off as Infantry first but upon completing initial service their role afterward will change depending on the path they take. Those who choose to become Hoplites(Long Term Reservist) will if living in Rural Areas be converted to Cavalry provided an allotment of land along with a horse to that effect. Hoplites deriving from Urban populations instead should be maintained as Infantry alongside certain auxiliary populations(Tribals, Freedman) and persons deriving from interior mountain and wetland regions. Those who choose to become Legionaries(Professionals) will instead be slated for the Artillery and Capital/Republican Guard; though a few will be allotted for specialist roles in units comprising the former two mentioned(Infantry, Cavalry). Naval personnel will derive from coastal populations in general when possible regardless of whether they are Urban or Rural. The previous 3 tier educational ranking system will still apply.

Much Superior
Last edited by Kazarogkai on Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Centrist
Reactionary
Bigot
Conservationist
Communitarian
Georgist
Distributist
Corporatist
Nationalist
Teetotaler
Ancient weaponry
Politics
History in general
books
military
Fighting
Survivalism
Nature
Anthropology
hippys
drugs
criminals
liberals
philosophes(not counting Hobbes)
states rights
anarchist
people who annoy me
robots
1000 12 + 10
1100 18 + 15
1200 24 + 20
1300 24
1400 36 + 10
1500 54 + 20
1600 72 + 30
1700 108 + 40
1800 144 + 50
1900 288 + 60
2000 576 + 80

User avatar
The Grand World Order
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9208
Founded: Nov 03, 2007
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Grand World Order » Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:15 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?


Some do, some don't.

In general, an officer should be:

1: There by his own volition. He should not be "forced" into the position, because if even he doesn't want to be there, the enlisted underneath him likely won't either.
2: Educated. Most of an officer's work is off the battlefield and demands knowledge and understanding of policies and military law.
3: Genuinely interested in serving the interests of his allegiance. There's a continent called South America whose history is largely defined by officers who were there for personal gain rather than serving their nation.
4: Historically literate. Other commanders learned plenty of lessons that we don't have to live through again.

Generally speaking, an aristocrat will have an easier time meeting these. They are less likely to be conscripted due to their wealth, they are most likely well-educated, and therefore, most likely historically literate. 3 is a wash, though.
Last edited by The Grand World Order on Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
United States Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer turned Private Military Contractor
Basque American
NS's only post-apoc, neo-western, atom/cyberpunk, conspiracy-laden, pseudo-mystic Fascist UN-clone utopia
Peace sells, but who's buying? | The truth is trolling
Resident Fascist Overlord, Final Boss of Civility
Militant Alt-Right
I have a front-row seat to the stories you discuss on NSG.
Got Skype? Add me, my Skype is mrflylice!
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.13
Muravyets: Wow. GWO may very well have posted the single most evil thing I've ever read in this forum.
Amerikians, on the Divine Tiger: That sir, is one Epic Tank.
Altamirus: Behold the fascist God of War.
Aelosia: Shiiiiit, you are hot. More pics, I demand.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23183
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:21 pm

Crookfur wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Of course. Infantry officers should be promoted from the ranks and come from London or Yorkshire (depending on if you prefer the books or TV timeline) , although some exception can be made for the loyal sons of gentry/middle class families riven by Royal succession issues.


lancaster out

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:44 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Depends. Some do, some don't, but it is, in general, a bad idea to promote people based on social status as opposed to skill.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Dec 23, 2020 9:38 am

Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:54 pm

New Visayan Islands wrote:Hypothetically, would it be feasible to mount an anti-materiel rifle on a pintle mount of say, a Humvee? The idea crossed my mind when I was building up a worksheet that contained the TO&E of a Visayan Infantry Brigade.

Yes, however this is USUALLY done so soldiers can fire from the vehicle, such as with snipers on the back of the vehicle. It's not uncommon to be able to mount a gun to the vehicle but quickly dismount with it, like with the M249 or even the .50 BMG sniper rifle, so it gives a better platform to fire from, but that a soldier can use it on foot once they dismount. However, it's better to mount an anti-tank missile like a TOW missile or a cannon for serious anti-tank work, as an anti-tank missile is far superior at armor penetration than an anti-tank rifle is, and fully automatic versions of weapons that use anti-tank rifle rounds are only marginally heavier, but provide a lot more firepower and a lot more options. The 14.5mm or .50 BMG machine guns have the largest part of the weight taken up by the barrel and ammunition, and so the idea of a rifle providing an option when mounted on a vehicle is not bad, but is questionable as a main weapon, at best. Frankly, a 57mm cannon or something, or 76mm or 90mm anti-tank gun makes more sense if you are going with precision fire over volume of fire; it will actually penetrate the side armor of a tank and be far more powerful in general, as well as provide a larger area of effect with explosive rounds. A 20mm anti-tank rifle is usually about the same as a 20mm machine gun.

Basically, the only use is to be convenient for soldiers before they dismount. The other is a hostage situation where stabilization on a mobile tripod may matter and precision accuracy is needed.

Image
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:59 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?

It depends on what planet they are from. If they are from Vianea-X39 then, they are known to be more gentle and kind, but if they are from Graknar... let's just say, they have a uh, reputation, and so my answer would be probably no. For the Verons, it depends on the era.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:56 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?

I'm not aware of any empirical study on the matter but I'd argue it is possible. However, it is equally likely that they are simply opportunistic and seeking some sort of personal security and stability during an inherently insecure and unstable point in time.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:52 am

Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Ormata
Senator
 
Posts: 4554
Founded: Jun 30, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ormata » Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:09 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?


Why would it?

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:11 am

Ormata wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?


Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.
Last edited by Champagne Socialist Sharifistan on Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:18 am

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
Ormata wrote:
Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

I just can't even with this. Why is this your fetish lol.

I feel like my face is melting. But, it doesn't really matter, the main problem with polyamory is that you won't have enough wives/husbands for everyone unless you have a broadly different male-to-female ratio, and so it won't end up working out well. In theory, 33% men and 66% woman would mean men could have two wives, vs. a 50-50 society, but this sort of thing doesn't really happen all that often. So it's a logistics hassle not really a matter of warrior skill.

The best warrior societies had a broad range of things, but what made them effective more than anything was training, and in the right ways. The spartans were a bit over the top and focused on arbitrary things, but the reason they were so successful was training, and training in the right way. Similarly, Navy Seals are extremely effective, but, they came from society at large, and didn't need to be raised from the age of 6 as a super soldier. The real impact is training and how you train, what you train on etc. and strategies and tactics, as well as equipment, and not really how many wives they have. In theory, a broad assortment of people is better as it provides a lot of perspectives and skillsets, which is useful for a large military. If everyone is interchangeable cogs you run in to the issue of sharing the same weaknesses and strengths, and so you can be too easily defeated by various exploits. Like with the Irish potato famine, the fact all the potatoes were too similiar to each other let to the spread of disease, as it raced across Ireland, since they all have potatoes of roughly the same strain. And so, if you have too much the same, you get areas of weakness you can't compensate for, and then boom. Versatility is key on the battlefield.
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:03 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:
Ormata wrote:
Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

Two questions. First, why are you so fascinated with marital and reproductive norms and their impacts on military effectiveness? Second, why would you assume that military effectiveness depends upon a hardy masculinity.

To actually discuss the question itself, your points are, in fact, not points at all. We see polyandry practised, at least historically, on most every continent. The Maasi tribe in Africa, the Aleuts in North America, the Britons in Europe, the Sherpas, Hiphalites, and Gilyaks in Asia, the Kanak and Marquesans of Oceania, and the Bororo of South America. As of 2008, there are places in modern Tibet where 90% of the families are polyandrous.

In religious terms, Polyandry appears in the Mahabharata, where Draupadi married the five Pandava brothers. When this decision is challenged by Kunti, Yudhishthira, one of the brothers, cites two other similar groupings. These are Gautam-clan Jatila, married to the seven Saptarishis, and Pracheti, married to 10 brothers. There are also several pre-Islamic Arab religions which practised polyandry. More recently, Polyandry was a rare occurrence within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormons.

There is little evidence to be found that polyandry would result in emasculation being present within the culture. Rather, it could be seen as continuation of the traditional masculine role as protector and provider. A woman with multiple husbands could be viewed as far better off than a woman with one husband or several women who share the same husband. This depends, of course, largely upon the societal pressures of the group in question.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23183
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:41 pm

The Manticoran Empire wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

Two questions. First, why are you so fascinated with marital and reproductive norms and their impacts on military effectiveness? Second, why would you assume that military effectiveness depends upon a hardy masculinity.


Demography is literal life and death of societies/population groups and because the latter is more or less true. Effective militaries are generally masculine organizations. Ineffective ones are feminine organizations.

Islam isn't exactly a winner in demography though (neither is the West, but c'est la vie) and despite being masculine it's only really effective at waging underground campaigns that involve a large amount of oblique attacks through political channels and craft produced ordnance, where Arab armies are highly effective at defeating Westerners consistently and decisively. The US Army somehow doesn't fear the Asiatic infantryman despite being consistently having its ass handed to it on a silver platter by everyone from Iraqis to Afghans to Vietnamese to Chinese tho.

Polyandry is a loser's strategy though. The only societies which were polyandrous were conquered by their neighbors (Nepal, Tibet, Inuit groups, a few Polynesian societies) or collapsed internally with no outside pressures. They have never really been effective at defeating neighboring empires, and this goes back to ancient pre-history.

Historically the most effective and socially capable (in terms of GDP growth, wealth creation, conquest of neighbors, protection of borders, scientific invention, birth rates, etc. etc.) societies have been monogamous, although monogamy is somewhat rare among societies absolutely it is dominant in terms of absolute population. Most people were sired by parents in monogamous relationships because monogamous societies from ancient China to medieval Europe to modern America have demolished their competitors for the most part.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?


>Tibet
>Eskimos
>Untouchables

Maybe.

Or maybe polyandrous societies are just weak men.
Last edited by Gallia- on Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Latorik, Triplebaconation

Advertisement

Remove ads