NationStates

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Gallia- wrote:I don't know what that means but Basiji probably didn't have many guns and the average Iranian shooter probably wasn't wearing anything more than his fatigues, a gas mask, a K-pot, and carrying a <insert gun here> and atropine.

Well by “Iraq-Iranian style” I meant that both sides are relatively mechanized and well-equipped but still can’t break through the defenses which results in a trench war.

Yes both sides were pretty incompetent in Iran-Iraq. It was a mechanized reboot of WW1. Neither Iran nor Iraq were "well equipped", which contributed a lot to their inability to break through each other's defenses decisively. Unlike the foremost powers in WW1 though, neither had any serious industrial capacity to respond to battlefield needs, which would help prolong the conflict because they were still beheld to their respective suzerains. It's hard to break through an enemy defense if you can't make weapons of sufficient quality, quantity, and attributes to actually help you fight your wars. Maybe if Iran could have built Tomcats, Chieftains, and AH-1s it would have conquered Iraq.

Regardless this would all be reflected in substandard equipment issue (no body armor) and relatively small amounts of gear carried by troops.

Both sides were learning how to fight in a modern war and lacked the skill, supplies, and capabilities to properly employ things like air power to neutralize enemy air forces and commit to major offensives that were successful. Which is why they got bogged down in trench wars and sieges instead of the Iraqis driving all the way to Tehran or the Iranians to the Saudi border. We're seeing something similar occur to Western countries today, where some basic fundamentals have changed a bit and everyone is needing some time to readjust. The difference is that countries like America and Israel and such can still respond to things, even if it just means building Iron Domes and HPM things to zap little robots and their 50 kg laser guided bombs.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Well by “Iraq-Iranian style” I meant that both sides are relatively mechanized and well-equipped but still can’t break through the defenses which results in a trench war.

If you take 10 years to do what britain learned in 2 you probs aren't competent to fight any other sort of war to-bee-ach.

This really has more to do with neither side having any sort of industrial base to build off of. Neither Iran nor Iraq could actually build the weapons they were using. Iraq got into the tank business after Iran-Iraq, not before, and Iran is still trying to figure out how to build AH-1G and TF30 despite 40+ years of reverse engineering.

It's akin to giving a pre-industrial army fighter jets, tanks, and the training to use both, and then telling them to win a war that requires sustaining three or four times the losses of the things they have.

The relative value of something like a MiG-23 or MiG-27 to Hussein is why Saddamite super shelters existed in Ba'athist Iraq but not in the USSR.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If you take 10 years to do what britain learned in 2 you probs aren't competent to fight any other sort of war to-bee-ach.

Look, I just want to make a MT war RP with trench warfare and stuff... What exactly do you mean by this?

Just copy Donbass or something.

Donbass and the current Kurdish situation are about as modern trench war as you can get.

Don't copy Nagorno-Karabakh, though. If nukes or PGMs make an appearance then the contiguous trench war thing breaks.

Would black soldiers be more likely to be in the infantry than other branches?

(British Army)

Ideal Britain wrote:What black soldiers be more likely to be in the infantry than other branches?

(British Army)

What are you implying?

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Ideal Britain wrote:What black soldiers be more likely to be in the infantry than other branches?

(British Army)

What are you implying?

Nothing.
I’m designing the Marvel Punisher but Modern Tech Black British

Ideal Britain wrote:Would black soldiers be more likely to be in the infantry than other branches?

(British Army)

Not particularly.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Ideal Britain wrote:Would black soldiers be more likely to be in the infantry than other branches?

(British Army)

Not particularly.

Thanks.

Could 16 year olds make good infantrymen if given one years’ intensive military (including physical exercise) from the age of 15 and active in sports from the age of 10?

Ideal Britain wrote:

The Manticoran Empire wrote:Not particularly.

Thanks.

Could 16 year olds make good infantrymen if given one years’ intensive military (including physical exercise) from the age of 15 and active in sports from the age of 10?

Not any better than a normal infantryman recruited at 18-20 years. Infantry combat is relatively simple when you boil it down to the basic needs. You can teach basically anyone to be an infantryman in a few weeks. One year doesn't make them a substantially better soldier. It just makes them more disciplined and rigid.

That being said, there is also no real downside to recruiting 15 year olds and training them for a year to be highly disciplined soldiers. It's just fairly expensive and likely unpopular (they are still children and there is a growing movement in the IRL UK to end the recruitment of 16 year olds, making the recruitment of 15 year olds even more unpopular). The main issue comes down to morality. The use of child soldiers is generally a problematic situation in regards to international relations, so it is generally better to wait until the prospective recruit is of legal majority.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Ideal Britain wrote:Thanks.

Could 16 year olds make good infantrymen if given one years’ intensive military (including physical exercise) from the age of 15 and active in sports from the age of 10?

Not any better than a normal infantryman recruited at 18-20 years. Infantry combat is relatively simple when you boil it down to the basic needs. You can teach basically anyone to be an infantryman in a few weeks. One year doesn't make them a substantially better soldier. It just makes them more disciplined and rigid.

That being said, there is also no real downside to recruiting 15 year olds and training them for a year to be highly disciplined soldiers. It's just fairly expensive and likely unpopular (they are still children and there is a growing movement in the IRL UK to end the recruitment of 16 year olds, making the recruitment of 15 year olds even more unpopular). The main issue comes down to morality. The use of child soldiers is generally a problematic situation in regards to international relations, so it is generally better to wait until the prospective recruit is of legal majority.

This is for my other nation The Ideal Caliphate.
It’s also not against the Geneva Conventions (if 15 or over) and the age of adulthood and voting in the Caliphate is 15 (though the lads can’t get married until 18).

Legality doesn't begin and end with the Geneva Conventions lol

Dtn wrote:Legality doesn't begin and end with the Geneva Conventions lol

But I don’t think it’s against international law applicable to all countries, I think there are optional protocols about it but doesn’t go to the level of customary international law, nations are free not to sign those protocols.

Yes, they're free not to sign or ratify the Geneva Conventions as well.

You don't have to bold "not" every time you use it.

But the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions and its Optional Protocol prohibiting children under 18 from taking direct part in combat (such as in the infantry) is almost universally supported as well - certainly every country in your "Ideal Caliphate" is a signatory.

At this point OPAC would probably be recognized as customary international law, and CIL is rapidly moving towards the Straight-18 definition of child soldier.

Dtn wrote:Yes, they're free not to sign or ratify the Geneva Conventions as well.

You don't have to bold "not" every time you use it.

But the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions and its Optional Protocol prohibiting children under 18 from taking direct part in combat (such as in the infantry) is almost universally supported as well - certainly every country in your "Ideal Caliphate" is a signatory.

At this point OPAC would probably be recognized as customary international law, and CIL is rapidly moving towards the Straight-18 definition of child soldier.

Somalia, Mauritania, Lebanon, the UAE and Iran have not ratified the OPAC.
(https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org ... -protocol/)
Seeing as that leaves another 11 foreign countries they can argue it’s not CIL.

Ideal Britain wrote:

Dtn wrote:Yes, they're free not to sign or ratify the Geneva Conventions as well.

You don't have to bold "not" every time you use it.

But the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions and its Optional Protocol prohibiting children under 18 from taking direct part in combat (such as in the infantry) is almost universally supported as well - certainly every country in your "Ideal Caliphate" is a signatory.

At this point OPAC would probably be recognized as customary international law, and CIL is rapidly moving towards the Straight-18 definition of child soldier.

Somalia, Mauritania, Lebanon, the UAE and Iran have not ratified the OPAC.
(https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org ... -protocol/)
Seeing as that leaves another 11 foreign countries they can argue it’s not CIL.

Actually 12 other countries because Iran is the one muslim country that wasn’t included in the Caliphate.
Albania and Azerbaijan are pretty p*ssed off about being included.

Do infantrymen need to be able to read and write at all?

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:How feasible would a Krieg Death Korps-ish type of loadout be in a modern trench war (Irano-Iraqi style)? Like I love the aesthetics but don’t want to sacrifice too much of realism for that.

You need to be able to take off the mask most of the time and a greatcoat is only rational in a temperate or cold climate. Metallic body armour I shouldn't need to tell you as a Russian military history enthusiast is quite possible though its second rate.

Austrasien wrote:Metallic body armour I shouldn't need to tell you as a Russian military history enthusiast is quite possible though its second rate.

i mean it depends?

If multiple battalions of a British Army regiment where fighting thousands of insurgents with basic military training, would there be over a thousand casualties on both sides?

Ideal Britain wrote:

Dtn wrote:Yes, they're free not to sign or ratify the Geneva Conventions as well.

You don't have to bold "not" every time you use it.

But the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions and its Optional Protocol prohibiting children under 18 from taking direct part in combat (such as in the infantry) is almost universally supported as well - certainly every country in your "Ideal Caliphate" is a signatory.

At this point OPAC would probably be recognized as customary international law, and CIL is rapidly moving towards the Straight-18 definition of child soldier.

Somalia, Mauritania, Lebanon, the UAE and Iran have not ratified the OPAC.
(https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org ... -protocol/)
Seeing as that leaves another 11 foreign countries they can argue it’s not CIL.

Do you think that's how it works lol?

Think about it for a moment. The importance of customary international law is that it's binding on countries who don't necessarily consent. If every single country in the entire world had to sign a treaty the concept wouldn't even exist!

Dtn wrote:

Ideal Britain wrote:Somalia, Mauritania, Lebanon, the UAE and Iran have not ratified the OPAC.
(https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org ... -protocol/)
Seeing as that leaves another 11 foreign countries they can argue it’s not CIL.

Do you think that's how it works lol?

Think about it for a moment. The importance of customary international law is that it's binding on countries who don't necessarily consent. If every single country in the entire world had to sign a treaty the concept wouldn't even exist!

More people ratified the Geneva conventions (194 vs 171)

Is there a strictly defined number before it becomes CIL?

Wow, I sure wasted a lot of time studying international human rights law at Oxford. If only I'd known all you had to do was check if a number was equal to 194.

Dtn wrote:Wow, I sure wasted a lot of time studying international human rights law at Oxford. If only I'd known all you had to do was check if a number was equal to 194.

I asked if there was a specific number. Is there one?

Ideal Britain wrote:Do infantrymen need to be able to read and write at all?

Yes. You need to be intelligent to not die. If you can't read and write you're probably a little too slow for the infantry. Or anything in the armed forces. Gone are the days when infantry are wasted in mass human waves and there's a lot more tactical theory that even your lower level privates should understand to some extent in case their squad leader or fireteam leader goes down. If someone is too slow to learn to read and write, they're too slow to understand tactical movement, room clearance and employment of machine guns.

Dayganistan wrote:

Ideal Britain wrote:Do infantrymen need to be able to read and write at all?

Yes. You need to be intelligent to not die. If you can't read and write you're probably a little too slow for the infantry. Or anything in the armed forces. Gone are the days when infantry are wasted in mass human waves and there's a lot more tactical theory that even your lower level privates should understand to some extent in case their squad leader or fireteam leader goes down. If someone is too slow to learn to read and write, they're too slow to understand tactical movement, room clearance and employment of machine guns.

What if it’s economic reasons rather than being slow that they can’t read or write?
(E.G. like might be the case in Mauritania, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq)

Ideal Britain wrote:

Dayganistan wrote:Yes. You need to be intelligent to not die. If you can't read and write you're probably a little too slow for the infantry. Or anything in the armed forces. Gone are the days when infantry are wasted in mass human waves and there's a lot more tactical theory that even your lower level privates should understand to some extent in case their squad leader or fireteam leader goes down. If someone is too slow to learn to read and write, they're too slow to understand tactical movement, room clearance and employment of machine guns.

What if it’s economic reasons rather than being slow that they can’t read or write?
(E.G. like might be the case in Mauritania, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq)

None of those armed forces are exactly known for their tactical genius and at least for Iraq and Afghanistan have extremely poor battlefield performance outside of a few elite units with higher recruitment standards that more than likely include being able to read and write. Can't comment on the others but I can't imagine they're much better.

Fun fact!
I found old timey Finnish armed forces career NCO school curricula that included general civics courses specifically to cover any gaps left in soldier's civilian education during decades when mandatory schooling wasn't as extensive as it's today.
Then again I guess if things were so bad that you couldn't read or write they probably didn't recruit you as paid soldier neither.

Ideal Britain wrote:

Dtn wrote:Wow, I sure wasted a lot of time studying international human rights law at Oxford. If only I'd known all you had to do was check if a number was equal to 194.

I asked if there was a specific number. Is there one?

Zero I guess?