NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Hypron]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

[Spirit of Hope]

It was never designed as a combat vehicle. It's used by airborne and light infantry units, yeah but that's because it is light enough to be dropped with them. Titanium is expensive and steel needs to be a bit thicker to provide the levels of armor protection you appear to want and would weigh a lot more. Plus the Humvee chassis and frame is steel while the body is aluminum specifically for the reason of saving weight.

It was designed to be used in a broad range of roles, including combat, which is why they mounted things like weapons on it and put infantry inside of it. Even if it was never designed for it, it's irrelevant as it's being widely used this way and it's ill suited for the purpose. The idea of keeping something in a rigid box based on a highly specific intended use is silly.

They put infantry in it so the infantry could get to the front line. They put weapons on it because it could carry weapons, and that would allow it to be more effective for various roles it was designed to be used in. It however was not intended to be a front line vehicle, or serve as a gun vehicle against an insurgency. That is the role it got pressed into, until armed forces could get MRAP's and other armored vehicles to replace it.

Titanium is only marginally more expensive than steel, depending on the time, sometimes as cheap as only 15% more expensive, and a 1/4 inch of AR-500 steel can stop most rifle rounds, including armor piercing rounds, at close range. The only exception as far as I know is incendiary armor piercing rounds or high explosive armor piercing rounds which are, rare in smaller calibers. There isn't really a weight advantage as kevlar is much weaker against high velocity or hardened rounds, and thus while good at absorbing energy, is bad at resisting penetration, which is why steel helmets are difficult to pierce with knives, but kevlar vest are not. The high hardness, flexibility and other mechanical properties makes it better suited for high velocity rounds, even if theoretically the MPA levels are lower. Humvees in their current configuration were found to be penetrated by armor piercing 7.62mm x 54mmR rounds, worsened by the fact that kevlar also weakens over time given that the layers will peal apart and that it degrades in UV, water, and heat, as well as to repeated impacts since kevlar sheers easily, where as steel and titanium succumb less to environmental stressors or being hit multiple times (except for rust in the case of some steels). For the same weight, steel likely would officer at least as good as protection as kevlar would. Aluminum is a good material and makes up the bulk of the humvee, but is also significantly weaker than steel or titanium, with medium grade aluminum comparable in capability to medium grade steel, but high grade aluminum nowhere near as capable as high grade steel. For example, the strongest aluminum materials have 700 MPA, where as AR-500 steel has 1500, and certain steels can get up to 2600. Moreover where as AR500 is much tougher, aluminum at these strength levels is very brittle, and quickly shatters, making it poor as armor. So, while steel is seen as heavier, for the same level of armor protection against higher velocity rounds, it actually is lighter weight, as the sheer strength of kevlar or aluminum is much lower. At around 400 square feet, it would only be about 4000 pounds to have a 1/4 inch of steel, which is sufficient to stop most armor piercing 7.62mm rounds, and probably an overestimate for how many square feet you would need to cover on a humvee; double this could potentially stop armor piercing .50 caliber rounds, but not HEIAP rounds. You would have to design the vehicle differently as you can't cast the material as easily as aluminum, and would need to bolt together sheets of metal.

Why not just use a stryker? Or a Bradley? Or a M113? Or any other armored vehicle you are turning the Humvee into? The Humvee isn't supposed to be a heavily armored fighting vehicle, the US armed forces have those. It is a light weight workhorse that can go most places, carrying a bunch of stuff, and if need be fought from.

[The Manticoran Empire]

It was never designed as a combat vehicle. It's used by airborne and light infantry units, yeah but that's because it is light enough to be dropped with them. Titanium is expensive and steel needs to be a bit thicker to provide the levels of armor protection you appear to want and would weigh a lot more. Plus the Humvee chassis and frame is steel while the body is aluminum specifically for the reason of saving weight.

It was designed to be used in a broad range of roles, including combat, which is why they mounted things like weapons on it and put infantry inside of it. Even if it was never designed for it, it's irrelevant as it's being widely used this way and it's ill suited for the purpose. The idea of keeping something in a rigid box based on a highly specific intended use is silly.

Titanium is only marginally more expensive than steel, depending on the time, sometimes as cheap as only 15% more expensive, and a 1/4 inch of AR-500 steel can stop most rifle rounds, including armor piercing rounds, at close range. The only exception as far as I know is incendiary armor piercing rounds or high explosive armor piercing rounds which are, rare in smaller calibers. There isn't really a weight advantage as kevlar is much weaker against high velocity or hardened rounds, and thus while good at absorbing energy, is bad at resisting penetration, which is why steel helmets are difficult to pierce with knives, but kevlar vest are not. The high hardness, flexibility and other mechanical properties makes it better suited for high velocity rounds, even if theoretically the MPA levels are lower. Humvees in their current configuration were found to be penetrated by armor piercing 7.62mm x 54mmR rounds, worsened by the fact that kevlar also weakens over time given that the layers will peal apart and that it degrades in UV, water, and heat, as well as to repeated impacts since kevlar sheers easily, where as steel and titanium succumb less to environmental stressors or being hit multiple times (except for rust in the case of some steels). For the same weight, steel likely would officer at least as good as protection as kevlar would. Aluminum is a good material and makes up the bulk of the humvee, but is also significantly weaker than steel or titanium, with medium grade aluminum comparable in capability to medium grade steel, but high grade aluminum nowhere near as capable as high grade steel. For example, the strongest aluminum materials have 700 MPA, where as AR-500 steel has 1500, and certain steels can get up to 2600. Moreover where as AR500 is much tougher, aluminum at these strength levels is very brittle, and quickly shatters, making it poor as armor. So, while steel is seen as heavier, for the same level of armor protection against higher velocity rounds, it actually is lighter weight, as the sheer strength of kevlar or aluminum is much lower. At around 400 square feet, it would only be about 4000 pounds to have a 1/4 inch of steel, which is sufficient to stop most armor piercing 7.62mm rounds, and probably an overestimate for how many square feet you would need to cover on a humvee; double this could potentially stop armor piercing .50 caliber rounds, but not HEIAP rounds. You would have to design the vehicle differently as you can't cast the material as easily as aluminum, and would need to bolt together sheets of metal.

You evidently don't understand the fact that WEIGHT MATTERS! The Humvee was a pile of junk after it got uparmored because the engine, transmission, drivetrain COULD NOT FUNCTION WITH THE EXTRA WEIGHT! The Humvee wasn't designed as a frontline combat vehicle but as a rear line vehicle. It can mount weapons because the military knows that it might have to defend itself.
Again, just because it can carry a machine gun DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Just because it keeps getting into firefights in Asymmetric Conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Neither of those justify making a vehicle that ALREADY cannot deal with the current armor packages without extensive modifications EVEN HEAVIER with steel, which is a LOT heavier than you think, or titanium which is A LOT more expensive than you think.

The base M998 Humvee has a GVWR of 7,700 pounds and a curb weight of 5,200 pounds. 4,000 pounds of steel armor makes it 9,200 pounds with NO cargo capability and absolutely shit handling. The Up Armored Humvees had to be redesigned into new variants because the standard drivetrain couldn't handle the weight. Basically you are taking the problem of the old Up Armored Humvees and making it WORSE. 3/8" thick AR500 steel weighs 15.31 pounds per square foot. So that is 6,124 pounds, not this 4,000 pounds you claim. Source.
In terms of armor protection, in order to stop 5.56mm NATO rounds, you need about 12mm to 18mm of RHA. Given that AR500 steel weighs 20.42 pounds per square foot at 1/2 inch thickness, you are now looking at 8,168 pounds for armor. Yet again, it is simply too heavy.

The humvee is made out of aluminum, so you wouldn't simply add armor to it so much as replace the existing aluminum with steel. You would redesign the frame to be made out of a different material. However, the up armored humvees are 10,000 pounds, and not the lighter weight they were originally designed it, meaning it would be approximately the same weight as what we use in the field.

Apparently you already forgot your surface area claim. Just because the uparmored humvees are 10,000 pounds does not mean your all steel Humvee will be. The basic curb weight is between 5,200 and 5,700 pounds. Adding up to 8,170 pounds of armor on top of that makes the Humvee now 13,370 to 13,870 pounds. Exactly how is this going to make the existing drivetrain issues any better? Do you comprehend the fact that ADDING WEIGHT TO A VEHICLE NOT DESIGNED FOR IT IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA!

[The Manticoran Empire]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

Look at most of Europe for your answer.

[Manokan Republic]

They're frequently used as front line combat vehicles, which is part of a growing problem. But that aside, it doesn't really matter as our primary losses have been from logistics troops, about 50%.

No, they're not being 'frequently used as front line combat vehicles'. That's a fallacy born from not understanding the inherent nature of the majority of engagements that happen involving them. They get engaged while involved in logistics and sustainment duties, such as escorting convoys of other logistics vehicles, or hauling out the meager minimum resources needed for a lone outpost or patrol. Just because you end up fending off a criminal, you don't become a police officer on the front-lines of fighting crime, it just makes you a victim of circumstance. As you even mentioned and disproved by writing, it's the logistics troops that are taking the brunt force/majority of these attacks and casualties because it's the weak spot in our operations in current hot spots around the globe and everyone knows it.

You're basically trying to debate semantics as I explained what I meant about the disappearing front lines and ironically you just acknowledged that. The concept of front line combat is evolving, since the term literally doesn't mean front line any more and just means those most heavily exposed to enemy fire.

Infantry Squads don't need those things organically though and they're already big enough as discovered by the US Army quite some time ago. It's really just a bit beyond the purview of their specialty, which is why you have specialists that you add in for patrols. While the 9-man squad is generally toted as being the standard, that's rarely the actual size of a squad on patrol... and here's why:

As explained to me a few years ago in BCT by my DS, a two tour veteran in Iraq and one time in Afghanistan with plenty of in-firefight experience to get across the ideas concisely enough- you have your standard 9-man team like you mentioned. That formation generally ends up looking scant like you were saying:

1) Squad Leader
2) Team Leader 1
- Rifleman
- SAW Gunner
- Ammo Bearer
3) Team Leader 2
- Rifleman
- Squad Designated Marksman
- Grenadier

Or something of this ilk. The TL's will, on patrol, break into their own individual units and operate independently on the field, leaving the SL to bound between them both or otherwise as he chooses which helps with maintaining operational flexibility. This, however, isn't all an infantry unit on patrol will be though, because the platoon will assign additional personnel as allotted by the Company. These personnel include (but are not limited to) JTAC's, FEO's, Medics, and additional firepower roles like additional ammo bearers, machine-gunners, and grenadiers.

I'm sure you've been keeping track though, and yes... the numbers generally add up to the patrol squad composition being roughly ten-to-eleven soldiers. This means you can generally have three fireteams at all times of at least three individuals, operating on the battlefield. The lead fireteam is usually the one with the heaviest weaponry because you use that to suppress any contact you come across, the middle fireteam being the command element with the bounding personnel, who will move up to also aid in suppressing enemy contact when it is found, and the rearmost element which consists of your precision killers and flankers trained to scoot around the enemy's flanks and engage from their least protected side.

This is my point, which is that in practical field terms soldiers are not actually operating in the 9 man squads, but doctrinally soldiers are still being trained and treated this way. This will need to change to reflect actual combat conditions, which currently they do not. So while in theory the idea is that we are operating in squads with APC's, in reality we are operating in fireteams with humvees and it appears logistics and command has yet to actually catch up. The reality in the field seems completely different to what's on paper, which is obviously a problem.

Front lines are not an archaic idea in modern combat. What you're mistaking for warfare is COIN operations. For examples of front-lines where people have a general idea of where the enemy is in force, see the fighting done between the Ukraine and the Russian Ultranationalists in the Donbass, or the Syrians in their civil war. In both of those situations, you can see clear divisions in the land between held, and uncontrolled territory. In Afghanistan where the enemy lost the war, but still has some means to resist, we see them embedded amongst the local populace and carrying out insurgent activity which negates the idea of a front-line in and of itself (AFAIK).

Because there is no front line, because the enemy in Afghanistan is not an organized nation-state or entity (but rather a homegrown terrorist and insurgent movement), logistics and sustainment operations can be regularly challenged and engaged by said insurgents. On the other hand, in relatively larger conflicts between somewhat more organized forces, we can see front-lines where enemy activity is stopped in force.

[/quote]
Front lines are not a real thing, as there is no actual front line like in WWI or WWII with the battle of the bulge and the like, it's just just a term that reflects those that are under the heaviest of enemy fire. Even arbitrary designations like an area being under the control of the U.S. or insurgent is not particularly accurate, as insurgents rarely have complete control over the territory they say they do, as do the U.S., with U.S. forces being more likely to be engaged within their own territory from things like IED's or mines than enemy held territory. Even when we say an area is controlled by a particular group, that still is arbitriary, as enforcement of rules may vary and the local populace may not even feel the effect at all. Even when lines are drawn on a map to represent controlled territory it's not really accurate. This what I mean by the idea of a front line being archaic, and front line being used more so just as a description to who is under the most intense enemy fire.

[Manokan Republic]

You evidently don't understand the fact that WEIGHT MATTERS! The Humvee was a pile of junk after it got uparmored because the engine, transmission, drivetrain COULD NOT FUNCTION WITH THE EXTRA WEIGHT! The Humvee wasn't designed as a frontline combat vehicle but as a rear line vehicle. It can mount weapons because the military knows that it might have to defend itself.
Again, just because it can carry a machine gun DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Just because it keeps getting into firefights in Asymmetric Conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Neither of those justify making a vehicle that ALREADY cannot deal with the current armor packages without extensive modifications EVEN HEAVIER with steel, which is a LOT heavier than you think, or titanium which is A LOT more expensive than you think.

Apparently you already forgot your surface area claim. Just because the uparmored humvees are 10,000 pounds does not mean your all steel Humvee will be. The basic curb weight is between 5,200 and 5,700 pounds. Adding up to 8,170 pounds of armor on top of that makes the Humvee now 13,370 to 13,870 pounds. Exactly how is this going to make the existing drivetrain issues any better? Do you comprehend the fact that ADDING WEIGHT TO A VEHICLE NOT DESIGNED FOR IT IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA!

I just told you that the humvee's curb weight includes existing aluminum armor and kevlar which you would presumably replace with new armor. It's like telling me that you would need to add another 50 tons of armor to an M1 abrams to replace it's current armor; you, when you make something out of a new material, don't have to keep the old material. You don't need to add armor on top of existing armor, you would replace it. Also adding weight to a vehicle can be fine if the engine can still handle it.

[Spirit of Hope]

Front lines are not a real thing, as there is no actual front line like in WWI or WWII with the battle of the bulge and the like, it's just just a term that reflects those that are under the heaviest of enemy fire. Even arbitrary designations like an area being under the control of the U.S. or insurgent is not particularly accurate, as insurgents rarely have complete control over the territory they say they do, as do the U.S., with U.S. forces being more likely to be engaged within their own territory from things like IED's or mines than enemy held territory. Even when we say an area is controlled by a particular group, that still is arbitriary, as enforcement of rules may vary and the local populace may not even feel the effect at all. Even when lines are drawn on a map to represent controlled territory it's not really accurate. This what I mean by the idea of a front line being archaic, and front line being used more so just as a description to who is under the most intense enemy fire.

Front lines are a very real thing, they were during Dessert Storm, the Invasion of Iraq, currently exist in places like Ukraine and Syria, and will exist as forces engage each other in the future.

You are correct in that a clear "front line" that people often envision for themselves doesn't exist, where troops on both sides exist with a no mans land in between. But it didn't exist in WWII, and it didn't exist for all the time in WWI (and not just the beginning).

The front line is a malleable and fluid line that exists between the major combat forces of two armies. It is malleable because both sides will be attempting to penetrate it by various means (airborne, heleborne, special forces, amphibious operations, etc). It is fluid because both side will be maneuvering their forces for an advantage, you may move forward to find the enemy is advancing as well, or advance and find the enemy has already retreated. You may advance and find you have broken through, or otherwise entreated the enemies rear, they may have done that to you. The defender, unless he is an idiot, won't have all of his forces lined up right on the front, but instead have screening forces backed by more heavily entrenched forces behind.

However the enemy can not be to deep in your rear, because they need logistical support just as much as you do. Troops who can't eat will eventually die, and those who can't get ammo won't do much fighting.

In reality the front is grey, but gets black or white rapidly as you move away from it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

You evidently don't understand the fact that WEIGHT MATTERS! The Humvee was a pile of junk after it got uparmored because the engine, transmission, drivetrain COULD NOT FUNCTION WITH THE EXTRA WEIGHT! The Humvee wasn't designed as a frontline combat vehicle but as a rear line vehicle. It can mount weapons because the military knows that it might have to defend itself.
Again, just because it can carry a machine gun DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Just because it keeps getting into firefights in Asymmetric Conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan DOES NOT MAKE IT A COMBAT VEHICLE! Neither of those justify making a vehicle that ALREADY cannot deal with the current armor packages without extensive modifications EVEN HEAVIER with steel, which is a LOT heavier than you think, or titanium which is A LOT more expensive than you think.

Apparently you already forgot your surface area claim. Just because the uparmored humvees are 10,000 pounds does not mean your all steel Humvee will be. The basic curb weight is between 5,200 and 5,700 pounds. Adding up to 8,170 pounds of armor on top of that makes the Humvee now 13,370 to 13,870 pounds. Exactly how is this going to make the existing drivetrain issues any better? Do you comprehend the fact that ADDING WEIGHT TO A VEHICLE NOT DESIGNED FOR IT IS NEVER A GOOD IDEA!

I just told you that the humvee's curb weight includes existing aluminum armor and kevlar which you would presumably replace with new armor. It's like telling me that you would need to add another 50 tons of armor to an M1 abrams to replace it's current armor; you, when you make something out of a new material, don't have to keep the old material. You don't need to add armor on top of existing armor, you would replace it. Also adding weight to a vehicle can be fine if the engine can still handle it.

So you drop the weight by MAYBE a whole 3,000 pounds. It still weighs more than the vehicle's drive train can handle. A fact that you are conveniently ignoring. The M1151, the Uparmored Humvee, weighs 8,150 pounds. That is LESS than the ARMOR PACKAGE ALONE that you just suggested. Compare that to about 3,000 pounds for the existing Humvee's aluminum shell. So congratulations, you went from 8,150 pounds to 10,549 pounds.

[The Manticoran Empire]

No, they're not being 'frequently used as front line combat vehicles'. That's a fallacy born from not understanding the inherent nature of the majority of engagements that happen involving them. They get engaged while involved in logistics and sustainment duties, such as escorting convoys of other logistics vehicles, or hauling out the meager minimum resources needed for a lone outpost or patrol. Just because you end up fending off a criminal, you don't become a police officer on the front-lines of fighting crime, it just makes you a victim of circumstance. As you even mentioned and disproved by writing, it's the logistics troops that are taking the brunt force/majority of these attacks and casualties because it's the weak spot in our operations in current hot spots around the globe and everyone knows it.

You're basically trying to debate semantics as I explained what I meant about the disappearing front lines and ironically you just acknowledged that. The concept of front line combat is evolving, since the term literally doesn't mean front line any more and just means those most heavily exposed to enemy fire.

Infantry Squads don't need those things organically though and they're already big enough as discovered by the US Army quite some time ago. It's really just a bit beyond the purview of their specialty, which is why you have specialists that you add in for patrols. While the 9-man squad is generally toted as being the standard, that's rarely the actual size of a squad on patrol... and here's why:

As explained to me a few years ago in BCT by my DS, a two tour veteran in Iraq and one time in Afghanistan with plenty of in-firefight experience to get across the ideas concisely enough- you have your standard 9-man team like you mentioned. That formation generally ends up looking scant like you were saying:

1) Squad Leader
2) Team Leader 1
- Rifleman
- SAW Gunner
- Ammo Bearer
3) Team Leader 2
- Rifleman
- Squad Designated Marksman
- Grenadier

Or something of this ilk. The TL's will, on patrol, break into their own individual units and operate independently on the field, leaving the SL to bound between them both or otherwise as he chooses which helps with maintaining operational flexibility. This, however, isn't all an infantry unit on patrol will be though, because the platoon will assign additional personnel as allotted by the Company. These personnel include (but are not limited to) JTAC's, FEO's, Medics, and additional firepower roles like additional ammo bearers, machine-gunners, and grenadiers.

I'm sure you've been keeping track though, and yes... the numbers generally add up to the patrol squad composition being roughly ten-to-eleven soldiers. This means you can generally have three fireteams at all times of at least three individuals, operating on the battlefield. The lead fireteam is usually the one with the heaviest weaponry because you use that to suppress any contact you come across, the middle fireteam being the command element with the bounding personnel, who will move up to also aid in suppressing enemy contact when it is found, and the rearmost element which consists of your precision killers and flankers trained to scoot around the enemy's flanks and engage from their least protected side.

This is my point, which is that in practical field terms soldiers are not actually operating in the 9 man squads, but doctrinally soldiers are still being trained and treated this way. This will need to change to reflect actual combat conditions, which currently they do not. So while in theory the idea is that we are operating in squads with APC's, in reality we are operating in fireteams with humvees and it appears logistics and command has yet to actually catch up. The reality in the field seems completely different to what's on paper, which is obviously a problem.

Front lines are not an archaic idea in modern combat. What you're mistaking for warfare is COIN operations. For examples of front-lines where people have a general idea of where the enemy is in force, see the fighting done between the Ukraine and the Russian Ultranationalists in the Donbass, or the Syrians in their civil war. In both of those situations, you can see clear divisions in the land between held, and uncontrolled territory. In Afghanistan where the enemy lost the war, but still has some means to resist, we see them embedded amongst the local populace and carrying out insurgent activity which negates the idea of a front-line in and of itself (AFAIK).

Because there is no front line, because the enemy in Afghanistan is not an organized nation-state or entity (but rather a homegrown terrorist and insurgent movement), logistics and sustainment operations can be regularly challenged and engaged by said insurgents. On the other hand, in relatively larger conflicts between somewhat more organized forces, we can see front-lines where enemy activity is stopped in force.

Front lines are not a real thing, as there is no actual front line like in WWI or WWII with the battle of the bulge and the like, it's just just a term that reflects those that are under the heaviest of enemy fire. Even arbitrary designations like an area being under the control of the U.S. or insurgent is not particularly accurate, as insurgents rarely have complete control over the territory they say they do, as do the U.S., with U.S. forces being more likely to be engaged within their own territory from things like IED's or mines than enemy held territory. Even when we say an area is controlled by a particular group, that still is arbitriary, as enforcement of rules may vary and the local populace may not even feel the effect at all. Even when lines are drawn on a map to represent controlled territory it's not really accurate. This what I mean by the idea of a front line being archaic, and front line being used more so just as a description to who is under the most intense enemy fire.[/quote]
You seem incapable of differentiating between the conventional warfare that most militaries designed their equipment for and the unconventional guerrilla wars of the last 20 years.

[Special Aromas]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

Really good diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries.

[Allanea]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

No meaningful military force can be fielded.

[Unless you mean your nation's military has under 100,000 men].

Realistically, a country with a population this small can have, at best, a police force + a tiny coast guard patrol force.

The only way it can retain national sovereignty is have peaceful allies that simultaneously have no interest in invading it, and have the ability to protect it from foreign forces, or be somewhere remote and miserable, like some Pacific island statelets.

[Austrasien]

The tanks are simply meant to prevent an enemy from overrunning infantry positions.

Although I must admit that my tanks SACLOS missile systems are inferior, despite every tank being fitted with missile boxes, many of them are defective or just for show.

What does the tank actually add here? It isn't armour, because as you established its armour sucks. It isn't speed because it's a Sherman. We return to the basic fact that if the same missiles were fired from the back of a truck or an infantry tripod it would do the same thing. It actually detracts from the launchers survivability because it has a large silhouette.

The whole FCS, and gun issue could be solved by replacing the whole turret, which isn't too much of a deal since the M4-style of design is mostly hull.

New turrets did not help the Chieftain/Challenger/Challenger 2, T-80/T-84 or T-72/T-90/T-90M. They improved yes, but they are still notably inferior to newer tanks like the M1 and Leopard 2 in accuracy and speed of engagement. Consider the Chieftain/Challenger series:

• When the Chieftain originally squared off against the Leopard 2 in the Canadian Army trophy, it was well matched with the contemporary Leopard but completely inferior to the Leopard 2 when it debuted.
• When the Challenger debuted in the Canadian Army Trophy against the Leopard 2 and M1 (which were well matched in that competition), it was inferior to both. So much so that it was withdrawn from the competition - the main defect was the speed & accuracy of shooting.
• The Challenger 2 was rejected by the Swedish Army based on the request for information, while the Leopard 2, M1 and Leclerc advanced to trials which the Leopard 2 won and the M1 came in second. Both tanks had excellent results in the gunnery tests.
• The Challenger 2 competed in the Greek tank trials... which produced exactly the same results as the Swedish: Leopard 2 came in first, M1 a close second and the Leclerc a more distant third. The Challenger 2 again shot very poorly, about on level with the T-84 and T-80UE. Both of which also derive from a tank originally designed in the 60s.
• The Oplot nee T-84 returned to the NATO cup (the resurrection of the Canadian Army Trophy) and again was soundly thrashed by competitors in various models of Leopard 2. It had problems with the shooting!

The distance between the Chieftain and Challenger 2, or T-64 and T-84, is huge in terms of what has changed. Pretty much no parts of the original vehicles remain. But in spite of all this work, they have never been able to close the gap with the newer vehicles. They shot relatively badly in the 80s, in the 90s, in the 00s and in the 10s they are still shooting badly compared to their peers.

I won't argue that the tanks are slow, but there can be different reasons to why a nation doesn't just simply import the latest tanks.

If you are going to accept tanks that are deficient at everything you may as well take the plunge and accept not having any tanks at all. Saves even more money. In the post-1973 world, it is not necessary to have tanks simply to repel tanks. The infantry is quite capable of defending against tank attacks provided they have sufficiently capable anti-tank missiles.

[The United Capital of Adam]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

If you are fielding about 100,000 men, then you must be prepared to spend a large sum of money on extensive training and guns. In your circumstance, 'ammunition is cheap but lives are not'. Invest heavily into artillery, aircraft, and fortifications. You need not beat them, merely outlast them and frustrate them to the point where they decide that you are more trouble than it's worth.
Use guerilla tactics. Strike at night, strike from hiding. Never, ever get into a direct engagement if you can avoid it unless you are in a massively well-defended location with multiple contingency plans in case of high-explosives/swarm-tactics/ect that could overwhelm you.
I'm not a religious man, but the tactics of Gideon ring true: If you can use a large fighting forces lack of organization against them, you can accomplish much while risking very little.

[Danternoust]

Don't be dependent on globalization.
Because your enemy can just blockade and siege you.

which produced exactly the same results as the Swedish

Any specific statistics?

[Danternoust]

After some thought, I've been convinced.

My army will use the following tanks: SK-105, Strv 103, and the PT-76.
All the Strv 103 will be modified to use the 120mm L/55 tank gun.
Half of all PT-76 will be modified to use the 57 mm BM-57 autocannon to fight enemy IFVs.
Many PT-76 will be modified for non-amphibious operation.

My nation will also use the Fahd personnel carrier and the Saurer APC for troop transport.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You can't put the 120 L/55 on the Strv 103. It's physically impossible because the gun assembly is bigger than the fighting compartment. You would need to remove the autoloader, the magazines and house the gun breech in an extended bustle out in the back. It's also armoured like tissue paper.

[Danternoust]

You can't put the 120 L/55 on the Strv 103. It's physically impossible because the gun assembly is bigger than the fighting compartment. You would need to remove the autoloader, the magazines and house the gun breech in an extended bustle out in the back. It's also armoured like tissue paper.

I see, it would require modifications to the hull.
I'll use the IMI 120 mm gun, it was used to upgrade Patton tanks, although I'm sure it isn't without downsides.
Edit: Or on second thought, I'll rebarrel the 105mm gun to 106mm, make it smoothbore, and increase chamber pressure by 10%.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

h u m a n w a v e t a c t i c s

[Purpelia]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

Rule 1 of warfare. If your opponent can field more soldiers than you have population you're screwed.

[Greater Kazar]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

If you are fielding about 100,000 men, then you must be prepared to spend a large sum of money on extensive training and guns. In your circumstance, 'ammunition is cheap but lives are not'. Invest heavily into artillery, aircraft, and fortifications. You need not beat them, merely outlast them and frustrate them to the point where they decide that you are more trouble than it's worth.
Use guerilla tactics. Strike at night, strike from hiding. Never, ever get into a direct engagement if you can avoid it unless you are in a massively well-defended location with multiple contingency plans in case of high-explosives/swarm-tactics/ect that could overwhelm you.
I'm not a religious man, but the tactics of Gideon ring true: If you can use a large fighting forces lack of organization against them, you can accomplish much while risking very little.

Consider the following as possible models: Canada, Poland or Jordan. All have militaries in the 100K range.

[Crookfur]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

At its most simple a doctrine is simply a statement of what your nation needs/wants its military to do and thus depends on your nation's scenario, needs and threats.

Sort that out and the next level is to add the broad strokes of how your military intends to do what is demanded of it.

Then start down the doctrine rabbit hole where your "doctrine" comprises several books worth of stuff. As such it's not something to worry overly about as whilst having some kind of basic idea of what military needs to do and how it plans on doing it set down is nice it's hardly nessecary and doesn't give you anything.
It's not like a strategy game where choosing doctrine: armoured fist gives you +5 tank skill and free upgrades rather it's a part of your nation's story.

[Gallia-]

What would be a good military doctrine for a country with under 100,000 men, but with modern equipment and technology?

Rule 1 of warfare. If your opponent can field more soldiers than you have population you're screwed.

>Purp
>history

The only times this has ever happened in the modern era the smaller countries won lol.

[Imperializt Russia]

You can't put the 120 L/55 on the Strv 103. It's physically impossible because the gun assembly is bigger than the fighting compartment. You would need to remove the autoloader, the magazines and house the gun breech in an extended bustle out in the back. It's also armoured like tissue paper.

I see, it would require modifications to the hull.
I'll use the IMI 120 mm gun, it was used to upgrade Patton tanks, although I'm sure it isn't without downsides.
Edit: Or on second thought, I'll rebarrel the 105mm gun to 106mm, make it smoothbore, and increase chamber pressure by 10%.

The Patton (and all US tanks) have been abnormally roomy. They do have the space to accommodate the larger breeches and assemblies of larger guns. After all, the Israelis shoehorned a 105mm gun into M4s (albeit very squashed).

If you were to bore out a 105mm rifled gun, you'd probably arrive at a smoothbore in the region of 107-110mm calibre.
106mm isn't a real calibre - it's been used on recoilless rifles to prevent confusion with conventional 105mm ammunition. The 106mm RR is a 105mm rifled weapon.

[Prosorusiya]

So, I am plotting a bit of a shake up in my nations aviation, and want some advice on transport assets. So, if y'all aren't familiar my nation is greatly based on the old USSR, so my national airline is ocassionally called upon to support the military. Now, my airforce has a transport squadron, mainly Mi-8 helicopters, but it also has an An-12 & An-26. So my national airline is divesting itself of some older passenger aircraft (Tu-154s), which will generate some spare change and also reduce the size of the fleet. I am wondering if I ought to convert my Air Force's transport squadron solely to helicopters, and let my national airline take over operation of my fixed wing transport aircraft? I suppose they could still retain duel Military & Civil titles, only difference being that they'd be crewed by civilians and based out of civilian facilities? Thoughts\opinions on this?

[The Akasha Colony]

I see, it would require modifications to the hull.
I'll use the IMI 120 mm gun, it was used to upgrade Patton tanks, although I'm sure it isn't without downsides.
Edit: Or on second thought, I'll rebarrel the 105mm gun to 106mm, make it smoothbore, and increase chamber pressure by 10%.

M60 Patton is basically the roomiest main battle tank ever built. It doesn't say anything about a gun's compactness if it can be mounted in a Patton.

The Patton (and all US tanks) have been abnormally roomy. They do have the space to accommodate the larger breeches and assemblies of larger guns. After all, the Israelis shoehorned a 105mm gun into M4s (albeit very squashed).

It should also be noted that this was the French CN-105-57 not the British RO 105 mm. This gun was notably shorter and less powerful than the British gun despite having the same caliber.