NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

Hey guys, I'm not the best armchair general out there, but I'd like to get some advice if y'all have the patience. I suppose my first question has to do with how you fight in unforgiving/impassable terrain. Let's take some of the most remote regions of the world - mountains, rainforests, whatever, with little to no pre-existing roads. How do you attack a position in (or past) such an area? Are there specialized vehicles meant to go through there? How do you supply your people? And what about defending?

Why are you attacking that? Just ignore it.

Wait for them to come out and kill them. No one can live in a rainforest forever and still be a threat. They'd have to come out sometime. Or they don't and they turn into some Amazon indigenous tribe, or Tibetans, or whatever. Then they're harmless.

[Spirit of Hope]

Hey guys, I'm not the best armchair general out there, but I'd like to get some advice if y'all have the patience. I suppose my first question has to do with how you fight in unforgiving/impassable terrain. Let's take some of the most remote regions of the world - mountains, rainforests, whatever, with little to no pre-existing roads. How do you attack a position in (or past) such an area? Are there specialized vehicles meant to go through there? How do you supply your people? And what about defending?

As Austria-Bohemia-Hungery alludes to, you generally don't fight in remote areas without roads because there isn't really anything worth fighting for. Roads aren't particularly hard to build either, so if there is a remote or inhospitable location you think is worth garrisoning, then you would generally build a road and any other infrastructure you need. Airports, both for airplanes and helicopters, can also be built to supply a location that is to remote for even roads, but airplanes and helicopters are rather inefficient at transportation of bulk goods needed to keep a military force fighting.

[Nootka Coast]

Hey guys, I'm not the best armchair general out there, but I'd like to get some advice if y'all have the patience. I suppose my first question has to do with how you fight in unforgiving/impassable terrain. Let's take some of the most remote regions of the world - mountains, rainforests, whatever, with little to no pre-existing roads. How do you attack a position in (or past) such an area? Are there specialized vehicles meant to go through there? How do you supply your people? And what about defending?

Why are you attacking that? Just ignore it.

Wait for them to come out and kill them. No one can live in a rainforest forever and still be a threat. They'd have to come out sometime. Or they don't and they turn into some Amazon indigenous tribe, or Tibetans, or whatever. Then they're harmless.

It's not what's in the trees, it's what's on the other side. In my specific case, I'm based on the west coast of Vancouver island, and want to conquer Victoria, with a load of temperate rainforest in the way. For post-apocalyptic reasons we have no navy to speak of, nor do any roads lead from our bases to the city.

[Crookfur]

How could a secessionist Northumbria quickly win a war against the British state?

By going hell for leather down the m1/a1.

Anything else means you get bombed to shit but if you force the Lincolnshire bases out of the picture and can reach London you have something resembling a chance.

But of course given the long and complicated history of these sceptred Isles the biggest issue is where is the point of divergence and how would that have changed the infinite other things.

A movement starting today would go nowhere and best case scenario you end up with some kind of deal between an independent Scotland, England and some form of Northumbria thats given up any claim to anything north of the tweed.

[Gallia-]

Why are you attacking that? Just ignore it.

Wait for them to come out and kill them. No one can live in a rainforest forever and still be a threat. They'd have to come out sometime. Or they don't and they turn into some Amazon indigenous tribe, or Tibetans, or whatever. Then they're harmless.

It's not what's in the trees, it's what's on the other side. In my specific case, I'm based on the west coast of Vancouver island, and want to conquer Victoria, with a load of temperate rainforest in the way. For post-apocalyptic reasons we have no navy to speak of, nor do any roads lead from our bases to the city.

You just get in longships and sail over there what obstacles are you talking about?

If you have trees around you have a navy lmao.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

How could a secessionist Northumbria quickly win a war against the British state?

What forces do the secessionists have, what forces do the loyalists have, who is supporting who, etc?

Given the current climate I find it unlikely a real succession movement would succeed in Northumbria.

The secessionists have the support of the vast majority of the North, but no actual 'forces'. The loyalists have the British Army, but the year is 2050 or something and they're currently in the Congo fighting a war. No external support.

[Gallia-]

London wins automatically by threatening to cut off the pensions and fuel subsidies of the oldsters.

[Ideal Britain]

What forces do the secessionists have, what forces do the loyalists have, who is supporting who, etc?

Given the current climate I find it unlikely a real succession movement would succeed in Northumbria.

The secessionists have the support of the vast majority of the North, but no actual 'forces'. The loyalists have the British Army, but the year is 2050 or something and they're currently in the Congo fighting a war. No external support.

What do you mean by "external support"?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

How could a secessionist Northumbria quickly win a war against the British state?

By going hell for leather down the m1/a1.

Anything else means you get bombed to shit but if you force the Lincolnshire bases out of the picture and can reach London you have something resembling a chance.

But of course given the long and complicated history of these sceptred Isles the biggest issue is where is the point of divergence and how would that have changed the infinite other things.

A movement starting today would go nowhere and best case scenario you end up with some kind of deal between an independent Scotland, England and some form of Northumbria thats given up any claim to anything north of the tweed.

Point of divergence is in the future. I have the following assumptions about the setting from Ideal Britain's previous posts:

• military training is compulsory
• the far-right is increasingly militant and concentrated in Yorkshire, South Wales, and Essex
• the British Army has Pakistani and Indian regiments
• there are seven "Hong Kong Regiments"
• firearms units have RPGs
• the military is willing to shoot civilian protesters on its own soil (see here)

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Do armies with peacetime conscription have all conscript units which have their enlisted members almost entirely replaced fairly often? Would all units have conscripted personnel assigned for fairly short amounts of time, or is there a compromise?

[Ideal Britain]

By going hell for leather down the m1/a1.

Anything else means you get bombed to shit but if you force the Lincolnshire bases out of the picture and can reach London you have something resembling a chance.

But of course given the long and complicated history of these sceptred Isles the biggest issue is where is the point of divergence and how would that have changed the infinite other things.

A movement starting today would go nowhere and best case scenario you end up with some kind of deal between an independent Scotland, England and some form of Northumbria thats given up any claim to anything north of the tweed.

Point of divergence is in the future. I have the following assumptions about the setting from Ideal Britain's previous posts:

• military training is compulsory
• the far-right is increasingly militant and concentrated in Yorkshire, South Wales, and Essex
• the British Army has Pakistani and Indian regiments
• there are seven "Hong Kong Regiments"
• firearms units have RPGs
• the military is willing to shoot civilian protesters on its own soil (see here)

They were rioters not protesters.
They obstructed a lawful arrest, assaulted someone and massively escalated things.

[Crookfur]

By going hell for leather down the m1/a1.

Anything else means you get bombed to shit but if you force the Lincolnshire bases out of the picture and can reach London you have something resembling a chance.

But of course given the long and complicated history of these sceptred Isles the biggest issue is where is the point of divergence and how would that have changed the infinite other things.

A movement starting today would go nowhere and best case scenario you end up with some kind of deal between an independent Scotland, England and some form of Northumbria thats given up any claim to anything north of the tweed.

Point of divergence is in the future. I have the following assumptions about the setting from Ideal Britain's previous posts:

• military training is compulsory
• the far-right is increasingly militant and concentrated in Yorkshire, South Wales, and Essex
• the British Army has Pakistani and Indian regiments
• there are seven "Hong Kong Regiments"
• firearms units have RPGs
• the military is willing to shoot civilian protesters on its own soil (see here)

Well obviously there is no quick resolution or victory to be had, just a long a bloody struggle that makes the troubles look like happy fun times or an even longer and excessively boring political quest that doesn't have braveheart, tartan, shortbread, a massive chip on your shoulder or an already separate legal system to bouy things along.

Really this is the sort of shit you and Sharon should be sorting out in private discussions and trying to cooperate over instead of just looking for others the referee your pissing matches.

[Spirit of Hope]

Point of divergence is in the future. I have the following assumptions about the setting from Ideal Britain's previous posts:

• military training is compulsory
• the far-right is increasingly militant and concentrated in Yorkshire, South Wales, and Essex
• the British Army has Pakistani and Indian regiments
• there are seven "Hong Kong Regiments"
• firearms units have RPGs
• the military is willing to shoot civilian protesters on its own soil (see here)

They were rioters not protesters.
They obstructed a lawful arrest, assaulted someone and massively escalated things.

Not the place to argue about your RP, people who want to can read the thread and make up their own minds about the situation.

Do armies with peacetime conscription have all conscript units which have their enlisted members almost entirely replaced fairly often? Would all units have conscripted personnel assigned for fairly short amounts of time, or is there a compromise?

Some do, though most of your NCOs and officers aren't going to be conscripts and will be sticking around. High turnover amongst the lower enlisted isn't going to be a huge issue so long as the unit keeps training together. If you want to mix volunteers and conscripts in the same unit you can.

[The New California Republic]

Do armies with peacetime conscription have all conscript units which have their enlisted members almost entirely replaced fairly often? Would all units have conscripted personnel assigned for fairly short amounts of time, or is there a compromise?

It can do. One of the issues that Warsaw Pact conscript armies found was that as the equipment became more complex it became harder to train really proficient crews in the length of national service allotted, so the likes of the GDR had a half-and-half setup, so that equipment proficiency could remain high via the career soldiers while maintaining one and a half year service time for conscripts.

[Triplebaconation]

By going hell for leather down the m1/a1.

Anything else means you get bombed to shit but if you force the Lincolnshire bases out of the picture and can reach London you have something resembling a chance.

But of course given the long and complicated history of these sceptred Isles the biggest issue is where is the point of divergence and how would that have changed the infinite other things.

A movement starting today would go nowhere and best case scenario you end up with some kind of deal between an independent Scotland, England and some form of Northumbria thats given up any claim to anything north of the tweed.

Point of divergence is in the future. I have the following assumptions about the setting from Ideal Britain's previous posts:

• military training is compulsory
• the far-right is increasingly militant and concentrated in Yorkshire, South Wales, and Essex
• the British Army has Pakistani and Indian regiments
• there are seven "Hong Kong Regiments"
• firearms units have RPGs
• the military is willing to shoot civilian protesters on its own soil (see here)

Wow. That's a spectacularly bad rp, from the king handing over the throne to a rioter/informant to the bogged-down Diet Pepsi subplot. You don't need advice on "military realism," you need advice on basic human nature and some form of narrative that isn't completely random.

[Gallia-]

Are they declaring independence because Prince Bloomberg, Duke of York is trying to steal their 128 centiliter diet cokes Pepsi?

[Nationalist Northumbria]

That's a spectacularly bad rp, from the king handing over the throne to a rioter/informant

Personally I thought that bit was great.

to the bogged-down Diet Pepsi subplot.

What subplot?

[Kazarogkai]

Do armies with peacetime conscription have all conscript units which have their enlisted members almost entirely replaced fairly often? Would all units have conscripted personnel assigned for fairly short amounts of time, or is there a compromise?

It can do. One of the issues that Warsaw Pact conscript armies found was that as the equipment became more complex it became harder to train really proficient crews in the length of national service allotted, so the likes of the GDR had a half-and-half setup, so that equipment proficiency could remain high via the career soldiers while maintaining one and a half year service time for conscripts.

Came up with a somewhat similar system In an RP I played in it was a sorta 1/1/1 system consisting of a mixture of Conscripts(known as Hastati), Professionals(known as Legionaries), and Allotment Soldiers(known as Hoplites) with the peacetime military composed of a ratio of 1/3 each. All men upon completing their education started off as Hastati, depending on their education though they might be set on one of three tracks. Primary School Graduates went on to become regular enlisted, Secondary School Graduates would go on to become a mix of NCOs/Specialist unless they completed War Academy in which case they would get to be Junior Field Officers in training; and finally University Graduates would be slotted for the General Staff for staff officer work. Upon completing their 2 years of service all men were given the option to join the military as Legionaries aka full time professional soldiers or join the Militia as Hoplites where they would serve in the reserves with occasional part time service required in peacetime. To add further on the latter Hoplites during peacetime were organized into what were known as Blocks of 12 households which served not only as a way to administer the system but also as a basic military and political organization. Going from that, all men in the Block were required to occasionally engage in retraining exercises on a seasonal basis to retain their skills in addition to this one man out of the 12 would be required to serve for a period of about 6 months as a standing soldier within a Militia Unit on a rotational basis with all members of a given block being required to serve over a 6 year period of time. This service lasted until said men reached the age of 40 at which point while still being required to occasionally retrain, with said retaining being reduced from 4 to 2 times a year, they were no longer required to go through the rotational call up system. Further upon reaching the age of 60 men were allowed to retire entirely from the Militia/military for good and be recognized as elders.

In addition to the three mentioned soldier types: Hoplites, Legionaries, and Hastati their were also 3 other important soldier types to keep in mind. Those being Crusaders who were in effect volunteer Pioneer-soldiers of sorts who were raised as mix Indian hunting units and armed settlers setting up forts and forcefully converting or if need be displacing local native groups in the nations western wilderness in exchange for yeoman plots of land in areas they conquered. Think Siberian Cossacks if you will. Finally one must mention the two Auxiliaries units: Maroon Auxiliaries and Native Scouts. The former were derived from ex slaves who fled from Neighboring lands and granted their freedom and land in exchange for military service in the various Maroon Garrisons stationed mostly in the Nation's Borderlands for protection from incursions from hostile neighbors. The latter from conquered Native Tribesmen who after being converted to Christianity, largely by force, made to swear fealty unto the nation and organized into Praying Communes were largely allowed to retain their traditional ways within said Communes and even kept much of their traditional lands. Providing of course said land had been agriculturally cultivated lands hence traditional hunting grounds and the like didn't count as such were seized to be distributed to settlers. In "exchange" for this fair bit Semi-Autonomy within their Communes said Praying Indians were required to provide tribute most notably in the form of Native Scouts which were essential in the Nation's early Military System.

As time went on all 3 of the latter unit types ultimately became consolidated into the former for various historical reasons. In the case of the Crusaders it was due to the loss of further westward expansion as a result of the conclusion of the 1810-1815 Border Wars which fixed and had recognized their borders preventing significant later border disputes at the cost of the loss of the aforementioned. With the close of the Native Wars and with it the destruction of the last bands of Free Indians in the 1830s obsolescence and subsequent extinction were assured. The Auxileries in contrast in both cases were steadily diminished as a result of a steady loss of autonomy and integration into the greater national fabric the end result was they ultimately got dissolved with their members as mentioned being consolidated into the regular military establishment though do to the nations use of a British derived Regimental System some elements of both remain in part in the history of units derived from those areas. The Native Scouts were largely gone by the 1870s while the Maroon Garrisons were finally dissolved sometime in the late 19th century as part of the 1890 army reforms.

All 6 combined created a rather convulted system that I imagine would have been a nightmare to keep all in track. Fun to Write about though.

[Austrasien]

Hey guys, I'm not the best armchair general out there, but I'd like to get some advice if y'all have the patience. I suppose my first question has to do with how you fight in unforgiving/impassable terrain. Let's take some of the most remote regions of the world - mountains, rainforests, whatever, with little to no pre-existing roads. How do you attack a position in (or past) such an area? Are there specialized vehicles meant to go through there? How do you supply your people? And what about defending?

Bombing them is a good place to start.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Hey guys, I'm not the best armchair general out there, but I'd like to get some advice if y'all have the patience. I suppose my first question has to do with how you fight in unforgiving/impassable terrain. Let's take some of the most remote regions of the world - mountains, rainforests, whatever, with little to no pre-existing roads. How do you attack a position in (or past) such an area? Are there specialized vehicles meant to go through there? How do you supply your people? And what about defending?

As Austria-Bohemia-Hungery alludes to, you generally don't fight in remote areas without roads because there isn't really anything worth fighting for. Roads aren't particularly hard to build either, so if there is a remote or inhospitable location you think is worth garrisoning, then you would generally build a road and any other infrastructure you need. Airports, both for airplanes and helicopters, can also be built to supply a location that is to remote for even roads, but airplanes and helicopters are rather inefficient at transportation of bulk goods needed to keep a military force fighting.

But it did happen.The Soviet Union fought in the mountains and Afghanistan, the United States in the rainforest and the Vietnamese, China in the anoxic zone and India, Israel in the desert and the Egyptians.Most of the time, of course, it's to search for and annihilate guerrillas in these environments.

Mountains and rivers are easy to defend and hard to attack, the mobility of troops is limited, and it is difficult to command, coordinate and support; desert grassland is easy to attack and hard to defend, and it is convenient for troops to maneuver, command and coordinate, but it is inconvenient to conceal and protect, and it is difficult to provide water supply and other support; high and cold areas have large physical consumption, reduced equivalent energy of weapons and vehicles, inconvenient to maneuver, command and coordinate, and various support difficulties; tropical mountains The jungle area is convenient for the troops to carry out interleaved division and circuitous encirclement, to conduct covert operations and achieve the suddenness of attack, to guard and ambush and attack with danger, but the command and coordination are inconvenient, and the transportation and supply are difficult; the paddy area with water network is convenient for the troops to organize defense with rivers, lakes, residential areas, etc., but the command and coordination are inconvenient, and the mobility of the troops is limited. Under modern conditions, with the enhancement of the mobility, assault power and firepower of the army, especially the wide use of high-tech weapons and equipment, the sudden, deep, three-dimensional and quick decision of combat under special terrain conditions will be further enhanced, and all kinds of support will be more complex and demanding.

[Austrasien]

You confusing macro and micro."Inaccessible" places have many places in them that are quite accessible. This is where most of the actual fighting occurs because it's where most of the people live and most of the political/economic centers are.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The PRC-India dick measuring contest in the 60's was completely pointless anyway.
Also
If the Swiss Army gave up all of the lowlands and retreated into their Alpine bunkers... have they lost the war? *thinking*

[New Vihenia]

I think i need a refresher on what went wrong with XM-2001 Crussader.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I think i need a refresher on what went wrong with XM-2001 Crussader.

future combat systems

[Connori Pilgrims]

I think i need a refresher on what went wrong with XM-2001 Crussader.

To my knowledge, there wasn't much wrong with the Crusader on a technical/program level - the most you could throw at it was the usual cost growth problems.

Crusader was axed because the US Army wanted lighter weight, as part of a historical context (Future Combat Systems) that has been heavily belabored by others in this thread series.

M1299 is basically a current attempt to have something like Crusader again. All that's missing is the gas turbine and the full automatic loading system.