NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

It's very fluffy, but doesn't provide a lot of concrete details.

A brigade probably isn't going to have a commando troop, aviation regiments, a signals battalion, or a medical regiment. The Brigade Commander just doesn't need them.

it's an independent QRF brigade so not part of a larger division. It has to be capable of organically supporting itself in a theatre for a limited amount of time. The commando 'troop' (platoon) is a pathfinder unit for the paratroopers

How much actual equipment though?

"Deep attack aviation regiment" and "Aviation attack regiment" can mean a lot of things. In the USSR/RuAF an independent fighter-bomber aviation regiment is ~46 fighter-bombers (Floggers). This is an airbase's worth of equipment. A US Army attack regiment has something like 52 attack helicopters (Apaches). This is a division's worth of gunships.

[Triplebaconation]

You especially can't tell much about a UK support unit by what it's called. A medical regiment is about company size.

[Gallia-]

Yeah, that's why I'm assuming these are weirdly named regiments rather than a serious indicator of its size.

One regiment will turn out to be a battalion and another one is a company and I guess the aviation regiment is an actual aviation regiment of 30-40 tactical fighters (since it's a theater unit).

e:

What I did for Galla's "QRF" units is:

1) Marine Raider Commandos are a battalion of ~750 dudes who are basically airbase liquidators. They're organized to fit in a single LPD. They have 12 light tanks, ~2 (or 4) CB90s, 6 H-3/H-60-sized helicopters, a pair of LCACs, and a pair of MV-22s for tanking the assault helicopters, ~32 Supacat ATMPs-looking things (they're a bit bigger than the ATMP), maybe 20 5-ton trucks (Stalwarts), and something like a dozen Flyer 60-sized gun trucks. Heavy equipment (the tanks) is landed by a pair of LCACs carried by the LPD. Everything else can (in theory) be airlanded by the assault helicopters. The LPD itself is a longer LPD-17 with a bigger helicopter hangar and slightly longer well deck. It also has a 5" automatic gun and some VLS cells for fire support.

2) Ranger Regiments are brigade sized bandoliers of airborne battalions of like 600-700 angrybois whose sole purpose is the destruction of airbases and nuclear weapons launch means (SSM batteries and naval or bomber bases). They have oodles of machine guns, recoilless rifles, and some 60mm mortars. Yeet them out of planes over an airbase and hope enough survive that they can steal a bunch of cars from the parking lot and go be annoying to the enemy somewhere. The regiments also have companies of light tanks and robotic teletanks to help the battalions if they can vet enough support from the commanding general to warrant it and there are enough planes.

Both of them are fairly self-contained and have tiny (or outright non-existent) logistics groupings because they're expected to fight for only small periods of time and leave after blowing up whatever they need to blow up, either by being picked up by airplanes/boats, or simply running away in stolen vehicles and hoping for the best, depending on the situation.

What I did for Dumbla's screening units is I just turned them into small fortress regiments with a lot of pillboxes, entrenching equipment, minefields, machine guns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and anti-tank missiles. That should slow the enemy down long enough for Galla's actual army to mobilize and show up to fight. But Galla has a small enough land border with its only potential land enemy that it can physically man a continuous fortification line, more or less, and that might not be possible for some situations I guess. If that were the case I would just have something that is very quick to move and fairly fast, like a battalion of paratroopers, and have some helicopters (like maybe 4-6 per paratrooper battalion) nearby to blow up any tanks or trucks that try to hurt them when they land. Then I would repeat that a enough times so that the enemy can't kill them all in one sneak attack.

[Mitheldalond]

Not sure if sarcasm, but I've actually been wondering about this. Not the Sheridan, but replacing the autocannons on IFVs with 120mm gun-mortars. Basically this, but uparmored to match the rest of the IFV, and without any of the indirect fire specific systems since I don't plan on using it as a mortar. So I guess it would essentially be a western equivalent of a BMP-3, but without the autocannon.

Is there anything that makes this a particularly bad or good idea? Should it be done to all IFVs, or only a few?

You'll probably end up with a relatively low velocity weapon that will have a hard time hitting fast moving IFV's and have low ammo capacity. There is a reason for the 30mm on the BMP-3 after all.

You'd probably be better off doing something like the Ratel 90 which had a high velocity 90mm gun. But in 2020 you could probably use a 105mm gun in an unmanned turret instead and have a coaxial autocannon or HMG. As for the mortar IFV though, I could see that being used more so as a fire support vehicle than an actual IFV.

I was definitely thinking along the lines of direct fire infantry support. I think the idea probably originated from the reason a lot of Sherman crews in WWII perferred the low velocity 75mm gun to the high velocity 76mm gun: most of the time they weren't fighting enemy tanks, and the 75mm had a better HE shell. I figure a 120mm gun-mortar would be better at destroying things like barricades, buildings, machine gun nests, fortified positions, thin-skinned vehicles, etc than an autocannon. And since (I assume) the IFVs will be spending significantly more time fighting these kinds of targets than armored vehicles, and these are also the target types that the dismounted infantry will need the most help dealing with, the loss of some anti-tank/armor capability seems like a decent trade-off.

And as far as anti-armor is concerned, the primary anti-tank weapons would still be the Bradley-style ATGM launchers on the side of the turret. There are like the guided Strix anti-armor round and the MAT-120 cluster bomb that are designed to be fired from 120mm mortars, including AMS and AMOS. Hypothetically, it should also be capable of firing the LAHAT GLATGM, since it is technically a 120mm gun. I also wonder if it wouldn't be possible to create an APFSDS mortar bomb capable of penetrating enemy IFVs. Given that the 15.3 kg 120mm MERHE mortar bomb has a muzzle velocity of 500 m/s when fired at maximum charge from an AMOS, while 105mm APFSDS projectiles seem to be about half that weight (using 105mm instead of 120mm shells as the smaller, lighter penetrators should be fine for use against IFVs), it seems reasonable to assume that the lighter round would produce a significantly higher muzzle velocity with the same charge. So the idea seems at least plausible.

As far as ammo capacity, the AMS II turret is supposed to carry 65 rounds stowed beneath the turret ring (which I read as not taking up space in the passenger compartment). The BMP-3 carries 40 100mm shells and 8 ATGMs, plus 500 30mm shells. So it seems like a K21 sized IFV should be able to carry a decent amount of 120mm ammo.

[New Vihenia]

I guess 30-31 Kg is not practical for Manpads.

The idea was for a High performance Ramjet MANPADS. 1.5 m in length and 130mm in diameter similar as Starstreak. The weight can be reduced by reducing the diameter as missile weight is roughly a function of its diameter. 100mm would make it about 16.6 Kg and the entire launcher weight of perhaps 18-19 Kg. But obviously reducing diameter also means reduced amount of payload and electronics.

As for why a ramjet is there, I'am interested in possibility of maintaining terminal maneuverability all the way to target, so higher kill probability against maneuvering target and improvement in tail-chase scenario (the missile not run out of steam as quickly). But yeah apparently can't seem to be build yet

[Immoren]

I guess 30-31 Kg is not practical for Manpads.

The idea was for a High performance Ramjet MANPADS. 1.5 m in length and 130mm in diameter similar as Starstreak. The weight can be reduced by reducing the diameter as missile weight is roughly a function of its diameter. 100mm would make it about 16.6 Kg and the entire launcher weight of perhaps 18-19 Kg. But obviously reducing diameter also means reduced amount of payload and electronics.

As for why a ramjet is there, I'am interested in possibility of maintaining terminal maneuverability all the way to target, so higher kill probability against maneuvering target and improvement in tail-chase scenario (the missile not run out of steam as quickly). But yeah apparently can't seem to be build yet

Give launcher a stand like RBS70?

[Gallia-]

A stand sort of takes the MANP out of MANPADS.

100mm is probably a good size factor for a modern missile though. A chodey boi like Javelin is probably fine.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I guess 30-31 Kg is not practical for Manpads.

The idea was for a High performance Ramjet MANPADS. 1.5 m in length and 130mm in diameter similar as Starstreak. The weight can be reduced by reducing the diameter as missile weight is roughly a function of its diameter. 100mm would make it about 16.6 Kg and the entire launcher weight of perhaps 18-19 Kg. But obviously reducing diameter also means reduced amount of payload and electronics.

As for why a ramjet is there, I'am interested in possibility of maintaining terminal maneuverability all the way to target, so higher kill probability against maneuvering target and improvement in tail-chase scenario (the missile not run out of steam as quickly). But yeah apparently can't seem to be build yet

I think maybe ramjet is not suitable for any type of air defense missile.Air defense missiles need fast lifting height and high acceleration maneuvers.However, the ramjet needs enough speed to start, and the intake efficiency will be affected in high acceleration maneuver.

[Purpelia]

I guess 30-31 Kg is not practical for Manpads.

The idea was for a High performance Ramjet MANPADS. 1.5 m in length and 130mm in diameter similar as Starstreak. The weight can be reduced by reducing the diameter as missile weight is roughly a function of its diameter. 100mm would make it about 16.6 Kg and the entire launcher weight of perhaps 18-19 Kg. But obviously reducing diameter also means reduced amount of payload and electronics.

As for why a ramjet is there, I'am interested in possibility of maintaining terminal maneuverability all the way to target, so higher kill probability against maneuvering target and improvement in tail-chase scenario (the missile not run out of steam as quickly). But yeah apparently can't seem to be build yet

I think maybe ramjet is not suitable for any type of air defense missile.Air defense missiles need fast lifting height and high acceleration maneuvers.However, the ramjet needs enough speed to start, and the intake efficiency will be affected in high acceleration maneuver.

The one possible exception being some sort of very long range two stage missile that uses a rocket engine to get up to altitude and speed and than a ramjet for the rest. Like if you were building an ABM or something.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I think maybe ramjet is not suitable for any type of air defense missile.Air defense missiles need fast lifting height and high acceleration maneuvers.However, the ramjet needs enough speed to start, and the intake efficiency will be affected in high acceleration maneuver.

The one possible exception being some sort of very long range two stage missile that uses a rocket engine to get up to altitude and speed and than a ramjet for the rest. Like if you were building an ABM or something.

But how can it solve the influence of air density change on the intake efficiency of ramjet?

[New Vihenia]

But how can it solve the influence of air density change on the intake efficiency of ramjet?

It was never a problem in the first place. The one you are looking at is Airflow distortion due to the, AoA, positioning and number of inlet.

This roughly boils down to following options from best to worst :

1.One large inlet (e.g "flying stovepipe" missile)
2.Single large ventral inlet
3.2 ventral inlet arranged by 45 degrees (e.g Meteor)
4.4 Inlet arranged in (+) configuration (e.g SA-6's 3M9 missile)
5.4 inlet arranged in (x) configuration, this limits performance in air to air application due to AoA related airflow distortion but acceptable for Air to surface.

Manpads application will definitely favor the option 1 or 2. Depending on how things turns out. Option 1 provides superior airflow but may have problem in volume or warhead shrouding if warhead is located within the centerbody of the missile. Option 2 would address that problem partially, if some airflow distortion and pressure loss is acceptable. This arrangement however would make the missile look like US SLAM. Option 3,4 and 5 is unfortunately have to be ruled out.

Booster requirement is of course have to be calculated.. One obvious thing is of course it wont be like gazillion time bigger... Booster to propel 10 Kg Payload to Ramjet starting speed say Mach 2, will definitely much smaller than one for 100 or 1000 Kg.

[Manokan Republic]

You can't make a bomb out of a reactor anyway. It's not how they work. Nor can you use a regular garden variety power plant to make atomic bomb material either. It's more complicated than that.

USN submarine reactor cores are enriched above 90%, which is considered weapons grade. This is a higher rate of enrichment than was used in Little Boy.

You wouldn't make a functioning thermonuclear device out of the fuel stolen from a reactor on the spot, but given that most of the technical expertise and components to build a crude radiation weapon or even a basic nuclear weapon are easier to find than the fissile material itself, it makes sense to restrict the uranium rather than the other parts.

To add to this, the fear is not really civilians or random terrorists making a bomb, but entire countries like Iran or Korea. Proliferation risks deal largely with countries, or to a lesser extent large organizations perhaps like a business, by comparison to a random civilian.

[Manokan Republic]

I guess 30-31 Kg is not practical for Manpads.

The idea was for a High performance Ramjet MANPADS. 1.5 m in length and 130mm in diameter similar as Starstreak. The weight can be reduced by reducing the diameter as missile weight is roughly a function of its diameter. 100mm would make it about 16.6 Kg and the entire launcher weight of perhaps 18-19 Kg. But obviously reducing diameter also means reduced amount of payload and electronics.

As for why a ramjet is there, I'am interested in possibility of maintaining terminal maneuverability all the way to target, so higher kill probability against maneuvering target and improvement in tail-chase scenario (the missile not run out of steam as quickly). But yeah apparently can't seem to be build yet

It's practical, but they just don't exist at the moment. A two stage rocket is really the idea, and goal, and this wouldn't be too hard to pull off, with the weight of a manpad being dramatically reduced primarily by using superior electronics, with a better/without a need for a really heavy cooling system, which makes up the bulk of the weight of these types of rockets, and their peripheral elements. The meteor missile is a good example of a boron-enhanced, zip fuel ramjet, and it's about 420 pounds, although I don't know the warhead size. If you wanted a warhead the size of a stinger, it stands to reason that, the rocket would be a proportional size relative to the meteor, and you could get a rough estimate for size based on that. Granted, there is not going to be a direct correlation due to diminishing returns as it relates to size, as in you can't just make such a rocket design infinely small or big and still get the same results. So far I don't know the warhead size, but if you find it, it would be a good basis for that.

Manpads ironically are better mounted to light vehicles anyways, like humvees or the like, and the marines are already doing this, as there's not much point in carrying two missiles at 3 mph on foot, which is a major hassle, vs. very easily toting 50 missiles in to combat at 60 mph. Even a lightly armored vehicle is better than going on foot, typically, and given it's range terrain limitations are not much of an issue, or not as much as with light machine guns mounted on vehicles (hence why infantry often do it).

[Manokan Republic]

What made the Third Reich so militarily successful, at least overall? What could be attributed to Germany’s overall military success, and how could an island nation functioning under a similar authoritarian and nationalist regime achieve similar military success?

I would argue basically that they weren't. The germans main advantage was their element of surprise, ruthlessness, and penchant for lying, which allowed them to trick enemy's in to surrender before committing acts of mass murder. The polish war was called the defensive war, and the average german soldier thought Germany was attacked by Poland, and they were just defending themselves from polish aggression. They attacked first and without warning, and managed to surround warsaw in 2 weeks, the polish capital, and capture it in 6 weeks, basically forcing a political defeat by getting the politicians to surrender at gunpoint, thus ending the war. The polish military was relatively intact afterwards, and continued fighting for years after Poland surrendered, becoming known as the "cursed soldiers" without a home, as they never really gave up, although without good logistics via a country to support them their resistance become more of a scattered guerrilla warfare type event. Many polish soldiers retreated to france, and then to Britain after France was taken, only to invade back in to France and Poland again. The irony is that the French had the exact same thing happen, with paris being taken quickly and the military largely being intact while the politicians surrendered, only to in their horror be too late to realize the german were planning on slaughtering them whether they surrendered or not. The Fins, which had everyone serve in the military, all the civilians, and that were never going to surrender, managed to beat off both Russia and Germany during the war, despite being much smaller than France or Poland, largely due to the fact their civilian population was ready to fight to the last man if that's what it took. Granted, they had the benefit of the horror stories of the nazis already, but the civilians being trained in a country wide military militia program also probably helped.

With notable exception to the Soviet war on the eastern front, the germans did not have a particularly high kill ratio. In Poland, roughly 20,000 polish and German soldiers were killed, with a 1 to 1 kill ratio, and Poland inflicted heavier casualties on their tanks, aircraft and other vehicles, despite having less tanks themselves. If we ignore the 40,000 polish officers executed immediately after the war, then the death-toll of the military was slight, and the polish military, survived about 98% intact, and continued to wage a resistance war against Germany without logistics for many years, and then later against, sadly, the communists. Similarly, the french and germans suffered minor losses militarily, just a small percent of the military, with the French inflicting largely heavier damage, and yet the German's quick take over of city centers forcing a surrender let to their defeat. The germans knew how to play politics and spread propaganda, and for example signed a peace agreement they almost immediately violated within a week, that lead to Britain entering in to WWII after the invasion of Poland. They did things like take out huge bank loans from France, then invade France without trying to pay it back, or turned on their allies like with Russia or Italy, stabbing every ally they had in the back at least once during the war.

They were a nation of backstabbers, taking any opportunity to attack an enemy when they were exposed, lulling them in to a false sense of security and then mass murdering them in secret. If most of the people had known they were going to camps to die, rather than "serve the war effort" like they were tricked in to doing, they would have fought back even if that meant death, since it would have been a better fate. Many likely would have survived. It was a great piece of propaganda that lead to this, with the nazis denying their end goals, and tricking people in to surrender, only to mass murder them once they were weak. Had the poles and french never surrendered, and most other countries, they would have likely held a pretty good chance to keep fighting back even if many of their city centers were taken. The polish dug in and made very effective defensive positions, as did the French with the maginot line, and the german strategy was simply to go around them, not actually fight the enemy military, and go after the soft squishy civilians instead, forcing a surrender or holding them hostage until the military surrendered. The moral of the story is to put your men where your territory is likely to be attacked, and give up what territory you don't need, like the fins did who gave up about 10% of their territory in order to retain the defensive advantage and protect their people. Never give up and set your military up in such a way to avoid losing it's logistics after a few key centers are taken, and harden your civilian population against a potential invasion. The nazi's main advantage was their enemy's ignorance in thinking surrender would mean they would have an easier time dealing with them, when it did not. Any nation that fought back, even tiny one's like Finland, usually came out alright in the end, those that surrendered suffered heavily.


To try to give an advantage to the germans, the main thing I'd say they had was the element of surprise and a large military. Their military was so large it rivaled the U.S., despite being half the size, and as they had time to prepare they were able to turn about 20% of their population in to soldiers at the time, and were quite a large country for Europe at the time, still being the biggest country in western europe, being slightly smaller than Turkey today, and half the size of Russia today. So they had the size of the total country combined with the size of their military force, which allowed them to steam roll some smaller countries caught off guard. Their penchant for lying made it easy to establish and violate peace agreements, so no-one suspected they were about to attack, and this happened to both Italy and Russia, allies of them. So if you conscript a large portion of your population and train them for war years in advance, you can have an advantage over your neighbor. Finland and Switzerland did this, and while Switzerland was never attacked in part due to this, Finland won both engagements against two tremendously powerful entities. The german industry was kind of garbage, and they had 1/30th the fuel of the U.S., and about 50 times less vehicles, with only 8% of their military being mechanized, despite the notion they were a super advanced military for the time or had wunder-tanks, which really didn't do all that much in contributing to their success. Their ability to send tons of infantry to an area really quickly in motorized vehicles was a really huge advantage, and so they could swarm enemy nation's capitals quickly and capture them. The americans did this over 10 times better as did later the British, who relied heavily on the U.S. for vehicles. So if I had to give the germans an advantage, it would be surprise and size, and to a lesser extent their somewhat lack-luster industrial capacity that at least let them take over cities quickly.

[Immoren]

This was partial translation for that "career example for extremely unambitious career officer" I was talking about couple days ago. And yes. It feels weird that even though we're trying to (re)establish career NCO corps, it feels like there's desire in FDF to fill roles that could be filled with (S)NCO with junior officers. lol.

[Hrstrovokia]

Pretty much the same really. The point I was trying to get across is that there are many different ways that unit naming schemes can work and that often you have several of them at play at once overlapping and contradicting making for more or less a mess. And even if someone at your high command actually sat down and tried to fix the system to make it systematized that's going to fall apart soon enough. So feel free to improvise.

This is what I went for. You don't get to see the subunits but they would just go 1st Tank brigade and then 1st Tank battalion.

Immoren, I did like your idea, each unit would get an individual number that is theirs alone, but I would need to sit down with pen, paper and calculator for a hour or two to figure it all out and right now I can't find the time :/

[Purpelia]

Immoren, I did like your idea, each unit would get an individual number that is theirs alone, but I would need to sit down with pen, paper and calculator for a hour or two to figure it all out and right now I can't find the time :/

And if you did it would fall apart the moment the shooting starts for the reasons I outlined.

[Hrythingland]

Currently brainstorming ideas for my army reserve. Hrythingia traditionally had a small standing army, the Cynlic Here (Royal Army) which comprised nearly all heavily armoured and well equipped horsemen: the standing army formed mostly of the King's and his Earl's household guards and retinue soldiers. However in wartime all able bodied men were raised by lords to form a Fyrd which each Earl providing his own to the National Fyrd (Theodfyrd).

I would like to retain the tradition of all men having to perform some kind of military service through the fyrd and one way I envisioned this would be conscription into the fyrd for two years, but only volunteers would serve in infantry/cavalry/artillery or other frontline roles whilst most of the two year conscripts would fulfil their obligations in combat service support roles like logistics, signals etc -though still doing basic training in the field. Potentially also have Fyrd units of part time reservists who can supplement regular army combat regiments with a reserve battalion. The other is to remove the Fyrd structure from the regular army wholly and have reserve divisions of all types, that can be called up to assist the army in national emergencies. Though I envision that to be a lot 'paper regiments'.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Currently brainstorming ideas for my army reserve. Hrythingia traditionally had a small standing army, the Cynlic Here (Royal Army) which comprised nearly all heavily armoured and well equipped horsemen: the standing army formed mostly of the King's and his Earl's household guards and retinue soldiers. However in wartime all able bodied men were raised by lords to form a Fyrd which each Earl providing his own to the National Fyrd (Theodfyrd).

I would like to retain the tradition of all men having to perform some kind of military service through the fyrd and one way I envisioned this would be conscription into the fyrd for two years, but only volunteers would serve in infantry/cavalry/artillery or other frontline roles whilst most of the two year conscripts would fulfil their obligations in combat service support roles like logistics, signals etc -though still doing basic training in the field. Potentially also have Fyrd units of part time reservists who can supplement regular army combat regiments with a reserve battalion. The other is to remove the Fyrd structure from the regular army wholly and have reserve divisions of all types, that can be called up to assist the army in national emergencies. Though I envision that to be a lot 'paper regiments'.

This seems like a fairly normal European short service/home guard scheme (except conscripts should go into combat arms as well as support arms).

[Hrythingland]

Currently brainstorming ideas for my army reserve. Hrythingia traditionally had a small standing army, the Cynlic Here (Royal Army) which comprised nearly all heavily armoured and well equipped horsemen: the standing army formed mostly of the King's and his Earl's household guards and retinue soldiers. However in wartime all able bodied men were raised by lords to form a Fyrd which each Earl providing his own to the National Fyrd (Theodfyrd).

I would like to retain the tradition of all men having to perform some kind of military service through the fyrd and one way I envisioned this would be conscription into the fyrd for two years, but only volunteers would serve in infantry/cavalry/artillery or other frontline roles whilst most of the two year conscripts would fulfil their obligations in combat service support roles like logistics, signals etc -though still doing basic training in the field. Potentially also have Fyrd units of part time reservists who can supplement regular army combat regiments with a reserve battalion. The other is to remove the Fyrd structure from the regular army wholly and have reserve divisions of all types, that can be called up to assist the army in national emergencies. Though I envision that to be a lot 'paper regiments'.

This seems like a fairly normal European short service/home guard scheme (except conscripts should go into combat arms as well as support arms).

Not for two years though? Combat troops are expensive to equip and require a fair bit of training. Sure, those conscripted that wish to stay in the army afterwards can go into combat arms but I think it would be wasteful to have conscripts rotating in and out of what I would like to envision as a highly professional volunteer and indeed almost family-like combat regiments.

[The Akasha Colony]

Not for two years though? Combat troops are expensive to equip and require a fair bit of training. Sure, those conscripted that wish to stay in the army afterwards can go into combat arms but I think it would be wasteful to have conscripts rotating in and out of what I would like to envision as a highly professional volunteer and indeed almost family-like combat regiments.

It's a matter of the availability of formations.

If your active force has enough combat support services to fulfill its own needs, why does it need more support in wartime?

On the other hand, if the peacetime force lacks adequate combat support services to be made up with reserves, why bother keeping it active if it cannot actually... act? The entire force becomes vulnerable to defeat during the mobilization of the reserves as it is inadequately supported in the opening phases of the conflict.

Thus, the best method of division is to have an active force capable of operating on its own with integrated support services, and a reserve force that can also provide for itself, including in terms of combat capability. Otherwise having a huge stock of non-combat reservists brings very little to the table.

Good support training is not much cheaper than good combat training. It will also require putting troops in the field to practice repairs and supply and whatever in a simulated campaign rather than just letting them sit around in the garage and show them how to replace a tank engine or something. Many supporting specialties require more training than combat ones.

[Taihei Tengoku]

This seems like a fairly normal European short service/home guard scheme (except conscripts should go into combat arms as well as support arms).

Not for two years though? Combat troops are expensive to equip and require a fair bit of training. Sure, those conscripted that wish to stay in the army afterwards can go into combat arms but I think it would be wasteful to have conscripts rotating in and out of what I would like to envision as a highly professional volunteer and indeed almost family-like combat regiments.

Conscription is a great cost saver because you can force smart young men into the infantry and not pay them the market rate you'd have to in a volunteer force. The countries that actually conscript do so to get more warm bodies holding more rifles, not more REMF truck drivers. Two years also isn't that long--it was normal in Europe before 1990 (might as well be the Old Testament now idk) and South Korea still requires it out of its men.

[Somerania]

I need some advice
Is the new M84AS1 better than the M84D in anyway? If so can I improve the M84D by adding the better parts of the M84AS1 in it? (I am a democratic Yugoslavia btw)

[Hrythingland]

Not for two years though? Combat troops are expensive to equip and require a fair bit of training. Sure, those conscripted that wish to stay in the army afterwards can go into combat arms but I think it would be wasteful to have conscripts rotating in and out of what I would like to envision as a highly professional volunteer and indeed almost family-like combat regiments.

Conscription is a great cost saver because you can force smart young men into the infantry and not pay them the market rate you'd have to in a volunteer force. The countries that actually conscript do so to get more warm bodies holding more rifles, not more REMF truck drivers. Two years also isn't that long--it was normal in Europe before 1990 (might as well be the Old Testament now idk) and South Korea still requires it out of its men.

Hmm, noted. Lol, shitting on the poor RLC.

[Manokan Republic]

Not for two years though? Combat troops are expensive to equip and require a fair bit of training. Sure, those conscripted that wish to stay in the army afterwards can go into combat arms but I think it would be wasteful to have conscripts rotating in and out of what I would like to envision as a highly professional volunteer and indeed almost family-like combat regiments.

Conscription is a great cost saver because you can force smart young men into the infantry and not pay them the market rate you'd have to in a volunteer force. The countries that actually conscript do so to get more warm bodies holding more rifles, not more REMF truck drivers. Two years also isn't that long--it was normal in Europe before 1990 (might as well be the Old Testament now idk) and South Korea still requires it out of its men.

The idea is you transition the volunteer truck drivers in to becoming frontline infantry or in other combat positions, or closer to the front lines, and then the conscripts fill in behind to plug up the gaps of what they left. The U.S. for example didn't regularly use conscripts in combat positions, and volunteers were moved to combat positions while conscripts were used in logistics roles. For every frontline soldier there's about 3-4 support troops, so the reason your entire military can't be mobilized for combat is due to the logistics support needed.