NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Vestjylland]

Would anyone here understand the use of firearms in 18th century Europe? I'd like to know realistic numbers for amount of troops and weapons.

The British expeditionary force that landed in New York City in 1776, aboard the largest fleet ever assembled in British naval history, numbered 32,000 at its peak. The Battle of Leipzig in the Napoleonic Wars, the biggest land battle in Europe pre-WW1, involved around 500,000 men total from both sides. The French Army in the mid-1700s, the largest in Europe, numbered somewhere around 250,000 men.

Thanks for your help! So given that my nation has perhaps 10 million population at most, would it be possible for my army to be 200,000 conscripts or is that proportion too large? If I'm not mistaken the Kingdom of France had perhaps 20 million in population.

[Atlantian Dominions]

Thanks for your help! So given that my nation has perhaps 10 million population at most, would it be possible for my army to be 200,000 conscripts or is that proportion too large? If I'm not mistaken the Kingdom of France had perhaps 20 million in population.

Some quick google research tells me that the British Army at its height during the Napoleonic Wars numbered around 250,000 men, and their population was around 10 million. So it's certainly feasible, but this number was drastically cut when peace returned (just like the Army's size inflated and then deflated during and after the Seven Years War and the American War of Independence).

It comes down to what your nation needs. Are you on a continent with other rival powers, often fighting wars with them? Sounds like you need a big army, like France. But a nation that is more isolated, or pursuing imperial ventures abroad, might find that the money spent maintaining that big army is better spent on a navy, or on other things besides a standing army that doesn't do much.

[Crookfur]

Domestic politics will also play a big part in detaining what sort of size you will need/want. Part of the reason the British army grew and shrank so rapidly was not just cost but also Parliament's and the people's general distrust of large standing armies after all the general unpleasantness of the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries. A big army that is off on distant shores or at least is rampaging through someone else's land is generally more acceptable than one that sits at home eating your own food.

Large armies could also be raised relatively quickly all you needed was a decent supply of packs, muskets and maybe some swords. Everything else could be locally sourced fairly easily and the troops didn't take that much training to be basically useful.

[Vestjylland]

Domestic politics will also play a big part in detaining what sort of size you will need/want. Part of the reason the British army grew and shrank so rapidly was not just cost but also Parliament's and the people's general distrust of large standing armies after all the general unpleasantness of the mid 17th to mid 18th centuries. A big army that is off on distant shores or at least is rampaging through someone else's land is generally more acceptable than one that sits at home eating your own food.

Large armies could also be raised relatively quickly all you needed was a decent supply of packs, muskets and maybe some swords. Everything else could be locally sourced fairly easily and the troops didn't take that much training to be basically useful.

Some quick google research tells me that the British Army at its height during the Napoleonic Wars numbered around 250,000 men, and their population was around 10 million. So it's certainly feasible, but this number was drastically cut when peace returned (just like the Army's size inflated and then deflated during and after the Seven Years War and the American War of Independence).

It comes down to what your nation needs. Are you on a continent with other rival powers, often fighting wars with them? Sounds like you need a big army, like France. But a nation that is more isolated, or pursuing imperial ventures abroad, might find that the money spent maintaining that big army is better spent on a navy, or on other things besides a standing army that doesn't do much.

Thanks again for both of your help. I'll try to keep your advice in mind.

[Austrasien]

So yeah. Im taking a liking on some smol vehicles that can fit within the confines of Chinook or Mi-17's.. those "Golf Carts" looks cool.

Now here's an idea... so basically i want to make sumthin... maybe 3 meter in length, and some 2 m at most in width. The innovative thing about this is that i might consider adopting a Mid engine. This would ensure that vehicle's Cg to be perfectly in center. Not gonna do much for ride but i consider amphibious capability. Center Cg might simplify the design somehow. The hull would be something like Carbon fiber, monocoque with titanium or aluminum "skeleton" water propulsion would be maybe waterjet or oars j/k.

have you considered our lord and saviour,

the motorbike (no sidecar)?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Would anyone here understand the use of firearms in 18th century Europe? I'd like to know realistic numbers for amount of troops and weapons.

In the 18th century, Armies tended into the 10'000s. Prussia, for example, under Frederick I, maintained an army of 39,000 to 80,000 men. The British Army at the end of the 18th Century numbered 40,000 men. The French Army by the 1760s possibly maintained 145,000 men in peacetime. So you get a rough average of between 0.5% and 0.6% for most nations, unless you are like Prussia and have an Army with a Country, in which case it's nearly 3.2% of your population.

Now in terms of armament, this depends on WHEN in the 18th Century. In the early 18th Century, you'll be mostly employing doglock muskets, the successor to the Matchlocks of the 17th Century and the predecessor to the true Flintlocks of the later 18th and early 19th centuries.

Doglock


"True" Flintlock

Those will be the primary locks for your small arms. Muskets and pistols. Note that pistols will largely be employed by the cavalry. Officers will wield swords and NCOs will generally carry a halfpike. Privates will have a bayonet that can be affixed to their piece.

In terms of artillery, this is a fairly rare piece of equipment. At the Battle of Malplaquet in 1709, there was roughly one piece of artillery for every 1,000 men (190,000 men and 180 guns in total). This ratio seems fairly consistent through out the 18th and into the 19th century. The actual caliber of these field and siege pieces will range from small 3-pounders to 24-pounders or heavier. However, in the field it would be rare to see anything heavier than a 12-pounder.

Thanks for your help! So given that my nation has perhaps 10 million population at most, would it be possible for my army to be 200,000 conscripts or is that proportion too large? If I'm not mistaken the Kingdom of France had perhaps 20 million in population.

In order to answer this question, some of the others brought up very good points about the politics. In peacetime, no. An army of 200,000 would be expensive to maintain, especially with a population of 10 million to sustain it. During wartime, people are more willing to forgive a heavy tax burden. But during peacetime, that becomes a more difficult thing to sell. Even with a population of 25 million, France's enormous expenditures on expensive foreign wars and other things led to a revolt which claimed thousands of lives and plunged Europe into two decades of war.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Are women less good on average at the role of an Trooper in a tank troop?

[New Vihenia]

have you considered our lord and saviour,

the motorbike (no sidecar)?

can swim ;-; ?

[Gallia-]

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Are women less good on average at the role of an Trooper in a tank troop?

Are they better? Roughly the same?

[Gallia-]

Women are not physically fit for military service due to weak pectoralis major, obviously.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Women are not physically fit for military service due to weak pectoralis major, obviously.

You are politely requested to stop insulting me. :3

[Ideal Britain]

Women are not physically fit for military service due to weak pectoralis major, obviously.

What does that have to do with working in a tank troop?

[Ideal Britain]

You are politely requested to stop insulting me. :3

I know right. In Ideal Britain women can do a variety of combat roles from flying fighter aircraft to being paratroopers. The only role forbidden to them is the regular infantry due to a study done on US Marines.

[Gallia-]

You are politely requested to stop insulting me. :3

UmU sry dear~

What does that have to do with working in a tank troop?

Tankers have higher upper body strength requirements than most combat arms, with the possible exception of artillerymen, because maintaining tanks is hard work. Women fail to achieve most standards for tank units in terms of man-hours spent on maintenance (they take longer to do basic maintenance tasks and do them worse), so they generally operate with restricted standards as a form of affirmative action. Women are fine for clerical duties, nursing, secretarial work, or something that doesn't require upper body strength or visual-spatial coordination.

Israel does it but Israel is sort of bizarre and weird. And since they're only guarding the Jordanian and Egyptian borders, i.e. the two countries Israel is least likely to fight a war with, it more or less keeps the women out of the way of any potential actual fights in Syria, Gaza, or Lebanon.

[Ideal Britain]

You are politely requested to stop insulting me. :3

UmU sry dear~

Thank you for being a gentleman

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Women are not physically fit for military service due to weak pectoralis major, obviously.

Does centuries of employing wimmen in :samurai: roles change anything at all? (You and I both know what meme my canon is based on so)

[Gallia-]

Does centuries of employing wimmen in :samurai: roles change anything at all? (You and I both know what meme my canon is based on so)

No because the main reason women have smaller/weaker pecs is that the mammary glands, ligaments, and fatty tissues that make up the "breasticle" are in the way. You'd need to get rid of those. And then make the muscle fibers physically larger, since males have literally thicker muscle fibers than women. Then you're half way to a male. All that would be missing is pp basically I guess.

As it stands a very strong female (95th percentile) soldier would be like a weak (25th percentile) male soldier, going by grip strength. Grip strength is a generally good indicator of overall upper body strength though, so it's a fine comparison to use.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Does centuries of employing wimmen in :samurai: roles change anything at all? (You and I both know what meme my canon is based on so)

No because the main reason women have smaller/weaker pecs is that the mammary glands, ligaments, and fatty tissues that make up the "breasticle" are in the way. You'd need to get rid of those. And then make the muscle fibers physically larger, since males have literally thicker muscle fibers than women. Then you're half way to a male. All that would be missing is pp basically I guess.

As it stands a very strong female (95th percentile) soldier would be like a weak (25th percentile) male soldier, going by grip strength. Grip strength is a generally good indicator of overall upper body strength though, so it's a fine comparison to use.

Oh I thought artificially selecting for less-wimmenly women for the last couple of centuries would change things somewhat. Owell.

[Gallia-]

No because the main reason women have smaller/weaker pecs is that the mammary glands, ligaments, and fatty tissues that make up the "breasticle" are in the way. You'd need to get rid of those. And then make the muscle fibers physically larger, since males have literally thicker muscle fibers than women. Then you're half way to a male. All that would be missing is pp basically I guess.

As it stands a very strong female (95th percentile) soldier would be like a weak (25th percentile) male soldier, going by grip strength. Grip strength is a generally good indicator of overall upper body strength though, so it's a fine comparison to use.

Oh I thought artificially selecting for less-wimmenly women for the last couple of centuries would change things somewhat. Owell.

They would be stronger women, yes, but like the female athletes they would still be much weaker than the average male. The comparison in the hand grip strength study was elite female athletes against average, untrained males collected from a local community or something. Trained males, skilled in throw sports (judo, sambo, whatever) or wrestling, would be even worse, so women basically cannot compete in that regard. Like at all. The strongest female is probably only going to be about as strong as your 50th percentile male. You might be able to get more 50th percentile untrained male females if you really breed them for that but they aren't going to be as strong as "strong" males, nor as strong as actually trained males.

FWIW the strength difference is pretty gigantic and is why trans* women tend to destroy female athletic records with little to no effort even though they're shooting estrogen regularly.

tl;dr If you collect a bunch of 95th to 99th percentile upper body strength females, they will perform like weak to average male soldiers, and the males will probably resent them for not being particularly strong.

e: Honestly if it's just so they can use magic then just make the girls wear a magical suit that lets them lift as more than a normal person or whatever. Done. Female only magical power armor is the obvious route.

[Vestjylland]

I'm not quite sure if this belongs here, but would anyone happen to know some "famine recipes" for cities under siege through history?

[Gallia-]

Human flesh.

[Cossack Peoples]

I'm not quite sure if this belongs here, but would anyone happen to know some "famine recipes" for cities under siege through history?

The young'uns, diced, hold the pepper..

[Gallia-]

Leningrad didn't really have cannibalism in any significant sense compared to historic sieges, probably because the siege was never fully closed and the city never stopped receiving supplies. When the Romans burned Jerusalem, when the Tang fought the Yan, and when the English besieged Paris, these were "real" sieges because people were eating their aborted foetuses, their elderly neighbors and children, and making bread from the bones of the dead.

Modern sieges are more porous than old ones though, which is probably why cannibalism has tended to die out in favor of foraging for leaves and dirt. Why eat the dead when you're guaranteed 800 calories a day?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Are there any countries (that have militaries) where women cannot be fighter pilots other than Saudi Arabia?