NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Gallia-]

2:3 square battalions ultimate

[Celritannia]

How would one go about creating a combined arms regiment? What major elements would be necessary (Tanks, artillery, infantry, air support etc).
Is it best to have CAR with differing abilities, say one primarily focused on the infantry, while another focuses on the artillery, etc, within a Division?

A good starting point is to look at US Army Brigade Combat Teams. They are focused on different roles, and some with different roles may have different elements within them. For example infantry and mechanized BCTs don't have tanks, but armoured BCTs have infantry. But IIRC all of them have artillery, engineers and reconnaissance regardless of what their focus is.

How would one go about creating a combined arms regiment? What major elements would be necessary (Tanks, artillery, infantry, air support etc).
Is it best to have CAR with differing abilities, say one primarily focused on the infantry, while another focuses on the artillery, etc, within a Division?

A combined arms unit usually means a roughly equal mix of armour and infantry subunits. And by roughly equal I mean a ratio smaller than 2:1. Artillery is not normally included in the concept because artillery is accepted as a normal accompaniment of both armour and infantry units.

Most helpful, thank you.
I'm trying to make Regiments the main deployable force for my armed forces. I find battalions too small, yet brigades too big.

2:3 square battalions ultimate

The lack of bestagon battalions makes me sad.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

2:3 square battalions ultimate

The lack of bestagon battalions makes me sad.

Pentatomic divisions were generally found too unwieldy. Usually it required command-staff that had some experience and proficiency at handling square and triangular divisions.

Which pretty much means 2:1 or 1:1:1 (incl. organic air support for air-cav units) ratios for triangular units.

[Celritannia]

The lack of bestagon battalions makes me sad.

Pentatomic divisions were generally found too unwieldy. Usually it required command-staff that had some experience and proficiency at handling square and triangular divisions.

Which pretty much means 2:1 or 1:1:1 (incl. organic air support for air-cav units) ratios for triangular units.

Pfft, pentagons. I'm on about Hexagons

Hexagon battalions for all, I say.

[Ideal Britain]

How did the RIC stay loyal as a counter-insurgency force (1916) when it was composed mostly of locally recruited Catholics?

(Put in the military realism thread because I’m asking about their military role)

[Dtn]

Pentatomic divisions were generally found too unwieldy. Usually it required command-staff that had some experience and proficiency at handling square and triangular divisions.

Which pretty much means 2:1 or 1:1:1 (incl. organic air support for air-cav units) ratios for triangular units.

Pfft, pentagons. I'm on about Hexagons

Hexagon battalions for all, I say.

This is a good article. There's no optimum number, though three or four seems to be the best currently.

I used to think the pentomic division was silly until I read a piece by the worst science fiction writer of all time calling it "idiocy triumphant." After studying it more deeply and noting the similarity to the theories of people like Guy Hubin I now think it was just a century ahead of its time. Certainly the Napoleonic hierarchies and combined arms of modern militaries will be obsolete sooner or later.

How did the RIC stay loyal as a counter-insurgency force (1916) when it was composed mostly of locally recruited Catholics?

(Put in the military realism thread because I’m asking about their military role)

The Easter Rising wasn't much of an insurgency - it had very little popular support amongst Irish nationalist paramilitaries, let alone the RIC.

[Gallia-]

Solar panel powered soldiers.
Battalions and companies fighting battles broadly independent of higher echelons with devastatingly lethal firepower.
Combats decided by the literal singular man who sees the enemy first and can most rapidly report his position to artillery.
Battles lasting between the time the battery receives a fire mission and the shell impacts the target.

Is it 1950 or 2050?

Well I guess 2050 will be semi-autonomous loitering drone swarms with Javelin warheads or something instead of nuclear howitzer batteries.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Solar panel powered soldiers.
Battalions and companies fighting battles broadly independent of higher echelons with devastatingly lethal firepower.
Combats decided by the literal singular man who sees the enemy first and can most rapidly report his position to artillery.
Battles lasting between the time the battery receives a fire mission and the shell impacts the target.

Is it 1950 or 2050?

Well I guess 2050 will be semi-autonomous loitering drone swarms with Javelin warheads or something instead of nuclear howitzer batteries.

Loitering Javelin drones. Can I get a ticket off this planet, please?

[Amidia-]

Most helpful, thank you.
I'm trying to make Regiments the main deployable force for my armed forces. I find battalions too small, yet brigades too big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Group.png

there's a few ways to go about it if you want something smaller than a brigade.

[United Earthlings]

The problem, of course, is that semantics has two quite different meanings - people who use "semantics" dismissively or defensively (you and Manokan being the two who come to mind in this thread) tend to think it's just quibbling over word choice or nonsense like capitalization - some lexicographical dispute. There's deep irony in using semantics in this sense and linking wikipedia articles to educate others, since it's a clear sign you don't know much about it.

If we're talking about the feasibility of reengining the ship to achieve N knots, then the meaning of feasible and reengining is actually deeply important - and they only have meaning in relationship to one another, the material facts, and our different understanding of those facts.

We might even have different ideas of what 25 knots means.

1. In this one specific case, I don't know where that leaves the matter if my intended use of semantics was neither intended to be interpreted dismissively/defensively nor did I think at the time it was just quibbling over word choice. etc... While initially, the word phrasing I was using was intended as a joke (even if a bad one), upon later review after consulting multiple source definitions, the meaning of the word while muddlesome in its use by me, could be applied in the context I intended if even as a terrible joke. Hence, why I thought and still think it was a semantic dispute.
2. I'm not a teacher, nor do I have any desire to be one, I didn't post the Wikipedia article to educate anyone (that's an assumption on your part), I posted it as a frame of reference so hopefully, you could see my POV of where I was coming from, understand where I was coming from and reply accordingly. That clearly didn't happen.
3. After reading through the entire post of yours, I would say most definitely our understanding of the facts is different. Everything I've said to date about 25 knots you've put a greater than sign in front of the 25. Meanwhile, the entire time I've been thinking about this refit, I've had a less than sign in front of the 25. As I've feared, since the beginning of my first mention, we've seen this potential planned refit of mine two very distinctive ways.

"Available space" and "weight" are inextricably linked.

Yes and No, the answer being context dependent.

Battleships tended not to waste space (mostly length) because of these weight restrictions. Since Congress set displacement limits, American battleships were subject to weight restrictions before any treaties, leading to exacting designs and compact machinery spaces. In other words, short ships.

Ship design is a parametric process. Regardless of any tonnage increases, barring radical alterations the dimensions of machinery spaces have the same maximum in a refit ship. The tradeoffs in these parameters have already been made, and heavier machinery is going to be larger than lighter machinery.

I guess you forgot we were discussing post Washington Naval Treaty imposed weight restrictions and how this impacted the various design proposals. In other words, short ships, medium ships and long ships depending on various trade-offs whether in speed, armor protection or firepower.

Given what I've previously stated, I thought it was already implied that given a potential refit would see the vessels turbine-electric drive replaced with a geared turbine system that alterations to the dimensions of the machinery spaces was probably a certainty. Are mid to late 1930s high pressure boilers different in their dimensions and weight to their late 1910s predecessors and if so by what?

There are two ways to answer this question. The first is to simply accurately calculate the hydrodynamics of a United Earthlings battleship at xxx tons, then design a complete machinery set using United Earthlings technology of the time and see if it fits.

You can do that if you want. I don't particularly care to, and in fact couldn't since I don't know how United Earthlings differs from history. You might just Springsharp it. It'll be inaccurate but nobody will know the difference.

Unless you know of another free semi-accurate program to use to design theoretical ships, I was going to eventually Springsharp test the design if I made the decision to eventually proceed with the refit, though I haven't yet decided which direction I will pursue.

Innovations in what? Big guns and armor? "No impact" is silly. Battleship construction may have advanced technology in some ways and slowed it in others. More likely the latter. Certainly they didn't drive the advancement of basic technologies - which isn't the same as battleship design. There'd be no Krupp armor without Krupp spoons or cheap razor blades.

I think we tend to overrate the role of militaries in technological advances due to the atomic era, but WW2 changed the military-scientific relationship both quantitatively and qualitatively, with fundamental research becoming an important part of military power.

Why do you assume they didn't drive the advancement of basic technologies? I'm not saying battleships were the only source of inspiration, but it seems to me unlikely given all the battleships/warships various nations constructed that there wouldn't have been an impact on just a few examples: Steel making, shipbuilding techniques and ship design...

Especially following the industrial revolution, war and growth of military power in general tended to spur technological advances that eventually lead to the rapid advancement of the atomic era, but it wasn't just the Second World War that changed the military-scientific relationship, that process had started years before during the First World War.

Here's the second way to answer the question.

Until today's amendment, I considered this the definitive UE lore:

Not counting the multiple war games and military exercises/maneuvers that take place every year as well as the time period before the establishment of the Commonwealth, since the establishment of said Commonwealth the nation has fought in not one conflict or war of aggression whether conventional or unconventional in nature. With over three centuries of uninterrupted peaceful relations with the entire world’s nation-states, an impressive feat few if any other nation-states can claim.

The Commonwealth has achieved this unprecedented stability through officially policies of neutrality {avoidance of entangling alliances}, isolation {enhanced by the nation being an island nation, hence no shared land borders to fret over this including never acquiring any colonies), a frightening economic powerhouse with global connections and finally, an overwhelming military presence with the Commonwealth on average spending 4% of its GDP on the nation’s defenses mostly on its impressive Blue Water Power Projection capable Navy.

With its mastery of economic dominance of the region, long standing democratic traditions and powerful military the Commonwealth remains the sole uncontested global power in its region.

A power few if any nations would wish to contest let alone stupidly challenge. Furthermore, those with dealings with the Commonwealth know first hand you either peacefully co-exist with the Commonwealth or face your own annihilation and/or possible extinction, there is no middle ground.

Certainly every statement you've made about the Commonwealth to date in these threads is more consistent with the above than your amended version.

That's most definitely not the definitive lore of the "Commonwealth". I've yet to write that. In addition, if you knew how outdated that post is, which isn't surprising given how long ago I posted that which you quoted, I'd hoped you'd be able to see just how inconsistent that post actually is compared to the more recent present where the few times I've posted about Commonwealth Lore it's been to quote your words, "less absurd" and more consistent in nature. That doesn't mean of course I still don't view it as a WIP.

Returning back to the lore and the post's in question outdated inconsistency: Note how you stated it as "UE" lore. I know this may come as a surprise or even shock to you, but I was never happy with the name United Earthlings for the name of a nation. So, for years I went back and forth about what to do. That post was made years before I finally decided on a course of action, that the nation of United Earthlings would ceased to exist as a entity in all things past, present and future. I started again from a blank slate and have been slowly (very slowly) rebuilding the foundation, the majority of which I still haven't gotten around to posting either in a factbook or elsewhere.

Two, that post was made back when I thought having 10 to 15 billion people in your nation was fine and didn't present any problems whatsoever, so you see that post is perfectly consistent with its absurdities. Which is why it's no longer consider consistent with the lore I've been slowly creating for my (somewhat) new nation.

Yes, you're telling a story with these silly battleships. Fiction and roleplaying are narrative acts, but so is world-building down to the tedious fictional OOBs created in this thread.

"NS Military Realism" isn't realism the way an art historian or literary critic would use the term - the life-like depiction of ordinary reality. It's merely a narrative logic with rules that have predictive value. A more fantastical setting (tone?) may just as "realistic" if it has a narrative logic with internal consistency that gives predictive value.

For years and years the version of the Commonwealth presented to us has been patently absurd. The narrative logic is (was?) simply "United Earthlings is awesome," and often "United Earthlings is more awesome than you because I say it is." You can say anything you want, of course, but Mary Suetopias generally aren't very compelling because then we have predictive value without internal consistency - an inverted narrative logic.

Now the narrative logic has radically shifted, perhaps for the better. I guess we still could go into why a country that spends enough on battleships to advance the technical state of the art in propulsion (awesome!) or whatever beyond the predictive value of historical trends wouldn't fool around with these refits, the limited value of a 25 knot refit in the first place and so on and so on, but that's not the question even though its much more important than the technical minutiae.

So is it feasible for United Earthlings to reconstruct its Standard battleships to achieve 25-28 knots? It's exactly as feasible as it is for Bella Swann to get a really cute haircut that makes her even more irresistible to Edward Cullen.

I'm attempting to build a internally consistent narrative, alas if you keep demanding I put the cart before the horse, of course there's going to be a narrative logic that's absurd and inconsistent. I've already done the majority of work of world-building my nation's fictional Battleship and Cruiser/later Battlecruiser OOBs starting from 1860 and ending in the late 1940s. This potential refit is merely so far a thought experiment about one chapter in that narrative, if that.

I considered both the value question and the technical minutiae equally important. I just merely wanted to focus on the technical minutiae question first sense if that part proved non-feasible from a technical point of view then the value part would be made redundant. By now, I don't think I'm going to get a concise answer on the technical part here, so for now I guess I'll address your limited value issue quickly.

Just so were clear, the Commonwealth exists in an alternate/parallel universe where real life historical trends may not hold at all, be widely divergent or somewhat similar depending on the context of how in the present and in the future I roleplay my nation interacting with other NS nations and how that differs from their own lore. Since, it's already a stated fact that not everyone shares the same values, the same applies equally to nations and even fictional NS nations. The last Dreadnoughts my fictional nation built in the early 1920s were for 25 knots. So right there, a baseline internally consistent narrative historical trend of valuing 25 knots has been established.

Now I'm trying to determine for the narrative of my nation not only how much does it value that 25 knot speed, but what is it capable of achieving in a technical sense.

Lastly, since it seems to be a sore spot for you, let's change the narrative and feel free to add any adjectives that would make you happy. Since, you might of forgotten just a quick reminder, there is no more nation that exists with the name United Earthlings, so its either the Commonwealth for short form or middle form would be the Commonwealth Kingdom/CK. For now the long form I don't think is needed.

So, now we have...the Commonwealth is great (maybe awesome?) at some things, good/ok at most things and bad at some things. The Commonwealth is not more awesome than you not because I say so, but because of the respective narratives each of us is creating as we roleplay, explore and spend time imaging our nation's in all their glory and faults.

Also I like butter pecan.

That explains a lot...

Psychology joke

[United Earthlings]

Welcome to the NS Military Worldbuilding thread! Which is strictly relegated to worldbuilding your military and not your fifty-ninehundredth harem fantasy. We try to offer critique based on what you define as realistic in your personal canon but remember author fiat cannot always save your skin, especially when it gets ridiculous.

New OP and thread title.

My job's done.

Is it cool boss if I take the rest of the day off?

[The Manticoran Empire]

Could the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MEU, MEB, MEF) be repurposed for Army units?

[Gallia-]

Meanwhile, the entire time I've been thinking about this refit, I've had a less than sign in front of the 25. As I've feared, since the beginning of my first mention, we've seen this potential planned refit of mine two very distinctive ways.

Time Frame for conversion would be starting in 1935/36 with the goal ultimately being to achieve a top speed of somewhere between 25 knots at the lowest end and 28 knots at the highest post engine modification/reconstruction.

This is advanced doublethink.

Could the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MEU, MEB, MEF) be repurposed for Army units?

Yes but why.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Could the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MEU, MEB, MEF) be repurposed for Army units?

Yes but why.

I'm curious, more than anything.

Basically, examining the apparent insistence on combined arms and joint force actions, it would seem that an MAGTF applied to Army units would make sense on paper.

My main question is, would it be feasible to do so?

[Gallia-]

It's a light infantry battalion with a few helicopters and some crummy APCs. The reason it has so much firepower everywhere is to offset the fact that the USMC cannot use decent IFVs or very many tanks to begin with.

[Austrasien]

Basically, examining the apparent insistence on combined arms and joint force actions, it would seem that an MAGTF applied to Army units would make sense on paper.

Questionable. They attach jets and helicopters with a combat radius of hundreds of kilometres to a unit that might hold 10 km of front. In most cases this is like making 155mm howitzers organic to rifle platoons. Marine units could theoretically be fighting only with their own assets which is an absurd proposition for an actual army. The entire country is defended by one regiment? One battalion?

Weapons that can cover very large areas (whether they are long-range artillery, missiles, aircraft or anything else) by nature lend themselves to centralization at a level of control where the area of responsibility is roughly comparable to their reach OR to the highest level of control, whichever comes first. A Harrier should not be organic to a battalion-sized ground unit. An ICBM should not be organic to a corps. A modern attack helicopter can cover roughly the area of a modern division. A modern fighter would be on par with something like an Army group, if there were any modern army groups, and depending on the size of the state a theatre or strategic asset.

That said there are circumstances where such groupings of forces might be desirable - like an atomized expeditionary force. Marine Expeditionary units resemble writ large, specialized units like German Assault Battalions in WW1 or US Armoured Cavalry in Vietnam.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So there is nothing really stopping you from doing it but it's not really worth it for Army units?

[Gallia-]

It's easier to think of a MAGTF as a aero-naval strike force with a lot of armed sailors to form a shore party. It's similar to an airbase's security battalion.

The battalion landing team has less of an impact on what the MAGTF looks like than its need to drag a bunch of fighter jets 3,000 miles away from the nearest airbase.

[Ideal Britain]

Are military personnel likely to rebel if 80% of them can’t vote?

(E.g. if a political knowledge test is required that the majority don’t pass).

I think not (because they didn’t rebel that often from 1760–1913)

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Are military personnel likely to rebel if 80% of them can’t vote?

(E.g. if a political knowledge test is required that the majority don’t pass).

I think not (because they didn’t rebel that often from 1760–1913)

1776, Shay's rebellion, the US Civil War, and the Bonus Army insurrection on the US Capitol that was only dispersed after tanks started rolling through the crowds say otherwise.

Political disenfranchisement is a primary motivator for a civil war.

[Austrasien]

Are military personnel likely to rebel if 80% of them can’t vote?

(E.g. if a political knowledge test is required that the majority don’t pass).

I think not (because they didn’t rebel that often from 1760–1913)

The easy answer is no.

The actual answer is collective action theory.

The general framework is something like:

• A certain grievance is widespread in a population
• One or more individuals develop strong opinions ("do something") on this issue arise in the population and begin to socially recruit others
• Dense social groups, social groups where most members interact with most other members, gradually convert to the new position ("do something about it")
• When enough dense social groups, cells you might call them, are converted nearly the whole population converts
• At this point they begin to "do something" like mutiny

Outstanding grievances can be analogized as the humidity in a forest. The drier it is, the more likely it will be to burn if there is a spark. Grievances of some kind in a military unit are a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for a mutiny to occur. The spark though comes from individuals, agitators, if you will, whose strong commitment to this grievance starts the fire.

So something happens, say someone writes a pamphlet "It sucks not being to vote, kill your officers". Many agitators, soldiers who feel its very bad they cannot vote, in their cells of like-minded agitators read this pamphlet and think "great idea let's kill our officers". If there are a high enough concentration of cells which activate in a particular unit, it is likely that whole unit will mutiny.

An important fact is here for most soldiers (and most people) on most issues most of the time the amount of social reinforcement they receive for a particular behaviour determines if they will adopt it - they won't be willing to mutiny until enough people in their social circle of fellow soldiers seem like they will also mutiny, but when they do they will mutiny. So the (social, who talks to who) density of cells of people who feel very strongly about a particular grievance will be the principal independent variable in how likely a unit is to mutiny.

And the density cells will depend on how strongly the population of soldiers feels about the issue (stronger feelings = more people with strong opinions), pre-existing social networks which might be co-opted (catholic soldiers in a protestant army for example who would already be inclined to form social networks within their units) , existing religious/political movements which might be recruiting soldiers to form cells for agitation already (socialist parties for example) and many other essentially random considerations like the relationships between officers/enlisted, between different groups of soldiers and so forth in particular units.

Or more simply, like a forest fire, it is fairly easy to predict where a mutiny could occur, but nearly impossible to say when exactly it will occur, what exactly will set it off or how far it will spread through a force or really if it will start at all.

[Gallia-]

tl;dr Janissaries didn't ask for a vote, they asked for a territory.

Are military personnel likely to rebel if 80% of them can’t vote?

(E.g. if a political knowledge test is required that the majority don’t pass).

I think not (because they didn’t rebel that often from 1760–1913)

1776, Shay's rebellion, the US Civil War, and the Bonus Army insurrection on the US Capitol that was only dispersed after tanks started rolling through the crowds say otherwise.

Political disenfranchisement is a primary motivator for a civil war.

Yes, the USA disenfranchised WW1 veterans and white plantation owners.

I guess calling the CSA a "mutiny" is a bit like calling the Great Patriotic War a "spat" though.

[Dtn]

After reading through the entire post of yours, I would say most definitely our understanding of the facts is different. Everything I've said to date about 25 knots you've put a greater than sign in front of the 25. Meanwhile, the entire time I've been thinking about this refit, I've had a less than sign in front of the 25. As I've feared, since the beginning of my first mention, we've seen this potential planned refit of mine two very distinctive ways.

Time Frame for conversion would be starting in 1935/36 with the goal ultimately being to achieve a top speed of somewhere between 25 knots at the lowest end and 28 knots at the highest post engine modification/reconstruction.

I wonder where the confusion came from lol

Holy shit.

"Available space" and "weight" are inextricably linked.

Yes and No, the answer being context dependent.

Yes, this is why I put the answer in the contexts of "new ship" and "refit."

Given what I've previously stated, I thought it was already implied that given a potential refit would see the vessels turbine-electric drive replaced with a geared turbine system that alterations to the dimensions of the machinery spaces was probably a certainty. Are mid to late 1930s high pressure boilers different in their dimensions and weight to their late 1910s predecessors and if so by what?

This question has already been answered, and it should be obvious from looking at plans of battleships that the dimensions of machinery spaces are constrained except in cases like the Caio Duilios.

You're thinking too much about the year and not the generational differences between Andrea Doria and the Standards. Going from 20+ coal-fired boilers to fewer oil-fired boilers was a massive improvement - think of the all the area that went to dozens of stokers running around, just for example.

Do you think it's just weird coincidence that the Italian and Japanese interwar refits with drastic speed increases were all originally coal-fueled with anywhere from 20 to 36 boilers, while the actual Standard-class refit in 1931 with new boilers and new geared turbines only increased speed by a knot? Why aren't you using this 1931 refit as a basis for comparison?

Especially following the industrial revolution, war and growth of military power in general tended to spur technological advances that eventually lead to the rapid advancement of the atomic era, but it wasn't just the Second World War that changed the military-scientific relationship, that process had started years before during the First World War.

I completely forgot about the incredibly war-torn period after the Industrial Revolution!

With minor exceptions, military and civilian technology before World War II came from the same source, and the civilian market dwarfed the military except in situations like World War One. There weren't military institutions funding basic research into better marine propulsion or armor or most other technologies except in the most indirect and haphazard way. There were no systematic ways to incorporate technology and it could take militaries of the time decades to see the potential of things like...steel.

I'm attempting to build a internally consistent narrative, alas if you keep demanding I put the cart before the horse, of course there's going to be a narrative logic that's absurd and inconsistent. I've already done the majority of work of world-building my nation's fictional Battleship and Cruiser/later Battlecruiser OOBs starting from 1860 and ending in the late 1940s. This potential refit is merely so far a thought experiment about one chapter in that narrative, if that.

Again, you completely miss the point. In this thread and its predecessors, you've consistently presented your silly fictional nation as superior in technology, tactics, and everything else to everybody else's silly fictional nation. Whether the nation is simply absurd or a vague WIP, you're merely telling rather than showing us this, and you've strongly linked the IC awesomeness of your nation to your OOC persona. Draw your own conclusions.

So, now we have...the Commonwealth is great (maybe awesome?) at some things, good/ok at most things and bad at some things. The Commonwealth is not more awesome than you not because I say so, but because of the respective narratives each of us is creating as we roleplay, explore and spend time imaging our nation's in all their glory and faults.

Yes, you can tell us this. You've shown us something quite different in much more recent posts than the one I dug up.

Anyway, this discussion is a story too in its own way - and we can see from the "less than sign in front of the 25" it doesn't have much internal consistency either.

The last Dreadnoughts my fictional nation built in the early 1920s were for 25 knots. So right there, a baseline internally consistent narrative historical trend of valuing 25 knots has been established.

Reflect on this a bit.

That explains a lot...

Psychology joke

According to this article I'm friendly and compassionate with a high level of "prosocial functioning [such as helping, sharing, or volunteering]." Maybe this is why I continue to indulge you longer than I should?

[Gallia-]

the d in danton means dental caries from all the chocos he eats

rip

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Has a study ever been performed on the effectiveness of dodging as a military tactic?