How To Create a Military Doctrine For Your Nation

[Bruke]

We're just working with what we have. We will implement your ideas regarding medium tanks and pick up trucks.

[New Aeyariss]

We're just working with what we have. We will implement your ideas regarding medium tanks and pick up trucks.

You do realize that said mountains create a perfect environment for a cruise missile strike, considering that the cruise missiles will fly in a cover from radar shadow of the mountains?

[Kash Island]

We're just working with what we have. We will implement your ideas regarding medium tanks and pick up trucks.

You do realize that said mountains create a perfect environment for a cruise missile strike, considering that the cruise missiles will fly in a cover from radar shadow of the mountains?

That's okay, look, every nation has it's weaknesses, hes pretty radical about how his geography but nobody is perfect.

[Bruke]

Yes. We have prepared bunkers and emergency shelters in the event of an attack, and we do have a missile defense program.

[Kash Island]

Yes. We have prepared bunkers and emergency shelters in the event of an attack, and we do have a missile defense program.

like the guide says


form your military based on your most likley threats

you said terrorist attack is your biggest concern, well, your nation should probably focus it's resources on: Highly trained/High Tech mobile forces(why i mentioned the 4x4 pick ups)/ helicopters/ VTOL aircraft/ some APC's(like strykers with their 120 guns giving you tank firepower but freeway mobility)/ you also would need to highly invest in espionage/counter-terrorism/police.

insurgency/terrorist attack would deem these assets top priority.

your military would basically be a very powerful Military/Police Hybrid.

[Bruke]

We already have dedicated counterterrorism programs, but we will invest in more APCs and VTOL aircraft. Thank you.

[Kash Island]

I'm going to need to rework my military

my top threat is going to be sea invasion/attack from possibly multiple directions against enemies with more manpower presumably(as an Island I don't have as much landmass nor do I have the numbers for prolonged conflict with larger land based nations during a war of conventional attrition.)

Lines of Defense


1st Line: Our deeper sea patrolling submarines/Destroyers

2nd Line: Our patrol craft(such as corvettes/missile boats), sea mines

3rd line: Our nations Shoreline missile defense systems(both ariel and ship varieties), to engage enemy ships

4th line: Should the enemy breach these then a high intensity asymmetrical war will erupt, engagments will be conducted in foothill based terrain and some plains, where our military forces will have pre-positioned themselves on hilltops for maximum casualties of enemy forces.

5th line: If the enemy continues to population centers Militia units will be deployed in the city to assist government troops, roads and other infrastructure will be destroyed in a burning retreat to the capital which is located in the center-far east of our great bay. During this time the bay naval forces will assist with ferrying individuals from neighboring areas across the island, while also providing military support in whatever forms they can muster. The bay area is host to a very large naval bases/bases and anti-aircraft platforms, the entrance being guarded by numerous sea mines and other emplacements, as such the bay and capital will naturally be the last targets as they will produce the highest casualties of enemy forces.

[Bruke]

Very good defensive system there, reminds us of the Nation of Fire.

[Nevada Communes]

You do realize that said mountains create a perfect environment for a cruise missile strike, considering that the cruise missiles will fly in a cover from radar shadow of the mountains?

That's okay, look, every nation has it's weaknesses, hes pretty radical about how his geography but nobody is perfect.

I don't think New Aeyariss is questioning his choice of geography. he's questioning the military response to this geography which I think is perfectly valid.

I would scrap any medium tanks and stay with just light or heavy armor(light armor to use their speed on freeway, and heavy armor to act as mobile defenses.

If road-side mobility is the concern, heavy tanks have little purpose here. Even static defenses would be better - in fact would be far cheaper to maintain and operate. Heavy tanks would tear up the asphalt (therefore should be kept off-road if possible) and won't have the advantages heavy armor has operating in the open and if they're confined to the roads (which apparently they will be) they're incredible vulnerable to artillery strikes. I remember reading a Canadian artillery report that even "dumb" HE shells with PD or VT fuses could critically damage upwards of 67% of a tank formation. Part of Armor's survivability is the ability to stay on the move but that's negated if there is only a narrow battlefield.

In fact, I suggest Bruke invest in substantial air defenses and artillery.

i.e. having big armored assets to operate in the middle of a big, crowded road doesn't seem very intelligent. You can't really stop the enemy from pulverizing you with artillery, but you can make the choice between a 7 million dollar MBT or a $60,000 concrete bunker with AGTMS.

you said terrorist attack is your biggest concern, well, your nation should probably focus it's resources on: Highly trained/High Tech mobile forces(why i mentioned the 4x4 pick ups)/ helicopters/ VTOL aircraft/ some APC's(like strykers with their 120 guns giving you tank firepower but freeway mobility)/ you also would need to highly invest in espionage/counter-terrorism/police.

MRAPs are cheaper and superior in this purpose than wheeled APCs. 120 mm guns are unnecessary in COIN operations and 4x4 pickups are useful but not sufficient to fill the role MRAPs might have to take. Also, if Bruke can't operate heavy armor up here properly (for aforementioned reasons) it is likely his invader will, so 120 mm guns seem overkill if Bruke's entire purpose is defense. If Bruke wants to deploy elsewhere, wheeled APCs and TDs are, of course, useful and still are here even if not.

[Kash Island]

That's okay, look, every nation has it's weaknesses, hes pretty radical about how his geography but nobody is perfect.

I don't think New Aeyariss is questioning his choice of geography. he's questioning the military response to this geography which I think is perfectly valid.

I would scrap any medium tanks and stay with just light or heavy armor(light armor to use their speed on freeway, and heavy armor to act as mobile defenses.

If road-side mobility is the concern, heavy tanks have little purpose here. Even static defenses would be better - in fact would be far cheaper to maintain and operate. Heavy tanks would tear up the asphalt (therefore should be kept off-road if possible) and won't have the advantages heavy armor has operating in the open and if they're confined to the roads (which apparently they will be) they're incredible vulnerable to artillery strikes. I remember reading a Canadian artillery report that even "dumb" HE shells with PD or VT fuses could critically damage upwards of 67% of a tank formation. Part of Armor's survivability is the ability to stay on the move but that's negated if there is only a narrow battlefield.

In fact, I suggest Bruke invest in substantial air defenses and artillery.

i.e. having big armored assets to operate in the middle of a big, crowded road doesn't seem very intelligent. You can't really stop the enemy from pulverizing you with artillery, but you can make the choice between a 7 million dollar MBT or a $60,000 concrete bunker with AGTMS.

you said terrorist attack is your biggest concern, well, your nation should probably focus it's resources on: Highly trained/High Tech mobile forces(why i mentioned the 4x4 pick ups)/ helicopters/ VTOL aircraft/ some APC's(like strykers with their 120 guns giving you tank firepower but freeway mobility)/ you also would need to highly invest in espionage/counter-terrorism/police.

MRAPs are cheaper and superior in this purpose than wheeled APCs. 120 mm guns are unnecessary in COIN operations and 4x4 pickups are useful but not sufficient to fill the role MRAPs might have to take. Also, if Bruke can't operate heavy armor up here properly (for aforementioned reasons) it is likely his invader will, so 120 mm guns seem overkill if Bruke's entire purpose is defense. If Bruke wants to deploy elsewhere, wheeled APCs and TDs are, of course, useful and still are here even if not.

Your over thinking it he can use mrap or whatever.

He also dosnt need subdstantial anti air

As well he says terorist attack not full blown armed insurrection. If he needs mraps they will work just fine but mraps are designed against insurgents whom roam around planting bombs, i think his forces are aware of whats going on in his own nation.

[Nevada Communes]

Your over thinking it he can use mrap or whatever.

I'm not really. APCs are going to be too clunky for COIN operations. Because of their profile, they're incredibly susceptible to road-side bombs and RPGs - at least wheeled ones - proportionate to their price. The difference is significant unless $$$ doesn't matter. There have been studies on how wheeled APCs are basically road-side armored coffins.

YHe also dosnt need subdstantial anti air

Yes he does. Controlling one's own airspace in a high-altitude war is essential. Just because his major threats are terrorism doesn't mean that contingencies shouldn't be made for conventional conflicts - they still may very well happen. And if he has limited air defense, his nation's limited land mass makes it incredibly vulnerable to enemy recce. By contesting the airspace, he can ensure that his artillery can actually survive instead of getting picked apart on day 2 of the conflict.

Contesting with his own air force is not just as good because it's unlikely he can afford anything other light fighters which will be picked off in BVR by heavier and more aggressive fighters such as F15s and Sukhois. Furthermore, depending on how high his mountains are, helicopters and fighters may have trouble operating effectively.

YAs well he says terorist attack not full blown armed insurrection. If he needs mraps they will work just fine but mraps are designed against insurgents whom roam around planting bombs, i think his forces are aware of whats going on in his own nation.

See point above. MRAPs are used by police forces and the like and are far superior to APCs in this regard at any rate. They'll be faster, suitably protected for their tasks, and vastly cheaper. Additionally, it seems unlikely that terrorists wouldn't use road-side bombs in a dense nation such as his own - it's almost the most effective way to wreak havoc.

[Nevada Communes]

2nd Line: Our patrol craft(such as corvettes/missile boats), sea mines

Where is naval aviation in all of this? I think the importance of recce aircraft cannot be understated. Knowing where your enemy is will significantly multiply the effectiveness of our missile boats and really help you get the bang for your buck.

3rd line: Our nations Shoreline missile defense systems(both ariel and ship varieties), to engage enemy ships

If I may, I'd suggest building a networks of OTH radars akin to Australia's JORN network. It'd help you keep tabs on ship traffic in your waters iirc, and notice irregular maritime movement patterns. It's also not horribly expensive.

4th line: Should the enemy breach these then a high intensity asymmetrical war will erupt, engagments will be conducted in foothill based terrain and some plains, where our military forces will have pre-positioned themselves on hilltops for maximum casualties of enemy forces.

Why on earth would you oppose a concerted conventional attack with an asymmetrical effort? Asymmetrical warfare has its time and place, but that's not when the enemy's armor is rolling up your beaches. I think the most appropriate response at this point is to rush armor and mechanized infantry over to apply pressure to the puncture. Stop the bleeding, so to speak. Mao Zedong spoke of a need to combine asymmetrical and conventional options at this point.

[Bruke]

Don't worry Nevada Communes, we have more than enough money and resources to have other kinds of fighter jets. We have a lot of interceptors for instance.

[Nevada Communes]

Don't worry Nevada Communes, we have more than enough money and resources to have other kinds of fighter jets. We have a lot of interceptors for instance.

It's not just money that's the issue. It's space. You don't seem to have much of it.

Since your runway is small, you cannot operate most of the heavier fighters. That means you're almost restricted to light fighters or perhaps the VTOL configuration of the F-35 (which faces its own slew of performance issues).

[Bruke]

We prefer to fulfill most of our defense needs with domestically designed and build weapons and vehicles, so we will try to develop our own VTOL fighter jet. In the meantime, we will confer with our WATO partners to see if they have anything available.

[Kash Island]

2nd Line: Our patrol craft(such as corvettes/missile boats), sea mines

Where is naval aviation in all of this? I think the importance of recce aircraft cannot be understated. Knowing where your enemy is will significantly multiply the effectiveness of our missile boats and really help you get the bang for your buck.

3rd line: Our nations Shoreline missile defense systems(both ariel and ship varieties), to engage enemy ships

If I may, I'd suggest building a networks of OTH radars akin to Australia's JORN network. It'd help you keep tabs on ship traffic in your waters iirc, and notice irregular maritime movement patterns. It's also not horribly expensive.

4th line: Should the enemy breach these then a high intensity asymmetrical war will erupt, engagments will be conducted in foothill based terrain and some plains, where our military forces will have pre-positioned themselves on hilltops for maximum casualties of enemy forces.

Why on earth would you oppose a concerted conventional attack with an asymmetrical effort? Asymmetrical warfare has its time and place, but that's not when the enemy's armor is rolling up your beaches. I think the most appropriate response at this point is to rush armor and mechanized infantry over to apply pressure to the puncture. Stop the bleeding, so to speak. Mao Zedong spoke of a need to combine asymmetrical and conventional options at this point.

I just listed basics, I of course employ other maritime craft such as anti-submarine helicopters etc etc

your overthinking and making tons of assumptions on the VERY little information I provided, you act like what i stated is the be all of what my plans are, they are not by any means.

[Nevada Communes]

I just listed basics, I of course employ other maritime craft such as anti-submarine helicopters etc etc

your overthinking and making tons of assumptions on the VERY little information I provided, you act like what i stated is the be all of what my plans are, they are not by any means.

Then provide all the information. Otherwise, if you come to a thread asking for advice, it's going to be assumed a lack of information = lack of substance. Which may not be the case but you should expect this kind of response if you want any feedback other than "s' good."

Also where did I make assumptions or overthink? My first point was that you missed out a crucial piece (not a detail) of every major nation's naval doctrine - which I then pointed out as being missing and nothing else. The second was me offering a suggestion that you use a specific technology. The third point was literally me telling you that your plan is fundamentally flawed in some way.

[Kash Island]

I just listed basics, I of course employ other maritime craft such as anti-submarine helicopters etc etc

your overthinking and making tons of assumptions on the VERY little information I provided, you act like what i stated is the be all of what my plans are, they are not by any means.

Then provide all the information. Otherwise, if you come to a thread asking for advice, it's going to be assumed a lack of information = lack of substance. Which may not be the case but you should expect this kind of response if you want any feedback other than "s' good."

Also where did I make assumptions or overthink? My first point was that you missed out a crucial piece (not a detail) of every major nation's naval doctrine - which I then pointed out as being missing and nothing else. The second was me offering a suggestion that you use a specific technology. The third point was literally me telling you that your plan is fundamentally flawed in some way.

see but that's the problem, we have differen't perceptions, when i say Asymetric I do mean a combination of conventional and unconventional war, not just guerrila.

[Nevada Communes]

Then provide all the information. Otherwise, if you come to a thread asking for advice, it's going to be assumed a lack of information = lack of substance. Which may not be the case but you should expect this kind of response if you want any feedback other than "s' good."

Also where did I make assumptions or overthink? My first point was that you missed out a crucial piece (not a detail) of every major nation's naval doctrine - which I then pointed out as being missing and nothing else. The second was me offering a suggestion that you use a specific technology. The third point was literally me telling you that your plan is fundamentally flawed in some way.

see but that's the problem, we have differen't perceptions, when i say Asymetric I do mean a combination of conventional and unconventional war, not just guerrila.

That's not an issue of differing perceptions. That's just called not understanding the proper definition of the term.

[Kash Island]

see but that's the problem, we have differen't perceptions, when i say Asymetric I do mean a combination of conventional and unconventional war, not just guerrila.

That's not an issue of differing perceptions. That's just called not understanding the proper definition of the term.

I know the definition -_- jesus christ....I just use it as a label, sorry for the confusion.

[Nevada Communes]

That's not an issue of differing perceptions. That's just called not understanding the proper definition of the term.

I know the definition -_- jesus christ....I just use it as a label, sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I know I seem like I'm being pedantic but it's hard to have a constructive discussion if both parties aren't using the same language. A lot can get lost in translation.

[Kash Island]

I know the definition -_- jesus christ....I just use it as a label, sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I know I seem like I'm being pedantic but it's hard to have a constructive discussion if both parties aren't using the same language. A lot can get lost in translation.

extremley

but yeah, ill try to be more clear because I am fucking that up for this conversation.

[Yatzatz]

I'm an island nation in the North Pacific. We have a very strong military, primarily Navy and Air Force. We have experience fighting larger countries, having fought the Japanese in WW2 and the Russians three times during the Cold War. We are surrounded by three extremely large powers, the US, Russia, and China. Our military today has overseas bases in North Korea (we had a brief war with them in the 1980s), Sri Lanka (long story there), Israel (supporting Israel, not against Israel), and Japan. We have been having tension in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans with India.

Anyone care to comment on that?

Anyone care to comment on that?

[Nevada Communes]

Sorry, I know I seem like I'm being pedantic but it's hard to have a constructive discussion if both parties aren't using the same language. A lot can get lost in translation.

extremley

but yeah, ill try to be more clear because I am fucking that up for this conversation.

Just saw this.

Extremeley? For wanting to use the fundamental terminology pertinent to the discussion? Sorry, but I wasn't the one who complained about getting feedback because I didn't even bother looking up the basic definitions of the words I was using.

I'm an island nation in the North Pacific. We have a very strong military, primarily Navy and Air Force. We have experience fighting larger countries, having fought the Japanese in WW2 and the Russians three times during the Cold War. We are surrounded by three extremely large powers, the US, Russia, and China. Our military today has overseas bases in North Korea (we had a brief war with them in the 1980s), Sri Lanka (long story there), Israel (supporting Israel, not against Israel), and Japan. We have been having tension in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans with India.

Anyone care to comment on that?

Anyone care to comment on that?

I think it's a tad bit unrealistic for a nation of your size and geopolitical situation to be projecting so much force. If you bumped up your pop substantially, I could see it (maybe to 50 million) but otherwise I think you realistically - even assuming high levels of development - wouldn't be securing bases in North Korea unilaterally.

Otherwise, everything seems to check out.

[State77]

As a person who is new to military doctrine and strategy, what should my priorities be for my nation given these factors?

Geography: Many lush jungles & rivers, surrounded by coast (It's a large maritime nation). My nation consists of several large main islands and smaller islands.

Infrastructure: Well-developed infrastructure with moderately sized areas of city.

People: Majority are patriotic and willing to serve in the defence forces.

Economy: Very good. Able to afford state-of-the-art technology and equipment (as the military budget is a large proportion)