Advertisement
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:36 pm
Purpelia wrote:Crookfur wrote:
You would probabaly have to go a bit bigger to something like the PC-6 in order to have room for a couple of pararescue jumpers, extra fuel and survival /medical gear.
Would I really need any of that stuff? I figured this would be something that lands in a field, the downed pilot runs out from the rock he was hiding under and jumps in and it flies off.
by Coalition State » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:43 pm
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:47 pm
Coalition State wrote:I need help forming a budget breakdown for my military. I am focused mainly on my so-called Joint Strike Force, (JSF) which has 100,000 active duty combat personnel and 300,000 NCOs. I imagine them to be extremely well trained and armed soldiers, with a huge emphasis on quality over quantity. I would like to break down the budget of equipment vs training vs (something I could be missing).
I can provide other information, just ask.
by Coalition State » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:48 pm
by The Kievan People » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:49 pm
Coalition State wrote:Non-Combat Officer. That means maintenance, logistics, et cetera, correct?
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:49 pm
Coalition State wrote:Non-Combat Officer. That means maintenance, logistics, et cetera, correct?
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:51 pm
Coalition State wrote:Non-Combat Officer. That means maintenance, logistics, et cetera, correct?
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:53 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:54 pm
Purpelia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
That means all of your sergeants and corporals. So ATM it means you've got three times more sergeants and corporals than privates and officers combined.
Which is actually not unheard off. IIRC the German army interwar had an NCO bloat with the idea that good NCO's need training while you can fill out the privates with recruits come mobilcy.
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:54 pm
Coalition State wrote:Non-Combat Officer. That means maintenance, logistics, et cetera, correct?
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:58 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Purpelia wrote:Which is actually not unheard off. IIRC the German army interwar had an NCO bloat with the idea that good NCO's need training while you can fill out the privates with recruits come mobilcy.
It's not optimal though. Germany did it because they were legally restricted from having a large military at the time, so they held on to the parts they felt were hard to train. Which I don't think is the environment we're operating in here.
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:59 pm
Purpelia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
It's not optimal though. Germany did it because they were legally restricted from having a large military at the time, so they held on to the parts they felt were hard to train. Which I don't think is the environment we're operating in here.
Think about it. If you have universal service in place which has the potential to bloat your numbers up in a hurry the logic makes absolute sense to have a smallish standing army + a large body of NCO's whose only job is to jump in when the conscripts arrive. This is especially true on NS scales where you have to compete with armies that are insanely huge and you ain't.
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:00 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:Purpelia wrote:Think about it. If you have universal service in place which has the potential to bloat your numbers up in a hurry the logic makes absolute sense to have a smallish standing army + a large body of NCO's whose only job is to jump in when the conscripts arrive. This is especially true on NS scales where you have to compete with armies that are insanely huge and you ain't.
I just thought about it.
My mind said "Thats stupid".
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:00 pm
Purpelia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
It's not optimal though. Germany did it because they were legally restricted from having a large military at the time, so they held on to the parts they felt were hard to train. Which I don't think is the environment we're operating in here.
Think about it. If you have universal service in place which has the potential to bloat your numbers up in a hurry the logic makes absolute sense to have a smallish standing army + a large body of NCO's whose only job is to jump in when the conscripts arrive. This is especially true on NS scales where you have to compete with armies that are insanely huge and you ain't.
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:02 pm
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:09 pm
Latinus wrote:
This might be a bit different than what you are used to, since this is for a Fantasy Rome Republic nation, but I am curious to hear thoughts on it.
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:24 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Purpelia wrote:Think about it. If you have universal service in place which has the potential to bloat your numbers up in a hurry the logic makes absolute sense to have a smallish standing army + a large body of NCO's whose only job is to jump in when the conscripts arrive. This is especially true on NS scales where you have to compete with armies that are insanely huge and you ain't.
Except that's not what this guy wants. He wants a standing, ready-to-deploy EndWar-style force, not one that will require months to draft conscripts to fill out the army.
San-Silvacian wrote:Purpelia wrote:Care to explain your standpoint?
In an invasion.
You only have a few million troops to draw from and have to wait months to get decent regulars out the door into the field.
By the end of those months your standing force has been depleted and the enemy general is knocking on your capital building's doorstep (If its even left) asking for a Hue G. Idiot with a pistol a non-conditional surrender document in his hands.
by San-Silvacian » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:29 pm
Purpelia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
Except that's not what this guy wants. He wants a standing, ready-to-deploy EndWar-style force, not one that will require months to draft conscripts to fill out the army.
He might. But my argument is broader than him.San-Silvacian wrote:
In an invasion.
You only have a few million troops to draw from and have to wait months to get decent regulars out the door into the field.
By the end of those months your standing force has been depleted and the enemy general is knocking on your capital building's doorstep (If its even left) asking for a Hue G. Idiot with a pistol a non-conditional surrender document in his hands.
Full army mobilcy can be completed in as little as 24-48h. Assuming of course that you have universal service.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:30 pm
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:41 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Why would he? He's trying to organize the sort of force that's already loading into the transports before the ink is even dry on their orders. Not the sort that needs to go call up its soldiers or draft them for service every time there's a mission. There was no implication of conscription either, which makes it moot.
And the easiest way to solve the issue is to move the extra NCOs to reserve status as well, as every army already does. That way you don't have to pay the bulk of your military higher pay grades and can keep unit formations intact without having to reorganize during mobilization.
by Coalition State » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:41 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:43 pm
Purpelia wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:Why would he? He's trying to organize the sort of force that's already loading into the transports before the ink is even dry on their orders. Not the sort that needs to go call up its soldiers or draft them for service every time there's a mission. There was no implication of conscription either, which makes it moot.
But my argument is NOT just about him. It is about the general notion. You missed that part.
Purpelia wrote:And the easiest way to solve the issue is to move the extra NCOs to reserve status as well, as every army already does. That way you don't have to pay the bulk of your military higher pay grades and can keep unit formations intact without having to reorganize during mobilization.
Might work. Might not.
by Kalmarium » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:59 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Kalmarium wrote:So what's the main problem with quad-tracked tanks? (for example the Scorpion tank from Halo)
It's not going to be as mobile, and it's more parts to lose to mechanical failure or damage. Admittedly, it would theoretically make the tank more survivable, limping about on three of four tracks rather than one of two. Though it's not going to continue fighting in that state.
The biggest issue is probably going to be significant weight increases (two sets of drive, possibly two engines) coupled with a suddenly reduced track surface leading to greatly increased ground pressure.
My political and
religious views:
My Deviantart
Alt. hisotry fans
check it out!
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:59 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:And you missed the part where this was supposed to be giving advice to the guy who asked for it, who clearly doesn't have that kind of military structure and who came up with that figure through a simple error.
It has no less of a chance of working than your system
but leaves the standing military free to conduct operations using a normal structure without sucking the budget dry maintaining huge cadres of NCOs sitting on their thumbs.
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
