NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Gallia-]

A battalion is a piece of a regiment, one's regiment could be the size of a battalion if one wishes but one cannot have a regiment be a battalion.

Both the Commonwealth and France don't agree with you. Regiments are battalion sized units in the French Army.

edit -- and in the armies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

it's probably most accurate to call a regiment a "maneuver unit" since they've varied between brigade to battalion in size over the past 40 years with a downward trend

[Kazarogkai]

A battalion is a piece of a regiment, one's regiment could be the size of a battalion if one wishes but one cannot have a regiment be a battalion.

Both the Commonwealth and France don't agree with you. Regiments are battalion sized units in the French Army.

edit -- and in the armies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

I did say that a regiment can be battalion sized, it's just under proper terminology a battalion when it is in use is supposed piece of a regiment and not the other way around.

[Kazarogkai]

are you french or quebecois irl?

Columbian

[Questers]

Both the Commonwealth and France don't agree with you. Regiments are battalion sized units in the French Army.

edit -- and in the armies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

I did say that a regiment can be battalion sized, it's just under proper terminology a battalion when it is in use is supposed piece of a regiment and not the other way around.

the first thing anyone learns about terminology -- there's no such thing as proper terminology.

Unless you're speaking French, but there's no Academie Francaise for the milscience world.

[Questers]

are you french or quebecois irl?

Columbian

Never met a Colombian who can't spell their own country properly LoL

[Crookfur]

Both the Commonwealth and France don't agree with you. Regiments are battalion sized units in the French Army.

edit -- and in the armies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.

I did say that a regiment can be battalion sized, it's just under proper terminology a battalion when it is in use is supposed piece of a regiment and not the other way around.

As with your stuff on the IDT you have to realise that there is no proper terminology there are just some general concepts that different nations and people's adapt to suit themselves.

Of course if there was a "proper" terminology it would be British

[Immoren]

Obviously multiple artillery batteries should be called "battery array" in English, instead of "artillery battalion".

[Kazarogkai]

Columbian

Never met a Colombian who can't spell their own country properly LoL

I am referring to the area you call the USA. I just prefer the term Columbia for aesthetic reasons.

[Questers]

Never met a Colombian who can't spell their own country properly LoL

I am referring to the area you call the USA. I just prefer the term Columbia for aesthetic reasons.

:kazarogkai:

[Gallia-]

Never met a Colombian who can't spell their own country properly LoL

I am referring to the area you call the USA. I just prefer the term Columbia for aesthetic reasons.

i live on mars

[Gallia-]

of course i am referring to the area you call "tellus" i just prefer mars for aesthetic reasons

for one mars was a manly man not a girly lass

[Kazarogkai]

I am referring to the area you call the USA. I just prefer the term Columbia for aesthetic reasons.

:kazarogkai:

What?

[Imperializt Russia]

I stack boxes of fish all day and live in Grimsby, I'm fucking done with seafood and everything related.

Grimsby eh? Then maybe you can explain the horribleness of the rumble patches on the M180/A180. Surely there must be a reason other than just plain torturing folk.

I'm pretty sure it's just a state-mandated punishment for living in/wanting to live in/wanting to go anywhere near Grimsby.

I stack boxes of fish all day and live in Grimsby, I'm fucking done with seafood and everything related.

I was referring to Dunkirk, but since when did you live in Grimsby? You know I'm an E. Yorks lad, yes?

The last 22 and a half years and no, I did not know that!

[Imperializt Russia]

does samoz say "'oop north"?

No, because my northern accent is delightfully generic and bears no resemblance to that of where I live, or where my family comes from.
I do say "up north" as often as possible, however.

[Allanea]

Obviously multiple artillery batteries should be called "battery array" in English, instead of "artillery battalion".

There must be as many battalions as possible because "battalion" is just a cool word.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZxZtW282B4

[Nachmere]

How tanks are and are not like infantry

Okey so had a few words over TG with our almighty all knowing resident Russian infantryman aka Puzikas, and started thinking about this. I am writing this without editing or testing my ideas, and this is a bit on the philosophical side so feel free to critisize me and if you don't find over-thinking techno-tactics useful just ignore. This may or may not have actual NS usefulness, I don't really care.

Many people, specifically people with some non-tank military experience ask me about tank tactics. While on issues such as engine mechanics, gun ballistics and others I am possibly outmatched by many here (Gallia, Questers, Sumer, Kievan...Have I missed any? Sorry bro's), I believe I am probably as experienced or more so in tank tactics at the tank, platoon and company level. I have some experience in infantry work as well.

In any case each time the feeling on my side is infantrymen do not understand how tanks work, or at least think they do not. This is odd because, as I have told Allanea in the past, tanks work very much like infantry. Think of each tank as a 65 ton infantry man, carrying a 105mm rifle. This may sound absurd but:

1) Just like infantry, tanks are there to maneuver and destroy the enemy with line of sight fire.
2) Just like infantry, tanks depend greatly on terrain both in terms of mobility and for cover.
3) Just like infantry, tanks rely greatly on, and must use cover fire to maneuver when in contact with the enemy.

A famous description, usually in shape of a drawing which i can not find now is: Like the infantry man laying prone, only his head above the parapet, so is the tank, in a hull down position, only its turret and gun exposed. The helmet to an extent protects the man, as does the hard gun mantle the tank. But for both, their best cover is the fire produced by either rifle or main gun.

Tanks rely on each other just as infantry do, and in much the same fashion. This is not just some general saying (as this could be said for aircraft or naval vessels). Tanks in formations (and they should always be in formations) cover different sectors. When travelling in a convoy, they will aim their guns in a way that they cover different areas, just like infantry. They assist each other by using smoke screens like infantry do with smoke grenades, and they spot fire for each other much like some infantry do when needed(infantry does this to lesser extent I know).

This may seem obvious to some of you, and yet people keep wondering the darnedest things about tanks and how they do things. So simply imagine: You are a mighty 65 ton giant. What is different about you than a normal man?

Well, for one thing you are not quite as prone to notice details. Being a giant means small things look small. You can't really pay attention to pesky little people around you.

You are also very bulky and not flexible. Not only you can't fit in buildings, but you can't really respond quickly to things that happen close up to you. This is why you hate city streets and like open, waved terrain.

Because you are a giant, you need copious amounts of substance, and when you are injured you need very specialized medical treatment. And as such, you are constantly thinking where you can get both. This is why logistics are hyper-critical to you even as a tactical commander. An Israeli General said : "A Paratrooper with a ripped shirt and an empty stomach will keep fighting after a rallying patriotic speech, but a tank with a torn track and empty fuel tanks will not be persuaded".

Because you are a giant, the enemy sees you from far away. So you must always be looking far away to see them first. You can't rally pay attention to far away and close by at the same time. This is why you need your little friends to cover your ass, and this is why much like the proverbial elephant, when you see tiny enemies close by you freak out and destroy anything in sight.


So...This is how tonks are, and are not like infantry.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Here's a fun read.

I get the point that the author is trying to make(cowardly French is a ridiculous stereotype) but they went about saying it stupidly.

[Gallia-]

he's right though

[Laritaia]

How tanks are and are not like infantry
-snip-

Qi

As to it's usefulness in NS, i think it gives useful insight into how to write from the perspective of a tank crew, how they would approach a situation, what kinds of things they fear, and perhaps most importantly that a tank is not an insular unit and how they behave in relation to the other tanks within their troop is just as important(if not more) as the interactions between the individual crewmen.

[Nachmere]

How tanks are and are not like infantry
-snip-

Qi

As to it's usefulness in NS, i think it gives useful insight into how to write from the perspective of a tank crew, how they would approach a situation, what kinds of things they fear, and perhaps most importantly that a tank is not an insular unit and how they behave in relation to the other tanks within their troop is just as important(if not more) as the interactions between the individual crewmen.

what is Qi?

[Laritaia]

Quite Interesting

[The Kievan People]

How tanks are and are not like infantry

That is going in the "op".

[Nachmere]

Quite Interesting

cool. the more you learn.

How tanks are and are not like infantry

That is going in the "op".

I am honored, although it is sort of a rambling, not so cohesive.

[United Earthlings]

When it comes to Divisionism vs Brigadism, I think it depends on a number of factors.

Like I have said earlier, expeditionary warfare should demand a Brigade structure. Brigades in an expeditionary military need to be deployable individually and should be able to draw supplies directly from theatre. It would be no good to have a system where you need to put troops 10,000km away, but those troops won't be able to fight without the Divisional HQ, and yet you can only deploy a Brigade or two Brigade's worth. That wouldn't be a good system to have.

However, in a system where the front is going to be predictable and static -- like my situation, or the situation of NORTHAG in the cold war, or South Korea's today, Divisionism makes sense. In the first place, frontage is relatively limited. The Korean DMZ is 151 miles long and South Korea has something like 30 Divisions. With a divisional frontage of 5 miles, being simple here, there's no physical room for too much Brigade commander initiative.

This, also, is one of the reasons the Soviets didn't develop an initiative system. Their Patriotic War experience taught them that when frontage is limited, subunits need to be tightly controlled. During one operation in the invasion of Romania, the Soviet Army was giving Divisions one kilometre of frontage. And their frontages for expected operations in the North German Plain weren't that much greater, either.

Brigadism puts power lower down in the chain, at the Brigade commander, who pulls supplies from a Corps or Theatre. Divisionism puts power higher up the chain, at the DIvisional commander, who normally has more freedom and firepower at his disposal. In a situation where too much freedom would provide chaos due to short frontage, having a system where Brigades draw long supply lines doesn't make sense: in that conventional, set-piece situation, you want shorter, more easily manageable, lines of supply and command and communications distances.

In a situation where you are expecting subunits to have larger frontages, and/or when they need to be deployed overseas to fight on long supply lines, a Brigade system makes more sense.

Tld;r
Division-Brigade is more efficient for logistics, and more easily manageable.
Corps/Theatre-Brigade is more granular, and more flexible.

Adding on to those number of factors, a division-brigade is not inherently less flexible or even more easily manageable, but for simplicity sake what you stated does present a kind of internal logic of truth. However, since the brigade-division-corps dichotomy has been going on for at least two centuries now in various forms through various guises what’s applicable now to Brigades in their concurrent form doesn’t always apply equally to their historical counterparts.

This, but one example taken from an official history of US Brigades:

“However, modern armored warfare with its fluid movements and mission-oriented tactics, saw the adoption of the combat command in lieu of the regiment or brigade as the tactical headquarters between battalion and division levels in the armored division. The combat command concept--a flexible headquarters without any troops of its own except those temporarily assigned to execute specific missions--proved a highly successful way to execute armored operations.

In 1963, the Army adopted the combat command concept across the board, enlarged it and renamed the unit with the more traditional title of brigade. This brigade, controlling attached maneuver battalions and supported by combat support and service units from the division, has remained ever since.”

Furthermore, expeditionary warfare demands easily transportable units which over the preceding century have taken on numerous entities from various Special Forces Units, Regimental Combat Teams, Independent Brigades to even divisions such as those of the Airborne/Air Mobile/Air Assault type to the MEF. Modern Brigades are just adhering to that always elusive quest of easily transportable units as rapid reaction forces.

Doesn't it? If European empires are any indication I would have thought that with all the men dying in acquiring and maintaining colonial possessions would mean a reduced male breeding stock. And given his description of how he recruits I can't imagine the colonies are going to be too happy and obedient as opposed to in constant revolt.

The European empires lost more men fighting each other in continental wars than they did acquiring their colonies abroad, which was very often a fairly bloodless exercise in comparison (as long as you weren't the natives). Even the men they lost fighting each other was in most cases something of a drop in the bucket compared to natural deaths.

For clarity, I was thinking of imperialism in its basic form, I.E. the quest to dominate {rule or influence} ones regional neighbors whether through political, military, economic, or cultural means or through some combination of those four.

Put differently: If your nation wins the war, but can't win the peace, you're now in a war of attrition in whatever form it takes.

It seems to me that the only logical response to having to fight them is repeatedly slamming them with nuclear weapons and hoping that does enough to keep them away.

This isn't aliens, nuking them from orbit won't work.

Continuing on from North Arkana stated about them, a much simpler strategy would work if you got your nation to commit to it for the long haul. A build-up of a regional alliance of some type {not required, but would speed up their downfall}, implement various A2/AD strategies and tactics and finally an economic blockade, the tougher and more nations contributing the better.

---

On a related note on nuclear weapons, I came across this post in II. At first I was going to reply, but the longer I thought about it the more flabbergasted I became.

Since they don't state whether those tests are surface, sub-surface or even underwater and how far apart each test is scheduled, after playing with the nukemap cal and placing the test out in the middle of nowhere I still managed to cause some fatalities with the lowest by placing it out in the middle of the Pacific ocean which seems unlikely for them.

Does anyone have any idea how long it would be to make material for all those large multi-mega ton bombs?
Could you even make a practical weapon with those yields for accounting for the advancement of technology?
Is it wrong of me that I feel tempted just to send about half a dozen 100 kT nukes their way just so they'll pre-maturely detonate those bombs?

[Allanea]

It's not impossible. A 100-megaton weapon was designed in 1960, and built, with the U-238 second-stage tamper deliberately replaced with lead to reduce the actual yield to 50 megatons. If you built a 100-megaton nuke, it would weigh roughly the same. (But obviously have different interior composition, with the lead replaced with U-238).

So, obviously, an 80-ton nuke is also possible, as is a 140-ton nuke. It might wegh around 35 tons but that's frankly not a big deal in this context.