NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Greater Allidron]

How does doctrine affect the sizes of divisions?

[The Akasha Colony]

How does doctrine affect the sizes of divisions?

It affects the arrangement, size, and equipment of all of your units from squad on up, and thus it obviously affects division size. But there's no simple linear relationship because doctrines don't exist on a simple linear scale. There are lots of doctrinal factors that could make a division larger or smaller.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Just asking if anyone knows the name of a warship calculator? I've been racking my brain but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

I remember you would put in figures like length, armour thickness, gun size (It was mainly intended for big gun ships) and so on and it would give you the tonnage and so on.

[The Akasha Colony]

Just asking if anyone knows the name of a warship calculator? I've been racking my brain but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

I remember you would put in figures like length, armour thickness, gun size (It was mainly intended for big gun ships) and so on and it would give you the tonnage and so on.

I presume you're referring to SpringSharp?

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

Just asking if anyone knows the name of a warship calculator? I've been racking my brain but I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

I remember you would put in figures like length, armour thickness, gun size (It was mainly intended for big gun ships) and so on and it would give you the tonnage and so on.

I presume you're referring to SpringSharp?

That's the one! Thanks. I guessed this thread would be one of the most likely to have an answer.

[Puzikas]

>talking about needing to change CASEVAC
>making every reference to MEDEVAC instead

Until the pt is stable and in an environment in which they have the lowest probably of being further exposed to fire and environmental exposure, and a chain of care that reaches the level of a critical Care Professional instead of BLS or ALS model as followed by most combat units, they are considered a casualty.

A battalion aid station probably isnt that environment. I would make an argument in low intensity conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq, they aren't until they reach Bagram or, if you want to really get super idealistic, Landstuhl.

E: ofc this is me being all (medicine man) and putting the priority of the PT above all else. Fully understanding manpower is expendable in war I recognize the dispatch of a UH-60 and C130 to take Joe Carrier from Deer Park, WI who got fragged and received injuries to his left hand, arm and shoulder (non-life threatening) is both excessive and cost prohibitive.

[North Arkana]

>talking about needing to change CASEVAC
>making every reference to MEDEVAC instead

Until the pt is stable and in an environment in which they have the lowest probably of being further exposed to fire and environmental exposure, and a chain of care that reaches the level of a critical Care Professional instead of BLS or ALS model as followed by most combat units, they are considered a casualty.

A battalion aid station probably isnt that environment. I would make an argument in low intensity conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq, they aren't until they reach Bagram or, if you want to really get super idealistic, Landstuhl.

Except CASEVAC and MEDEVAC aren't related to what stage of care they're at.

[Greater Allidron]

How does doctrine affect the sizes of divisions?

It affects the arrangement, size, and equipment of all of your units from squad on up, and thus it obviously affects division size. But there's no simple linear relationship because doctrines don't exist on a simple linear scale. There are lots of doctrinal factors that could make a division larger or smaller.

OK. I noticed that Indian and Pakistani divisions seemed fairly large, Soviet divisions smaller, and American divisions really large. I always assumed that Soviet divisions were smaller because they were going to just rotate divisions and had them usually attached to even larger formations. And I always assumed that American divisions were large because of the need to have a smaller more independent unit because expeditionary reasons, although I may be wrong about that.

My real question I guess is how would I go about determining what size to make my units at all, or better yet how does what you want to do with the army affect the size of its units? If I am fighting closer to home should I make my divisions larger or smaller? Brigade or division based? So many questions so little time.

[New Oyashima]

Let's say I'm Japan with CVNs. What should my main carrier aircraft be if I can't afford to fill them with F35s?

[Gallia-]

Navalized F-2

[New Oyashima]

Navalized F-2

Thank God.

[Laywenrania]

Let's say I'm Japan with CVNs. What should my main carrier aircraft be if I can't afford to fill them with F35s?

A6M

(I'd say the same as Gallia, navalized F-2)

[Gallia-]

Navalized F-2

Thank God.

*SEPECAT Jaguar

i'll navalize your...navel???

idk what that means now

[The Corparation]

Let's say I'm Japan with CVNs. What should my main carrier aircraft be if I can't afford to fill them with F35s?

I think a ricer version of the F-18 would make a lot of sense. Set up the same sort of agreement that they did to make the F-2 except based on f18 instead of f16

[Rhodesialund]

Let's say I'm Japan with CVNs. What should my main carrier aircraft be if I can't afford to fill them with F35s?

I think a ricer version of the F-18 would make a lot of sense. Set up the same sort of agreement that they did to make the F-2 except based on f18 instead of f16

Sooo... Superhornet?

[Gallia-]

Let's say I'm Japan with CVNs. What should my main carrier aircraft be if I can't afford to fill them with F35s?

I think a ricer version of the F-18 would make a lot of sense. Set up the same sort of agreement that they did to make the F-2 except based on f18 instead of f16

Why on Earth

[The Akasha Colony]

My real question I guess is how would I go about determining what size to make my units at all, or better yet how does what you want to do with the army affect the size of its units?

In lots of complicated ways. To some degree, I think you're looking at it the wrong way, fixating purely on the size of the division without paying attention to the larger (or smaller) picture.

Divisions may be larger if they have lots of support and logistics units integrated into them, and they may be smaller if these units are separate. This can change the division size but not the overall force size or "division slice," because a tank still needs gas and whether the fuel trucks are in the division or a separate unit that supports the division doesn't change the fact that there will be fuel trucks and they will require manpower to operate.

They may be larger or smaller depending on the size of their subordinate combat units. A division that has three tank regiments each of which has three battalions in which there are three companies with three platoons of three tanks each will obviously be smaller than one that has four tank regiments of four battalions composed of four companies with four four-tank platoons. The size of these units depends on a whole host of tactical factors and doctrinal differences. A four-tank platoon can be broken into two pairs and can conduct fire-and-maneuver operations on its own. In a three-tank platoon, this is not possible and instead the whole company maneuvers as a unit for fire-and-maneuver operations. Some nations like the US and UK have two command tanks in each company, some like Germany and Russia have only a single command tank. Some have more or fewer platoons per company; the Russians have three three-tank platoons, the US has three four-tank platoons, and the British currently have four four-tank platoons. So a Russian tank company has ten tanks, an American company has 14 tanks, and a British tank squadron has 18 tanks. Initially, US Armored BCTs had only two combined arms battalions, but a few years ago the Army decided to add a third and later reduced the size of each battalion from four line companies to three.

If I am fighting closer to home should I make my divisions larger or smaller?

Proximity to home doesn't change the size of a fighting formation. A tank company doesn't change its number of tanks based on whether it will be fighting inside or outside of your borders.

Expeditionary capability usually requires support services that would not be inside the division anyway. The support personnel who set up forward bases, bulldoze the airstrips, man the ports to offload supplies and all that are not usually part of the division in the first place. The Indians and the Pakistanis are not exactly looking to wage wars on the other side of the globe, they're planning to fight each other and yet still have large divisions. Conversely, the USSR was mostly expecting to fight in Europe relatively close to home and had smaller divisions than its NATO foes, who planned to fight at home (except the US) and fielded larger formations.

Brigade or division based?

There's no right answer. It depends on a lot of things, which is about the best answer you can get.

Brigades have become more popular as of late because armies have shrunk and only a tiny handful of nations can even think of fielding more than like two or three divisions in all. Thus, in order to have more flexible deployment options than "half the army" and "all of the army" brigades have become a more granular alternative. Another factor is that combat power has significantly increased over the decades since divisions dominated during the height of the Cold War and a modern brigade can cover the same frontage as a Cold War division. A self-contained brigade was considered to be plenty for these brushfire conflicts that NATO and other wealthy nations find themselves dealing with, a whole division was considered unnecessary and a waste of resources in a time of tight military budgets.

But there are still arguments for divisions in certain circumstances. Division-based control may be better for controlling a larger concentration of troops in a smaller area. Units need room to maneuver and an independent brigade-centric force needs to give each brigade space on the front. A division-centric army can maintain tighter control of its brigades and thus reduces the amount of space each unit needs on the front, concentrating more firepower and manpower into a given area. But whether this is necessary given the firepower that even a single brigade can bring to bear is another question entirely. And divisions even in brigade-centric forces still control certain assets, such as the combat aviation brigade in a US division, and the divisional artillery.

Realistically, I think the best advice I can give is to find a nation that has reasonably similar strategic goals and objectives and use it as a model. Find whatever field manuals or publications that are available and read them to find out why their force is structured the way it is, what roles it is meant to fill and how they are expected to be employed in combat. Because form follows function, and creating a formation as large as a division without defining the tactical needs and objectives of lower-level units and the strategic needs of your nation is putting the cart before the horse.

[The Corparation]

I think a ricer version of the F-18 would make a lot of sense. Set up the same sort of agreement that they did to make the F-2 except based on f18 instead of f16

Why on Earth

Because it usually takes a lot of work to make a non-carrier aircraft like the F-2 into a carrier aircraft. It would be easier/cheaper for them to just buy a carrier capable aircraft or base their design on an existing carrier aircraft because mai domestic design.

I may or may not have taken these leaps in logic due tohaving a soft spot for the F-18.

[Gallia-]

mai domestic design

That's the entire point why you'd pick F-2.

It would require more design work, which is good.

Buying off the shelf is bad if you intend to not be a vassal state.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

What would be a realistic amphibious troop transport for a developing archipelagic country? I was looking at the DUKW and imagined that an island country would need to upgrade during the middle of the Cold War. The M113 looks good, but what would replace that?

Put simply, the DUKW can, and has solo'd the English Channel.

The M113, and all its variants, are prohibited from even attempting such craziness.

LVTP-5... maybe... but not really (feckin SLOW) Maybe if you took an LVTP-5 and crammed a pair of outboard motors on top...

There's a reason why in Revenge of the Nerds 2, they picked a DUKW as their means to return from a deserted island on the wrong side of Cuba.
-In fact, a Cuban refugee could probably have very good luck making such a trip, and could sell the vintage car for a very hefty sum.

[The Corparation]

mai domestic design

That's the entire point why you'd pick F-2.

It would require more design work, which is good.

Buying off the shelf is bad if you intend to not be a vassal state.

I wasn't thinking of buying off the shelf so much as I was thinking of a domestic design derived from the F-18. Like how the F-2 was derived from the F-16.

[Rhodesialund]

I wasn't thinking of buying off the shelf so much as I was thinking of a domestic design derived from the F-18. Like how the F-2 was derived from the F-16.

>Larger F/A-18
>More Loadout
>Better electronics
>more capability than previous


You basically listed an F/A-18 Superhornet Famalam.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Navalized F-2

Navalized F-3

[The Corparation]

I wasn't thinking of buying off the shelf so much as I was thinking of a domestic design derived from the F-18. Like how the F-2 was derived from the F-16.

>Larger F/A-18
>More Loadout
>Better electronics
>more capability than previous


You basically listed an F/A-18 Superhornet Famalam.

It probably would end up being similar. Except that this theoretical Japanese ricer hornet would have "Made in Japan" stamped on the side and use superior Nipponese avionics, folded one thousand times to be sharp like Katana.

[Gallia-]

Navalized F-2

Navalized F-3

Japanese will be extinct by then though.