Advertisement
by Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:17 pm
by Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:26 pm
Gallia- wrote:Lindybeige is good because he is an honest sperg who likes sperg for sperg's sake.
He is only really able to contribute to dancesperg and some psychsperg.
by Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:15 pm
Gallia- wrote:Anyway I wonder if it's possible for a radio-heavy army to ever learn how to undo that and start using standardized tactics. Did the USSR ever grow radios or whatever to the extent that USA or UK did in WW2?
by Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:27 pm
by Federated Kingdom of Prussia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:14 pm
by Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:19 pm
Gallia- wrote:Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?
by Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:24 pm
by Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:38 pm
by Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:40 pm
by Austrasien » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:49 pm
Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Are continental European militaries better at doing stuff without constant communication? I also remember someone here saying that the US military has an over-reliance on air and artillery support while being poor at accepting high casualties to get the job done.
by Laritaia » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:51 pm
Austrasien wrote:And the British are moving swiftly in this direction.
by Gallia- » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:53 pm
Laritaia wrote:Austrasien wrote:And the British are moving swiftly in this direction.
yeah that's the Phil Shiner thing, the man is gone now and is going to be lucky to escape doing time but the damage is done.
by Western Pacific Territories » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:21 pm
Austrasien wrote:Gallia- wrote:Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?
Yes. If a unit it out of contact, initiates an attack on their own authority and blows up a school bus full of children who is legally responsible for this?
The men in the unit can say they were just doing precisely what they had been trained to do in that situation. They can plausibly argue there was no intent to violate the laws of war since they had no access to intelligence that indicated there was a school bus full of refugee children in the area when the decision was made to launch the attack and the attack was executed in the way they had been trained to act in that situation.
The superior commander can say he wasn't actually in touch with the unit. He can plausibly argue since he never gave the order to attack or attack in that way he is not responsible for what occurred.
And they are both right to an extent. To coordinate without constant communication decisions must be to some degree self-executing, they must be autonomous. Battle drills and school solutions are one way to make decision making autonomous. But when autonomy enters the decision-making process there is a real possibility that decisions will be made which violate the laws of war, possibly severely, without anyone involved having mens rea. This is not reconcilable with a requirement a military force be rigorously accountable to the laws of war. Either it must be accepted "things happen" or there must be more restrictions on autonomous action.
To date well the US military has not descended to the absurdity of some European countries in prosecuting their own soldiers when push comes to shove the US has always moved towards more oversight and restriction on troops actions in combat and weapons which cannot be precisely controlled have been deprecated.
by Ascoobis » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:26 pm
by The Corparation » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:34 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Forest State » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:47 am
by Greater Allidron » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:46 pm
Forest State wrote:Do any administration and organization experts around here have a moment to help me out? I'm wondering what the structure would roughly look like if I was going to send an army abroad to defend an allied country. Would I be breaking units off from a corps that I have and sending them as their own independent force, or would the organization mostly reflect the higher group that the units are a part of like a corps or an army group, or would a theater be established in the country and units would be assigned to that, or what? I've never been great at the organizational side of things, sorry if this sounds confusing. I just want to make sure I'm sticking to the common RL conventions.
by Hrstrovokia » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:05 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:11 pm
Hrstrovokia wrote:Guys how would an artillery brigade be organized in a military today? Couple of Artillery Battalions and MLRS plus Anti-Tank? What size of Air Defence might be included?
by Hrstrovokia » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:16 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk
by The Soodean Imperium » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:56 pm
Hrstrovokia wrote:Guys how would an artillery brigade be organized in a military today? Couple of Artillery Battalions and MLRS plus Anti-Tank? What size of Air Defence might be included?
by Forest State » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:04 pm
Greater Allidron wrote:Forest State wrote:Do any administration and organization experts around here have a moment to help me out? I'm wondering what the structure would roughly look like if I was going to send an army abroad to defend an allied country. Would I be breaking units off from a corps that I have and sending them as their own independent force, or would the organization mostly reflect the higher group that the units are a part of like a corps or an army group, or would a theater be established in the country and units would be assigned to that, or what? I've never been great at the organizational side of things, sorry if this sounds confusing. I just want to make sure I'm sticking to the common RL conventions.
How many troops can you commit and how many troops do you want to commit and how many troops do you need to commit?
There is after all a difference between defending from a Soviet Union and a Taliban.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:30 pm
by Hurtful Thoughts » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:07 pm
Forest State wrote:Greater Allidron wrote:How many troops can you commit and how many troops do you want to commit and how many troops do you need to commit?
There is after all a difference between defending from a Soviet Union and a Taliban.
It's looking like this is going to turn into a major conflict involving a lot of forces committed from both sides. We're not the main faction so we don't need to put as many forces out as the country being invaded, but still a large commitment. I'm thinking a couple of brigades to start with.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Advertisement