NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

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.

[Laritaia]

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.

when he stays within his wheelhouse he's ok

it's when he's talking about stuff that he obviously only has surface level knowledge about that his videos go down hill

[Austrasien]

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?

They could. But this would require accepting there would not always be clear accountability for what happens on the battlefield. Unthinkable to the lawyerly Anglo mind. The faux "killer robot" "debate" (really a make work project for activists and ethicists) was not a good sign at all because it just re-emphasized Western militaries will not trust things which kill on their own. Neither was the capitulation on AP mines and ICMs - though the US had the good sense to resist signing these treaties, they are still trying to implement them in spirit.

Big changes like this probably will only happen after a war. Maybe a lost war.

[Gallia-]

Do standardized tactics really reduce accountability?

Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

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.

[Austrasien]

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.

[Gallia-]

Oic now.

Yeah, that seems like an unmovable obstacle tbh.

[Laritaia]

the British Army will probably never recover from Phil Shiner, their ability to actually wage war against an enemy is now basically non existent due to every potential action being overanalyzed for potential legal weaknesses

[Gallia-]

Lawyers and their confederates should be rounded up and put into reeducation centers.

To correct their subversive tendencies.

Oh wait that's not very "legal". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's hope another world war comes sooner rather than later so we can arrest them all under martial law and emergency war powers. Then we can work on annihilating the most cancerous aspect of Angloism: legal sperg.

[Austrasien]

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.

Some might have better tactics in principle, but a recurring problem with troops from continental Europe in Afghanistan was they refused to engage because they feared the legal and political consequences if they killed a civilian by mistake. And the British are moving swiftly in this direction. Even if some NATO armies have more flexible, less radio dependent, tactical systems it is doubtful they would actually be able to use it because the legal/political constraints they are under are far more draconian; the American public to its credit has no interest in prosecuting American soldiers. The same cannot be said of the German public.

[Laritaia]

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.

[Gallia-]

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.

USA will move in this direction in the future.

Presumably PRC will professionalize and be our next world policeman.

I for one am 100% ready for Bishi Spacegun Army.

[Laritaia]

apparently Phil Shiner is now persona non grate in the British Legal community and no one is willing to represent him


so there is some small measure of justice in this world

[Western Pacific Territories]

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.

Read a good book which mentions a situation like this. Platoon of Marines in Ramadi goes in to arrest two guys (father and son) selling gas illegally. Father flees and they arrest the son. A squad of Marines and a officer drive off in a Humvee to catch the father, who gets into a car and drives into a busy section of highway. The officer gives a unknown order: He claims he said "Stop him!", but the squad all says they each heard "Shoot him!". The squad shoots the father - but nobody is held accountable because the conclusion is that due to the heavy amount of noise generated by traffic on the highway, it just wasn't possible for the Marines to hear the order correctly.

[Ascoobis]

I'm not quite as well informed as others on this thread so I wished to ask to purpose of the spherical object on this SAM system. Is it RADAR or some other detection system? I've seen it a few times and wondered what it's purpose was.

files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bu50127354.jpg

[The Corparation]

It's an optical tracking system.

[Forest State]

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.

[Greater Allidron]

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.

[Hrstrovokia]

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?

[United Muscovite Nations]

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?

Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk

[Hrstrovokia]

Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk

MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

[The Soodean Imperium]

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?

According to FM 100-60, an OPFOR 152mm self-propelled gun brigade would have
- HQ& control battery
- SP gun battalions (either 4x 24 guns each or 5x 18 guns each)
- Target acquisition battery or battalion
- AA gun battery
- Engineer platoon
- Chemical defense platoon
- Materiel support company
- Maintenance company
- Medical platoon

The AA gun battery was eight (8) ZU-23s. Not Shilkas, the actual towed, manually aimed twin mounts.

Soviet practice was to keep MLRS and actual gun artillery in separate units, so a Mechanized Army (XXX size) might get one of these plus one separate MRL regiment with Uragans. The MRL regiment did not have AA defense. MRL brigades, which lived at the Front level (XXXX size) did get AA defense, it was eight ZU-23s as above. Presumably air defense from these units would come from front-line divisions' own SPAAGs and SAMs, which would prevent enemy aircraft from getting through, and long-range SAM units at the Army and Front level.

IDK what NATO practice was in this regard.

Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk

MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

you could call it an eye-popping solution

[Forest State]

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.

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.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Just duct tape some MANPADS to every single vehicle in your military.
t. dprk

MANPADS are overrated, I prefer those laser pens. If they can screw up landing 747s then they can easily take out a A-10A.

You can and will force an A-10 to make an emergency landing with just Iglas (happened in Iraq 2003, said A-10 came home gears up and with no hydraulics).

[Hurtful Thoughts]

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.

Realy depends on logisical-strain this will put on your nation and its ability to further deter any brushfire-wars before resorting to the nuclear-options.