NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[Austrasien]

Which are more motivated fighters?: local conscripts or ideologically motivated foreign volunteers.
Also evidence from 1914 Britain VS Germany implies professional soldiers are militarily superior to conscripts (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVs1F3x ... 1&index=22)

What usually matters:

• Realistic practice
• Experience

What usually does not matter:

• Ideology
• How and why they ended up in the military

[The Manticoran Empire]

Which are more motivated fighters?: local conscripts or ideologically motivated foreign volunteers.
Also evidence from 1914 Britain VS Germany implies professional soldiers are militarily superior to conscripts (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVs1F3x ... 1&index=22)

Neither. The British were pushed back throughout 1914 until the First Battle of Mons and then the war devolved into a mostly static see-saw action. There is no appreciable difference in motivation between conscripts and volunteers. What matters far more is training. A British volunteer generally had more training and experience than a German conscript because the British volunteer generally served longer. The German conscripts were JUST as motivated to win as the British volunteers were.

[Miku the Based]

> People think COD K/D ratios are legitimate tactical strategy irl
You only die once.

[The Manticoran Empire]

> People think COD K/D ratios are legitimate tactical strategy irl
You only die once.

Unless you are James Bond. In which case you die twice.

[Austrasien]

> People think COD K/D ratios are legitimate tactical strategy irl
You only die once.

They are definitely a thing to consider. If you consistently lose two men for every one the enemy loses, and you have less than two men for every one they have available in a particular battle/war/whatever, then you will very likely lose unless some other boundary condition ends the battle/war before you physically run out of men.

They are not however a particularly useful metric on their own because most conflicts are resolved by some other boundary condition being reached. An army which has a global (as in universal) disadvantage in the ratio of force ratio/loss ratio may still achieve a victory in a particular area by more effectively concentrating their forces at a particular time and place for example, and a succession of local victories may translate into a global victory by reaching some other limiting condition which collapses the opponent's military effort; such as cutting off access to a strategic resource or causing a coalition partner to leave the war effort or bringing another power into the war or any other of a range of things. Or at a smaller scale, an otherwise hopeless attack (ratio of forces available/ratio of losses much worse than 1 against you) may translate into a victory by say threatening the opponent's line of retreat enough that they are forced to abandon an otherwise successful defence.

In other words the more a battle approaches a metaphorical meat grinder where forces are lined up to blast each other to death in conveyor belt fashion the more important kill-loss ratios become. Since almost all direct combat involves this to some degree at some level it never goes away. But it is generally the opinion of those in the field this is combat condition to avoid. Though it is still potentially worthwhile to try and force this kind of combat if the numbers are in your favor.

[Miku the Based]

> People think COD K/D ratios are legitimate tactical strategy irl
You only die once.

and a succession of local victories may translate into a global victory by reaching some other limiting condition which collapses the opponent's military effort; such as cutting off access to a strategic resource or causing a coalition partner to leave the war effort or bringing another power into the war or any other of a range of things

Yes, defeat in detail works and methods to actually end a war via achieving goals matter. Doesn't validate the mentality of K/D ratios being relevant. Concentrating forces in one area increases the ratio by quality through quantity and vise versa, does not make them particularly relevant. Those snipers with 300 some kills are still gonna lose the war and their lives if they die. It more important to take primacy in not dying for both yourself and what you command then some kill count to rack up, you're likely to make more enemies like what the Nazi's did by listing everyone as combatants and racking up kills for example in Amsterdam at the beginning of the war or in Czechoslovakia near the end of the war. Ratios is part of this mentality. It disregards what you and your enemy has at their disposal and specific goals and distances in logistics and other factors.
the particular conditions at hand. Assumes one can kill more than the other on a individual basis and then assumes that to the general. These ratios are made post ad-hoc and are generally only apply in that specific circumstance. A unit in one battle report my contain high ratio in one time then a terribly low ratio in another due to other factors such as particular environmental conditions the fact that those that actually do the killing actually die in combat (hence the primacy of not dying) equipment issued, new rifles being a wildcard, being placed in wrong time and place by a superior enemy force (skill,numbers,equipment, does not matter) and a myriad of other conditions. The only K/D ratio that really could be generalized is defending force and attacking force. The attacking force typically losses 60% more of their force due the the nature of attacking a defending force. The rest is really up to the particulars and by then it'll just be better to let the thing play out then get hung up on accounting for all these factors.
edit: another example, Washington won the surprise attack on the Hessian, one of the most experienced Mercenary groups involved in many wars prior because they got drunk and hungover after Christmas. Their K/D ratio doesn't mean anything.

[Crookfur]

Does Turkey have decent planes?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=turkish+air+force+fleet

[Austrasien]

Yes, defeat in detail works and methods to actually end a war via achieving goals matter. Doesn't validate the mentality of K/D ratios being relevant. Concentrating forces in one area increases the ratio by quality through quantity and vise versa, does not make them particularly relevant. Those snipers with 300 some kills are still gonna lose the war and their lives if they die. It more important to take primacy in not dying for both yourself and what you command then some kill count to rack up, you're likely to make more enemies like what the Nazi's did by listing everyone as combatants and racking up kills for example in Amsterdam at the beginning of the war or in Czechoslovakia near the end of the war. Ratios is part of this mentality. It disregards what you and your enemy has at their disposal and specific goals and distances in logistics and other factors.
the particular conditions at hand. Assumes one can kill more than the other on a individual basis and then assumes that to the general. These ratios are made post ad-hoc and are generally only apply in that specific circumstance. A unit in one battle report my contain high ratio in one time then a terribly low ratio in another due to other factors such as particular environmental conditions the fact that those that actually do the killing actually die in combat (hence the primacy of not dying) equipment issued, new rifles being a wildcard, being placed in wrong time and place by a superior enemy force (skill,numbers,equipment, does not matter) and a myriad of other conditions. The only K/D ratio that really could be generalized is defending force and attacking force. The attacking force typically losses 60% more of their force due the the nature of attacking a defending force. The rest is really up to the particulars and by then it'll just be better to let the thing play out then get hung up on accounting for all these factors.
edit: another example, Washington won the surprise attack on the Hessian, one of the most experienced Mercenary groups involved in many wars prior because they got drunk and hungover after Christmas. Their K/D ratio doesn't mean anything.

It still means quite a bit but it needs to be undersood correctly. If you lose three to the enemies one and you only have two to their one, the range of options available to you to win is much smaller. Kill:loss ratios are most important at the very low end of combat (individual and small unit actions) and at the very highest end (grand strategy). A serious and consistent advantage or deficit at either the lowest or highest levels is a huge benefit or handicap.

If a war is going to be won by a combatant whose blue/red loss/kill ratio exceeds their force ratio it will be as a result of things between the highest (abstract weighing of all available resources) and lowest (individual combat) levels of consideration. Which is, yes, entirely possible but it is a much narrower road to have your whole military enterprise hanging on a particular like an especially brilliant general or your opponent's weak intelligence.

[Socialist Macronesia]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

[Miku the Based]

Yes, defeat in detail works and methods to actually end a war via achieving goals matter. Doesn't validate the mentality of K/D ratios being relevant. Concentrating forces in one area increases the ratio by quality through quantity and vise versa, does not make them particularly relevant. Those snipers with 300 some kills are still gonna lose the war and their lives if they die. It more important to take primacy in not dying for both yourself and what you command then some kill count to rack up, you're likely to make more enemies like what the Nazi's did by listing everyone as combatants and racking up kills for example in Amsterdam at the beginning of the war or in Czechoslovakia near the end of the war. Ratios is part of this mentality. It disregards what you and your enemy has at their disposal and specific goals and distances in logistics and other factors.
the particular conditions at hand. Assumes one can kill more than the other on a individual basis and then assumes that to the general. These ratios are made post ad-hoc and are generally only apply in that specific circumstance. A unit in one battle report my contain high ratio in one time then a terribly low ratio in another due to other factors such as particular environmental conditions the fact that those that actually do the killing actually die in combat (hence the primacy of not dying) equipment issued, new rifles being a wildcard, being placed in wrong time and place by a superior enemy force (skill,numbers,equipment, does not matter) and a myriad of other conditions. The only K/D ratio that really could be generalized is defending force and attacking force. The attacking force typically losses 60% more of their force due the the nature of attacking a defending force. The rest is really up to the particulars and by then it'll just be better to let the thing play out then get hung up on accounting for all these factors.
edit: another example, Washington won the surprise attack on the Hessian, one of the most experienced Mercenary groups involved in many wars prior because they got drunk and hungover after Christmas. Their K/D ratio doesn't mean anything.

It still means quite a bit but it needs to be undersood correctly. If you lose three to the enemies one and you only have two to their one, the range of options available to you to win is much smaller. Kill:loss ratios are most important at the very low end of combat (individual and small unit actions) and at the very highest end (grand strategy). A serious and consistent advantage or deficit at either the lowest or highest levels is a huge benefit or handicap.

If a war is going to be won by a combatant whose blue/red loss/kill ratio exceeds their force ratio it will be as a result of things between the highest (abstract weighing of all available resources) and lowest (individual combat) levels of consideration. Which is, yes, entirely possible but it is a much narrower road to have your whole military enterprise hanging on a particular like an especially brilliant general or your opponent's weak intelligence.

If you look at the American revolution via prior K/D ratios of King George's army then it would be expected that it would easily conquor the small constitutional army. That did not matter because k/d ratio did not matter when you are impaired. Like I say K/D is a post ad hoc justification. It's the result of the sum of particulars in a conflict, it does not predict future conflict results because it does not address the particulars. Entire armies are wiped out in a day due to bad weather despite their spotless k/d ratio. The whermacht failed to burn down Moscow despite their k/d ratio, why is that, take a guess, did the other side somehow got gud and racked thier ratio higher in rounds on cod? Why did the Japanese not win in Burma despite their miraculous achevements in the conflicts prior? It couldn't be the Monsoon and outstreched supply lines, they got a insane k/d ratio!
Edit: Let's take another example the infamous battle of midway loss on ifs outset because a recon pilot was 20-35 minutes late with his patrol and later due to incopetent leadership. That carrier group was known as the best in the world for its prior engagements with China and Anzac forces. They had deficiencies but their k/d ratio is outmatched by all the pilots on the Pacific theatre. That did not matter in the slightest. Only afterwards were the tables turned and the ratio changed. This would be a post ad hoc justification for the failure of the battlegroup. This ignores what the group actually did wrong (being improper reconnaissance, some ships not ditching ammo supply and having proper damage control groups due to the damage control officer having different doctorines for each ship causing some ships to be fine while others had fires that raged for hours and had to be abandoned, the mistake of rearming half the planes with dive bombs and so on).

[Kassaran]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

You maximize military strength by making military alliances with significantly more populous and powerful nations and offering them prime real estate for military training ranges and air bases. Perhaps even a port or two for their navies. I'd say look at the Greeks, even though they're still far more populous than just a million.

[Romextly]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Maybe 50k?

[Kassaran]

Realistically, you have only about 600k working age citizens out of that number of 1m. Additionally, you can maximally support in a 'militaristic' nation up to about 3% that number in a professional standing army before it severely impacts your economy. So, 3% of 600,000 comes out to about 18k or about three brigades if you go only Army. But I assume you also want a semi functional air force so you can probably support a mechanized infantry brigade, a rotary aviation wing, and a small Coast Guard for patrolling your waters and dissuading pirates and smugglers if that's a thing.

EDIT: Realize that these numbers are vastly inflated because in reality, you'll likely have even less in your armed forces. An honest number would be .5-1% so 3,000-6,000 to make up your entire military in peacetime if the expenses cant be justified beforehand. This would likely drop you to about a Battalion's strength across your Infantry Brigade, less than four-to-five operational transport/utility helicopters and aviation assets per branch, and a handful of small watercraft for those Coastal patrol duties.

[Miku the Based]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Maximise firepower by growing extra hands and using more guns. Alternatively use a one trigger multi firearm/cannon approach. This is assuming tech is not a problem.
A small population maximizes its strength through cooperation. Have people do logistics, intelligence and so on, form as one cohesive unit known as society. Don't get involved in conflicts unless by necessity. Form a culture around military dicipline. Pretty much as much you can do for a small population.
A alternative is have a volunteer/conscript form and act as a merc group and go out on random foreign wars nobody asked for. Have your entire society geared around that and then get hired by some king to do his dirty work.
Another alternative, don't and focus on more important things like food water and shelter and factory building so one could be a industrial powerhouse with large nation of people. That makes the best springboard into becoming a stronger defense force.
A million people is going to need to tend to the basics of nation building before trying to arm itself to be a military competitor unless they want to go into debt. Basic security is fine, a projecting force is only necessary je one wants to conquor a neighbor for resources and manufacturing capability.
Personally I stick to isolationsim and building things that increase manufacturing and agriculture.

[Austrasien]

If you look at the American revolution via prior K/D ratios of King George's army then it would be expected that it would easily conquor the small constitutional army. That did not matter because k/d ratio did not matter when you are impaired. Like I say K/D is a post ad hoc justification. It's the result of the sum of particulars in a conflict, it does not predict future conflict results because it does not address the particulars. Entire armies are wiped out in a day due to bad weather despite their spotless k/d ratio. The whermacht failed to burn down Moscow despite their k/d ratio, why is that, take a guess, did the other side somehow got gud and racked thier ratio higher in rounds on cod? Why did the Japanese not win in Burma despite their miraculous achevements in the conflicts prior? It couldn't be the Monsoon and outstreched supply lines, they got a insane k/d ratio!

The loss:exchange ratio is a basic constant for reckoning the correlation of forces, like the number of troops available. It is neither false (assuming its actually being reckoned correctly which is a different question) or post-hoc. That it does not actually dictate the outcome of conflicts all by its self does not mean it is fake or irrelevant.

You are making a true observation, the outcome of real conflicts is not well approximated by the abstract potential of the forces on either side and you are more or less on point why - real conflicts are not fought by everything and everyone lining up on either side of a featureless infinite plane - but you are swinging much too far in the other direction and ignoring some very basic things. Like that most things called battles and wars are not discrete events at all but large numbers of simultaneous and sequential events where people and things are shot/stabbed/bludgeoned/blasted. How individual soldiers, individual tanks, individual planes etc stack up against their opponent does matter because the battle/war as a whole consists of a huge number of engagements between these discrete entities.

But it isn't a simple sum or product as you are already aware. How precisely things proceed from "two guys shooting at each other" to "victory or defeat" is something nobody completely understands and only a small number of geniuses in history can be said to have grasped intuitively. But as the most basic action in war as humans understand it is one guy tries to kill another guy and everything else in war is an elaboration of that, the likely outcome (which can be very crudely expressed as the K/D ratio) of that is definitely important.

Having a superior loss/exchange ratio is advantageous. That sometimes the higher quality troops are defeated by lower quality troops does not contradict this. Having a large army is advantageous. That sometimes larger armies are defeated by smaller ones does not contradict it. Napoleon was a military genius. That he did not win every battle or war he fought in does not contradict this. Strategic depth is advantageous. That sometimes small polities defeat much larger ones does not contradict this. The English Channel is an excellent defence for England. That William the Conqueror crossed it does not contradict this.

[Austrasien]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Well, don't start with the number of riflemen you can line up this isn't a particularly useful metric. A nation needs sufficient forces to resist its opponents in the air, at sea (if relevant) and on land.

How a state might be attacked in the most general sense:

• Launching a missile of some kind
• Flying into its airspace and bombing it
• Blockading it and bombarding it from the sea
• Sending an army across the border

So the starting point can be said to be, sufficient forces to prevent all these from coming to pass. Whether by deterring them, pre-empting them, reacting to them or simply blocking them. And before you can actually use forces of any kind it is necessary to know with what and where your enemy is likely to attack and when they are likely to do it.

So step zero is really establishing ISR, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, which is suited to the threats the state faces. If you identify your opponents tank divisions as the or a principle threat then being able to know the number and composition of those divisions, what they are doing, the characteristics of the tanks which compose them and when/where those divisions might be preparing for a blitz are the first steps. If it's their fleet or their cruise missile arsenal or their multirole fighter wings or their terrorist cells the same.

Then once you have defined with what/where consider how the particular threat is best dealt with given your states means. The maximum military power will be achieved when you are able to counter as many relevant threats as possible with the least resources devoted to any one in particular. Total mobilization to put as many infantrymen with AT weapons on the front as possible might be reasonably effective at halting massed tank attacks but it is of no real value against an opponent's fleet or air force... it cannot lift a blockade or halt air attacks. So it is not optimization of military power for a given amount of resources.

[Langenia]

If you have a military that operates globally with bases abroad that make it able to operate globally, does it become necessary to set up a system of American-style unified combatant commands for each region your military is in?

[Rosmana]

I am probably going to replace my main Assault Rifle, ideas welcome.

I chose the SA-80 as a starter because it is British and it's better than most say.

[Miku the Based]

Kill:Death ratio does not matter to winning or losing. What matters is not dying, and these are the principles to properly equipping any military and not dying.

• A well fed army; A army without food or water quickly gets exasperated and their critical thinking ability goes down
• A well fed mechanized army; The trucks need oil in the form of gasoline, ships, planes, etc. make sure to acquire these
• Proper equipment for task; There is a reason why the military people like to go on and on about feet care, it's the thing that keeps you going and infections from your feet may end ones career or cause a loss in a battle or war depending on the severity. Also included equipment for travel and communication.
• Comfort equipment; Also applies to feet, water, sleep, etc. A proper nights rest and a good hydration bladder goes a long way in the performance for the entire unit and more generally the entire army/military.
• More proper equipment; Manufacturing portable bridges, developing fortifications, having a wet dock to unload supplies to Normandy goes a long way, being able to manufacture and deploy these in short working order with issued equipment is necessary.
• firearm; even one that is a decade out of date will do it just has to compete with the best issued mil standard rifle of whoever you're fighting

From this you will know what is your units capabilities, what they can and can't do, and the necessary information to win battles. It does not matter how much you kill, it matters if you succeed in your objective. It is best if one does not have to kill at all or at least as little as possible because that in turn will prevent as little deaths that incurs on your own unit as possible. If ones unit incurs too many deaths it is not in fighting condition and will not be able to hold or secure positions. That is not to say to not do ones duties it says to act smart about the situation. Try divide and conquer, try playing cat and mouse and lure the enemy out from its defensive position, try cutting off all logistics to a city to force the army to capitulate, there is alot of methods to defeat a superior foe without brash decisions. Always remember keep your force fed, clothed properly, and equipped and pay attention to your supply lines. Objective that usually need to be taken are port cities, supply depot, factory, rail yard, airfield political centers of power (capitals), and bridges. The reason why usually varies from being able to transport more things, more freedom of movement and faster movement, not allowing your enemy certain capabilities they would have if they otherwise have it and having certain capabilities that you wouldn't have if you didn't have it. These have to be weighted via cost and benefit and chosen in detail depending on location in order to concentrate and allocate proper amount of forces to take it.

“Know yourself and you will win all battles.” – Sun Tzu before losing his mind

[The Manticoran Empire]

If you have a military that operates globally with bases abroad that make it able to operate globally, does it become necessary to set up a system of American-style unified combatant commands for each region your military is in?

It is definitely helpful. A major part of global operations is seamless integration and coordination of air, sea, and land assets. The UCCs fill this role as well as can be expected.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Question A: Where are you? I.e. where on your imaginary globe do you imagine your 4 by 4 square of land exist?

[Gallia-]

Doesn't Singapore have like three divisions or something dumb?

[Socialist Macronesia]

Whew, it's been a long time since I've posted in one of these.

Anyway, I've already got a basic opinion on this topic formed, but I thought I'd ask what you all think: if you have a small population in an MT nation, how do you maximize your military strength? Let's say like a million people. Conscription wise, how many active duty personnel could you theoretically have before your country just became a constant warzone? Equipment wise, what do you think would maximise their firepower? Assume that tech isn't a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Question A: Where are you? I.e. where on your imaginary globe do you imagine your 4 by 4 square of land exist?

It's around where the Federated States of Micronesia is, but in the Southern Hemisphere and a little closer to the Americas.

[Gallia-]

Micronesia is both too big and too small to have a military tho.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Question A: Where are you? I.e. where on your imaginary globe do you imagine your 4 by 4 square of land exist?

It's around where the Federated States of Micronesia is, but in the Southern Hemisphere and a little closer to the Americas.

Then you have no military. You'll at most have a glorified reinforced national police force. Buy like 100 FGM-148 launchers and missiles and don't bother buying tanks.