OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OurBattleTech.com - A BattleTech Fan Site

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Armies In BT/SC....  (Read 19865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MageOhki

  • Menig
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Spellchecker killer
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2011, 04:54:38 PM »

Not quite.  Equipment (quality factor, espically of _what_ equpiment. Doesn't matter if you have the best assault rifles of all time, if you're facing tanks, y'know?) does matter as much as numbers, etc, etc.  It's an _very_ complex equation, and then you have the human factor.  Wars _are_ fought by human beings, after all.

Which is why Stalin and the Professonal quote both trigger hives to me.
Logged
cabbit! Lock up the carrots!

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,473
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2011, 04:54:52 PM »

Not quite.  Equipment (quality factor, espically of _what_ equpiment. Doesn't matter if you have the best assault rifles of all time, if you're facing tanks, y'know?) does matter as much as numbers, etc, etc.  It's an _very_ complex equation, and then you have the human factor.  Wars _are_ fought by human beings, after all.

This is a bit obvious, no?
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Darthvegeta800

  • Menig
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • "Loyalty is it's own reward!"
    • The Dark Space RPG
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2011, 01:09:09 PM »

Well as a military historian I'd interject only one thing:

Quality > quantity... yes... however history has had examples where 'staying power' won the war. The Early Roman Legions being rebuild over and over until the enemy bled dry is one that comes to mind.
One of my specializations is the 100 Years War and there too the English outdid the French time and time again. I'd even dare to say that for the first 4/5th's the advantage quality wise remained theres. Only at the very end did the tables completely turn around. Yet they failed to make any conquests permanent in part due to a lack of demography.
Quantity/demography can make a huge difference but usually indirectly odd as it may sound.

Overall though Quality indeed supersedes quantity. We just have to look at the drilled armies of Frederik II, the early Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte, Caesar's legions,...
Equipment and great training build and maintain empires more often than not. The problem is staying at a high level AND having enough nrs to maintain control over potentially expanding terrain.

Modern warfare and in theory scifi warfare make things more complex though. There is the facet of long distance warfare and a very radical techrace which cannot be compared with the 'progress' as we see it in say Antiquity or the Middle Ages.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 01:10:15 PM by Darthvegeta800 »
Logged
Player of:
Draconis Combine: Fifth Sword of Light
Clan Jade Falcon: Gamma Galaxy
Clan Steel Viper: Alpha Galaxy
Clan Ice Hellion: Alpha Galaxy
Mercenaries: Red Suns, Bloody Cross, Battle Wasps, Blue Haze
Other: 7th Crucis Lancers

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,473
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2011, 01:52:36 PM »

Which one is better: quality or quantity?
There is no simple answer to that one as you will be able to find examples in history supporting either option.

An ideal world would be to mix both  ;D
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Hammer6R

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2011, 02:03:15 AM »

Well, I'm coming back to this after a particularly hard stretch on this incarnation, so apologies on the delay in reply.

As I reread those posts at the beginning I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why I didn't add timeframes -- I'd thought that I had, but I guess not. The important thing to remember, that I failed to point out in my original posts (mea culpa!), was that I was only dealing with "front-end" logistics for infantry, because that is my specialty. Part of that was not including capitol equipment (barracks/camps/forts, armory buildings, ammo bunkers, ranges, road/rail/maritime nets etc.) or precise, high-end figures for things like dedicated trucks and jeep-type vehicles, as well as their maintenance infrastructure, because I thought it was too much of a "fuzzy logic" problem for the game universe -- Khaffeenistan, being a mostly-agrarian world, will have neither the tax infrastructure nor the educational base (even given the SL) to support even a WW2/US Army. It simply isn't there.

Next, is the quality problem: Khaffeenistan's army, if starting from absolute zero (i.e., nothing but a few police on-world), will simply not have a military to do more than die quickly in less than five years from "GO!"...if they're REALLY lucky, AND have a healthy leavening of seasoned professionals not just leading an army as officers, but scattered throughout the forces, at all levels above that of Corporal/E4.

Time Scale: If starting from scratch, with only a c.30-man Drill Instructor platoon of mercenaries, assisted by a small group of staff officers - who have to come down with a plan laid out and ready to go - with about 2 years of insane, back-breaking labor, they should have a military unit that will be able to stand an interior guard, and suppress a riot.

Given reasonable amounts of peace, say 10 years, they MIGHT produce a passable-quality infantry division -- which will only be manned to a strength of a single, THIN, infantry brigade, with maybe three or four more National Guard/Reserve units.

Twenty years of peace would be better. Thirty would be ideal.

The problem here is not that anything is inherently wrong with Khaffeenistan's population -- they simply have no traditions to build on; no foundation, if you will. You can "shake-n-bake" NCO's and officers in 6 months with a good program, but they won't be able to do more than Company-level combat, IF that, when they take over their units -- you might get a passable junior NCO in 2 years, but "decent" officers take no less than 10, unless they are in combat from Day 1. US, UK and other Western armies have highly lethal NCO and officer corps' because we've been at this thing long enough, and have enough history to prove our points, that we can produce very capable troops and officers, compared to the rest of the planet, in a relatively short time.

Take the Russian Army.

By 1993, the Russian army was a joke -- it had been deteriorating for decades, with one of the highest officer-to-enlisted ratios on the planet, and officers were reduced (literally: I watched the interview!) to offering to sell their internal organs to feed their families.

Now, in 2011? They're still shit -- no, seriously.

They have failed repeatedly, in most of their major combat actions (like Chechnya). The only exception to the rule was the Georgia/South Ossetia deal in 2008...and that, only because they went back to the Czarist playbook of using Cossack swarms as shock infantry, and leaving the Regular Army to handle things like tanks and artillery -- after the Cossacks had cleared a path.

Why?

Because Russia has a significantly different view of the military than the West does. In the West, we're heroes, most of the time, and most people see the military as at least an honorable profession. Russians see their military as heroes only when there's a war on, and sometimes not then. Most of the time, the military is viewed as a dumping ground for criminals, or as a distasteful thing that is required by law (via the Draft), that you're either too poor or too stupid to get out of. Officers have it easier than the enlisted troops, but not by much. "Fit only for powder" is very much in effect.

Equipment has nothing to do with it -- Lady Bambi can land with an Overlord, three Triumph's and a bunch of Mule's, carrying a battalion of Mechs in packing crates, a battalion each of Long Tom's, Patton's and engineering vehicles, and every scrap of uniforms, weapons, gear, and ammo that I outlined above, and more, ready to issue...and she still won't have an army worth a damn in less than 10 years, unless all that gear is escorted by a crack brigade of troops with a good training plan behind them...

...And do NOT get me started on aircraft, let alone Aerospace Fighters!  :-X

All in all, Lady Bambi can recruit a shit-load of Privates pretty fast, but she has to plug those Privates into a functional structure of veteran troops if she wants to do anything with her toy army in less than 3 years.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 04:03:29 PM by Hammer6R »
Logged
I drank what?

Trace Coburn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
  • Родина и свобода!
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2011, 08:00:35 AM »

Next, is the quality problem: Khaffeenistan's army, if starting from absolute zero (i.e., nothing but a few police on-world), will simply not have a military to do more than die quickly in less than five years from "GO!"...if they're REALLY lucky, AND have a healthy leavening of seasoned professionals not just leading an army as officers, but scattered throughout the forces, at all levels above that of Corporal/E4.

Time Scale: If starting from scratch, with only a c.30-man Drill Instructor platoon of mercenaries, assisted by a small group of staff officers - who have to come down with a plan laid out and ready to go - with about 2 years of insane, back-breaking labor, they should have a military unit that will be able to stand an interior guard, and suppress a riot.

Given reasonable amounts of peace, say 10 years, they MIGHT produce a passable-quality infantry division -- which will only be manned to a strength of a single, THIN, infantry brigade, with maybe three or four more National Guard/Reserve units.

Twenty years of peace would be better. Thirty would be ideal.

The problem here is not that anything is inherently wrong with Khaffeenistan's population -- they simply have no traditions to build on; no foundation, if you will. You can "shake-n-bake" NCO's and officers in 6 months with a good program, but they won't be able to do more than Company-level combat, IF that, when they take over their units -- you might get a passable junior NCO in 2 years, but "decent" officers take no less than 10, unless they are in combat from Day 1. US, UK and other Western armies have highly lethal NCO and officer corps' because we've been at this thing long enough, and have enough history to prove our points, that we can produce very capable troops and officers, compared to the rest of the planet, in a relatively short time.
  I'm glad you posted this, Hammer6R - especially the post I quote - because it goes to some of the things I'm trying to do with The Virginia War.  A lot of the problems faced in my fictional BT conflict - primarily on the Gehennan side of the lines, but the Allies aren't totally immune/blameless either - are due to precisely the sort of gross institutional inexperience that you cite.
  If I ran down a list of the various powers and their situations, could I get your input on their likely military effectiveness when the shooting started, and how fast and well they might learn the lessons of live combat?  :-\   And if I did hit you with that list, would you prefer that I did it in this thread, or by PM?  :D
Logged

Developer-in-Chief, Renegade Tech 2.0

Hammer6R

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2011, 04:00:32 PM »

  I'm glad you posted this, Hammer6R - especially the post I quote - because it goes to some of the things I'm trying to do with The Virginia War.  A lot of the problems faced in my fictional BT conflict - primarily on the Gehennan side of the lines, but the Allies aren't totally immune/blameless either - are due to precisely the sort of gross institutional inexperience that you cite.
  If I ran down a list of the various powers and their situations, could I get your input on their likely military effectiveness when the shooting started, and how fast and well they might learn the lessons of live combat?  :-\   And if I did hit you with that list, would you prefer that I did it in this thread, or by PM?  :D

Go ahead and post it here, I think -- it's still topical, because it's a problem-set directly related to in-universe issues.....
Logged
I drank what?

Halvagor

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2011, 11:48:22 PM »

Something else to consider...

A 10,000-man force doesn't necessarily mean there are 10,000 trigger-pullers.

The percentage of military personnel who are "combat troops" and thus consider fighting their primary duty is related to the level of sophistication of the equipment that military force has.  The greater the sophistication of the equipment, the fewer troops will use it in battle.  In WWII the US Army was probably (on average) the best equipped and supplied army in the world.  And it had a lower percentage of its troops on the front line than any other military in the world; how bad?  I don't recall exactly, but I would be mighty surprised if it was more than 1 out of every 10 uniformed members of the army.  What were they doing?  Training replacements.  Developing new tactics.  Moving supplies from one place to another until they reached the front.  Repairing battle-damaged equipment.  And so forth.

This sort of requirement for military personnel to handle the supplies of an army is relatively new in human conflict.  As late as the Napoleonic Wars some armies still "lived off the land" as their supply strategy in the field, and Grant and Sherman resurrected this in the American Civil War (the former to reach Vicksburg the latter to destroy the Confederacy's breadbasket and civilian morale).  In the early 1700s the Duke of Marlborough arranged all of his army's supplies by having a purchasing agent buy them in cities in advance of his marches, hiring civilians to move them to where his army would be, so that he had no "supply lines" for an enemy to threaten, though he still had to be careful of maintaining potential routes to retreat.  By not having supply lines, all the troops which would otherwise be guarding them in unfriendly country (up to 50% of Union regiments in Virginia) could instead be concentrated in the field units.  At Waterloo in 1815 the Duke of Wellington only deployed about 2/3rds of his army to halt the French, because he had the other 1/3rd covering his line of supply and retreat, in case he lost.

The US Marine Corps had less than 20,000 personnel deployed to Afghanistan at any one time in 2010.  Of those, no more than ~5,000 belonged to the five infantry battalions which the Marine Corps had in-country.  In the US Navy, it takes roughly 3,000 sailors to operate 60-80 planes & helicopters aboard an aircraft carrier (and another ~3,000 just to run the ship itself).  Clearly BattleTech has much more reliable equipment (you won't see many of today's aircraft being combat-relevant after sitting in a warehouse for 100+ years; metal fatigue alone would make them dangerous to operate).  Nevertheless, having only one dedicated Tech per AeroFighter aboard a DropShip or WarShip seems rather unrealistic. 

How sophisticated does Kaffeenistan want its military to be?  It doesn't seem like it will have much interest in fusion-powered tanks such as the Manticore, which means if it has vehicles at all, they'll probably be ICE powered.  If these are home-grown vehicles, they could be designed to be extremely simple, such that the "farm boys" who make up the overwhelming majority of the Kaffeenistan Home Guard will be able to fix them on their own, or will they require specialists?  The equipment used by the US Army in WWII was largely made as simple as possible, leading to greater reliability and ease of repair (often without sending it off to specially-trained mechanics).  The German military equipment, meanwhile, varied from the horse-drawn cart to tanks which were tricky to maintain properly in the field (but of much greater utility in battle than most American tanks).  Today, soldiers can spend their entire careers working in depots which do nothing but renovate and repair worn-out, wrecked or battle-damaged equipment, because the equipment is so sophisticated that only a specialist can figure out what is wrong or figure out how to fix it.

A 10,000-person force could go many ways.  It could be 9 1000-man light infantry battalions with a 1000-man headquarter, training, and support function, but this would mean there is unlikely to be any artillery or armored vehicles.  Or, using the professional, long-service highly skilled model, they could be roughly evenly split between infantry, armor/artillery and support elements, with the infantry providing cadre for reservists in an emergency, which would then bring up the ratios between armor, artillery, and infantry to more conventional models. 
Logged
"...but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers."  From Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,473
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2011, 10:09:23 AM »

Those ratios are important and depend on the technological level and the tactics of your army as well as the way the nation behind it is organised.
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Hammer6R

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2011, 01:30:50 PM »

Actually, the ratios are far higher than most suppose. Take your average USMC battalion: technically, there are about 1000 Marines and Sailors (Corpsmen/medics, and the Chaplain), in 5 companies. Manned at full strength, there are about 200 people per company...but only 4 of those are "combat" companies -- H&S (Headquarters and Support) take up a minimum of 20% of the battalion's manpower. Even in line companies, about 10-15% of those forces are technically "non-combatants".

When you're dealing with maintenance, manpower is everything. The Israeli Air Force is rightly considered one of the best, if not the best in the Middle East - even though it is heavily outnumbered by most of it's technically-hostile neighbors. The reason is simple: the Israeli's run about 40-50 maintenance troops per airframe, while everyone else in the region runs about 15-25. Complex machinery, no matter how advanced, requires significant man-hours of maintenance. Having one "full" Tech per aerospace fighter or mech is fine -- but that tech needs to be supervising 10-15 (minimum) AsTechs...and that is taking advanced materials and systems into account.

Let's look at two canon units: Wilson's Hussars, and Carlyle's Commandos (the core of what would become the Gray Death Legion), both c.3025.

The Hussars have 16 mechs that more or less run. The reason for the 'more or less' is that they have only two Techs, who seem to be alone, and only get minimal assistance from the mech drivers. The Hussars as presented c.3025 are barely capable of starting their mechs, much less fighting from them.

The Commando's are a medium mech lance. Sabotage and infiltration aside, they have one Master Tech supervising 8-10 Techs and 20-30 (at least) AsTechs. Again, ignoring sabotage and infiltrators, the Commandos can be reasonably expected to field 100% of their mechs at any given time.

The Hussars can't.

So -- What does this mean for Khaffeenistan?

Clearly, they can't produce Battlemechs, but they could slap together an indigenous vehicle like a Hetzer fairly easily, especially if they can import the main gun (and I think they're smart enough to build a simple ring-mount for a 13mm HMG into the design).

Given that most of our 10,000 man force is likely to be infantry or motorized cavalry (and maybe even horse cavalry, at first!), upwards of 50% of the troops are going to be "support".

Huh? How did we go from 15-25% to 50%?  :o

Actually, the ratio should be around 80-90%. Back to that USMC battalion:

While the battalion itself may have only 15-25% of its troops tied up in support positions, it doesn't exist alone - there is a vast array of personnel behind them. A good way of looking at this is the "Battalion Slice".

The US Marine Corps currently fields about 200,000 troops on active duty. It has roughly 120 "combat battalions" (infantry, armor, artillery and combat aircraft). Dividing 200,000 by 120 gives you approximately 1666 personnel -- so, that "1000-man" battalion is actually almost 1700 strong -- and almost 900 of those troops are technically non-combatants.

And understand, the Marine Corps is notoriously light on supports, in comparison to other 'first-world' armed forces...and the numbers get much worse if you start factoring in naval supports.

It's not simply a matter of materials technology being better, although that is a factor. There are a vast array of jobs in any military structure that you are ill-advised to contract out -- and yes, the US has been falling down on the job, and has been paying the price in reduced combat ability for 10+ years.

Out of Khaffeenistan's 10,000 man force, although we're trying to instill that whole "Every Coffeeholic is a Rifleman first!" mindset, only about 2000 to 4000 troops are going to be "trigger-pullers"........
Logged
I drank what?

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,473
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2011, 01:41:12 PM »

How would these ratios work in the CBT universe?
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Halvagor

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2011, 08:10:25 PM »

For Merc units, we could lump a lot of the support personnel into the "dependent" category, if we hand-wave a lot of things, and it would further mean that a well-equipped merc unit could expect to have anywhere from 5 to 10 times as many people in "support" and "noncombat" functions as they do combat troops.  Wolf's Dragoons certainly does, the Kell Hound probably as well. 

What else does it mean?  Big forces like the FedSuns RCTs probably have multiple regiments of support personnel who also need to be carried everywhere, and protected (which is where those 5 infantry regiments in an RCT come in handy).  And that's just the first line of support. 

To oversimplify, it means that the battles don't just go to the better troops, the side with the better mechanics will play a large role in any long-term battle.  To explain with Hammer6R's example of Wilson's Hussars and Carlyle's Commandos, if the Commandos suddenly surprised the Hussars on a "normal" day, how many 'mechs would the Hussars be able to field?  Sure, they have four times the force on paper, but if they only have a 25% availability rate (which, if anything, might be generous given the amount of support they appear to field) then it's actually an even match.  And if the Commandos, wanting even better odds, get all Fabian in their strategy and tactics, they stand a good chance of forcing all operational Hussar 'mechs to break down from mechanical issues, while the well-maintained Commandos are in perfect working order.  There's no easy CBT mechanic to work this sort of non-combat victory into things, unless you want to use the campaign rules and do a lot of calculations. 

Note that in FM: Mercs it's stated that when Morgan and Patrick Kell began assembling a mercenary unit, they started by recruiting the best Techs they could find...and then went looking for pilots.  This astute and older-than-their-years move by the Kell brothers is said to be what made so many veteran pilots want to work for them.  After all, a good pilot will still die if his 'mech breaks down in combat, even if he's facing someone who should have washed out from an academy. 

So things break down into an issue of how much realism do you want, at the cost of more time calculating support & maintenance issues in a campaign.  It wouldn't necessarily impact a one-shot game at all.  Unless you wanted to force everyone to run the risk of their 'mech breaking down, say whenever they are required to roll a piloting check; if they fumble it, not only do they fall, but some system on their 'mech shuts down completely.  This could make players be much more cautious about subjecting their 'mechs to extraordinary stress if they don't have a capable technical team. 
Logged
"...but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers."  From Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

Hammer6R

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: Armies In BT/SC....
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2011, 08:36:09 PM »

How would these ratios work in the CBT universe?

For a "quality" mech unit -- say, the Gray Death Legion, the Kell Hounds, the ELH, the Dragoons, etc -- for every mech-driver, there will be at least one "full" Tech, and 5 - 8 AsTechs on the roster, minimum. In addition, there will be one person each for Medic, Admin, and General Support.

Per Mech...And each major combat vehicle and each Aerospace Fighter count as a mech (minor vehicles count 3-to-1 to major ones).

Poorly-run units will have maybe a quarter of these numbers....
Logged
I drank what?
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up