OBT Forum

General BattleTech => General Discussion => BattleTech RPG => Topic started by: Hammer6R on February 12, 2010, 12:51:03 AM

Title: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R on February 12, 2010, 12:51:03 AM

Greetings All!

These are my "Army" posts from the General section on the old board...I'll post them together...

Hammer6R

=======================

What Does An Army

DO, exactly?

I've noticed - both within CBT and without - that there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to just what, exactly, all those troops that appear as numbers on a sheet are doing all day.

I will try to outline the day-to-day grind, based on my own experience (6 years, USMC; Logistics, Supply, Motor-T, NBC warfare, light infantry).

For those who have read my posts in "Small Arms", this is what "Real Armies" do when they aren't fighting.

*****************

Your day generally starts at 0530AM with Reveille; they didn't blow a bugle on Camp Pendleton, but they did have a very nice cassette tape of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Pipes and Drums.

In most units, there follows one of two routines:

• PT

Take 15-30 minutes to Sh**, Shower and Shave, then fall in in front of the barracks. Follow with 60-90 minutes of calisthenics, and a usually-5-mile run. Come back, shower, then hit the chow hall, and be in formation again by 0800, for Colors (that's when they hoist the National Ensign and play the Anthem).

You're then turned loose to your immediate commands for the day (see below).

• No PT

Take your time getting up, have a leisurely breakfast, then make sure you're in formation by 0800, for Colors.
[/list]


0800 - 1200 (12 pm): In the infantry and artillery, you'll generally be in classes, cleaning weapons, or "walking" a problem (a sort of pantomime of maneuvers done on a basketball court, to drum in immediate action drills until they are first nature).

In vehicle units, you'll probably be doing PM (Preventative Maintenance). Classes and training will probably be scheduled at some point, but making sure that the vehicles are running will take priority.

In support units, you'll be doing anything from pushing paper, to pulling orders, to inventorying gear, to cleaning the same, sitting in meetings.....Think of any diversified corporation, and you can probably duplicate every single function they have, and then some.

1200 - 1300: Lunch

1300 - 1600/1700: See above for 0800-1200; some units will hold an evening formation.

Once a week, the troops will hold a "field day", to clean their barracks - and yes, you will very often see the white gloves come out.


The routine is interrupted only by "FTXs", or "Field Training Exercises", wherein units take all their gear into the hills to camp for a few days, lose butt-loads of sleep, get everything stupid-dirty, and hopefully have both a good time and a good training session...or forming up for parades, "dog and pony" shows (i.e., letting civilians crawl all over your gear, with "darling tots" dripping melting ice cream all over your perfectly-clean and operating vehicle...hated by nearly everyone, since it's tough to even hit on girls with their parents staring at you), inspections from the Inspector-General's Office (hated more than dog-n-ponies), not to mention rifle qualification, and the dreaded gas chamber.

This routine happens five days a week, with two days plus the occasional holiday off, 365 days per year -- unless it looks like immediate trouble is brewing somewhere close by: the days get longer, field days get slacker, and very dead-serious refresher training enters the mix for all units.

If it looks like war/invasion may be imminent, look for an increase in both area guard units, and in units beginning to "pre-stage" gear: this gets trucks loaded, fueled and ready to head for an embarkation point; gear (both personal and unit-level) is rigged for instant use, and rifles will start migrating from armories to the barracks. Ammunition supply points will start moving unit-loads to ready-docks for immediate pick up.

9-11's/Pearl Harbor's notwithstanding, this is the routine, day-to-day operations of a military unit - there is a tremendous amount of work to do, to train/refresh people in new skills/equipment, keep gear in working order, move replacement parts and equipment to either repair/service equipment or into ready-bins for immediate use.....

.....And if it sounds like the drudgery you are currently doing in your day-to-day life, it is -- with the proviso that the ultimate goal is not usually making money for someone, but preparing to go out to kill large numbers of people, break all sorts of things into billions of little pieces, and put them back together in shiny new ways -- assuming, of course, that you are not killed or maimed in process.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R on February 12, 2010, 12:52:29 AM

WEAPONS AND GEAR

Although I don't like to toot my own horn, I feel that it's necessary for this discussion: I am a former active-duty US Marine, with qualifications as a load-planner, crew-served weapons instructor, and Nuclear-Biological-Chemical warfare NCO -- below, I am speaking from personal experience.

I am not, however, a game-mechanics-head, so the nitty-gritty number crunching will have to be done by someone else.

On the subject of small arms, this is an area not well represented in CBT; someone commented on there being only 3 real arms manufacturers in the FWL -- that's rather like saying the only arms makers of consequence in the USA are Colt, Winchester and Remington - all are large and important, yes, but are by no means the only game-players out there. Forex, none of those three produce production-model crew-served weaponry; that's handled mostly by SACO, in Mass.

There's plenty of room for expansion of the CBT arms industry, especially in the Shattered Sphere universe, where the main Houses have not been leveled by 2 centuries of all-out nuclear attacks.

Also, infantry will never go away - infantry are good basic troops for security when using tanks or mechs would be a severe waste of resources, which is most of the time.

A couple of points from the discussion:

1.

Mauser 960 vs "half-rifle". I'm not sure what a "half-rifle" is, exactly, but it sounds like a carbine variant, or more specifically, a carbine-class weapon, like the M1 Carbine of WW2. Traditionally, the "carbine" was a shortened version of a standard rifle (for instance, there is a very rare "Jungle" version of an M1 Garand, called the T26); the M1 Carbine, however, was a completely different weapon, essentially a more-powerful SMG.

2. Weapon types. Here are your basic groups:

• Handguns

These are your basic pistols and revolvers. Most of the chemically-propelled projectile weapons will max out at about 12-15mm bullets, as anything else is simply too powerful to handle as a pistol-type weapon -- Essentially, the Sternsnacht would be something like a Desert Eagle or a Wildey Wolf, in .50AE or .455 Wildey.

• SMGs

SMGs are special-use weapons, only used by groups like police expecting trouble, vehicle crews who need something smaller than a carbine but larger than a pistol and special-ops troops for CQB or suppressed ops.

• Carbines

Generally either shortened versions of standard rifles (like the Mauser 98K or the CAR/M4), or a "more than SMG" weapon. Carbines go in and out of fashion, sometimes overtaken by SMGs or Assault Rifles.

• Assault Rifles

As the name suggests, these are weapons firing "just under big-bullet rifle" ammo, intended to be used at relatively close ranges. There are two basic schools of thought here, best exemplified by the M16 and the AK47: where the M16 is a rifle that can function as a machinegun, the AK47 is a machinegun that can function like a rifle.

The M16 is designed for precision firing of single shots out to 500 meters over non-optical "iron sights" - it also requires careful maintenance and training to not fail at very inopportune moments.

The AK47, in contrast, has abysmal accuracy out past 75 yards, but has the decided advantages of unearthly reliability in the field, as well as requiring no special training or equipment to use -- where it takes about 5-7 days to "basically" train a person of average intelligence to use an M16 in the field, the same person can be taught the AK in about 4 hours.

• Battle Rifles

From military bolt actions like the Lee-Enfield and the Mauser 98/98K, through the M1 Garand, to the M14, FN/FAL and the G3, these weapons all use big bullets (7-8mm/.30 caliber) to kill things at over 1000 meters, if the shooter is very good and has good optics.

Although relatively heavy (a loaded M1 Garand comes in at over 10lbs), these weapons are reliable and rugged -- you have to try pretty hard to make them fail. Additionally, although these weapons may not be pretty, they are usually 'over-engineered' to the max - having 100+ year old weapons of this category still firing in the field is absolutely possible, if they were well-cared for.

• Hunting Weapons

Although bearing a resemblance to Battle Rifles, this class of weaponry is not as durable as their military cousins, although doing similar damage. They are usually beautifully crafted, and relatively delicate in comparison...They are also several times more expensive as their military relatives: a fine hunting Mauser will currently command over US$1,000, while a perfectly serviceable (but ugly) Yugoslavian Mauser copy from the 1950's runs c.$200 - and is considered overpriced in an inflated market.

• Combat Shotguns

Not Grampa's duck-hunter, these weapons exist to blow doors off hinges, and lay down lethal suppression fires at very close ranges. There are now a wide variety of specialized shells in 12-gauge, from gas and rubber bullets, to slugs, fin-stabilized grenades and "magnesium flame shells" (very impressive looking, but not a lot of applications). There are also highly-specialized rounds like tasers and purpose-designed lock-busters.

Typically, combat scatterguns are in 12-gauge, although some can use 'super magnum' ammunition that would destroy a civilian weapon.

• Individual Grenade Launchers

Usually in the 40mm range, these fire a golf-ball sized grenade (frag, shaped-charge, illumination or buckshot) out to 300-400 meters, and are usually slung under a rifle; police, however, still use the grenade launcher by itself for riot control.

A special class of launched grenade is the rifle grenade. Closer to a hand grenade in effect, these are slipped over the muzzle of a rifle barrel, then fired with a blank rifle round; newer models like the Belgian TELGREN actually have a membrane that seals behind the bullet, removing the need for multiple ammo types.

• Belt-Fed Weapons

From the 5.56mm SAW to the 12.7mm M2HB, these are the bread and butter that make the infantry lethal. One of the primary reasons for the slow adoption of the assault rifle by Nazi Germany was their infantry theory, that being that rifle-toting infantrymen existed to support and protect the belt-fed weapons.

The main combat killer in WW2 was the machinegun, that mowed down troops in the tens of thousands, and these weapons still have that function and ability today, nearly a hundred years later -- witness the Iran-Iraq War in the 80's, and the Eritrea-Ethiopia wars of the 90's.

In CBT, per TRO3025/3026, the 1-to-1 equivalent would be the Man-Pack and Man-Portable PPCs.

• Indirect-Fire Weapons/Mortars

Rarely touched on in conventional CBT rules, mortars in-game/in-tech would have to be deployed en masse against mech units, as part of a carefully detailed defensive plan. If the mechs can be slowed down by mines or conventional artillery or air attack, medium mortars (80-100mm) are effectively AC5's that always hit in the head and shoulder regions of a mech.

Simple, "black-pipe" medium mortars, are capable of being produced in someone's garage with only the most basic of tools.

A trained medium mortar crew can sustain 5 rounds per minute for several hours, up to 10 rounds a minute for several minutes, and can surge up to 20 rounds in less than a minute, but only for short bursts. Since mortars need to be deployed in platoons of 4-6 tubes, you can do the math fairly easily.

So - what's the catch? Mobility: for all their advantages, mortars don't transport well, taking several minutes to set up and take down. They are also inherently inaccurate, since every shot slightly alters the mortar's position. Mounting on a vehicle solves the mobility problem, but cuts into rate of fire due to limited space inside the vehicle, and does nothing to help accuracy.
[/list]

3. Grenades. Someone discounted the continued existence of the "stick"-type grenade; I find this highly dubious, as the stick gives a handle that imparts leverage to a throw, increasing range by up to 20% or more. This is critical, depending on the type of grenade.

Most combat grenades weigh around 1 lbs.

There are five basic types of hand grenade out there: Offensive, Defensive, Gas, Pyrotechnic, and Special Purpose:

• Offensive

. These are sometimes called "concussion" grenades, as they create a massive blast effect, but virtually no fragments. These are intended to be used at point-blank range when assaulting things like bunker complexes and in urban combat. In fact, the original WW1 German "Potato Masher" grenades were used for this exact purpose, as they have no fragmentation sleeve, and their casing is vaporized in the explosion. The modern Chinese Communist version is a Defensive grenade (q.v.).

• Defensive

. These are the traditional "frag" grenade, and are designed to be used from a prepared position, like a fighting hole or a bunker, where the thrower has significant cover. They have a fragmentation sleeve around the explosive charge, and cause casualties via high-speed fragments. Stick grenades are ideal for Defensive use, as they can be thrown much farther, allowing more use outside of fixed emplacements.

• Gas

. Mostly used for riot control and some special purposes, these are mostly things like CS or CN irritants designed to make misbehaving civilians decide that they'd much rather be at home in the shower.

• Pyrotechnic

. These fall into two categories: smoke and illumination. Smoke does just that - generate LOTS of smoke, usually in a variety of colors, to both screen movement and act to signal other units; smoke is also fired by armored vehicles, something that CBT has never tried to explore, AFAIK.

Illumination grenades light up large areas, either by going off on the ground, being shot into the air or being dropped from airplanes.

• Special Purpose

. These are exotic weapons like 'flashbangs' (low-pressure concussion weapons with lots of flash and noise, but no real "umpf!"), and sonic "screamer" grenades.
[/list]

=========================

Thanks, Takiro!  ;D

Really, the infantryman's equipment depends entirely on how much value a state puts in its infantry forces; in defense procurement, sex most definitely sells: right now, tanks and UAVs are "sexy" - infantry gear is just negative publicity waiting to happen. I'd hate to think what would happen if we had functional mech's.

I have seen forces from around the world equipped with everything from virtually obscene largess (especially among the Swiss), all the way to "WTF were you thinking?" All infantry are armed with rifles; that should be a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised how often the opening sequence of "Enemy At The Gates" appears in reality.

The US places a thankfully-huge emphasis on infantry gear, so I'll start with that, and adapt to a somewhat lower average. Keep in mind, however, that there are plenty of forces and states out there at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum -- in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 90's and early-2000's, "infantry equipment" was an AK47, 3 magazines, an old plastic Coke bottle for water, and a box of Cheerios...and usually, the last two weren't anywhere nearby.

***********

1. Uniform. Most forces issue a distinctive uniform; some very poor - but good - armies try to get the troops into a "uniform" of common civilian clothes, and add "uniform" armbands and bandannas. For most established armies, they will look at the terrain they intend to operate in, and create a uniform tailored to maximize concealment in that terrain.

For forces that expect to operate in multiple environments, they will have multiple camouflage patters, but will all be cut to a mostly-identical pattern. For example, in the 80s/90s, the US used the "Woodland Pattern" BDU (Battle Dress, Utility) uniform, then simply changed the color scheme for desert and scrub terrains, as well as snow and night-fighter patterns...Note that no one ever seriously considered painting new color schemes onto uniforms for different environments - although some civilian 'pogues' thought it was a good idea - but issued new uniforms as needed (I issued desert uniforms to deploying troops for Desert Shield/Storm).

In a well-equipped force, the average trooper will be issued 2 - 4 sets of BDUs, plus 2 pairs of boots; the average US combat boot is expected to last c.3 - 6 years in peacetime, c.3 - 6 months in combat. There will also - at least in the US - be 4 sets (minimum) of "skivvies" (underwear, t-shirts and socks) issued -- some other countries have different views on hygene...or are simply poorer.

Note that this does not include dress/office uniforms.


2. Weapons. Generally, most forces strive to standardize one weapon - usually rifle-class - for issue to c.80%+ of its troops. This is directly tied into ease and speed of training and - much more so - into logistics. Where the US now has the M4 and the M16A2 in some units, in my day (the mid-to-late 80s), the M4 existed only as the civilian CAR-15.

All weapons intended for general issue are trade-offs -- highly specialized/personalized gear is usually reserved solely for Special Forces. I'm not going to get into a debate on "what weapon is best?" - that's been done to death too many times to count: put 10 people from 10 military's into one room at the same time, and you'll get 10 different theories over what the "ideal general-issue weapon" should be.

Armies using multiple types of rifles in general issue (say, AKs and FN/FALs) are either in transition from one to another, or are too poor to completely transition to a single type. These are commonly "emerging" nations, or nations coming out of occupation, where the rebels had significant outside support...their logistics departments consume mass quantities of aspirin and Scotch to cope.

Trust me.

The infantryman will ideally carry from 100 to 300 rounds for his weapon (not having handled one operationally, I don't feel confident trying to gauge laser weapon requirements), depending mostly on how well-supplied the force is with ammo. Much more than 300 rounds is basically pointless for general issue (for team leaders like, see below), since most forces - even the poorly-equipped ones - start loading the troops down with other stuff: ammo for crew-served weapons, grenades, batteries, etc.

Most troops will also carry one or two pocket knives, likely a "fighting knife", and maybe a machete, if the terrain calls for it. He - infantry is usually male - will usually carry 2 - 4 frag grenades, and 2 - 4 smokes; sometimes, special grenades like White Phosphorous are available, but have to be used very carefully. Gas grenades are only issued if riot-control is the expected mission, although MP units will have large numbers of these.


3. Body Armor. Body armor goes in an out of fashion, depending on how well it does against bullets and shrapnel. When bullets are mostly copper-jacketed lead, armor is a true lifesaver that the troops will sleep in; OTOH, if armor-piercing bullets are common-issue, most troops will dispense with armor...virtually everyone, though, will retain a helmet of some kind.

Lots of rear-area support forces may have armor issued to them, but unless they are under direct fire, rarely wear them - or have them handy.

Armor, however, is very expensive (c.US$1500/unit), so only 1st World countries usually issue it to all troops.


4. General Equipment. If you've ever seen "Heartbreak Ridge", there is a line where Clint Eastwood says [paraphrasing]: "Ya got your rifle? You got your boots? Then you can go to war..." Like most movie lines, that line is mostly crap - that gets you Liberia in the early 2000's.

Troops in well-equipped armies will usually have:

* A backpack of some kind
* Some sort of harness to carry things like magazine pouches and canteens
* 1 - 3 uniforms - depending on the environment - but no fewer than 4 pairs of socks, if they have them at all.
* A rifle
* 100 - 300 rounds (sometimes, they even have more than one magazine!)
* A bayonet - yes, they still get used, pundits to the contrary
* 1 or 2 1-qt canteens
* 1 - 3 days of food, usually some kind of barely-edible combat-ration
* A gas mask (issue depends on the environment)
* 25 - 200 rounds for a belt-fed weapon
* 1 - 6 grenades of various types
* 1 - 4 knives/blades of various kinds, usually pocket and fighting knives
* A pocket "Multi-Tool", if they are available
* Batteries of many types for any radios present
* Some kind of rain gear, usually a poncho, but sometimes a complete set of rain coat and pants
* Some kind of "blanket" - anything from a real-wool blanket to a poncho liner or sleeping bag
* Some kind of "entrenching tool" - either a small shovel, hand ax, or a hand pick-ax
* A field jacket - even the desert gets cold
* A 1st Aid kit - usually two combat dressings, some liquid Iodine, a couple of Band-Aides, some surgical tape and some water-purification tablets of questionable value - if you're lucky
* A personal toiletries kit - anything from a bar of soap and a washcloth, to something resembling an executive's bathroom travel kit, with razor, toothbrush, comb, soap, washcloth and towel
* Any special equipment some idiot-child of an ops planner thought you might need

Although the target load weight is supposed to be no more than 1/3 of body weight, man-pack loads of over 120lbs are fairly common.


5. The Load-Out. My typical load-out when expecting to be deployed for real (which happened more than once) looked like this:

* M16A2, with 15 30-round magazines (13 for general combat, 2 for marking targets - these were loaded with nothing but tracers)
* 325 5.56mm "ball" rounds (straight, 'plain-Jane' bullets)
* 100 tracer rounds - 60 in two magazines, the rest spread out as "magazine-enders", to tell me when my mags were dry
* Either 50 rounds for an M60 GPMG (this was all pre-1990), 200 rounds for a SAW, or a 55-round ammo can for a .50 cal HMG
* 2 Frags
* 4 smoke (in up to 4 different colors)
* 6 40mm grenades for M203s
* 4 canteens
* A bayonet
* A Gerber MkII fighting knife
* A K-Bar
* An entrenching tool
* 2 MREs ("Three Lies For The Prince Of One!", "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians!" (this was the height of the Ethiopian Famine))
* A 4-inch Buck Knife
* A military L-shaped flashlight, with red and blue lenses (takes BA-50s/D-cells)
* A military Lensatic compass, along with two drafting protractors and a draftsman's compass
* Toilet kit
* 1 extra uniform, with 2 sets of skivvies and 4 pairs of socks
* 1 Field jacket
* 1 1st Aid kit
* 4 ponchos + 1 poncho liner - one to wear, one to use as a sleeping bag with the liner, two for using to build a tent (shelter-halves are totally pointless outside of a Boy Scout Jamboree)
* PASGT Helmet and ballistic vest
* 2 PRC-77 or SINGCARS radio batteries
* 12 BA-50s (military D-Cells)
* 2 notebooks (6"x4"), each with a plastic, microwave-safe ruler in Imperial and Metric

...And understand - I volunteered for what the Marine Corps used to call "scratch" companies: ad hoc light infantry companies made up from the "anti-social" guys in the Combat Support Element (Supply, MT, Maintenance, Cooks, etc.) -- actual infantry carried AT-4 anti-tank rounds, night-vision gear, laser target designators, LAWS rockets, mortar rounds, radios -- and the kitchen sink. I never carried any of that gear, even though I did carry SAWS and M60s on occasion.

And for Special Forces, it gets much, much worse:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2495590497786506130&hl=en

The load-out above is what I consider the ideal to go into combat...and I fully expected to expend most of my ammo, and lose half of my gear before relief/resupply.


6. Strategy - Bean-Counting and Combat Logistics. The Marine Corps uses a basic, interactive square referred to in 'Marine-Speak' as the "MAGTF Concept", for "Marine Air-Ground Task Force".

It is primarily a "battalion combat team", referred to as a "Marine Expeditionary Unit" or MEU. This is a battalion of infantry (c.1000 troops), plus a 'short' battalion of Combat Support (c.600-1200 troops, depending on mission), an Air Combat Element (c.500, operating 2 light, 8 medium, 4 heavy and 4 attack helicopters), and a c.200-man Command Element; other air squadrons of fixed-wing attack planes - usually Harrier jump-jets - would either be attached on-ship, or would be stationed on an aircraft carrier.

By itself, this unit deploys with supplies sufficient (hopefully) to fight on its own without resupply for up to 30-days -- after that? Well, AKs only take 4 hours to train on......

===================

Thanks All!

Quote from: Takiro on November 29, 2009, 07:47:59 AM

I'd imagine that situation could exist for Planetary Militia (Liao anyone) but for House Line Infantry I think you'd get a rifle.

Such proliferation in todays world but would it mirror the BattleTech universe? I know that during the Outer Reaches Rebellion early settlers made their own primitive weapons but not every planet has fought such a conflict in a very long time. I mean the Age of War and the Reunification War were hundreds of years ago as well. The Periphery Uprising and the Amaris Coup are much more recent conflicts but they really don't affect the Houses. And I doubt the Houses would encourage their citizens right to bear arms.

An important thing to remember is that people are still people -- even though it may be 800 years from now, even if it's a frontier planet (just look at Australia and New Zealand's history), you're going to have infantry doing something, be it disaster relief, riot control, parading on Landing Day, or whatever. You're going to need infantry to suppress everything from miners/workers strikes to cattle barons fighting range wars.

Don't discount "Balkanized" worlds, either -- one of the things that annoys me no end in CBT is that all worlds are basically homogenized: there is a Planetary Governor, and a population that never seems to get out of joint with the ass-hats across the valley lat-drilling the water out of their artesian system - and that's that? Hogwash. Humans are not going to leave Earth in the Great Exodus to rub elbows and cozy up with the people they left Earth to avoid - there should be plenty of worlds in every House that look like Europe in 1914: everyone ready to kill their neighbors at the drop of a hat, House and League notwithstanding; the Combine and the Confederation won't do it as openly, but the tensions will be there.

The Amaris Coup/Civil War will magnify these things a million-fold: the reason that Yugoslavia self-destructed after Tito's death and the collapse of the Soviet Union was that there was no longer an external hammer threatening the locals with smashiness when they decided to settle centuries-old scores; the best the major 1st world nations (i.e., House and SLDF troops) could do was to sit in forts and hope their troops didn't get sniped. Same thing happened in Somalia. And Liberia. And Sierra Leone...

That said, a lot of equipment procurement theory depends on who you intend to fight: are there ass-hats across the river? What about space pirates? How strong is the criminal element (Pablo Escobar had a fully uniformed, armed and equipped 500-man army at one point)?

Other things to consider are industrial development and planetary pride -- an indigenous small-arms industry is fairly simple to pull off, but generates a whole lot more pride in the population than an automobile plant.

Another thing is "national pride": your "planetary militia" might be laughable crap compared to a House or SLDF unit, but they are the hometown boys and girls - looking snappy in locally produced uniforms and weapons has the insensible side effect of making people far more ready to party with their hard earned cash in taxes for defense spending.

********

So, let's create a hypothetical world in one of the Houses - we'll call it...Khaffeenistan (I'm drinking coffee as I type this).

For the purpose of the exercise, we'll say that the planet is a backwater farm world, but has a population of around 10 million, planetwide. Although there are no real internal problems, space is a dangerous place, especially after the whole Amaris thing...

Okay, so we - the History and Team Sports Departments of the local Khafeenistan Association of Community Colleges - have been chosen to form the Planetary Forces Command by the newly-arrived House Governor-General, Lady Bambi Bubblegum. She has a private bodyguard detail, but that doesn't relate to us - she can leave at any time...we can't. We might get a small mech garrison in a few years, but that's not a guarantee. She's a dilettante House Noble, and knows virtually nothing about economics or warfare, but she can provide a reasonable amount of money to us. So - what kind of Forces do we need?

Well we're an agrarian world, so that's good, historically speaking -- well-educated farmers and ranchers tend to make the best soldiers. We'll say that half the planet is water that needs to be heavily and expensively purified before drinking due to a naturally-occurring bacteria - it may be a water-world, but it's not an ideal one. There is a variety of terrain, so we'll need forces that can operate in those spectrum's.

We don't really have any heavy industry - there is a single Henry Ford-style "one-stop-shop" auto plant that has built-in steel-work foundries and machine shops to build the occasional car, truck, tractor and bike (motor and pedal), and there are a couple of small companies that make hunting weapons and ammo, but nothing on a truly industrial scale. An actual mech-production facility is likely decades off, if ever.

First, what kind of army do we think we'll need? There are six types to choose from, and each will demand varying types of equipment levels and investment:

• Parade Armies

Parade armies exist for just that one reason: to look good on national/planetary holidays, and when standing guard duty at the local Presidential Palace. Parade armies aren't really good for anything but polishing chrome - when the shooting starts, they usually find somewhere else to be, with a quickness.

While they have standardized weapons that (usually) go BANG! on command, they don't really train with them, except for Close Order Drill. Think lots and lots of gold trim, frilly epaulets, and shiny brass EVERYWHERE - mud only gets involved if someone slips on a rainy day.

They are relatively easy and cheap to equip, though.

Parade armies exist because, dang it!, we're a COUNTRY, and countries need armies! Think of the modern-day army of Togo - which possesses precisely two ex-Soviet T-55 MBTs...that don't run.

• Police Armies

These armies are essentially very large SWAT teams, designed to keep the locals in check. Usually paid personally by a charismatic despot, these armies are essentially private bodyguard forces.

Note that these can sometimes be of moderately good quality and equipment, and might actually be able to be turned into a Real Army at some point.

Think of the Iraqi Republican Guard Corps.

• Political Armies

These come in two flavors: A) armies that run countries and B) armies that function as a major organ of civil government. Sometimes mistaken for Police armies, Political armies have far more say in the local political process.

Type A: Nigeria

Type B: Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards

• Real Armies

The US, UK, France, etc - Lots of tanks, artillery, supplies, etc -- basically, the whole shebang....and stupid-expensive, probably more than we and Bambi combined can come up with.

• Fiduciary Armies

These are armies formed exclusively to generate cash for the country be renting the component units out to other polities. These don't have to be real armies, but it sure helps.

• Militia Armies

This is probably what Khafeenistan will be stuck with -- we don't have a lot of prior-service people to act as trainers, so we only have history books/movies and team sports to go on. Since the schools have marching bands, Close Order Drill isn't that much of a stretch. Infantry work is going to be pretty basic, but we can probably get some motorized cavalry with the ranch-hands doing the driving.[/list]

All in all, no matter what we do, if the Bad Guys invade next year, we'll have a functional army in 3 - 5 years, if they're not all killed in their barracks; otherwise, we'll be doing well to have a passably-good 'Real Army' in 10-20 years of peacetime.

*********

So -- how big should Khafeenistan's army be? Well, we've established a planetary population of c.10 million. In the 1980's, the USA had about 1.5 million regulars, and about as many Reserves/National Guard, not counting police units -- call it c.3 million under arms, of a population of 250-300 million, or about 1 - 1.2%. With a planetary population of c.10 million, we should be able to field about 100,000 troops with little trouble. That means that we need equipment for 150,000 to allow for surges in recruiting and loss of gear (US$ amounts are FY2000, adjusted approximately for bulk purchase):

Item Name: BDU's (includes skivves) Helmet (with Cover) Beret Combat Boots Rain Pancho 2 Canteens with ALICE Gear Collapsible Cot Standard Bedding Gas Mask Extra Filters Ka-Bar Knife (with sheath) Entrenching Tool Mess Kit Binoculars Pop-up Flares Grenades, Frag Grenades, Smoke Rifle (+ Bayonet) Ammo (300rnds+Magazines) Machete

QTY per Item Unit 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 2 1 1 1

Price per Item Unit (USD) $40.00 $50.00 $1.00 $20.00 $5.00 $50.00 $10.00 $5.00 $50.00 $20.00 $10.00 $3.00 $2.00 $10.00 $3.40 $10.00 $10.00 $200.00 $20.00 $5.00

Total $80.00 $50.00 $1.00 $40.00 $5.00 $50.00 $10.00 $5.00 $50.00 $40.00 $10.00 $3.00 $2.00 $10.00 $34.00 $20.00 $20.00 $200.00 $20.00 $5.00 Standard Kit Total: $646.00

Therefore, for 150,000 sets:

Item Name: BDU's (includes skivves) Helmet (with Cover) Beret Combat Boots Rain Pancho 2 Canteens with ALICE Gear Collapsible Cot Standard Bedding Gas Mask Extra Filters Ka-Bar Knife (with sheath) Entrenching Tool Mess Kit Binoculars Pop-up Flares Grenades, Frag Grenades, Smoke Rifle (+ Bayonet) Ammo (+ Magazines) Machete

QTY per Item Unit 300000 150000 150000 300000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 300000 150000 150000 150000 150000 1500000 300000 300000 150000 150000 150000

Price per Item Unit (USD) $40.00 $50.00 $1.00 $20.00 $5.00 $50.00 $10.00 $5.00 $50.00 $20.00 $10.00 $3.00 $2.00 $10.00 $3.40 $10.00 $10.00 $200.00 $20.00 $5.00

Total $12,000,000.00 $7,500,000.00 $150,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $750,000.00 $7,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $750,000.00 $7,500,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $450,000.00 $300,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $5,100,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $750,000.00 Standard Kit Total: $96,900,000.00

EDIT: Well, I feel stupid - prices for ammo corrected. *headdesk*

So.....a cool US$100 Million in 2000 dollars to equip 150,000 people as Basic Infantry. If we scale it down to 10,000 troops, that's only c.US$6.5 million.

That's pretty cheap, overall, even at a Hundred Million Cabbages.

On top of that, while Khafeenistan can already build light trucks for cavalry and scouting operations, and can probably make SMGs, machineguns and mortars in fairly short order, actual artillery and battle tanks are going to be a 10-year project to develop internally, if they can be developed at all - Bambi may have to bat her lashes at Daddy-kins and ask for a couple of heavy-industrial plants...

For the House/League, this is where politics enters the game, as having a friendly planet willing to trade space for storage arsenals can come in very, very handy.....

************

So, overall, it doesn't require a megaton of investment at the planetary scale to outfit forces, especially with Major House support - even corporations can get into the game at this level -- once the factories start rolling, you'd be amazed at how quickly worker and "small merchant" lobby groups form to keep government buying more production, since that guarantees jobs...And in dangerous times, it just makes good sense to over-produce, institute a Draft to impart basic training to a force, and retain volunteers as a full-time cadre force of professional NCOs and Officers...

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R on April 03, 2010, 12:37:16 AM

As an addendum to the above:

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/lean/Twenty%20Four%20Percent%20Training.pdf

See Slide #10...


Based on FY2007 USD$, "Basic Training" for a recruit to the US Marine Corps costs:

*$52,326 per recruit for an 86-day training cycle

Which breaks down to

*$608/24-hr day, or

*$25/hour/per recruit

Overall, based on training 19,500 recruits in a single year at one facility, the cost to get them from "civilian" to "basically-trained Marine" (essentially, low-end light infantry, suitable for military police/security duties; this includes all uniforms, food, pay for instructors and materials including training ammunition, but omits weapons and field gear, which are returned before graduation) came to US$487,500 (in 2007 dollars).....

...Pretty cheap, overall, considering that you are getting the hard end of a division of fairly capable troops over the course of a year...

...Of course, they will need to progress to specialist schools after that, which run higher in costs, but I think that a good ballpark average would come out to around c.$100K-150K/Marine by the time they are ready for the Fleet....

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on April 06, 2010, 03:13:05 PM

Interesting thoughts.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 06, 2011, 07:15:34 PM

While I'll _not_ disagre with Hammer's basic figures, he's missing an few points, that need to be taken into account.  He's approaching this situation from the NCO's point of view, which is an very valid point, and acutally, needs to be accounted for, given they're the day in and day out managers of combat forces, but there's stuff he's not doing, mostly becasue he's not consdiering them.  No offense, but there's elements of the bugeting and training process he's missing.

an "army right now" of any real capablity isn't possible.  One of the _big_ reasons the US didn't fight harder for Sledgehammer, came from several basic factors: We didn't have ready units.  That simple. I'd point out Bands of Brothers, for an training time, and that's with an cadre ready to roll.


Factors to consdier when building an military of any real capablity and general usefulness.
1: Time to build an professonal, hard core NCO corps.
As Hammer will be the first to agree, bad NCO's == cannon fodder enlisted.  Bad idea.

Honestly? 10 years is way too small to consdier, from scratch. I'd figure closer to _20_ without any trainers (you import those, you start to change things.  Hades, folks, the offical mission of Ft. Bragg's girl scouts is _excatly_ that.)
Burn in time for new units, is 2 years after you receivce your TO, and TOE.  (Table of Orginzation for Personnel, and Table of Equipment. Ie, your people and your guns) at least.  AT LEAST.

When building new units, an consdieration that Hammer did NOT mention, was capital costs.  Ie, the buildings, the motor pools, the tools to mantain all those fun toys you're gonna give your shooters, the works.    Captial costs are the killer in an lot of ways for rapid expansion of an military force.  If you're starting off with an carde force, you're better off, but still.


As for Hammer's quote that you can have 100,000 Infantry? Dream on.  If you do that, and mabye some recon cav, I'd personally eat that unit to bits with an mech infantry bridage. No ifs, ands or buts.

10 million people = 100,000 military personnel (using War 2 logistics, we can acutally do more), give or take (there are consdierations I can touch upon.) Out of these, if you have 15,000 infantrymen, I'd be plesantly surpised (though to be fair, I tend to shift motar maggots to red stripes, but hey! (Cannon cockers)) though you should have about 30-35k acutal "We throw things at the enemy" types.  Yes, the numbers are far bleaker than Hammer's pointing out.

Note: This is an sustained, peacetime military.  Where there's no threat of invasion the next week. Total war situations are an whole other ball of wax.
To be fair, these 100,000 (we're talking the effective equivant of an corps, in the 1980-2000 US Army pattern) are going to be the equal of any infantry around, in 20 years.
But it's going to take 20 years.
from scratch, even assuming you can find an battlion of trainers for all the fields you need.

However, it's not all doom and gloom!

Firstoff, Engineers are an NICE payoff.  And so, yes.
Same with other fields, in the military (medics, can't forget them, ever!) do translate VERY well into civilian life.  so, the long term benfits to Bambi Bubblegum (who apparenlty didn't fail basic economics, and understanding of the military) is very good.

Second: Tanks, like the Po in the IS (I'm consdiering it equal to the M60 or even M1 series) are acutally fairly easy to build, if you're willing to take steps.  Study the battle of Kansas for excalty why the US had so many B-17/24/29's.

Etc, etc.

So, Hammer's points are fairly accurate, but come from the enlisted point of view.

NOT the Officer point.

Last but not least, you don't WANT the largest peacetime army you can sustain, in Bambi Bubblegum's shoes.

Wait, what? I can hear all of you going. 

A: It's costly.
B: It's acutally not cost effective, for the dollars you're sinking in.
C: All things consdiered, you're better off for _several_ reasons, in Bambi's shoes, switching to the Pre War 2 model of the US army.
Small, professonal, tight long service core, with an HUGE batch of national guard troops, (though you should have them base trained and equiped up to the core's level)
is the way to fly.  More importanly, the knock off benfits to the economy is too bleeding large.

Hammer is an NCO.
I did an tad over 9 as an officer, admittedly the Army (Yes, Hammer...) but the basic logistics are the same. And as Bambi's military avdisor...

However, remember the golden rule: Bigger economy, bigger military.
NOT bigger popluation.

A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 06, 2011, 07:37:25 PM

Addtional: You'd wonder why I didn't cacluate costs. 

Answer: WAY too many consdierations to take into account, so, any numbers I give are meaningless.

Also: Try to produce as much possible locally, and for heavy military captial items, (tanks!) produce via goverement ownership.

A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on April 07, 2011, 01:42:05 PM

Quote from: MageOhki on April 06, 2011, 07:15:34 PM

However, remember the golden rule: Bigger economy, bigger military.
NOT bigger popluation.

Interesting thoughts but don't forget also that quantity has a quality of its own.
It all depends how you are planning your forces (militias, pure professionals, a mix).

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 07, 2011, 03:52:58 PM

Quote from: Ice Hellion on April 07, 2011, 01:42:05 PM

Quote from: MageOhki on April 06, 2011, 07:15:34 PM

However, remember the golden rule: Bigger economy, bigger military.
NOT bigger popluation.

Interesting thoughts but don't forget also that quantity has a quality of its own.
It all depends how you are planning your forces (militias, pure professionals, a mix).

We disproved that, Ice, several times.  Quanity is only an factor when the quality (and not just equipment, in fact, blunlty? I discount equipment, overall, the Vietcong and NVA proved THAT fallacy) of the respective troops are _far_ closer than you'd think.  Quanity is the smallest force mulpiter around.

The Russian armies in War 2 are often given "Oh, they beat the Germans by mass" Check the acutal numbers, folks. It wasn't mass.  It was they finally got their officers equal, finally had good enough equipment, an dotrince that worked, and their infantry weren't far behind in quality (German quality went down)
Hell, at no time did the ALLIES have any real edge in numbers, ethier.

Quanity is just an way to get LOTS of people killed for no real gain.   If you're serious, you go professonal well trained.

A

Edit: This is not to say paying attention to numbers _isn't_ important.  Numbers matter, but they're one of the LEAST important factors you have to consdier.  Pay attention to the combat you want to fight, your likey eneimes, NCO quality, Officer quality, what equipment you have, basic dotrince, etc, etc.  War is not an science, even then.  Trust us, we wish it was...

Every time an army has relied on mass as it's _primary_ ability (aka, numbers), it's lost historically, becasue they're attempting to make up for an large quality difference.  Or worse, an bad dotrince.  (Side note: This applies to SHOCK combat, not skrimisker combat, rules differ there...)

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Knightmare on April 07, 2011, 03:58:31 PM

Quote from: MageOhki on April 07, 2011, 03:52:58 PM

If you're serious, you go professonal well trained.

...and well executed. The BEF during WWI was professional and well trained, but utilized poorly. End result - basically annihilated.

Quantity has its purpose if, as an army you're trying to figure stuff out like proper tactics, equipment usage, etc. Doesn't prevent huge casualties or reckless slaughter, but hey that's what large industrialized populations are for. 

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 07, 2011, 04:26:19 PM

Quote from: Knightmare on April 07, 2011, 03:58:31 PM

Quote from: MageOhki on April 07, 2011, 03:52:58 PM

If you're serious, you go professonal well trained.

...and well executed. The BEF during WWI was professional and well trained, but utilized poorly. End result - basically annihilated.

Quantity has its purpose if, as an army you're trying to figure stuff out like proper tactics, equipment usage, etc. Doesn't prevent huge casualties or reckless slaughter, but hey that's what large industrialized populations are for.

That'd be dotrince. And Officer quality.   Nappy's quote here has appros.  As Hammer will WELL agree, an good hard core NCO and Officer corps is key.  You have an shitty one, it don't matter if your Infantry are frigging Green Beret 20 year vets, if they don't have competent leadership... well, fsck...

Side note: There's LOTS of variables, in the cacluation.  Point of contact numbers, dotrince, time to prepare, etc, etc.... and even then, you only get possiblities. Murphy LOVES combat.

Sometimes you have to roll the dice and go with mass, but in shock combat that rarely works.   To be fair, this is all SHOCK combat theory.  Skrmisher combat differs, big time. Numbers DO matter there to an larger degree.

Since Hammer and I are shock trained... well.

A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on April 08, 2011, 03:08:24 PM

Quote from: MageOhki on April 07, 2011, 03:52:58 PM

We disproved that, Ice, several times.  Quanity is only an factor when the quality (and not just equipment, in fact, blunlty?

You can find a lot of examples where quantity won or where quality won.
As you said latter, Murphy loves combat.

And I never said or thought that Soviets or the Allies or the Germans won because of their numbers.

However, I do agree that even with quantity, quality of the officers, of the NCOs, of the men... matters as well as motivation (just check the Revolutionary Wars).

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 09, 2011, 06:17:35 PM

Hammer? Not really.  The facts of the matter is, Quantity ONLY applies, if the _quality_ of the forces engaged are "close enough" and that close enough is an _variable_.  Before you quote Xeres campgian in Greece, He _LOST_.  Yes, he squished the Spartans, but I'd point out, that the Immortals were some of the best troops in the world, and he managed to take them from behind. He didn't get that? I'm not quite sure he'd have won.

Look.  the Russians in War two, first relied on Mass.  Germans ate them for breakfast.  Quality was so out of line, that realistically no amount of numbers would work.

July 1944?  The Russians had ONLY an 1.6 MANPOWER egde over the germans, total in the Easter Front.
Fact. (Allies didn't even hit THAT on the WESTERN front!)
While they had edges in tank and tube and ground attack numbers, the quality there was acutally far closer than most would _belive_.

It's where they put their numbers, the ability to _foucs_, Germany's choice to try to defend all, etc.  Raw numbers, isn't the key.  It's what those numbers are, quality, training, HOW they are USED...

Nor is "performance" quality.

The Germans made some (indeed, one could aruge, and I won't contest it) of the BEST PERFORMING tanks in the world for that period.

However, they had some very nasty ENDURANCE issues, and mantiance issues.

War, again, is an art.  With serious sceince invovled.   Numbers, while IMPORTANT, aren't the be all, end all of things.  Quality is MORE important than raw numbers.  Really.  Put it this way.
200,000 troops armed with sticks and stones, and no idea how to use them, or 1000 Roman Legionaries. Choose!

A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 09, 2011, 06:43:45 PM

Edit: To be an bit more speific, given the location

Okay! You have 20 regiments of hillbillies (with their own rifles), who've never been though basics, 20 regiments of just though basic/AIT (Infantry school), green troops vs an battlion of Mechs.

>> Yeah. We all know the situation there.

Now, you have 20 years, of 4+ year EACH vetern, SRM, tech level 2+ Infantry, vs the battlion of Mechs.

Now then.  I see... changes in the sitaution.

Whenever I hear the quote, I keep thinking of the first two sitatuions, instead of the latter. (Becasue those are quality infantry. Not to be pissed away lighlty!)
A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki on April 09, 2011, 07:04:02 PM

One last point.  I really break out in hives when I hear "Quantity has an quality all it's own."  I ALSO break out in hives when I hear "Professonals study logistics!" 
Logistics is the science of warfare.
Tatics, et al is the _art_.
To win, you have to be good (not equally good, given) at _both_.

A.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on April 10, 2011, 07:27:50 AM

I think we are saying more or less the same thing: mass without direction will never win (and by direction, I don't think Xerxes' plan was the most intelligent one) and quality without at least some numbers will have trouble winning (unless you have a very very talented leader).

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: MageOhki 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.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on April 11, 2011, 04:54:52 PM

Quote from: MageOhki 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.

This is a bit obvious, no?

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Darthvegeta800 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.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion 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

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R 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.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Trace Coburn on May 27, 2011, 08:00:35 AM

Quote from: Hammer6R on May 27, 2011, 02:03:15 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

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R on May 27, 2011, 04:00:32 PM

Quote from: Trace Coburn on May 27, 2011, 08:00:35 AM

  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.....

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Halvagor 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. 

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion 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.

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R 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"........

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Ice Hellion on July 25, 2011, 01:41:12 PM

How would these ratios work in the CBT universe?

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Halvagor 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. 

Title: Re: Armies In BT/SC....
Post by: Hammer6R on July 25, 2011, 08:36:09 PM

Quote from: Ice Hellion on July 25, 2011, 01:41:12 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....