NationStates Jolt Archive

8) :lol:

I just have a question for anyone who might know about this thing. I want to know how many people it takes to keep up a division besides the infantry (lets say its an infantry division) forces. Alright I have two questions. I want to know how a heavy combat infantry squad (I'm thinking that means weapon-wize) differs from a regular infantry squad. I've done some researching and lets say that roughly your average division has roughly (very roughly) 6000 infantry (in an infantry division) not including any regiments, etc attached to it.

No one knows?


If your army is well supplied and well supported you must assume at least 4-5 logistics personnel for each soldier you field.

Ok, im new so here's my try:


The Armed Forces of Finnonicus:

10,000 Men Total (Out of a pop of 5 million)

8,000 are in the Land Army (6,000 Infantry, 2,000 Armored)
and the other 2,000 are part of the Finnonicus Air Arm.

this is what ill post on the military thread

We of Letila, decendents of the glorious Terra Pvlchra, are not interested in fighting wars unless we have to. We have a rather small army. Only 0.5% is involved in the military.

My cousin is killer with a slingshot. And I can swing a baseball bat like nobody's business. Who wants some?

We of Letila, decendents of the glorious Terra Pvlchra, are not interested in fighting wars unless we have to. We have a rather small army. Only 0.5% is involved in the military.

So you've got about the same proportion as modern day USA?

One of the problems with this thread is that it doesnt account for the age structure of the population. Not all nations have the same age structure the US does. (if you can find it, check the demography of India). Now, in the US, because there is a substantial population over 65, a large part of the population is unproductive, but in many third-world countries most of the population is under 30 or 40.

Hence, the appropriate way to decide this is to decide where on the spectrum of demography your nation falls. I have an age model for my country, assume that each year, the population has a stable age structure (not technically true since the population is increasing, but a lot easier to model), and then search #births until the total population = what NS tells me my pop is. Then, since my country has compulsory military service, i assume that all people between 18 and 21 serve in the military (4 years). Because i have an age structure, i know how many are that age, and thus know the size of my military. I further assume that most commissioned officers are not in compulsory service (eg, continued in the military after age 21), and so i need a military structure model to calculate the needed number of officers.

An age structure model is effectively a life history model (see an ecology textbook). Basically, it is a table of transition probabilities for going from age i to age j. In a stable age-structured population, there are the same number of births each year, and thus the number of people in any age is predictable (this should underestimate the number of young people in a growing population, as there will be more births and fewer older people in such a society). So you take the number of births, multiply it by the 0->1 transition probability, get the number of 1 year olds, multiply by the 1->2 transition probability, etc... and then sum over all ages to get total population. Since you know total population, you have to play with the number of births parameter to find the right number to get your total population.

A military structure model is on the order of 'for every k soldiers i need m majors, c colonels, g generals, and s people involved in supply', and for k being some unit size (say k such that you need 1 general), you can calculate k+s, which are positions filled by drafted individuals, and then divide total drafted military force by k+s to get the number of units that size (and thus the number of commissioned officers needed). On top of this will be some overall command, which is likely independent of the number of these units.

So for my population of 10million, i have a military of about 600k drafted (between all branches, though i don't rightly have a navy yet), and 20k commissioned officers, amounting to about 6.2% of my population. However, they also double as my police force, and represent less than 10% of my working age population. This is likely not unusual for countries my size like Israel, which has compulsory service, and probably represents less of the workforce than Israel's military does. I'll also note that my economy is not unreasonably high.

Then the trick is funding this with the budget. (I use http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php/ to caculate my budget, because i find its results reasonable for yearly budgets). I account for every vehicle purchased each year, all food consumed, every salary, and all maintenance, plus an estimate for munitions costs per soldier. Note that salaries are likely low in USD terms for young nations (or nations with poor economies), but will increase as the economy gets better. Also note that if your government owns all the factories, then you only have to pay the production cost, not the retail cost, for military hardware, all of which are important in computing costs. My military expenditures are approximately half of my budget (also realistic given my country).

Hope that made sense to everyone.

my country has 570% of its population in the military!!!!


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I'll never die!!!!

Hope that made sense to everyone.

it does make sense, but you fail to account for the kind of coutries that have a large population spike between 20 and 40. the model for population distribution, that has held true for every country on real earth, is that only developing (read: poor countries in the periphery) have this kind of distribution. industrialized and post-industrial nations have larger segments in their 40's on. why? various reasons, mostly its due to falling birth rates and people living longer.

so if you want your country to have that spike it's only fair for your country to have a shite economy that produces mostly raw materials for export.

i won't even begin to address the points re: half your budget going to the mlitary and your 600k draft; i'll just advise you read my original again and consider if you're willing to accept the consequences of the RP choices you've made.

Something to think about. Countries that can afford a huge military upgrade usually opt to reduce the size of their armies and then put the extra resources into upgrading what is left. The assumption is that a well equipped and disciplined army is better than a huge army that can not be brought to bear on one place. Countries that still anticipate a huge war sometime in the future use a similar stategy, but keep disproportionately large officer corps and training facilities so that they will be able to manage large numbers of conscripts, should the need arise. Small forces are generally a more efficient use of resources. Very large armies are mostly maintained by nations that do not have the technology to keep a well equipped force.

Hope that made sense to everyone.

it does make sense, but you fail to account for the kind of coutries that have a large population spike between 20 and 40. the model for population distribution, that has held true for every country on real earth, is that only developing (read: poor countries in the periphery) have this kind of distribution. industrialized and post-industrial nations have larger segments in their 40's on. why? various reasons, mostly its due to falling birth rates and people living longer.

so if you want your country to have that spike it's only fair for your country to have a shite economy that produces mostly raw materials for export.

i won't even begin to address the points re: half your budget going to the mlitary and your 600k draft; i'll just advise you read my original again and consider if you're willing to accept the consequences of the RP choices you've made.

I've been varying my population structure model as time goes on, so its more normal now. But when you're getting started, you probably do have a strongly skewed age distribution (more so than normal). I've also been tracking my level of military technology to my economy and other relevant related statistics (roleplayed or not). Though i'll note it is possible to have a 'good' economy and be developing, eg Saudia Arabia and other countries where the country and elites make a lot of money, but the average person never sees any of it. Any country where sufficient social control is present generally has a younger age structured population relative to otherwise comparable countries.

Though i'll note it is possible to have a 'good' economy and be developing, eg Saudia Arabia and other countries where the country and elites make a lot of money, but the average person never sees any of it. Any country where sufficient social control is present generally has a younger age structured population relative to otherwise comparable countries.

ah... Saudi, my current home. you are dead wrong to say that Saudi has a good economy. umemployment is about 30%, almost all meaningful industry is foreign (and being forced out by terrorists) and their education system is basically the Qu'ran in public schools meaning that students leave knowing about god and not much else.

their economy, and i may get arrested for this, SUCKS.

Don't worry too much. There are plenty of worse countries. Zimbabwe for example. Unemployment is at about 70%, inflation is somewhere about or above 400%, almost all agricultural production (Zimbabwe's only meaningful industry) has caesed, and government sponsored thugs go around the country beating up and killing the only people who can resurrect the Zimbabwean economy.

BTW, I live in Australia.

Don't worry too much. There are plenty of worse countries. Zimbabwe for example.

i'm not worried, not a Saudi, just an expat. and as a general rule of thumb it's always worse in Africa. my sister's there now and yeesh.

my nation currently holds 8 million people (oviously very new) I have put 160,000 troops into action. Is that too much, too little, or just right?

2% is just about right for a small nation.

2% total personnel, sure.

But is it me or do people (not pointing fingers here) seem to forget that these population percentage estimates are for the total personnel, not how many combatants? I think that needs clarifying if so.

But is it me or do people (not pointing fingers here) seem to forget that these population percentage estimates are for the total personnel, not how many combatants? I think that needs clarifying if so.

it's not you, everyone does it. also, people do stupid things like have a 1:1 ratio. it's more like 4:1 support:combat, more for stuff like fighter planes etc.

But is it me or do people (not pointing fingers here) seem to forget that these population percentage estimates are for the total personnel, not how many combatants? I think that needs clarifying if so.

it's not you, everyone does it. also, people do stupid things like have a 1:1 ratio. it's more like 4:1 support:combat, more for stuff like fighter planes etc.

I normally go by 3:1 for troops...

I normally go by 3:1 for troops...

by troops do you mean army or in general?

I normally go by 3:1 for troops...

by troops do you mean army or in general?

For my infantry...however...my infantry is sustained in highly advanced ODIN suits (I'm future tech)...so they need less support than usual.

I normally go by 3:1 for troops...

by troops do you mean army or in general?

For my infantry...however...my infantry is sustained in highly advanced ODIN suits (I'm future tech)...so they need less support than usual.

Sorry, but they will most likely need more not less support. The more high tech something is, the more maintanance it will need.

As well as the fact that the more advanced a peice of equipment is, the more training it takes to fix it. Not to mention that the parts themselves are more complicated and require highly trained people to develop and manufacture. Oh, and the person operating it has to be highly trained too. And not highly trained as in "special forces", highly trained as in "why are there six pedals but only four directions?"

* Didn't this use to be stickied?

I normally go by 3:1 for troops...

by troops do you mean army or in general?

For my infantry...however...my infantry is sustained in highly advanced ODIN suits (I'm future tech)...so they need less support than usual.

Sorry, but they will most likely need more not less support. The more high tech something is, the more maintanance it will need.

Would you please explain yourself...or is this simply a personal opinion?

I believe what he's getting at is that the higher-tech something is, the more complicated the design tends to be, and thus the more maintenance it requires. So, unless it was designed to specifically be low-maintenance and thus takes an appropriate performance hit, a high-tech design will tend to require more work to keep it running. Unless, of course, you got lucky and have a JM Browning or JC Garand type of engineer on all your design teams, who knows how to make things both high-performance yet mechanically simple and reliable. If this is true, you either have a nation of tinkerers or a lot of excellent engineering schools with a wide talent pool.

Sorry I didn't have time to explain myself - I checked and posted that on my way to work this moring (JST). Terraus and Thirtycaliber did a good job of explaining (thanks, guys!).

To re-iterate and expound. Support bassically means maintanance and supply. The more mechanically complex something is, the more maintanance it will require. The more moving parts there are, then the more parts there are to be replaced. Powered armor suits will most likely require maintananace on *at least* the platoon level, if not the squad or even individual level. They will be at least as complicated as a modern MBT, and most likely at least an order of magnitude more complicated, depending on the design. I have seen estimates that future tanks will require a ground crew similar to a modern fighter jet. I would guestimate that a squad of combat armor suits would probably require the same effort. Mecha will probably require a larger support crew.

My personal opinion: you will need 1-2 weapons techs, 2-3 electronics techs, an armorer, and a couple of general mechanics for the support crew for a squad/platoon, depending on the complexity of the suits.

Of course this will be in addition to the lighter unarmored infantry, heavier armor (you aren't planning to field just powered arrmor forces, are you?*), artillery, engineer, air defense, aviation, signals, intelligence, MPs, quartermasters, transport, medical, administrative, ordinance, and other combat support forces you will need. It is those units that take up the vast majority of your military. 5-7:1 support for a modern military is a fairly good estimate. 8+:1 is a good start for future tech.

* If you are planning just a PA (Powered Armor) infantry army, how do you expect to deal with situations that cannot be handled by PA. The exact situations will be up to the details of your PA. PA will either be light enough to handle traditional infantry duties (including MOUT, jungle, and other tight terrain) or it will be heavy enough to stand up to future armor units. It cannot do both. PA will add capacity to a balanced force. It cannot, will not, must not be assumed to be a replacement. I can carry on more if you wish.... :)

I have a medieval type country (feudal Japan-style), and my military would consist of samurai and ashigaru (translated swift feet, more like spear holding, practically unarmored infantry) with a ratio of 1 samurai to every 10-15 ashigaru. But, as rice is a HIGHLY tedious crop to grow, my military could only be about 1% of my population or so. And that is being liberal with the number... In other words, since I have a nely-founded nation of five million, I have a military of roughly 46,000 ashigaru, with 4,000 samurai. Measly compared to real Japan. At the turn of th 17th sentury (1600) they had a military larger than almost all of Europe put together. The good news for my nation: We are a united country, strong in our beliefs, moral in our attitudes, striving for the same goal, and yes, samurai are hard-nosed hand-to-hand fighters. Can't quite compete with a nuke, but...

Anyway, I am Emperor Kubilai, the Son of Heaven, of the Kubilai nation. I hope my approximations are right. Let me know what you think.

As well as the fact that the more advanced a peice of equipment is, the more training it takes to fix it. Not to mention that the parts themselves are more complicated and require highly trained people to develop and manufacture. Oh, and the person operating it has to be highly trained too. And not highly trained as in "special forces", highly trained as in "why are there six pedals but only four directions?"

Red vs. Blue... dude, you rock.

That comment Santa Barbara made about combatants is dead accurate. Using the US marines as a template, it takes roughly 10 technicians and other support personnel to get 1 Marine to fight. This includes the people who transport the supplies (ammo, food, etc), the people who transport the combat troopies, and the command staff and behind-the-lines logistics base (the people who decide where, when, and how the supplies will be delivered to the troops at the sharp end- and the people who protect the supply lines).

Using that template as a general rule (in real life, modern aircraft require a lot more support, regular infantry somewhat less, and ships are a whole different issue altogether) for simplicity's sake will help maintain a good balance of forces. If you have a 1 million-man army, only 100,000 of them would be combatants using this rule.

Some anal bastard in the game (me, for those who are interested) wrote a long and involved rant on this subject. A bunch of extremely well-researched material was posted by the other authors in the thread. Santa Barbara was one of them, so he knows whereof he speaks.

TEO

Military figures should be more like 0.10-1.0%.

I had originally posted this in another thread, but here's the info again if anyone is interested.

The per capita ratios (percentage of troops versus total population) for a few real countries in the late 90's:

USA 0.58%

With the U.S having 283.8 million people, that only gives 1.65 million troops. Even if you consider a global war, like WW2, and multiply that percentage by ten - it's still only 5.8%, or 16 million out of a population of 283 million.

Here's the website I got the stats from if anyone is interested in seeing my source:
http://www.liberal-international.org/ldr/russia/schroder.html

Just my opinion here, but no nation - even the most frothy-mouthed, war crazed lunatics - should ever have more than 5% of its population as military.

Now heres the thing though, the United states had a population of around 140 million during world war 2 and still managed to conscript on Armed Forces of around 18 million soldiers that were well equipped a decently trained. Really now, please name the appropriate percentages for major conflicts like WW2 cause honestly man the population wasn't fixed for 60 years.

WW2 was a special case and the high percentage of enlisted men lasted only for 4 years, and much to the detriment of the economy. Rationing and bans on personal uses of many products that were needed to equip the U.S. were common. Another thing is that out of 18 million soldiers only about 4 million were in combat roles, or ready to fight at any given time. Most of the draftees served support positions, and it lierally took 2 years for the U.S. to transport enough men to the front to be effective.

Supreme Republican Commander Vaikov,One Hundred Man of the Retaliatory Guard

True, The Korean war the United states had a military of 5 million. It was considered "peace time" Im just saying, that if a nation with a population of 800,000,000 is scoffed at because they have a military of about 11-18 million then they really just dont realise that it is possible as well as maintainable.

Possible, but not mainatinable. The US has only ever had armies over a million soldiers for brief periods, the 5 million you talk about during the Korean conflict, were once again temporary and greatly reduced once the conflict had ended. The thing that people don't want to take into account is that the part of your population that is fit for military are also the same people that are needed to power the economy. Every person that joins and serves actively in the military has a negative effect on the economy. Not only does business lose a productive worker, but the government loses the tax income from that person and then the government must also pay them (from the decreased tax base) Large militries are possible, and they are maintainable in the way that Iraq and North Korea's armies are maintainable.

I can't calculat my troop numbers. I have a 95 million population I've tried 2.5, 2, 1.5, and 1 percent on a calculater and it keeps saying I have .02 troops how many troops do I really have.

If you want the best soldiers, best equiped and best training your not gonna be able to afford WWII or Korean percentiles.

The Grand Duchy of Laio has an armed force of 1.5 million citizens... out of a population of twenty-million. This represents 7.5% of the population. With an organized, trained, compulsory militia... this is well within a reasonable level (i.e. Swiss armed force in RL).

Since Laio has no plans on war or dreams of conquest... there are no expensive "star war's" weapons and un-necessary heavy equipment. Each member of the militia is equipped with one dress uniform, two field uniforms, a personal weapon and appropriate field gear.

Each militia member maintains his uniforms and equipment at home. The Grand Duke himself, serve's as a "high private" in one of the Capital Brigades.

Contrary to the false UN report that crime is prevelant... it is almost non-existant. The militia also acts the the police force of Laio. Most criminals are shot while "attempting to flee."

The militia, combined with our mountainous terrain, has preserve our freedom and liberties for generations.

Diego MacBernstein
Envoy to the UN
Grand Duchy of Laio

...I think the smaller the nation Laio, the better a small percentile military will work out. I have about 1.1 billion and I maintain a 10 million man army, which probably has superior training to yours due to the amount of money I can throw into it.

Kukaku has 10 million people (young nation, 6 days)

10,000,000/.7= about 1,500,000

1,000,000 paper pushers
500,000 combat ready troops

if my math is right. Is it?

Kukaku passed an issue to put more money towards military, so, i could raise that by .1 maybe?

10,000,000/.8= about 12,500,000

no. it jumped from 1 million to 12 million! that can't be right! but i did it with a calculator!

help me!

i figured it out!

10,000,000/7.5= about 1,500,000 man(and woman) army

1,000,000 paper pushers
500,000 ground troops

and i just bought some tanks!

so i think my army stats are:

1,000,000 non-combat military personel
400,000 infantrymen
100,000 armoured division (M1 Abrums)

Anyone can have massive armies. You can devote practically your entire population to it if you desire. There are just a few problems you need to consider and role-play.

With all of those people serving in the military, how does your economy run? Even communist/socialist nations need to produce little things like food and materials to feed their armies. With all of your productive people in the army, how do you expect people to survive? North Korea has a massive army, especially considering its low population. Is it any wonder that the land is largely a civil rights disaster, with famine and plague the rule in rural areas?

Let's say you have two million people in your army, combat or otherwise. How are you going to get them where you need them to go? To move two million people all at once, you're going to need a LOT of transport, which requires a LOT of material and support. See point number 1.

Once you get those two million people where you want them to be, how do you coordinate them? Two million sentients creates a lot of confusion. All it takes is a simple miscommunication high enough up the ladder and entire armies will start marching in the wrong direction or firing on their friends. It happens often enough in small armies, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't increase exponentially the larger the army gets. Human beings (ignoring other races, because it isn't worth it) isn't like ordering robots around. Confusion is a killer when you get into big numbers.

Rather than attempt to grasp at straws justifying massive armies or attempting to role-play the disadvantages, it makes far more sense to just keep the numbers down to reasonable levels. How's your nation's economy and industry? How good is your communication and transportation? How well can you afford to feed, house and train your troops? The fewer troops, the higher quality you can afford. The higher quality troops, the more effective they'll be in combat. I'll bet small armies against large ones if they're well-trained and well-equipped.

Anyone can have massive armies, but few have the obscene levels of industrial might and economic power needed to sustain their ridiculously large budget and logistics. 8)

Of course in my case its not terribly large in relation to the civilian population. I'm not one of those "I arm every one in five people in my country!" nations.

As questions are being asked about this topic, :::BUMP:::

bump for new forums.

One thing needs to be remembered, When you are being attacked it is much easier to draft a high percentage of people into the military. Yes they won't be very well trained or equiped but if used correctly can be very efficient eg Urban combat.

Make the millitary a seperate populace!

Yes, the concept of the self contained millitary bypasses the horrid drain on working ages citizens. However, the supply drain is still present but thats negligible with mass food production (no old fashioned farming).

Make the millitary a seperate populace!

Yes, the concept of the self contained millitary bypasses the horrid drain on working ages citizens. However, the supply drain is still present but thats negligible with mass food production (no old fashioned farming).
But you still need to FUND it. The logistics of keeping that many people in your military is not possible.

I got around this by issuing every home one assault rifle and one handgun and requiring government training on the use and care of the weapon. ALso, gin laws are lax enough that you can own up to a dozen assault rifles and not seem strange.

Now I have over three billion people that can defend my nation.

No you dont. You get your military to run it's own economy. Trading for raw materials to use in their own factories to make weapons etc. The only problem is that then they become their own country and can very easily take over yours.

I hit the post button by accident, I edited it, and with that edit, it shows how to get around large militaries.

Just don't piss off your people or your dead.

No you dont. You get your military to run it's own economy. Trading for raw materials to use in their own factories to make weapons etc. The only problem is that then they become their own country and can very easily take over yours.

Trading what, exactly?

There are a lot of nations which claim to have ungodly percentages of their population in their military (ranging from the 20% IF and NRBC claim, to the more reasonable 2.5-4% i saw when i first got here).
OOC: When I first started looking at the forums after signing up for NationStates, I decided from the get-go that I wanted to be realistic in my portrayals of Sarzonia. I immediately came upon a figure of about two percent of my country's population for active military for my early days (as a country with a population of < 5-100 million or so.) I also figured that I could increase active military to about five percent in the event of a war.

Now that I've gone up to over 600 million in population (which I realize is still tiny compared to the 2002 countries), I still haven't gotten to a point where I feel comfortable saying that my army is five million strong. I realize that a six million man army would be less than one percent of my country's population, but the larger your military grows without infrastructure to support it (both civilian economy and military support system behind it), the less effective the soldiers you deploy on the battlefield will be. I would rather have a smallish army that was highly professional than have a large, poorly-organized one.

Then again, my air force is actually the smallest of the three modern tech services I have in relation to my country's size. It's probably about half the size it should be. Where I have built the most in terms of military is my navy. That may have been built too quickly for reality's sake, but I firmly believe in the power of controlling the oceans. As an example, if I ever got suicidal enough to go to war with Automagfreek (which I am not planning, but just using an example), my best chance to win or even withstand a Freek assault would be to PREVENT him from landing on Sarzonia. My best chance to do that would be if he takes his Sentinels toward Sarzonia by sea and my navy defeats his and/or sinks the transports carrying the Sentinels. Then again, I am much more comfortable with building a navy than I am with any other service (although a space force will be another matter entirely).

And, I have just posted entirely too much on the subject, but just to say that the bigger you get, the smaller percentage of military you will end up using.

I have a 0.41% military (including logistics) and Im proud of it. However, high percentages are not too bad, so long as the nation in question admits they dont have social security or money for 'special projects'. For example, a 19th - early 20th century European continental army would be about 10% of your population.

But you still need to FUND it. The logistics of keeping that many people in your military is not possible.

Yes, it is expensive, however, they are not just for our corperations defence, we also contract them out. Therefore, they are a PMC (private millitary company) instead of merely a national one.

They pay for themselves (and thats excluding any looting and/or pillaging done while in foreign countires).

Honestly, I am not sure what to have. I usually have around 2-3%, but from reading this, that is too much.

Now I'm confused! o.O

That works good for a Mega-Corporation. Not an Empire that has plans to rampage across landmasses.

I hold a constant 4% military. Over 125 million soldiers total. I can afford this because my nation has been making a sh*tload of money since it was three months old, my industries are all government owned and produce 95% military hardware.

Before you say that is high... five months ago, I had a 10% military.

So skipping ahead here, I have a pop of 2.2 Billion... guess what 1% of that is: 24 Million. So I could have 24 Million people in my military while only using 1% of my population. In actuallity, Im only using 2.8 Million people (5 Million if you want to include support). So yes, your thread makes sense to smaller nations, but once your over 1 Billion, it all messes up.

Hmm...

I agree with Artitsa here....sort of. I have a pop. of 1.567 billion, and one percent would be 15,670,000. That is (to me, anyways) a big army. I'm not that into wars all the time, so I don't need something that big, but I like to keep a large military.

At the moment, I'm thinking of something of:

0.5% > X < 2%

I have a 0.41% military (including logistics) and Im proud of it. However, high percentages are not too bad, so long as the nation in question admits they dont have social security or money for 'special projects'. For example, a 19th - early 20th century European continental army would be about 10% of your population.

And that's an army armed with pieces of sharp metal. Or cannon fodder as any modern opponent will call them.

The problem with percentages is that most modern armies spend a proportionately higher proportion of their budget on equipment rather than personnel and the trend is increasing. Technology does not come cheaply.

And to be honest, most nations don;t ant o commit large numbers of men to the batlefield when so-called "smart tech" can do the job for them.

If you want to play a tin-pot economy with a large and porrly equipped military then by all means have a large proportion of your citizens in uniform. If you want a diverse economy then I suggest you follow some real life examples and stick to around half of one percent (the USA fluctuates between 0.4% and 0.5% of population employed by the military, and many of them are civilian staff).

I suppose the most important thing to consider though is that you should always attempt to balance things out when you RP conflict. Even a highly developed, non-military, nation of 3+ billion inhabitants is likely to be ale to rebuke an attack from a younger nation with a large military budget. It might find it harder to invade said nation though.

It's not really about numbers, it's about RP. I have more fun using my military as a diplomatic tool rather than actually engaging them in war.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340340

this is my current military plan.

In general, there is a maximum practical size for a military. After a certain point it becomes very expensive and inefficient to move a large army.

I personally use the High Guard's logistics section in civilian work; including manufacturing, design, construction, peacekeeping, etc. Only half of the High Guard is active at any time. While the rest are required to be ready to fight in 24 hours, they do not get paid until they go onto active duty.

The strange thing is that some people think that they can mobilize fifty million persons [i.e. Whittier] instantly . . .

----------------------

Medieval tech is generally hard to do in NationStates due to the size.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340340
The strange thing is that some people think that they can mobilize fifty million persons [i.e. Whittier] instantly . . .


A lot of people forget that as the personnel number get larger the logistical difficulties become progressively more severe.

Let's face it though, some people think they can enlist their entire population in an emergency. Nice if you don't need anyone to make the bullets.

Is this realistic (or close enough to be considered "realistic" on NS)?

Doomduckistan has 2% of its population in the military. That includes logistics personell and people completing their two years of non-frontline military service (instead of a year of soldiering, 18-year olds do two years with no combat [They actually could go to combat, but Doomduckistan makes it much more attractive to be productive in the military by having the termservers as last resorts for combat]) Total right now- 4.34 Million

Each branch has about 0.5% of the population in it. Righ now that's 1.085 Million a branch. (IDA, IDN, IDAF, IDMC)

But, the actual number of combat troops in the entire military is just under 400,000 right now. (~379,950 as of now).

Edit- Also, the high cost of this military is reflected in other branches- our navy, for instance, despite being over 2/3rds the U.S. population, is much, much less than the 200 ships that are 2/3rds of the USN.

Let's face it though, some people think they can enlist their entire population in an emergency. Nice if you don't need anyone to make the bullets.
Unless you just arm the populace and tell them shoot any soldier not in your nation's uniform. :p

the whole everyone is a militia member option is pretty beardy (especially since it won't be all your population, unless four year old and octogenarians have ot fight too) unless you're playing a government that simply dotes on its people. in the real world a well armed populace may be the best defense against tyranny, but in NS i see a lot of tyrants who'd love to pretend they have chest thumping patriots in every house rather than terrified milquetoasts who want out.

a militia is fine, but if you're going to make it universal you better RP the consequences meticulously.

We on this again? Well for the record, I have effectivly all my population as potential millitary. What?!? you may cry, but this has been done (well claimed and no one said no...) through having all my schooling systems as, what you may call military academies. To explain I've found my notes;

"Starting form the age of 8 all children are required to attended training, until the ages of between 18 and 24 depending on what there talents are. However to gain the most from my recruits they are given psycho-indoctrination and mental conditioning to ensure loyalty to the state and bring about a sense of honour where fear is not an obstruction to the continuation of their mission and can act without thought. Hypnotism also plays a large part in the training of my armed forces, since post hypnotic suggestion can allow for troopers to memorise the geography of an entire nation down to the back streets of the cities in less than 2 weeks. It can also be used to memorise schematics of armoured vehicles and put names to faces for an entire company. Given this, my troopers are trained to be proficient in all roles on the battlefield from medic to sniper to anything else you could think of, allowing for troopers to recognise and take on roles as needed without direction. Admittedly this does create killing machines, so those not on active duty are given hypnosis to suppress the majority of training until directly ordered into active duty by a recognised superior."

Also I don't have Air or Sea forces, or tanks making support structures very streamlined. Even so, I only have a 6 million man army of which 2 million is in other countries running Millitary franchises (Travel Agency)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong, or unrealistic, about compelling your population to undergo some form of military training.

What is unrealistic though is forgetting that any economy needs a large proportion of its citizens engaged in the business of running the country. And this is true even in wartime. As I said before, someone needs to make the bullets, keep the powerstations running, ensure people are fed, and all the other mundane tasks that you simply can't do without.

You also need to remember that a significant proportion of your population will be too young or too old (unless you've went mad with an enforced euthanasia program). Then there's the people who simply aren't fit for military service as well.

Doomduckistan, that looks fine.

As regards to the armed populace thing, well a militia is fine and all, but untrained local hicks armed with rifles will soon encounter real problems when fighting an actual military. Supplies and logistics, for one. It wouldn't take long after a war broke out for the local pawn shop to run out of ammo. And once starvation and disease set in, their threaded morale will most likely break as they begin thinking more about saving their family and friends by running away instead of trying to shoot tanks with a peashooter. Then we're not even getting into the effects of artillery and air support.

Just as long as you're aware of all that, and that a militia won't be some huge patriotic beast of war... at best it will be a bloody nuisance, and eventually it will crumble.

I think your estimate of the effectiveness of an armed citizenry is a little pessimistic. Granted it wouldn't be a "huge patriotic beast of war", but as the size of professional armies decrease, the effectiveness of lots of people with lots of guns increases.

To cite the controversial case of Iraq, when after the first week of the invasion it seemed that there was popular opposition organised in the "Fedayeen" and supported by an influx from throughout the region (and a freak sandstorm), the nerve of the US military command just about snapped. You'd really have to have been watching to have seen it, because once it became clear that even if most Iraqis opposed the invasion, very few were willing to die for Hussein, the us command recovered its arrogance.

Now, the argument still holds. The massive availability of light weaponry has meant that the Iraqi resistance is much better armed than the Vietnamese resistance at the comparative time after the beginning of the war. Supply of weapons is not a problem, the US has no popular legitimacy - whammo - guerilla war for the foreseeable future. Of course, its ridiculous to think that a government could remain in power over a militia resistance through such an occupation (as some geniuses like Bremer and Rumsfeld suggested Husseinwas, before his capture).

Peace be with you

Inigo+
Vicar-Generalariat for the Missions
The Most Serene Republic

In the real world a well armed populace may be the best defense against tyranny, but in NS i see a lot of tyrants who'd love to pretend they have chest thumping patriots in every house rather than terrified milquetoasts who want out.
Indeed. *cough*Belem*cough*

God bless,

The Republic of Syskeyia

What about if your a nation of something which cannot conform to this chart, like a Dalek nation? I mean they're all encased in protective armour and with weapons and the majority of them do go fighting, with minorities acting as researchers and most industry run by machines. You will recognise and make fantasy exceptions should the Daleks ever find your planet/country has enough resources and wish to invade? And no stair jokes, we have hovercrafts!

I actually spent a day thinking on this and came up with a solution:

Daleks operate as a gigantic hive, in essence, with one Dalek (the Emperor) controlling lower Dalek production, split into a rigid heierarchy. Technically, Daleks have *NO* army, because any and all Daleks can be turned into soldiers at a moments notice. The heierarchy is so ingrained that if a leader dies when on the field, the next in line automatically takes command with no confusion from the drones, and so on down the line. Having everyone equipted with blasters helps there too.

So, a Dalek nation would have a standing army of 0% with a reserves "to be called up at a moments notice" of 100%. Remember that Daleks are not those warmachines that you see on TV, but the creatures that live within them. They can and do swap out bodies from military to non-military as needed. Several scripts showed a technician body, which was described as spider-like, cheaper to operate but less useful in warfare. But to go from spider to pepper-pot, you just crawl out of one and into the other, and off you go, a technician to a soldier. In the TV show, you don't really see Dalek society, do you? Only those currently "called to duty."

On the combat support issue it's important to remember that using a rigid system of 7:1 or 3:1 is very unrealistic, for instance there is not one chef, paymaster, clerk, armourer, mechanic, doctor and so on for every single soldier because those individuals in the support services provide for multiple people which is something I've not yet seen reflected by those who post more information about their forces.
They seem restricted to the logic that each four man crew tank has twelve support personnel to them, there's a surplus that's dipped in to for such matters. Not teams for each vehicle and soldier.

My army is about 15-17 million and my navy and air force probably add in 2-3 million.

We have a budget of 21 trillion dollars, military recieves 21% of that, or about 4.5 trillion. So I think my military is quite realistic. It is about 1.5% (That is adding in the 200 divisions of the popular army which are just human wave units we don't spend much money or time with, and then the reserves which are somewhat better than USA reserves)

We basically have a very professional regular army, a super professional republican guard, decent reserves, and then the popular army is just a bunch of lunatics charging forward with guns.

My air force is quite nice also, the navy is okay but our best branches of services are the Republican Guard and the Army.

At last inspection of my military it was merely 0.1% of my total population, focused primarily in naval and planetary defense personnel.

However, my reserves and national guard formations will allow my military to increase to almost 2.5% of my population or an increase of 250%.

Is this realistic?

I have about 2% of my population enlisted in to the military, which brings it to 31,560,000 people. (total -- including support people, not all of it is just armed personell)

1) Is this realistic and

2) what percent should be a support, or does that depend on the branch?

1, It's about as realistic as NS goes anyway. 2, it does depend on branch. Plucking numbers out of my arse, I'd say 2 or 3 to 1 for ground forces is right, 5 to 1 or more for naval, 10-25 to 1 for air forces. That's the general idea, anyway.

Santa, I get your point. Especially with scenarios like in Black Hawk Down. Still, not every nation likes small numbers of professional, light infantry. In NS, you'll find nations with more economic power, more militarism and population than the US, and professional armies they field are often large and mean enough to make short work of militia.

You have to admit that one reason the US forces doesn't totally slaughter enemy militia in a city is because the US chooses to do things with as minimal bloodshed to bystanders. If they weren't so nice, well, militia versus A-10's...

On the combat support issue it's important to remember that using a rigid system of 7:1 or 3:1 is very unrealistic, for instance there is not one chef, paymaster, clerk, armourer, mechanic, doctor and so on for every single soldier because those individuals in the support services provide for multiple people which is something I've not yet seen reflected by those who post more information about their forces.
They seem restricted to the logic that each four man crew tank has twelve support personnel to them, there's a surplus that's dipped in to for such matters. Not teams for each vehicle and soldier.

I see what you mean, but what is the alternative? To say that a battalion of soldiers can be served by one cook? In every instance regarding support personnel to combat personnel that I've seen, the number of support far outnumber the amount of combat personnel, and not the other way around. A ratio is not perfect by any means, but it's better than conjuring up soldiers from thin air.

edit: I don't think combat support should simply be viewed as just mechanics fixing a tank, but for the whole range of services that assist the soldier or piece of equipment to best do its job - which is kill the enemy. Everything from getting ammo, legal, accounting, gravedigging, family relocation, training, etc.. should all be considered "support". In other words, it's not just one cook per soldier, but perhaps one cook, lawyer, ammo guy, etc... per x group of soldier. Hence the ratios, since it would be needless complex to break down each occupation or duty that makes up combat support. Far easier to say 1:3 or 1:5 or whatever - with the tacit understanding that combat support includes everything necessary.

Blargistania has roughly 10 million troops overall in the military. A little over 2 million in the army. But, for a nation with almost 1.5 billion people and a frightening economy, I'd say thats pretty reasonable. Its only .06% of the population.

As long as you take into account the fact that it would take days, if not weeks, for you to mobilize and move around that many troops . . .

In the other hand, I suppose it depends on where you're sending your soldiers, and what combat readiness you keep them in. Then there's also the tech issue. The US can't very effectively transport A1M2 tanks and such via air due to their size, so it has to use cargo ships, which take time. Likewise, if you have bad roads or an irregular rail network, it would also take time to transport something.

Then again, a nation with a bad econ where no one uses roads and rails would have an easier time moving mechanized forces around than a nation with a strong econ that has its transportation networks clogged with commercial and civilian traffic.