NationStates Jolt Archive

Million man armies are created for the purpose of fighting more than one war.
Million man armies also cost a lot of money to maintain
Also, when you send a million man army into a war zone, and another nation does the same, you have the problem of overcrowding.
Some of these nations are to small to have enough space for everyone to be throwing million man armies in to them.
It would cause severe overcrowding,
your forces would be more vulnerable to attack because they would be bunched up.
And I will finish this when I get back.

Yeah! Not to mention how much it would cost to keep them fed

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve

The many advantages of Futuretech :)

You can't forget about tanks, and typically whoever has milion-man armies usually also has several hundred Nimitz carriers and Iowas. Plus tanks and all of that. Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

But for all of those people who have million man armies and arent godmodders. Its usually divided into several smaller armies. And you can't forget drafts during war. Drafts are expensive. You have to arm your conscripts. This is where Military Surplus comes in.

The many advantages of Futuretech :)

No. Future tech does not equal license to have gigantic armies.

Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

'Fraid you're wrong there. There are more and more billion and 2 billion nations around, with plenty of million PERSON armies. Anyway, its NS.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.
Which brings up a good point, million man armies tend to have more corruption than smaller armies do. They're also less effective if the enemy has better technology enabling him to cause you greater damage than you can to him, even if he is smaller. (This doesn't apply if your enemy has, say, only a 100 man army, he would put a good fight but he would go down in less than 5 hours.)

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.

Remembers Russia put 20 Million in.

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Well, I think there is one perspective missing from this:





i ave 2 million guys w/ those big a$$ gunz and dey invad ur cyuhnty and u al dy!!!111 OMG WTF LOL!1

You can't forget about tanks, and typically whoever has milion-man armies usually also has several hundred Nimitz carriers and Iowas. Plus tanks and all of that. Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

But for all of those people who have million man armies and arent godmodders. Its usually divided into several smaller armies. And you can't forget drafts during war. Drafts are expensive. You have to arm your conscripts. This is where Military Surplus comes in.
Volunteer armies beat drafted armies 90% of the time.
That is why America has an all volunteer force.
Having several hundred Nimitz carriers and a million man army isn't even realistic.

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Losing? in what sense. Involved in three fronts, less than 800 deaths. Much more casualties on either side and we hold one whole country(not very well but we are still holding it). Are rebuilding two. and what do you mean 3 fronts anyway. Iraq, Afganistan are the only ones seeing combat. Or are you talking about Bosnia and Kosovo? not much going on there. Seems rather succesful to me.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.






The Chinese war with India was an isolated border skirmish, if I recall. Neither side fielded particularly large armies, and certainly not over 1 million men.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.
Those weren't war, they were border skirmishes. There's a difference, otherwise they would have been bombing each others cities, and in all likelihood, Vietnam and India would both be kowtowing to Bejeing as India would then be a communist nation.
Also, in WWII, those men didn't serve all at once. WWII was from 1939 to 1942. You have to take the length of the war into perspective.

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Losing? in what sense. Involved in three fronts, less than 800 deaths. Much more casualties on either side and we hold one whole country(not very well but we are still holding it). Are rebuilding two. and what do you mean 3 fronts anyway. Iraq, Afganistan are the only ones seeing combat. Or are you talking about Bosnia and Kosovo? not much going on there. Seems rather succesful to me.
Georgia, the Phillipines, Columbia. US is getting creamed by antiamerican rebels in Columbia. But then, some of you didn't know we had American troops fighting in Columbia against FARC.
But its been in the international section of the newspapers.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.
Those weren't war, they were border skirmishes. There's a difference, otherwise they would have been bombing each others cities, and in all likelihood, Vietnam and India would both be kowtowing to Bejeing as India would then be a communist nation.
Also, in WWII, those men didn't serve all at once. WWII was from 1939 to 1942. You have to take the length of the war into perspective.





The European Theater was from 1939 (not including the invasions of Austria, my native country then called Czechoslovakia, and the Abyssian Conflict) to 1944. The Pacific Theater was from 1942-1945, once again not including the prolonged war in China, the annexation of other pacific nations such as Indonesia, as well as the brief but bloody revolutions in Japan itself in the late 20s and early 30s.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.
Those weren't war, they were border skirmishes. There's a difference, otherwise they would have been bombing each others cities, and in all likelihood, Vietnam and India would both be kowtowing to Bejeing as India would then be a communist nation.
Also, in WWII, those men didn't serve all at once. WWII was from 1939 to 1942. You have to take the length of the war into perspective.

really?

WWII officially went in Europe from Sept of `39 to May of `45 and in the pacific `32- August of `45

and not all fought at once? what in the hell are you smoking. Are you saying that between France, Italy the Pacific and New Guinea there weren't a million men deployed at once?

Not to mention that just in stalingrad there were over 400,000 Germans and something like 700-800,000 Russians and that was just in ONE CITY!

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Losing? in what sense. Involved in three fronts, less than 800 deaths. Much more casualties on either side and we hold one whole country(not very well but we are still holding it). Are rebuilding two. and what do you mean 3 fronts anyway. Iraq, Afganistan are the only ones seeing combat. Or are you talking about Bosnia and Kosovo? not much going on there. Seems rather succesful to me.
Georgia, the Phillipines, Columbia. US is getting creamed by antiamerican rebels in Columbia. But then, some of you didn't know we had American troops fighting in Columbia against FARC.
But its been in the international section of the newspapers.




Georgia? I thought any American presence there had been terminated. In the Phillipines, at the present time anyway, I think are forces have been pulled out and are just being ready to be redeployed (that could be old news, I haven't updated myself recently. And the government tries to hide our involvement in Columbia as much as possible.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.
Those weren't war, they were border skirmishes. There's a difference, otherwise they would have been bombing each others cities, and in all likelihood, Vietnam and India would both be kowtowing to Bejeing as India would then be a communist nation.
Also, in WWII, those men didn't serve all at once. WWII was from 1939 to 1942. You have to take the length of the war into perspective.

really?

WWII officially went in Europe from Sept of `39 to May of `45 and in the pacific `32- August of `45

and not all fought at once? what in the hell are you smoking. Are you saying that between France, Italy the Pacific and New Guinea there weren't a million men deployed at once?

Not to mention that just in stalingrad there were over 400,000 Germans and something like 700-800,000 Russians and that was just in ONE CITY!



Fighting in the European Theater ended in 44, but it didn't 'officially' end until 45. The Pacific Theater didn't 'officially' being until 1942, as I said the war with China and Indonesia and Britain's colonies are not generally included (because American historians are a$$holes).



In addition, Stalingrad was over a period of months, with thousands dying every day. On top of that, of those 800,000 Russians only about half were actually armed with guns. The Soviet army HAD to utilize large numbers.

And to buy equicment to em all! 1 million rifels cost alot to make... and even more to buy from an other nation.

You guys are talking supply (which I guess would count as logistics) but yes that is a problem. Hence the reason I said million man armies are prohibitively expensive. North Korea has a million man army, China is believed to have one. But if you notice, neither of them has a fought a war in 50 years.
And one, has a basket case economy ( because of their million man army).
The reason they havn't been in any wars is that once deployed, million armies are very difficult to keep supplied no matter how much you have stored up. Things get lost during transport. In nations with corruption, weapons, ammo, food, and other supplies meant for the frontline often winds up out of the national stockpile and on blackmarket, put there by corrupt military officials.

*remebers WWII where just about every nation involved put more than a million men towards the fight.*

oh and China has fought a war with Vietnam in the 70's and a war with India in the 70's.
Those weren't war, they were border skirmishes. There's a difference, otherwise they would have been bombing each others cities, and in all likelihood, Vietnam and India would both be kowtowing to Bejeing as India would then be a communist nation.
Also, in WWII, those men didn't serve all at once. WWII was from 1939 to 1942. You have to take the length of the war into perspective.





The European Theater was from 1939 (not including the invasions of Austria, my native country then called Czechoslovakia, and the Abyssian Conflict) to 1944. The Pacific Theater was from 1942-1945, once again not including the prolonged war in China, the annexation of other pacific nations such as Indonesia, as well as the brief but bloody revolutions in Japan itself in the late 20s and early 30s.
You are correct. the war in 1945. That was a typo.

Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

'Fraid you're wrong there. There are more and more billion and 2 billion nations around, with plenty of million PERSON armies. Anyway, its NS.

Yeah, typically most of the people who boast about Million man armies and the ones you hear about in II are the godmodders but there are a lot of people out there who have million man armies but they're only using a small percent of their forces. That's true. This could be a helpful resource for n00bs. That was mostly who my last post was directed at.

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Losing? in what sense. Involved in three fronts, less than 800 deaths. Much more casualties on either side and we hold one whole country(not very well but we are still holding it). Are rebuilding two. and what do you mean 3 fronts anyway. Iraq, Afganistan are the only ones seeing combat. Or are you talking about Bosnia and Kosovo? not much going on there. Seems rather succesful to me.
Georgia, the Phillipines, Columbia. US is getting creamed by antiamerican rebels in Columbia. But then, some of you didn't know we had American troops fighting in Columbia against FARC.
But its been in the international section of the newspapers.




Georgia? I thought any American presence there had been terminated. In the Phillipines, at the present time anyway, I think are forces have been pulled out and are just being ready to be redeployed (that could be old news, I haven't updated myself recently. And the government tries to hide our involvement in Columbia as much as possible.
We still have troops in both Georgia and the Phillipines.
As for withdrawing, we are actually in talks to send even more troops to the Phillipines.

hmmmmmm US Army, over 1.5 million dived into three categories.

Active Duty, National Guard, and Army Reserve
The US is involved on more than three fronts now. And they are having problems to the point that in some places, America is currently seems to be losing.

Losing? in what sense. Involved in three fronts, less than 800 deaths. Much more casualties on either side and we hold one whole country(not very well but we are still holding it). Are rebuilding two. and what do you mean 3 fronts anyway. Iraq, Afganistan are the only ones seeing combat. Or are you talking about Bosnia and Kosovo? not much going on there. Seems rather succesful to me.
Georgia, the Phillipines, Columbia. US is getting creamed by antiamerican rebels in Columbia. But then, some of you didn't know we had American troops fighting in Columbia against FARC.
But its been in the international section of the newspapers.




Georgia? I thought any American presence there had been terminated. In the Phillipines, at the present time anyway, I think are forces have been pulled out and are just being ready to be redeployed (that could be old news, I haven't updated myself recently. And the government tries to hide our involvement in Columbia as much as possible.
We still have troops in both Georgia and the Phillipines.
As for withdrawing, we are actually in talks to send even more troops to the Phillipines.






Hmm ... thanks for the info on Georgia.


And you misunderstood me about the Phillipines, I was under the impression out troops had already withdrawn, and the government is making the talks to send fresh ones in. But as I said, this is off of hearsay and I haven't had the time to check official sources in a while. Thanks for the info.







EDIT: I just checked it out. We have troops as part of a UN peacekeeping force in the Abkhazia region of Georgia, near the Black Sea and the Russian border.

Well the problem with million man armies, though not completly impossible, is the logistics and buildup. Most people who claim to have such armies...usually claim that they can be deployed all at once. I doubt seriously that any modern nation can deploy a million men at one time.

I have a million man army but it has been deployed over the course of 4 RL months. It took almost 2RL months just to establish and secure supply lines. The very idea of someone stating that their going to deploy 1 million men is absurd. It will take more than 5 years to "build-up" a force that large. And from what i've seen on NS, most wars are fought in a day. The campaign I'm currently in started back in August.

So, in reality...it's not impossible to have a million man army if it deployed over time. It also takes good to moderate RP to pull it off.

1939-1945, hope that was a typo :)

China also fought a border war against the USSR, for the record. China has something like 1.8 million men in its army, plus hundreds of thousands of reserves and other defensive assets.

How on earth, I wonder, did Berlin fall in a bloody battle in 1945, if fighting ended in 1944, Tokarev?


I think the contention that "not all fought at once" meant.. exactly that. Though there may have been something close to twenty million soldiers serving the USSR over the course of the war, at any one given time only a few million were active.

Britain only had a couple of hundred thousand for the first year or two. It takes time to raise a huge army of any merit, as Dra-pol has discovered over its two years of suffering imperial aggression. We now field a 9.1million man army, and are enjoying a nice famine, and thousands of defections.

I have a 3 million man military (not army, my army is only 2 million), but unlike most people, I account for everything using a spreadsheet, including maintenence and budget. And I dont have a thousand carriers, I have 2 Nimitz-class and 1 Roland-class. And currently, all troops are stationed within the empire. And if I used it to attack, why would I use -ALL MY MEN-, even though 25% is Support and Logistics? They don't even have guns! At most, if I was invading someone, I would use 2-5 Ueberheerschar's (Over-Legions), which is at most 20,000 men...

To Sambizie: When fighting wars in NS, the time constraints are changed. For instance, the players might decide that 2 years passed in a day, otherwise we need to wait 5 days for troops to assemble.

And, as I said, I would never deploy 1 million men. The most I have ever deployed was 200,000...

Plus, when not fighting, the soldiers are used for public works projects, building stuff, especially if they are in foreign territory.

I would like to point out several things about my nation,

First, a have an economy that trades 1 Thelas Credit to 4 USD.
Second, I have a population larger than China
Third, I use very advanced Hydroponics Farming techniques
Fourth, this is NS
Fifth, well, I have no fifth

China also fought a border war against the USSR, for the record. China has something like 1.8 million men in its army, plus hundreds of thousands of reserves and other defensive assets.

How on earth, I wonder, did Berlin fall in a bloody battle in 1945, if fighting ended in 1944, Tokarev?


I think the contention that "not all fought at once" meant.. exactly that. Though there may have been something close to twenty million soldiers serving the USSR over the course of the war, at any one given time only a few million were active.

Britain only had a couple of hundred thousand for the first year or two. It takes time to raise a huge army of any merit, as Dra-pol has discovered over its two years of suffering imperial aggression. We now field a 9.1million man army, and are enjoying a nice famine, and thousands of defections.







My fault. I forgot exactly when hostilities in the European theater ended, I just new they were before the end in the Pacific theater. I decided to "round", as it were, to 1944.

[nods] Fair enough.

To Sambizie: When fighting wars in NS, the time constraints are changed. For instance, the players might decide that 2 years passed in a day, otherwise we need to wait 5 days for troops to assemble.

Yes, I relise that there is, "different" or "fluid" time, when conducting a battle. What I ment by "One Day Wars", is that no matter how they gauge time, the war is over reletively quick, (under 30 post). I have seen "2" page battles and if we are talking the mobilization of 1 million men, (including support, supply, medical, etc...) don't you think that "One Day" is short?

My rule of thumb: If you have the population and economy to support a million man army, chances are you have been around NS long enough to RP "realistically". Realism is "key" to this game, and for a Nov./Dec. Nation
to claim the ability to have a million man army, "is not realistic." However, I must admit; I've RPed against smaller nations and given them the benifit of doubt, just cause they kept it "Real".

Would you like to schedule a military exercise between our Empire's?

One million man armies are not godmodding or impossible.

Iraq, in 1990, had over a million man army that had approximately 4,700 tanks and thousands of APCs, AIFVs, etc. Plus, artillery, and all of that. Iraq had about 22 million people at that time too. The people of Iraq were not living in proverty. A balance between social and military spending was found for such a small country. I don't see a problem with having a million man army. So, I don't see what's the problem with them...

Who cares aboyut having multi-million armies. Even I who takes military effectiveness over numbers have a million army.

Not my problem if people are dumb enough to move 2 million onto someone's soil and not be able to keep up the supply demand (i.e. lack of proper supply chain, lack of proper protection of supply chain, lack of methods to keep up the supply demand, etc.), resulting the same result the German soldiers experienced in Stalingrad though!

One million man armies are not godmodding or impossible.

Iraq, in 1990, had over a million man army that had approximately 4,700 tanks and thousands of APCs, AIFVs, etc. Plus, artillery, and all of that. Iraq had about 22 million people at that time too. The people of Iraq were not living in proverty. A balance between social and military spending was found for such a small country. I don't see a problem with having a million man army. So, I don't see what's the problem with them...

I don't have a problem with million man armies...."Heck, I've given 5mil. Nations, the benifit of 1 million man army....caused they RPed it realistically". :lol:

One million man armies are not godmodding or impossible.

Iraq, in 1990, had over a million man army that had approximately 4,700 tanks and thousands of APCs, AIFVs, etc. Plus, artillery, and all of that. Iraq had about 22 million people at that time too. The people of Iraq were not living in proverty. A balance between social and military spending was found for such a small country. I don't see a problem with having a million man army. So, I don't see what's the problem with them...

Wow, well first off, the Iraqi army maintained capital punishment for those that avoided the draft. Most of the population that had been assembled into the Iraqi armed forces had experienced the horror of fighting against Iran and had no intention of engaging in large-scale hostilities again (hence the MASSIVE desertions).

Second, from what I have seen here, very few people understand that having a million person army is actually impossible for all but largest and most economically powerful nations. I believe someone here has already said it but saying you have a million man military is far more accurate than saying army.

The statistic they provided was somewhat inaccurate, the actual fighting force of a modern military such as in America during the current RMA trend is about 20%-25% of the actual force. Saying you have a cavalry battalion does not mean that all of the units would be combat orientated, most are either eng., intel., supply, etc...

I might actually post something about the actual composition of an Army down to a fire squad if there is interest. I could also describe concepts such as SASO, C4ISR and RMA as well as SIGINT, HUMINT, COMINT. But only if people want it for reference.

I might actually post something about the actual composition of an Army down to a fire squad if there is interest. I could also describe concepts such as SASO, C4ISR and RMA as well as SIGINT, HUMINT, COMINT. But only if people want it for reference.

OOC: And how does this related to beer my fine friend? :lol:

OOC: And how does this related to beer my fine friend? :lol:

Why do you think I drink? Try dealing with acronyms everyday and you would be relying on the sweet liquor of the gods to get through a 300 page after-action report from a marine division. :D

Million man armies are created for the purpose of fighting more than one war.
Million man armies also cost a lot of money to maintain
Also, when you send a million man army into a war zone, and another nation does the same, you have the problem of overcrowding.
Some of these nations are to small to have enough space for everyone to be throwing million man armies in to them.
It would cause severe overcrowding,
your forces would be more vulnerable to attack because they would be bunched up.
And I will finish this when I get back.

What about the 1991 Desert Storm, the US had 1 Million Troops in the Region to go to war with Iraq in this War some Nations can Afford it but you have to be more Realistic.

I control a Massive Army but 75% of it is Reserves.

Who here pasted maths?

China has the Largest Army in the World at 4.2 Million Troops it also isn't a very rich nation, During a State at all out War where the Nation is using all its Recourses can go to war on a Massive Scale!

Million man armies are created for the purpose of fighting more than one war.
Million man armies also cost a lot of money to maintain
Also, when you send a million man army into a war zone, and another nation does the same, you have the problem of overcrowding.
Some of these nations are to small to have enough space for everyone to be throwing million man armies in to them.
It would cause severe overcrowding,
your forces would be more vulnerable to attack because they would be bunched up.
And I will finish this when I get back.

What about the 1991 Desert Storm, the US had 1 Million Troops in the Region to go to war with Iraq in this War some Nations can Afford it but you have to be more Realistic.

I control a Massive Army but 75% of it is Reserves.

Who here pasted maths?

China has the Largest Army in the World at 4.2 Million Troops it also isn't a very rich nation, During a State at all out War where the Nation is using all its Recourses can go to war on a Massive Scale!



Eh .... where did you get your information? North Korea has the largest military in the world, at significantly less then 4.2 million.










TO GUINNES EXTRA COLD: I would like that army composition as a reference, actually.

What about the 1991 Desert Storm, the US had 1 Million Troops in the Region to go to war with Iraq in this War some Nations can Afford it but you have to be more Realistic.

I control a Massive Army but 75% of it is Reserves.

Who here pasted maths?

China has the Largest Army in the World at 4.2 Million Troops it also isn't a very rich nation, During a State at all out War where the Nation is using all its Recourses can go to war on a Massive Scale!

Obviously not the same people who passed English.

China's military is mostly for show, if you actually examined the numbers you would find that the 4.2 million (interesting number, reference?) does not mean the amount of combat troops available for military operations.

If you go through the provinces, you will find the street cleaners and traffic wardens are outfitted as PLA soldiers (they are not highly trained covert ops forces working undercover doing community work).

The economy of a nation engaged in a war can go both up (US at the end of the Second World War) or down (Post-Gulf War 1, Falklands, Iran-Iraq, etc...). Most cases point to economic depression not revival.

China's the second richest nation on earth by total GDP, and has around 1.8 million men in its army, last I heard, having cut 50,000 personnel in order to modernise the remaining force.

North Korea's military is I think, smaller, with up to about a million men in the army, a decent sized airforce, and not the flashest of navies.

BG has 2.1 million effective soldiers in all branches, and does not plan expansion of that figure for many years; or hundreds of millions of citizens; yet.

What about the 1991 Desert Storm, the US had 1 Million Troops in the Region to go to war with Iraq in this War some Nations can Afford it but you have to be more Realistic.

I control a Massive Army but 75% of it is Reserves.

Who here pasted maths?

China has the Largest Army in the World at 4.2 Million Troops it also isn't a very rich nation, During a State at all out War where the Nation is using all its Recourses can go to war on a Massive Scale!

Obviously not the same people who passed English.

China's military is mostly for show, if you actually examined the numbers you would find that the 4.2 million (interesting number, reference?) does not mean the amount of combat troops available for military operations.

If you go through the provinces, you will find the street cleaners and traffic wardens are outfitted as PLA soldiers (they are not highly trained covert ops forces working undercover doing community work).

The economy of a nation engaged in a war can go both up (US at the end of the Second World War) or down (Post-Gulf War 1, Falklands, Iran-Iraq, etc...). Most cases point to economic depression not revival.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinamil.htm

{Quote}2.8 million active soldiers in uniform is the largest military force in the world. Approximately 1 million reservists and some 15 million militia back them up{Quote} that is from that webpage.

China is Recognized as a Powerhouse Economy these days and is Very Important to the world. In the Future China will Pass the USA as the Dominate Military and Economic Power.

Come to think of it, if you add China's reserves and what's it.. that armed police organisation, it might be closer to the 4.2million mark, I suppose. But.. well they're hardly regular combat formations unless one gets stuck in a Hitler-in-his-bunker mindset and starts throwing Volksstrum units up against the Red Army.

China is Recognized as a Powerhouse Economy these days and is Very Important to the world. In the Future China will Pass the USA as the Dominate Military and Economic Power.

I do not doubt the economy of China; I doubt the effectiveness of the army. Size of force is not an indication of efficiency or military prowess and despite its economy the budgeted military spending is considerably less than that of the United States.

"In March 2002, Chinese finance minister Xiang Huaicheng announced that China is increasing military spending in 2002 by 17.6 percent, or $3 billion, bringing the publicly reported total to $20 billion. The publicly disclosed figures do not include major spending for weapons research and for the purchase of foreign weapons like the destroyers China bought from Russia. Actual military spending, including the large but difficult-to-assess off-budget financing portion, could total $65 billion, making China the second largest defense spender in the world after the United States and the largest defense spender in Asia.

Additional double-digit defense budget growth is likely, at least through the 10th Five-Year Plan (2001-05). These increases will be used to offset losses from divested PLA commercial enterprises, underwrite escalating personnel costs, and fund PLA modernization. Beijing’s 2000 White Paper on National Defense and its predecessor editions detail the official PLA budget, but only by poorly defined resource categories and not by service or mission. The release of the white papers may be an attempt by China to appear to be increasing its military transparency to the West while in reality keeping much secret.

Although Xiang cited modernization as one reason for the budget increase, most defense modernization spending occurs outside the PLA budget. Imported weapon systems are financed by separate hard-currency allocations from the State Council and are not charged against the PLA budget. The PLA pays for domestically produced Chinese equipment, which makes up about half of the modernization effort, but it pays only the incremental cost of manufacturing one system and none of the substantial R&D or startup costs. Such costs appear in the budget of the state-owned industry that produces the equipment, including substantial hard-currency costs for foreign technology and assistance.

The PLA receives funding from numerous, extra-budgetary sources. These sources include special allocations for procurement, at least partially derived from arms sales profits; sales of military unit services (e.g., construction) and products (e.g., farm produce) and other traditional PLA self-sufficiency activities; earnings from PLA enterprises remaining after divestment, which still produce civilian services and products; and, defense-related allocations in other ministries (e.g., state science and technology budgets and agencies at the provincial and local levels). In addition, China’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-associated technology and conventional munitions may help subsidize certain force modernization programs. Tracking these sources complicates the process of identifying and assessing defense budgetary trends.

Although estimates of defense budgets of non-NATO nations are inherently imprecise, The Military Balance, 2000-2001 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies set Chinese military expenditures at $40 billion. "


China will be a power though there are very serious social issues that will check the nations growth within the next twenty years. Anyone who has been to China can see some very serious economic buoyancy problems.

China is Recognized as a Powerhouse Economy these days and is Very Important to the world. In the Future China will Pass the USA as the Dominate Military and Economic Power.

I do not doubt the economy of China; I doubt the effectiveness of the army. Size of force is not an indication of efficiency or military prowess and despite its economy the budgeted military spending is considerably less than that of the United States.

"In March 2002, Chinese finance minister Xiang Huaicheng announced that China is increasing military spending in 2002 by 17.6 percent, or $3 billion, bringing the publicly reported total to $20 billion. The publicly disclosed figures do not include major spending for weapons research and for the purchase of foreign weapons like the destroyers China bought from Russia. Actual military spending, including the large but difficult-to-assess off-budget financing portion, could total $65 billion, making China the second largest defense spender in the world after the United States and the largest defense spender in Asia.

Additional double-digit defense budget growth is likely, at least through the 10th Five-Year Plan (2001-05). These increases will be used to offset losses from divested PLA commercial enterprises, underwrite escalating personnel costs, and fund PLA modernization. Beijing’s 2000 White Paper on National Defense and its predecessor editions detail the official PLA budget, but only by poorly defined resource categories and not by service or mission. The release of the white papers may be an attempt by China to appear to be increasing its military transparency to the West while in reality keeping much secret.

Although Xiang cited modernization as one reason for the budget increase, most defense modernization spending occurs outside the PLA budget. Imported weapon systems are financed by separate hard-currency allocations from the State Council and are not charged against the PLA budget. The PLA pays for domestically produced Chinese equipment, which makes up about half of the modernization effort, but it pays only the incremental cost of manufacturing one system and none of the substantial R&D or startup costs. Such costs appear in the budget of the state-owned industry that produces the equipment, including substantial hard-currency costs for foreign technology and assistance.

The PLA receives funding from numerous, extra-budgetary sources. These sources include special allocations for procurement, at least partially derived from arms sales profits; sales of military unit services (e.g., construction) and products (e.g., farm produce) and other traditional PLA self-sufficiency activities; earnings from PLA enterprises remaining after divestment, which still produce civilian services and products; and, defense-related allocations in other ministries (e.g., state science and technology budgets and agencies at the provincial and local levels). In addition, China’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-associated technology and conventional munitions may help subsidize certain force modernization programs. Tracking these sources complicates the process of identifying and assessing defense budgetary trends.

Although estimates of defense budgets of non-NATO nations are inherently imprecise, The Military Balance, 2000-2001 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies set Chinese military expenditures at $40 billion. "


China will be a power though there are very serious social issues that will check the nations growth within the next twenty years. Anyone who has been to China can see some very serious economic buoyancy problems.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

{Quote} China Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$55.91 billion (FY02) {Quote}

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Your Point is Very Valid BUT during WW2 the Russians used there Human Recourses to win the war not there Economic Recourses like the USA.

OOC: And how does this related to beer my fine friend? :lol:

Why do you think I drink? Try dealing with acronyms everyday and you would be relying on the sweet liquor of the gods to get through a 300 page after-action report from a marine division. :D

OOC: If we had sigs in this game, that would be a keeper! And I thought acronyms in my business (ESL) was bad. 300 pages! Egad! Here's hoping you don't have acronyms for liquor.

Ah, Dr. Twist I see that we are going to engage in a war of links. So be it and let slip the dogs of war.

My Internet is giving me some problems but I will still try and post.

First off, I do not doubt your source, the problem with citing the CIA world fact book that besides making you popular with ECHELON, it is not cannon among the military. Each of the services maintain their own analysis of the Chinese military, you should see what the NSA and the various military intelligence units estimate (stupid reports wont open).

Second, Russia is a good example of human resources winning a war but its important to note that they were fighting a land campaign against a land based enemy. They did not have to transport troops overseas or by air. Their is a term in German called Schlact, and that would be a good description of what the Eastern front was.

On the economic side of things, Russia benefited from Allied monetary support (not on the same scale as Britain though its important to note). Their economy, a centrally planned system, was very inefficient and eventually caused their downfall (very simplified explanation), but that’s a discussion for another time.

OOC: And how does this related to beer my fine friend? :lol:

Why do you think I drink? Try dealing with acronyms everyday and you would be relying on the sweet liquor of the gods to get through a 300 page after-action report from a marine division. :D

OOC: If we had sigs in this game, that would be a keeper! And I thought acronyms in my business (ESL) was bad. 300 pages! Egad! Here's hoping you don't have acronyms for liquor.

Vrak: Take a little looksey at an example of my fun!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-aar-jul03.pdf

Mind you, this is the official one! God help you if you have to read the one not prepared for public consumption.

Ah, Dr. Twist I see that we are going to engage in a war of links. So be it and let slip the dogs of war.

My Internet is giving me some problems but I will still try and post.

First off, I do not doubt your source, the problem with citing the CIA world fact book that besides making you popular with ECHELON, it is not cannon among the military. Each of the services maintain their own analysis of the Chinese military, you should see what the NSA and the various military intelligence units estimate (stupid reports wont open).

Second, Russia is a good example of human resources winning a war but its important to note that they were fighting a land campaign against a land based enemy. They did not have to transport troops overseas or by air. Their is a term in German called Schlact, and that would be a good description of what the Eastern front was.

On the economic side of things, Russia benefited from Allied monetary support (not on the same scale as Britain though its important to note). Their economy, a centrally planned system, was very inefficient and eventually caused their downfall (very simplified explanation), but that’s a discussion for another time.

Agreed but if u put the Population of China and a Half into a Nation and give them the same amount per capital per person as the USA you would have 1 badass Military and Economically Powerful nation which is basically what my Nation is.

By simple calculations i could easily Field over a Million troops in a Battle but i choice to field about the same but use Superior Technology.

Ah, Dr. Twist I see that we are going to engage in a war of links. So be it and let slip the dogs of war.

My Internet is giving me some problems but I will still try and post.

First off, I do not doubt your source, the problem with citing the CIA world fact book that besides making you popular with ECHELON, it is not cannon among the military. Each of the services maintain their own analysis of the Chinese military, you should see what the NSA and the various military intelligence units estimate (stupid reports wont open).

Second, Russia is a good example of human resources winning a war but its important to note that they were fighting a land campaign against a land based enemy. They did not have to transport troops overseas or by air. Their is a term in German called Schlact, and that would be a good description of what the Eastern front was.

On the economic side of things, Russia benefited from Allied monetary support (not on the same scale as Britain though its important to note). Their economy, a centrally planned system, was very inefficient and eventually caused their downfall (very simplified explanation), but that’s a discussion for another time.

Agreed but if u put the Population of China and a Half into a Nation and give them the same amount per capital per person as the USA you would have 1 badass Military and Economically Powerful nation which is basically what my Nation is.

By simple calculations i could easily Field over a Million troops in a Battle but i choice to field about the same but use Superior Technology.

There is no doubt that your nation is indeed powerful yet there is much more to fielding an army than just moving them.

How do you take into consideration the necessity of relaying intelligence down to the battalion level?

How many analysts do you employ?

What are their specialties and how are they deployed?

Do you use the competitive intelligence gathering method used by the US or do you allow one intelligence agency to dominate all operations?

How does your Clausewitzean Trinity operate (government-military-people)?

Do you factor in the fog of war into your preparations and do you account that the larger the force, the greater the possibility of friendly fire as well as the host of problems that fighting with allies brings in?

What is the training regiment of your forces like, do you ascribe to the Army of One policy or do you believe that once an officer has made an order, it cannot be questioned?

Sorry, this might be a bit beyond what NS expects from its nations.

Let me give you some points about the chellian military.

1. Chellis has a "military" of about 7.5 million. About 3 million men are part of the surface military, with about 1 million being in the non-surface forces. The other 3.5 makes up the rest, such as cooks, military arms makers(As opposed to companys), Construction engineers, etc etc

2. The Chellian military is all volunteer. At first, it seems very improbable, I can see that. However, with a point I will soon address, chellis spends 50% of its budget, emphasis on budget, on the military. There is absolutly no regular welfare in chellis. However, the military is the only place where you can be guaranteed three meals a day, and somewhere to sleep.

3. In the military, basically all are taken. You must be at least 14, you must be "salvagable" medically wise(be able to become fit for the military), and be able to kill others if needed. You dont need a high school education. You will be turned out if you arent army material, but most likely you are.

4. Every serviceman can get armaments. Other than regular army forces, who get supplied with arms anyways. Every serviceman is offered a free Colt 1911, which we make in great quantitys for this purpose and others. Servicemen can also buy chellian produced products for 1/4th the regular price, except for chellian developed ones, which cost 1/2 regular price.

5. Chellis spends 50% of its budget on the military. This comes to about 20% of the gdp. In the 1780's, France spent 50% of its budget on its national debts, 25% on its military, 6% on the king alone, and less than 20% on the people... and it almost worked, really. Chellis has no national debts. It has no welfare. 25% of the budget is spent on the people, which considering there is no welfare, is a large amount. The rest goes to various things. The people arent taxed very high, and are expected to pay for everything themselves. Many die tho.

6. In times of war, this changes. Chellis does not consider itself mobilized with this army. Chellis could, theoretically, support a 100 million man military. It has the arms, the logistics, the supplies, etc. However, like many real life nations do, it waits until war starts to do this. Standing huge armys are really bad, as having them just stand there is a waste of supplies.

My military numbers over a million, but that includes support staff, reserves and so on. Overseas deployments never number over 200,000 usually anyway.

It's really annoying that its impossible to have a common sense, life-like roleplay where a battle is between a few hundred soldiers, major assaults only around 5,000 and tactics come into it more, rather than swarms just trying to overrun each other.

Let me give you some points about the chellian military.

1. Chellis has a "military" of about 7.5 million. About 3 million men are part of the surface military, with about 1 million being in the non-surface forces. The other 3.5 makes up the rest, such as cooks, military arms makers(As opposed to companys), Construction engineers, etc etc

2. The Chellian military is all volunteer. At first, it seems very improbable, I can see that. However, with a point I will soon address, chellis spends 50% of its budget, emphasis on budget, on the military. There is absolutly no regular welfare in chellis. However, the military is the only place where you can be guaranteed three meals a day, and somewhere to sleep.

3. In the military, basically all are taken. You must be at least 14, you must be "salvagable" medically wise(be able to become fit for the military), and be able to kill others if needed. You dont need a high school education. You will be turned out if you arent army material, but most likely you are.

4. Every serviceman can get armaments. Other than regular army forces, who get supplied with arms anyways. Every serviceman is offered a free Colt 1911, which we make in great quantitys for this purpose and others. Servicemen can also buy chellian produced products for 1/4th the regular price, except for chellian developed ones, which cost 1/2 regular price.

5. Chellis spends 50% of its budget on the military. This comes to about 20% of the gdp. In the 1780's, France spent 50% of its budget on its national debts, 25% on its military, 6% on the king alone, and less than 20% on the people... and it almost worked, really. Chellis has no national debts. It has no welfare. 25% of the budget is spent on the people, which considering there is no welfare, is a large amount. The rest goes to various things. The people arent taxed very high, and are expected to pay for everything themselves. Many die tho.

6. In times of war, this changes. Chellis does not consider itself mobilized with this army. Chellis could, theoretically, support a 100 million man military. It has the arms, the logistics, the supplies, etc. However, like many real life nations do, it waits until war starts to do this. Standing huge armys are really bad, as having them just stand there is a waste of supplies.

Okay, I can see the logic behind your Defence Policy though it is hard to make an actual judgement due to the nature of the NS system, at best you can make some comparisons with historical models though it is difficult with the technology and size we are dealing with. There are some questions I have if you don't mind answering them.

1) You have made the distinction that your military ordinance is made by organs of the army and not private industry. How do you fight graft and technological staleness inherent in a system that allows for no competition? The Soviet Union maintained this policy and was unable to match the United States in high tech software development and satellite testing due to its state run weapons R&D.

2) NGO's and UN development workers in nations such as Rwanda, Seirre Leone and Sudan have found that brining children (14 years) into combat situation has a very high likelyhood of permanently affecting their psychological development rendering them incapable of entering civilian life without extensive counseling.

3) Interesting use of France as an example, by the time of the revolution (I assume you are talking about the later years of the purge/early command by Napoleon) the French government was dependent on its forces campaigning outside the nation due to the use of pillage as a means of sustaining massive forces abroad. When the revolution itself had suffered sufficient military defeats and Napolean stepped in, the military was able to sustain itself with the reformed banking sytem established after Louise the 14th had bankrupted the nation during his reign some hundred years before.

4) Just because a serviceman has a weapon does not mean that he knows how to use it. I assume that your reservists are trained monthly and require a significant mobilization period for combat.

5) What about intelligence gathering?

Guinness, if you get time, could you TM the Command levels you spoke about before? Or post them on here, I would be really intrested in learning that.

Guinness, if you get time, could you TM the Command levels you spoke about before? Or post them on here, I would be really intrested in learning that.

Current American Army Breakdown

Field Army=2-5 Corps

*All other organizations larger than a Corps are generically termed “Army”. *An Army has three levels, all dependent upon the size and scope of the conflict. *These levels are a “Theater Army”, a “Field Army”, and an “Army Group”. *An Army is normally commanded by a Lieutenant General (0-9) or “full” General (0-1.0) and assisted by a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and a large staff. *There are currently three standing Armies * the First, Third and Fifth U.S. Army. **A Theater Army is the ranking Army component in a unified command, and it has operational and support responsibilities that are assigned by the theater commander. *The theater commander and Theater Army Commander may order formation of a Field Army to direct operations of assigned Corps and Divisions. *An Army Group, composed of two or more Field Armies under a designated commander, is the largest tactical formation used in combat operations. *However, formations of this type have not been employed since World War II. **(General Schwartzkopf commanded a Field Army during Operation Desert Storm; during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Corps was the largest Army organization employed.)

Corps=2-5 Divisions

20,000 to 40,000 soldiers. *The Corps is the deployable level of command required to synchronize and sustain combat operations. *It also provides the framework for multinational operations. *The Corps provides command, control and logistical support of two to five divisions. *The Corps is commanded by a Lieutenant General (0-9) who is assisted by a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and an extensive Corps staff. *There are currently four Corps in the Active Army * three with Headquarters in the Continental United States (I, III, and XVIII Corps) and one in Germany (V Corps). ***

Division=3 or more Brigades (10 active, 2 intergrated, 8 ARNG)

10,000 to 16,000 soldiers. *The Division performs major tactical operations and can conduct sustained battles and engagements. *Divisions are numbered (e.g., 1st Armored Division, 82nd Airborne Division) and are categorized by one of five types: *Light Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armor, Airborne or Air Assault. *The Division is commanded by a Major General (0-8.) who is assisted by two principal Brigadier Generals (0-7.) who perform duties as Assistant Division Commanders * one for Maneuver and one for Support. *The Command Sergeant Major (E-9.) is the principal non-commissioned officer assistant. *Divisions are comprised of three tactical maneuver (Infantry and/or Armor) Brigades and a Division base of combat support and combat service support elements. *There are currently ten divisions in the Active Army and eight Divisions in the Reserves/National Guard. *In October 1999, The Army established two Integrated Divisions (the 7th Infantry Division and 24th Infantry Division) consisting of an Active Component headquarters commanded by an Active Component Major General (O-8.), and three Army National Guard Enhanced Seperate Brigades.

Brigade (can also be called a Group or Regiment)= 3 or more Battalions

1,500 to 3,200 soldiers. *A brigade is a significantly large unit that can be employed on independent or semi-independent operations. *The Brigade is normally commanded by a Colonel (0-6.) although in some cases a Brigadier General (0-7.) may assume command. The Command Sergeant Major (E-9.) is the principal non-commissioned officer assistant. *During combat operations, Infantry, Armor and Cavalry Brigades normally have a field artillery battalion, engineer battalion and combat service support battalion in direct support. *Brigades also exist in combat service and combat service support branches (e.g., Engineer Brigade, Signal Brigade). *Armored Cavalry units of this size are referred to as Regiments (e.g., 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment). *Ranger and Special Forces units this size are referred to as Groups. ***

Battalion = 3-5 Companies

300 to 1,000 soldiers. *The Battalion is a unit that is both tactically and administratively self-sufficient. *In warfighting, Battalions are capable of independent operations of limited duration and scope. *The Battalion is typically composed of four to six companies, and is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) with a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) as the primary non-commissioned officer assistant. *The Commander has a Battalion Staff of officers and non-commissioned officers to oversee missions, training, administration and logistics. *A Battalion Task-Force is a Battalion-size unit with additional companies attached in direct support to enhance mission capability. *An armored or air cavalry unit of equivalent size is referred to as a squadron.

Company/Troop/Battery= 100 to 200 soldiers

60 to 200 soldiers. *The Company is a cohesive tactical sized unit that can perform a battlefield function on its own. *It is capable of receiving and controlling additional combat, combat support or combat service support elements to enhance its mission capability. *The Company has a small headquarters element to assist the Commander. *Typically, three to five platoons form a Company, with between 15-25 vehicles. *For example, an Armor Tank Company is composed of five officers, 57 enlisted soldiers, 14 M1A2/A3 Main Battle Tanks and several wheeled vehicles. *The Company is normally commanded by a Captain (0-3). *A First Sergeant (E-8.) is the commander’s principal non-commissioned assistant. *Depending on the type of unit, a Company may be called a Troop or Battery. *Ground or Air Cavalry units (armor and aviation units specially trained for reconnaissance missions) refer to these elements as Troops. *Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery units refer to these elements as Batteries.

Platoon = 3-4 Squads

16-44 soldiers. *The Platoon is the basic combat unit capable of maneuvering in the conduct of combat operations and is led by a Lieutenant 0-1/0-2 who is assisted by a Platoon Sergeant who is a Sergeant First Class (E-7). *A platoon consists of two to four squads/sections depending on the type of unit. *For example, an infantry Platoon consists of three squads. *A Mechanized Infantry Platoon consists of four fighting vehicles (M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), divided into two sections. *Each vehicle holds 8-9 soldiers. *A Tank Platoon consists of four tanks organized into two sections of two tanks each.

Squad/Section

eight to 16 soldiers. *Typically led by a Sergeant (E-5) or Staff Sergeant (E-6), the squad is the smallest element in the Army organizational structure. *Its size is dependent on its function. *In some units, two squads may compose a Section led by a Staff Sergeant. In a light infantry (non-mechanized) squad, there are normally nine soldiers and a squad leader. *In a mechanized infantry squad, there are up to 16 soldiers, organized into two teams. *Each team is assigned to a tactical vehicle (e.g., Bradley Fighting Vehicle). *In an Armor (Tank/Cavalry) unit the term Section is used in lieu of squad. *A section consists of two vehicles (e.g., M1A2 Abrams). *Each tank has a crew consisting of four personnel.

Hope this is Helpful to people. Note: Does not include combat eng., intel and supply. That will come later as well I can try and post other nations breakdowns if there is a demand.

You can't forget about tanks, and typically whoever has milion-man armies usually also has several hundred Nimitz carriers and Iowas. Plus tanks and all of that. Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

But for all of those people who have million man armies and arent godmodders. Its usually divided into several smaller armies. And you can't forget drafts during war. Drafts are expensive. You have to arm your conscripts. This is where Military Surplus comes in.


Erm
An average nation will have 2% draft rate
An average NationStates nation will have 4-5% draft rate.


(i like my 2% draft rate, means i can do stuff. Even so, this means i have a total of 24760000 men in my armed forces - Navy, Airforce, and Land. About 14 million in my Navy, 5 million in my airforce, and land forces)

You can't forget about tanks, and typically whoever has milion-man armies usually also has several hundred Nimitz carriers and Iowas. Plus tanks and all of that. Because remember, its typically the Godmodders.

But for all of those people who have million man armies and arent godmodders. Its usually divided into several smaller armies. And you can't forget drafts during war. Drafts are expensive. You have to arm your conscripts. This is where Military Surplus comes in.


Erm
An average nation will have 2% draft rate
An average NationStates nation will have 4-5% draft rate.

(i like my 2% draft rate, means i can do stuff. Even so, this means i have a total of 24760000 men in my armed forces - Navy, Airforce, and Land. About 14 million in my Navy, 5 million in my airforce, and land forces)

Your naval yards must be cities unto themselves! 14 million in the navy, that must be a logistical nightmare for your merchant navy and supply ships unless you have a very large civilian infrastructure and a moderate actual standing force (or a very well armed and angry coast guard) :D

I forgot to add: The FKC tries to rp as realistically as possible - including "real" draft rates.


Yes, 14 million people does create hell for my logistics core, BUT it means i can honestly support:
200 "Capital" ships - Note, only 10 are carriers, 20 are battleships, rest are cruisers
550 "Destroyers" - just that
750 "Frigates" - just that
(of the above list, around 1.5 million men required to crew)

Excluding my logistical core, and small patrol boats, planes, etc.


[edit: Extra gold-type-person, I have a very well armed, and highly aggressive navy. My costguard consists of a bunch of small, and dammed fast corvettes. Also, in AWM, if it costs money, we dont do it. We fund two things: Education. And Defense. Or, in our case Offense (no, i cant go to war with you atm, i am currently enganged elsewhere)

I forgot to add: The FKC tries to rp as realistically as possible - including "real" draft rates.


Yes, 15 million people does create hell for my logistics core, BUT it means i can honestly support:
200 "Capital" ships - Note, only 10 are carriers, 20 are battleships, rest are cruisers
550 "Destroyers" - just that
750 "Frigates" - just that
(of the above list, around 1.5 million men required to crew)

Excluding my logistical core, and small patrol boats, planes, etc.

[edit: Extra gold-type-person, I have a very well armed, and highly aggressive navy. My costguard consists of a bunch of small, and dammed fast corvettes.

OOC: Hey, your with Vrak, good show old boy! I am only being picky because I am quite sick of people going "I move three million troops here in two days" or " my carrier fleet has performed a massive simultaneous bombing raid and amphibious assualt in two hours". I'm not accusing you of this, you just happen to have wandered into my rant, sorry.

I take it you are a naval orientated force. Have you thought of looking at more practical method of Force Multiplication.

You have 200 capital ships, with cruisers and carriers which is important force power deployment but you have neglected missile ships, Torpedo boats and subs.

Recent modern examples have demonstrated that large capital ships are no longer viable military assets in sea based conflicts. The British experience in the Falklands war demonstrates the need for effective screening procedures as Exocet missiles can be loaded onto fishing barges and do not require extensive training or set-up. Just a thought

(I don't RP war because I would demand a very extensive list of force composition and deployment thus I am basically no fun. Though if you need someone to take the wind out of someone who is all high and mighty, gave me a ring)

OOC: Just a quick note, there are quite a few if not many folks in the FKC who know a lot more about military organization than me. While I was designing my military I found myself getting bogged down in the details and not looking at the big picture.

Basically, if I use my pop of 1.5 billion (yeah, I know it's bigger but I like this figure) at 1% I get this:

1.5 billion

1% is 15 000 000

Then I divide it up like so:

Army 50% = 7 500 000
Navy 20% = 3 000 000
Airforce 20% = 3 000 000
Special 10% = 1500 000

With support skimming off 39% (got that from a spreadsheet someone made, can't remember offhand). The 39% breaks down as follows: 6.5% for high command and control, 19% for general support (cooks, medics, motor T, etc.) 7.5% for other (R&D, testing, training, etc.) and 6% for additional admin and support.

Which means:

Army 50%

39% support = 2 925 000
61% field = 4 575 000

Navy 20%

39% support = 1 170 000
61% field = 1 830 000

Airforce 20%

39% support = 1 170 000
61% field = 1 830 000

Special 10%

39% support = 585 000
61% field = 915 000

Tell me, will I run out of money fielding this or what? I'm still looking for a fairly simple mesh between troop ratios (including support) and costs (the basics like maintence, costs, and salaries). Frisbee wrote in one essay that support could range from 5-20 personnel for every one soldier. Depending on the type I suppose. To me, mechanized, ships, and aircraft eat up the support but I'm looking for ratios.

Urgh!

Vrak: Take a little looksey at an example of my fun!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-aar-jul03.pdf

Mind you, this is the official one! God help you if you have to read the one not prepared for public consumption.

Discussion: Air MEDEVAC was successful during combat operations South of Baghdad.
Air MEDEVAC was called using brigade command nets due to limited retrans capability.
MEDEVAC requests were forwarded from the BCT TOC/TAC to 4th Brigade via Iridium
or tactical satellite (TACSAT). Enemy situation and weather prevented use of air assets
in the urban environment. Ambulance exchange points (AXP) operations were critical
with the distances involved from frontline units to nearest Level II (+) care. However,
the need to secure AXP assets is crucial.
Recommendation: Need to modify MTOE to authorize retrans capability

I feel like sending you a care package of Whiskey. :)

/me sends Vrak a care package of whiskey

/me sends Vrak a care package of whiskey

OOC: AWM, I think Guinness needs it more than I, but I appreciate the gesture. :)

Historically, the bigger the army, the less effective it has been.

Historically, the bigger the army, the less effective it has been.

Which is why Russia keeps getting conquered aaaall the time, probably.

(Did I just see someone try to use immediately pre-Revolution France as a justification for their massive military spending? It's ok - we know how successful the ancién regime was, and continues to be. :lol: )

Total service in all branches of the Iansislean military, not including the forces under the command of the East Gallaga Company, is just getting ready to crest 500,000* for the first time in the nation's long history. Although recruitment rates are starting to decline as war fever wears itself out - and as the army's support and command structure quickly becomes overwhelmed - but nonetheless, in a period of slightly less than six months, the Royal Iansislean Army Corps has expanded from a force of 40,000 effectives to nearly 130,000. The Royal Iansislean Marine Corps is up from 10,000 to 18,000; the Royal Iansislean Navy from 49,000 to 70,000; the Royal Iansislean Flying Corps from 1,200 to 4,000 (with a proportionally much large support structure, averaging three support personnel for every effective); the Royal Merchant Marine has expanded from 7,000 to 25,000†. Currently, there are a total of 245,000 effectives operating in various uniforms, supported by roughly 251,000 logistical, medical, and mechanical specialists. In fact, all branches of service - with the possible exception of the RIFC - are looking to expand their support structures they’ve grown much more slowly than their corresponding combat units, mostly in the army.

Another growing concern is the lack of equipment in the Army. Most new units don’t have enough rifles for their soldiers, and the availability of ammunition, field guns, machine guns, and forth is even worse.

(*note: all numbers in this are rounded for convenience. The actual numbers aren’t quite so neat.

† The Royal Merchant Marine represents all the colliers, supply ships, troop transports, and so on and is under the direct command of the Navy’s Admiralty. The Iansislean merchant marine, consisting of all shipping with an Iansislean registry, is much, much larger.)

the Royal Iansislean Flying Corps from 1,200 to 4,000 (with a proportionally much large support structure, averaging three support personnel for every effective

OOC: I was led to believe that a large support structure would mean that your numbers go higher depending on the type of unit. That is, I though aircraft need a helluva lot of support, on the order of 1 pilot and plane = at least 20 support.

In fact, is there a basic "rough estimate" ratio that can be used here? Something like (keep in mind I'm merely throwing numbers out here):

infantry 1:3
special ops/marines 1:5
artillery 1:5 to 1:10
tanks 1:10
ships 1:20+
planes 1:20+
special (like the guys who run the nukes, etc...) 1:100

Does this even make sense? I realize that each type of unit found within the broad categories would be different but I'm trying to look at this from a broad perspective.

I think it is rather easier when your planes are piston engine aircraft made out of wood and starched linen, mind. Less systems likely involved in Iansisle's planes.

I keep meaning to re-organise V&S's forces now that we're trying to pay attention to the world and not obsess so much over the communist invasion that just isn't coming.

.. if only I could remember where I saved the information on the initial re-armament plan.

(to be honest, I'm not sure. The RIAC is composed mostly of infantry (with a few cavalry units and an even fewer armored cavalry units..on the number of two, actually) which I'd imagine to be fairly low maintanance...right? Also, the support numbers right now are actually extremely low, as per the rapid expansion...normally, there's about a 2.5-1 support-effectives ration in my armed forces.

As to the aeroforce, not every person in it is a pilot. In fact, I'd say there's probably only about 2,800 aircraft in the RIFC now, and over 1,600 are mothballed and obsolete. Most of the people in the RIFC, therefore, aren't actually riders but MPs, base security, co-pilots, bombardiers, etc.

In addition, nearly all naval construction and repair facilities in the Commonwealth, with the exception of a few key fleet bases, are privately owned - if the dockyard workers were taken into account, the support number would jump largely.

So, in conclusion to that wordy and rambling post, I don't know :lol: )

(Thrice accursed forum! A thousand plague upon its house!)

the Royal Iansislean Flying Corps from 1,200 to 4,000 (with a proportionally much large support structure, averaging three support personnel for every effective

OOC: I was led to believe that a large support structure would mean that your numbers go higher depending on the type of unit. That is, I though aircraft need a helluva lot of support, on the order of 1 pilot and plane = at least 20 support.

In fact, is there a basic "rough estimate" ratio that can be used here? Something like (keep in mind I'm merely throwing numbers out here):

infantry 1:3
special ops/marines 1:5
artillery 1:5 to 1:10
tanks 1:10
ships 1:20+
planes 1:20+
special (like the guys who run the nukes, etc...) 1:100

Does this even make sense? I realize that each type of unit found within the broad categories would be different but I'm trying to look at this from a broad perspective.

Vrak, thats a very good start. You have a good rule of thumb going there with the placement though there will be some overlap of technical forces with planes and small armoured units.

An example would be a mechanized battalion screaming across the Alkali flats, the support vehicles are in the back with the command section (that actually depends on which military tradition you use, in America the commander is often in the rear organizing the attack while in nations such as Israel the commander is in the front).

A good strategy would be using Clausewitz, trying to engage the enemy with the maximum amount of your force which in combat capacity would be approx. 65% of an any unit, realisticaly speaking.

BTW, thanks for the Whiskey and if you ever want a good sleep aid, I'll send you another report. :D

This is a topic on people which are godmoding their armies
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96603&highlight=

This is a topic on people which are godmoding their armies
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96603&highlight=

Some of the people on the thread don't really have a clue but there are a few nations that have it pretty much down (The Sword and Shield and Lietuveska).

A point for people about civil defence forces. There seems to be some confusion about their capacity to serve as a branch of the armed forces in times of war.

Yes, they do add to your total combat potential but only in defence and then at approx 50% the capacity of the normal soldier. Know I am sure people are going to yell about "defending you home" and "nationalism/patriotism" but remember these are NOT soldiers, they are civilians who have been given weapons.

Unless they are weekend warriors (even then the training would be sporadic) there would be serious problems with organizing them into anything larger then a company (that would be very difficult). For those who doubt this, check out the relative success of the Yugoslavian resistance during the Second World War versus that of France.

In addition, be aware that unless in uniform, civilians carrying weapons are not protected under international humanitarian law and are not garaunteed the rights under the Third Geneva Convention and Optional Protocol 1 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Over-Legion (die Ueberheerschar): 22 Legions (usually)

Regular Legion (die Berufssoldatheerschar): 4500 Infantry

Combined Legion (die Zusammenheerschar): 4200 Infantry, 300 Armour

Armored Legion (die Panzerheerschar): 600 Armour

Mechanized Legion (die Mechanischheerschar): 2000 Infantry, 400 Vehicles/Light Armour

Marine Legion (die Marineheerschar): 2000 Marines

Foreign Legion (die Fremdheerschar): 3000 Foreign Legionairres

Police Legion (die Polizeiheerschar): 3060 Police

Special Forces Legion (die Kaiserheerschar): 3060 Special Forces Units

Regular Century (der Berufssoldathundert): 100 Infantry

Combined Century (der Zusammenhundert): 112 Infantry, 8 Armour

Armored Century (der Panzerhundert): 100 Armour

Mechanized Century (der Mechanischhundert): 100 Infantry, 20 Vehicles/Light Armour

Marine Century (der Marinehundert): 100 Marines

Foreign Century (der Fremd Soldathundert): 100 Foreign Legionairres

Police Century (der Polizeihundert): 102 Police

Special Forces Century (der Kaiserheerhundert): 102 Special Forces

Maniple (die Unterteilung): 4 of any Century

Cohort (die Schar): 2 of any Maniple

Squad (die Truppe): 20 men (usually)

Army:

2,620,000 men

618,500 Logistics and Support
2,001,500 Soldiers

50 Marine Legions
50 Mech Legions
10 Arm. Legions
10 Com. Legions
374 Reg. Legions
12 Pol. legions
13 SpF. Legions

27 Over-Legions
526 Legions (Total)

Over-Legion Kommand
Command Staff
General Staff
Officer Korps

Over-Legion Logistics
Logistics Personell
Support Personell

Over-Legion I
22 Marine Legions

Over-Legion II
22 Marine Legions

Over-Legion III
6 Marine Legions
16 Mech Legions

Over-Legion IV
22 Mech Legions

Over-Legion V
12 Mech Legions
10 Armoured Legions

Over-Legion VI
10 Combined Legions
12 Regular Legions

Over-Legion VII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion VIII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion IX
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion X
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XI
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XIII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XIV
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XV
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XVI
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XVII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XVIII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XIX
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XX
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XXI
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XXII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XXIII
22 Regular Legions

Over-Legion XXIV
12 Police Legions

Over-Legion XXV
13 Special Forces Legions

Army Materiel:

2000 King Leopards

2000 Leopard 2M (Medium)

5000 Cheetah 2

over 10,000 trucks (part of mech)

5000 High Mobility Assault Vehicles (GMAW)

G-36 Assault Rifle

Navy (Reichskriegsmarine):

550,000 Men

250,000 Support and Logistics
200,000 Soldiers

Carrier Group 1 (Flugzeugtraegergruppeeins)
UV-0 Roland-class KFS Roland
FV-0 Nimitz-class KFS Wilhelm I
KR-0 Ticonderoga-class KFS Zenturio
LF-0 OHP-class KFS Teutone
LF-1 OHP-class KFS Ameise
LF-2 OHP-class KFS Ginter
LF-3 OHP-class KFS Niederkofler
LF-4 OHP-class KFS Mauser
ZT-0 Spruance-class KFS Kirsons
ZT-1 Arleigh Burke-class KFS vevle
ZT-2 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Richthofen
ZT-3 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Rommel
ZT-4 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Prinkle
FU-0 Los Angeles-class Sub
FU-1 Los Angeles-class Sub
SG-0 Avenger-class KFS Volkschiff
AS-0 Sacramento-class KFS Minnow
AS-1 Sacramento-class KFS Doktor

Carrier Group 2 (Flugzeugtraegergruppezwei)
FV-1 Nimitz-class KFS Wilhelm I
KR-1 Ticonderoga-class KFS Zenturio
LF-5 OHP-class KFS Teutone
LF-6 OHP-class KFS Ameise
LF-7 OHP-class KFS Ginter
LF-8 OHP-class KFS Niederkofler
LF-9 OHPF-class KFS Mauser
ZT-5 Spruance-class KFS Kirsons
ZT-6 Arleigh Burke-class KFS vevle
ZT-7 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Richthofen
ZT-8 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Rommel
ZT-9 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Prinkle
FU-2 Los Angeles-class Sub
FU-3 Los Angeles-class Sub
SG-1 Avenger-class KFS Volkschiff
AS-2 Sacramento-class KFS Minnow
AS-3 Sacramento-class KFS Doktor

Battlefleet 1 (Kampfflotteeins)
PS-0 Karl der Grosse-class KFS Karl der Grosse
SS-1 Iowa-class KFS Alberich
SS-2 Iowa-class KFS Attila
AV-0 Wasp-class KFS Rudiger
AV-1 Wasp-class KFS Siegmund
KR-2 Ticonderoga-class KFS Wayland the Smith
KR-3 Ticonderoga-class KFS Gunther
ZT-10 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Giselher
ZT-11 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Kriemhild
ZT-12 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Brunhild
ZT-13 Spruance-class KFS Dietrich von Bern
ZT-14 Spruance-class KFS Gernot
LF-10 OHP-class KFS Wolfhart
LF-11 OHP-class KFS Witege
LF-12 OHP-class KFS Volker
AS-4 Sacramento-class KFS Seefisch

Battlefleet 2 (Kampfflottezwei)
PS-1 Karl der Grosse-class KFS Obnama
SS-3 Iowa-class KFS Heimir
SS-4 Iowa-class KFS Hagen
AV-2 Wasp-class KFS Gerrat
AV-3 Wasp-class KFS Valkyrie
KR-4 Ticonderoga-class KFS Valhalla
KR-5 Ticonderoga-class KFS Friedrich der Grosse
ZT-15 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Schlieffen
ZT-16 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Albrecht
ZT-17 Arleigh Burke-class KFS Otto von Bismarck
ZT-18 Spruance-class KFS Felix von Bothmer
ZT-19 Spruance-class KFS Addison
LF-13 OHP-class KFS Karl von Bulow
LF-14 OHP-class KFS Hollweg
LF-15 OHP-class KFS Bethmann
AS-5 Sacramento-class KFS Blausee

Air Force (Reichsluftwaffe):

550,000 Men

300,000 Support and Logistics
250,000 Soldiers

2000 AWR-120s (total navy and air force, all versions, most stored)

400 HB-100s

300 SB-100s

Various Helicopters

Various MiGs in storage.



Space Force (Reichsraumwaffe):

10,000 Men

5,000 Support and Logistics
5,000 Soldiers

43 Raumfähren

Guinness, if you get time, could you TM the Command levels you spoke about before? Or post them on here, I would be really intrested in learning that.

Current American Army Breakdown

Field Army=2-5 Corps

*All other organizations larger than a Corps are generically termed “Army”. *An Army has three levels, all dependent upon the size and scope of the conflict. *These levels are a “Theater Army”, a “Field Army”, and an “Army Group”. *An Army is normally commanded by a Lieutenant General (0-9) or “full” General (0-1.0) and assisted by a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and a large staff. *There are currently three standing Armies * the First, Third and Fifth U.S. Army. **A Theater Army is the ranking Army component in a unified command, and it has operational and support responsibilities that are assigned by the theater commander. *The theater commander and Theater Army Commander may order formation of a Field Army to direct operations of assigned Corps and Divisions. *An Army Group, composed of two or more Field Armies under a designated commander, is the largest tactical formation used in combat operations. *However, formations of this type have not been employed since World War II. **(General Schwartzkopf commanded a Field Army during Operation Desert Storm; during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Corps was the largest Army organization employed.)

Corps=2-5 Divisions

20,000 to 40,000 soldiers. *The Corps is the deployable level of command required to synchronize and sustain combat operations. *It also provides the framework for multinational operations. *The Corps provides command, control and logistical support of two to five divisions. *The Corps is commanded by a Lieutenant General (0-9) who is assisted by a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and an extensive Corps staff. *There are currently four Corps in the Active Army * three with Headquarters in the Continental United States (I, III, and XVIII Corps) and one in Germany (V Corps). ***

Division=3 or more Brigades (10 active, 2 intergrated, 8 ARNG)

10,000 to 16,000 soldiers. *The Division performs major tactical operations and can conduct sustained battles and engagements. *Divisions are numbered (e.g., 1st Armored Division, 82nd Airborne Division) and are categorized by one of five types: *Light Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armor, Airborne or Air Assault. *The Division is commanded by a Major General (0-8.) who is assisted by two principal Brigadier Generals (0-7.) who perform duties as Assistant Division Commanders * one for Maneuver and one for Support. *The Command Sergeant Major (E-9.) is the principal non-commissioned officer assistant. *Divisions are comprised of three tactical maneuver (Infantry and/or Armor) Brigades and a Division base of combat support and combat service support elements. *There are currently ten divisions in the Active Army and eight Divisions in the Reserves/National Guard. *In October 1999, The Army established two Integrated Divisions (the 7th Infantry Division and 24th Infantry Division) consisting of an Active Component headquarters commanded by an Active Component Major General (O-8.), and three Army National Guard Enhanced Seperate Brigades.

Brigade (can also be called a Group or Regiment)= 3 or more Battalions

1,500 to 3,200 soldiers. *A brigade is a significantly large unit that can be employed on independent or semi-independent operations. *The Brigade is normally commanded by a Colonel (0-6.) although in some cases a Brigadier General (0-7.) may assume command. The Command Sergeant Major (E-9.) is the principal non-commissioned officer assistant. *During combat operations, Infantry, Armor and Cavalry Brigades normally have a field artillery battalion, engineer battalion and combat service support battalion in direct support. *Brigades also exist in combat service and combat service support branches (e.g., Engineer Brigade, Signal Brigade). *Armored Cavalry units of this size are referred to as Regiments (e.g., 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment). *Ranger and Special Forces units this size are referred to as Groups. ***

Battalion = 3-5 Companies

300 to 1,000 soldiers. *The Battalion is a unit that is both tactically and administratively self-sufficient. *In warfighting, Battalions are capable of independent operations of limited duration and scope. *The Battalion is typically composed of four to six companies, and is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel (0-5) with a Command Sergeant Major (E-9) as the primary non-commissioned officer assistant. *The Commander has a Battalion Staff of officers and non-commissioned officers to oversee missions, training, administration and logistics. *A Battalion Task-Force is a Battalion-size unit with additional companies attached in direct support to enhance mission capability. *An armored or air cavalry unit of equivalent size is referred to as a squadron.

Company/Troop/Battery= 100 to 200 soldiers

60 to 200 soldiers. *The Company is a cohesive tactical sized unit that can perform a battlefield function on its own. *It is capable of receiving and controlling additional combat, combat support or combat service support elements to enhance its mission capability. *The Company has a small headquarters element to assist the Commander. *Typically, three to five platoons form a Company, with between 15-25 vehicles. *For example, an Armor Tank Company is composed of five officers, 57 enlisted soldiers, 14 M1A2/A3 Main Battle Tanks and several wheeled vehicles. *The Company is normally commanded by a Captain (0-3). *A First Sergeant (E-8.) is the commander’s principal non-commissioned assistant. *Depending on the type of unit, a Company may be called a Troop or Battery. *Ground or Air Cavalry units (armor and aviation units specially trained for reconnaissance missions) refer to these elements as Troops. *Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery units refer to these elements as Batteries.

Platoon = 3-4 Squads

16-44 soldiers. *The Platoon is the basic combat unit capable of maneuvering in the conduct of combat operations and is led by a Lieutenant 0-1/0-2 who is assisted by a Platoon Sergeant who is a Sergeant First Class (E-7). *A platoon consists of two to four squads/sections depending on the type of unit. *For example, an infantry Platoon consists of three squads. *A Mechanized Infantry Platoon consists of four fighting vehicles (M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), divided into two sections. *Each vehicle holds 8-9 soldiers. *A Tank Platoon consists of four tanks organized into two sections of two tanks each.

Squad/Section

eight to 16 soldiers. *Typically led by a Sergeant (E-5) or Staff Sergeant (E-6), the squad is the smallest element in the Army organizational structure. *Its size is dependent on its function. *In some units, two squads may compose a Section led by a Staff Sergeant. In a light infantry (non-mechanized) squad, there are normally nine soldiers and a squad leader. *In a mechanized infantry squad, there are up to 16 soldiers, organized into two teams. *Each team is assigned to a tactical vehicle (e.g., Bradley Fighting Vehicle). *In an Armor (Tank/Cavalry) unit the term Section is used in lieu of squad. *A section consists of two vehicles (e.g., M1A2 Abrams). *Each tank has a crew consisting of four personnel.

Hope this is Helpful to people. Note: Does not include combat eng., intel and supply. That will come later as well I can try and post other nations breakdowns if there is a demand.

This is good info that would be good for war rps.
Also, in the US Army, it don't matter if you are supply, logistics or intell., becuase you are a soldier and your primary job is to shoot weapons at the enemy. That is why we have to go to range and take PT tests every six months. And, according to the new military regs., all US military personnel must go through live fire exercises at least once a year, though they are trying to make it twice a year. It doesn't matter is you are only there to support the infantry. When you are in the army, you are required to go through combat training once a year.
Those who emphasize that 75% (depending on the nation) of your military must be dedicated to supply and logistics don't realize that those people who are doing supply and logs, in the RL, are required to engage in actual combat ops. Iraqi Freedom has already shown this. The initially high casualties at the start of the war were supply and logistics troops who didn't have combat training (and hence could not fight in combat) because it was wrongly believed they would never need to do battle. As a result they got captured, killed or severly wounded.
Supply troops have to be ready to fight and hence, in the Real world, their numbers are often included in the size of the military combat force.
But I would note, this does not explain some NSers claiming million man armies.
As a soldier (in RL) I make 15,000 as a specialist. I get also get a clothing allowance of 324 per year. I get free dental and medical. I get 100% frree education at civilian universities and colleges. I get free food at the DFAC, unless I am on seperate rats which costs the army more.
If I am married, the military usually pays for child care and my family is eligible for military financed health and dental benefits. Not to mention, I get free legal services.
Add to that as a soldier, I pay no sales tax at these places called military exchanges. And if I am at war, I pay zero income tax. This itself is a big cost for the government.
Don't forget that everyone who reenlists does so because they get a big cash bonus of a maximum of 20,000. Entry level bonuses go up to 16,000.Which brings up another point, the military has to provide free tax services for its troops.
And since most troops live either in barracks or on post housing, you have another 100,000 or so per soldier.
So, you see, million man armies are prohibitively expensive.

I can justify my 24 million man "armed forces"

Simply - I have a VERY powerful economy (there was a post up earlier telling ppl how to work out their GDP) - in nationstates words "Frightening", and i have 100% tax rate. And have had so for some time. I freely use Child Labour, and the only people that actually get paid are those in my Armed Forces. And i have a 100% tax rate. Everyone gets $5 to live on a day. To cover "ALL" expenses.


Simple really.

Wow, I am suprised your people are not revolting, or all joining the military to get better wages, which would leave you with no infrastructure to support your military.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

OOC:
Last time I checked casualty figures from that war, it was 37,000 US dead and about 1 million Chinese killed. Who's ass got kicked again?

As for your whole Million Army Godmoding thing, BS. The reason why few nations IRL field million man armies is because the world is so small, and no real major wars have been fought since '91. You fail to take into account the size of nations and their economic status which make it plausable to field million men armies. My entire military is around 4.5 million people in total. With 18 Carriers only 12 of them being Nimitz, the other six being conventional. Now maybe its because you find bad people to RP with or whatever, but your problem with million person armies is laughable.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

OOC:
Last time I checked casualty figures from that war, it was 37,000 US dead and about 1 million Chinese killed. Who's ass got kicked again?

As for your whole Million Army Godmoding thing, BS. The reason why few nations IRL field million man armies is because the world is so small, and no real major wars have been fought since '91. You fail to take into account the size of nations and their economic status which make it plausable to field million men armies. My entire military is around 4.5 million people in total. With 18 Carriers only 12 of them being Nimitz, the other six being conventional. Now maybe its because you find bad people to RP with or whatever, but your problem with million person armies is laughable.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

OOC:
Last time I checked casualty figures from that war, it was 37,000 US dead and about 1 million Chinese killed. Who's ass got kicked again?

As for your whole Million Army Godmoding thing, BS. The reason why few nations IRL field million man armies is because the world is so small, and no real major wars have been fought since '91. You fail to take into account the size of nations and their economic status which make it plausable to field million men armies. My entire military is around 4.5 million people in total. With 18 Carriers only 12 of them being Nimitz, the other six being conventional. Now maybe its because you find bad people to RP with or whatever, but your problem with million person armies is laughable.
NYJ, your views on army sizes are pretty unrealistic. No nation on earth has 18 carriers, let alone 12 Nimitz class carriers.
The only time you have million man armies in cases of total world war. Therefore, the last time we saw a significant million man army was 1945ish and not 1991 as you have speculated.
Also, China and North Korea do, as pointed out by some earlier, have million man armies. But they are so weak and untrained and under supplied that South Korea could easily conquer North Korea's larger army without US support.
China would be interesting and more of an opponnent since they are actually modernizing their military whereas North Korea still relies on 1950"s era weaponry which both Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia have proven to be ineffective against smaller forces equipped with modern technology. As for Korea, the US got its ass kicked that is why the US pleaded for a truce with the government in Beijing. That is why the peninsula is divided at the 38th parrallel.

My nation has a population of 1.488 billion, close to where China is right now, my economy surpasses China. My nation is in 2 military alliances with other powerful nations. The US has 10 Nimitz class, 3 Kitty Hawks and 1 Enterprise. Now I only have 4 more carriers than the US does. How is this unrealistic? I mean really now, this is called a game, a fictional one at that in which countries grow in size. Now granted if my economy were bad I wouldnt be able to field most of the stuff I have. But that isnt the case.

As for pleading with a truce, you should get your military history straight. The Chinese were bleeding themselves dry in Korea. They had just fought a civil war and their military was underequipped. If you look at a map most of the border is on the 38th parallel except for several areas where it is slightly above the 38th. Also China wasnt just fighting the US, China was fighting the UN, 15 countries with the US and the RoK supplying most of the troops.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

OOC:
Last time I checked casualty figures from that war, it was 37,000 US dead and about 1 million Chinese killed. Who's ass got kicked again?

As for your whole Million Army Godmoding thing, BS. The reason why few nations IRL field million man armies is because the world is so small, and no real major wars have been fought since '91. You fail to take into account the size of nations and their economic status which make it plausable to field million men armies. My entire military is around 4.5 million people in total. With 18 Carriers only 12 of them being Nimitz, the other six being conventional. Now maybe its because you find bad people to RP with or whatever, but your problem with million person armies is laughable.
NYJ, your views on army sizes are pretty unrealistic. No nation on earth has 18 carriers, let alone 12 Nimitz class carriers.
The only time you have million man armies in cases of total world war. Therefore, the last time we saw a significant million man army was 1945ish and not 1991 as you have speculated.
Also, China and North Korea do, as pointed out by some earlier, have million man armies. But they are so weak and untrained and under supplied that South Korea could easily conquer North Korea's larger army without US support.
China would be interesting and more of an opponnent since they are actually modernizing their military whereas North Korea still relies on 1950"s era weaponry which both Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia have proven to be ineffective against smaller forces equipped with modern technology. As for Korea, the US got its ass kicked that is why the US pleaded for a truce with the government in Beijing. That is why the peninsula is divided at the 38th parrallel.

Oh and before 91 Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world, they were suppose to really do damage to the US and Coalition. So hind sight bias behind us Iraq had a rather significant force.

China's fighting multiple wars now? Or does it no longer hold true once you get close to two million men?
China is not fighting any wars right now. Their last war was 50 years ago, when they were kicking America's ass in Korea.

OOC:
Last time I checked casualty figures from that war, it was 37,000 US dead and about 1 million Chinese killed. Who's ass got kicked again?

As for your whole Million Army Godmoding thing, BS. The reason why few nations IRL field million man armies is because the world is so small, and no real major wars have been fought since '91. You fail to take into account the size of nations and their economic status which make it plausable to field million men armies. My entire military is around 4.5 million people in total. With 18 Carriers only 12 of them being Nimitz, the other six being conventional. Now maybe its because you find bad people to RP with or whatever, but your problem with million person armies is laughable.
NYJ, your views on army sizes are pretty unrealistic. No nation on earth has 18 carriers, let alone 12 Nimitz class carriers.
The only time you have million man armies in cases of total world war. Therefore, the last time we saw a significant million man army was 1945ish and not 1991 as you have speculated.
Also, China and North Korea do, as pointed out by some earlier, have million man armies. But they are so weak and untrained and under supplied that South Korea could easily conquer North Korea's larger army without US support.
China would be interesting and more of an opponnent since they are actually modernizing their military whereas North Korea still relies on 1950"s era weaponry which both Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia have proven to be ineffective against smaller forces equipped with modern technology. As for Korea, the US got its ass kicked that is why the US pleaded for a truce with the government in Beijing. That is why the peninsula is divided at the 38th parrallel.

Oh and before 91 Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world, they were suppose to really do damage to the US and Coalition. So hind sight bias behind us Iraq had a rather significant force.
Not so significant as they were equipped with stuff fromthe 60s.
They would have been significant if they had modern weaponry which they did not have.

Also, China and North Korea do, as pointed out by some earlier, have million man armies. But they are so weak and untrained and under supplied that South Korea could easily conquer North Korea's larger army without US support.

"Weak and untrained"? North Korea yes, China definately no, at least now. Since when China is beginning to adapt the "lower numbers" strategy, the Chinese military's training quality is beginning to boost. China's Marines have excellent training, for example. The Chinese military also do have various tactics, also take that into account.

About North Korea, I wouldn't just look at the numbers. Sure, South Korea could just intrude in with its new technologies and well-trained troops, but how do they actually conquor it? Do they have to face what the US is facing in Iraq right now, except with the resistance fighters replaced with North Korean army troops? Aside from that, look at North Korea's terrain, especially at the Korea-China border.

Also, China and North Korea do, as pointed out by some earlier, have million man armies. But they are so weak and untrained and under supplied that South Korea could easily conquer North Korea's larger army without US support.

"Weak and untrained"? North Korea yes, China definately no, at least now. Since when China is beginning to adapt the "lower numbers" strategy, the Chinese military's training quality is beginning to boost. China's Marines have excellent training, for example. The Chinese military also do have various tactics, also take that into account.

About North Korea, I wouldn't just look at the numbers. Sure, South Korea could just intrude in with its new technologies and well-trained troops, but how do they actually conquor it? Do they have to face what the US is facing in Iraq right now, except with the resistance fighters replaced with North Korean army troops? Aside from that, look at North Korea's terrain, especially at the Korea-China border.

I was not saying China was weak and untrained. They train everyday to attack their neighbors.
But if you've ever been to the Korean peninsula, you would know that South Korea could annex North Korea any time it wanted. That is why North Korea always ends up giving the South anything the south wants.
Also, it is unlikely that China would support the north this time around.

What people seem to forget is that one most of those troops are not sent into battle, they are not all fighting the enemy at once. Also when you look at stats your talking about oven or not, a peace time army, Nations like the US while each of their active duty miltary services have hundreds of thousands of troops in each service those are peace time numbers. Those exclude the massive reserves those countries have of trained miltary forces that are not active and the national guard forces. In reality the US for example has a much larger highly trained miltary force than what is in the stats because of its reserves and the nationial guard forces, the coast guards of a country are also at least in the united states easly converted to a miltary force.

Let me give you some points about the chellian military.

1. Chellis has a "military" of about 7.5 million. About 3 million men are part of the surface military, with about 1 million being in the non-surface forces. The other 3.5 makes up the rest, such as cooks, military arms makers(As opposed to companys), Construction engineers, etc etc

2. The Chellian military is all volunteer. At first, it seems very improbable, I can see that. However, with a point I will soon address, chellis spends 50% of its budget, emphasis on budget, on the military. There is absolutly no regular welfare in chellis. However, the military is the only place where you can be guaranteed three meals a day, and somewhere to sleep.

3. In the military, basically all are taken. You must be at least 14, you must be "salvagable" medically wise(be able to become fit for the military), and be able to kill others if needed. You dont need a high school education. You will be turned out if you arent army material, but most likely you are.

4. Every serviceman can get armaments. Other than regular army forces, who get supplied with arms anyways. Every serviceman is offered a free Colt 1911, which we make in great quantitys for this purpose and others. Servicemen can also buy chellian produced products for 1/4th the regular price, except for chellian developed ones, which cost 1/2 regular price.

5. Chellis spends 50% of its budget on the military. This comes to about 20% of the gdp. In the 1780's, France spent 50% of its budget on its national debts, 25% on its military, 6% on the king alone, and less than 20% on the people... and it almost worked, really. Chellis has no national debts. It has no welfare. 25% of the budget is spent on the people, which considering there is no welfare, is a large amount. The rest goes to various things. The people arent taxed very high, and are expected to pay for everything themselves. Many die tho.

6. In times of war, this changes. Chellis does not consider itself mobilized with this army. Chellis could, theoretically, support a 100 million man military. It has the arms, the logistics, the supplies, etc. However, like many real life nations do, it waits until war starts to do this. Standing huge armys are really bad, as having them just stand there is a waste of supplies.

Okay, I can see the logic behind your Defence Policy though it is hard to make an actual judgement due to the nature of the NS system, at best you can make some comparisons with historical models though it is difficult with the technology and size we are dealing with. There are some questions I have if you don't mind answering them.

1) You have made the distinction that your military ordinance is made by organs of the army and not private industry. How do you fight graft and technological staleness inherent in a system that allows for no competition? The Soviet Union maintained this policy and was unable to match the United States in high tech software development and satellite testing due to its state run weapons R&D.

2) NGO's and UN development workers in nations such as Rwanda, Seirre Leone and Sudan have found that brining children (14 years) into combat situation has a very high likelyhood of permanently affecting their psychological development rendering them incapable of entering civilian life without extensive counseling.

3) Interesting use of France as an example, by the time of the revolution (I assume you are talking about the later years of the purge/early command by Napoleon) the French government was dependent on its forces campaigning outside the nation due to the use of pillage as a means of sustaining massive forces abroad. When the revolution itself had suffered sufficient military defeats and Napolean stepped in, the military was able to sustain itself with the reformed banking sytem established after Louise the 14th had bankrupted the nation during his reign some hundred years before.

4) Just because a serviceman has a weapon does not mean that he knows how to use it. I assume that your reservists are trained monthly and require a significant mobilization period for combat.

5) What about intelligence gathering?

1. No. Chellian arms companys are a major part of chellian military. Chellis provides many of the factories and workers, but the companys are mostly behind it, there is only one real army weapon branch, and it competes like companies.

2. Chellis doesn't usually worry about youth divisions, especially mozambiquian ones. Its more psychological warfarfe than anything.

3. I only used france as an example to show that a nation could work for a time with so many frivilous budgets. I have 0 debts, so instead of 75% going to debts + military, 50% goes to military. Also, the "harvests" in chellis arent failing, the government is strong, etc. France failed for additional reasons, which we dont have.

4. Most people can figure out how to use a pistol, or a main sidearm with some training, which is also free and encouraged. They arent trained in squad tactics, but are decent in close combat situations.

5. We have intelligence, SAS units, OPFOR(special ops). Air Force Intelligence branches, navy branches, S3 units in battalions(I believe thats what they are called in american army? maybe S2?), and more. WE heavily rely on our versatile Horsa recon planes, solar powered frisbee sized aircraft with fairly powerful digital cameras and lots of data holding.

3. I only used france as an example to show that a nation could work for a time with so many frivilous budgets. I have 0 debts, so instead of 75% going to debts + military, 50% goes to military. Also, the "harvests" in chellis arent failing, the government is strong, etc. France failed for additional reasons, which we dont have.

(Yes, but as a modern state, you also have financial responsibilities that Bourbon France didn't. Is any money spent on infrastructure? What about domestic peacekeeping? How about education? Research and development? New construction for civilian concerns? I also find it unlikely that your state can be debt-free, unless it taxes its citizens and extraordinary amount...which is bound to create domestic disturbance, and cost your government even more money.

Oh well. Aux armes citoyens!, I guess.)

3. I only used france as an example to show that a nation could work for a time with so many frivilous budgets. I have 0 debts, so instead of 75% going to debts + military, 50% goes to military. Also, the "harvests" in chellis arent failing, the government is strong, etc. France failed for additional reasons, which we dont have.

(Yes, but as a modern state, you also have financial responsibilities that Bourbon France didn't. Is any money spent on infrastructure? What about domestic peacekeeping? How about education? Research and development? New construction for civilian concerns? I also find it unlikely that your state can be debt-free, unless it taxes its citizens and extraordinary amount...which is bound to create domestic disturbance, and cost your government even more money.

Oh well. Aux armes citoyens!, I guess.)

Chellis first of makes its citizens pay for nearly anything. No welfare, home schooling, etc. About 30% goes to general chellis, for structure building, special interests groups, etc. The other 20% is various, including science, and whatnot.

By debts, i meant we have no debts to other countries, being mercantilist(thats how we create all the jobs for all the people, otherwise they would be starving right and left).

(then you still have debts to private citizens, eh? Do you just repudiate those? Your government's credit rating must be piss poor. What happens when anything upsets the perfect balance of spending like, oh, say using all that pretty military equipment in a war? Does your government just collapse for want of funds?)

A. Chellis spends 14 trillion dollars a year on its military. It hasnt as so far ever needed to ask for civilian money, in addition to that.

B. Chellis /does/ have debts to private citizens, etc, but nothing worth mentioning.

(Regardless of how much money you spend on the military in peacetime, it will increase in times of war: missiles and ordinance will be expended; you'll have to pay to train replacement soldiers; things will be destroyed and so forth. And since you've already eliminated all extra sources of income, where does that extra money come from? Lines of credit both at home and abroad are a typical government's solution, but as you allot no money to paying off debts, it stands to reason that your government has no line of credit domestic of foreign. Therefore, any scale war would drive your government into the red; it wouldn't have the lines of credit to borrow, and would therefore start to crumble - either selling off national treasure or reducing military spending, which would affect the prosecution of any war.

It should be noted, as an ironic aside, that one of eighteenth century France's largest problems was its inability to contend with the vast amounts of money Britain could raise through its national debt system and extensive lines of credit.)

AVAST, YE DOPPELGANGER!

Chellis first of makes its citizens pay for nearly anything. No welfare, home schooling, etc. About 30% goes to general chellis, for structure building, special interests groups, etc. The other 20% is various, including science, and whatnot.


Wuldn't your citizens revolt if they lived their lives like this?

Chellis first of makes its citizens pay for nearly anything. No welfare, home schooling, etc. About 30% goes to general chellis, for structure building, special interests groups, etc. The other 20% is various, including science, and whatnot.


Wuldn't your citizens revolt if they lived their lives like this?

Thankfully, no. The poor are too weak to do anything, and the non-poor are content. Chellis is a very free place.

Also, we budget our military. In times of war, money changes from the majority it has in trying new technologies, and goes more to training soldiers, etc. Careful budgeting is the source of money. If we were to need more money, which is doubtful, we could lower standards for training etc, and ask for war bonds with generous interest.

Well I'm happy that people are debating this subject. Personally, I haven't seen many examples of military campaigns that have incorporated tactical mistakes, strategic policy changes during conflict, combined force miscommunication or friendly-fire instances (which account for over 10% of all battlefield casualties). This may be because of my relative newness to this forum.

I would be interested in finding out how many people actually budget for campaigns and wether it influences their predicted outcomes.

I would also like to shamelessly advertise the following link which I have created to help supply specifications for nations who want to site equipment and cost.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99902&highlight=

GEC- Nah, it's not your newness. Most people don't RP those things. I am however, going to budget for campaigns and such, once I finally figure out my peacetime military budget and organisation. I'm future tech, but basing most numbers on modern day totals as I still use fuel, ammunition, etc; projected into the future to account for more complicated technology.

It's operational costs which people neglect. Most people have some idea of their military budget, but aside from a few initial price tags on high-end items (like aircraft carriers) many neglect the crippling operational costs. But I understand that tendency, I mean it's fiendishly difficult to roleplay the logistics of forces larger than the entire world's armed forces.

#tag#

God bless,

The Republic of Syskeyia

Yeah.. I'd almost like to have every detail worked out with reports running along nicely, but unfortunately being one civilian attempting to take the place of countless thousands of military bureaucrats, it's not going to happen.

I'm trying to have the general ends played out in Dra-pol (also known as North-Korea-on-PCP). Presently military spending is running at 34% of GDP (not far from some estimates on North Korea's spending), that going variously into training and maintaining an absurdly large army in the field (9.1million effectives and rising, seemingly a significantly lower percentage of the population than in North Korea's case), building and operating a massive industrial centre around Kanggye that turns out most of the non-human machinery of war, and importing aviation fuel and the modern interceptors our industry can't presently produce. Defence spending is coming close to the entire GDP of the US, and accordingly Dra-pol is suffering a famine and drawing significant international aid.. which mostly ends up keeping the collectivist-level of the military-industrial complex fed and clothed.

Dra-pol has not experienced revolution because:
A)we had one a couple of generations back
B)the people already have a common enemy in the capitalist coalition invading Dra-pol
C)thousands have already defected to the capitalists and some are in arms against Dra-pol proper
D)the state is super-isolationist and the people quite cut off from the outside world- no internet and no TV (these things were not taken away from the people, rather we had no contact with the outside at the time of their invention, and since haven't quite got around to entirely bothering to tell the people about them)
E)What was E? Oh, indoctrination. Likely more extreme than that of the North Korean population. Dra-pol has an established history of introspective pride and paranoid xenophobia. I suppose that ties in to D and B.

I'm presently trying to collapse the economy, but after maybe two weeks of trying I've only got the bugger down to all consuming. I'm as yet explaining it away on the generosity of assorted benefactors in several threads, one dedicated entirely to giving us aid, heh. Korea could learn from Dra-pol. Butcher a few (hundred thousand) Christians and the aid just comes pouring in.

I don't really think that Dra-pol has spent the budget that a 34% spend and all consuming economy would suggest we have available, because I don't entirely believe that they way I'm running the nation such a GDP is likely. I mean, with nine trillion dollars of spending I dare say I could keep tens of millions of men in rags, rifles, and rice for a year.

..Hm, maybe when we invade China.

"Rise from your stinking seats and take a bow, cretins, for The Cool Guy Who Runs A Bunch Of Stuff And Is Actually Also Chancellor is about to speak! Shower him with the praise he may or may not deserve!"

"Hi, guys, it´s me - the Chancellor! Wow, gee wiz, I'd sure like to say a bunch of stuff, but you know how it is! Well, I gotta fly and let the Emperor handle things from here!"

"What? Millions? Mere millions? You dare to speak of mere millions as an invasion force? Listen now and listen good, unaffable pond scum! When the day comes that the eternal prosperity and world-ruling of the Eye Of The Mung is threatened by armies of mere millions of people, you have my imperial permission to order me to wipe your rear end clean of toilet filth! Try to threaten me with a couple of million troops and I'll personally skewer them on long wooden sticks! I'll send my advisors to carpentry class and them carve mung kennels out of the tattered corpses of your puny soldiers! I'll drink Mountain Dew™ out of your lungs!"

"Well, in the words of a certain charming side of ham - th-th-th-that's all folks!"

"The speeches of our great and mighty leaders and deities are over. Please mail complaints along with a suicide note, a will and ∑2.50 postage to 226 Fünkstraße, 10L7 Eldontown, The Eye Of The Mung."

My army is rather small for a nation my size...less than 50 divisions' worth of soldiers...and I have no nuclear arsenal to maintain. The money I save there I pour into a massive navy.
Chellis first of makes its citizens pay for nearly anything. No welfare, home schooling, etc. About 30% goes to general chellis, for structure building, special interests groups, etc. The other 20% is various, including science, and whatnot.


Wuldn't your citizens revolt if they lived their lives like this?Mine don't.
No welfare is made up for by a culture that for over five hundred years has called for donating to the poor.
The education is a lot better without public schools (if you want to attend school, there are still private schools that are better than a public school would be and charity schools that are about the same but don't depend on govenment money).
Military doctors keep their skills sharp by working in (inner city?) hospitals, providing free healthcare.