Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know [Archive]

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-12-2003, 21:03

ECONOMY
Now, economy, or more rather, GDP, is something that is not very well understood, and the host of woefully inaccurate calculators and guidelines are proof of that. For example, one of the methods (and actually one of the better ones, I’m afraid to say), produces results by dividing the GDPs of 225 nations into 15 even groups, and then averaging them. This is an idea of the result of that, with the numbers in parenthesis being the actual range of GDPs in the area.

Frightening: $31,500 ($27,500.78 - $44,500)
All-Consuming: $25,000 ($20,500 - $27,000)
Powerhouse: $19,000 ($17,500 - $20,500)
Thriving: $15,000 ($11,000 - $17,500)
Very Strong: $10,000 ($9000 - $11,000)
Strong: $8000 ($7500 - $9000)
Good: $6000 ($5500 - $7000)
Fair: $4500 ($4500 - $5000)
Reasonable: $4000 ($3500 - $4500)
Developing: $3000 ($2500 - $3500)
Struggling: $2000 ($2000 - $2500)
Weak: $1500 ($1500 - $2000)
Fragile: $1200 ($1000 - $1500)
Basket Case: $900 ($800 - $1000)
Imploded: $600 ($400 - $800)

This doesn’t look half bad, but there are several key pieces of information that were ignored. First and foremost is the question of the higher end GDPs. You’ll note that they have very large ranges, and the highest GDP in the world is over 40% above the average for Frightening, meaning that, while completely feasible, it will be pretty much discounted by this ladder. Another thing it fails to take into account is disposition. Simply speaking, the higher the GDP, the fewer nations will have it. This is plainly evident when you actually look at them all together, and you’ll see that fully two fifths (40%) of the nations in the world are below $3500 GDP per capita, while less than 15% are above $20,000. Clearly, this arbitrary method of ranking does little more than cater to nations with weaker economies by bringing down those with better ones. Similarly, ladders that use the US as the basis, making it All-Consuming or Frightening will suffer a similar problem. They still forget that the US isn’t the best, and I’d hardly think of it, or any other nation as having a Frightening economy. Thriving or Powerhouse maybe, but not better than that.

On the other hand, I have a slightly better fit, which does take into account the fact that, the higher you go, the less nations will be there. It should be noted that I put Frightening above any nation on Earth. Simply put, I find it hard to consider any nation on Earth to have what a Frightening economy is supposed to be, especially when you consider that nations like the US inhibit themselves greatly with policies, certain laws, and excess spending. Now, admittedly, this ladder itself is a bit rough and has some flaws of its own, particularly as we get lower, but it does fit things a little better than most, and I accept it. I’m also providing examples of countries that fall in the various categories, for reference purposes.

Frigtening: $50,000 ($47,500+)
None

All-Consuming: $45,000 ($42,501-$47,500)
Luxembourg

Powerhouse: $40,000 ($37,501-$42,500)
None

Thriving: $35,000 ($32,501-$37,500)
USA, Bermuda, Cayman Islands

Very Strong: $30,000 ($27,501-$32,500)
Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Austria

Strong: $25,000 ($22,501-$27,500)
Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, UK, Singapore

Good: $20,000 ($17,501-$22,500)
Liechtenstein, UAE, Spain, Qatar, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, Greece, Portugal

Fair: $14,250 ($11,001-$17,500)
Taiwan, Czech Republic, Kuwait, Hungary, Bahrain, Slovakia, Netherlands

Reasonable: $9500 ($8001-$11,000)
Estonia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Poland, South Africa, Uruguay, Mexico, Croatia, Malaysia, Russia, Latvia, Costa Rica, Belarus, Lithuania

Developing: $6750 ($5501-$8000)
Oman, Botswana, Brazil, Libya, Turkey, Iran, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, Tunisia, Columbia, Venezuela, Panama, Kazakhstan

Struggling: $4500 ($3501-$5500)
Grenada, Peru, China, El Salvador, Paraguay, Namibia, Jordan, Ukraine, Philippines, Albania, Egypt, Guatemala, Morocco

Weak: $2750 ($2001-$3500)
Sri Lanka, Syria, Belize, Indonesia, Ecuador, Honduras, India, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Pakistan

Fragile: $1625 ($1251-$2000)
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Solomon Islands, Laos, Burma, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Nepal, Sudan, Angola

Basket Case: $1075 ($901-$1250)
Uganda, Kenya, North Korea, Chad, Rwanda

Imploded: $650 ($400-$900)
Mozambique, Zambia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Niger, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia

Do remember that the number given is the median for that group, and is there for the quicker calculations. For those that wish to have a fictional GDP, the numbers in parenthesis show the actual range you can be in. When generating a fictional GDP, please remember to keep into account pertinent things like how long you’ve had that economy, whether or not you’re making decisions that would improve or lower it, and whether you went up or down from the previous level. For example, if you just got up to a Frightening economy, you still won’t be up to $50,000 yet, and should be closer to the $47,500. However, it you’ve had a Frightening economy for months (RL), and you’ve been making decisions that would increase it still further, you could possibly get up to $55,000, though I wouldn’t advise going too far above that, as you might start getting complaints, even from me. :P

Now do note that large armies and high military spending will have an adverse effect on your economy. If you have over, say, 2% of your population in your military, you will have to RP an economy a rank or two below where the game says you are. Similarly, you will have to do the same thing if you claim an extreme military spending, like over 8-10% of your GDP (consider that the top three military spenders have Basket Case, Fragile, and Imploded economies). Naturally, these are cumulative, so if you have over 2% military and 10%+ spending, you will suffer a drop of at least 2-5 ranks. Naturally, the greater difference in ranks means that those on the higher end will drop fewer ranks, while those with lower economies will drop further. That is because there’s a greater difference between ranks higher up, so the same drop in GDP takes less of a level drop to show. For those who like number crunching,
This means that if you want something utterly extreme like North Korea, you will need something like a Good or Strong economy, and you will have to RP a Basket Case or Imploded one to show the effects. You will also run your country into the ground after a rather short period of time, and if you disband that huge army and focus on getting your economy back on track, it will take you weeks, if not months (RL), to get back up to where you should be. North Korea’s economy is so far gone that it will take decades of reform to get them up to where they could have been.
For those of you who like to be number crunchers, I would suggest maybe a drop of 10-20% of your possible economy if you go slightly over the listed limits. A North Korea would expect a 90-95% drop (yes, that’s how bad it is for them). As you might be able to see, that can seriously cut into your nation's coffers if you're not careful.
Conversely, if you maintain a very small military, say less than 0.5% of your population, including reserves and National Guard/Militia, backed up with marginal military spending (well under 1% of GDP), you should be able to RP an economy better than what the game says you have, though this would be only a level or two max (or a 10-20% increase, max).

NOW, FOR ARMY SIZE:
The size and composition of armies is one of the most misunderstood, yet most widely used aspects of Nationstates. This is not helped by the fact that a number of well-meaning individuals have, in previous stickies, noted that you could maintain up to 5% of your nation in your military. This is not true. While you can have 5% of your population in the military, this is only really acceptable in times of war. Outside of that, it should be much smaller. In fact, you can count the number of nations with better than 2% of their population in their military on one hand, and at least one of those is a nation that just came out of a major war. Of the others, only one (North Korea) does not face the immediate threat of hostile action by militaristic neighbors. Do note, however, that most statistics only cover active armed forces, and reserve and militia (aka Territorial Defense, Border Guard, National Guard, etc) are not included. However, most of the nations with prohibitively large armies don’t quite have the reserve and militia strength of the larger modern nations, so the number gives a good idea of the combat power. Another thing to note is that the vast majority of nations with proportionately large armies are ones with low populations, often under 10 million, and these nations have larger neighbors that threaten them, thus necessitating such measures. Larger nations do not need such big armies because they have the population base to recruit a respectable army without taking too much.
Now, I’d give some good info on reserves and militia, but that’s not easy to dig up on most nations, and as stated, those that have large active forces tend to be a bit light on the militia and reserves. However, I do have some good info on the USSR, the US, and China, from just after the end of the Cold War. The numbers can be seen here.

Soviet Union in 1992:
Population: 285 million
Active Military: 2.804 million (0.984%)
Reserve Military: 4.315 million (1.514%)
Total: 7.115 million (2.509%)

USA in 1992:
Population: 253 million
Active Military: 2.052 million (0.811%)
Reserve Military: 1.28 million (0.506%)
National Guard: 0.617 million (0.244%)
Civilian Employees: 0.865 million (0.342%)
Total: 4.804 million (1.899%), 3.939 million (1.557%) w/o civs

China in 1992
Population: 1144 million
Active Military: 3 million (0.262%)
Reserve Military: 1 million (0.087%)
Militia: 10 million (0.874%)
Total: 14 million (1.224%)

As you can see, even the nations with the largest militaries had little more than 1-2.5% of their population in the total military. Even at its peak, the active force was less than 1%. Also, that 2.5% total military was enough to run the USSR into the ground, though that owes more than a little bit to poor management and leadership. Still, a clear trend exists, and that is that the militaries of larger nations, and those of nations that have more modern ones, tend to be smaller, while those of poor-under developed nations tend to be bigger. But remember, those bigger armies have less training and poorer equipment, and will be decimated by the smaller forces in open battle.

Another thing that many fail to take into consideration is the military spending per soldier. What I’m referring to is the amount spent, on average, per (active) soldier. Simply put, divide the military budget by the number of active soldiers, and you’ll have a figure to compare. It’s even better when you do this for the total military, but that’s harder to come by for RL nations. Naturally, the higher the number is, the better trained and equipped troops will tend to be. To put it into perspective, most nations will spend about $3000-$5000 per soldier, especially those with large armies. Some really poor nations can be incredibly low, and some nations will spend less than $500 per solder. An army at $20,000 per soldier might be well trained, well equipped, or moderately trained and equipped, and a decent modern army shouldn’t be less than $45-55,000 per solder. The truly advanced western nations go even further, and often have better than $100,000 per soldier, with the US topping the charts at just over $200,000, and the UK coming in second at $150,000. Now remember once again that these are the numbers that come from dividing the total military budget by the number of personnel in the active force. Massive reserves will mean that you’ll need much more to get the same level of training.

To put it all together, I suggest you take a look at my own nation. Do note that the stats here are not the current ones, but those that I plan to have after the war I’m in (assuming it ever gets resolved ;)).
Population: 3,423,589,118
Active Military: 15 million (0.44%)
Reserve Military: 15 million (0.44%)
Militia Corps: 15 million (0.44%)
Total: 45 million (1.31%)
GDP Per Capita: $49,472.54
GDP: $169,373,649,583,819.72 ($169+ trillion)
Budget: $12 trillion (7.1%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $800,000 (!)
Budget Per Total Soldier: $266,666.67
Now, compared to the US, I have about 10 times the military they had in 1992. This isn’t exactly odd, as I’m still 13.5 times as big to begin with (and with a higher economy to boot). In addition, you can see that less than 40% of my forces are active, with the rest being reserve and militia. For the US, it’s the other way around, which explains the huge discrepancy between my spending for active troops and that of the US. However, when you factor in the total forces, I’m still at nearly two times the spending, per soldier as the US is currently. This means that I can afford to have my troops exceptionally well trained and equipped. The final note is that I actually have two three billion-plus nations that not only share a land-border with me, but wouldn’t mind invading if they thought they’d win, so there’s also a reason for a big army. Finally, my GDP has taken a slight dip because of previous overspending, and my people still live a lifestyle more in tune with a Powerhouse or low-end All-Consuming economy due to government spending.

One final note: when I list army size, I'm including all military personnel (and in some cases, civilian workers as well). The actual combat forces will be only a fraction of the total force.

INVASIONS
Another thing that many people like to do, but few truly understand, is invading other nations. When doing this, there are a lot of things to consider. First and foremost, an invasion force will have its size capped by one of two things: Either the limit of the supply line, or the number of troops that can be called away without risking the launching nation’s own security. In general, militia forces only act as home defense, while active and called up reserves would go into combat (with preference for active formations). You would also have some front line forces left behind to defend your nation as well. The number and composition of the forces left behind is based on the potential threats, so you will leave more if there’s a hostile nation bordering you, and less if you’re completely surrounded by friendly nations.
The other one, and usually the more important of the two, is the supply line. This is critical in any campaign, and especially so in an amphibious invasion. You cannot send in more forces than you could realistically supply, and the number to troops sent in initially will usually be rather small, with the larger forces waiting until critical supply junctions are taken before joining in.

Now, there are two different categories of invasion to consider. The first, and easiest, is a ground invasion coming over a shared border. Limits on manpower are far less than they would otherwise be. Supplies, however, are still critical, and the most efficient method for moving supplies over land is via rail. Trains can carry more supplies faster and more cheaply than any other form of ground transportation, but their movement is limited by available track, the ideal target for a ground invasion would be one with an extensive rail system, and key objectives in the invasion would be major rail junctions, train stations, and railway bridges. Without these, you’ll have to rely on trucks to carry supplies, and that is both more expensive and less efficient (a truck convoy needs a lot of fuel to move very far, whereas a train can move the same supplies with only a fraction of the fuel costs). For nations that don’t have an extensive rail system, or worse, none at all, you will have to rely on trucks to get supplies there. As stated this is more expensive and will use up more of your supplies just getting the trucks there. As such, the force limits on an invasion of such a country are far more significant, and the rate of advance will have to be much slower.
The other type of invasion is an amphibious one, and is more popular due to so many nations claiming to be islands, but is far more limited. Amphibious invasions are limited by three types of supply problems. The first is naturally the size of the naval amphibious force that can be organized. You just can’t deliver more troops and equipment than you have ships to carry. Now, amphibious vessels all have “landing” in their designation, with the first letter in their abbreviations being L. These ships include LHDs, LHAs, LPHs, LPDs, LSDs, LSTs, and smaller craft that have long range like LCUs. In addition to the amphibious force limitation, you are also limited by the composition of your assault craft fleet. With the exception of LSTs and LCUs, all the ship types listed here are incapable of breaching (running up to shore and offloading cargo directly). Thus, they need to use smaller landing craft such as LCUs, LCMs, LCACs, etc, or helicopters, which will take their troops and equipment ashore. Naturally, there are very real limits, and only a fraction of the total force can be deployed in each wave. You also must take into account that the number of assault craft is everything you got. You can’t have a larger landing force than the assault craft and helicopters available can supply, meaning it won’t be that big. Also, if you use them all for the first wave, it will take hours, possibly even a full day with some, before they can return with more troops or supplies. The supply situation for a landing force is also critical, and poses another major limitation. Again, there must be a significant force dedicated to sending supplies ashore, and these will usually be taken from the landing craft that are there. Landing forces are also generally lighter than many others, as they must be transported and supplied by small craft and helicopters. You will also find that the supplies you have for backing up the amphibious attack are quite limited, with not much more than the stocks on the landing ships to go on, so the absolute first priority of an amphibious invasion is to take a deepwater port. You will have to make up for the small numbers by generating local superiority, which is perfectly achievable, though any invasion that does run into a superior enemy force before taking a port, is screwed. Once the port is taken, large cargo ships can come and offload hordes of heavy equipment and supplies, and you will have the forces needed to push inland. However, you might want to try and get more ports, as the more you have, the better your supply situation will be. It should also be noted that you must pay heed to the available cargo fleet. Consider that it takes 4-5 50,000 ton multiproduct ships to supply 16,000 marines for 30 days. If you have a million man force, you will be using up the supplies from two of these vessels every day. Now consider that it takes a long time (sometimes days) to load and unload them, and the fact that they have to travel back to their homeport (and back again) before delivering supplies, so to have that kind of thing going, you’d need well over 60 of these ships just to support that force, and you have to remember that marines are light troops. Heavy ones like armored or mechanized infantry units will require even more supplies. And remember, those 50,000 ton ships need a port, so don’t think you can land a multi-million man (or even 1 million in most nations) invasion force and supply it without a seaport.
Naturally, the best method for stopping both types of invasion is to cut the enemy’s supply line. Sink those supply ships, blow trains and the bridges and tunnels they need to go through, destroy truck convoys, etc. Do that successfully, and you will just have to wait for your enemy to run out of supplies. Then he can either die uselessly or surrender. Either way, you win.

Now one of he biggest misunderstandings with amphibious landings, and the one that makes people think they can use larger invasion forces than they really can, is the Normandy invasion. That was not a normal invasion, and many of the rules can be waived due to the special circumstances. Most notably, there was the proximity of the launching ports to the beaches being hit. This was such that ships could even manage multiple trips in a day. In most NS invasions, your ships will need one or two months before they can come back with a second load. This means that the number of troops deployed at Normandy can’t be done in a normal invasion by similar-sized nations, and the supply situation will be much worse. A normal amphibious invasion shouldn’t be more than a few hundred thousand, even with the largest nations out there.

OTHER THREADS IN THIS SERIES
Some Things You Should Know About Aircraft (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=322078): Information on aircraft design and performance, including engines and stealth features.

Some Info on Naval Vessels (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=292413): Information on design and classification, of naval ships, including speed and armament.

Some Things You Should Know About Tanks (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288671): Gives tips on design and performance for AFVs, including armor and weapons.

New Genoa

09-12-2003, 21:22

Superb. Although, I do not have a militia force... hmmm...

New Genoa

09-12-2003, 21:23

Superb. Although, I do not have a militia force... hmmm...

09-12-2003, 21:27

Very nice post. Very handy to, i'll keep it in mind.

Walmington on Sea

09-12-2003, 21:33

I like the new take on economic ratings. At last someone notices that the US doesn't have close to the highest per capita GDP on earth.. and that no one gets by with US$100 a year.

The money-per-serviceman thing is interesting, too.

Of course it's all of questionable significance to 1940s-based Walmington, but still, it's nice to know that my insane driving-its-economy-into-the-dirt militarist state spends more on each recruit than does the US. Em, for the next few months, at least.

The Evil Overlord

10-12-2003, 03:49

Very nice.

This incorporates a lot of things I already do, with enough new ideas to think about.

I've always taken the GDP calculators with many grains of salt, and double-check my numbers with my own personal budget caluclations (by my methods, your military budget is too high, but that's just my opinion).

The only time I'm aware of that a military force has successfully pushed across an ocean to stage an amphibious landing was Operation Torch- the Allied invasion of French North Africa in WW II. That was a total balls-up from the word "go", and only Rommel's supply situation prevented the Germans from crushing the American forces- even then, the Germans handed the US Army its ass on a plate at Kasserine.

Long-range apmphibious assaults are extremely difficult. Note that the US hasn't used its amphibious punch much. For one thing, not all shorelines are vulnerable to this sort of attack. For another, the logistical problems you mentioned make it a nightmare for the invader and a 'target-rich environment' for the invadee.

TEO

Santa Barbara

10-12-2003, 04:19

I believe the military budget per capita is per capita of civilian population, not military. For example, the US with a military budget per capita of $958, or Somalia with $2. That is, for every citizen they spend that much on the military.

And on that note, I should like to say that the two highest defense-per-capita rankings I found were Israel ($1400 or so) and the US, and neither of these countries economies is anything to sneer at.

Omz222

10-12-2003, 04:28

Another excellent post, CSJ. Glad that someone mentioned examples for supply demands for large invading forces. A few things for people:

1) Your 2 million invasion force will not work unless your supply line is umharmed, and it can keep up the supply demand. Of course, 2 million soldiers need a lot of ammunition, food, etc. every day especially when they fight (they fight=they require). This is especially true if your enemies are still sorrunding you and you want to get rid of them. Just one harmed supply lines or a few tons less of grains can result in great ineffiecency of your forces, or even cause surrunder quickly. take the German invasion of the Soviet Uniond for example. There were tens of thosands of combatents in the Sixth Army. At that time, the German Luftwaffe was the only solution of deliving supplies through air. But guess what? even with a >1 million force, the Luftwaffe was barely capable of even deliver 50% of the required only for a short time, and them they are nto able to deliver any at all. Added with the fact that the German Army is not suited for winter fighting under extreme temperatures (mentioned in part 2 of my post), the Germans were simply easily pushed out of Stalingrad, since most were frozen/starved to death, or simply didn't have a capability of even fire a machine gun without vertain "aids".

2) Weather conditions. A lot of people think that their armies could fight anytime, anywhere. Guess what? Not true. An army that was trained, fitted, and supplied for jungle fighting will not survive a fighting in minus 40 Celsuis (sp.) degrees. It would be plain godmodding/poor RPing to have an army fitted and supplied for desert combat to be able to fight in intense battles under a freezing -20 degrees at all.

About the budget, since I favor more of a smaller military (which would be well trained/equipped/affordable) with a good economy and space for other budget spendings, I normally use 8% of my budget for military (4.54% under the pipian.com GDP calculator). Also taken into account for an army is labor force. As CSJ said, a huge army would certainly hurt the economy at the North Korea example. Especially active forces which stays at military base full time. But why? A part of course, is labor force. More people in the military, less people avaialble to actually run the economy.

Another note on amphibious landing: you cannnot land 100,000 troops by amphibious assualt without striking the enemy's defense first. Even if you have a huge escort, it would end with some amphibious ships sank with about 10,000 soldiers or more.

Daistallia

10-12-2003, 04:36

Very nice.

10-12-2003, 04:51

How did you find all this stuff out because I would like to know.

Omz222

10-12-2003, 04:59

How did you find all this stuff out because I would like to know.
R-e-s-e-a-r-c-h :P

Clan Smoke Jaguar

10-12-2003, 06:18

Lapse

10-12-2003, 06:30

*tag*

thats pretty good,

Glorious Humanity

10-12-2003, 06:59

After reading this topic, I got a figure for 1% of my population. I found that that's 3,850,000 people in the military. Just 1%.

What the heck would I do with all those people? Glorious Humanity is a mostly peaceful nation, we're surrounded by friendly nations, and we've never invaded anyone. When Glorious Humanity's military does get involved in international incidents, it's almost always in a peacekeeping role, and usually as part of a coalition of allies. Granted my military does act as police at home in some circumstances, but with a fully functional civilian police force having 3 million soldiers playing cop doesn't seem reasonable or logical.

I put this up because I've seen several nations that claim to be basically peaceful that maintain (or claim to maintain) militaries of 5-10% of their population. Supply and economic issues aside, there's the logic issue of big armies: if you're basically peaceful, and have no hostile nations near you, whaddaya need all the soldiers for?

Kanabia

10-12-2003, 07:11

excellent post.

These are the stats i have come up with for my basket case economy country with 7 million pop.

Military Size- 1.5% of population, or 105000 men, with half of these on active duty.
An additional 150000 men can be raised during wartime as conscripts (yes, it exceeds the acceptable limit, but consider the military status of many nations during WW2 for example, i dont think my fiercely patriotic people would sit idly by as a foreign power tramps through their lands, and in such a situation, the economy would be second priority.)

Navy: 8000 active men; including 6000 logistics and other non-coms.
Airforce: 12000 active men; including 8000 logistics and other non-coms.
Army: 30500 active men; including 10000 logistics and other non-combat personell, (ground forces should need less support personnel than air and naval forces, especially in a third world country like Kanabia.)
Total GNP: 6.3 Billion USD
Total Government Revenue: 4.47 Billion USD

Now assuming 12% of the budget goes towards the military, that leaves the military budget at $536 million. If this seems unrealistic, in 1991, Angola, with a population of ~9 million and a GNP of 5.7 billion, spent $600 million on its military. And Angola isnt really anything out of the ordinary in this regard among third world nations.

Given this budget, i would think that the equipment used by the military would be as follows:
Navy- Osa I and II ocean patrol boats, and smaller river patrol craft.
Air Force- MiG-19 and MiG-21 fighters, possibly Q-5 Fantan attack aircraft.
Army- Small number of T-55 tanks, BRDM-1 and 2 recon vehicles, and BMP-1 APCs.

I think thats fair. What do you guys think?

On a side note, i'd like to recommend the early 90's PC games "Shadow President" and "Crisis in the Kremlin" which are excellent political simulators, that can be found as abandonware at www.the-underdogs.org
Also check out "Hidden Agenda" another excellent one with a South American flavor. Anyone who likes this Nationstates game should like these too :)

Guinness Extra Cold

10-12-2003, 07:25

Vrak

10-12-2003, 07:39

Biotopia

10-12-2003, 07:47

Fan-tag-istic!

A very interesting read and obviously a lot of intelligence has gone into creating the page.

Guinness Extra Cold

10-12-2003, 07:51

If this one logistics thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52356&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) wasn't devoured by the purge beast, I'd recommend a quick look.

And for Guinness:

The WER FG is the best RT method for ERT to make sure they can undersand ETWQ and WQW for their daily lives.

Ah, I'm just typing randomly so you would go nuts. :)

FG: Finance Group
RT: Receiver transmitter/radio transmitter/right turn after takeoff/return
to duty/rough terrain
ERT: emergency support team/extended range TOW/effective reference
time

There is a special place in hell for people who pick on analysts and academics :D

Just for that, I'm sending you another after action report from Iraq or a declassified DARPA sattelite report, hehehe.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

10-12-2003, 07:56

Very concise and too the point post. You would think that what CSJ wrote would be common sense but unfortunately its not.

I would like to add that there have been several mentions of air lifted invasions, precluding future-tech conflicts (I don't want to get into drop ships, transporters and other fiction) that are quite farfetched.

Conservative Estimate: To move an infantry battalion (3-5 companies with equipment) sized unit across one nation by air requires approx six Hercules transports flying three flights each. This is magnified by a factor of five if it is a mechanized infantry battalion and a factor of ten if the target is overseas if you want a moderatly fast deployment.

There are also significant threats of foreign air interception as well as the necessity of finding a friendly base to land. In other words, unless you have a secure set of landing strips, air supremacy as well as control of the surrounding 50 kilometers to prevent surface-to-air missile attacks, don't start sending the Galaxies in.

I know that some people here are going to raise paratrooper-based assaults. These are effective in small sized operations but bad intelligence or enemy expectation can result in a slaughter ex. Operation Market Garden and the assault on Crete.
A US light infantry battalion has 696 personnel, 54 HMMWVs, and 2 trucks. The airlift requirments would be as follows: 18 C-130E/H/J for HMMWVs, 1 C-130E/H/J for trucks, at least 11 C-130E/H/J for troops and equipment. That's 40 flights, and includes only one full load of supplies per soldier.

A US mechanized infantry battalion cannot be airlifted effectively in a C-130, as the aircraft does not have the required payload capacity to lift even one M2 Bradley IFV. For lighter IFVs, it could still only lift one at a time, requiring 44-58 flights for the IFVs alone, depending on battalion size. In addition, it would need 25 flights for the other armored vehicles in the battalion, and about 35-45 flights for trucks and HMMWVs. Say, maybe about 125 full loads for a single battalion of 58 light IFVs (!). However, keep in mind that the Hercules is considered a light transport nowadays. C-141s, C-17s, and C-5s can all carry significantly larger loads.

Vrak

10-12-2003, 07:59

Guinness Extra Cold

10-12-2003, 08:25

I can't hear you! Lalalalalala!

*Runs throught the streets trying to plug bleeding ears*

On another note, I checked out the logistics thread and Western Asia did provide some excellent links at the end. It seems that the purge beast got 'em though so I'd recommend that if anyone sees something that they think is useful - save it on your hard drive as a text file. Takes up much less room since all you're after is the information, not how it looks.

Just for that Guinness:

The YER was found to have an IAOT effect on the PWA assembly due to excessive ERS vibration. A KLOS diagnostic report was compiled and the best course of action was to remove the QWER component and replace it with a HGEW. This was successfully done on the HE-67 and is now standard BN-09 protocol for this situation.

Why don't you just rip out my heart and burn it with a cigarette, Vrak, WHY DON'T YOU JUST RIP OUT MY HEART.

The year (YR) was found to have an indicated air temperature (IAT) effect on the further particulars when available (FPWA) assembly due to excessive experimental radar system (ERS) vibration. A kilometer (K) line of sight (LOS) diagnostic report was compiled and the best course of action was to remove the qualitative equipment requirements (QER) compenent and replace it with a heavyweight team (HW). This was successfully done on the TH-67 Creek (New Training Helicopter (NTH) is a Bell 206 Jet Ranger built by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc) and is now standard battalion (BN-9) protocol for this situation.

Once again VRAK, I hate you.

Vrak

10-12-2003, 08:30

OOC: LOL!

Guinness Extra Cold

10-12-2003, 08:34

OOC: LOL!

Object-Oriented Civilian: Latent Observer Lethality!

Sorry, I have a problem.

The Evil Overlord

10-12-2003, 12:36

However, keep in mind that the Hercules is considered a light transport nowadays. C-141s, C-17s, and C-5s can all carry significantly larger loads.

The reason the C-130 Hercules is stiill in use is its rough-field take-off and landing capability. The C-141, C-5, and C-17 all require the same sort of runway a B-52 does (long, paved, and stabilized two meters into the ground).

The Hercules can land and take off from unpaved runways, and even dirt fields (if reinforced by field engineers). This makes the C-130 a tactical air-mobility asset. The other planes are strategic transports.

GMC Military Arms

10-12-2003, 12:45

OOC: LOL!

Object-Oriented Civilian: Latent Observer Lethality!

Sorry, I have a problem.

[Spluggs Guiness Extra Cold for his ways]

Iuthia

10-12-2003, 12:57

tag

Guinness Extra Cold

10-12-2003, 17:07

Clan Smoke Jaguar

11-12-2003, 00:25

Clan Smoke Jaguar

11-12-2003, 00:26

The reason the C-130 Hercules is stiill in use is its rough-field take-off and landing capability. The C-141, C-5, and C-17 all require the same sort of runway a B-52 does (long, paved, and stabilized two meters into the ground).

The Hercules can land and take off from unpaved runways, and even dirt fields (if reinforced by field engineers). This makes the C-130 a tactical air-mobility asset. The other planes are strategic transports.
Actually, it's still used as a light strategic transport as well, as it has sufficient range for interregional operations. The rest is correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, which is why I didn't point it out myself :P

United Elias

02-02-2004, 01:23

This is very good, something I planned to right but couldnt be bothered in the ned. I find it really irritating when I RP having an amphibiuos force of over 30 ships just to land a division size force and everyone else lands million armies from fleets tha suddenyl appear.

Also I get annoyed when most nations have a a military 5-6 times larger than mine, because they claim to have 5% which is obviously unrealistic. Mind you, my military is only about 1.8 million strong.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

19-10-2004, 23:00

WARNING: Long Post Ahead!!!!

Well, with me being gone for some time due to my computer troubles, and with the acquisition of a few new sources, I decided it might be time to take an in-depth look at some armies that your nations’ militaries might be modeled after. For starters, we’ll take a look at the now famous North Korean (DPRK) military, the one that breaks the rules.

Some Basic Stats:
Country: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka North Korea)
Population: 22.5 million
GDP: $22.26 billion
GDP Per Capita: $989.33
Active Military: 1.1 million
Portion of Population: 4.89%
Military Spending: $5.2174 billion
Portion of GDP: 23.4%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $4743.09
Military Nature: All-or-nothing offensive
Infrastructure: Poor
Logistics Support: Poor
Experience: Low
Training: Low
Equipment: Obsolescent

What it Means:
North Korea is a relatively small nation with a very big army. However, the military is poorly funded, and thus training and equipment suffer. Only a small fraction of the equipment found in the DPRK military is less than 30 years old now, and much of the equipment dates all the way back to the Korean War or World War II. Due to lack of capital, attempts to rearm the military have been largely unsuccessful, and indeed, a good portion of the equipment has had to be discarded due to the inability to maintain it. Also, due in part to the high proportion of the population serving in the active military, there is a distinct lack of support services for the military, including spare parts and munitions as well as medical supplies and food. Obviously, with little infrastructure and extremely limited air and sea transport, North Korea has virtually no capability to launch major operations outside of the Korean Peninsula, and even there, they are extremely limited.
Now, despite this, the DPRK military is entirely offensive in nature, with almost its entire force being within a few dozen kilometers of the border with South Korea. However, with such poor infrastructure, North Korea must rely on a blitzkrieg-style attack and a swift victory if it is to have any hope of conquering its neighbor. Due to the deficiencies listed above, there is no way of providing for a protracted war or a second offensive. If North Korea fails to achieve a knockout blow on the first try, it is extremely likely to face total defeat at the hands of its intended targets.
On the other hand, it’s important to remember that North Korea has a strong ally to its north in China, leaving only 1 hostile border-South Korea, which is the only place that needs any real forces. China can easily help their North Korean allies in protecting both the air and sea around the nation, helping ward off intrusions even in times of war.

Equipment:
Again, North Korea relies mostly on cast-off equipment provided by China or the former Soviet Union, or license-built copies of such equipment. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to find accurate information on even the relative numbers of various units in service, owing to the secrecy of the regime, and the best info is already four years old, but for lack of better info, that’s what I have to work with. Now, though they rely heavily on them, the most modern tanks in the North Korean arsenal are vintage T-62s, dating back to the beginning of the Vietnam War. Even worse, these only make up 1/5 of the 3500 strong tank force. These were once closer to 1/4 of the total force, but there was a phenomenal decline (1800 to 800) from 1995 to 2000. Increases in Type 59s (a Chinese copy of the T-54), combined with a reduction in overall forces have helped compensate for this gap. By contrast, T-54 tanks and their derivatives (T-55, Type 59), which date back to the 1950s, make up some 60% of the North Korean tank force, with the remainder being light amphibious tanks (PT-76 and the slightly more modern M1985) and vintage WWII T-34s.
For those units that actually have mechanized infantry, the primary force comes from VTT-323s (license-built Chinese YW-531 tracked APCs) backed up by a small force of BMP-1s. In lesser units, these are replaced with Soviet BTR series wheeled APCs, or even trucks. With the exception of a handful of BTR-80As supposedly in service, all APC designs in DPRK service date back to at least the 1970s. As such, there are often survivability issues. Mobility could be an issue to, but since the tanks are just as old, this doesn’t really matter.
The main strength of the North Korean military is their artillery force, and while the systems are rather old, sheer numbers give them potent firepower. As part of a modernization effort, many tank chassis were stripped of their turrets and mated with towed artillery guns to provide quick, cheap self-propelled artillery (possibly explaining what happened to those 1000 T-62s). Because of this, there is now a much greater proportion of mobile, and thus more survivable, artillery. The primary forces here are self-propelled 122mm and 152mm howitzers, with their towed variants also being prominent in the infantry divisions. This is backed up by a relatively small force of 170mm field guns with impressive 50-60 km range, and a decent force of older Soviet 130mm field guns, primarily self-propelled, but with a few towed units still around. Finally, there are a large number of 107mm, 122mm, and 240mm rocket systems, and a handful of SSM launchers that fire SCUD/Na-Dong or shorter-ranged FROG missiles.
Air defense for advancing forces is made up primarily of towed antiaircraft guns, many of which date back to the Korean War or WWII, and these are backed up by shoulder-fired SAMs, primarily old Strela missiles, though with some newer Iglas. There are also a few hundred self-propelled antiaircraft guns to defend mechanized forces. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the North Korean arsenal to protect maneuver units from targets beyond 15 km, and very few defenses against something as close as 10 km. This leaves ground units extremely vulnerable to air attack.
Finally, anti-tank forces round things out. A few hundred towed 76.2mm and 100mm guns are backed up by a number of vehicle-mounted and infantry-carried ATGM systems, the most modern of which is the Soviet Konkurs (AT-5), yet another vintage 1970s unit, this one in the class of early TOW missiles. Again, this leaves limited effectiveness against heavy western armor, and with the US deployment of M1 tanks, and the subsequent South Korean tanks derived from them, these anti-tank systems are sorely outclassed.

The North Korean Air Force is a little better off, with some 40 MiG-29 fighters and 35 Su-25 ground attack aircraft. Though these designs are becoming a bit dated, they are nonetheless excellent aircraft, especially when the rest of the North Korean military is compared. They also have a fleet of 87 MD-500 helicopters (the civilian version of the US OH/AH/MH-6 series), many of which have been modified as light attack helicopters. These are backed up by about two dozen Mi-24 Hinds. Though both helicopter models date back to the Vietnam war, they’re still among the better performers today. The 15 Mi-8 helicopters are also old but solid machines. On the other hand, the rest of the force is rather low-end. Of the 400 remaining fighter aircraft, about 100 each are variants of the ancient MiG-17 and MiG-19, backed up by 150 MiG-21 variants and 45 MiG-23s. Ground attack is handled by 80 1950s Il-28 Beagle bombers and 20 Su-7 attack aircraft of similar age. The 40 Chinese Q-5 strike aircraft are a bit more modern, dating back to the Vietnam War, but are still rather poor performers. The bulk of the transport helicopter fleet is made up of smaller, and older, Mi-2 and Z-5 (Chinese Mi-4) helicopters, which have only limited capabilities. The primary transport aircraft are the 300 An-2s, which are actually biplanes dating to just after WWII. These are supported by a handful of more modern Vietnam era transport planes. Finally, the missiles employed by the North Korean Air Force are also dated. These include the AA-2 (a copy of the Korean War AIM-9B Sidewinder) and AA-7 (early AIM-7 Sparrow equivalent) for their fighters, as well as the 1960s era SA-2, SA-3, and SA-5 missiles that provide air defense for the country. Most notably, all three of these SAM models are employed from fixed sites, so their locations are easily noted.

And finally there’s the navy. Again, this force is greatly assisted by Chinese naval forces that could aid it in wartime, but otherwise fulfills the primary patrol and local landing operations that could be expected of it. The largest ships are a trio of 1300-1900 ton light frigates, which are notably outdated. These are backed up by a handful of similarly dated small corvettes and a few dozen missile boats, combining to provide the only real ASuW capability in the North Korean Navy. About 100 small torpedo boats, of limited utility, also exist, with about 160 patrol vessels. A modest amphibious force can transport a few battalions short distances, but has no major landing capability. The real terror of the North Korean navy is the two dozen or so Soviet Whiskey and Romeo class submarines, dating back to the 1950s. Though outdated, water conditions around the peninsula allow these units to become a potential threat to modern naval forces. The primary antishipping weapon is the Chinese HY-2/C-201 “Silkworm” missile, which is a copy of the Soviet SS-N-2 missile, which is similarly outdated.

Requirements for copying the North Korean Military:
1. Fair economy or better.
2. RP a Basket Case economy (if listed as Fair) or similar drop
3. Have 90%+ of equipment at least 30-50 years behind tech level
4. Have someone providing large amounts of civil and military aid, including cast-off equipment at extremely low cost
5. Have a solid dictatorship or similarly totalitarian regime (remember, the more freedom your people have, the less they’ll like the policies)
6. Do not RP any major conflicts beyond your immediate borders.
7. RP extremely limited capacity for sustained conflict (ie, severe supply shortages after a few days)
8. Have a very good IC reason for such an extreme military

If you do all this, you too can have 5% of you population in the military and 25% of your GDP going into the military. But remember, it's a lot more impressive on paper than in reality.

KPA ORDER OF BATTLE

1st Echelon: 4 Army Corps made up primarily of infantry forces with some armor support. These units would strike all across the front, hoping to create a breach in the South Korean defenses. Once a breach is created, these will pin down enemy forces to prevent them from closing the breach. In short, these are the expendable units that are likely to get mauled pretty bad in any offensive.

I, IV, & V Army Corps
280 MBT (160 T-54/55)
40 VTT-323
36 122mm SP
24 130mm SP
36 152mm SP
384 122mm Towed
96 152mm Towed
24 122mm MRL
24 200mm MRL
24 240mm MRL
48 160mm SPM

II Army Corps
240 MBT (120 T-54/55)
40 VTT-323
36 122mm SP
24 130mm SP
36 152mm SP
288 122mm Towed
72 152mm Towed
24 122mm MRL
24 200mm MRL
24 240mm MRL
48 160mm SPM

2nd Echelon: 2 Mechanized and 1 Tank Corps with fully mechanized infantry and heavy armor support. These are the exploitation units. When the first echelon creates a breach, they will pour through the hole in a blitzkrieg style attack, aiming to take key targets in the rear. As such, speed is essential, and, with one minor exception, these are the only units that are fully mechanized. These also have the entire inventory of T-62 medium tanks, BMP-1 ICVs, and M1985/PT-76 Light Tanks. No one else has any of these units. However, one of these units (probably the 815 mechanized) should be equipped with Type 59s, as there just aren’t enough T-62s to go around.

806 Mechanized Corps
200 MBT
50 Light Tank
200 VTT-323/BTR-60
144 122mm SP
144 152mm SP
120 122mm MRL

815 Mechanized Corps
160 MBT
40 Light Tank
160 VTT-323/BTR-60
120 122mm SP
120 152mm SP
96 122mm MRL

820 Armored Corps
600 MBT
200 Light Tank
200 BMP-1
160 VTT-323/BTR-60
154 122mm SP
24 130mm SP
154 152mm SP
48 122mm MRL
24 240mm MRL

Strategic Reserve: 2 Mechanized Corps with mechanized infantry and heavy armor support. These are the backup for the 2nd Echelon, and are the only other units that are fully mechanized. However, they lack the higher-end equipment of their front-line counterparts. These units will either be deployed to back up or replace the 2nd Echelon, should it get bogged down, or to exploit a second breach. These are probably equipped with Type 59 tanks (upgraded T-54s)

108 & 425 Mechanized Corps
200 Type 59
50 Light Tank
200 VTT-323/BTR-60
144 122mm SP
144 152mm SP
120 122mm MRL

Rear Echelon: 4 Infantry Corps with some armor support. These are the backup units for the first echelon, and will assist should get bogged down or suffer heavy casualties. These are organized along the same lines, but only have half the infantry force of the normal 1st Echelon units. They also have secondary garrison duties.

III, VII, VIII, & XII Army Corps
200 T-54/55
40 VTT-323
40 Light Tank
36 122mm SP
12 152mm SP
144 122mm Towed
48 152mm Towed
24 240mm MRL

Artillery: 2 Artillery Corps made up of large numbers of self-propelled tube and rocket artillery. These are independent formations made up entirely of artillery systems that would operate in support of attacking forces. With about 1500 systems, they would provide a good portion of the pre-invasion bombardment, and can be moved forward to support the 2nd Echelon if need be.

Kangdong Artillery Corps
144 122mm SP
144 130mm SP
144 152mm SP
144 122mm MRL
144 240mm MRL

620 Artillery Corps
48 170mm SP
144 122mm SP
144 130mm SP
144 152mm SP
144 122mm MRL
144 240mm MRL

Garrison: 4 Infantry Corps with minimal tank support. These units are the local defense forces that would stay in place even during an invasion of the south, and would not participate unless North Korea itself was attacked. They only have one or two infantry divisions each, with no armored brigades, and they’re equipped with cast off units, including the remaining T-34 tanks in Korean service.

IX & X Army Corps
80 T-34
144 122mm Towed
48 152mm Towed
24 122mm MRL
24 240mm MRL

VI & XI Army Corps
40 T-34
72 122mm Towed
24 152mm Towed
24 122mm MRL
24 240mm MRL

Special Forces: North Korea maintains 22 Commando Brigades totaling some 80,000 personnel, which are often classified as special forces. However, it should be noted that these are not true special forces, but rather elite light infantry closer to marines or paratroopers in other nations. In the advent of a war, these units would be inserted behind enemy lines to cause as much confusion and damage as possible. However, they’re poorly equipped and lack the communication capabilities to coordinate operations between multiple units, and they lack any real mobility or logistic support, so most will not be able to operate for very long. On the other hand, they do stay in their units for an exceptionally long time (up to seven years), so they develop a high degree of proficiency.

Please note that the equipment numbers are based on information gleamed from Globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm), combined with extra knowledge of Soviet-style organization. However, the information provided is not entirely accurate. Most notably, only about 2/3 of the self-propelled and 1/2 the rocket artillery the DPRK is supposed to have is represented, and there are listings for far more PT-76 and M1985 light tanks than have ever been in service. Additionally, it seems based on older information, showing about twice as many T-62s as there currently are believed to be (there were that many 10 years ago though). Still, it’s better info than I could get anywhere else.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

19-10-2004, 23:05

North Korean Army:

Personnel:
Active: 950,000
Reserve: 1.7 million (men 17-45, unmarried women 17-30, 40 days training per year)
Militia: 4.1 million (men 45-60, some men 17-45 and women 17-30, 30 days training per year)
Young Red Guards: 1.2 million (boys & girls 14-16, 800+ hours training per year)

Tanks:
1600 T-54/T-55
500 Type 59
800 T-62
400 PT-76/M1985
250 T-34

APCs/IFVs:
2500 BTR-40/BTR-50/BTR-60/BTR-80A/BTR-152/YW-531/M1973

Artillery:
2600 107mm/122mm/132mm/240mm MRL
4400 122mm/130mm/152mm/170mm SPH
3500 122mm/130mm/152mm towed
400 76.2mm/100mm towed
30+ SCUD/Na-Dong TBM
24 FROG-3/5/7 TBM

Antiaircraft:
250 ZSU-57-2 SPAA
100 ZSU-23-4 SPAA
500 KS-19 100mm towed AA
400 KS-12 85mm towed AA
1000 M-1939 37mm towed AA
1500 Zu-23 23mm towed AA
8000+ 14.5mm/57mm towed AA
11,000 SA-7/SA-16 shoulder-fired SAM

Anti-tank:
5000 AT-1/AT-3/AT-4/AT-5 ATGM

North Korean Air Force

Personnel:
86,000 active

Combat (fighters/strike/light bombers)
80 H-5 (Il-28 “Beagle”)
107 J-5 (MiG-17 “Fresco”)
100+ J-6 (MiG-19 “Farmer”)
150 J-7 (MiG-21 “Fishbed”)
45 MiG-23 (NATO: “Flogger”)
40 MiG-29 (NATO: “Fulcrum”)
40 Q-5 (NATO: “Fantan”)
18 Su-7 (NATO: “Fitter”)
35 Su-25 (NATO: “Frogfoot”)

Transports:
300 An-2 (NATO: “Colt”)
6 An-24 (NATO: “Coke”)
2 Il-18 (NATO: “”)
4 Il-62m
2 Tu-134
4 Tu-154

Helicopters:
24 Mi-24 (NATO: “Hind”)
140 Mi-2 (NATO: “Hoplite”)
15 Mi-8/17 (NATO: “Hip”)
48 Z-5
27 MD-500 (civilian model, used for special forces/espionage)
60 MD-500 (modified for combat)

Trainers:
187 CJ-5/CJ-6/Yak-18*
35 MiG-15 (NATO: “Fagot”)
6 MiG-21 (NATO: “Fishbed”)

Air Defense:
45 SA-2 fixed SAM battalions
7 SA-3 fixed SAM battalions
4 SA-5 fixed SAM battalions

North Korean Navy

Personnel:
40,000 – 60,000 active

Submarines:
22 “Romeo” SS (1700 tons)
4 “Whiskey” SS (1350 tons)
26 Sang-O small SS (277 tons – special forces)
45 SSI submersible (25 tons – special forces)

Light Frigates/Corvettes
1 Soho (1845 tons)
2 Najin (1500 tons)
3 Sariwon (500 tons)
2 Tral

Missile Boats
15 Soju (Osa derivative – 220 tons)
8 Osa (200 tons)
4 Huangfeng (Chinese Osa Derivative – 200 tons)
6 Sohung (80 tons)
10 Komar (80 tons)

Torpedo Boats
3 Shershen
40 Sin Hung (66.5 tons)
60 Ku Song (25 tons)

Patrol Craft
13 Taechong (410 tons)
6 Hainan (400 tons)
3 Chodo
6 Chong-Ju
18 SO-1 (215 tons)
12 Shanghai II (134.8 tons)
100 Other

Mine Countermeasures
23 Yukto (60 tons)

Amphibious
10 Hanatae LCU (350 tons – 3 tanks)
15 Hanchon LCU (145 tons – 2 tanks or 200 troops)
15 Hungnam LCM (70 tons – 100 troops)
100 Nampo LCVP (82 tons – 30 troops)
100 Chaho/Chong-Jin assault boat (82 tons – 25 troops)
140 Kongbang ACV (35-55 troops)

Coastal Defense
6 Silkworm antishipping missile battalions

Wretchengard

20-10-2004, 06:13

*Taggity*

DemonLordEnigma

20-10-2004, 06:50

Vastiva

20-10-2004, 08:26

Vastiva's police force is directly attached to the military - which in war gives us a great source for MPs and snipers (there's surprisingly little crime in Vastiva. And running from the police is... discouraged with lethal force).

Even as such, raising these forces into usable groups would take time.

Iuthia

20-10-2004, 12:48

[tag]

Clan Smoke Jaguar

20-10-2004, 13:05

One question this brings to mind: Am I handling my weaponry correctly?

One thing I have been doing on here is equipping my law enforcement with military-grade weaponry (tanks, space ships, powerful assault rifles...), some of which is not even available to the military itself (military is primarily space-based). A side-effect is my police force uses the equivolent of at least twice the amount of force my actual military does and actually outnumbers my military 2 to 1 in the space fleet category.

So, I'm asking if this seems to be god-moding, when dealing with this.

Why did this bring it up? Being able to use that to purchase three space fleets instead of just one, even though the other two are used only to enforce laws.
This all depends on the situation. In the most general sense, the police force is there to protect against internal problems, while the military deals with external ones. If your regime has a greater threat from your own population than the surrounding nations, than it is perfectly fine to have a police force that outnumbers the military.

However, as for numbers, that's a bit different. Both the police and military should have limited funding (they could be completely separate, or sharing from the same defense budget depending on what you want). The only way it would be godmoding would be if you the combined military and police budgets are too high (say, accounting for over 20% of your GDP). Really, it would be best if, even combined, they still didn't exceed 10% of your GDP.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

20-10-2004, 15:14

Okay, next up, we have the State of Israel, which is another nation that breaks a few of the rules, this time being the “no more than 2% in the active military” one. It’s also on the extreme end for a few other things as well.

Nation: Israel
Population: 6.2 million
GDP: $117.4 billion
GDP Per Capita: $18,935.48
Active Military Personnel: 172,000
Portion of Population: 2.77%
Military Spending: $9 billion
Portion of GDP: 7.67%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $52,325.58
Military Nature: All-or-nothing defensive
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means:
Israel is a small nation surrounded by hostile neighbors. As such, it has required a large military on constant alert to protect it. The military is moderately well funded, and this has translated into some good equipment and excellent training. Due to the size of the nation, there is only a single line of defense, that is required to hold out and defeat any attack, as the breaching of its defenses can easily spell doom for the tiny nation. The logistics and infrastructure are quite good, but are limited to supporting operations in or near the nation’s borders, with almost no interregional capability. Equipment is primarily modern, but do to realities in both budget and production, anything that can still be used is in service. This means equipment captured from previous wars (modified of course) and even some things dating back to WWII. However, the bulk of the units are still modern, if not quite top-of-the-line. Also due to the critical situation facing the country, a massive reserve force can be mobilized within days, faster than almost any other military.
Military spending and the portion of the population in the military are notably high, and Israel is the only nation with a truly modern force that comes anywhere near these levels. Again, this is due only to the hostile neighbors and lack of allies in the region. Of course, this has adversely affected the economy, but is a necessary evil if the country is to survive.

Equipment:
Israel relies heavily on its tank corps, and the 11 armored divisions (3 active, 8 reserve) possess well over 3500 main battle tanks, about half of which are the excellent Merkava series. The number two units are the 1150 Magach 5 and 6 tanks, which are M48 and M60 MBTs upgraded with modern systems and reactive armor. The Magach 7 (aka Sabra), which is a version boasting new passive armor rather than reactive, is in service in much smaller numbers. Added to this are about 300 Centurian tanks, which are based on a 1940s design. Finally, the 200+ Tiran 5 and 6 (captured and modified T-55 and T-62) units round out the force. It should also be noted that almost all of these designs are relatively slow by today’s standards. This is, however, not much of an issue because of the small area of the nation and the defensive tactics being used.
Israeli infantry is almost always mechanized, as static positions are of little value due to the nature of the defenses. The most valuable are the 1000+ Achzarit, Nagmashot, and Nagmachon APCs, which are literally T-55, Centurian, and M48 tanks modified for the infantry-carrying role. As such, these units are extremely well protected and excellent for urban engagements. Added to this are 7500 M113 units, all upgraded with additional armor, and 4000 WWII era M2/M3 halftracks. The only thing Israel lacks here is a solid IFV, which would definitely be a boon to their infantry forces.
The artillery force is the most widely varied part of the Israeli army, with 17 different models making up their 1500 or so systems. For towed systems, the bulk of the guns are relatively modern 155mm weapons accounting for 280 guns and 4 models. Added to this are about 70 older 105mm guns, and a handful of captured 122mm and 130mm weapons that remain in service (most of the 130mm guns were upgraded into 155mm). Naturally, self-propelled artillery is more common in the Israeli army, due to the mechanization, and the most important SP system is the 155mm M109 series, which accounts for 700 systems, or about 2/3 of the total force. Added to that are 150 L33 155mm guns (built on WWII Sherman tank chassis), and about 100 big M107 (175mm) and M110(203mm) guns to provide heavy support. The rocket artillery force is the most varied, with half a dozen models. A little over 1/3 of these (84 total) are captured 122mm and 240mm rocket launchers. The primary force, however, comes from four dozen US MLRS systems, and 40 home-built 290mm launchers. Finally, there are 50 160mm light rocket launchers to round things out. Strategic defense is provided by 7 US Lance and 100 new Jericho 2 SRBMs, which could be loaded with nuclear warheads that Israel is believed to have.
For air defense, there are over 800 towed 20mm guns, mostly M167s, which are the same Vulcan cannons used by US aircraft. There are also 35 M163s, which are the same guns mounted on an M113 for added mobility. There are also 150 captured Zu-23 towed guns in service, and 60 mobile ZSU-23-4s. In addition, a few hundred 37mm and 40mm guns also exist. The primary SAMs are the 1000 Redeye launchers, which are of only limited effectiveness. 250 Stingers provide much more effective backup, while four dozen of the deadly Chaparral vehicle round things out.
Israel’s antitank forces are a mix of old and new. The bulk of this force is made up of older Dragon ATGWs, which are powerful, but rather difficult to use. These are backed up by a number of captured Soviet AT-3 systems that can also be used. On the other hand, their heavy ATGWs include the modern TOW-2A and TOW-2B missiles, which are among the best in their class.

Israel’s air force is famous for its training and combat record, and as such has a lot of high-end combat aircraft. The most important of these are the 79 F-15 variants, which form the most elite and exclusive units in the air force. Most of these are older F-15C and A models, but 25 are the F-15I (a version of the F-15E Strike Eagle). In addition to the Eagles, Israel boasts 203 F-16A/B/C/D aircraft, and 20 newer F-16I models (with 83 more expected) round things out. Though quite old now, there are also some 70 heavily upgraded F-4E aircraft, and nearly 40 of the venerable A-4 to provide a ground-attack capability. These aircraft are all provided with a wide array of advanced guided and unguided weapons, including the home-built Python short-range AAM, and the longer ranged AMRAAMs. Reconnaissance is provided by 13 RF-4Es. Israel also has half a dozen AEW&C aircraft in the form of their own Phalcon unit, which is backed up by about 30 ELINT and EW aircraft of various types. Though not major issues due to the size of the nation and proximity of its enemies, Israel also maintains a trio of long-range maritime patrol aircraft, and 8 tankers for aerial refueling. The transport fleet, however, is negligible, with a pair of old Boeing 707s and a dozen C-130H aircraft making up most of the force. The only other units in service are 11 C-47s, the same model that dispensed American paratroopers in WWII. Israel does boast a solid attack helicopter force with almost 50 AH-64A Apache gunships, and 55 older AH-1E/F Cobras, even if these units are a bit dated. There’s also half a dozen ASW helicopters to help hunt the small number of submarines a few of the nation’s enemies possess. The Israelis are much better off in the transport helicopter department, with 40 large CH-53Es, 48 UH-60 variants, and 54 Bell 212s (a twin-engine Huey variant). There are also 44 Bell 206A aircraft, which are a civilian counterpart to the US OH-58. Israel also fields a wide range of UAVs for reconnaissance, though the exact numbers are unknown.
Finally, there are the SAMs. The Arrow 2 ABM system is up now with 2 batteries, while 3 batteries of Patriots provide normal long-range coverage. However, the bulk of the air defense is made up of 17 batteries of older Hawk SAMs, with 8 batteries of Chaparrals providing short-range fire. There are also a number of Stingers in service with the air force.

The Israeli navy, while modern, is very small, owing in part to the fact that there’s only one nation that poses a major naval threat. To deal with this, Israel has purchased a trio of Dolphin submarines (U212 variant) from Germany, giving it one of the best submarine forces in the region, with only Iran being able to match it. The surface force, however, is relatively small, with only 3 Sa’ar 5 corvettes and 9 Sa’ar 4 and 4.5 missile boats providing offensive power. There are also some 37 inshore patrol boats protecting the coast, and a pair of landing vessels that will probably not see much use even in wartime.

Requirements for Copying Israeli Military:
1. Very small nation (in area), or have most or all important targets very close to a hostile border (it needs to be possible to conquer you before anyone can get any assistance there)..
2. Have at least a Strong economy
3. RP economy 1 level below listed (ie, Strong is RPed as Good)
4. Have varied equipment, with some dating back to the formation of your nation’s army, or WWI, whichever comes first.
5. Have enemies directly bordering you totaling several times your population and at least 5 times the number of military personnel of you and any adjacent allies combined.
6. Reflect any previous invasion attempts with a number of captured units still in service with your nation.
7. Do not participate militarily in any conflict overseas.
8. RP any breach of your defenses, however minor, as a critical situation.

ORDER OF BATTLE

Active Force: 3 Armored Divisons, 3 Mechanized Infantry Brigades, 1 Airborne (Mechanized) Brigade, and 3 artillery battalions, plus 5 regional division headquarters controlling defense troops, 2 of which are COIN units tasked with controlling the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These provide the first defense against any sudden invasions, and would also be the units that would launch any preemptive attacks. In a major war, their primary objective is to hold off the enemy long enough for the reserves to mobilized, and having done so, help defeat the attacking forces.
It should be noted that the active strength of the armored divisions is only 2 armored brigades and an artillery brigade. Upon mobilization, an additional armored brigade, as well as a mechanized infantry brigade, will be attached.

3 Armored Divisions:
350 Merkava MBT
450 M113 APC
72 M109 SPH
24 MLRS or other 200mm+ MRL

2 COIN (Counter Insurgency) Divisions
150 M48/Tiran 5/Tiran 6
200 Achzarit/Nagmashot/Nagmachon APC

3 Artillery Battalions
24 122mm, 160mm, 240mm, and/or 290mm MRL

Reserves: Upon mobilization, 8 additional armored divisions, 1 Airmobile (Mechanized) Divison, and 10 regional infantry brigades can be called up within 72 hours. These units are meant to get into operation quickly to help repel any invasion and take the workload off their active counterparts. Some may not be up to full strength though, with some equipment missing.

8 Reserve Armored Division:
350 Merkava/Magach/Centurian MBT
350 M113 APC
72 M109/L33 SPH

Special Forces: Due to the nature of its existence, Israel has to rely heavily on special forces and intelligence units to help protect it, and the force is naturally extensive. For starters, each infantry brigade has a Palsar LRRP (Long Range Reconnaissance & PatroL) group to provide clandestine patrols behind enemy lines. Additionally, the military intelligence corps has several elite units for target acquisition, intelligence in Palestinian areas, and deep-cover operations. There is also a specialist antiterrorist force modeled somewhat after the SAS, and known as the Sayeret MATKAL.

Note that I couldn’t get any real detailed organization on the organization here, and this will be updated if and when I do.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

20-10-2004, 15:17

Israeli Army:

Personnel:
136,000 active
400,000+ reserve (can be mobilized within 72 hours)

Tanks:
Centurian: 300
Magach 5: 250 (upgraded M48A5)
Magach 6 Archuv: 300 (upgraded M60A1)
Magach 6 Archuv 2: 600 (upgraded M60A3)
Magach 7: 185 (upgraded M60A3)
Tiran 5: 115 (upgraded T-55)
Tiran 6: 100 (upgraded T-62)
Merkava 1/2/3: 1800

Recon:
BRDM-2: 400
Fuchs: 8

APC:
Achzarit: 270 (T-54/55 turned into APC)
Nagmash: 7500 (modified M113)
M2/M3 Halftrack: 4000
Nagmashot: 400 (Centurian turned into APC)
Nagmachon: 400 (M48 turned into APC)

Artillery:
M101 105mm towed: 70
D-30 122mm towed: 5
M36 130mm towed: 15
Soltam M-68/71 155mm towed: 50
Soltam M46 155mm towed: 100
M-839P/845P 155mm towed: 80
M114A1 155mm towed: 50
L33 155mm SPH: 150 (M4 Sherman chassis)
M109A1/2 155mm SPH: 700
M107 175mm SPG: 70
M110 203mm SPH: 36
BM-21 122mm MRL: 58
LAR-160 160mm MRL: 50
227mm MLRS: 48
BM-24 240mm MRL: 36
MAR-290 290mm MRL: 20
LAR-290 290mm MRL: 20
Lance SRBM: 7
Jericho 1/2 SRBM: 100

Antitank
TOW-2A/B ATGM: 300
Dragon ATGM: 900
Mapatz: 25 (copy of TOW-2)
M40A1 106mm RR: 250

Antiaircraft:
20mm towed AAG: 850
M163 SPAA: 35 (20mm AA on M113)
Zu-23 towed AAG: 150
ZSU-23-4 SPAA: 60
40mm towed AAG: 150
FIM-43 Redeye SAM: 1000
FIM-92 Stinger SAM: 250
MIM-72 Chaparral SAM: 48 (ground-launched Sidewinder)

Israeli Air Force

Personnel:
32,500 active
54,000 reserve (can be mobilized within 72 hours)

Combat (fighter, bomber, attack)
F-15I: 25
F-15C: 27
F-15A: 27
F-16I: 20
F-16D: 49
F-16C: 52
F-16B: 12
F-16A: 90
F-4E Kurnass 2000: 50
F-4E Kurnass: 20
A-4H/N: 39

Support (recon, AEW, EW, tanker)
RF-4E: 13
Phalcon AEW: 6
Gulfstream V ELINT: 3
EC-707: 3
King Air 2000: 4 (C-12 variant)
RC-12D: 3
IAI-201 ELINT: 10
IAI-200: 3
Do-28D: 4
IAI-1124 maritime patrol: 3
KC-707 tanker: 3
KC-130H tanker: 5

Cargo:
Boeing 707: 2
C-130H: 12
C-47: 11

Training:
TA-4J: 17
TA-4H: 10
CM-170: 43
Queen Air 80: 4

Liason:
Islander: 2
Cessna U-206: 20
Queen Air 80: 8

Attack Helicopter:
AH-64A: 49
AH-1F: 39
AH-1E: 16
AS-565A ASW: 5
SA-366G ASW: 1

Transport Helicopter:
CH-53A/D: 40
S-70A: 24 (UH-60 variant)
UH-60L: 14
UH-60A: 10
Bell 212: 54 (civilian UH-1N)
Bell 206A: 44 (Civilian OH-58)

SAMs
Arrow 2: 2 batteries
Patriot: 3 batteries
Hawk: 17 batteries
Chaparral: 8 batteries
Stinger: 35

Israeli Navy

Personnel:
9000 active
1000 reserve (can be mobilized within 72 hours)

Submarines:
Dolphin SS: 3 (1720 tons)

Corvettes:
Eilat Sa’ar 5: 3 (1275 tons)

Missile Boats:
Hetz/Nirit Sa’ar 4.5: 7 (488 tons)
Reshef Sa’ar 4: 2 (450 tons)

Inshore Patrol:
Super Dvora: 13 (54 tons)
Dabur PFI: 18 (45 tons)
Nashal PCI: 3
Bobcat PCC: 3

Amphibious:
Ashdod LCT: 1
LCM: 1

DemonLordEnigma

20-10-2004, 19:08

Vastiva

20-10-2004, 19:31

This all depends on the situation. In the most general sense, the police force is there to protect against internal problems, while the military deals with external ones. If your regime has a greater threat from your own population than the surrounding nations, than it is perfectly fine to have a police force that outnumbers the military.

However, as for numbers, that's a bit different. Both the police and military should have limited funding (they could be completely separate, or sharing from the same defense budget depending on what you want). The only way it would be godmoding would be if you the combined military and police budgets are too high (say, accounting for over 20% of your GDP). Really, it would be best if, even combined, they still didn't exceed 10% of your GDP.

Are you including courts and prisons in that figure? And do you mean of the government budget or the GDP (of which the government gets some)?

My combined Military/Law & Order is 11.4% of the government budget, but only 6.3% of the GDP.

Yep, we're slow this morning, it's pre-coffee time.

Vastiva

20-10-2004, 19:39

Actually, my military and law enforcement are large portions of my budget. That aside, I have the duty of providing all of the military firepower for the Free Lands of Tiamat Taveril due to a treaty, have both the space above my nation and a small planet I am protecting, patrol the combined space territories of 27 nations until those nations develop their own technology to do so, and my military is tasked with all space exploration. This is in addition to the strains the military and police will be under with potentially helping provide security in two space stations in the future and any military support one group, if I get in, will ask for. To add to this, I just discovered I have a large crime problem, part of which is spilling over from an unstable neighboring nation that may be on the brink of collapse.

Not bad for a young nation, eh?

Well, lets see... you're future tech, which means your logistics sits at about 25:1. Your major employer, therefore, is the "security and related services", with most of your workers doing something in support of that area.

Depends how you put "not bad". You aren't going to be doing much more then providing security for a very long time owing to logistics issues v finance. However, your nation is streamlined to that end.

The Lightning Star

20-10-2004, 19:59

Dra-pol

20-10-2004, 20:53

Being as Dra-pol (The Choson People's Republic of) is an alternate North Korea currently playing realistic population rather than the absurd listed billions, I find the issue of the DPRK's unique military and situation especially interesting. I would myself have hesitated to call the KPA's soldiers poorly trained, at least in noting that the DPRK is said to have the world's largest special forces at its command. There are plenty of well documented cases of North Korean commandos performing impressively against ROKA and other security forces in the South. A pair of commandos were on the run for months, chased by half the army, and managed to kill a totally disproportionate number of their enemies in the process while completely cut-off from any means of support.

We really don't know much about infrastructure supporting the KPA, either, and can sometimes only speculate about how much of it is below ground. In Dra-pol's case, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of foodstuffs are stored below ground and entirely reserved for the military in spite of chronic malnutrition attracting millions of dollars worth of international aid for the civilian populace. I believe that fairly similar if less extreme conditions may exist in the DPRK.

The CPRD has 'liberated' Seoul in my RP universe, and with it about half of the ROK's landmass, and much of this was achieved through extensive tunnel warfare. Kim Il-Sung compared the value of tunnels to nuclear weapons in the DPRK's future survival, and the CPRD feels similarly. In our universe, thousands of fanatical and heavily trained commandos came up under the feet of the defenders and under their beds as they slept on key military facilities within tens of kilometres of the border. Tunneling on such a scale would perhaps seem to be beyond the capacities of painfully poor capitalist nations, but in mobilising (arguably inefficient) public works on a significant scale, centrally planned economies can sometimes throw caution to the wind in wacky projects like that. How extensive are such programmes in reality is anyone's guess, I suppose.

Dra-pol has found that old equipment can be perfectly well suited to specific circumstances, though it is recognised that the CPRD, like the DPRK, can't operate very extensively beyond its own back garden... it's own chosen battleground for which its seemingly primitive force is tailor-made. In our case, the massive commando forces did much to cut-off several key infrastructure facilities without ever having to employ much modern equipment, and AN-2 biplanes were quite able to insert hundreds more troops, often flying below radar, through Korea's mountains, and so on. Our airforce seemed horribly inferior, with inferior avionics, fewer long-range missiles, and less flying-hours per pilot thanks to fuel shortages and concern for stress to aged airframes... but what training our pilots had, as I would assume is the case in the DPRK, was focused on close-in engagement of big modern planes set up -and their pilots trained for- stand-off engagement which we were never going to allow them. That is to say, those forward bases mentioned in the run-down of the DPRK's forces also existed in Dra-pol, and meant that advance aircraft popped-up out of and over the hills not more than a couple of minutes before falling upon South Korean airbases. Our own primitive subsonic jets and Vietnam-era ground-attack aircraft either destroyed aircraft on the ground or wrecked their facilities while Dra-pol's chosen Fishbed-spinoff was within engagement range of superior enemy aircraft almost as soon as it lifted-off... and since only a small part of the enemy airforce would just happen to be airborn and on patrol at the time, it was over-whelmed at close quarters, often by cannon-fire, as smaller jets with pilots trained for such actions engaged much fewer big modern jets with pilots expecting to be blanking out little dots on a radar screen.

Then the artillery... not high-tech, but still able to hit some forward bases, and later used as a bargaining chip given the destruction that it could have rained on Seoul and other northern cities. Large enemy forces were shown that millions of civilians would die in minutes if they fought on.

Of course, that was before I started using a realistic population, so the fact was that we had hundreds of thousands of artillery tubes, rather than just thousands today.

Yeah, uhm, what was my point? I dunno. I just enjoy running my Dra-pol :) It's getting harder with the realistic population... previously I had the capacity to do all sorts of things that the DPRK can't, now I'm struggling to justify even being able to build Vietnam-era fighter jets domestically.

I don't pay any attention to the economic rating my nation has, because any idiot can make it frightening if he wants to, and that's just not realistic, is it? In NS, nations like the CPRD are better-off than is the DPRK, because in NS the cold war era is not over... we still have Soviet Unions stamping about willing to provide us with decent equipment where it makes political sense for them to do so. It's not reliable, but there you go. I mean, if you think about it, a lot of the equipment NK has was reasonably efficient when it was received... it's just that they haven't been getting hand-outs for years if not decades since relations with Moscow went askew and then the USSR broke-up. If it was still going, perhaps Pyongyang would not be the only Korean city defended by MiG-29s or what have you.

Damn, this really wasn't important to any players who aren't me, was it? Heh.

Vastiva

20-10-2004, 23:19

Well, Dra-pol, it actually was interesting, as it shows how a player can RP a nation without having to *poof* huge megamodern stuff into it. It showed how tactics beats technology. And it showed how to have fun, even when you're not the "top of the heap" so to speak.

Very good read. Thank you!

Clan Smoke Jaguar

20-10-2004, 23:46

Understand Dra-Pol, that "Low" isn't the bottom rung. That would be something more like "virtually nonexistant," and there are nations where that applies.

However, all said, there are few militaries that are taken seriously that spend less than 4 times what the DPRK does per soldier, and they simply don't have the resources to give their personnel proper training. They'll have decent conditioning and indoctrination, and a high degree of professionalism, but when it comes down to it, they're lacking in live fire drills and serious combat exercises. Their commandos are not bad, but much of that comes from the fact that they actually see action frequently, and also that training small light infantry forces is a lot cheaper than large mechanized formations, so they can afford a bit more.

Though they're improving there, one of the main things that have hurt them for a long time is communication, especially with the effects of overcentralized command common to such regimes. For example, most artillery fire and air strikes will still be at predesignated targets rather than on the basis of where they're actually needed by the troops being "supported."

As for RPing as the REAL DPRK, that's a very good thing and it's good to mention something like that here. Far too many people can get carried away with their official stats. On the other hand, RPing like that should only be done by those who are experienced. For others, the in-game stats help to provide a genuine guidance (and limitation) for players, helping keep godmoding in check.

The Lightning Star

20-10-2004, 23:49

Dra-pol

21-10-2004, 00:25

Heh, thanks, I'll ramble about the CPRD any time.

Anyway, yeah, fair enough point about the live fire and such training. They traditionally get at least the one massive exercise each year, but I think in recent years it hasn't always happened on the proper scale. As I say, Dra-pol's lucky in having still some viable backers left, whom we have to be uncharacteristically careful to avoid offending.
I suppose I should at least have mentioned in that last rambling post that in spite of mentioned success, Dra-pol did end up stuck half way down the ROK when we went further than our tunnels extended and supplies had to move above ground, where they got bombed to hell. In hindsight it may have been best to give-up trying to keep the armoured push going with all its associated heavy equipment and vulnerable supplies, and to try for our own Ho Chi Minh trail approach, but instead the regime abandoned its most forward Assault Division to the slaughter and dug-in for a favourable armistice.

Hm. I think I've taken this a bit off track... I should comment on a central theme... if only I could remember what they were :)

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 03:36

Country: Syria
Population: 18 million
GDP: $64 billion
GDP Per Capita: $3555.56
Active Military: 270,000
Portion of Population: 1.5%
Military Spending: $1 billion?
Portion of GDP: 1.56%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $3703.70
Military Nature: Primarily offensive (specialize in breaching defenses)
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: High
Training: Low
Equipment: Outdated

What it means:
Syria is a nation with a rather large, but poorly funded and equipped military. The only lights they see are the large amounts of equipment and the significant experience they’ve gained through local counterinsurgency and the 18-year Israeli operation in Lebanon. As such they are experienced, but poorly trained. Interestingly, the nation could afford to spend more on the military, but instead invests more in other domestic areas. The military has a proud history, but has been slowly declining, owing at least some to the defeats it has suffered at the hands of Israel, its primary enemy, and the primary focus of its military might. On the other hand, with the military spending not dragging down the economy like in many other nations, Syria has a decent infrastructure. However, they still don’t have the capability to act in nations that don’t border them.
Another big problem they have is in direct support. Due to poor training and leadership, there are serious deficiencies in their artillery and air support services, which can easily be exploited.

Equipment:
Syria specializes in armored breaching operations, and are thus quite heavy on tanks and IFVs. However, currently, their armor force is of limited capability. Of 4700 tanks, 2000 are older T-54/55 variants (albeit upgraded), while a further 1000 are T-62Ms. Further, half the T-54/55 tanks are attached to static defensive positions. The remaining 1700 are T-72M1 tanks, which, though capable, are becoming increasingly outdated. It should be noted that all tanks are variants that can fire ATGMs, though the only one’s that I see evidence of this feature being used on are the T-55s, whose AT-10 missiles are listed in the ATGM inventory.
Syria also has a greater reconnaissance force than most militaries, with several hundred BRDM-2 scout cars, and more interestingly 125 of the chemical/radiological detection variant. The latter provides a service seriously lacking in many armies.
The nature of the Syrian military can easily be seen in its APC/IFV inventory. Indeed, it’s the first one mentioned that has any real force of IFVs, even going as far as to have more of those than the traditionally more numerous APCs. Still, the 2600 BMP-1s are quite old now, and only a handful of more modern BMP-2s and BMP-3s exist. This is backed up by some 1600 BTR series and OT-64 APCs, all of which are old, dating back to the Vietnam War.
The bulk of the Syrian artillery force, surprisingly enough, is towed, though the focus is on more mobile light guns. Of 1630 towed guns, 750 are 122mm, and 800 are 130mm. Of the remainder, all but 10 are 152mm. The final 10 are long-range 180mm field guns. Self-propelled artillery includes some 400 outdated 122mm 2S1s, and 50 similarly old 2S3 155mm guns. The rocket force is entirely light, with 480 107 and 122mm launch systems. The real killer here is the long-range missiles. With 36 FROG and SS-21 launchers, they have an excellent tactical striking force good out to 120 km, while the 26 launchers for the longer-ranged SCUD can reach most targets in Israel. There are also a handful of cruise and antishipping missile launchers that may see some action. For the most part, the Syrian artillery force is poorly led and trained, and has little flexibility to do things such as shift fires or respond quickly to calls for support, a situation that has caused problems time and again.
The Syrian army also has a decent antitank force. Though the 3500 older AT-3s still make up the bulk of the force, some 300 new AT-14s give infantry an excellent tank-killing capability. There are also a number of AT-7 and Milan infantry ATGMs, which are also quite lethal, if not as capable, and there are still some older AT-4s, though those aren’t that useful these days. Vehicle launched units include the previously mentioned AT-10s, along with AT-5s.
Air defense is provided mostly by gun systems. However, with 400 self-propelled ZSU-23-4 guns, there is a decent capability here. Towed guns are primarily the 57mm S-60 and Zu-23 twin 23mm guns, though a handful of 100mm and 37mm guns also exist. SAM forces, however, are quite weak. While rather numerous, the 4000 SA-7 missiles are of only limited use, and while capable, the SA-9 and SA-13 systems are just too uncommon to be of much value.

The air force, though small, has some good capability. Though its 20 Su-24s are the only truly dedicated ground attack aircraft, 44 MiG-23BN, 90 Su-22, and 14 MiG-29SMT fighter-bombers help back them up, giving a significant ground attack force, especially compared to similar-sized air forces. However, the MiG-23 and Su-22 are older designs, and only the Su-24s and MiG-29s are truly effective units. The fighter force relies heavily on its 170 MiG-21 and 90 MiG-23 aircraft, both quite outdated designs. However, a small force of 22 MiG-29 aircraft gives some modern combat capability. The 30 MiG-25s are almost a nonentity, being to expensive to operate to see much use outside of an emergency. The Syrian aircraft are, however, armed with some excellent missiles, including the deadly AA-10s for their MiG-29s. However, with the AA-8 being their newest version, they have a notable lack of modern short-range missiles, leaving them at a potentially major disadvantage in close-range engagements. It should also be noted that Syrian aircraft have a horrible record against the Israelis, going 0 for 86 during fighting over Lebanon in 1985. Problems with the air force stem as much from poor leadership and maintenance as lack of effective modern aircraft.
The reconnaissance force is good, but of limited utility against the primary opponent. The MiG-25Rs are designed for fast, high-altitude reconnaissance runs, which the Israeli air defense network does stand a good chance of intercepting. The MiG-21s are even less capable.
The transport fleet, on the other hand, is decent, including several large transport aircraft. However, with the limited scope of Syrian operations, there doesn’t seem to be any real reason for such large aircraft. On the other hand, many are used for civilian purposes when not operated by the military, so that may explain it.
The helicopter force is notable, with 48 Hind-D helicopters providing a solid gunship service, and a similar number of Gazelle light attack helicopters to back them up. Transport is handled by about 100 Mi-8 and Mi-17 Hip utility helicopters.

The Syrian navy is almost exclusively equipped to deal with Israel, something which it is certainly incapable of doing without help. Though there are similar numbers of units, the Syrian ships are notably outdated and under-gunned. Two Petya class light ASW frigates provide a sub-hunting capability, but the units are extremely old and of limited utility. Backing them up are 10 similarly aged Osa II small missile boats, whose SS-N-2 missiles are seriously outclassed by Israeli Gabriel and Harpoon weapons, especially considering that the Israeli boats all have CIWS mounts to help stop incoming missiles, as well as better radar and fire control.
The real surprise comes from the relatively large ASW helicopter force. With 16 ASW helicopters and 2 ASW frigates, Syria has one of the best antisubmarine capabilities in the Middle East. Unfortunately, all the units are outdated, and may not be enough to counter the new Israeli Dolphin submarines.

Requirements for copying the Syrian Military
1. At least one major hostile neighbor
2. A fragile economy or better
3. Have the majority of equipment be at least 30-40 years old (can be waived if economy is developing or better)
That’s it. With a reason for an army that big, you have nothing else needed. The Syrian military is well within the means of its parent nation to support, and would actually be a relatively good model for nations just starting out, though they would have to exclude the experience bonus.

ORDER OF BATTLE

I Corps: The primary force in the Syrian military, this is comprised of 5 Armored Divisions, 2 Mechanized Infantry Divisions, 1 Republican Guard Divison, 1 Special Forces Division, 2 Independent Tank Brigades, and 4 Independent Special Forces Regiments (whew!). This force, which accounts for over half the total military strength, covers the capital of Damascus and the border with Israel. Not surprisingly, almost all of the offensive power of the Syrian army is here, with only 2 armored and 1 mechanized division being deployed elsewhere. In a war with Israel, these forces would be the ones committed to an attack.

II Corps: This force consists the remaining armored and mechanized divisions, along with 2 Special Forces Regiments and 1 Coastal Defense Missile Brigade; and is responsible both for the occupation of Lebanon and the defense of the coastline. In a war, the units here will join with their counterparts to strike into Israel.

III Corps: The final unit which covers the less hostile borders with Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey, as well as the interior of Syria itself. It consists of 4 Independent Infantry Brigades, 1 Independent Armored Regiment, 4 Special Forces Brigades, and 1 Border Guard Brigade. If not for the facts that relations with the other countries are relatively stable, and that most of the area being covered is worthless desert, this force could be seriously overextended. Indeed, with some disputes with Turkey over the attempt to divert the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and the situation in Iraq, they might find it a good idea to station more units on those borders.

Special Forces: Syria boasts a large number of special forces personnel in one division and 10 independent brigades. Of these, most are trained primarily as elite infantry like their North Korean counterparts, along with commando training. However, they also have access to heavy equipment if need be. These units are tasked with both supporting military operations and suppressing insurgents. The true special forces capability lies within a single regiment, known as “Al Saiqa” (Lightning), and is the antiterrorist force in the Syrian military. However, it is also used for most covert missions as well, having operated in Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank, and even occasionally in Israel.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 03:41

Army:

Personnel:
225,000 active
Unknown reserve (300,000 in 1985)

Tanks:
T-54/55: 2000
T-62M: 1000
T-72M: 1700

Recon:
BRDM-2 ASC: 600
BRDM-2Rkh: 125 (Chemical/Radiological detector)

APC/IFV:
BMP-1: 2600
BMP-2/3: 100
BTR-40/50/60/152 & OT-64: 1600

Artillery:
122mm Towed: 750
130mm Towed: 800
152mm Towed: 70
180mm Towed: 10
2S1 122mm SP: 400
2S3 152mm SP: 50
Type 63 107mm MRL: 200
BM-21 122mm MRL: 280
FROG-7 SSM: 18
SS-21 SSM: 18
SCUD B/C: 26
SS-C-1B SSM: 4
SS-C-3 SSM: 6

Antitank:
AT-3: 3500
AT-4: 150
AT-5: 200
AT-7: 200
AT-10: 2000
AT-14: 300
Milan: 200

Antiaircraft:
Zu-23 towed: 650
ZSU-23-4 SPAA: 400
M1939 37mm towed: 300
S-60 57mm towed: 675
ZSU-57-2 SPAA: 10
KS-19 100mm towed: 25
SA-7 SAM: 4000
SA-9 SP SAM: 20
SA-13 SP SAM: 35

Air Force:

Personnel:
40,000 active
20,000 reserve

Combat (Fighter/Attack/Bomber)
Su-24: 20
MiG-23BN: 44 (fighter-bomber)
Su-22: 90 (fighter-bomber)
MiG-29SMT: 14 (fighter-bomber)
MiG-29A: 22
MiG-25: 30
MiG-23: 90
MiG-21: 170

Support (Recon/ELINT/EW)
MiG-25R: 6
MiG-21H/J RC: 8

Transport:
An-26: 4
Falcon 20: 2
Il-76: 6
Yak-40: 6
Tu-134: 6
Falcon 900: 1

Helicopter:
Mi-25: 48 (aka Mi-24 Hind-D)
SA-342L: 42
Mi-8: 60
Mi-17: 40
Mi-2: 10

Training:
L-39: 80
MBB-223: 20
MiG-21U: 20
MiG-23UM: 6
MiG-25U: 5
MFI-17: 6
MiG-29UB: 6

Navy:

Personnel:
4000 active
2500 reserve

Light Frigates:
Petya II: 2 (1150 tons)

Missile Boats:
Osa: 10 (235 tons)

Patrol Craft:
Zhuk PFI: 8

Mine Countermeasures
T-43: 1
Sonya MSO: 1
Yevgenya MSI: 3

Amphibious:
Polnochny LSM: 3 (844 tons)

Aviation:
Mi-14: 12
Ka-28: 4

Neo Latium

21-10-2004, 12:00

1) Your 2 million invasion force will not work unless your supply line is umharmed

Not entirely true. Supplies to the German Army during the First World War were significantly harmed by the British blockade. Though supplies of bullets and shells reached the front, their was a widespread shortage of food, yet of course, they continued to fight.....

Rawrnation

21-10-2004, 13:07

Larix-Kura

21-10-2004, 13:15

Tag

Excelent post. That militia is an interesting idea. That could be incorporated into say, a totalitarian military program. And great research. Come up with some more stuff on other topics. Such as perhaps the diverse types of military programs different countries used, that would be interesting.

The Merchant Guilds

21-10-2004, 13:39

I've been around NationStates for a few months now but have yet to RP in the forums. But I need help with all the statistics for the military, here's what I've got so far.

Nation: The Kingdom of Rawrnation
Population: 197 million
GDP: $3,460,044,814,233.33
GDP Per Capita: $17,563.68
Active Military Personnel:
Reserves:
Militia:
Portion of Population: 5% (9,850,000)
Military Spending: $512,317,548,324.00
Portion of GDP: 14%
Spending Per Active Soldier:
Military Nature: Rounded
Infrastructure: High
Logistics Support: Extremely High
Experience: None
Training: Advanced
Equipment: Modern (So far)

Basically, I've been trying to figure out what I should do with the bold. Any suggestions, comments, snide remarks?

Ok, first of all you have a 5% of your pop in your military, you're troops would be trained in realistic terms basically (sort of Saddam Iraqi pre-Iran war). They are not going to be of the same sort of training as lets say Britain/France or the U.S. Also, your equipment is going to be pretty low-tech for that military budget. I suggust you cut down to 0.5% or 1% of your population, much more economical :) e.g my entire military is 7.5 million people but i'm 878 million in pop.

You need to give a lot more detail of your military: e.g.

How many people are involved in your support system:
Is it a volenteer force? (I doubt it at that size)
How does your economy cope with that size of a military?
What tech level do you have?
What are your troops actually equipped with?
How do your troops get supplied?
Whats your command/military structure?
Ranks in your military?
What is the standard unit?
Any specialist units?
What are your troops trained for in terms of terrain?
What specialists do you units require?
etc etc.

You're going to need to sit down and do some working out, my friend :)

Rawrnation

21-10-2004, 15:57

Ok, first of all you have a 5% of your pop in your military, you're troops would be trained in realistic terms basically (sort of Saddam Iraqi pre-Iran war). They are not going to be of the same sort of training as lets say Britain/France or the U.S. Also, your equipment is going to be pretty low-tech for that military budget. I suggust you cut down to 0.5% or 1% of your population, much more economical :) e.g my entire military is 7.5 million people but i'm 878 million in pop.

You need to give a lot more detail of your military: e.g.

How many people are involved in your support system:
Is it a volenteer force? (I doubt it at that size)
How does your economy cope with that size of a military?
What tech level do you have?
What are your troops actually equipped with?
How do your troops get supplied?
Whats your command/military structure?
Ranks in your military?
What is the standard unit?
Any specialist units?
What are your troops trained for in terms of terrain?
What specialists do you units require?
etc etc.

You're going to need to sit down and do some working out, my friend :)

:( :eek: :headbang:

:D

Thanks a bunch. That was just a alpha-version anyway.

>_> That and I didn't feel it was necessary to put the majority of that info up yet.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 16:08

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 17:58

Country: Republic of Korea (aka South Korea)
Population: 48.5 million
GDP: $941.5 billion
GDP Per Capita: $19,142.37
Active Military: 690,000
Portion of Population: 1.42%
Military Spending: $13.0943 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.39%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $18,977.25
Military Nature: Forward defense
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Good
Experience: Moderate
Training: Good
Equipment: Modern

What it means:
The ROK military is designed for the sole purpose of defending the nation against an invasion from the north. Due to the location of the capital (50 km from the border), the ROK has invested heavily in a strong forward defense, with a series of fortifications and almost its entire active force covering the area from the DMZ to Seoul. Defenses are primarily infantry in static fortifications, with a few mechanized divisions that are tasked with countering any breakthroughs. The military is well-trained and supported, though not excessively financed. The nation has very large reserve forces, though most are territorial militias rather than real combat units, and they will take several days to call up. Equipment is generally good, but not exceptional, thanks in part to significant aid provided by the US, and frequent skirmishes at the DMZ have allowed soldiers to maintain a decent edge. Still, the nation has little capability to carry offensive operations, and American forces could be expected to lead any counterattack into North Korean territory. Additionally, there is only a limited deployment capability, which is just enough to allow a few special forces brigades to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.

Equipment:
The primary tanks in South Korean service are the 1250 upgraded M47 and M48 Patton tanks, which are essentially an even match for the older T-55s and T-62s in North Korean service. However, there are also 1000 K1s (an indigenous design based on the Abrams). Most of these are the basic model, which is armed with a 105mm gun and is equivalent to the early M1 variants, but a few hundred are newer K1A1s, which have 120mm guns and are closer to the M1A1. There are also about 80 Russian T-80Us backing up the K1s.
South Korea has only a moderate mechanized infantry contingent, with their three mechanized divisions making up most of the force. These are armed primarily with the nation’s 1700 KIFVs, which are a modern APC based on the M113. Backing those up are 580 M113 variants, 200 Fiat 6614 armored cars, and 20 Soviet BTR-80s. There’s also a small contingent of 40 Soviet BMP-3 IFVs.
Artillery includes some 1700 towed 105mm guns, including both the older US M101 and a South Korean derivative. These are backed up by 1800 155mm towed guns, mostly US M114s and their South Korean Derivatives. Self-propelled artillery has been gaining in importance, and there are now over 1000 155mm M109 howitzers, operated almost exclusively by the 3rd Army. Added to this are a handful of 175mm and 203mm self-propelled guns, and there are also a number of 130mm MRLs to provide fire support, and a small number (about 30) of US MLRS launchers to provide heavy fire. The final touch is a dozen NHK-1 ballistic missiles, based off of long-range SAMs.
Antitank forces are mainly TOW missiles, though a handful of Russian-built AT-7s complement them, and there are an impressive 7000+ recoilless rifles of various calibers to back them up. Finally, there are 8 M18 and 50 M36 tank destroyers, all dating back to WWII.
Air defense is notable, consisting mainly of towed 20mm, 30mm, 35mm, and 40mm antiaircraft guns. There are, however, some 550 shoulder fired SAMs, primarily Javelins, but with a number of Stingers, Redeyes, and Iglas thrown in. There are also 170 mobile Mistral launchers. More static defense is maintained by 110 Hawk medium-range, and 200 Nike-Hercules long-range SAMs (the latter being the predecessor to the Patriot). This provides a modest air defense, but considering the North Korean air force, it might even be overkill.
South Korea is also the first one mentioned here that maintains an aviation branch in the army. The others had all their support aircraft in the air force, which can be dangerous with interservice rivalries. The force consists of a modest number of AH-1, BO-105, and 500MD attack helicopters (117 in all), and has a further 130 500MDs in the utility role. This is supported by 130 UH-60s, 20 UH-1Ns, and 18 CH-47Ds. South Korea has also acquired a few MH-47E special operations helicopters to support their special forces.

The Air Force is rather small, but still has a good 150+ F-16 fighters, giving an excellent capability against the older North Korean Aircraft. These are backed up by 185 F-5s, which compare well against North Korean MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft, and 130 older F-4s, which are good against the MiG-21s, but are primarily tasked with ground attack. The other two designs are also effective ground attack aircraft. These aircraft are also well armed with modern missiles, including HARMs, Mavericks, Sidewinders, and AMRAAMs, giving them far greater ground and air combat capabilities than their North Korean counterparts.
The air force also maintains a number of aircraft for counter insurgency operations, as well as about 30 forward air control aircraft. Reconnaissance is naturally spearheaded by RF-4s, which make up 2/3 of the substantial force. The remainder are RF-5s and a few Hawker 800RA aircraft. A further 7 Hawker 800XPs provide the nations airborne ELINT capability.
Transport aircraft include a handful of modified airliners and about 10 C-130Hs, with 20 CN-220s backing them up.
For helicopters, there are 9 UH-1N/Bell 212 aircraft for search and rescue duties, along with 6 CH-47s for general transport. There are also 3 AS332s and 3 VH-60 helicopters, the latter providing transport for VIPs.

South Korea also maintains a modest marine corps, with a handful of tanks and artillery guns, about 100 AAV amphibious transport vehicles, and a number of truck-launched Harpoon antishipping missiles for coastal defense.

The Navy here is also the first major one listed, with 6 Destroyers and 9 Frigates, as well as 9 patrol submarines and 28 corvettes. This makes it capable of defeating the North Korean navy with little trouble, and even giving the Chinese forces in the area a run for their money. There are also 75 inshore patrol craft, primarily tasked with countering North Korean special forces insertions. The landing force is also quite notable, including 10 upgraded WWII-era LSTs and a number of smaller LSMs, LCUs, and LCMs, giving the capability for a significant amphibious operation using the small Marine Corps.

Requirements for copying ROK Military:
1. A powerful hostile neighbor with intentions of conquest
2. Most key targets within a few dozen km of the border.
3. Have at least a Fair economy
4. Allow only limited forces (a few brigades) outside borders for peacekeeping duties
This is also not to hard to put together, and is a good model for nations that have been around a week or two, so long as they get requirement 1 filled.

ORDER OF BATTLE

1st ROK Army: This unit is responsible for defending the eastern half of the border with North Korea. Its 3 corps commands control 8 infantry divisions stretching from the DMZ to Seoul 50 km to the south. Backing up the active force are 5 reserve and 1 homeland defense divisions, all infantry formations. As these units are defending rugged terrain that is not conducive to the blitzkrieg style warfare that the DPRK needs to use, they are of secondary importance, and thus there are fewer units here than in the west, as well as a much smaller portion of heavy equipment like tanks.

II ROK Corps (3 Infantry Divisions)
44 K1
132 M48A5
18 130mm MRL
48 203mm towed
168 155mm towed
216 105mm towed
36? 500MD

III ROK Corps (3 Infantry Divisions)
176 M48A5
18 130mm MRL
48 203mm towed
168 155mm towed
216 105mm towed

VIII ROK Corps (2 Infantry, 1 Reserve Division)
160 M48A5
18 130mm MRL
120 155mm towed
240 105mm towed

Mobilization Forces (4 Reserve, 1 Homeland Defense Division)
28 M47
120 155mm towed
360 105mm towed

3rd ROK Army: This unit is responsible for defending the much more important western part of the DMZ, which leads to the most likely invasion corridors. As such, it gets a lot more than its counterpart, with 10 infantry divisions, 4 mechanized infantry divisions, and 1 marine division. There are also 3 independent armored and 2 independent infantry brigades, with 6 reserve and 2 homeland defense divisions providing further backup. Regular infantry divisions will generally operate from static defensive positions, while the mechanized divisions are tasked with counterattacking any enemy breakthroughs, and are thus held further from the DMZ.

Capital Corps (1 Infantry, 1 Marine Division)
44 M48A5
44 M47
42 AAV7A1
18 130mm MRL
192 155mm towed
72 105mm towed

I ROK Corps (3 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Division)
308 K1
146 M48A5
264 KIFV
18 130mm MRL
13 203mm SP
40 175mm SP
192 155mm SP
72 155mm towed
144 105mm towed
36? MD500

V ROK Corps (3 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Capitol Defense Division)
176 K1
132 M48A5
44 KIFV
88 M113
18 130mm MRL
288 155mm SP
24 155mm towed
144 105mm towed
6 NHK-1 SSM
35? MD500

VI ROK Corps (2 Infantry, 1 Mechanized Division)
264 K1
88 M48A5
264 KIFV
18 130mm MRL
216 155mm SP
48 155mm towed
144 105mm towed
18? MD500

VII ROK Corps (2 Mechanized Division)
176 K1A1
176 K1
440 KIFV
29 MLRS
18 130mm MRL
288 155mm SP
6 NHK-1 SSM
18? MD500

Mobilization Forces (6 Reserve, 2 Homeland Defense Division)
28 M47
144 155mm towed
480 105mm towed

2nd ROK Army: This unit is tasked with protecting everything south of the capital of Seoul, and consists of 2 Corps with 7 homeland defense divisions. These units are unlikely to see actual combat with DPRK ground forces unless Seoul is reached, in which case they will assist their frontline counterparts.

IX ROK Corps (4 Homeland Defense Division)
48 M47
14 M113
96 155mm towed
24 105mm towed

XI ROK Corps (3 Homeland Defense Division)
72 155mm towed
24 105mm towed
72 40mm towed AA

Capital Defense Command: This unit is designed more to protect the government from any coup attempts than to engage a North Korea invasion, and the active strength includes three regiments defending key government facilities. In addition, there is a marine brigade defending the southwestern islands, with a reserve force consisting of 2 reserve and 3 home defense infantry divisions.

Command (2 Reserve, 3 Homeland Defense Division)
48? M47
144? 155mm towed
120? 105mm towed

Aviation Command: This force is made of a single brigade and several independent battalions that possess the bulk of the South Korean helicopter force. With the exception of the MD500 and BO-105 light helicopters, all others are placed here under centralized command. This includes the AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters as well as CH-47 cargo, and UH-60P utility helicopters.

Command: (1 Brigade, several battalions)
60 AH-1
18 CH-47
130 UH-60P
20 UH-1H

Special Forces: Made up of 7 airborne brigades trained similarly to US Green Berets. True special forces come in the form of the 707th Special Mission Battalion, which is the primary cover operations and antiterrorist unit.

Note that equipment totals are based on educated guesses based on standard organizations and unit numbers, and may not be that accurate. As with many armies, finding exact info is quite difficult.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 17:59

Army:

Personnel:
560,000 active
1,100,000 Homeland Reserve (includes both reserves and local militia)

Tanks:
Type 88: 1000 (aka K1/K1A1)
M47: 400
M48A5: 850
T-80U: 80

APCs/IFVs:
BMP-3: 40
KIFV: 1700
M113: 420
KM-900: 200 (aka Fiat 6614)
M577 CPV: 140
BTR-80: 20

Artillery:
105mm towed: 1700
155mm & 203mm towed: 1800
M109A2 155mm SP: 1040
K-9 155mm SP: 36
M107 175mm SP: 40
M110 203mm SP: 13
Kooryong 130mm MRL: 156
MLRS 227mm: 29
NHK-1 SSM: 12 (based on Nike/Hercules SAM)

Antitank:
TOW-2A & AT-7 ATGM: 6000+
57mm, 75mm, 90mm, & 106mm RR: 7000+
M18 SPAT: 8 (WWII era)
M36 SPAT: 50 (WWII era)

Antiaircraft:
M167 20mm towed: 60
30mm SP: 20
35mm SP: 20
40mm towed: 80
Javelin SAM: 350
Redeye SAM: 60
Stinger SAM: 200
Hawk SAM: 110
Nike Hercules SAM: 200
Mistral SAM: 170

Aircraft:
AH-1F/J: 60
500MD Attack: 45 (same airframe as OH/AH/MH-6)
BO-105: 12 (aka PAH-1, similar to 500MD)
CH-47D: 18
MH-47E: 6
500MD Utility: 130
UH-1H: 20
UH-60P: 130
AS332L: 3

Air Force:

Personnel:
63,000 active
55,000 Homeland Reserve

Combat:
F-16: 153
F-5: 185
F-4: 130

COIN:
A-37B: 22

Support (FAC, Recon, ELINT)
O-1A FAC: 20
O-2A FAC: 10
RF-4C: 18
RF-5A: 5
Hawker 800RA RC: 3
Hawker 800XP ELINT: 7

Transport:
BAe-748: 2
737-300: 1
C-118: 1
C-130H: 10
CN-235M: 20

Helicopter
UH-1N SAR: 5
Bell 212 SAR: 4
CH-47: 6
AS332: 3
VH-60: 3

Training:
F-5B: 25
T-37: 50
T-38: 30
T-41: 25
Hawk: 18

UAV:
Searcher: 3
Harpy: 100

Marine Corps

Personnel:
25,000 active
60,000 Homeland Reserve

Equipment:
M47 MBT: 60
LVTP7 AAV: 60
AAV-7 AAV: 42

Navy

Personnel:
40,000 active
25,000 Homeland Reserve

Submarines:
KSS-I Chang Bogo: 9 (1476 tons)
KSS-51 Dolgorae: 1 (midget sub)
SX-756 Dolphin: 8 (midget sub)

Major Surface Combatants (2000+ tons):
KDX-II: 3 (5000 tons)
KDX-I: 3 (3900 tons)
Ulsan: 9 (2180 tons)
Corvettes:
Po Hang: 24 (1300 tons)
Tonghae: 4 (1076 tons)

Missile Boats:
Pae Ku-51: 5

Inshore Patrol:
Kilurki PKM: 75 (144 tons)

Mine Warfare:
Wonsan Minelayer: 1 (3300 tons)
Kan Keong MHC: 6 (470 tons)
Kum San MHC: 8

Amphibious:
Kojoonbong LST: 4 (4200 tons, 200 troops)
Un Bong LST: 6 (4080 tons, 350 troops)
Ko Mun LSM: 2 (1095 tons, 48 troops)
LCU: 6
LCM: 10

Aircraft:
S-2E Patrol: 8
P-3C Patrol: 8
Cessna F406: 5

Helicopters:
500MD: 22
SA316: 10
Lynx ASW: 11
Bell 206B: 2

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 18:20

How Realistic is my Military?

Nation: The Lightning Star
Population: 741,000,000
GDP: No clue(i have a Very Strong Economy tho)
GDP Per Capita: n/a
Active Military Personnel: 400,000
Reserves: 2,000,000
Militia: 17,000,000
Portion of Population: 0.5%
Military Spending: $700 billion
Portion of GDP: n/a
Spending Per Active Soldier: $150,000
Military Nature: Rounded
Infrastructure: High
Logistics Support: High
Experience: Extremely High
Training: Extremely High
Equipment: Advanced Modern
Okay, this one got lost in the shuffle for a bit.

Well, first we'll start with the GDP. What you do to find that is get a GDP calculator or use something like the list I have on the first page. By my ladder, you would have about $30,000 GDP per capita. If you look on my ladder, you'll see that this is the median for a range. You could list your real GDP per capita as anything in that range ($27,501-$32,500) that you want, giving some individuality.
Now, the total GDP is simply the GDP per capity multiplied by the population, or $22.23 trillion for my 30,000. The $700 billion military spending is a good 3.15% of that.

Now again, there is no such thing as a rounded military. You have to have at least a slight leaning towards offense or defense.
It also looks like you missed a zero on the active force. Both the portion of population and budget/spending per active soldier suggest an active force at least 10 times that.
Like the other one I looked at, here is absolutely no sign of weakness here. You can't possibly have something that good, especially with that budget. You can't have that kind of experience unless you're in the middle of a protracted war (at least several months since the start), and training always drops in such situations. You'll have an urgent need for trained personnel, so the program will be condensed and corners will be cut. Otherwise, you won't be able to make up for your combat losses.
Also with the reserves and that large militia, if they're even moderately trained or equipped, you're going to need a lot more funding for that kind of infrastructure and support. I would see a 50-100% increase there if you don't want to take things down. And even then, the militia can't be that well equpped.

Syskeyia

21-10-2004, 18:34

Interesting thread, and one addressing something that I've had an interest in.

From its NS inception, Syskeyia has had compulosry military service, and had had defense as one of its top priorities. As having begun the game with nearly zilch knowledge of military and stuff, I was at a loss to define my military. I did have some ideas, though- I wanted a modern tech, combined arms military that, while relying on conscription and was reasonably large, was nonetheless well-trained and equipped and not godmodding.

My first military calculations came from someone whose post has been swept away by the great thread purges. Basically, it was a primitive military equation- first the economy (Frightening was $50,000; All-Consuming was $40,000, and so on), then the tax rates and spending (Defense as primary- 30%, one of priorities- 15%, little 10-5% (or something like that), and then you divided it by 50,000, and you got the maximum possible military personnel (assuming you wanted a reasonably trained, well-equipped army).

With these primitive calculations, I belived myself to be able to send 300,000 troops to participate in the Amerigan Slaver War. While when I look back and see that my logistical and military knowledge and such was lacking, my actions can be interpreted in a logistically and militarily logical way (300,000 troops= 15-20 divisions, whose forces were (as I RPed it) being built up on a nearby island (St. Peter Claver Island, which is now under seige as we speak), and as the island was never attacked during the war, the Syskeyian-Chimaean-Rastionian landings were reasonable and the distance between embarkation point and landing zones were relatively short. (St. Peter Claver Island is beyone Amerigan territorial waters, but close enough to support the blockade of Amerigo.)

As time passed, I came to know more about military stuff, how it is organized, stuff about equipment, etc. Rather than "I send 30,000 troops, 400 tanks and 250 helicopters at you," I'd send some divisions and such.

Nevertheless, I kept to the old calculation of military size (I interpreted the calculations as total military size rather than infantry, however, as to avoid accusations of godmodding.) I, too, fell into the "5% trap." So, when my primitive equations started to exceed that number, I just kept my military at 5% of my population. Then, Diwaniyah started a war, or atrocity, or something like that (it does not matter), and in the midst of military deployment postings someone remarked that 5% of your population in your (I thought active) military, so I scaled it back to 2.5%, leaving the other half in reserve. So, I evenutally came up to 68-79 million military personnel, and that was derided by some as ridiculous, wanking, and godmodding. Someone mentioned South Korea having 1.67% of its population in active military service, so I took that number and ran with it, keeping all others in reserve.

Sometime later, Melkor threatened to invade me, so I started mobilizing my reserves (keeping WA's "logistical" time as 1 RL day= 1 NS month). Eventually, Melkor aborted the invasion and retconned the threat (though, as it affected my RP, I'll interpret it as "we thought Melkor might be planning to invade us," and acted on it), and when he did, I believed my population had grown large enough that it could encompass my whole military being active.

Then, we started discussing this on mIRC (which I am on occasionally). My army at the time was 44 million, and this was discussed by Siri, NYNJ, and others as wanky, ludricrously huge, obviously not well-equipped, etc. Their reasoning convinced me, and I cut back my army to 14.78 million, just slightly larget than the navy (Syskeyia has historically placed a primacy on its army, while still keeping attention to the air force and navy.)

In another mIRC conversation, United Indiastan said to have hundreds of millions of reserve troops, which I thought was wanky, yet nobody else does. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Anyway, you can find the stats of my military here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5284859&postcount=6)- comment if you wish. After using the thirdgeek calculations, I have discovered that my country spends roughly $671,475.27 per person in the military (and that includes logisitics and administrative people, not just soldiers.) I'm also glad that these figures ensure that I will have enough money for a reasonably large, well-eqipped military once I get my taxes down to under 50% (right now they're 80% or something, which can only be justified by something like war *me wishes for more tax-lowering issues.)

My military, as I have said, is basically modern tech (with perhaps just a bit of tweaking for Earth-Mars travel, and incorporation of some "near-future" stuff like MTHEL systems and F-22s.) My army operates on the principle of "every man a rifleman," though I understand it as through every army person can be a rifleman, he may have another job (especially logistics.)

Also, I've wondered how to effectively RP a "militia" system. Syskeyia has had a long tradition of "citizen-soldier/active citizen" ideology, and I've based society and legal stuff based on Switzerland- regular militia training, mandantory gun owner ship, regular shooting festivals, etc. However, I've always thought of the militia/reserves as having mechanized equipment, but now I'm not so sure. Guess I'll have a nation of riflemen for now. :)

On another note, do you think you need to "officially" have a large Arms Manufacturing sector in order to RP building significant numbers of your own weapons and tanks. I don't know how to get an Arms Manufacturing in Syskeyia (though I do try to maintain the jungles, I have a reasonable Information Technology sector (at least according to the UN stats) and my economy can't be that dependant on Book Publishing). Any advice?

Markreich

21-10-2004, 18:44

Nation: The Holy See (Vatican City)
Population: 921
GDP: $245.2 million
GDP Per Capita: Nominally $266,232, but in reality not as such.
Active Military Personnel: 107 Swiss Guards Corps (Corpo della Guardia Svizzera)
Reserves: 0, though in theory every Army in Christendom.
Militia: 0, though in theory every male of Confirmation age (12+) in Christendom.
Portion of Population: 11.6%
Military Spending: Approximately $2 million
Portion of GDP: 0.81%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $150,000
Military Nature: Defensive, have not fought a pitched battle in nearly 500 years.
Infrastructure: High within Vatican City.
Logistics Support: Excellent within Vatican City.
Experience: Absurdly high in 16th century tactics.
Training: Absurdly high in 16th century tactics.
Equipment: The finest halberds and broadswords in the world.

Recent notable achievement: In the 1990s, a peace treaty was signed ending the 3rd Punic War, which had been technically ongoing with Carthage sine 149 BC.

The Lightning Star

21-10-2004, 19:02

Okay, this one got lost in the shuffle for a bit.

Well, first we'll start with the GDP. What you do to find that is get a GDP calculator or use something like the list I have on the first page. By my ladder, you would have about $30,000 GDP per capita. If you look on my ladder, you'll see that this is the median for a range. You could list your real GDP per capita as anything in that range ($27,501-$32,500) that you want, giving some individuality.
Now, the total GDP is simply the GDP per capity multiplied by the population, or $22.23 trillion for my 30,000. The $700 billion military spending is a good 3.15% of that.

Now again, there is no such thing as a rounded military. You have to have at least a slight leaning towards offense or defense.
It also looks like you missed a zero on the active force. Both the portion of population and budget/spending per active soldier suggest an active force at least 10 times that.
Like the other one I looked at, here is absolutely no sign of weakness here. You can't possibly have something that good, especially with that budget. You can't have that kind of experience unless you're in the middle of a protracted war (at least several months since the start), and training always drops in such situations. You'll have an urgent need for trained personnel, so the program will be condensed and corners will be cut. Otherwise, you won't be able to make up for your combat losses.
Also with the reserves and that large militia, if they're even moderately trained or equipped, you're going to need a lot more funding for that kind of infrastructure and support. I would see a 50-100% increase there if you don't want to take things down. And even then, the militia can't be that well equpped.

Ok, is THIS better?

Nation: The Lightning Star
Population: 741,000,000
GDP: $22.23 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $30,000
Active Military Personnel: 3,705,000
Reserves: 4,000,000
Militia: 7,000,000
Portion of Population: 0.5%
Military Spending: $2.5 trillion
Portion of GDP: n/a
Spending Per Active Soldier: $150,000
Military Nature: Blitzkrieg(fast-attacking)
Infrastructure: High
Logistics Support: High
Experience: High
Training: Extremely High
Equipment: Advanced Modern

OOC: My Experience is high since im in a war nearly every 5-10 game years.

The Lightning Star

21-10-2004, 19:07

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-10-2004, 19:23

Ok, is THIS better?

Nation: The Lightning Star
Population: 741,000,000
GDP: $22.23 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $30,000
Active Military Personnel: 3,705,000
Reserves: 4,000,000
Militia: 7,000,000
Portion of Population: 0.5%
Military Spending: $2.5 trillion
Portion of GDP: n/a
Spending Per Active Soldier: $150,000
Military Nature: Blitzkrieg(fast-attacking)
Infrastructure: High
Logistics Support: High
Experience: High
Training: Extremely High
Equipment: Advanced Modern

OOC: My Experience is high since im in a war nearly every 5-10 game years.
Well, I said a 50-100% increase in spending based on the numbers. Cutting down the numbers helps things, so you shouldn't be more than $1.5 trillion, which is 6.75% of the GDP. Much more than that and your economy and infrastructure will suffer. Also remember to recalculate spending per active soldier so it fits the budget. With a $1.5 trillion budget, it should be $404,858.30.
With reserves and militia included, you'd still be spending a good $100,000 on average per soldier, so even those will be quite well equipped.

Training is also a bit much. Unless you're downsizing your military after each war, you shouldn't have the resources to provide such exceptional training, as you're just getting too many recruits. Drop it down to high and I think it should be all right.

Markreich

21-10-2004, 21:30

LOL!

I'm debating doing Andorra or San Marino next...

Omz222

22-10-2004, 02:17

Also, I've wondered how to effectively RP a "militia" system. Syskeyia has had a long tradition of "citizen-soldier/active citizen" ideology, and I've based society and legal stuff based on Switzerland- regular militia training, mandantory gun owner ship, regular shooting festivals, etc. However, I've always thought of the militia/reserves as having mechanized equipment, but now I'm not so sure. Guess I'll have a nation of riflemen for now. :)

Well, if you often face threats of invasions and such, or/and if your military is mainly geared towards self-defence, I'd recommend one, though ti shouldn't be very big.

I personally have a militia force separated from the Army, which basically consists of light infantry with equipment such as mortars, anti-tank missiles, recoilless rifles, shoulder-launched SAMs, and light vehicles. There are also a couple of "capital defence" regiments (for the defence of capital, of course) with heavier equipment with tanks (upgraded T-55s), armored vehicles, SAMs (SA-2 being the oldest), and artillery (towed 105mm and 155mm howitzers). Militia troops in Omzian service are generally well-trained (schedule is more or less than the US Army Reserve) especially for urban combat, but not a lot of people are in the units and the equipment are mostly obsolete when compared to the weapons in regular active service.

As for the Arms Manufacturing thing, my nation does have a pretty high record (IIRC it was around 800-900th out of some 120,000 nations a while back), but we primarily only manufacture small arms and accessories in many factories. Things such as aircraft and ground vehicles of both imported and indigenous designs are also manufactured. It is also nice to know that a portion of the military-owned factories (whcih manufactures anything from ammunition to aircraft to ground vehicles) are stationed underground, even though there would be SAMs protecting them.

The Merchant Guilds

22-10-2004, 09:43

This looks like an attempt to create a near-perfect military, which is not good. You have to have strengths and weaknesses in here. You can't have a large force with excellent training, good equipment, excellent support/infrastructure, and perfectly rounded capabilities. Things just don't work like that.

With 14.8% military spending, you're economy will be going down the tube, and with that, quite a bit of your infrastructure and support services (much of these are actually hidden within the civilian sector). Such is the way these things work. I would advise cutting spending at least in half, or even better, by 2/3.
I myself actually lowered my proportional military spending when I started getting into alliances and global commitments, as the 10% spending would hurt my infrastructure. I believe I'm now somewhere around 7% and still dropping. Of course, even then, my military budget is larger than the GDP of the US . . .
Also remember that higher military spending like that only comes with very good reasons. In which case, you should be either strongly defensive or strongly offensive. When large armies like that are formed, and that much is spent on defense, it's only because the nation is either preparing to invade someone else, or preparing to fend off an invasion. Military Nature should be noted accordingly. For that matter, there is no such thing as a "rounded" military. It will always lean one way or another, even if it's not immediately visible.

For the bold stats, active military personnel should be less than 1% of the population in most developed nations, and only in VERY special cases should it exceed 2% in any of them. Now remember that the smaller your force is, the better the support and infrastructure that will be available.
Reserves and Militia can be large forces, but the larger they are, the worse their equipment, and remember that unless you're in a situation like Israel or South Korea, it will take some time to mobilize these units.
The spending per active soldier should be at least $100,000 if you want a solid, well trained, well-equipped army with very good infrastructure. The US is at about $200,000, and the UK is at $150,000, if that helps. However, with large reserves, you'll need more to get the same from your active troops.

Will people stop saying a high military spending will destroy your economy... it WILL NOT in all circumstances! The Soviet Union is not a good example either that is a state run economy not a free market economy, thus you cannot equate that with all the nations here. In a free market economy as i'm sure you realise CSJ the private sector produces most of the goods/services etc. Thus high military spending doesn't hurt it in the way, it hurts a more state run economy, where there is much more of an opportunity cost of that capital/resources. In a more free market economy, yes there will be major opportunity cost still, but it will not detract so majorly from other parts of the economy. Well, only in so far as the Government will pull money from some areas, which will decrease the potency of related industries but this will be made up for by the increased demand, caused by high military expenditure. Which, is GOOD in general for an economy, the BAD thing for economies as far as the military goes are long wars, since they drain the economy of much more resources, but more importantly people to do the jobs required.

Also, you are judging this on the basis of a 'rounded' democracy. I would remind you that many nations on here are not, also the fact they have VERY different spending patterns to most of the economically powerful nations of the West. Thus, they might well be very economically stable, but not conform to the 'realistic' world in so far as they don't distribute their GDP like the West, but have similar economic power.

What I conclude is that you can spend up to: 20-25% on your military without too much harm coming to your economy. BUT you must remind yourself that in your RP's the area's that recieve no capital/resources are going to be a bit crap. Thus if you spend 4% of your GDP on health, your health service is going to be in dire straits for example. It's all very relative and there are many different ways to structure an economy as i'm sure you know CSJ.

Daistallia 2104

22-10-2004, 17:21

Armed Forces of the World (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp) lists some useful and important factors in considering military power.

Vastiva

23-10-2004, 05:19

On another note, do you think you need to "officially" have a large Arms Manufacturing sector in order to RP building significant numbers of your own weapons and tanks. I don't know how to get an Arms Manufacturing in Syskeyia (though I do try to maintain the jungles, I have a reasonable Information Technology sector (at least according to the UN stats) and my economy can't be that dependant on Book Publishing). Any advice?

I don't think you do need a big Arms Manufacturing section. Remember, that's business - as in import/export/sales. A nationally held Arms Manufacturing section (or Shipbuilding, or Airplane Manufacturing) section wouldn't show up on the read out because it is not a business per se.

And yes, you can be that dependant on Book Publishing. Vastiva publishes for hundreds of third world countries, and 'handles the paperwork' for dozens of first world countries, particularly in moving information from paper to digital (large Book Publishing and Information Technology).

Just because the section isn't large doesn't mean its not good.

Vastiva

23-10-2004, 05:22

Will people stop saying a high military spending will destroy your economy... it WILL NOT in all circumstances! The Soviet Union is not a good example either that is a state run economy not a free market economy, thus you cannot equate that with all the nations here. In a free market economy as i'm sure you realise CSJ the private sector produces most of the goods/services etc. Thus high military spending doesn't hurt it in the way, it hurts a more state run economy, where there is much more of an opportunity cost of that capital/resources. In a more free market economy, yes there will be major opportunity cost still, but it will not detract so majorly from other parts of the economy. Well, only in so far as the Government will pull money from some areas, which will decrease the potency of related industries but this will be made up for by the increased demand, caused by high military expenditure. Which, is GOOD in general for an economy, the BAD thing for economies as far as the military goes are long wars, since they drain the economy of much more resources, but more importantly people to do the jobs required.

Also, you are judging this on the basis of a 'rounded' democracy. I would remind you that many nations on here are not, also the fact they have VERY different spending patterns to most of the economically powerful nations of the West. Thus, they might well be very economically stable, but not conform to the 'realistic' world in so far as they don't distribute their GDP like the West, but have similar economic power.

What I conclude is that you can spend up to: 20-25% on your military without too much harm coming to your economy. BUT you must remind yourself that in your RP's the area's that recieve no capital/resources are going to be a bit crap. Thus if you spend 4% of your GDP on health, your health service is going to be in dire straits for example. It's all very relative and there are many different ways to structure an economy as i'm sure you know CSJ.

Uhm.... you do remember that the Soviet/Communist/High Military Spending model resulted in buildings that sagged, roads that were nothing but potholes, lack of adequate medical care... I could go on, but why?

You can do it, but there's few models of it being "a good thing for the country and it's people".

High Military Spending means other areas are being funded less - simple zero sum calculations. This is why high military spending means injury to the nation as a whole.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

24-10-2004, 01:33

Nation: People’s Republic of China
Army: People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Air Force: People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF)
Navy: People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
Population: 1.3 billion
GDP: $6 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $4615.38
Active Military: 2.5 million
Portion of Population: 0.19%
Military Spending: $60 billion
Portion of GDP: 1%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $24,000
Military Nature: Primarily garrison (defensive)
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Poor
Experience: Moderate
Training: Low
Equipment: Outdated

What it means:
The People’s Liberation Army is currently the single largest national army in the world, with almost twice as many personnel as any other nation. However, it has long been marred by a technological inferiority, which leaves even some of its newest equipment decades behind its western counterparts. For some time now, there has been a major restructuring of the military, including a massive reduction of forces and rearmament program to bring its equipment to higher standards. The nature of the army itself is still currently a garrison force, with primarily infantry units stationed all over the nation to protect against civil unrest more than any external invasions. Though the army could turn into a strong offensive force should the situation improve, it is currently capable of undertaking only limited offensive operations. Specifically, China is, in terms of area, the third largest nation in the world (after Russia and Canada), and has and requires military forces literally at every corner. In the northeast, there has been a long-running border dispute with Russia over Siberia, the capital itself, and strained relations with South Korea and Japan. In the southeast, there is Taiwan, which China has long wished to take back from the government-in-exile, as well as disputes over islands in the South China Sea with Vietnam. In the Southwest, there’s ongoing fighting in occupied Tibet, and border disputes with India, who happens to have the second largest army (and a notably better one). Finally, there are the Muslim insurgencies spilling over from the former Soviet states like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Allies are also painfully few, with the only real allies China has being North Korea, who will be more likely to ask for assistance than give it, and Pakistan, who doesn’t quite share a border, but would definitely help against India. When this is combined with the nations large size and a less-than-stellar road and rail network, and one can realize that [b]only a fraction of China’s military forces can be poured into any conflict[b], and reinforcements will be slow in coming. The poor infrastructure will also result in serious supply shortages, particularly due to the large variety of weapons, needing a similarly large variety of spare parts and ammunition. Training is also generally substandard, with most of the available money being spent on acquiring advanced weapons in an attempt to catch up to the west. Equipment is largely obsolete, but with more modern equipment being purchased as much as possible and military downsizing to increase available funds, this could change in the future. However, right now, the Chinese military is under-trained and poorly equipped.
There is also currently little capability for interregional deployments, as the air transport arm is very small, and the naval transports are geared for the short trip to Taiwan. Because of the buildup for a potential invasion of Taiwan, however, they do have a strong amphibious force. The rest of the Navy is similar, being focused on operations close to shore. However, a decent number of oceangoing vessels exist, just not with sufficient replenishment vessels for major overseas deployments.
The air force, though large, is equipped primarily with outdated to obsolete aircraft, and pilot training is notoriously low, leaving the air force as only a moderate threat to modern nations.

Equipment:
Though primarily an infantry-based army, China has benefited from a very large tank force. However, of the 7000+ tanks in service today, over 5000 are derivatives of the ancient T-55, or light tanks which have only minimal combat capability. The cutting edge of China’s tank forces are approximately 120 Type 98 and 1500 Type 88C/Type 96 tanks. These units, unlike their predecessors, are primarily derived from the Soviet T-72, but with aspects of later units included. Both are good units, but still behind modern tanks such as the M1A2, Leopard 2, and probably the later models of the Soviet T-80 as well. There are also about 450 Type 85 tanks, which are probably equivalent to earlier T-72 models in capability, though they are notably slower (still based of the T-55). All three of these tank models are armed with the 125mm gun used by the T-72. The older Type 80 tanks, of which there are believed to be about 1000, are probably on par with the M60 variants, and are armed with a 105mm gun. Then there’s the bulk of the armored force. Some 4000 Type 59 tanks, which are little more than license-built T-54s. However, a number have been upgraded with the NATO 105mm L7 gun, giving a significant boost in firepower. Finally, there are the Type 63 light tanks, which are essentially PT-76s upgraded with a new turret and 85mm gun.
The APC and IFV forces of the Chinese military are notable, with there being enough vehicles to complement the tank force with mechanized infantry. However, these are almost all seriously outdated machines, with most designs dating back to the Vietnam War. The only truly modern vehicles are about 100 BMD-3 IFVs purchased from Russia a few years ago. Beyond those, there are about 1000 BMP-1 copies, which are quite dated today, and a force of about 5000 APCs and variants, with almost all being obsolescent or obsolete designs.
China maintains a very large and, unfortunately, diverse artillery force. While there are an impressive 13,500 total guns, these are primarily 1970s era or older. And worse, there are 11 different major designs in 5 calibers, creating some nasty supply situations. Almost half the force, however, is made up of Soviet 122mm howitzers, primarily the Vietnam-era D-30. This is complemented by 4000 152mm guns of primarily 1950s design, and 1000 M46 130mm field guns, also dating back to the 1950s. The final component is a number of 100mm anti-tank guns based on the Soviet T-12, which can be used for indirect fire roles. Self-propelled artillery is painfully rare, with only about 500 152mm and 700 122mm vehicles. Rocket artillery is also diverse, but somewhat simplified by the fact that more than half of the weapons are 122mm BM-21 launchers, with a handful of 130mm, 273mm, and 320mm systems. The army also controls about 200 DF-11 (Scud replacement) and 100 DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles.
Air defense is provided by some 5000 AA guns, mostly towed, and found in just about every caliber used by NATO or the Warsaw Pact, leaving a very unfortunate degree of diversity. There are only a handful of self-propelled AA guns. There are also some 8000 HN-5 shoulder-fired SAMs, which are copies of the SA-7, leaving them pretty much obsolete. On the other hand, there are 3000 somewhat more modern systems, including newer shoulder-fired and short-range SAMs. There are also some medium-range weapons, but again, most of these are still a bit dated.
Antitank forces are a little under equipped, primarily using the HJ-73, which is a copy of the Soviet AT-3. There are, however, a few hundred of the HJ-8, which is a copy of the French Milan ATGM, and is far more capable. These are supplemented by a few dozen vehicle-mounted HJ-9s, which are similarly effective. There are also about 300 self-propelled 120mm antitank guns. Finally, there are those 100mm towed antitank guns mentioned with the artillery.
The army air arm is moderately equipped, mostly with variants of the Soviet Mi-8/17 utility helicopter, as well a number of European helicopter designs, and even some US S-70s. In addition, there are a small number of Mi-6 heavy-lift helicopters. Actual gunship support, however, is rather light, with about 40 WZ-9 light attack helicopters, and a number of Mi-8 series that can fire unguided rockets. There are also a few ATGM-armed Gazelles in service.

The PLAAF is currently in rather poor shape, still relying on the J-7 (upgraded MiG-21) series fighters, which make up almost half the force of 1400 fighter aircraft. These are complemented by about 200 J-8s, which are essentially enlarged MiG-21s with two engines. On the slightly more modern side, there are believed to be about 50 FC-1 fighters in service, which are superior to the J-7/8, and may be comparable to some F-16 variants. The real cutting edge of the fighter force is made up of 133 Su-27SK aircraft under the designation of J-11. These are truly modern combat aircraft with excellent capabilities, however, there have been issues with regards to maintenance costs and training, and there may be a shortage of effective medium/long-range missiles. On the other end of the spectrum are the 350 ancient J-6 (MiG-19) aircraft, which are currently being decommissioned (there were 3000 in 1995). The removal of the J-6, J-5, and J-4 aircraft has helped consolidate the force, allowing more resources to go to effective aircraft. This also drops the total number of aircraft down, and giving the casual viewer a better idea of what kind of force they have.
Attack aircraft billets are filled primarily by the 400 Q-5 attack aircraft, which are a derivative of the J-6 fighter. As they’re also old and of limited effectiveness, many of these are being decommissioned in favor of newer aircraft. However, unlike the fighter force, which is only a little over 1/3 of what it was 10 years ago, the strike force will not suffer a notable reduction in overall numbers. The primary replacement for the Q-5s are going to be Russian Su-30MKKs, which are a ground attack variant of the Su-27 fighter. 76 of these are currently in service, backed up by 25 JH-7 aircraft, which have not been entirely satisfactory, but will likely see some improvements that could make the design a viable complement to the Su-30.
The bomber force, on the other hand, is, simply put, dead. The primary unit is the ancient H-6, which is a copy of the Soviet Tu-16, on of the first jet-powered bombers to enter service. With a design that’s over 50 years old, these aircraft should be laid to rest, and only the lack of a suitable replacement keeps them flying. The only other bomber unit in service is the H-5, which is based on the Il-28 light bomber, a design 3 years older than the H-6. These are mercifully being taken out of service, and the 40 remaining aircraft should be gone within a few years. There have been attempts to improve the bomber force, most notably a failed attempt to acquire Russian T-22M supersonic bombers. However, there is little sign of a replacement for the decrepit H-6 aircraft.
The armament of the Chinese aircraft, however, is actually quite good. A few hundred AA-10 and a good number of AA-11 missiles have been purchased from Russia for use with the Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft, and technology for advanced PL-8 and PL-9 short-range missiles came from Israel. There’s the PL-11 medium-range missile, which is based on the Italian Aspide, which is in turn based on the AIM-7E Sparrow. However, there are not many PL-11s or AA-10s, and that leaves the PLAAF lacking in ability to engage beyond visual range, a serious drawback.
While the J-6 and H-5 are being phased out of combat duties, they will see service well into the next decade as reconnaissance aircraft, with 40 HZ-5s and 100 JZ-6s still in service, and no sign of them being retired. These are complemented by 40 JZ-8 variants of the J-8 fighter, which marks the best recon aircraft available to the PLAAF. In addition to the recon aircraft, there are a quartet of A-50 AEW&C aircraft that have been from Russia, and one or two Tu-154M airliners have been modified with a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) to provide ground surveillance. Some basic EW capability is provided by another pair of Tu-154s that have been modified for that role. Finally, there are about 14 HY-6 tanker variants of the H-6 bomber, which provide a modest aerial refueling capability. Of course, the majority of the PLAAF aircraft don’t have a aerial fueling capability anyway.
China possesses a modest transport force, primarily for supporting their airborne corps. 22 Il-76 cargo planes actually give them a modest heavy-lift capacity, and a further 48 Y-8s provide medium transport somewhat comparable to a C-130. On the other hand, there are still 300 An-2 aircraft in service, which account for 60% of the force. These are only useful for short range transport and special operations insertions. The remainder of the 500+ aircraft is a hodgepodge of light and medium cargo aircraft, with about 20 airliners used for troop transport.
There’s also a small helicopter force, primarily for search and rescue duties. This includes about 100 aircraft of various types.
Finally, the Airborne Corps, including 3 divisions, falls under air force command. However, while there are 3 full airborne divisions, only 1 can be deployed within 48 hours, owing to lack of airlift capability.

The PLAN is also in rather poor shape. Though modernization has been underway, and a large number of unserviceable craft have been decommissioned or placed in reserve, there is still a chronic lack of maintenance and modern systems. This is most easily seen in their submarine force, which though it has over 60 vessels, is not much of a threat. The newest submarine in the Chinese fleet is the Type 093 SSN, the first of which the first unit is expected to be completed by next year. However, when finished, this is only expected to have capability matching the Soviet Victor III, a 20-year old design! Of course, this is a marked improvement over the 5 Type 091 Han SSNs, which have proven to be unreliable and rather ineffective. Similarly, their sole SSBN, the Type 092 Xia, has been dogged by problems and will probably never be deployed beyond Chinese territorial waters. The bulk of the PLAN submarine fleet is made up of 35 Soviet Romeo submarines, and 19 copies under the designation of Type 035 Ming. These designs are based on a WWII German U-boat, and it’s safe to say they’re completely obsolete. There are, on the other hand, 3 new Song class diesel-electric submarines, which provide a moderate capability, including firing the C-801 antishipping missile. However, the cream of the PLAN submarine force are a quartet of Soviet Kilo class boats. 2 of these are the general export version, while the other 2 are of an improved design initially intended for the Soviet navy. These are easily the most capable submarines China has. There are also a Golf class SSB and a Romeo class submarine that has been modified to fire antishipping missiles, but both are only test-beds, and neither is combat capable.
The PLAN also maintains a modest fleet of large surface combatants, the most notable of which are the two Haizhou vessels, which were a pair of Sovremennyy destroyers purchased from Russia. With Moskit (SS-N-22) antiship missiles, as well as decent ASW and air defense systems, these are formidable vessels. These are supported by a quartet of Luhai series vessels, 3 of which are armed with VLS systems and phased array radars, making them effective air defense vessels. Their predecessors, the Luhu class, which are lacking in any real air defense capability, but are modest ASW and ASuW platforms. These destroyers, along with 1 Luda II class vessel, are armed with C-801/802 antishipping missiles, which are moderately effective sea-skimming weapons, and a dramatic improvement over the C-201 used by the 15 Luda class destroyers, which are copies of the SS-N-2, which was the first antishipping missile to enter service, and is naturally obsolete. The destroyers are complemented by 14 Jiangwei class frigates, which are armed with the C-802, but lack any real antiaircraft of ASW capability. However, this is an improvement over the 30 Jianghu class vessels, all but 3 of which still use the C-201.
The force of missile boats operating in the coastal defense role is impressive, with 40 Houxin and Houjian’s armed with C-801 missiles. However, most of the remaining 50 or so attack craft still have the old C-201. Unfortunately, with such a large coastline, China can’t group these units together as much as it would probably like to, and there is still an issue of training and maintenance. There are also well over 200 coastal patrol boats providing police duties.
China has a moderate force of mine warfare ships, though nearly 1/3 are in reserve. These include one large minelayer, 40 offshore minesweepers, and 59 coastal minesweepers.
The amphibious force is quite large, but is made up entirely of short-range vessels, and is limited to operating relatively close to the nation itself. Of course, the primary target would be Taiwan, so this isn’t that much of an issue. .

Another thing China has that previous nations lack is nuclear weapons. Specifically, China is probably the third largest nuclear power, after the US and former Soviet Union. However, it has been notably behind these in terms of technology. China is only now producing the advanced warheads that we’ve been making for decades, and delivery systems are still well below comparable US and Soviet systems in capability. Actual strategic capabilities are notably limited due to lack of delivery systems. Currently, only about 100 missiles are capable of reaching Moscow, and only 24 could reach the US. With no effective air or naval delivery system, that leaves nuclear weapons primarily for tactical use in the field. In this area, it will probably be primarily free-fall bombs and artillery shells that will deliver warheads, though mines may be used as well, and nuclear depth charges may exist. Also, though there hasn’t been much said on it, it is likely that China is developing (if it hasn’t already deployed) smaller warheads for use on missiles and torpedoes.

Requirements for copying the Chinese military:
1. Fragile economy or better.
2. Do not RP any major conflicts beyond your immediate borders
3. Most equipment should be 30-50 years old, though some can be 10-20. Minimal cutting edge.
4. Have primarily regional forces, with possibly some centralized reinforcements
5. Have regional forces generally unable to support or reinforce each other without significant prior preparation

PLA ORDER OF BATTLE

Shenyang Military Region:
Covers northeast, including Korean border and much of the border with Eastern Siberia. Includes 3 Military Districts and 4 Group Armies, for a total of 250,000 active troops. This is a heavily mechanized force, and would be the one to support North Korea if it was needed. It would also be one of the key players in any operation against Russian Siberia. Finally, with the large mechanized force, it’s also a key player in the defense of Beijing. Total forces include:
2 Armored Divisions
3 Mechanized Infantry Divisions
2 Motorized Infantry Divisions
1 Infantry Division
1 Artillery Division
2 Armored Brigades
6 Motorized Infantry Brigades
1 Antitank Brigade
4 AAA Brigades
3 Artillery Brigades
2 Reserve Infantry Divisions
3 Reserve AAA Divisions
1 Reserve Artillery Division

Beijing Military Region:
Covers the area around the capital of Beijing, as well as a good portion of the border with Mongolia, and the rest of the border with Eastern Siberia. As it’s protecting the capital, this is naturally the largest command, maintaining a full 5 group armies, 3 military districts, and 2 garrisons, for an impressive active strength of 300,000. The primary role of these forces is defense of the capital, but several could be expected to assist in any border clash in Siberia or operation in Korea. Total forces include:
2 Armored Divisions
3 Mechanized Infantry Divisions
3 Motorized Infantry Divisions
2 Infantry Divisions
1 Artillery Division
3 Armored Brigades
6 Motorized Infantry Brigades
1 Infantry Brigade
6 AAA Brigades
4 Artillery Brigades
3 Reserve Infantry Divisions
2 Reserve AAA Divisions
1 Reserve Artillery Division

Lanzhou Military Region:
The largest of the 7 regions in area, this covers much of central and western China, including the western border with Mongolia, the border with western Siberia, and the small borders with the various “Stans” and northern India. This force would be the one that would engage northern India or western Siberia in any border clashes or invasions. However, with only 2 group armies and 5 military districts (220,000 active troops), it lacks the strength to carry out a major operation on its own, so it would either be supported by forces from other commands, or simply act as a diversion to keep enemy troops from the main efforts. Total forces include:
2 Armored Divisions
3 Motorized Divisions
2 Infantry Divisions
1 Armored Brigade
2 Motorized Brigades
3 AAA Brigades
4 Artillery Brigades
2 Reserve Infantry Divisions
2 Reserve AAA Divisions
1 Reserve Infantry Brigade

Jinan Military Region
This is the smallest region in terms of area, and consists of a small area south of Beijing, including some of the coastline. It should have no specific roles of its own other than garrison and assisting other commands with any operations (it borders all but one of the other regions). Its modest forces include 3 group armies and 2 military districts, for a total active troop strength of about 190,000. Total forces include:
2 Armored Divisions
1 Light Mechanized Division
2 Motorized Divisions
1 Infantry Division
1 Artillery Division
1 Armored Brigade
1 Mechanized Brigade
4 Motorized Brigades
3 AAA Brigades
2 Artillery Brigades
2 Reserve Infantry Divisions
2 Reserve AAA Divisions
1 Reserve Artillery Division

Nanjing Military Region
This unit covers much of China’s coastline, stretching from the mainland across from Taiwan to the land across from the southern tip of South Korea. The primary role, outside of garrisoning, is to keep the government in exile in Taiwan in check. This includes defenses to keep Taiwan’s forces from returning, and is also where most of the force for an invasion of Taiwan would come from. In addition, this region is in a position to provide some support for operations against South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. It consists of 3 group armies, 1 garrison, and 5 military districts, for a total of 250,000 active troops. Total forces include:
2 Armored Divisions
1 Amphibious Mechanized Division
1 Motorized Division
3 Infantry Divisions
2 Coastal Defense Divisions
1 Artillery Division
1 Armored Brigade
3 Motorized Brigades
3 Coastal Defense Brigades
3 AAA Brigades
1 SAM Regiment
2 Artillery Brigades
1 Missile Brigade
3 Reserve Infantry Divisions
3 Reserve AAA Divisions

Guangzhou Military Region
This region covers the southern coast of China, and also stretches a bit north to encompass some inland territory. This region’s primary responsibilities lie in the mineral-rich South China Sea, whose Parcel and Spratly islands are claimed by just about every nation in the area, particularly China and Vietnam, who have clashed on several occasions over them. This also covers half the border with Vietnam, and should another border clash or invasion occur there, it would be one of the key commands. It would also assist with operations against Taiwan. The forces at the region’s disposal include 2 group armies, 2 garrisons, and 5 military districts, for a total of 180,000 troops. Total forces include:
2 Amphibious Mechanized Divisions
1 Motorized Division
3 Infantry Divisions
2 Armored Brigades
1 Infantry Brigade
2 AAA Brigades
1 Artillery Brigade
4 Reserve Infantry Divisions
1 Reserve AAA Division

Chengdu Military Region
This region covers the borders with most of the smaller Southeast Asian nations, including Nepal, Laos, half of the border with Vietnam, and the border with Eastern India. The primary roles here are regarding to a border dispute with India, and the previously mentioned dispute with Vietnam. Should China find itself arrayed against any of the other Southeast Asian nations, this region would play the primary role as well. It’s forces include 2 group armies, 1 garrison, and 5 military districts, for a total of 180,000 troops. Total forces include the following:
1 Motorized Division
3 Infantry Divisions
1 Artillery Division
2 Armored Brigades
2 Mountain Infantry Brigades
2 AAA Brigades
1 Artillery Brigade
3 Reserve Infantry Divisions
1 Reserve AAA Division

2nd Artillery Corps
This is China’s ballistic missile force, maintaining 6 missile divisions that include all ICBMs and IRBMs, as well as most SRBMs. Total troop strength is believed to be somewhere around 100,000 troops, though there are some estimates for twice that, with the possible explanation that troops from other commands are attached as well.

Special Forces:
Due to lack of sufficiently trained personnel, China has not traditionally had much in the way of special forces. However, with growing problems with ethnic, primarily Muslim, insurgencies, there has been a growing need for such units, and a crash program is underway, though there will probably still be a shortage until at least 2010. The primary counterterrorist forces are the IAUs (Immediate Action Units), which consist of about 1 regiment of troops present in each region. These units are controlled by the State Security Police, but are trained and equipped by the army. These are essentially hit squads sent to take out insurgents, and little emphasis is placed on things like clandestine operations, hostage rescue, taking prisoners, etc. Eliminating the insurgents is the only goal. There are also a relatively newly formed Long-Range Operations Group, which is a brigade-sized unit is primarily equipped as an advance element for any invasion of Taiwan, but has sufficient multirole capability to perform most other special forces duties. This is the only unit in the Chinese military that would compare well to any western special forces, and it is believed that there may be as many as 5 additional brigades being formed, which will provide China with a genuine special operations capability.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

24-10-2004, 01:33

Army:

Personnel:
1.78 million active
4.3 million Basic Militia (men & some women 18-28, 30-40 days training per year)
6 million Ordinary Militia (men & some women 18-35, minimal training)

Tanks:
Type 98: 120
Type 96: 1500
Type 85: 450
Type 80: 1000
Type 59: 4000
Type 63: 400

APCs/IFVs:
BMD-3 IFV: 100
Type 86 IFV: 1000 (aka YZ-501, copy of BMP-1)
Type 89 APC: 300 (aka YW-534)
Type 63 APC: 2500 (aka YW-531)
Type 77 APC: 200 (copy of BTR-50)
WZ-551 APC: 600
WZ-523 APC: 100
Believed to be 1200 other

Towed Artillery
Type 88 155mm: 150
Type 66 152mm: 1400 (copy of D-20)
Type 54 & Type 83 152mm: 2600
Type 59 130mm: 1000 (copy of M46)
Type 54 122mm: 6000 (copy of D-30)
Type 86 100mm: 1000 (antitank gun with indirect fire capability)
Type 59 100mm: 120 (antitank gun with indirect fire capability)

Self-Propelled Artillery
Type 83 152mm: 500
Type 89 122mm: 500
Type 70 122mm: 200

Rocket Artillery:
Type 96 320mm MRL: 100 (aka WS-1)
Type 83 273mm MRL: 400
Type 70 130mm MRL: 200
Type 81/89/90 122mm MRL: 1800 (copy of BM-21)

Antitank:
Type 89 120mm SP: 300
HJ-73/HJ-8/HJ-9 ATGM: 6000 (HJ-73 is a copy of AT-3, HJ-8 is a copy of Milan)

Antiaircraft:
SAM (various short & medium range): 3000
HN-5 SAM: 8000 (SA-7 copy)
Type 90 35mm SP: 50
Towed (various calibers): 5000

Aviation:
WZ-9: 40
HC-120: 20
Mi-17 variants: 128
Mi-6: 3
S-70: 22
SA316: 6
SA342: 8
Z-11: 30 (AS350 copy)
Z-9: 50 (SA360 copy)
Z-8: 200? (SA321 copy)
Z-6: 30 (Mi-8 copy)

Air Force:

Personnel:
370,000 active
Unknown reserve (part of Basic Militia)

Fighter:
J-11: 133 (Su-27MK)
FC-1: 50 (partially derived from MiG-33)
J-8: 200
J-7: 674 (MiG-21)
J-6: 350 (MiG-19)

Bomber/Attack
H-6: 120 (Tu-16 copy)
H-5: 40 (Il-28 copy)
JH-7: 25
Q-5: 401
Su-30MKK: 76

Support (recon, surveillance, tanker, EW, AEW&C):
HZ-5: 40 (H-5 variant)
JZ-8: 40 (J-8 variant)
JZ-6: 100 (J-6 variant)
Tu-154M EW: 4
A-50 AEW: 4
HY-6 Tanker: 14 (H-6 variant)

Transport:
Y-12: 8
Y-11: 15
Y-8: 48 (An-12 copy)
Y-7: 100 (An-24 copy)
737-200: 6
CL-601: 7
Il-76: 22
Il-18: 2
Tu-154M: 15

Training:
Su-30UBK: 40
JJ-7: 50
JL-9: 5
JL-8: 10
95 other

Helicopter:
Z-9: 15
Z-6: 40

Air Defense:
600 battalions of QW-1, HQ-2, HQ-3, HQ-61, LY-60, PL-9, & HY-5 SAMs
3 battalions of S-300 (SA-10) SAMs
16,000 antiaircraft guns of various caliber

Navy:

Personnel:
350,000 active
Unknown reserve (part of Basic Militia)

Submarines:
Xia SSBN: 1 (7000 tons)
Type 093 SSN: 1 (8000 tons)
Han SSN: 5 (4500 tons)
Golf SSB: 1 (not combat capable)
Kilo SS: 4 (3176 tons)
Song SS: 3 (2250 tons)
Ming SS: 19 (2113 tons, remodeled Romeo)
Romeo SS: 35 (1712 tons)
Wuhan SS: 1 (2100 tons, Remodeled Romeo w/ 6xYJ-1 antishipping missile, not combat capable)

Major Surface Combatants (2000+ tons)
Haizhou DDG: 2 (8480 tons, Sovremennyy class)
Type 052A Luhai DDG: 1 (6600 tons)
Type 052B Luhai DDG: 2 (6600 tons)
Type 052C Luhai DDG: 1 (7000 tons)
Type 052 Luhu DDG: 2 (5700 tons)
Type 051 Luda-II DDG: 1 (3960 tons)
Type 051 Luda DDG: 15 (3960 tons)
Type 054 Maanshan FFG: 1 (3000 tons)
Type 057 Jiangwei II FFG: 7 (2250 tons)
Type 055 Jiangwei FFG: 4 (2250 tons)

Minor Surface Combatants
Type 053HT Jianghu V FFG: 6 (1702 tons)
Type 053HT-H Jianghu IV FFG: 1 (1820 tons)
Type 053HT Jianghu III FFG: 3 (1865 tons)
Type 053 Jianghu I FFG: 21 (1702 tons)

Missile Boats:
Houxin: 25 (550 tons)
Houjian: 15 (542 tons)
Haijiu: 2 (450 tons)
Huangfeng: 21 (205 tons)
Houku: 20 (79.2 tons)
Homa: 1 (79.2 tons)
C-14 Cat: 2

Patrol Craft
Haiging: 26 (478 tons)
Hainan: 95 (430 tons)
Shanghai III: 17 (170 tons)
Shanghai II: 100 (134.8 tons)

Mine Warfare:
Bulieijian Minelayer: 1 (3100 tons)
Type 010 MSO: 12 + 28 reserve (590 tons)
Lianyun MSC: 50 (400 tons)
Wosao MSC: 9 (310 tons)

Amphibious:
Yuting LST: 18 (4800 tons, 250 troops)
Yukan LST: 7 (4170 tons, 200 troops)
Yudeng LSM: 1 (1850 tons, 500 troops)
Yudao LSM: 1 (1460 tons)
Qiongsha Attack Transport: 6
Yuhai LCU: 13 (800 tons, 250 troops)
Yulian LCU: 22 (600 tons)
Yuchin LCM: 8 + 30 reserve (93 tons)
Yunnan LCM: 36 + 200 reserve
Jingsah LCAC: 10

Surveillance:
Yuanwang Missile Tracking Ship: 4 (21,000 tons, supports space launches)
Dongdiao Missile Tracking Ship: 1 (4600 tons)
Yangbing ELINT Ship: 1 (5000 tons, enlarged Yanha)
Xing Fengshan ELINT Ship: 1 (5500 tons)
Yanha ELINT Ship: 3 (3200 tons)
Dadie ELINT Ship: 1 (2500 tons)
Hai Yang Oceanographic: 2 (4500 tons)
Yanqian Oceanographic: 2 (1325 tons)
Xiang Yang Hong Oceanographic: 7 (1150 tons)
Yannan Survey Ship: 7 (1750 tons)

Cargo/Replenishment:
Shichang Multirole Ship: 1 (9500 tons, used as hospital, aviation training, and cargo ship)
Nancang MPRS: 1 (37,000 tons)
No.886 Fleet Oiler: 1 (22,000 tons)
Fuqing Fleet Oiler: 2 (21,750 tons)
Dayun Cargo Ship: 2 (10,975 tons, some underway replenishment capability)
Dajiang Submarine Support Ship: 3 (10,087 tons, underway replenishment & rescue duties)
Dazhi Submarine Tender: 1 (5800 tons)
Dazhou Submarine Tender: 2 (1100 tons
Galati Cargo Ship: 2 (5200 tons)
Yantai Cargo Ship: 2 (3300 tons)
Hongqi Cargo Ship: 6 (1950 tons)
Dandao Tanker: 3
Danlin Tanker: 13
Shengli Tanker: 2 (4950 tons)
Jinyou Tanker: 3 (4800 tons)
Fuhou: 16 (1200 tons, 9 are water transports)
Leizhou: 4 (900 tons, water transport)

Other Auxiliary:
35 Oceangoing Tugs
10 Cable Ships
3 Degaussing Ships
26 Survey & Research ships in the Merchant Marine

Combat Aircraft (bomber, attack, fighter)
H-6: 18 (Tu-16)
H-5: 50 (Il-28)
J-11: 24 (Su-30MKK)
JH-7: 20
Q-5: 30
J-8: 48
J-7: 26 (MiG-21)
J-6: 200 (MiG-19)

Support (patrol, surveillance, refueling):
HZ-5 Recon: 7
PS-5 ASW: 4
Y-8 ASW: 4 (modified An-12)
Y-8 AEW: 1 (modified An-12)
HY-6 Tanker: 3

Cargo:
An-26: 6
Y-8: 4 (An-12)
Y-7: 4 (An-24)
Y-5: 50
Yak-42: 2

Helicopter:
AS565 ASW: 8
Ka-28 ASW: 8
SA321 ASW: 15
Z-8 ASW: 12
Mi-8 Utility: 8

Nuclear Forces:
JL-1 SLBM: 24 (1700 km range, 200-300 kt warhead)
DF-5 ICBM: 24 (12,000-15,000 km range, 2-5 mt warhead)
DF-3 MRBM: 40 (3000-4000 km range, 1x2-3 mt or 3x50-100 kt warhead)
DF-4 MRBM: 20-30 (4500-7000 km range, 1x2-3 mt warhead)
DF-21 IRBM: 36-50 (1800 km range, 200-500 kt warhead)*
DF-11 SRBM: 40+ (300 km range, 50-350 kt or 450-500 kg HE warhead)
DF-15 SRBM: 200+ (600 km range, 50-350 kt or 500 kg HE warhead)
Currently believed to be in excess of 2000 tactical warheads (artillery shells, free-fall bombs, landmines, possibly some warheads for torpedoes, antiship missiles, cruise missiles, etc)

Nianacio

24-10-2004, 02:46

I missed this until now...Looks good. By militia do you mean something more organized than the USA's?

Possibly useful links:
Designing militaries (http://www.military-sf.com/designmil.htm) <-- I think this raises some good questions. For example, Nianacio would probably be ranked as having advanced equipment, but that doesn't mean its army has hordes of advanced tanks...It's actually rather lightly mechanized, both in numbers and weight of vehicles, because its primary operating areas are tropical forest/jungle, mountain, and sort of Tenochtitlan-style urban, and operations in foreign nations would require fast deployment, such as in the case of helping out a nation under attack.
America's major wars' cost as a percentage of annual GDP at the time they were fought. (http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/02.12.08.html)
Didn't seem to be worth a post of its own so it gets thrown in here--> Rapid Deployment Logistics: Lebanon, 1958 (http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp) (The page is very long, so search for that.)

Omz222

24-10-2004, 03:44

Well, a lengthy report on China's military for sure, but a few notes:

1. I would call today's China military far from being inadequately trained. Maybe the PPSh-armed PLA was outdated and horribly trained decades ago, but there's a great increase in training since the late 80s and early 90s, and most notably in these past few years (not only as in ground troop training, but also flight hours and naval exercises).
It's true that there are a lot of obsolete equipment (I've personally visited a camp for an AAA brigade of a particular armored divison, and sadly speaking, all they have for now seems to be SA-2s and 57mm AAA guns), but that doesn't mean that the training is equally poor. Although not particular top-notch, IMHO this belief of lack of training and discipline in the PLA is only based on decades-old facts and the fact that the doctrine of the PLA is old-fashioned, instead of the shape of the PLA training and discipline today. Especially in special units such as the airborne and the PLAN Marines, it is safe to assume that training in active service is much better than those years ago.
Because of these factors combined however, it is safe to say that the PLA is taking a great reduction in numbers (especially since the discharge of more than a million soldiers somewhere in the 80es), and with an improved economy, less people are going to want to join the service. Another impact on such type of military perhaps. Without the huge reduction in number over the 20 years and lessons learned from observing the Persian Gulf War, the PLA probably would stick with old equipment and doctrines anyways.

2. About fighter aircraft, I don't know where you got your information, but I'm pretty sure that there are no such thing as a "J-9" in service, nor for the matter, any variant of the MiG-29 (-33 included). However, the J-10 is in very late stages of deployment, and is scheduled to be entering service very soon. Besides the J-11 however (I believe that it is actually the SK), there's also a number of 2 seater Su-30MKKs. However, the PLAAF still sticks on the old Soviet-style GCI controllers, so that's another hurdle for the PLAAF to get over (again, it's a matter of the military's doctrine, as the USAF went fine without ground controllers in Vietnam).
Also, if you are taking all the info from globalsecurity (which IMO, isn't near the quality of other sources dedicated to info on the Chinese military), most H-5 has already been retired, with only a few remaining for training and reconissance.
However, it is still a fact that the PLANAF (the PLAN's naval air branch) is still struggling with aircraft of even more obsolete types, but for such type of military, modernization couldn't be perfect in every branch.

Also, aside from that, I don't know what you mean by "basic militia", but there is a reserve system ("Yubei" in Chinese) in the PLA (IIRC it basically consists of former active service members, but with lesser average training. Also don't forget about the People's Armed Police, which basically is a PLA branch for civil security, and also takes part in other tasks such as disaster relief and counter-terrorism.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

24-10-2004, 05:07

1. Basic training is good, but my sources not a lack in combined arms training, which is a critical factor these days. There is also very limited specialist training, leaving the Chinese inferior to conemporaries in several areas. I also count the lack of initiative against them, even if it is a product of the system of government.

2. I meant FC-1/JF-17. Just some confusion in sources over designation and I forgot to change it. I'm also aware that most of the H-5s have been retired. However, most of my other info is a bit old anyway, and most players who want to copy this will probably want to keep them.

3. Sources listed it as either basic or primary. They didn't disagree with the "ordinary" for the lower type. I just chose basic because it fits a bit better. Basic/primary probably refers to Yubei, while ordinary would be the People's Armed Police.

4. There is a LOT of confusion over the Chinese military due to lack of info released. You should see strategypage.com's assesment of the PLAAF!

Sources also included sinodefense.com, half a dozen books I have, and a number of sites with more specific information. I prefer not to rely on a single source if I can get around it.

The Lightning Star

24-10-2004, 06:52

Nation: The Lightning Star
Population: 741,000,000
GDP: $22.23 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $30,000
Active Military Personnel: 3,705,000
Reserves: 4,000,000
Militia: 7,000,000
Portion of Population: 0.5%
Military Spending: $1.5 trillion
Portion of GDP: n/a
Spending Per Active Soldier: $404,000
Military Nature: Blitzkrieg(fast-attacking)
Infrastructure: Very High
Logistics Support: Fairly High
Experience: High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

Omz222

24-10-2004, 07:41

Well, I'll have to agree with that. With my own sources, it is indeed true that there are combined arms training, but there aren't much especially in the 50s-70s. However, there are a growing number of large exercises, but still not much true cooperation between ground, sea, and air units. Flight hours could improve within the PLAAF, as it's lesser than perhaps even the Indian Air Force (but you have to account for the high number of pilots, smaller number of instructors, and trainers). Could be one of the major disadvantages of a massive military with an old set of doctrine.

4. Well, that's definately true. Since the PLA (or the whole of the Chinese government) doesn't like to release a lot of info, it is safe to assume that even the numbers are approximations (we weren't even allowed to take photograph of the towed 57mm AAAs in that tour as they are 'secrets'). The government's reluctance to reveal the true military budget tells the story alone.

Vastiva

24-10-2004, 10:24

The Lightning Star

24-10-2004, 18:22

*throttle*throttle*throttle*

Everything is not going to be high on anyone anywhere ever.

Let me put it another way - where are your militaries weaknesses?

Hey listen, i put the support on "Fairly High and i put the equipment on modern, instead of Very high and Advanced modern repsectively.

Not to mention my army is geared towards an offensive war, and we do considerably worse when we defend ourselves(you can see this by the fact that every time we've been invaded we were glassed and utterly crushed, EXCEPT for the First, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth Washibar-The Lighning Star war.

Vastiva

24-10-2004, 18:59

Hey listen, i put the support on "Fairly High and i put the equipment on modern, instead of Very high and Advanced modern repsectively.

Not to mention my army is geared towards an offensive war, and we do considerably worse when we defend ourselves(you can see this by the fact that every time we've been invaded we were glassed and utterly crushed, EXCEPT for the First, third, fourth, seventh, and ninth Washibar-The Lighning Star war.

I don't think you get it, so I'll put forth myself as a partial example.

Vastiva has no amphibious assault capability - the military is defensive in posture, and as such has focused no energy on invasion. We do have 21 FRAM Regiments for airdropped offense, but that is the sum extent.

Our navy concentrates on submarines and destroyers. Given our theater and ideology, this gives us superior strike capability in our waters, and allows us an "unseen presence" in the world. However, there is a subsequent lack in capital ships. Given our objective would be a mobile naval war, we don't see this as a problem - more targets with a sum larger ability to deliver firepower (particularly missile based) is more of a headache for an invader. However, again, we lack in ability to deliver constant shore bombardment or sustained surface action (guns have more rounds then missiles). But this is inside our parameters.

Vastiva's military is rated "low" on heavy tanks. Again, this is in line with our theater and nature - Tanks don't have great mobility in arctic, and much of our land is mountain/hill. On the other time, we have over four times as much artillery and MLRS as most militaries our size, the greater portion of it being self-propelled. Our tactics being geared towards mobile warfare, light fast tanks with superior guns work better then heavy, slow tanks that sink in the ice and snow.

Vastiva put concentration on logistics, and is both ground and airmobile here. As most of our ground military is mechanized, this makes more sense to us. It also results in maintenance costs that give severe headaches to the budget bureau, but this is necessary due to theater and nature.

Now see?

And if you've been "glassed and crushed" so often, then most of your experienced people are "dust and jello". This might also have the effect of your people going "Yanno, we really don't want to do this anymore... its too much trouble rebuilding each time".

Your turn.

Daistallia 2104

24-10-2004, 19:43

Currently re-working my old military to bring it up to date, so details will likely change.

The old military can be found here (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/daistallia/military/armedforces.html).
Many aspects should remain the same.

Nation: Daistallia 2104
Population: 1,645,000,000
Gross Domestic Product: $63 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $38,384.11
Active Military Personnel:
Long Service: 5 million
Basic Training Course: 5 million (10 million/year)
Reserves: None.
Militia: 164.5 million
Portion of Population: .6%
Military Spending: $2.5 Trillion
Portion of GDP: 3.9%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $367,100
Spending Per Basic Training recruit $50,000
Spending Per Militiaman: $1000
Military Nature: High-tempo defensive maneuver warfare
Infrastructure: High
Logistics Support: High
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Near future tech (2104)
Leadership: Very high
Tradition: High

Notes: All 18 year olds are subject to a 6 month conscription. Roughly 80% of possible recruits are found fit for service and roughly 30% of males and 70% of females opt for non-military service. This leaves 10 million annually who undergo the 6 month basic training course. Of those, approximately 250,000 make a long term service comitmment. The average term of service is 20 years.
Basic training is quite simple. It is divided into two parts. The first lasts 12 weeks and provides rudimentary military skills. The In the second, the conscripts are divided into two groups. One is a non-selection group, and provides mostly rudimentary training. The second is a selection process for those who wish to go on to long service careers. Recruits are usually split 50/50 in these groups. The selection process is quite grueling, and resembles the selection for second tier elite units of many militaries (the British paras or USMC). Only 2.5% of each yearly group of conscripts make it through. After selection, recruits are sent to advanced training in their branch.

The Militia consists of personnel who have been through basic training. The average term of service is 20 years. Militia units have very limited training one week a year.

Although Daistallia 2104 has not seen a war in a very long time, the professional military's long term of service is intended to help alleviate that problem. Training tends to be extermely realistic and frequent training. Furthermore, soldiers are allowed to take sabbatical leaves up to one year to serve with private military companies, which allows the qccrument of both combat experience and intelligence.

Leadership standards are very high. All NCOs and officers are promoted from within the ranks. Even the lowest level squad leader school is a 4 month assignment.

The level of tradition is quite high. Many who opt for and pass the selection process are of Stalli or Whillan military caste descent. The Stalli originally were decendents of Swiss mercenaries and the Whillan military caste were Gurkas.

Weaknesses: Aside from a near total lack of combat experience, the military has a distinct lack of reserves. This function is seen as being taken up by the militia, which consists of poorly trained light infantry forces.

Vastiva

24-10-2004, 19:49

The Lightning Star

24-10-2004, 19:50

I don't think you get it, so I'll put forth myself as a partial example.

Vastiva has no amphibious assault capability - the military is defensive in posture, and as such has focused no energy on invasion. We do have 21 FRAM Regiments for airdropped offense, but that is the sum extent.

Our navy concentrates on submarines and destroyers. Given our theater and ideology, this gives us superior strike capability in our waters, and allows us an "unseen presence" in the world. However, there is a subsequent lack in capital ships. Given our objective would be a mobile naval war, we don't see this as a problem - more targets with a sum larger ability to deliver firepower (particularly missile based) is more of a headache for an invader. However, again, we lack in ability to deliver constant shore bombardment or sustained surface action (guns have more rounds then missiles). But this is inside our parameters.

Vastiva's military is rated "low" on heavy tanks. Again, this is in line with our theater and nature - Tanks don't have great mobility in arctic, and much of our land is mountain/hill. On the other time, we have over four times as much artillery and MLRS as most militaries our size, the greater portion of it being self-propelled. Our tactics being geared towards mobile warfare, light fast tanks with superior guns work better then heavy, slow tanks that sink in the ice and snow.

Vastiva put concentration on logistics, and is both ground and airmobile here. As most of our ground military is mechanized, this makes more sense to us. It also results in maintenance costs that give severe headaches to the budget bureau, but this is necessary due to theater and nature.

Now see?

And if you've been "glassed and crushed" so often, then most of your experienced people are "dust and jello". This might also have the effect of your people going "Yanno, we really don't want to do this anymore... its too much trouble rebuilding each time".

Your turn.

What the hell does Yanno mean?

Anyhoo...

The Lightning Star focuses mainly on Blitzkrieg style attacks, so our defences are limited. We DO have 50,000 Flak Cannons and 10,000 SAM installations, but they are mostly manned by reserves. The nation also HAD a massive tunnel system which covered the entire country, with tens of thousands of SAM intallations, bunkers, and minefields, as well as other stuff, but it was destroyed in the war with Jangle Jangle Ridge. All that is left is a small section of the system surrounding the capital, Helios. If the nation is invaded, the Militia is used to bear the brunt of the attacks, thus causing heavy casualties but minimal damage to the Regular Army(which is to be used in offensives against the invaders).

The Navy is made up mostly of Frigates and Cruisers, with the occasional Battleship and aircraft carrier thrown in. However, there are only 20 Omega Class Nuclear Submarines, but they are heavily armed, plus most lightning Starians think of submarines as cowardly. The main job of the Lightnign Starian Navy is numbers, due to the fact that most port cities that see nothing but Lightning Starian ships all along the horizon will most likely surrender. In a major naval battle, the Navy can hold its own for a while but a major fleet consisting of Battleships and Aircraft carriers could defeat the navy withing a few hours.

Due to the nations Blitz nature, the focus is mostly on Swift but Powerful weapons. The nation has only a few hundred heavy tanks, but has many Medium and small ones. The Lightning Star also has a large Air Force(which inculdes Final Fantasy Style Airships in Future/advanced modern/fantasy tech RP's), which it uses to destroy their enemy from within using heavy stealth bombers. A lightning Starian battle-plan looks like this:

1. Stealth Bombers attack key military installations and disrupts enemy troop movements and defences.
2. Within 30 minutes Shock Troopers paradrop into enemy territory.
3. The Shock Troopers attack military installations and infrastructure which the planes didn't
4. Up to 5 hours after the bombings the main army arrives either by boat or air at a location which the Shock Troopers have cleared(all military units must know how to jump out of a plane or else they are put on defensive duty)
5. The main army quickly moves inland to fight any resistance which the Shock Troops didn't destroy.
6. Up to three hours after the main army arrives the armor arrives.
7. Now that it has been up to 8:30 hours since the invasion began, the entire army quickly mounts LAV's and quickly drives inland. If all has gone according to plan, the Army faces only 45-30% of the enemies army, the rest has been put out of commission.

The Lightning Star hasnt been invaded in over 70(in-game) years. The last war was fought 7 months ago when Muru asked for asistance in destroying Tanuio. 70% of the Lightning Starian armed forces took part in that war, and we won sustaining only 4 million casualties(well, only 7,000 of those were Military. However, we were hit by quite a few Chemical and biological weapons so we lost quite a few civilians.)

Abcan

24-10-2004, 20:09

The way I work:

ECONOMY

How much money do you have? I pay more attention to what i want! If i need something for my military (as it is mostly what people buy), i produce it for myself at my storefront or I purchase a few here or there getting a feeling of my total extent without actually going all out buying EVERYTHING!

What you need to ask yourself, What do i need in this actual moment? I'm researching stuff online for my upcoming storefront, and the stuff i keep for myself will be listed in another thread and a backup probably in my regional forum (out of site) or wherever, just don't get flooded! Just keep your list somewhere, and practice plenty or when it's time to use em' you won't know what to do first! You could even forget what something does, and when you can't find it on the net, you'll get frustrated!!

So i recommend you know what you want, get what you want, and use them often as this is a RPG, not a how-many-characters-can-my-wordpad-hold-game!

INFORMATION

I have seen some people read your nations information page and judge you through that. Personally, i don't really pay attention to it, the only thing of truth you can find out is my currency, and that's about it! I don't really care for a national animal, but it's there.

Some people might go on that, but it's so radical, and unless you're gonna change everyday, you shouldn't use it either!

MILITARY

I'll set my military at 5% personally, but as an asian nation, my people will be highly patriot when we're on the defensive! That's always the case.... I recommend 5%, but i seen others use more or less, but that's them. An armed forces in important in manpower, but your people are most important! And they could turn a war around....

Daistallia 2104

24-10-2004, 20:09

So, you have overwhelming first strike, but if you get bogged down, you can't replace forces well in an Attritional war. *nods*

More or less. It's defensive. Knock the attacker out. If that doesn't work, well the militia get's their make up training the hard way in a guerilla fight - which is what they're designed for. A note on the geography of Daistallia 2104 helps here. We're about equally divided into plains, hills, and Alpine/Himalayan mountains, the latter 2/3rds being inland and facing long term friends. The plains are ideal for manuver warfare while the inland areas are more suited to guerilla actions.

Also, I didn't mention, although it's in the military page I linked, there is a large cadre of long term regulars designed to stiffen the ranks of the militia.

Vastiva

25-10-2004, 00:16

The Lightning Star

25-10-2004, 00:44

I notice that u didnt respond to my post :/

Naradoc

25-10-2004, 04:11

Well from what i read here this is my thinking on my military.----

Country: Naradoc
Pop: 40mil
Economy: All-Consuming
Attitude: A militaristic country run by an oligarchy, focused on growing to project power.
Total Active Military: 1% or 400,000

Breakdown:

Army: 200,000
Logistics etc: 67% or 134,000
Combat Troops: 66,000
Light Infantry: 14,000
Mech Infantry: 32,000
Armor and Artillery: 20,000

Navy: 100,000
Shore Logistics: 65,000
Support Ship Crew: 21,000
Combat Crew: 14,000

Air Force: 100,000
Ground Crew etc: 95,000
Air Support: 3,000
Combat Crew: 2,000

Recruiting and Strategy Information:

All men and women are required to serve 1 year in the military after completing secondary school most of these conscripts leave after their required service and make up a poorly trained last resort defense force. The active military is composed more dedicated personel. Most of the bottom rung of the military (ex: privates) are men who chose to serve an additional 5 years after their concription period. The NCOs and officer corps are commited to 20+ years of service at their own choice. The effective reserves are the men who served the extended 5 years but then went on to civilian life, for these men 3 weeks of training are required each year. All other citizens are required to train for 1 week each year. The airforce is mainly composed of extended service personel due to its more technical nature.

Army stategy is focused on a felixble mechanized force, and most doctrines call for a preemptive first strike. The air force is mainly used to protect the army and has few strategic bombers, instead opting for more CAP strike craft. Attacks on enemy infrastructure are to be acomplished by either cruise missles or small numbers of percision weapons carried by fighter-bombers. The navy is a mix of small frigates destroyers and submarines. The navy does employ one small aircraft carrier capable of carrying a small number of STOVL aircraft. Naradoc has a no amphibious capabililty at this time.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

25-10-2004, 05:28

Again, 65% support troops is only acceptable at the division level and lower. The US Army, with only half of its force being mechanized, maintains less than 10% of its personnel in direct combat roles, and less than 5% in combat support roles.
An army with only 65% of its personnel in support roles will have limited supply and support capability, and will not be capable of supporting major operations for any real length of time.

The navy looks fine there. If anything, you could afford a higher proportion in the combat and support ship crews. Remember, that while the ratio of combat to support personnel is still about the same as with the army, most ship crewmembers are support personnel. The US Navy has somewhere around 25-30% of its manpower making up crews for combat vessels.

However, unless you have a very weak support arm for the air force (ie, very few transports, recon, ELINT, AWACS, tankers, etc), they should amount to a much greater portion, and the combat aircraft might be too high there. Assuming only one crew per aircraft (which isn't quite the case) fighter/bomber/attack crewmembers would actually make up less than 1% of the USAF's active personnel. Support aircraft easily make up twice that. This makes sense when you recognize that a single AWACS aircraft has more aircrew than a full squadron of F-16s, as does a flight of 4 C-5 transports

Vastiva

25-10-2004, 05:37

What the hell does Yanno mean?

Yanno = y'know = you know

Try this:
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt .

Anyhoo...

The Lightning Star focuses mainly on Blitzkrieg style attacks, so our defences are limited. We DO have 50,000 Flak Cannons and 10,000 SAM installations, but they are mostly manned by reserves. The nation also HAD a massive tunnel system which covered the entire country, with tens of thousands of SAM intallations, bunkers, and minefields, as well as other stuff, but it was destroyed in the war with Jangle Jangle Ridge. All that is left is a small section of the system surrounding the capital, Helios. If the nation is invaded, the Militia is used to bear the brunt of the attacks, thus causing heavy casualties but minimal damage to the Regular Army(which is to be used in offensives against the invaders).

The Navy is made up mostly of Frigates and Cruisers, with the occasional Battleship and aircraft carrier thrown in. However, there are only 20 Omega Class Nuclear Submarines, but they are heavily armed, plus most lightning Starians think of submarines as cowardly. The main job of the Lightnign Starian Navy is numbers, due to the fact that most port cities that see nothing but Lightning Starian ships all along the horizon will most likely surrender. In a major naval battle, the Navy can hold its own for a while but a major fleet consisting of Battleships and Aircraft carriers could defeat the navy withing a few hours.

Are you sure about that? There's something to be said about lots of little targets vs one HUGE target.

Due to the nations Blitz nature, the focus is mostly on Swift but Powerful weapons. The nation has only a few hundred heavy tanks, but has many Medium and small ones. The Lightning Star also has a large Air Force(which inculdes Final Fantasy Style Airships in Future/advanced modern/fantasy tech RP's), which it uses to destroy their enemy from within using heavy stealth bombers. A lightning Starian battle-plan looks like this:

1. Stealth Bombers attack key military installations and disrupts enemy troop movements and defences.
2. Within 30 minutes Shock Troopers paradrop into enemy territory.
3. The Shock Troopers attack military installations and infrastructure which the planes didn't
4. Up to 5 hours after the bombings the main army arrives either by boat or air at a location which the Shock Troopers have cleared(all military units must know how to jump out of a plane or else they are put on defensive duty)
5. The main army quickly moves inland to fight any resistance which the Shock Troops didn't destroy.
6. Up to three hours after the main army arrives the armor arrives.
7. Now that it has been up to 8:30 hours since the invasion began, the entire army quickly mounts LAV's and quickly drives inland. If all has gone according to plan, the Army faces only 45-30% of the enemies army, the rest has been put out of commission.

You know what they say about the "best laid plans of mice and men"?

The Lightning Star hasnt been invaded in over 70(in-game) years. The last war was fought 7 months ago when Muru asked for asistance in destroying Tanuio. 70% of the Lightning Starian armed forces took part in that war, and we won sustaining only 4 million casualties(well, only 7,000 of those were Military. However, we were hit by quite a few Chemical and biological weapons so we lost quite a few civilians.)

Time being what it is in NS (extremely variable), its only the second year of the Sultan's reign...

Sounds decent. :)

Vrak

25-10-2004, 06:02

Yanno = y'know = you know

Try this:
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt .

OOC: Actually, it depends on the complexity of the sentence and the degree of transpositions found within the word itself - among other factors. Besides, a person needs a pretty good vocabulary in the first place to make sense of the scrambled sentence. Check out this link:

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/

Clan Smoke Jaguar

26-10-2004, 08:47

Note that no one has to go anywhere near this far, but this will touch on the vast majority of issues that would affect the performance of a military force. To be honest, it started out a bit simpler, but well, you know how these things can grow . . .

Population: 3,423,589,118
Manpower (reaching military age annually): ~50,000,000
Manpower availability (ages 15-49): ~1,735,000,000
Active Military: 15 million (0.44%)
Reserve Military: 15 million (0.44%)
Militia Corps: 15 million (0.44%)
Total: 45 million (1.31%)
Militia (unofficial): 125 million
Grand Total: 170 million (4.97%)
GDP Per Capita: $49,472.54
GDP: $169,373,649,583,819.72 ($169+ trillion)
Military Budget: $12 trillion (7.1%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $800,000 (!)
Budget Per Total Soldier: $266,666.67
Military Nature: Primarily defensive

Army:
Specialties: Deception, Ambush, Operations in restricted terrain
Infrastructure: Excellent
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

Clan Smoke Jagaur’s army is built primarily for defensive engagements, though a strong offensive capability exists. However, with most training being on defensive tactics, large offensive operations are usually done in a “dash-and-dig” style, with forces rushing into enemy territory, but digging in when a counterattack materializes, allowing them to use the defensive tactics they favor even on the attack. Additionally, due to the nation’s location and the relative lack of such harsh environments, most units lack training for arctic conditions, with only those expeditionary forces based in Ferrussia having adequate capability in that field.
The army’s specialties reflect its defensive nature, with strong emphasis being on deception and ambushes. Enemy forces have routinely be lead into attacking or retreating due to manipulation of information, and it is not unheard of for entire attacking army groups to be decimated by well-planned large-scale ambushes. Finally, due to the nation’s geography, infantry place a strong emphasis on operations in Jungle, Urban, and Mountainous terrain, and Smoke Jaguar forces tend to excel in such operations.
As the military spending would suggest, tremendous resources have been spent on providing the maximum possible support, training, and equipment. The nation itself has one of the best rail networks in the world, and supply depots dot the entire countryside. Major arms manufacturing industries have also led to large stockpiles of munitions and equipment, and the ability to shift to wartime production with greater ease and less impact on the economy than in most other nations.
Additionally, most units have two complete sets of equipment – one in the nation itself, and one in prepositioned stocks overseas. This allows units to be deployed and activated without the expensive and time-consuming process of shipping equipment and supplies. The level of worldwide capability provided by this is due mostly to the numerous OMP Naval Bases, in which the nation has invested heavily.
Due to numerous small border clashes with Clan Wolverine and the Ghost Bear Dominion, along with participants in the Battle of Honjaksgrad still being present, Clan Smoke Jaguar has a decent level of experience. However, there have not been any major combat operations for some time.

Navy:
Specialties: Submarine warfare, convoy escort
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

The navy is based heavily on frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, and thus boasts an extraordinary escort force, which has been trained extensively in the vital role of keeping convoys safe from enemy attack. Carrier and battleship forces, while notable, are relatively modest, and none of the 500,000+ ton superdreadnoughts that have come to dominance can be found among Smoke Jagaur ships. However, the Smoke Jaguars do have some of the largest and best protected supply, cargo, and replenishment ships, providing excellent logistical support. This is backed up by the OMP Naval Bases, which give several well-positioned resupply points worldwide.
The primary offensive power of the Smoke Jaguar fleet is its submarine force. All told, well over 1000 submarines serve in the Smoke Jaguar Navy, though only about 65% of these are nuclear powered. The submarines are state-of-the-art, and the crews go through some of the toughest training in the world to get access to the Silent Service. Still, despite its efficiency, the force is actually relatively modest for a nation this size, a fact that is somewhat offset by the large proportion of missile submarines, providing extensive cruise missile capability against both sea and land targets. Closer to home and overseas bases, there are a large number of advanced AIP submarines, which provide excellent local patrol and interdiction capability, if not quite the service of dedicated hunter-killers.
As with the ground forces, Clan Smoke Jaguar has a massive shipbuilding industry, and exports of combat vessels are a major source of jobs and income. As such, there is a strong base for wartime production already in place, with numerous and extensive shipyards as well as large stockpiles of fuel and munitions.
Though training is high, and there have been a few minor clashes, Clan Smoke Jaguar has not participated in a major naval engagement since the battles of Honjaksgrad and Hagras Bay, which happened long enough ago that almost none of the ships that participated are still on the active roster.

Air Force:
Specialties: Dogfighting, close air support, rapid deployment
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: High
Training: High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

More than any other service, the Smoke Jaguar air force has been the tip of the sword for the military. As the source of rapid deployment capability, and the quickest to provide combat forces, the Air Force is the only branch that has seen truly extensive combat operations, though many of these are still smaller-scale operations. The most notable advantage Smoke Jaguar aircraft have over their opponents is agility. Owing to advanced G-Suits and composite airframes, Smoke Jaguar aircraft can run rings around just about any other planes in the sky, an advantage that is enhanced by the extensive air combat training. Though they are still formidable at long ranges, Smoke Jaguar pilots have proven to be utterly devastating at closer ranges, and if given a good chance, they will usually prefer to “mix it up” with enemy fighters.
The Smoke Jaguars also have an excellent close air support capability, owing partially to the extensive training and FIST personnel, but also to the relative lack of interservice rivalry compared with many other militaries. Because of this, Smoke Jaguar pilots have been known to stick around in situations where those in other militaries are likely to have bugged out, and when this is combined with their excellent coordination and accuracy, the Smoke Jaguar CAS arm is truly devastating.
Again, as with the other services, the large arms industry has left numerous factories devoted specifically for aircraft and their necessary spare parts, leaving extensive stockpiles and production capability.

WMD:
Specialties: Chemical warfare, cruise missile strikes
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Low
Training: Very High
Clan Smoke Jaguar has a modest nuclear arsenal, including decent, but hardly overpowering ICBM and SLBM forces. Additionally, there are numerous IRBMs and SRBMs, along with an array of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, and torpedo/missile warheads. The vast majority of these are specifically for tactical use, and are of limited strategic value on their own. Nuclear forces, with the obvious risks entailed with their roles, are among the most exhaustively trained and drilled personnel in the nation. They are expected to act quickly and with a high degree of initiative, except regarding the decision to launch, which is still a political decision.
However, balancing the relatively small nuclear force is an extensive stockpile of various chemical weapons, providing excellent tactical support, though this is often more through intimidation than the actual damage that could be called. As with the nuclear weapons, the political and physical volatility of the stockpiles ensures that only the best trained troops can handle them.

Service Levels:

Active: These forces are the tip of the spear, and make up the bulk of the full-time military personnel. Active troops represent those forces that would likely be deployed abroad in support of allies, as well as key defensive units along the border and strategic reserves. Minimum service in the active force is 10 years, with the average being 15-20.

Reserve: These forces are well equipped, but don’t train anywhere near as much as active soldiers. They are essentially part-time soldiers and will usually either be continuing schooling or working an additional part-time job as well. However, some 20% of the force is still full-time soldiers which form the core leadership of the force. Part-time personnel receive about 120 days training a year. These are generally units that will only be mobilized for a major engagement, though there is a rotation for a few defensive spots along the border, allowing them to maintain a degree of actual field experience among their ranks. Minimum service length is 5 years, with 10-15 being the average.

Militia Corps: Regional defense forces that are not expected to operate outside their assigned areas. These units are equipped with older equipment, and tend to be much lower on heavy combat units. These units are also part-time, though some 10% are full-timers. The part-timers spend about 60 days training a year, and are expected to serve a minimum of 2 years, though it is not uncommon for them to serve 5 or more.

Militia: Large unofficial force including the majority of veterans up to age 55 and numerous other volunteers. This is comprised of numerous independent units that have modest government backing but are primarily privately operated, with personnel training and operating on a volunteer basis. Training and equipment naturally varies, and these units are expected to help repel any invasion, and help supply replacements to combat units in a major war.

Enlistment:
All Smoke Jaguar citizens are required to have completed 2 years of some form of military or related government service by the age of 20. However, there are great discrepancies in how they serve, with only about 30-40% of the 50 million people reaching military age actually attempting to gain admittance into the armed forces. Regardless of specific service, some basic training and conditioning is provided starting in elementary school, and increasing in intensity as they get older. For those who choose direct military service, advanced training usually begins at age 17-18, with formal acceptance as a regular in the armed forces occurring about a year after that.
Entrance into the active forces is highly sought after, resulting in a very competitive training program, especially due to the fact that there are rarely more than 1 million slots and often as many as 8-10 million applicants, resulting in high refusal and drop-out rates. About 40% of applicants are accepted to receive training, and as many as 80% of these will drop out or be relegated to a lower service.
Between those who failed to gain entrance into the active force, and those who directly apply for them, the reserve forces receive about 6-8 million applicants annually, of which about 30% are rejected outright, leaving some 30% of the remainder being accepted.
The Militia Corps, on the other hand, is not so sought after, with many of the 5-6 million applicants being those who were rejected or washed out from higher services. About 20% of these are rejected, with nearly 2/3 of the remainder finding acceptance.
Several of those who wash out completely may find themselves in service with the militia under government or government-accepted private sponsorship. However, this number is quite small. On the other hand, many dropouts will join up with various militia organizations in addition to anything else they may do, still giving some chance of service.

Commissions:
Clan Smoke Jaguar does not have the arbitrary officer schools that mark most militaries (ie West Point, Frunze, etc). Instead, they have officers recruited from ranks of experienced enlisted personnel. If at all possible, applicants should have combat experience and a minimum of 2 years of actual service, though in emergencies, others may be accepted. Officers are also naturally expected to sign on for longer terms. Those who are accepted go to OCS, where they must pass a rigorous academic program to receive a commission as a junior officer. It is believed that this process not only helps to ensure that officers are of the highest caliber, but helps to foster greater understanding and acceptance between officers and enlisted personnel. It also guarantees a greater level of experience among junior officers, as even the lowest lieutenant will already have a few years worth of experience.

Notes:
1. There is a price to pay for high ratings in so many categories, and that's the extreme level of spending. At 800k per soldier per year, I can afford to have them exhaustively trained and lavishly equipped. Even the US can't afford to have things this good.

2. I tended to refrain from outright listing the weaknesses, but I at least hinted at quite a few. Even with all that money being spent, it's not good at everything

3. Most militaries don't require more than 2-5 years of service. Clan Smoke Jaguar is a bit extreme in the case of its active and reserve forces.

4. Most reserve forces have about 40-100 days of training per year, depending on the nation and role. Most militias have 40 days of training or less.

5. High washout rates mean that, while soldiers that get through will be better, it will cost disproportionately more for each one that does.

6. Due to the system in place, there are far fewer officers in CSJ. So, unlike other armies, chaplains, cooks, etc will be enlisted personnel, not officers. Similarly, air force units make significant use of enlisted pilots, with only squadron commander and higher billets truly requiring officers. Most RL air forces require all pilots to be officers.

Apollina

26-10-2004, 09:43

Vastiva

26-10-2004, 10:23

Clan Smoke Jaguar

26-10-2004, 12:45

I have been wondering how much budget to allocate to upkeep of equipment. Currently I have a pretty poor army with old equipment, small navy and no air power, so I have 30% of the budget to wages and upkeep. I have always wondered about this.
Upkeep is the single largest destination for furnds, and a general rule is that about 80% of your military budget should go to upkeep. I've found that to hold true in just about every army I was able to dig up such info on. Unless you have disproportionately high spending per soldier, you can't get out of that.

Apollina

26-10-2004, 14:26

Ok. Thanks CSJ, that is helpful.

Nianacio

26-10-2004, 23:44

Eighty percent?
TOTAL SPENDING: $368.2 billion ($3.8 billion above FY'03)
House: $368.7 billion
Senate: $368.6 billion
Request: $372.3 billion
NOTE: These figures do not reflect the $87 billion war supplemental requested by the Bush Administration for FY 2004.

TOTAL SPENDING BY TITLE

PERSONNEL
Conference: $98.5 billion ($4.9 billion above FY'03)
House: $98.3 billion
Senate: $98.8 billion
Request: $98.9 billion

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Conference: $115.9 billion ($1.2 billion above FY'03)
House: $115.3 billion
Senate: $115.6 billion
Request: $117.0 billion

PROCUREMENT
Conference: $74.7 billion ($3.1 billion above FY'03)
House: $74.7 billion
Senate: $74.0 billion
Request: $72.7 billion

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Conference: $65.2 billion ($7.0 billion above FY'03)
House: $64.6 billion
Senate: $63.6 billion
Request: $61.8 billion

Scandavian States

27-10-2004, 03:04

You know, there's something that bothers me about your post, but it's probably something that is unique to my situation. See, I take a rather libertarian view to national budgets. That is, beyond defese, law&order, education, and perhaps some small accessories such as a space program, it is the responsibility of the state/province/duchy to provide for their citizens' needs. Now, as such, I have a rather large active military (maybe ten million all told) and about 30 divisions of "reserve" troops that I call that Duchy Guard.

Because of all that, I spend nearly 90% of my budget, split evenly, on the three primary factors and a few trillion here and there for the smaller necessary evils. Of course, this was figured using pipian with my GDP of 25,000 per capita. I haven't figured anything using your numbers, although truth be told they are probably more realistic.

Syskeyia

27-10-2004, 15:22

Scandavian States

27-10-2004, 16:57

Same thing, but then again, we tend to be generally "anti-spending" or something. The nearly 2 trillion defence budget is already pushing it, especially as our military is pretty limited in scope and only has very limited if any extra-regional capability.

Well, it's not that I'm anti-spending so much, it's that I dislike paying for budget draining frivalities (Social Welfare) and huge bureaucracy (my NS page contradicts itself, so I take the side that is inline with my preferred policies.)

Syskia: You have a very large army (probably double the size of mine), a moderately sized navy, but I do have a question about your AF. When you list the units, do you mean squadrons or do you mean wings? Because the former is just 12 aircraft while the latter is seventy-two.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

28-10-2004, 08:00

Since nobody will comment on your military unless you post numbers, here's my military:

Military Size: 39,290,500

Army: 14,780,000
Mechanized Infantry Divisions: 321
Armored Divisions: 214
Special Forces Divisions: 54
Air Defense Divisions: 75
Airborne Divisions: 75

Navy: 13,506,500
40 Battleships (24 Iowa-class, 16 Joanna von Sachshausen-class)
153*Amphibious Assault Ships LHD
45 Misc. Command Ships
69 Amphibious Assault Ships LHA
408 Amphibious Landing Platform Docks LPD
108 Landing Ships Tank LST
153 Destroyers DD
400 AEGIS Cruisers CG
534 Guided Missile Destroyers DDG
483 Guided Missile Frigates FFG
500 Submarines
40 Carriers
156 Coastal Patrol Ships
144 Minehunters
168 Mine Countermeasures Ships
48 Rescue and Salvage Ships
Aircraft: 9,231

Air Force: 11,004,000
108 Bomber Squadrons
• 27 B-1 Squadrons
• 27 B-2 Squadrons
• 27 B-52 Squadrons
• 28 FB-111 Squadrons
24 Strategic Reconissance Squadrons
• 6 SR-71 Squadrons
• 6 U-2 Squadrons
• 6 TR-1 Squadrons
• 6 Unmanned squadrons
33 Command Squadrons
• 16 E-4 Squadrons
• 17 EC-135 Squadrons
207 KC-10 Tanker Squadrons
227 Fighter Squadrons
• 113 F-22 Squadrons
• 114 F-16E Squadrons
300 Fighter/Ground Attack Squadrons
• 60 A-10 Squadrons
• 60 F-16E Squadrons
• 60 F-117 Squadrons
• 60 F-16EJ "Wild Weasel" Squadrons
• 60 F-111 Squadrons
46 RF-4G Tactical Reconissance Squadrons
41 AWACS/Electronic Combat Warfare Squadrons
• 10 E-3 Squadrons
• 10 EC-135 Squadrons
• 10 EC-130 Squadrons
• 11 EF-111 Squadrons
71 Tactical Control Squadrons
• 23 OA-10 Squadrons
• 24 OV-10 Squadrons
• 24 CH-3 Squadrons
33 Special Squadrons
4 Aggressor Training Squadrons
183 Training Squadrons
104 Strategic Airlift Squadrons
• 52 C-17 Squadrons
• 52 C-5C Squadrons
267 CL-130 Tactical Airlift Squadrons
46 SAR squadrons
16 Medical evacuation squadrons
16 weather reconissance squadrons

What do you think?
There seems to be a noted lack of higher level support in the army.
Unless those divisions have only 5-10,000 actual personnel, you actually have nothing more than a large garrison force with almost zero real warfighting capability. If your divisions have 20,000 personnel each, which is what I suspect, there is a decided lack of higher-level support for extended operations. Divisions, while significant forces on their own, still require significant additional support to operate effectively, which is why Corps and Army Groups exist.
At the corps level (just above division level) you will usually find that some 30-50% of the personnel are actually corps-level support troops, depending on the number of attached divisions. This holds again at the Army level, with 30-50% of the personnel in an army group being army-level support.
When making my military, I personally found that, with an impressive 4 divisions for each corps (2 is more common), I actually had over 50,000 personnel per division when corps and army-level support was added in. That's quite a jump from the 13-20,000 personnel in each division.
The US Army has some 470,000 personnel to maintain a total of 8 equivalent combat divisions, or about 58,750 per division.

The Navy, on the other hand, seems to have a disproportionately high number of personnel. I count maybe 2 million or so ship's crews, with an air arm of maybe up to 1 million, which leaves a massive amount left for other things. This details either a very large force of cargo/replenishment vessels, a very large coastal or marine force, or a combination of the two.

The air force is one I can't tell, simply because you give no indication of the number of aircraft in each type of squadron, which varys significantly (could be anywhere from 3 to 30+ aircraft, depending on type and organization). Using more standard numbers, I'm guessing around 25,000-30,000 total aircraft, excluding trainers, which wouldn't need much more than 3 million or so, but I could be off in numbers for each squadron. Still, that leaves a lot of personnel that aren't needed, unless you have the world's most extensive air defense network.

Syskeyia

28-10-2004, 15:14

There seems to be a noted lack of higher level support in the army.
Unless those divisions have only 5-10,000 actual personnel, you actually have nothing more than a large garrison force with almost zero real warfighting capability. If your divisions have 20,000 personnel each, which is what I suspect, there is a decided lack of higher-level support for extended operations. Divisions, while significant forces on their own, still require significant additional support to operate effectively, which is why Corps and Army Groups exist.
At the corps level (just above division level) you will usually find that some 30-50% of the personnel are actually corps-level support troops, depending on the number of attached divisions. This holds again at the Army level, with 30-50% of the personnel in an army group being army-level support.
When making my military, I personally found that, with an impressive 4 divisions for each corps (2 is more common), I actually had over 50,000 personnel per division when corps and army-level support was added in. That's quite a jump from the 13-20,000 personnel in each division.
The US Army has some 470,000 personnel to maintain a total of 8 equivalent combat divisions, or about 58,750 per division.

The Navy, on the other hand, seems to have a disproportionately high number of personnel. I count maybe 2 million or so ship's crews, with an air arm of maybe up to 1 million, which leaves a massive amount left for other things. This details either a very large force of cargo/replenishment vessels, a very large coastal or marine force, or a combination of the two.

The air force is one I can't tell, simply because you give no indication of the number of aircraft in each type of squadron, which varys significantly (could be anywhere from 3 to 30+ aircraft, depending on type and organization). Using more standard numbers, I'm guessing around 25,000-30,000 total aircraft, excluding trainers, which wouldn't need much more than 3 million or so, but I could be off in numbers for each squadron. Still, that leaves a lot of personnel that aren't needed, unless you have the world's most extensive air defense network.

Well, there's 24 planes per squadron in the air force, and I decided that when you added up the total personnel and planes, the ratio would be rouly around 100+ people per plane for a good airforce, so I made the ratio 150 people per plane.

Navy- I guess there'd be a large coastal and supply force, I dunno.

Army- hmm, when I calculated my forces, I assumed my mechanized divisions would be roughly 11,000 or so (based on the size of US divisions), so I though giving each division 20,000 or so men per division, and then actually having my divisions down to 10,000-11,000 or so in size, I'd have an adequate personnel above missions. Looking at some of my (older) resources, I found that the average mechanized US division is roughly 17,000 or so personnel. Do you think, perhaps, that 30,000 per division (incl. army and corp personnel) would be good?

Also, do you think I have too many airborne divisions for my strategic and tactical airlift to handle?

Edit: Here's my new military numbers:
Military Size: 44,510,500

Army: 20,000,000
Mechanized Infantry Divisions: 150
Armored Divisions: 100
Special Forces Divisions: 25
Air Defense Divisions: 75
Airborne Divisions: 50

Navy: 13,506,500
40 Battleships (24 Iowa-class, 16 Joanna von Sachshausen-class)
153*Amphibious Assault Ships LHD
45 Misc. Command Ships
69 Amphibious Assault Ships LHA
408 Amphibious Landing Platform Docks LPD
108 Landing Ships Tank LST
153 Destroyers DD
400 AEGIS Cruisers CG
534 Guided Missile Destroyers DDG
483 Guided Missile Frigates FFG
500 Submarines
40 Carriers
156 Coastal Patrol Ships
144 Minehunters
168 Mine Countermeasures Ships
48 Rescue and Salvage Ships
Aircraft: 9,231

Air Force: 11,004,000
108 Bomber Squadrons
• 27 B-1 Squadrons
• 27 B-2 Squadrons
• 27 B-52 Squadrons
• 28 FB-111 Squadrons
24 Strategic Reconissance Squadrons
• 6 SR-71 Squadrons
• 6 U-2 Squadrons
• 6 TR-1 Squadrons
• 6 Unmanned squadrons
33 Command Squadrons
• 16 E-4 Squadrons
• 17 EC-135 Squadrons
207 KC-10 Tanker Squadrons
227 Fighter Squadrons
• 113 F-22 Squadrons
• 114 F-16E Squadrons
300 Fighter/Ground Attack Squadrons
• 60 A-10 Squadrons
• 60 F-16E Squadrons
• 60 F-117 Squadrons
• 60 F-16EJ "Wild Weasel" Squadrons
• 60 F-111 Squadrons
46 RF-4G Tactical Reconissance Squadrons
41 AWACS/Electronic Combat Warfare Squadrons
• 10 E-3 Squadrons
• 10 EC-135 Squadrons
• 10 EC-130 Squadrons
• 11 EF-111 Squadrons
71 Tactical Control Squadrons
• 23 OA-10 Squadrons
• 24 OV-10 Squadrons
• 24 CH-3 Squadrons
33 Special Squadrons
4 Aggressor Training Squadrons
183 Training Squadrons
104 Strategic Airlift Squadrons
• 52 C-17 Squadrons
• 52 C-5C Squadrons
267 CL-130 Tactical Airlift Squadrons
46 SAR squadrons
16 Medical evacuation squadrons
16 weather reconissance squadrons

Clan Smoke Jaguar

28-10-2004, 18:40

Syskeyia

28-10-2004, 19:02

50 airborne divisions is a little more than your combined tactical and strategic airlift forces could deploy at once, assuming light infantry formations with few vehicles. But understand that you don't need to be able to airdrop all of the personnel, as some combat service support elements will most certainly not be dropping under any circumstances, and in most operations, you will only drop the primary combat and support forces. You also won't be expected to be dropping that entire airborne force at once, and many nations have 2-3 times as many paratroops as they can deploy at any one time.
Now, if these are actually mechanized like, say, with Strykers, I'd say that you're going too far, and should drop it to 10-20. But for genuine light infantry, this is fine.

If you had 11,000 personnel per division, that is doable (Soviet style organization). However, putting only 9000 support personnel for each 11,000 division provides only limited infrastructure, about equivalent to the warfighting ability of North Korea, which you probably don't want. If you want a decent force with good logistics, have the larger western divisions with at least half your personnel outside of them. If you want a truly effective interregional force, 70-75% of your personnel outside them would be a much better bet.
If you still want to go with the more streamlined Soviet divisions, 30,000 per division is acceptable, especially if these are only for home defense. If not, you may want a bit more.

Air Force: Okay, that makes things simpler. IRL, only fighter/attack units have that many aircraft. Bomber ones have half as many, and specialist like EW and AWACs generally are lucky to have half a dozen planes per squadron, which is why it's confusing without you specifically stating organization.
For number, a modern air force without an extensive air defense command will have about 65-75 personnel per aircraft, on average. 100 is excessive without something like an air defense network or a ballistic missile command. 150 would be extreme in just about any case.

Well, I've re-adjusted the army and air force stats, therefore giving each division 50,000 per division and an air force ratio of 90 people per aircraft.
I might do some restructuring with my air force squad numbers, though I'll still keep the airlift squadrons at 24 planes per squad, (For MORE AIRLIFT POWER [Timy Allen grunt].)

Also, I've reduced my airborne divisions to 20, and they are mechanized (but they don't use Strykers- they use uber-upgraded M113s, M8 Thunderbolt light tanks/AGSs, etc.). Heck, I've been waiting for a chance to show them off. Maybe with the war Eurusea and the Reich is waging on me, I'll have the chance. ;)

Anyway, here's the new stats:

Military Size: 35,484,660

Army: 18,250,000
Mechanized Infantry Divisions: 150
Armored Divisions: 100
Special Forces Divisions: 20
Air Defense Divisions: 75
Airborne Divisions: 20

Navy: 13,506,500
40 Battleships (24 Iowa-class, 16 Joanna von Sachshausen-class)
153*Amphibious Assault Ships LHD
45 Misc. Command Ships
69 Amphibious Assault Ships LHA
408 Amphibious Landing Platform Docks LPD
108 Landing Ships Tank LST
153 Destroyers DD
400 AEGIS Cruisers CG
534 Guided Missile Destroyers DDG
483 Guided Missile Frigates FFG
500 Submarines
40 Carriers
156 Coastal Patrol Ships
144 Minehunters
168 Mine Countermeasures Ships
48 Rescue and Salvage Ships
Aircraft: 9,231

Air Force: 3,728,160
108 Bomber Squadrons
• 27 B-1 Squadrons
• 27 B-2 Squadrons
• 27 B-52 Squadrons
• 28 FB-111 Squadrons
24 Strategic Reconissance Squadrons
• 6 SR-71 Squadrons
• 6 U-2 Squadrons
• 6 TR-1 Squadrons
• 6 Unmanned squadrons
33 Command Squadrons
• 16 E-4 Squadrons
• 17 EC-135 Squadrons
207 KC-10 Tanker Squadrons
227 Fighter Squadrons
• 113 F-22 Squadrons
• 114 F-16E Squadrons
300 Fighter/Ground Attack Squadrons
• 60 A-10 Squadrons
• 60 F-16E Squadrons
• 60 F-117 Squadrons
• 60 F-16EJ "Wild Weasel" Squadrons
• 60 F-111 Squadrons
46 RF-4G Tactical Reconissance Squadrons
41 AWACS/Electronic Combat Warfare Squadrons
• 10 E-3 Squadrons
• 10 EC-135 Squadrons
• 10 EC-130 Squadrons
• 11 EF-111 Squadrons
71 Tactical Control Squadrons
• 23 OA-10 Squadrons
• 24 OV-10 Squadrons
• 24 CH-3 Squadrons
33 Special Squadrons
4 Aggressor Training Squadrons
183 Training Squadrons
104 Strategic Airlift Squadrons
• 52 C-17 Squadrons
• 52 C-5C Squadrons
267 CL-130 Tactical Airlift Squadrons
46 SAR squadrons
16 Medical evacuation squadrons
16 weather reconissance squadrons

More on the military, especially the army, can be found here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354895).

Clan Smoke Jaguar

28-10-2004, 20:56

That looks fine to me.

Antalaya

29-10-2004, 01:14

Were you planning on posting any more RL nation summaries, i found them to be very interesting

Clan Smoke Jaguar

29-10-2004, 06:30

I'm working on India right now, but term papers come first.

The Gothic Underworld

29-10-2004, 06:58

Question. I agree with what you said, but can you not boost your potential army to 50% of your population with compulsory reservist training for all male citizens (or female citizens, for that matter, or even both), as long as you have an economy that can support at least basic infantry gear for most of them in times of war?

Clan Smoke Jaguar

29-10-2004, 08:48

Well, that kind of depends, but 50% is overly extreme by any stretch of the imagination. There have been a number of posts already pointing out the obvious problems. For starters, only about 65-75% of your population will be part of the labor force (15-64 years old), depending on how developed you are (generally, the more developed, the lower the portion of the population that will be part of the labor force). Now, of that 65%, about 1-2% will be mentally handicapped, depending on how you rate that, and they will not be fully productive members of your labor force. Then you have to factor in those with physical disabilities (blind, deaf, crippled, etc), as well as any others that for some reason can't be productive members of society. Since I don't want to look up the stats right now, lets combine them all to amount to, say, 7.5%.
Now, assuming a developed nation with 65% of the population in the potential labor force, that has now dropped down to 60% that can actually work. Now, when that's considered, 50% of your population is actually close to 85% of your actual labor force! You might realize that this is phenominal. With that much taken out of the labor force, factories will come to a halt, services will be eliminated, transit of goods will drop to dangerously low levels creating massive food shortages, and all this will transfer to the military as well, who will very quickly find themselves suffering food, ammunition, fuel, equipment, and spare parts shortages. At this time, the economy and infrastructure of the nation will naturally be suffering crippling blows, resulting in irreparable damage within a few short days.
Finally, the widespread dissatisfaction would almost certainly lead to a coup/revolution. People would not be tolerating that degree of neglect.

In short, the problem is not equipping or training the force, but keeping it, and the economy, maintained.

Oh yes, and I haven't even touched on the logistics of transporting all those troops to where they're needed. That's another major issue.

The Gothic Underworld

29-10-2004, 09:53

Vastiva

29-10-2004, 09:59

Hmm, yeah.......i got 50% merely from thinking that males make up 50% of the population :D. Anyway, say 25% of your actual labor tasked for every aspect, including transport and support as well as actual combat. Is there anything else needs to be changed?

How do you plan for them to be involved in "transport and support" AND "actual combat"?

And the more people in military, the less supporting the economy

Beth Gellert

29-10-2004, 11:14

Remember that you're not likely to be able to mobilise anything like the full strength of a militia at once, and that they'll probably only fight as the enemy comes up their home street. I really can't see how there' any way for half the population to be involved... even in the most wildly extreme and properly developed cases are you going to get tens of percent involved, and that's considering school children with drill practice after math class and before loony nationalism class, and seniors leaving full time work for a retirement militia home or something. I'd really hate it for dozens of nations to do even that, because much as they might like to think otherwise, I don't think that more than a handful have RP'd the required circumstances and penalties.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the Indian military run-down. I was hoping you'd do that, as I've just settled BG into a large part of India, and though our population (smaller), economy (larger) and situation (too much to explain) are all rather different, it'd still be good to see if there's anything worth, erm, stealing :)

As to why I'm actually here, this may be a bit of a tangent, I dunno. Erm, you've seen some information about Dra-pol in here, earlier, and BG is part of the same realistic RP community (hence the relocation into parts of India and the adoption of a population eleven times smaller than is listed). I'm wondering about conventions and possibilities on ex-service military equipment, specifically tanks.
BG is the closest thing Dra-pol (as North Korea) has ever had to the USSR, which in reality furnished the DPRK with guns, tanks, missiles, and planes. There is some political opposition in BG to arming the authoritarian state, so military aid has stopped and started over the last couple of years, but has been inarguably important. Now, today BG has unveiled a new main battle tank, and is in the early stages of replacing its standard service MBT.

In the past we delievered to Dra-pol about two hundred (of which a few dozen are since rendered unservicable) of this model of fairly modern (125mm gun, some composite armour, NBC system) battle tank to Dra-pol and actually took some technologies and other covert favours in exchange. Now though, with these tanks being gradually phased out of front line service (some will remain in the reserves, but not the full strength), we're wondering about the possibility of transfering a large number to Dra-pol. I mean, does anyone have any input on precedents, feasibility, and difficulties in transfering large numbers of modern but slightly used (not in combat) battle tanks from one (powerful) communist economy to another (isolated, militarist, struggling) communist economy?

I wonder if I'm being silly even to ask... we could just shoulder or share the cost and risk of transporting the vehicles a couple of thousand miles, and be done with it, perhaps. But what the heck usually happens to withdrawn tanks? Especially if they're in servicable condition? Would people complain that we weren't getting back some money by selling or even scrapping them? Is there something we've completely missed with regards to the difficulties? I wouldn't ask, but the worry is that it almost seems too easy to give Dra-pol a major boost to its combat effectiveness, especially since they'll probably convert older T-62-alikes and such to repair, recovery, artillery, and personel-carrier roles (of course fuel and spares would still be something of an issue, but you know).

The Gothic Underworld

29-10-2004, 16:01

How do you plan for them to be involved in "transport and support" AND "actual combat"?

And the more people in military, the less supporting the economy

How would i plan for them? Hell if i know :p

I'm just basing my idea off the defence force of Singapore, where i live. Admittedly, it's a very small country, about twice the size of New York City, with 6 mil population.......so......i dunno.

Daistallia 2104

29-10-2004, 16:08

Well, that kind of depends, but 50% is overly extreme by any stretch of the imagination. There have been a number of posts already pointing out the obvious problems. For starters, only about 65-75% of your population will be part of the labor force (15-64 years old), depending on how developed you are (generally, the more developed, the lower the portion of the population that will be part of the labor force). Now, of that 65%, about 1-2% will be mentally handicapped, depending on how you rate that, and they will not be fully productive members of your labor force. Then you have to factor in those with physical disabilities (blind, deaf, crippled, etc), as well as any others that for some reason can't be productive members of society. Since I don't want to look up the stats right now, lets combine them all to amount to, say, 7.5%.

I've done a liittle bit here on fitness. I'm fiunding around 15% for unfit.

Now, assuming a developed nation with 65% of the population in the potential labor force, that has now dropped down to 60% that can actually work. Now, when that's considered, 50% of your population is actually close to 85% of your actual labor force! You might realize that this is phenominal. With that much taken out of the labor force, factories will come to a halt, services will be eliminated, transit of goods will drop to dangerously low levels creating massive food shortages, and all this will transfer to the military as well, who will very quickly find themselves suffering food, ammunition, fuel, equipment, and spare parts shortages. At this time, the economy and infrastructure of the nation will naturally be suffering crippling blows, resulting in irreparable damage within a few short days.
Finally, the widespread dissatisfaction would almost certainly lead to a coup/revolution. People would not be tolerating that degree of neglect.

In short, the problem is not equipping or training the force, but keeping it, and the economy, maintained.

Oh yes, and I haven't even touched on the logistics of transporting all those troops to where they're needed. That's another major issue.

25-30% ought to be just doable from my figurings - but that means they get basic training and bare bones basic kit (1 rifle, 100 rounds, and an insignia - probably no uniform), are assigned to a unit they never see unil they are called up and nothing else. (All this assuming you have a normal military. Going by the [url=http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=The%20Gothic%20Underworld]NS Economy calculator, Gothic could feasably put around $25,000 per man towards a 25% militia, possibly calling up 1% every 2 weeks for training, or $625,000 per man towards a 1% army...)

If you note my 10% militia above, I can just afford $1000 a year...

Daistallia 2104

29-10-2004, 16:12

How would i plan for them? Hell if i know :p

I'm just basing my idea off the defence force of Singapore, where i live. Admittedly, it's a very small country, about twice the size of New York City, with 6 mil population.......so......i dunno.

Singapore's a tad different from your 2.3 billion. :) Smaller countries can usually field a larger military, percentage-wise, as a rule of thumb.

Al-Sabir

01-11-2004, 15:22

Population: 1,666,914,712
Active Military: 4 million (0.24%)
Reserve Military: 4 million (0.24%)
National Guard: 6 million (0.36%)
Total: 14 million (0.84%)
GDP Per Capita: $50,967.78
GDP: $84,958,942,328,914.19 ($85- trillion)
Budget: $3.82 trillion (4.5%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $955,788.10
Budget Per Total Soldier: $273,082.31
Military Nature: Primarily defensive with offensive potential
Infrastructure: Excellent
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Low
Training: High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

What it means:
Al-Sabir has enjoyed a constant economical grow for the last decades, but wields relatively small armed forces. The military budget is reasonably large, which translates into an absurdly high spendage per active soldier. Still, the 4.5% of the GPD allocated for military spending is remarkably restrained compared to most nations.

Recent defense policy shifts have radically converted the military nature to a more conservative doctrine, suitable to the nation's isolated location. The force projection capabilities have decayed this way. However, due to major oversea committments, the fomidable infrastructure is still kept capable of supporting longterm operations.

Tom Joad

01-11-2004, 15:31

Chenoweth

01-11-2004, 15:59

Hey, I just wanted to know what site has all this military data on everyone's NS countries? Active military, etc...

GMC Military Arms

01-11-2004, 16:18

There isn't one. It's all roleplayed.

Al-Sabir

01-11-2004, 16:19

Civiliam infrastructure isn't really suited for use as part of your military infrastructure, if that's what you actually mean. If you do then everytime you go to war your civilian sector is going to lose out & that will have a massive impact on your economy. People who can't work because the communication systems, like phones & faxes, are being used by the military don't produce anything.

To be honest, I've little knowledge of militaries and that was just what I understood from reading this whole thread, that a lot of the military infrastructure is hidden in the civilian sector. Well, I guess I also could 've formulated my post a bit different.

I'm going to guess you're a democratic nation, you sure your nation is the sort where four million people think the military is a good idea? That's something for RP I know but consider that some RL Western democracies are finding recruitment & retention difficult because the military isn't perceived as a good option yet in others serving in the military is a part of life, such as in Finland where willingness to defend the nation & be part of the military actively is common.

I've exaggerated a bit on my support personnel, ie. taking nearly 200 men and women per aircraft, so I should reduce numbers with nearly half a million, but there are some other points as well.

There is a lot of military tradition. When compulsory service was abolished, recruitment rates skyrocketed, people just thought the military had to be a part of their lives, just as it had been in their fathers' lives and in their grandfathers' lives.

Still, four million is quite much, so I'm planning to half that in the future and assign all redundant equipment to reserve forces.

Tom Joad

01-11-2004, 16:26

There's stuff hidden in your civilian sector but that doesn't cancel out the fact that you can't expect civilian haulage & communication sectors to be providing for the military directly, you may end up with reserves coming from those areas.

As for cutting numbers, seems fair enough but don't forget you'll need to address your militaries weakness, if it's going for short duration campaign it'll be mightily screwed when its plan doesn't go according to schedule. Objectives aren't always reached on time, lossess are heavier than anticipated, expected enemy movement doesn't take place or it happens in other areas that you expected to be lightly held.

Tradition is good, having that shown in your RP will add a nice touch.

Al-Sabir

01-11-2004, 16:36

There's stuff hidden in your civilian sector but that doesn't cancel out the fact that you can't expect civilian haulage & communication sectors to be providing for the military directly, you may end up with reserves coming from those areas..

I guess you're right, but I'll wait with reducing my Infrastructure statistics until I've heard from CSJ on this subject. After all, he's the one I quoted a few times for my military description.

As for cutting numbers, seems fair enough but don't forget you'll need to address your militaries weakness, if it's going for short duration campaign it'll be mightily screwed when its plan doesn't go according to schedule. Objectives aren't always reached on time, lossess are heavier than anticipated, expected enemy movement doesn't take place or it happens in other areas that you expected to be lightly held.

Tradition is good, having that shown in your RP will add a nice touch.

For now, I'm leaving the numbers as they are, I like the idea of spending nearly 1.5 million per active soldier, but I'm thinking about writing something in this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362421). After I'll let elections take place (I'm constantly too lazy to write something), a new government will be installed and military policies will be revised, in any possible direction.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

01-11-2004, 18:23

Population: 1,642,914,231
Active Military: 2 million (0.12%)
Reserve Military: 2 million (0.12%)
National Guard: 1 million (0.12%)
Total: 8 million (0.48%)
GDP Per Capita: $48,932.57
GDP: $80,392,015,611,914.19 ($80+ trillion)
Budget: $2.89 trillion (3.6%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $1,447,705.28
Budget Per Total Soldier: $578,822.51
Military Nature: Blitzkrieg-style (offensive)
Infrastructure: Suberb
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Low
Training: Very High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

What it means:
Al-Sabir has enjoyed a constant economical grow for the last decades, but wields relatively small armed forces. The military budget is reasonably large, which translates into an absurdly high spendage per individual soldier. Still, the three per cent of the GPD allocated for military spending is remarkably restrained, which leads to less pressure on infrastructure and logistical support services, partially hidden within the civilian sector.

Tactics and training concentrate mainly on a high-tempo Blitzkrieg-style warfare on hostile soil, so National Guard and Reserve Military personnel numbers are limited, as the Armed Forces expect to defeat an enemy in a matter of days by focusing on wreckening their infrastructure and eliminating topranking government officials. Therefore a longterm attrition war on foreign soil or a low-intensity conflict, fighting enemy militia trained in the art of guerrila warfare, could prove devastating to the AAF, as personnel losses aren't easily replaced.
First, the math (what can I say? this is one of my strong points)
I noticed that the total is listed as 8 million, though the combined active/reserve/militia only amount to 5. Is this a typo, or is there something left out?
If 8 million is correct, we'll start by noting it actually rounds up to 0.49%.
Additionally, the calculating for speding per total soldier seems to be for 5 million personnel. For 8 million, it should be around $361,250.

Now, for what was being discussed:
Infrastructure doesn't necessarily directly include civilians, however, the civilian sector is very important. Specifically, the transportation networks. Better road and rail networks, more numerous and scattered airfields, and numerous well-placed seaports are all vital to military operations as well,
This also includes things like the food industry. Naturally, the greater the food surplus, the better fed, and thus happier, your soldiers will be. Petroleum (or whatever alternate fuel source you use) falls in a similar boat. The more excess you have, the longer you can sustain your military's operations.
In addition, it can include civilian transportation that can be called up to military service during emergencies (ie, the UK can call all civil airline personnel to military service if necessary). This is most notably ships and aircraft, though overland transport may be included too. This is where the economy can be hit hard though, so think carefully before pressing civilian transportation services into military service.
Finally, it includes manufacturing facilities. Simply put, the more facilities you have that either are for, or can be converted to, military production (spare parts and ammunition more so than actual vehicles), the better you can sustain your forces in an extended conflict where simple wear and tear and ammunition expenditure will take their toll.

Now in a major operation, infrastructure is what provides your ability to generate supplies and replacements for the military, which is critical to any long-term operation.
Logistics support is your military's ability to distribute the supplies and replacements it has to the actual combat formations, and is critical in both short and long-term operations.

Blitzkrieg warfare is essentially the poor man's alternative. When an entire military is geared toward it, it means that military will be primarily for offensive operations, but will be unable to support them for long. This means at least one of three things:
1) The target is larger/more powerful (military or population), and the invader must knock them out before they can fully mobilize.
2) The target has some very powerful friends, and must be eliminated before the aid can get there. Or
3) The attacker lacks the infrastructure needed to maintain a sustained conflict.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

01-11-2004, 18:41

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the Indian military run-down. I was hoping you'd do that, as I've just settled BG into a large part of India, and though our population (smaller), economy (larger) and situation (too much to explain) are all rather different, it'd still be good to see if there's anything worth, erm, stealing :)

As to why I'm actually here, this may be a bit of a tangent, I dunno. Erm, you've seen some information about Dra-pol in here, earlier, and BG is part of the same realistic RP community (hence the relocation into parts of India and the adoption of a population eleven times smaller than is listed). I'm wondering about conventions and possibilities on ex-service military equipment, specifically tanks.
BG is the closest thing Dra-pol (as North Korea) has ever had to the USSR, which in reality furnished the DPRK with guns, tanks, missiles, and planes. There is some political opposition in BG to arming the authoritarian state, so military aid has stopped and started over the last couple of years, but has been inarguably important. Now, today BG has unveiled a new main battle tank, and is in the early stages of replacing its standard service MBT.

In the past we delievered to Dra-pol about two hundred (of which a few dozen are since rendered unservicable) of this model of fairly modern (125mm gun, some composite armour, NBC system) battle tank to Dra-pol and actually took some technologies and other covert favours in exchange. Now though, with these tanks being gradually phased out of front line service (some will remain in the reserves, but not the full strength), we're wondering about the possibility of transfering a large number to Dra-pol. I mean, does anyone have any input on precedents, feasibility, and difficulties in transfering large numbers of modern but slightly used (not in combat) battle tanks from one (powerful) communist economy to another (isolated, militarist, struggling) communist economy?

I wonder if I'm being silly even to ask... we could just shoulder or share the cost and risk of transporting the vehicles a couple of thousand miles, and be done with it, perhaps. But what the heck usually happens to withdrawn tanks? Especially if they're in servicable condition? Would people complain that we weren't getting back some money by selling or even scrapping them? Is there something we've completely missed with regards to the difficulties? I wouldn't ask, but the worry is that it almost seems too easy to give Dra-pol a major boost to its combat effectiveness, especially since they'll probably convert older T-62-alikes and such to repair, recovery, artillery, and personel-carrier roles (of course fuel and spares would still be something of an issue, but you know).
Generally, used hardware will be sold at around 20-40% of what the same system would cost new, as long as it's not upgraded or given major overhals just before delivery, etc.
Nations never just give something away. They always expect something in return. This may not, however, be immediately obvious. For example, in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US supplied Stingers and other weapons to the Afghan resistance, but in return expected to have components of destroyed vehicles turned over to them for analysis. The Soviets did the same thing in Korea and Vietnam. In fact, that's how the AA-2 was created - it was based on an unexploded AIM-9B that the Chinese handed over.

Transferring the used vehicles to Dra-Pol is fine. Just remember, he has to provide something tangible for you, which includes cash, intelligence, supplies/resources, technology, or service. Otherwise, you shouldn't be delivering anything. Your people will complain a lot less with significant cash or resource compensation though. Service would come next, but only the government really cares about technology or intelligence.

Beth Gellert

01-11-2004, 19:55

Indeed, the Beddgelen DRAB ASRAAM is an improved version of the Drapoel DRAR-19 SRAAM, which is a Drapoel spin-off through the same source. Of course the hope is that it appears far enough removed from the Sidewinder that nobody thinks the Igovian Soviet Commonwealth is feeding off American technologies.

Anyhoo, the situation in BG is rather far removed from the likes of the USA or USSR. Ours is an advanced communist economy that has been through capitalist party democracy, socialist dictatorship, and now practices direct democracy and long since withdrew currency. Trade is almost always in raw materials, except where we deliver finished products of immediate importance, such as these defence equipments (where BG would usually prefer to aid the subject nation in building its own finsihed goods from local or traded raw materials). There isn't really a great seperation between people and government, anymore, either.
Anyway, I can see this drifting rather far from the thread's core, so perhaps we'll just try to work out a trade for Korean copper to the value of a fraction of the tanks. Cheers for the input.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

02-11-2004, 08:06

Country: India
Population: 1.05 billion
GDP: $2.664 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $2537.14
Active Military: 1.145 million
Portion of Population: 0.11%
Military Spending: $15 billion
Portion of GDP: 0.56%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $13,100.44
Military Nature: Defensive with offensive potential
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderate
Training: Relatively Low
Equipment: Primarily Outdated

What it means:
India is a very large nation, second only to China in both population and military size. However, it’s military is notably smaller, and unlike that of China, is primarily a volunteer force (the largest such military in the world, by far). Due to the number of flashpoints, encompassing almost the entire northern border, as well as the central area in Punjab and commitment to the situation in Sri Lanka to the south, India’s military relies heavily on its armored cavalry contingents to help reinforce any trouble spots. This, combined with a long cavalry tradition, gives the Indian army superior mobility, far exceeding that of most eastern nations. However, on the other end, the armored force is relatively small, and is supported by huge infantry forces that lack the cavalry’s mobility. These form the key defensive and counterinsurgency forces, with the majority being along the border with Pakistan, and most of the rest bordering China. While there has been an increase, spending is still rather low, and training has suffered accordingly. However, this is somewhat countered by the degree of experience, which is bolstered by frequent minor clashes with both Pakistan and China, though it has been some time since a major war has occurred.
Though India maintains good logistics and infrastructure, these are limited mostly to the border with Pakistan, and even then, the mountains help to create very real problems with supplying forces. The borders with China, set well within the Himalayas, are even worse, and in these areas, there is still limited capability to wage a major war.
Equipment is mostly modern, but much of it, particularly in the air force and navy, is either getting old or in relatively poor repair. A number of modern units are being purchased, but without additional spending, it is unlikely that this will be able to make up for the units that need to be dropped in the near future, especially in the navy, where most of the ships are nearing the end of their useful service life, and there are few systems to make up for it.

Equipment:
As stated, India relies heavily on its armored force, and thus has a large tank corps. The primary unit here is the Ajeya, a license built T-72M1 tank. 1700 of these make up over 2/3 of the total armored force, and while not exceptionally capable, they do stack up well against the Type 59/69/80/85 in Chinese and Pakistani service. The much less effective Vijayanta tanks (License-built Vickers Mk.1), which were previously the primary players, have been almost completely phased out of service. However, with 400 still operational, these are the still the second most numerous tank. Part of the replacement for the Vijayantas are a batch of 300+ Russian T-90 tanks, which provide superior capability compared to anything in the arsenals of India’s neighbors, making them exceedingly useful. In addition to the Vijayantas, there are also about 200 older T-55 tanks that serve, and are likely to be dropped in the near future. The 90 PT-76s, while thoroughly outdated, provide an amphibious capability that would otherwise be nonexistent, and this alone keeps them around. Finally, there are believed to be about 120 of the Indian-designed Arjun MBT, which was originally intended to replace the other types as the primary variant. However, delays and cost overruns may prevent significant numbers of this unit from ever being fielded.
India also possesses a strong IFV force, with some 1300 Sarath (license-built BMP-2) vehicles, and a few dozen BMP-1s that still remain in service. The APC force, however, is surprisingly small, with only about 160 each Casspir and OT-62/64 vehicles, which is disproportionately low even for a nonmechanized force.
India has a large artillery force, which, unfortunately, is spread out over numerous designs and calibers, greatly complicating supply and maintenance. To their benefit, however, there is a smaller variety than there was a few years ago, with all of the WWII-era 88mm, 100mm, and 140mm guns having finally been retired. The remainder include over 600 75mm guns, making India one of the few modern nations to possess such light artillery. These are mostly pack howitzers used by the mountain troops, who would be unable to work with anything heavier. The largest contingent, however, are some 1300 105mm pieces, backed up by over 900 155mm guns, though due to a scandal involving the Bofors company and the FH-77 guns it provided, a number of these (100 or so) may not be operational due to lack of spare parts. Older Soviet 122mm and 130mm weapons, however, are still quite numerous, accounting for some 1300 guns. Consolidation seems to be underway, with most of the 130mm, 122mm, and 105mm guns eventually being replaced by newer 155mm weapons. Self-propelled artillery is surprisingly limited when the armored force is considered, but only about 100 155mm guns, with 50 each of 105mm and 130mm (the latter mounted on retired tank hulls) in service. India’s primary rocket artillery is the home-built 214mm Pinaka system, which accounts for half of the 200 or so systems. A further 75 systems are 122mm launchers, with a handful of 220mm and a very small number of 300mm launchers backing them up.
Antitank forces are primarily equipped with the dated AT-3/4/5 systems, though there are a few hundred Milan ATGM systems in service, which provided much improved capability.
The primary air defense for combat forces is provided by some 2000 towed 40mm antiaircraft guns, with a few hundred 23mm systems. Self-propelled forces include about 100 ZSU-23-3 systems, and two dozen of the deadly new 2S6. Additionally, there are a few hundred SA-9 launchers, with a few dozen each of SA-8 and SA-13 providing further short-range defense. Some 200 SA-6 launchers, while notably dated, provide a degree of medium-range defense, and a few dozen SA-3 systems provide defense for fixed installations. Finally, there are some 1100 shoulder-fired SAMs, with about 500 of these being the modern Igla, and the remainder being outdated Strela systems.

The air force is again mostly outdated units, but with some newer ones coming online. Of 700-odd combat aircraft, some 438 of them are MiG-21/23/27 variants, with only about 180 of what would be considered truly modern aircraft. Of all the designs, the most numerous is the Bahadur, which is essentially a later-model MiG-27M fighter-bomber (itself a ground attack version of the MiG-23). 135 of these aircraft are in service, with some 52 Vijays (MiG-23BM – another ground attack variant). Additionally, there are some 130 Vikrams, which are MiG-21 bis aircraft upgraded with some MiG-29 avionics. Additionally, there are some 121 Trishul, which are older versions of the MiG-21 (MiG-21FL & MiG-21UF). On the slightly more capable end, there are about 87 Shamshur aircraft, which are variants of the Jaguar strike aircraft, and while dated, are still quite capable. About half a dozen of these are modified for the maritime strike role. The real fighting power of the air force, however, comes from the 63 Baaz (early model MiG-29), 68 Vajra (Mirage 2000H), and 50 SU-30K aircraft. Of these, there are plans to acquire significant numbers of additional Vajras, and a few dozen more Su-30Ks to replace the Vijay, Vikram, and Trishul aircraft, which have not been entirely satisfactory. Training for the aircraft, however, appears to be rather substandard, and there is a high accident rate, particularly with the older MiGs, with about 100 aircraft being lost over the past 10 years. There have been attempts to improve this, but lack of funding may hurt such efforts. On the other hand, the Indian Air Force has an excellent array of weapons to deploy from its combat aircraft including AA-10 and AA-11 missiles for its MiG-29s and Su-30s, and R.550 and R.530 missiles for the Mirages, as well as AS-12 and AS-17 antiradar missiles.
EW is primarily provided by a number of modified Canberra bombers, with some TT-18 aircraft being able to tow decoys, while ELINT capabilities are provided by a pair each of modified Boeing 707 and 737 airliners. Recon is provided by 8 Canberra and 7 MiG-25 aircraft, neither of which are much good against modern systems, but both are fine for the Chinese and Pakistani defenses they will likely face. Maritime surveillance is provided by a quartet of modified business jets. AEW is possibly provided by a handful of ASP airborne radar systems, with negotiations underway for the Israeli Phalcon system. Finally, there are a dozen Il-78 tanker aircraft to help support long-range operations.
The Indian transport fleet is not exactly extensive, but is hardly anything to sneeze at, with a core of 25 Gajraj (Il-76) transport aircraft providing heavy airlift, and some 75 lighter Sutlej (An-32) planes for short-range transport. There are also 28 BAE-748 and 63 Do-228 transport planes in service as well.
The helicopter force is moderate, with about two dozen Mi-24 variants providing the entire attack helicopter force. On the other hand, the transport fleet includes 73 Mi-8, 50 Mi-17, and 10 Mi-26 aircraft, the latter of which provide phenomenal heavy lift capability.
The air defense network does need some work, however, with the core being some 280 SA-2 sites. There are also a handful of SA-3, SA-5, and, most notably, about half a dozen S-300 (SA-10) sites, the latter of which provide the only truly modern SAM coverage.

The navy is where much of India’s near-future problems will lie. Specifically, many of its combat vessels are near the end of their service lives, and India lacks the capability to effectively replace so many of them. Thus, the Indian Navy, while currently one of the best in the world, is likely to suffer a notable drop in combat capability over the next decade or so. For now, however, they have managed to lease a pair of soviet Akula class SSNs, which means that they are now up with France, the UK, the US, the former Soviet states, and China, as one of the few nations with an actual nuclear submarine force. These SSNs are backed up by the 10 Sindhu Gosh (Kilo) DE submarines. These include a mix of both P.877 and P.626 designs, but are all quite capable. These are backed up by a quartet of Shishumar (U-209) and a pair of Kurasa (Foxtrot) submarines.
India is also one of the few nations with a carrier fleet, having purchased a pair of older vessels from the UK. Added to these is a Kiev class vessel that was purchased from Russia, and is being modified as a full-deck carrier, which will make India one of only a handful of nations with a full fleet carrier (Russia, the US, and France are the only others).
The most notable members of the surface fleet are a trio of new Delhi DDGs, which are equipped with modest air defense and ASuW capabilities. Their systems are good, but lacking in either range (air defense) or numbers (Moskits). These are supported by 3 somewhat better equipped Talwar ships, which are modified Krivaks with SA-N-7 SAMs and SS-N-27 missiles. The destroyer force is rounded out with 5 Rajputs which are modified Kashins. However, these vessels are sorely outdated, still sporting SA-N-1 and SS-N-2 missiles. The destroyers are backed up by a modest frigate force, mostly the 6 home-built Godavari class vessels. The first three of these are essentially Leander class vessels with modest numbers of Soviet SS-N-2 and SA-N-4 missiles. However, the last three were of an improved version that replaces the older SAMs and SSMs with 16 SS-N-25 missiles (similar to the Harpoon), and an as yet unspecified SAM system, which has not been installed. The remaining 5 vessels are Nilgiri class, which are modified Leander frigates, and are virtually obsolescent, with sorely outdated systems.
The fleet of minor combatants, though, large, is plagued by outdated systems, with only a handful of the vessels boasting modern systems. The largest of these are the 7 Khukri vessels. While the first for of these are armed with a quartet of SS-N-2 missiles, the 3 newer ones have replaced them with 16 SS-N-25 missiles, providing greatly improved capability, and the only modern weapons in the missile boat fleet. Other missile craft include 12 Veer (Tarantul I) missile boats and a single Durg corvette (Nanuchka II), all armed with SS-N-2 missiles. There are also several small ASW craft, including a pair of Arnala (Petya-III) corvettes and a quartet of Abjay (Pauk) ASW patrol boats. Both of these designs are very old, and the Arnalas were actually slated for decommissioning 10 years ago. Only the lack of replacement vessels keeps them in service.
A small fleet of lightly armed patrol craft also exist, headed by 7 Sukanya corvettes. The other boats include 7 SDB patrol vessels, which are quite old and in poor repair, due in part to low construction standards. Additionally, there are 6 Viyut patrol vessels, which are essentially Osa II missile boats with the missiles removed. Finally, there are 4 Super Dvora and 4 indigenous Trinka patrol vessels.
Mine countermeasures are provided by a dozen very old Pondicherry (Natya) vessels. A new class of ships to replace them has been planned, but is running into delays and might even be cancelled.
The core of the Indian amphibious forces are the 2 Magar class vessels, which are based on the British Sir Lancelot class. These are backed up by a quartet of Khumbhir (Polnocy C) landing craft, which are being phased out. 10 LCUs make up the remainder of the amphibious vessels.
Underway replenishment of naval forces is provided primarily by a trio of large fleet oilers, with 2 in the 20,000 ton class and a third pushing about 35,000 tons. These are supported by a single submarine tender, which rarely goes to see. The only other transport comes from a pair of modified passenger vessels. There are a number of tugs and service ships in the navy as well, but their roles are limited, and they do not directly support combat operations.

Requirements for copying the Indian military:
1. Fragile economy or better.
2. Do not RP any major conflicts beyond your immediate borders
3. Have at least one major enemy sharing a large border. Should include occasional border clashes, but threat of a genuine invasion is not necessary.
4. Most equipment should be about 20-30 years old, though some can be 10-15. Minimal cutting edge.
5. A decent armored/mechanized force is allowed, but it should make up less than 25% of the actual force. The rest should be light infantry formations, with minimal, if any, organic transport.
6. Supply difficulties should be noted if you occupy the same or similar geographical location, due to the interference the mountains pose.

ORDER OF BATTLE

Northern Command: This command is based in Udhampur and covers the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions (that little outcropping in the extreme north between Pakistan and China). This force includes 3 corps with a total of 10 divisions and 3 independent combat brigades. This force is at its limit logistically due to the mountainous terrain in the area, which greatly complicates supply. Nonetheless, it’s the primary deterrent to advances from both China and Pakistan, who would gladly take it if they got the chance. Total forces include:

7 Infantry Divisions
3 Mountain Divisions
3 Armored Brigades
2 Artillery Brigades
~500 tanks

Western Command: As one might expect, this covers the western border of India, including over half the border with Pakistan (most of the remainder is under the Northern Command). It also includes 3 corps, but with only 9 divisions and 4 independent brigades. However, there is a notably larger support force, and several of the divisions are mechanized rapid deployment forces. Most notable is II corps, which is the most important offensive formation in the Indian army, and would spearhead any strike into Pakistan should another war break out. Total forces include:

1 Armored Division
3 Rapid Divisions (Mechanized)
5 Infantry Divisions
1 Artillery Division
3 Armored Brigades
1 Mechanized Brigade
3 Artillery Brigades
1 Air Defense Brigade
~1100 tanks

Southern Command: This command covers the Gujrat and Maharashtra area, and encompasses much of India’s west coast, as well as a small portion of the border with Pakistan. This force includes 2 corps with 5 divisinos and 3 independent brigades. Total forces include:

1 Armored Division
1 Rapid Division
4 Infantry Divisions
1 Armored Brigade
1 Mechanized Brigade
1 Parachute Brigade
2 Artillery Brigades
1 Air Defense Brigade
1 Missile Group
~700 tanks

Central Command: This force in headquartered in Lucknow (south of Nepal) and is tasked with providing for operations against either major enemy. It consists of a single corps with 3 divisions. Total forces include:

1 Armored Division
1 Infantry Division
1 Mountain Division
1 Artillery Brigade
1 Air Defense Brigade
~400 tanks

Eastern Command: This force is tasked primarily with the Assam region, and is headquartered in Calcutta. It should be noted that Bangladesh almost completely separates Assam from the rest of India, leaving only a small strip, and the potential to cut off any forces there. Only the mountainous terrain would help to deter such a strike, should the Chinese decide to do so. The forces here are naturally equipped for mountain warfare, and most of the nation’s mountain divisions are stationed with this command’s three corps, along with a single regular infantry division. Total forces include:

7 Mountain Divisions
1 Infantry Division
3 Artillery Brigades
Few, if any, tanks

Note: military commands only cover the borders with Pakistan and China. Due to lack of internal and external threats elsewhere, the majority of the nation does not have significant military presence. Also, it should be noted that the air force is specially trained and equipped for air supply of troops in the mountains, which, though expensive, is the only effective resupply method.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

02-11-2004, 08:09

Army:

Personnel:
980,000 active
300,000 first-line Army Reserve (those who’ve served within the last 5 years)
500,000 second-line Army Reserve (anyone below the age of 50 with previous service)
40,000 first-line Territorial Army
160,000 second-line Territorial Army

Tanks:
Vijayanta: 400 (Vickers Mk.1)
Arjun: 124
T-90: 310
T-72M1 Ajeya: 1700
T-55: 200
PT-76 LT: 90

APCs/IFVs
BMP-2 Sarath: 1700
BMP-1: 50+
OT-62/64: 157
Casspir: 160
BRDM-2: 30+

Towed Artillery:
75mm: 615
105mm: 1300
122mm: 550
130mm: 750
155mm: 910

Self-Propelled Artillery:
Abbot 105mm: 50
M46 Catapult 130mm: 50 (130mm field gun on Vijayanta chassis)
Bhim 155mm: 100

Rocket Artillery:
BM-21 122mm: 25
LRAR 122mm: 50
Pinaka 214mm: 100
Smerch 300mm: 20

Antitank:
AT-3/4/5 ATGM: 5000
Milan ATGM: 500

Antiaircraft:
40mm towed: 2000
Zu-23 towed: 300
2S6 SPAA: 24
ZSU-23-4 SPAA: 100
SA-13 SAM: 45
SA-9 SAM: 400
SA-8 SAM: 50
SA-6 SAM: 180
SA-3 SAM: 45
Igla/SA-16 SAM: 500
Strela/SA-7 SAM: 620

Air Force:

Personnel:
110,000 active

Combat
Su-30K: 50
Baaz: 63 (MiG-29)
Vajira: 68 (Mirage 2000)
Bahadur: 135 (MiG-27)
Vijay: 52 (MiG-23BN fighter-bomber)
Vikram: 130 (MiG-21 bis - modernized fighter-bomber variant)
Trishul: 121 (MiG-21MF/FL – modernized fighter-bomber variant)
Shamsher: 87 (Jaguar – 6 specifically for maritime attack)

Support (Recon, EW, AEW, tanker)
Canberra Recon: 8
MiG-25R: 5
MiG-25U: 2
Canberra ECM: 4
TT-18: 2 (tows targets/decoys)
707 ELINT: 2
737 ELINT: 2
Il-78 Tanker: 12
Gulfstream IV Maritime Recon: 2
Learjet 29 Maritime Recon: 2

Transport:
Gajraj: 25 (Il-76)
Sutlej: 75 (An-32)
BAe-748: 28
Do-228: 63
737-200 VIP: 2
BAe-748 VIP: 7

Training:
Jaguar: 14
MiG-29UB: 9
AJT: 24
HJT-36: 50
Kiran I: 70
Kiran: II: 56
Iskra: 44
Deepak: 88
BAe-748: 28
Chetak: 20 (Alouette III)
Mi-24/25: 4

Helicopter:
Mi-25/35: 20+
Dhruv ALH: 10+
Mi-26: 10
Mi-17: 50
Mi-8: 73
Mi-8 VIP: 8

SAM:
S-300: 6 systems w/ 288 missiles ordered
Divina: 280 (SA-2)
Unknown numbers of SA-3 & SA-5

Navy:

Personnel:
55,000 active

Submarines:
Akula-II SSN: 2 (leased, 12,770 tons)
Sindhu Ghosh SS: 10 (Kilo, 4000 tons)
Shishumar SS: 4 (1850 tons)
Kursura SS: 2 (Foxtrot, 2475 tons)

Major Surface Combatants
Modified Kiev: 1 (45,500 tons)
Viraat: 1 (Hermes, 28,700 tons)
Delhi DD: 3 (6200 tons)
Raiput DDG: 5 (Modified Kashin, 4950 tons)
Talwar DDG: 3 (modified Krivak FF, 3780 tons)
Godavari FF: 4 (4000 tons)
Nilgiri FF: 5 (Leander, 2962 tons)

Corvettes/Missile Boats:
Khukri: 7 (1350 tons)
Arnala: 2 (Petya III, 1110 tons)
Durg: 2 (Nanuchka II, 660 tons)
Veer: 12 (Turantul I, 580 tons)
Abhay: 4 (Pauk, 510 tons)
Viyut: 6 (Osa II, 240 tons)

Patrol Craft:
Sukanya: 7 (1890 tons, very lightly armed)
Trinkat: 4 (260 tons)
SBD Mk.2/3: 7 (210 tons)
Super Dvora: 4

Mine Warfare
Pondichery MCM: 12 (Natya, 804 tons)
Mahe MSI: 5 (Yevgenya, 90 tons)

Amphibious:
Mahar Landin Ship: 2 (5655 tons)
Khumbhir LST: 4 (Polnocy-C, 1150 tons, 140 troops)
LCU Mk.3: 10

Auxiliary
Jyoti Fleet Oiler: 1 (35,900 tons)
Adiyta Fleet Oiler: 1 (22,000 tons)
Deepak Fleet Oiler: 2 (22,000 tons)
Nicobar Transport: 2 (20,000 tons)
Amba Sub Tender: 1 (9560 tons)
6 survey ships, 1 diving support ship, 2 tugs

Combat Aircraft:
Sea Harrier: 23

Maritime Recon:
BN-2: 18
Il-38: 3
Tu-142M Bear-F: 8
Do-228: 19

Comms:
Do-228: 10

ASW Helicopter:
Chetak: 24
Ka-27: 14
Ka-25: 7
Sea King: 25

Training:
HJT-16: 6
HPT-32: 8
Chetak: 2
Hughes 300: 4

Al-Sabir

02-11-2004, 14:46

First, the math (what can I say? this is one of my strong points)
I noticed that the total is listed as 8 million, though the combined active/reserve/militia only amount to 5. Is this a typo, or is there something left out?
If 8 million is correct, we'll start by noting it actually rounds up to 0.49%.
Additionally, the calculating for speding per total soldier seems to be for 5 million personnel. For 8 million, it should be around $361,250.

Now, for what was being discussed:
Infrastructure doesn't necessarily directly include civilians, however, the civilian sector is very important. Specifically, the transportation networks. Better road and rail networks, more numerous and scattered airfields, and numerous well-placed seaports are all vital to military operations as well,
This also includes things like the food industry. Naturally, the greater the food surplus, the better fed, and thus happier, your soldiers will be. Petroleum (or whatever alternate fuel source you use) falls in a similar boat. The more excess you have, the longer you can sustain your military's operations.
In addition, it can include civilian transportation that can be called up to military service during emergencies (ie, the UK can call all civil airline personnel to military service if necessary). This is most notably ships and aircraft, though overland transport may be included too. This is where the economy can be hit hard though, so think carefully before pressing civilian transportation services into military service.
Finally, it includes manufacturing facilities. Simply put, the more facilities you have that either are for, or can be converted to, military production (spare parts and ammunition more so than actual vehicles), the better you can sustain your forces in an extended conflict where simple wear and tear and ammunition expenditure will take their toll.

Now in a major operation, infrastructure is what provides your ability to generate supplies and replacements for the military, which is critical to any long-term operation.
Logistics support is your military's ability to distribute the supplies and replacements it has to the actual combat formations, and is critical in both short and long-term operations.

Blitzkrieg warfare is essentially the poor man's alternative. When an entire military is geared toward it, it means that military will be primarily for offensive operations, but will be unable to support them for long. This means at least one of three things:
1) The target is larger/more powerful (military or population), and the invader must knock them out before they can fully mobilize.
2) The target has some very powerful friends, and must be eliminated before the aid can get there. Or
3) The attacker lacks the infrastructure needed to maintain a sustained conflict.

I edited my my listing numerious times and forgot to alter the total when I changed the Active/Reserve/National Guard numbers.

Edit: I guess I didn't understood the idea behind "Blitzkrieg" warfare that well and now that I do understand it, I do not like it, so I changed my military nature radically.

Population: 1,666,914,712
Active Military: 4 million (0.24%)
Reserve Military: 4 million (0.24%)
National Guard: 6 million (0.36%)
Total: 14 million (0.84%)
GDP Per Capita: $50,967.78
GDP: $84,958,942,328,914.19 ($85- trillion)
Budget: $3.82 trillion (4.5%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $955,788.10
Budget Per Total Soldier: $273,082.31
Military Nature: Primarily defensive with offensive potential
Infrastructure: Excellent
Logistics Support: Excellent
Experience: Low
Training: High
Equipment: Cutting Edge

What it means:
Al-Sabir has enjoyed a constant economical grow for the last decades, but wields relatively small armed forces. The military budget is reasonably large, which translates into an absurdly high spendage per active soldier. Still, the 4.5% of the GPD allocated for military spending is remarkably restrained compared to most nations.

Recent defense policy shifts have radically converted the military nature to a more conservative doctrine, suitable to the nation's isolated location. The force projection capabilities have decayed this way. However, due to major oversea committments, the fomidable infrastructure is still kept capable of supporting longterm operations.

Dunbarrow

18-11-2004, 19:33

I was wondering... what is a realistic TOE, just equipmentwise, for a given economy and defensebudget?

My gut-call says: your total hardware price cannot exceed your budget for a year... leading to IMHO realistic military settings.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

19-11-2004, 01:39

Most armies have total hardware price far exceeding their military budget.
Consider the US right now. Heck, let's just do the navy & marine combat units:
12xCVN (say, $4.5 billion each): $54 billion
80xDestroyer (say, $1 billion each): $80 billion
30xFrigate (say, $333 million each): $10 billion
17xSSBN (say, $1.75+ billion each): $30 billion
4xAdvanced SSN (say, $3 billion each): $12 billion
50xSSN (say, $1 billion each): $50 billion
150xF-14 (say, $40 million each): $6 billion
750xF/A-18C/D (say, $30 million each): $22.5 billion
120xF/A-18E/F (say, $50 million each): $6 billion
150xAV-8B (say, $25 million each): $3.75 billion
225xP-3C (say, $40 million each): $9 billion
100xS-3B (say, $25 million each): $2.5 billion
187xAH-1W (say, $10.7 million each): $2 billion
120xEA-6B (say, $67 million each): $8 billion

Total: $295.75 billion
Total US Expenditures per year: $399.1 billion (2004)

Now you see. Just combat ships and aircraft in the navy already cost the equivalent of 75% of the total US military budget.
The thing you forgot when you thought about this was that procurement, particularly for ships, occurs over decades. When spending only 20% of the budget on procurement, you will still exceed your total budget in just over 5 years, and very few units will be decommissioned in such a short time.

To be honest, you would do better to look at your procurement budget, making sure you have enough to spend. I stand that only about 20%, give or take 5%, of the budget should go into purchasing new vehicles and missiles. The remainder should go to upkeep and the purchase of basic supplies, facilities, and munitions (bullets, shells, fuel, housing, etc), as well as R&D.

Once in awhile, you may want to check the upkeep costs for your units, but with it being so varied, it's difficult to give solid info. I might post info on that at some point though. I will, however, note that the US military spends an average of somewhere between $30,000 and $35,000 per active soldier per year, not including costs of initial training.

As for deciding things starting out:
You should either find a nation that's similar to you and size and economy and start from there, or, if you can't, find one that you like and expand or decrease the force proportionally to your budget and military size.
For example, a simple method if you have 6 million people in your military, a Thriving economy (or better), and a budget of $2 trillion, would be to take the US military and multiply everything by 5. Granted, there are issues here, but it's the simplest and easiest method for those who don't want to get too far into things.

Mabulia

22-11-2004, 02:49

wow, i spend 87,000 per active soldier.

Chinkopodia

10-12-2004, 21:33

Population: 18,000,000
Total Military: 45,000 (0.25%)
Military: 33,750
Militia: 11,250
GDP Per Capita: $£29,052.43
GDP: $522,943,693,844.95 ($523- billion)
Military Budget: $2,000,000,000 (from $2,278,506,672 Government Waste)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $0
Budget Per Total Soldier: $44,444
Military Nature: Entirely Defensive
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Fair
Experience: Little/none
Training: Adequate
Equipment: Mainly outdated.

Military is not on active duty – is only raised in times of crisis.

No navy. No Airforce.

Army: 20,000 logistics, 12,750 troops.
Artillery: 800 logistics, 150 anti-aircraft batteries, 50 artillery batteries.

Is this OK?

Ma-tek

10-12-2004, 23:41

>snip<Now do note that large armies and high military spending will have an adverse effect on your economy. If you have over, say, 2% of your population in your military, you will have to RP an economy a rank or two below where the game says you are.>snip<

[OOC: That's not necessarily the case. There are no full-time real-world equivalents, but it is theoretically possible to utilize a large military in peacetime for civilian purposes. A good example is a military with a particuarly large (and seperate) R&D branch; there might be millions of lab staff, hundreds of thousands of technicians, thousands of professors and doctors of various types, all employed in the military. Perhaps the military is an educational tool; this would also increase military numbers, but as education is a spending factor in almost any state, there's not very much actual increase in spending if we presume that educational spending is at least partly redirected to the military for that purpose.

National military service is another key issue. A massive state with national military service is going to have a large percentage of its population serving in the military at any one time; yet they might not actually pay those people. In some cultures, the national service might be presumed to be in itself rewarding enough an experience that no pay is required unless those serving in these conditions actually serve as soldiers on a battlefield at some stage.

I think, personally, that it is truer to adhere to the basic principles - a military requires funding and resources, and if that funding and resources do not exist, the military either cannot exist in that format or, if it does, will not be either very effective or very efficient - whilst accepting that different cultures see things in different ways.

Further, having a large military is not necessarily excessively expensive. Basic pay would probably be at or very slightly below (or, in very liberal states, above) the average working wage for the population (GDP per capita), and thus we have to take that into account. A nation with a GDP per capita of $15,000 with an equipment&training spending level per soldier of $50,000 is actually spending about the same as a nation with a GDP per capita of $50,000 which is spending $95,000 per soldier. Thus, both nations have similar equipment and training 'levels'; clearly, the strong-economy in a state with any degree of civil liberties (and any high-income state must, by default, be so) is therefore not an advantage, as the soldiers expect to be paid more than those in that little country with a tiny economy. This is why nations with powerful economies tend to have smaller standing armies (numerically speaking), in modern times, than the weaker economies - as far as GDP per capita goes. China has an absurdly large standing army, but has a rather low GDP per capita in comparison to the United States; as a result, China spends less on its military than the United States does - even though the difference in size is clearly visible.

My nation, the Commonality, currently spends a sizeable chunk on the military. This is, partly, because there is nowhere else to spend that money: investment and social spending are already probably at the highest possible levels considering the population density/size and the strength of the economy. Further, the military suffers with over-manpower; the political entity formerly known as EOTED and now known as ICEL inherited a large ground force when it came to power, and is working hard to downsize. But downsizing can be terrifically expensive; all those people need to be given jobs, so public/private sector investment has to rise accordingly; the military then needs to be restructured, which entails planning costs, logistical costs (movement and reshuffling of resources), administrative costs, contracting costs (lawyers to examine legal issues, accountants to track the spending, etc), and so on and so forth.

So the nation with the large military may simply find itself in a position where it cannot afford to downsize. This can then lead to a bloated, inefficient military; North Korea is a good example. They have a military they really cannot afford; but nor can they afford to shed numbers, for both strategic and economic reasons. Those soldiers all become out of work if they're dropped from the service, remember; that means they would need to be supported, at least in some way, by the state - which means that no costs are really cut, and there are absolutely no gains.

There are also political considerations. Are the public anxious about military issues? If it would be IC for them to be so (such as in a nation in a particuarly (potentially) unstable region, such as Arda), then it would also not be politically viable to downsize. It could cost the regime its position. This, in fact, is one of the reasons why militaristic regimes inevitably fall, alongside overcomplication of taxation to pay for the military.

But my point is: so long as you have a damned good reason, and you RP the results accordingly, and are prepared to explain all and sundry to any who ask without flaming or becoming annoyed or angry...then it may well be required and acceptable to think out of the box, as regards the generally accepted 'basic rules'.

However, beware: some call attempts at the roleplay of such micromanagement mere 'number-wank'. Others call it boring. It's probably somewhere in the middle. ;)]

Clan Smoke Jaguar

11-12-2004, 00:47

Very nice post, but you forgot a few things, most notably the fact that, while China does have a larger army than the US, the difference in funding is also in equipment. Most of China's equipment is obsolescent, and thus much cheaper to procure and maintain. Also, while it has more personnel, China's army is actually a smaller portion of it's population than the US Army, and is downsizing because they can't afford to keep a modern one that big.

The R&D branch is also irrelevant, as the individuals involved are considered civilian employees of the army rather than part of the army itself.

Really, the only way a large army can be maintained without hurting the economy is if it contributes more to it, doing things like construction, transport of goods, etc. However, in so doing, it loses the ability to keep its soliders that well trained, as they spend too much of their time performing other tasks. Thus, a smaller army in the same situation may have more combat power.

Ma-tek

11-12-2004, 21:31

[OOC: No, I didn't forget that at all. Rather, that was kindof a portion of my point - with regards to the US-China comparison.

Further, an R&D division might employ civilians, or it might employ (having received only basic training) soldiers. You say that,

the individuals involved are considered civilian employees of the army rather than part of the army itself.

but to that I have to say - who considers them as such? My nation has a rather huge R&D branch, dedicated primarily to providing technological refinements and improvements to existing equipment, whilst also seeking to find new ways of cutting casualties (on both sides, oddly enough) in actual combat.

There's no unwritten law that says either method (civilian R&D vs military R&D) is the only way. In fact, a military can be run in any way desired - but each method has both advantages and pitfalls...some more or less obvious than others.

The R&D comment ties into what you just said. My military, for example, part-owns the satelite media network that my nation uses, and collects money from those who use those satelites - whilst at the same time many developments inside that branch are 'given' to the public domain at small charge to those who use those developments. Meanwhile, the military is aiding the communications sector by having and continuing to enhance the telecommunications infrastructure, which is a critical skill for any military anyway. There are parallels between military and civilian life, and the skills required for both; the trick is finding the right niches, methinks.

But I do indeed agree with the last point; a properly funded large military must contribute in some way to the economy - but only if tax rates are unusually high to fund it. When you have a GDP of US$140 trillion, it's not anywhere near as difficult to lay your hands on funds, after all...]

Rechze

12-12-2004, 07:15

After the Korean war, I think China may have actually had 70 million in total (incl reserves)

Rechze

12-12-2004, 07:21

Clan Smoke Jaguar

12-12-2004, 10:02

Furthermore, Russia deployed during the first world war over 15 million soliders, at that time, more than 10% of the population.

If people are roleplaying, early / pre 20th century, larger numbers can be expected.
My estimates who 12.5 million. However, most were conscripts with virtually no training, insufficient equipment and supplies, and thus very high death rates. The Red Army effectively conscripted more personnel than it could effectively operate, and paid a devastating price for it. That's another thing that should be remembered.
Also, when one's being invaded, it's easier to give out weapons and tell citizens that they must fight. You're not really providing a true military force, but they may still be counted. It's another thing entirely to send those citizens elsewhere, something that is frequently forgotten.

After the Korean war, I think China may have actually had 70 million in total (incl reserves)
We're only counting actives right here, but you are right. You must also realize, however, that China recognized that such a force was neither effective nor reliable, and after the Sino-Vietnamese war, they began massive reductions, and even further ones after the 1st Gulf War.

[OOC: No, I didn't forget that at all. Rather, that was kindof a portion of my point - with regards to the US-China comparison.

Further, an R&D division might employ civilians, or it might employ (having received only basic training) soldiers. You say that,

but to that I have to say - who considers them as such? My nation has a rather huge R&D branch, dedicated primarily to providing technological refinements and improvements to existing equipment, whilst also seeking to find new ways of cutting casualties (on both sides, oddly enough) in actual combat.

There's no unwritten law that says either method (civilian R&D vs military R&D) is the only way. In fact, a military can be run in any way desired - but each method has both advantages and pitfalls...some more or less obvious than others.

The R&D comment ties into what you just said. My military, for example, part-owns the satelite media network that my nation uses, and collects money from those who use those satelites - whilst at the same time many developments inside that branch are 'given' to the public domain at small charge to those who use those developments. Meanwhile, the military is aiding the communications sector by having and continuing to enhance the telecommunications infrastructure, which is a critical skill for any military anyway. There are parallels between military and civilian life, and the skills required for both; the trick is finding the right niches, methinks.

But I do indeed agree with the last point; a properly funded large military must contribute in some way to the economy - but only if tax rates are unusually high to fund it. When you have a GDP of US$140 trillion, it's not anywhere near as difficult to lay your hands on funds, after all...]
You're right on R&D. There was supposed to be a "usually" there. However, when you list the R&D as part of the military, you will tend to deceive others (and possibly yourself) as to your realistic combat strength. If you have 10 million normal personnel, plus 1 million R&D, you're still highly unlikely to have 11 million fighting. Those R&D guys will be much more useful doing their R&D, especially in times of war.

As for your satellite example, you should realize that the places where manpower problems will manifest are Manufacturing, Resource Collection, and Distribution. A service such as that will help alleviate the monetary end, but the loss of labor force with a large military is still there. You also pay for providing that service with a greater manpower requirement for it (need more finance and technical crew), leaving less personnel for other things. Whenever the military contributes personnel to the civilian market, it detracts from itself.

Sliponia

12-12-2004, 10:57

Clan Smoke Jaguar: I want to thank you for writing all these articles. I am a recently resurrected nation of 1.8 billion and usually just participated in sports RPs, but thanks to your articles I will soon be expanding my horizons.

African Commonwealth

13-12-2004, 20:35

Tag, brilliant information for those of us not in the know.

The Freethinkers

13-12-2004, 21:14

Once again you don;t fail to impress CSJ. One thing I would like to ask is if you could profile a modern Western army, like Britain or France, for a model of those who want to use small, highly trained well equipped armies protecting foreign interests and increasingly interdependent on each other for support.

Cheers in advance.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

13-12-2004, 22:14

Posts for both nations have been in the works for a while now, the only problems being that it's a bit more difficult to get solid equipment numbers, and that I've been a bit busy. Within a little over a week, finals will be over, and I'll have some time to finish them.

Daistallia 2104

25-12-2004, 18:44

Just came accross a good resource (especially if you want to be wankishly accurate ;)): Tables of Organizations and Equipment (http://orbat.com/site/toe/)

Ma-tek

04-02-2005, 03:16

<snip>
You're right on R&D. There was supposed to be a "usually" there. However, when you list the R&D as part of the military, you will tend to deceive others (and possibly yourself) as to your realistic combat strength. If you have 10 million normal personnel, plus 1 million R&D, you're still highly unlikely to have 11 million fighting. Those R&D guys will be much more useful doing their R&D, especially in times of war.>snip<

[OOC: Most definitely. This is only a problem if you need a vast ground force, however. As the entire purpose of the R&D division is to remove the need for said vast ground force, the focus naturally shifts to R&D rather than actual fighting. In the Crown Guard (my nation's armed forces), the vast majority of personnel have only the most basic combat training, plus continual 'refreshers' which very slowly improve proficiency on the whole (at least until the next generation of fresh soldiers supplants the last generation of veterans). The function of the military, increasingly, is not to 'swamp' the enemy, but to outhink the enemy. In diversity there is strength: this leads to not only a large R&D division, but a large strategic ops division, entirely devoted to turning the equipment devised by the R&D people into advantages for the various branches of the armed forces. Thus although the vast majority do not directly fight wars, the entirety of the armed forces fight a war 'passively'. Naturally, this is not a modern military we're talking about - such specialization just isn't possible yet, not on such a scale. Moving on-

As for your satellite example, you should realize that the places where manpower problems will manifest are Manufacturing, Resource Collection, and Distribution. A service such as that will help alleviate the monetary end, but the loss of labor force with a large military is still there. You also pay for providing that service with a greater manpower requirement for it (need more finance and technical crew), leaving less personnel for other things. Whenever the military contributes personnel to the civilian market, it detracts from itself.

[OOC: This is very true, but only if the military has an active requirement to support itself without government funding. As it happens, this isn't the case with the Crown Guard, which has ample funding from the government, plus its own reserve fund (unspent money from previous years - it does happen!).

The reason why the Crown Guard contributes to the civilian side of things is for strategic purposes: improvement of communications, primarily, plus the sale of blueprints (or rather, the rights to use those blueprints) to domestic corporations for the benefit of the nation as a whole (which in turn benefits the military, which gets more funding as the economy grows). The real problem with the Crown Guard is too much manpower, although a large proportion are what would be called reservists (even though the term doesn't entirely fit the function, here). Thus the vast majority do not work for the military even though they are employed by them, and equally do not actually get paid by the government unless moved to active service or while on training exercises. Only in wartime would callups be made, and the vast majority would remain unneeded in any possible scenario. - Still, a large standing army remains in existence: this is the problem I roleplay for my military - the problem of downsizing, which is so terrifically horrendous. Evil, in fact, as the ones who need to go ARE in the pay of the government, and thus represent an increase in unemployment if released...

Not to mention the finicky problem of national service being traditional, the vast number of the population being in favour of it, and the country being a democracy.

Democracy sucks, sometimes/often/always.]

Mauiwowee

05-02-2005, 22:56

Tag

Clan Smoke Jaguar

01-03-2005, 06:43

I know several of you have been waiting patiently for me to get off my rear and finish a few more of these, and there have been requests for more modern militaries, so, as my Spring Break gift, here’s the first of the new batch:

UK MILITARY

Some Basic Stats:
Country: United Kingdom
Population: 60.1 million
GDP: $1.528 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $25,426.55
Active Military: 208,000
Portion of Population: 0.346%
Military Spending: $37.1 billion
Portion of GDP: 2.43%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $178,365.38
Military Nature: Defensive Expeditionary
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Very Good
Experience: Moderately High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means:
The UK army is a small, well-trained and equipped, professional force that is geared primarily towards defensive operations in foreign nations. With the end of the cold war, there has been some shift towards more offensive capabilities, but most of the equipment is still firmly rooted in Cold War origins, where the UK was tasked with holding the difficult northern sector of West Germany in the advent of a Warsaw Pact invasion. The UK army is noted for being highly professional, and maintains an excellent stock of modern equipment, and a relative funding only exceeded by that of the United States. In addition, the nation has one of the largest and most powerful navies in the world, as well as the largest amphibious capability outside the US. The UK army is, however, committed to numerous peacekeeping operations across the globe, and is spread thin due to lack of personnel, funding, and equipment. The closest thing the UK has to an actual threat is from Argentina, who seized the Falkland Islands in the 1981. This has required a sizeable garrison to be stationed there ever since. There is also a less hostile dispute over Gibralter with Spain, and of course, the insurgency in Ireland is still a major factor. Most forces, however, are dedicated to peacekeeping duties including efforts in places like Sierra Leone and the Balkans.
Again, the UK military has a solid logistics section, including one of the best sealift and amphibious capabilities outside the US, allowing the nation to deploy troops virtually anywhere on earth that they may be needed in relatively short order. The UK counts on many allies, primarily NATO countries, and has not been under the threat of an attack on its home soil since the fall of the Soviet Union (and even in a war, it would have been mostly an air campaign).

Equipment
The UK military is quite well equipped, though as with all democracies, they have had a tendency to cancel key systems that would have been very beneficial. The primary armor of the army is the superb Challenger 2 MBT, easily among the best such vehicles in the world. The only shortfall is that this unit is very slow, owing at least partially to its Cold War defensive origins. Some 386 of these powerful vehicles are in service. Backing up the tanks are 192 Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, which are lightly armed and armored, but fast units for screening and general reconnaissance duties. There’s also a somewhat similar vehicle called the Sabre, of which 132 are in service.
The fleet of IFVs and APCs is quite extensive, with the most notable unit being the FV 510 Warrior IFV, of which some 575 are in service. These provide a capability similar to that of an M2 Bradley, but with out the antitank missiles. There are three primary APC types, all of which are due for replacement. The most numerous of these are by far the 1100 FV 432 series vehicles, which is essentially the British equivalent to the M113, fulfilling a wide range of battlefield and support roles with specialized variants like mortar carriers, command post vehicles, and ambulances. The next up, the Saxon, is a lower-cost, easily maintained unit that’s often referred to more as an armored lorry (truck) than an APC. There are 590 of these in service. Finally, there is the FV 103 Spartan APC, which is a much smaller unit only capable of carrying 4 troops. Thus, the 520 of these are all used for specialized roles such as reconnaissance. Finally, a total of 10 Fuchs APCs (in service in the US as Fox) were provided by Germany and employed in the NBCR role.
Artillery forces are quite homogenous, with only one weapon type for each role, which is a great boon to supply, but does cause flexibility to suffer somewhat. The star here is the AS90 self-propelled gun, with 179 units providing the primary fire support for the armored and mechanized formations. This is an excellent unit on par with the best out there, including the PZH 2000 and the now cancelled Crusader. These units are backed up by 54 operational MLRS launchers acquired from the US, which provide long-range, heavy volume fire against key targets. The final artillery weapon is the 105mm light gun, which is transportable by helicopter and can be airdropped, allowing it to support airborne and other light forces that simply can’t afford to take along a large armored vehicle. 165 of these are in service. In addition to the standard artillery, there are of course mortars as well. The standard light mortar is a small 51mm weapon, of which over 2000 are in service, with the heavier 81mm mortar accounting for 540 weapons in service with the infantry, with some mounted on FV 432 vehicles.
Antitank units are equipped primarily with the Milan 2 ATGM, with over 1000 launchers in service, along with many more missiles. While a solid performer, the Milan is somewhat dated and in need of replacement. There have been trials with the Israeli Gill and US Javelin for this, but I’m unaware of any purchases. The other main antitank weapon is the LAW 80 disposable rocket, of which 590 are deployed with some in virtually every combat unit. There no longer appear to be any dedicated ATGM vehicles.
The UK Army’s air support comes from 108 Lynx and 113 Gazelle helicopters. Though these are capable attack units, they are very light and just don’t have the firepower of a dedicated gunship. This shortfall is to be rectified with the WAH-64 variant of the Apache, of which 67 were procured.

The RAF is small, but generally well equipped. Currently, the bulk of its combat power lies in the variants of the Tornado multirole aircraft, with 96 Tornado F3 interceptors and 142 GR4 strike aircraft. 61 Jaguar GR3 strike aircraft provide an additional capability, though they’re rather dated and could use replacement. There are also 167 Harrier GR7 and GR9 aircraft, which provide a primary strike capability with secondary air-to-air. A secondary light attack role is also built into the ~100 Hawk T1/T1A training aircraft, which can provide a modest boost to combat capabilities. In the end though, this force is geared almost entirely toward ground attack, and there is a notable lack of dedicated air superiority aircraft now. This is being rectified to an extent, though, with the first of the EFA-2000 aircraft finally entering service, with one squadron being converted this year. The replacement process is expected to take at least 5 more years, after which the Tornado F3 will finally be phased out completely. After which, a ground attack version of the EFA-2000 will replace the Jaguar GR3 aircraft currently in service. Total EFA-2000 procurement is expected to be 137 aircraft, down significantly from the 232 originally planned. There are also potential plans for the RAF to purchase the STOVL variant of the F-35 JSF (F-35B), to replace its aging Harrier fleet.
The RAF also operates and maintains the UK’s maritime patrol aircraft fleet (usually expected to be under the navy), with about 21 of the Nimrod MR3, which is roughly equivalent to the US P-3C Orion.
The RAF is also equipped with a solid electronic support force, including a fleet of 7 Sentry AEW1 (aka E-3D) aircraft. This will be further enhanced by the ASTOR system, which is expected to have initial operating capability towards the end of this year, and be fully operational with 5 aircraft and 8 ground stations by 2008. The combination of these two units will make the UK one of the few nations with both an AWACS and ground surveillance (JSTARS equivalent) platform.
The RAF has a solid tanker force, with 16 converted airliners being devoted to refueling their fleet. While comparatively small, this force is perfectly suited due to the fact that there are very few large aircraft (21 Nimrod and 4 C-17) in the RAF.
The transport force is modest, being based almost entirely around a fleet of 26 Hercules C1/C3 (C-130H) and 25 Hercules C4/C5 (C-130J) aircraft. There are also 11 VC-10s, and a quartet of C-17s provide the only heavy airlift available. For the future, the RAF has committed to 25 A400M transport aircraft, which will provide a greater payload capability compared to the C-130, and may replace the C1 and C3 units still in service. The forces of C4 and C5 aircraft, as well as the C-17 force, are likely to remain untouched.
In addition to the 100 odd Hawk advanced jet trainers mentioned earlier, there are about 75 Tucano T1 turboprop aircraft serving as the basic (1st tier) training aircraft.
Finally, the RAF also maintains a solid helicopter force, with some 40 older Puma HC1 and 22 new EH101 Merlin Mk.3 helicopters providing general lift and support duties for all services in a Joint Helicopter Command. Additionally, there are some 37 Chinook HC2 aircraft providing a heavy lift capability, and 27 Sea King HAR3 units have been retained as Search and Rescue birds.

The Royal Navy is yet another solid branch, with good equipment and a number of excellent new systems on the horizon. The primary power projection of course comes from the carriers, and with three Invincible Class VSTOL carriers, the RN is only surpassed by the French and US in carrier forces. This may change, however, with the future carrier program underway. The two ships of this proposed class will replace the old Invincible units and will be much more capable fleet carriers, probably comparable to the French Charles de Gaulle, and will provide a considerable improvement over the smaller and more limited ships currently sailing. The first of these would hopefully be operational by 2012.
The RN also possesses a solid force of nuclear submarines. Currently, the primary force in this area is the modern Trafalgar SSN, of which 7 are in service. These units are relatively small, but sophisticated and quite capable. They’re backed up by some 5 older Swiftsure class SSNs, which are slated to be decommissioned soon. The force is to drop down to 10 boats by 2006, with all reductions being in the Swiftsure class. Then, the new Astute class units, of which three have been ordered, will begin replacing additional Swiftsures. The Astute class units are larger than previous RN submarines, and are likely comparable in size, price, and capability to the 688I Improved Los Angeles submarines. Finally, there is a fleet of 4 Vanguard SSBNs providing the primary nuclear deterrent of the UK. These ships are each armed with 16 D-5 Trident II missiles provided by the US, and provide an excellent nuclear strike capability. However, the UK lacks a full supply of missiles and warheads (due to politics cutting inventories), so this force is nowhere near as powerful as it could be.
The UK’s destroyer force is probably where the worst problems lie. Though the vessels are solid performers, the 11 Type 42 air defense destroyers are relying on outdated Sea Dart missile systems, and are seriously outclassed by many current threats. These were intended to be replaced by the Type 45 Daring class, with its modern PAAMS system, but the first ship of this class has been delayed 7 years (in service 2007 instead of 2000). Initial plans were for 12 Daring class ships to replace the Type 42s on an almost 1-for-1 basis, but it is entirely possible that there will be a reduction in that number, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another extension on several of the Type 42 destroyers. Currently, 6 Daring class ships are expected by 2012, though this number could increase or decreased based on political situations. A further problem is that several key systems, such as the sonar, are being omitted from early Type 45 destroyers to cut costs and get them into service sooner. This means that they will not be able to operate alone in areas where there is a submarine threat, and will have to rely on frigates for protection.
The frigate force, consisting of 20 total vessels, is actually relatively young by most standards (the oldest vessels are 17 years old). However, these are nonetheless scheduled to be replaced starting in 2013 with a new future surface combatant program. No solid information is available yet on this program. For now, the 4 aging Type 22 Broadsword frigates are backed up by 16 newer Type 23 Duke units to provide an effective ASW force. The Dukes are especially valuable with their CODLAG propulsion system, which allows them to run extremely quietly using batteries during ASW operations, similar to diesel-electric submarines.
Mine warfare is provided by 22 vessels, including 11 each of Hunt class MCMs and Sandown class MHCs. The Hunt class, though expensive, provide an excellent oceangoing minesweeper. The Sandown class is designed primarily for coastal work, but has a deep water capability and can deal with mines to a depth of 200m, necessitated by the routes used by the Vanguard SSBNs, which one would obviously hate to have run into a mine while heading out for deployment.
The amphibious forces are relatively well represented, with a single LPH and several LPDs. The Ocean LPH is the largest vessel here, and carries 18 helicopters and 6 landing craft for delivering an 830-man marine commando group, including 40 ground vehicles. Almost as big as the Ocean are the two Albion LPDs, each of which carries 305 troops (up to 710 surge), along with up to 67 vehicles and 6-8 landing craft. The vessels have helicopter platforms, but no hangars. In addition to the primary landing ships, there are a number of support (logistics) landing vessels. The newest and largest of these are the Bay class, with 2-3 in service now, and a total of 4 expected by the end of next year. These are capable of carrying 356 troops and 36 Challenger tanks, but are usually loaded with supplies and lighter vehicles. The 4 Sir Bedivere class units are only half the size, and are being replaced by the Bay class on a 1 for 1 basis. At least 2 of these will be decommissioned in the near future, and probably all 4.
The RN also has an excellent auxiliary force in tune with its global role. Currently, there are some 4 large multiproduct replenishment ships, and another 6 large fleet oilers. Additionally, there are 3 smaller fleet oilers as well. Maritime transport is provided by 8 20,000 ton class vehicle cargo ships, and the Argus Aviation Support Ship can transport a full squadron of Harriers with all the equipment needed to sustain it.

The Royal Marines are a small force (less than 6000 all told), which performs amphibious operations. These are primarily light infantry and special forces, and there are few heavy units. A handful of combat helicopter do provide dedicated support though.

The UK, while nuclear capable, has removed all but one delivery system from service. At present, the 4 Vanguard SSBNs are the only nuclear delivery system in service, with only 58 missiles and only 200 warheads available (each missile could hold 8). This includes a reduction from the 300 warheads they initially had for them missiles, and puts the UK as having one of the smallest forces among established nuclear powers.

Requirements for Copying the UK military:
1. Population of 50 million or more
2. Good economy or better
3. Interregional capability limited to small forces only. Large forces can only be deployed beyond the border under long-term agreements with host nation.
4. Most equipment can be modern, but some may be outdated for various reasons, especially if political freedoms are high.
5. A solid armored/mechanized force is allowed, but large numbers of light infantry should still make up some 55-70% of total combat power.

ORDER OF BATTLE

The British Army is made up almost entirely of separate regiments and battalions attached to various commands, and units are attached and detached as needed. I actually couldn’t find much information on current deployments, but I can give the totals:
6 Armored Regiments
4 Armored Recce Regiments
4 Yeomanary Regiments (Territorial Army)
4 Home Service Regiments
6 Army Air Corps Regiments (1 from Territorial Army)
9 Field Artillery Regiments (2 from Territorial Army)
3 MLRS Regiments (1 from Territorial Army)
4 Air Defense Regiments (1 from Territorial Army)
1 Commando Regiment
3 SAS Regiments (2 from Territorial Army)
1 Surveillance & Target Acquisition Regiment
16 Engineer Regiments (5 from Territorial Army)
21 Signal Regiments (11 from Territorial Army)
37 Logistic Regiments (17 from Territorial Army)
5 Medical Regiments
1 EW Regiment
9 Armored Infantry Battalions
6 Mechanized Battalions
4 Air Assault Battalions
27 Light Role Battalions (15 from Territorial Army)
6 Northern Ireland Resident Battalions
2 Gurkha Battalions
1 Land Warfare Battalion
10 Equipment Support Battalions (4 from Territorial Army)
1 Aviation Equipment Support Battalion
1 HAC (Territorial Army)
4 Field Ambulances (Territorial Army)
14 Hospitals (11 from Territorial Army)

In terms of special forces, the UK is clearly at the forefront, with the SAS dating back to 1942. This gives them exceptional experience allowing them to form truly top-of-the-line units, and their methods have been copied by numerous nations over the decades, including the US. The SAS has one active regiment with 320 combat personnel, and there are two additional regiments in the territorial army. There is a mirror unit, the SBS, but that is still extremely secretive, and I’ve found very little info on it.

Tocrowkia

01-03-2005, 06:52

Nice thread.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

01-03-2005, 06:54

UK Military

British Army:

Personnel:
111,780 active
41,200 Territorial Army
34,000 Individual Reservists (called up in war to reinforce Territorial Army)

Tanks:
Challenger 2: 386 + 22 DTT

Recon/APC/IFVs:
Scimitar RC: 192
Sabre RC: 136
Fuchs NBCR: 10
FV432 APC: 1100 (support roles only)
Spartan APC: 520
Saxon APC: 590
Warrior IFV: 736 (including 161 available, but not in service)

Artillery:
105mm towed: 165
AS90 155mm SP: 179
227mm MLRS: 62 (including 8 available, but not in service)

Antitank:
Striker: 48
Milan 2: 1000+ launchers, 50,000+ missiles
LAW 80: 590

Antiaircraft:
Javelin SAM: 330
Starstreak SAM: 145
Stormer SP SAM: 135 (uses Starstreak)

Aircraft:
WAH-64: 67 (on order)
Lynx AH Mk.7/9: 108
Gazelle AH Mk.1: 113
BN-2: 7

Royal Air Force:

Personnel:
52,540 active
41,900 reserve

Combat:
Tornado F3: 96
Tornado GR4: 142 (76 GR4A)
Jaguar GR3/GR3A/T4: 61
Harrier GR7/9: 167

Maritime Patrol:
Nimrod MR2: 21

Support:
Sentry AEW1: 7 (E-3D)
Tristar KC1/2: 8 (tanker version of L1011-500 airliner)
VC-10 K3/4: 8 (tanker version of VC-10)

Cargo:
Hercules C1/3: 26 (C-130H)
Hercules C4/5: 25 (C-130J)
C-17: 4
VC-10: 11

Trainer:
T.1: 75
Hawk: 97

Helicopter:
Chinook HC2: 37
Puma HC1: 40
Sea King HAR3: 27
EH101 Merlin Mk.3: 22

Air Defense:
Rapier SAM: 26

Royal Navy:

Personnel:
44,500 active

Submarines:
Vanguard SSBN: 4 (16,000 tons)
Swiftsure SSN: 5 (4500 tons)
Trafalgar SSN: 7 (5200 tons)
Astute SSN: 1 (7200 tons)

Carriers:
Invincible CVL: 3 (20,600 tons)

Major Surface Combatants:
Type 42 DDG: 11 (4250 tons)
Type 23 FF: 16 (4200 tons)
Type 22 FF: 4 (4850 tons)

Patrol Craft:
River: 3 (1677 tons)
Castle: 2 (1550 tons)
Island: 5 (1280 tons)
Hunt: 4 (725 tons)

Mine Warfare:
Hunt MCM: 11 (725 tons)
Sandown MHC: 11 (465 tons)

Amphibious:
Ocean LPH: 1 (21,758 tons)
Albion LPD: 2 (19,560 tons)
Bay LPD: 3 (16,000 tons)
Sir Bedivere LPD: 4 (8750 tons)

Auxiliaries:
Argus Aviation Support Ship: 1 (28,540 tons)
Fort Victoria MPRS: 2 (36,580 tons)
Fort Grange CSS: 2 (23,384 tons)
Oakleaf FRO: 1 (49,310 tons)
Appleleaf FRO: 3 (38,000 tons)
Wave FRO: 2 (31,500 tons)
Rover FRO: 3 (11,522 tons)
Diligence Salvage/Repair Ship: 1 (10,765 tons)
Vehicle Cargo Ships: 8 (20,000 ton class)
Ocean Survey Ship: 6
Icebreakers: 2

Aircraft:
Sea Harrier: 26
Merlin ASW: 20
Sea King ASW: 18
Sea Lynx ASW: 48
Merlin SAR: 21
Sea King HC4: 33 (transport for marines)
Sea King AEW: 10

Royal Marines:

Personnel:
5900 active

Aircraft:
Lynx AH Mk.7: 6
Gazelle AH.1: 9

Mauiwowee

01-03-2005, 06:59

Thank you CSJ. Your research and presentation are outstanding and worthy of acclaim.
I try hard to make my military realistic and I'd like your comments on the formula I use which is illustrated below - total population is 1.5 Billion

Defense Budget: $8,095,310,258,434.56 (40% of total GDP per 3rd Geek)

Rate: 1.2 million men (average) inc. logistics, per Trillion in budget = 9,600,000 total active military (rounded)

Navy: 40% = 3.84 Million men - 3:1 Logistics to Combat = 960,000 combat naval personnel
AirForce: 20% = 1.92 million men - 4:1 Logistics to Combat = 384,000 combat pilots
Army: 25% = 2.4 million men - 4:1 Logistics to Combat = 480,000 combat troops
Marines: 15% = 1.44 Million men - 2:1 Logistics to Combat = 480,000 Combat troops

I understand that I could up the number of troops per trillion in budget or up the number of logistics to combat troops, etc. Many ways to adjust the figures depending on how large and/or well trained/equipped I want my military to be. However, just as a general question, do you see anything significantly wrong, evidencing god modding or number wanking on my part in using this formula for RP puposes? People who claim X% of their population is in the military bothers me since a nation with a 4 trillion defense budget cannot support a 10 million man fighting force, even if that is only 1% of their population. For RP puposes, I take the approach that the amount of money you have to spend on your military is more of an accurate indication of how big your military can be than is the total population of your country.

Just a request for ideas and thoughts. Thanks.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

01-03-2005, 09:44

Daistallia 2104

01-03-2005, 18:09

Thank you CSJ. Your research and presentation are outstanding and worthy of acclaim.
I try hard to make my military realistic and I'd like your comments on the formula I use which is illustrated below - total population is 1.5 Billion

Defense Budget: $8,095,310,258,434.56 (40% of total GDP per 3rd Geek)

Thirdgeek is a nice little calc, but the budget breakdown there are worse than worthless. Don't pay even the slightest attention to it. It fails to take into account key budgetary realities, and thus only provides woefully poor information.

You should not be spending 40% of your GDP, or even 40% of your budget in most cases, on the military. That can and will run your nation into the ground a la North Korea. Don't think you want to find yourself in that boat. I, for example, am avoiding going above 7% of the GDP, and consider that pretty extreme.

I think Mauiwowee may have been confusing his % of budget and his % of GDP, but the % of GDP drawn off thirdgeek is too high - currently 33% http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Mauiwowee

I'll assume my 42% of budget, which is 4% of GDP is not most cases. But I don't necessarily go by it.

The Freethinkers

01-03-2005, 18:44

Heh, nice CSJ. Though if I were I think I would check on the relative status of the Swiftsure and Trafalgur, I think you confused the two.

Mauiwowee

02-03-2005, 03:59

Thirdgeek is a nice little calc, but the budget breakdown there are worse than worthless. Don't pay even the slightest attention to it. It fails to take into account key budgetary realities, and thus only provides woefully poor information.

You should not be spending 40% of your GDP, or even 40% of your budget in most cases, on the military. That can and will run your nation into the ground a la North Korea. Don't think you want to find yourself in that boat. I, for example, am avoiding going above 7% of the GDP, and consider that pretty extreme.

Your ratio of combatants to support is also way too high. Though the Navy is about right (about 20-25% of a modern navy's will be combat ships' crews), the air force is WAY off, and should be around 19 support for every combat pilot, maybe a bit more (remember, many aircraft aren't combatants). Consider that a 24 aircraft squadron (18 PAA) has around 250 people, and that's just at the squadron level. For the army, with large modern militaries, the ratio is about 8 support for every combatant. In the end, this military as it stands would be plagued with poorly maintained equipment, and undersupplied troops. Not a good thing.

And to hit one other thing: a $4 trillion budget can support a 10 million man army. It might not be quite as well trained and equipped as, say, the US, but it will be rather close, making it quite modern and capable. In actuality, if you play a third world nation, a $40 billion budget will support a 10 million man army, so long as it's pretty much entirely a light infantry force. It just takes a little bit of time and math to find some info and figure things out, and being arbitrary is the big problem.

Thanks for the info and the reply - I understand that 3rd Geek is not the best, but it is one that is generally accepted in NS and is a handy way to say "This is my total defense budget." I take it you see no problem with the idea of 1.2 million men per trillion in budget though and it is the ratio of logistics to combat that is an issue. As it regards my combat airforce - I include in that number not just fighters and bombers, but AWACS, C-130 transports, etc. instead of "combat pilots" I guess I should reprhase that to read "aircraft crew members including pilots" - I guess that is not to clear in the way I worded it. However, even then, I guess the ratio needs to go up.

Daistallia - yeah, you're right re: confusing budget and GDP - I should just leave the % out and just say, this is my defense budget per 3rd Geek. It may have been 33% when you looked at it, just now when I did it was at 38% and when I wrote the post it was at 40% - it changes regularly (as a real military budget would - rising and falling with the nation's economy and tax rate).

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and the great posts on logistics - keep it up. :)

Clan Smoke Jaguar

02-03-2005, 06:32

A modern, well equipped air force will generally have around 70-90 personnel per aircraft, assuming that an extensive air defense network is not included.
Now when you consider this, that means that you'll still be having 10-15 support personnel per aircrew, easy, even if everything's included. Just not much way to get around that.

Tom Joad

02-03-2005, 23:10

Pretty good work CSJ, as usual, although I think you rate the Royal Navy a little high and don't emphasise the flaws in the RAF’s current crop of airframes.
The Jaguar airframes are all approaching twenty-five years old and some even older which of course means they have serious problems with their airframes however the advantage is they have some pretty sophisticated navigation equipment and are cheap to maintain. The Tornado GR4s underwent an upgrade to their avionics and self-defence systems about five/six years ago however these upgrades have proved rather troublesome and hardly a qualitative upgrade.
The GR7 Harriers, the GR9s simply being GR7s with more powerful engines and upgraded electronic systems, have woefully inadequate ground-attack capability especially in terms of using precision attack weapons. In the Kosovan conflict an internal audit found that only 40% of all precision guided weapons dropped by Harriers during the conflict actually hit their targets.

Other than those small matters, job well done but now on to the Royal Marines. Your numbers were close, I’m not sure how many sources you checked however my brief search has pointed towards a total Royal Marine strength, not counting reserves, of 7,500. Breaking that figure down we have; 4,800 actual personnel, 1,600 personnel from the RN, Army and RAF as well as 1,160 Royal Marines employed outside the Royal Marines Command who report to the Commandant General.
Royal Marines Reserves consist of 600 trained ranks distributed across the five RMR centres within the UK, however 10% of the RMR are working with the Regular Corp on long term attachments in all of the Royal Marines regular units. During a time of war these Royal Marine Reservists and TA Commando gunners, engineers and logisticians enhance the brigade although I cannot provide an exact figure in total. It should be noted that the Royal Marines are expected to be deployable within in seven days across the globe, this is due to the self-contained nature of the force.

At one time the Royal Marines alongside the Parachute Regiment were considered the British armed forces primary response to any armed conflict, these two forces would do the primary combat if any and the remaining situation would eventually be undertaken by the regular British Army however in the last eight - ten years this role has been almost completely undertaken by the Royal Marines. In 2003 during the Iraq conflict the Royal Marines were tasked with the priority areas and due to insufficient numbers the British Army was tasked with the remained and acting in support of the RM.
I have noted comparisons between the US Marine Corp and the RM however such comparisons are unfounded and distinctly difficult to achieve seeing as how the two forces operate in similar yet different manners and have an overall different structure. The RM relies upon the RN for its amphibious capability largely and the Fleet Air Arm/RAF for air support whereas the US Marine Corp has such support integrally.

You’ve already mentioned the SAS and gave passing reference to the SBS so I thought I’d do my best to help. The SBS is relatively unknown, especially when compared to their more famous brethren the SAS, however this is not due to a lack of activity with the SBS participating in every conflict, both minor and major, since the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. In contrast to the role of the SAS, which is primarily a long-range combative role in some respects the SBS is almost purely a reconnaissance force with its primary aim to find suitable landing locations for the Royal Marines and Army as well as conducting other reconnaissance operations where a sea-borne insertion is preferable.
Selection for the SBS is extremely tough, far more than can be said for the SAS who recruit from the general populace and mainly the British Army, all recruits must be qualified Royal Marines which is a selection process rated highly for its ability to produce highly quality professionals. Unfortunately as CSJ mentioned, information about the SBS is limited mainly due its highly limited publicity, I have found that SBS training is in most respects an extension of Royal Marines training with a focus on swimming ability, kayaking and surveillance operations as opposed to the RM focus as being a combat force.
There is a reserve unit of the SBS in operation, once again numbers are not available, and all SBS officers are required to serve in this unit before becoming serving as an officer in a regular unit, this practice was instituted in the 1970s as far as I’m aware.
SBS forces were the first to survey the beaches on the Falkland Islands and the island of South Georgia.

As a note to anyone attempting to replicate the British air force your air superiority will, as mentioned, be severely limited primarily due to the need to intercept aircraft around the nation rather than achieving control of the skies above a battlefield, which is where your allies come in to play.

Perhaps at another time I’ll go over the RN frigate and destroyer force, for now though this will have to do but don’t expect me to look at the British Army it really isn’t my area of interest except I’ll provide part of the answer as to why the British Army lacks a Royal prefix: The formal history of a professional army in Britain begins with Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army and as such a force was under parliamentary control it was a peoples army, so attaching a Royal prefix would have been incredibly hypocritical. Despite members of the Royal Family being directly associated with various regiments the prefix has never been added and is unlikely to happen.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

03-03-2005, 10:41

FRENCH ARMY

Some Basic Stats:
Country: France
Population: 60.2 million
GDP: $1.558 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $25,888.77
Active Military: 260,000
Portion of Population: 0.432%
Military Spending: $25.3 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.62%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $97,307.69
Military Nature: Expeditionary
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Very Good
Experience: Moderately High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means:
The French military has, over the past 15 years, been undergoing a dramatic decrease in size and budget, owing to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the elimination of the threat of a major land invasion. Thus, the current force is dedicated to operations overseas, primarily peacekeeping and police duties in former colonies and UN hotspots. To that end, the French military even exceeds that of the UK in maintaining the largest Rapid Reaction Force in Europe. Plans are still ongoing to further decrease the size of the French Army, but it there is a goal to have the ability to deploy up to 50,000 soldiers abroad at any given time. To that end, the French military maintains a solid logistical arm, and decent navy and air force to back up the army. A strong sense of isolationism has led to the nation producing the vast majority of its equipment itself, though there have been an increasing number of joint products, particularly with Germany and the UK. However, as with all democracies, there is a problem with procuring much needed replacements for outdated equipment, further hindered by the nature of the collaborative efforts. The navy in particular is suffering because of that. In addition to the regular military, a National Guard force called the Gendarmerie also exists, with nearly 100,000 additional personnel.

Equipment:
The French forces are quite well equipped, and the core of their ground combat capability is formed around some 408 Leclerc main battle tanks, with an eventual requirement for 420. Though I can’t find information either way, there may be up to 400 or so AMX-30B2 tanks available as well, as those have likely not been completely phased out yet. The tanks are backed up by 337 AMX-10RC wheeled reconnaissance vehicles/assault guns. These are somewhat old, but their 105mm guns pack quite a punch, and some 300 are receiving modernization. Additionally, there are 192 ERC-90 F4 Sagaie armored cars, each packing a 90mm main gun. Finally, there are over 1000 light VBL scout cars, which serve as light antitank and recon units. All three types are fully amphibious, and have excellent ground mobility.
At present, the French infantry rely heavily on the AMX-10P IFV, which is a very old unit that is in need of replacement. Its 20mm gun is underpowered for vehicle combat and the unit is quite slow, and unable to keep up with modern armor. In the near future, the 600 or so of these in service will be replaced by the new AMX VBCI combat vehicle, which will bring much needed improvement. The general purpose APC is the VAB, of which some 3900 are in service, with no immediate plans for replacement.
The French artillery forces rely on a modest number of high-quality weapons instead of greater quantities. The primary unit here is the 155mm AUF-1 self-propelled howitzer, also known as the GCT, of which some 275 are in service. This is complemented with about 100 TRF-1 towed weapons. Heavy firepower is provided by some 60 MLRS units acquired from the US, with over 360 120mm mortars hitting on the lighter side of things.
Antitank firepower is provided primarily by the Eryx and Milan systems, with a modest number of vehicle-mounted HOT systems to boot. This provides a strong core of weapons, supplemented by nearly 10,000 APILAS antitank rocket launchers.
Air Defense is where some shortfalls begin to emerge. The only medium range air defense currently in service with the French Army is the US Hawk missile system, of which only a few dozen are around. This unit, while still effective, is quite limited and outdated, and in need of replacement. The Roland 1/2 short-range missile system is quite effective, but rather short on numbers, with only about 100 systems, and the 300+ Mistral shoulder-fired SAM launchers are in the same boat. The French Army is particularly vulnerable to standoff missiles and high-altitude bombing, though these are weaknesses few countries can really exploit.
The helicopter arm of the French Army is also a bit underpowered. Though they have some 174 SA342 Gazelle antitank helicopters, these units are light and not entirely suited for that role on a modern battlefield (think sticking hellfires on an OH-58 and calling it an attack bird – oh wait, they did that too . . .). This situation will be rectified in the near future, however, as the first of the HAC Tigers are slated for delivery this year, with a batch of 50 (+10 HAP variants) ordered, and another 60 helicopters planned. Another 77 Gazelles, this time the Recon variant, provide the necessary recon services, and a crop of AS532 Cougars and SA.330 Pumas provide some modest transport. Finally, 4 AS532UL Cougar HORIZON AEW helicopters are also in service.

The French Air Force is in decent shape, especially compared to the other services. It’s hard to stay on top of it, but there should be up to 60 of the new Rafale aircraft in service now, of about 230-240 planned. I can’t be certain of the specifics though. The bulk of the force is still maintained by some 225 Mirage 2000 variants, including 67 nuclear-capable planes. Some 73 Mirage F.1C and 49 Jaguar aircraft are also in service, but these numbers are dwindling as they’re phased out in favor of the new Rafales coming online. The eventual plan is to have the Rafales completely replace all other types, but I expect several dozen Mirage 2000s may end up sticking around for one reason or another.
Photoreconnaissance is provided by 40 Mirage F.1C and 5 Mirage IVP aircraft, both dated designs but still useful in that role (which is usually reserved for older aircraft anyway). Supporting this are 4 US-supplied E-3F Sentry AWACS planes, and two ELINT variants each of the C-160 transport and DC-8-72 aircraft.
The cargo role is filled primarily by the 66 C-160 aircraft in service, though a handful of C-130s provide additional capability. Plans are to replace both types with about 50, possibly more, larger Airbus A400M aircraft. As with so many nations, there’s also a smattering of various other transports, mostly for VIP and other specialized roles.
Tanker support is provided by 11 KC-135 aircraft, which could probably use a replacement. More than likely, there will eventually be plans to drop these in favor of one of the newer Airbus tanker models.
The helicopter force has an assortment of Cougar and Puma helicopters for SAR work and general support. Nothing spectacular, but not lacking either.
The training force should be noted as containing about 140 aircraft that are potentially combat capable. This can be used to quickly expand the air force’s capability, particularly in strike missions.
Finally, there is an air defense network consisting of 24 batteries of mobile Crotale SAM launchers (short-range), and 36 batteries of Mistral SAM launchers. While these certainly have no real area defense capability, they provide good point defense for airfields and other facilities.

The French navy, though strong on paper, is actually in pretty bad shape. Most of its major surface vessels are sorely outdated and in need of replacement, and there is actually insufficient air defense capability to protect their carriers, a serious problem indeed.
The submarine force is small, but solid. Containing 6 Amethyste SSNs. However, these units are very small (<3000 tons), and are more like a nuclear powered Kilo than the submarines of other nations. Of particular note is their lack of armament (only 14 weapons) and their low speed of only 25 knots. The situation is intended to be rectified with the planned Barracuda class, but these are some years away. On a slightly better note, France has one of the largest SSBN fleets in the world, with 5 vessels. 2 of the older L’Inflexible class remain, and these are not particularly capable, but the 3 Le Triomphant SSBNs are a different story, on par with those of the UK. A 4th Le Triomphant unit is expected to be delivered by 2010, and the older L’Inflexibles may be gone by then.
France also has one of the world’s only nuclear carriers outside of the US. The 41,000 ton Charles de Gaulle, however, has suffered a great deal of delays and problems, and is still lacking the modern Rafale aircraft, instead relying on outdated Super Entendard strike units, and further increasing the air defense gap. The Jeanne d’Arc, which is technically a training unit, could also be considered a helicopter carrier. This could serve as an ASW vessel or LPH in wartime.
The major surface combatants are where the French Navy is really lacking. With the decommissioning of the last Suffren Air Defense Destroyer this year, the French military has only 2 Cassard frigates with SM-1 SAMs (effective range of 30-50 km, depending on model) to provide area defense. These are sorely outdated, but outside of them, the longest-ranged SAM in the French inventory is the Crotale, which only goes out to a range of about 10 km, and an altitude of 5000m. In other words, the French Navy is currently vulnerable even to Sea Skua and Penguin missiles launched from helicopters, a serious problem. This is slowly being rectified with the Forbin (Horizon Project) class destroyers. However, the first won’t be operational for at least another year or two, and then it’ll be another two years before the second comes online. Until then, there’s a very large hole to be exploited. ASW escort, however, is another matter. A pair of Tourville ASW destroyers provide effective cover in that area, though these are somewhat dated and also nearing the end of their service lives, but the seven Georges Leygues frigates can provide additional support, and are much more modern vessels. The five smaller Lafayette patrol frigates are, however, among the most modern vessels in their class, though they’re quite lightly armed currently and lack ASW systems. There are plans for additional systems in the future though. Finally, there are six Floreal patrol frigates, which aren’t really built to combat standard, but provide good overseas patrol capabilities.
Minor combatants are in decent shape, the largest being the D’Estienne D’Orves ASW units. These aren’t that old, but are being retired in favor of larger vessels that are far more capable. The remainder of the small fleet are categorized as “fisheries patrol boats,” and France has no real coastal missile boat fleet.
The mine countermeasures force is quite large, but lacking in dedicated removal systems, as the most numerous vessels, the 13 Eridan class units, have minimal minesweeping capability, and there are only 6 other operational boats.
The landing force includes a number of older LPD ships, with two newer, much larger ship coming in to replace several of them. A decent force of small landing ships also exists, providing a total capability equivalent to probably one or two light battalions.
France has a sold fleet of general auxiliaries, with all the basics, but is failing in one key area. They have little in the way of underway replenishment capability. With only 4 moderately sized multiproduct-replenishment ships, they don’t have the capability for sustained operations enjoyed by many other nations. Even the much smaller German navy has an underway replenishment force close to theirs!
The air arm, as previously mentioned, is still relying mostly on Super Entendard aircraft for carrier operations, though the Rafales are slowly coming in to replace them.
Maritime patrol is provided primarily by 28 Atlantique aircraft, which are solid units, but lack the range of larger aircraft like the Nimrod and P-3C Orion. An assortment of ASW modified Falcon aircraft also support these. For AEW coverage, a trio of E-2C Hawkeyes have been purchased from the US for use aboard their carrier, providing a solid capability there, and there are 28 Lynx ASW Helicopters, but 17 older Alouette III units converted for that role, though the latter have limited capability. Finally an assortment of Super Frlon, Dauphin, and Panther helicopters provide transport and SAR capability, with over two dozen newer NH90s also on order to replace some of these.

Requirements for Copying the French Military
1. Population of 50 million or more
2. Good Economy or better
3. Moderate Interregional capability
4. Most equipment can be modern, but some may be outdated for various reasons, especially if political freedoms are high.
5. Forces are primarily mechanized, but some light formations should exist.
6. Naval escort force and attack helicopter force may be outdated, and seriously threatened by modern opponents.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Again, it’s difficult to find specific information, so here’s a basic rundown:
Regular Army
2 Armored Brigades
2 Mechanized Infantry Brigades
2 Armored Cavalry Brigades
1 Mountain Brigade
1 Airborne Brigade
2 Artillery Brigades
1 SAM Brigade
1 Army Co-Operation Aviation Brigade
1 Engineer Brigade
1 Electronic Warfare & Electronic Reconnaissance Brigade
1 Lift-Off Brigade
1 Intercommunication Brigade
7 Territorial Defense Regiments

Foreign Legion (8000 personnel)
1 Armored Regiment
1 Airborne Regiment
6 Motorized Infantry Regiments
2 Engineer Regiments

Marines (14,700 personnel) – Effectively under army control
21 Regiments (10 abroad)

Eurocorps Contingent
International force formed by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain. Has contingents from all nations under a unified command.
1 Armored Brigade
1 Cavalry Regiment
1 Motorized Infantry Regiment

Special Operations
1 Airborne Regiment
1 Army Co-Operation Group
3 Training Centers

The French Special Forces role is primarily filled out by the 1st Parachute Infantry and Marine Regiment, also known as the “Black Berets.” This force copied a great deal from the SAS (then again, who didn’t?), taking its history and tradition back to the Free French SAS in WWII. The unit has a special operations aviation unit in support, with a squadron each of Puma helicopters and Gazelle gunships. A more specialized unit can be found in the Special Scout Team of the 2nd REP (Legion Parachute Regiment), which is an experienced counter-terrorist unit that also performs CSAR and LRRP missions. The final unit is the GIGN (Intervention Group of the National Gendarmarie), which never has more than 100 personnel, and has a reputation as one of the busiest and best counterterrorist units in the world, having participated in over 1200 operations since 1974. The GIGN has some tough requirements, including 5 years of experience with an exemplary record followed by 10 months of training. Even after that, >90% of candidates drop out.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

03-03-2005, 10:42

Army
150,000 active personnel
242,500 reserve personnel

Tanks:
406 Leclerc (+20 ARV)
~400 AMX-30B2

Recon
337 AMX-10RC (first 88 of 300 upgrades 2005)
192 ERC-90 F4
1019 VBL M-11 RC

IFV/APC
599 AMX-10P
550 AMX VBCI ICV (future)
150 AMX VBCI CPV (future)
3900 VAB variants

Artillery
273 AUF-1 (aka GCT)
97 TRF-1
61 MLRS
363 120mm mortar

Antitank
780 Eryx ATGM
1384 Milan ATGM
135 HOT ATGM (on VABs)
9690 APILAS

Air Defense
26 Hawk SAM
98 Roland 1/2 SAM
331 Mistral SAM

Helicopters
144 SA.342M Gazelle Antitank
30 SA.342AATCP Gazelle Antitank
77 SA.341F Gazelle Recon
4 AS.532 Cougar Horizon
24 AS.532 Cougar
120 SA.330 Puma

Air Force
63,000 active personnel
79,500 reserve personnel

Fighter/Attack
37 Mirage 2000-5F
67 Mirage 2000N
57 Mirage 2000D
64 Mirage 2000C
33 Mirage F.1C
40 Mirage F.1CT
49 Jaguar
79 Rafale B (planned)
52 Rafale C (planned)

Recon
40 Mirage F.1CR
5 Mirage IVP
4 E-3F Sentry
2 DC-8-53 SARIGUE
2 C-160G Gabriel

Transport
66 C-160
5 C-130H
9 C-130H-30
3 A310-300
2 A319
2 Falcon 900
4 Falcon 50
2 DC-8-72
18 CN.235
19 TBM.700
50 A400M (future)

Tanker
11 KC-135R

Helicopter:
28 SA330 Puma
10 AS.332 Super Puma
4 AS.532 Cougar SAR
3 AS.550

Training:
10 Mirage F.1B
19 Mirage 2000B
10 Jaguar E
99 Alpha Jet
11 Falcon 20
31 EMB-121AA Xingu
50 EMB-312F Tucano
111 TB.30B Epsilon
2 CAP.231
2 CAP.232
5 CAP.10B
49 Fennec

Air Defense
24 Crotale Battery
36 Mistral Battery

Navy
45,600 active personnel
97,000 reserve personnel

Carriers
1 Charles de Gaulle CVLN (41,000 tons)
1 Jeanne D’Arc Helicopter Cruiser (12,365 tons)

Submarines
3 Le Triomphant SSBN (14,120 tons) – 1 more in 2010
2 L’Inflexible SSBN (9000 tons)
6 Amethyste SSN (2670 tons)

Surface Combatants
2 Forbin (Horizon) DDG (6700 tons) 2006 & 2008
2 Suffren DDG (6780 tons) decommissioned
2 Tourville ASW DD (5885 tons)
2 Cassard FFG (4500 tons)
7 George Leygues FF (4350 tons)
5 Lafayette FF (3280 tons)
6 Floreal FF (2950 tons)
9 D’Estienne D’Orves ASW Corvette (1250 tons)

Amphibious Vessels
2 Mistral LPD (20,000 tons)
2 Foudre LPD (11,880 tons)
2 Ouragan LSD (8500 tons)
5 Champlain LS (1836 tons)
2 CDIC LCU (600 tons) with Foudre class

Mine Warfare
13 Eridan MHC (595 tons)
3 Antares MHC (340 tons)
4 Vulcain MDT (490 tons)

Fleet Support Auxiliaries
4 Durance MPRS (17,900 tons)
1 Jules Verne Fleet Tender (10,250 tons)
2 Rhin Special Purpose Tender (2445 tons)
1 Garrone Repair Ship (2320 tons)

Patrol Craft
1 Albatros Patrol Ship (2800 tons)
1 Fulmar Patrol Boat (680 tons)
10 L’Audacieuse Patrol Boat (454 tons)
1 Grebe Patrol Boat (410 tons)
1 Sterne Patrol Boat (380 tons)
3 Flamant Patrol Boat (375 tons)

Auxiliaries
1 Missile Tracking Ship
1 Electronic Surveillance Ship
2 Experimental/Trials Ships
2 Coastal Logistics Craft
6 Ocean Survey Ships
18 Assorted Tugs/Tenders

Combat Aircraft
60 Rafale (ordered)
48 Super Entendard

Maritime Patrol
28 Atlantique
5 Falcon 20H
4 Falcon 50M

Recon/Surveillance
3 E-2C Hawkeye

Transport
15 Nord N.262E
11 EMB-121AN Xingu

ASW Helicopter
28 Lynx ASW
17 SA316B Alouette III ASW

Transport/SAR Helicopter
27 NH90 (ordered)
11 SA321 Super Frelon
9 SA365 Dauphin
17 AS565 Panther

Training
13 SA319B Alouette III
6 Falcon 10MER
8 CAP.10B
9 Rallye Club 100S

Gundamarie
94,950 personnel

Clan Smoke Jaguar

04-03-2005, 10:13

GERMAN MILITARY

Nation: Federal Republic of Germany
Army: Bundeswehr
Air Force: Luftwaffe
Navy: Bundesmarine
Population: 80.4 million
GDP: $2.16 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $26,865.67
Active Military: 308,500
Portion of Population: 0.384%
Military Spending: $38.8 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.8%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $125,769.85
Military Nature: Currently vague, but likely expeditionary in the future.
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderate
Training: Moderately High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means
Since the formation of the Bundeswehr in 1955, the German army has had the firm role of defending against a massive armored assault from the Warsaw Pact. As the site of the battlefield, they invested in large amounts of ground equipment, with a moderate air force to support it, and a navy only sufficient for protecting their own coastline. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a crippling blow, compounded with the problems of reunification and incorporating the former East German military into the fold. As a result, the German Military was left with large numbers of troops and no clear reason to have them. The result was a massive reduction and reorganization (maybe a bit too massive), which has left a sleeker, well trained professional force with top-of-the-line equipment. The role is still being defined, but there is a firm commitment to joint projects such as Eurocorps and the military may indeed follow the route of the French and British in becoming a major peacekeeping force. However, since the primary focus had been a defensive war on the nation’s own soil, there is a much weaker logistics support and infrastructure compared to other peacekeeping nations, and Germany only has limited ability to project forces beyond its own borders. If the military is to become a true peacekeeping force, it will need a much stronger navy and air force. Otherwise, it will neither be capable of deploying or supporting troops beyond the confines of Europe. Additionally, as hinted earlier, it’s likely that the cuts and reforms have gone too far, seriously jeopardizing combat capability. It may be necessary to expand the military to maintain any real role.

Equipment
The core of the German army has always been its armored force, and the 1770 Leopard 2 tanks provide it with one of the largest modern tank forces combined with one of the best modern tanks. A variety of potential upgrades are in the works that could improve these units even further, and these will likely remain in service for some time. Backing up the Leopard 2 force is a crop of about 750 older Leopard 1 tanks, which have been extensively modernized as well, and are on par with the later M60 and M48 main battle tanks. These are used more for support roles than heavy combat, but the fact remains that most nations don’t have tanks that are much better.
The German reconnaissance force is headed by over 500 Spähpanzer Luchs reconnaissance vehicles. Though quite old, these have also seen several upgrades, and are quite effective, characterized by a quiet drive system, and accommodation for a rear-facing driver allows the vehicle to quickly and effectively back out of dangerous situations. Also noted here are some 133 20mm-armed Wiesel light armored vehicles. These are designed to be airmobile light general purpose units for airborne troops, and serve in a variety of roles, armed either with a TOW missile system or a 20mm cannon.
The IFV force is provided by some 2100 Marder 1A3 IFVs, which, though continually upgraded, are starting to show their age, particularly with their very light 20mm armament, shared by the similar AMX-10P used by the French. However, there currently appear to be no plans on replacing the Marder anytime soon. While 1800+ M113 APCs form the core of that force, there are some 807 of the capable Transportpanzer Fuchs APCs. Many of these are specialist versions, and the NBC Reconnaissance version is in service with both the US (M93 Fox) and the United Kindom.
The German artillery force is undergoing a slow modernization, with some 86 of the new (and extremely effective) PZH 2000 guns in service, and more on the way to replace the 519 remaining M109 howitzers. The PZH 2000 is superior to almost all contemporaries, and is on par with the now defunct US Crusader, and thus may very well be one of, if not the best weapon in its class in service. Beyond that, there are some 192 towed FH-70 howitzers, which are solid performers, though lighter artillery is suffering from old age, with the M101 howitzers being quite outdated. I’m not entirely sure on the GebH weapons, which I’ve seen listed but haven’t found any information on them, unless these are vintage WWII weapons. The rocket force is mixed, with the primary rocket artillery coming from about 150 MLRS units acquired from the US, and a further 76 lighter LARS units providing much more mobile firepower with their 110mm rockets. Of the close to 900 mortars in service with the Bundeswehr, about 350-400 of them are heavy 120mm weapons, with lighter 81mm units making up the remainder.
The core of the German antitank forces are of course mechanized units. These include 210 TOW-armed Wiesel units and 157 HOT-armed Jaguar 1 vehicles. I had though that the 162 Jaguar 2s (with a TOW launcher and various improvements) would be around, but all sources I’ve looked into only list the Jaguar 1s. Go figure. Over 1600 Milan units provide the primary weapon for infantry, with the light weapon being the Panzerfaust 3 rocket launcher.
The German army is one of the few modern militaries in the world that still makes heavy use of the old fashioned antiaircraft gun. However, the effectiveness of the twin 35mm Oerlikon guns on the Gepard air defense tank cannot be disputed, and if that wasn’t enough, a new modification allows a quartet of Stinger SAMs to be employed as well. With 380 of these units in service, they account for over 2/3 of the mobile air defense force of the German army. Backing these up are 143 Roland SAM launchers, which provide slightly longer-reaching power. On the tail end are 300 Stinger launchers for the infantry, and a whopping 1145 towed 20mm antiaircraft guns. However, a problem exists with this air defense force in that it’s of extremely limited range, and many missile can be fired from beyond the effective coverage of Germany’s forward air defense units. Furthermore, there are no medium or long range SAM systems under direct control of the Bundeswehr, leaving formations quite vulnerable to concentrated air attack.
The primary gunship of the Bundeswehr is currently the PAH-1 (aka BO-105), which is a light unit closely resembling the AH-6 Defender in appearance and capability. These units, though expectedly numerous (over 200 in service), aren’t quite the best units for the job. This is being rectified with the integration of the PAH-2 version of the Tiger helicopter, which should be coming online over the next few years. 120 of these are planned. Transport helicopters are a different matter, however. With over 105 CH-53G helicopters, the Bundeswehr has some serious lifting capability, and 126 UH-1Ds provide lighter assistance. Additionally, there are 95 BO-105M utility helicopters performing various roles (most notably reconnaissance), and there are 35 older Alouette III units as well.

The German Luftwaffe is currently in transition, with older aircraft being replaced by the EFA 2000. 180 of the Eurofighter aircraft are expected to be delivered by 2014. The first Eurofighter unit should be just finishing transition this year, with another starting this year, and being completed sometime in 2007. By 2012, there will be four squadrons in service, completely replacing the previous F-4F ICE units. The final unit will be a multirole wing replacing a number of Tornadoes. Due to the numbers involved, I’ve put an educated guess that around 30-40 Eurofighters may have been delivered so far. With the units already delivered, the MiG-29s, which have been a problem for some time (lack of spare parts) have been dropped, and the EFA 2000s are now replacing the heavily upgrade F-4F ICE aircraft, which, it should be noted, are still very capable performers. Germany also has a fleet of 193 Tornado IDS strike aircraft and 38 Tornado ADV interceptors, with some of the former and likely all of the latter likely to be dropped as the Eurofighters get delivered.
36 Tornado ECR airborne jamming aircraft provide Germany with an excellent tactical electronic warfare capability, though these are still well behind the US units in capability. Unfortunately, the Luftwaffe has always relied on its allies for strategic units, and thus has no strategic ELINT or AWACS aircraft, a situation that may need to be rectified in the near future if this is to remain a viable force.
The tanker force is quite small, with only 4 A310 MRTT aircraft, though buddy stores on the Tornado help a bit. However, it may become necessary to procure more dedicated tankers, especially if the German military intends to perform operations outside of Europe.
The transport sector contains 86 C-160 light transport aircraft, which are somewhat inferior to the C-130 in payload and range. While there are no obvious plans to do so, the Germany military may need to procure newer more capable units like the A400M. Otherwise, they will be left sorely lacking in air transport capabilities. 10 assorted other transports provide a variety of other services, most notably internal and VIP transport duties.
With 86 UH-1D helicopters, the Luftwaffe has a decent number of units, but these are lacking in range and payload for most duties they may be needed for such as SAR. These are only really useful for internal transport operations. The 3 AS532 Cougar helicopters are more capable, but too short on numbers to do much good.
The Luftwaffe does have a good air defense net though, with 36 Patriot PAC-2 units providing long range coverage, 72 Hawk medium range units, and 84 Roland mobile short range units, they can put up a solid air defense grid that would make a strike into Germany quite costly.

The German Navy is still a limited force equipped primarily for protecting the nation’s own waters, with only very limited transport and power projection capabilities. That said, it’s quite powerful for the role, and has some of the most modern equipment available.
For starters, the Germans boast one of the most modern and effective conventional submarines in the Type 212, of which the third unit should be completed later this year, with a fourth being planned. The AIP submarines use hydrogen fuel cells to give a much greater submerged endurance, and also maintain sophisticated sensor systems. Backing these up are a large fleet of twelve Type 206A coastal patrol submarines, which are very small and short-ranged, but provide a solid defensive measure against encroaching foreign units.
The German Navy also has some 15 major surface combatants, including the new Type 124 air defense destroyer. This is the result of a collaborative effort between Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands (the other results were the De Zeven Provincien and F-100 class). Unlike the Horizon, which has been plagued by problems due to its nature, this effort focused on the ship platform and systems, rather than the more difficult combat systems, allowing the various contributors to provide their own. The unit is equipped with US-provided SM-2MR and ESSM missiles, which provide excellent long and medium range coverage, and with the RAM point defense system (co-developed with the US), these have a solid three-layer missile defense, though the PAAMS might be a more effective system overall. The third and last of these ships should be nearing completion already. Once these come fully online, they will replace the remaining 2 Lutjens (US Charles F Adams) destroyers, which are long overdue for replacement and suffering serious machinery problems. There are also a quartet of modern Type 123 Brandenburg Frigates, which provide solid multirole platforms for general duties. These are backed up by eight older Type 122 Bremen Frigates, which are undergoing modernization to keep them viable for some time to come.
For the minor combatants, the first of 6 planned Type 130 light frigates should be coming around soon, and these should replace a number of older patrol craft. The 20 Type 143 missile boats are divided into two classes: the newer Gepard, with the RAM system, and the older Albatros. Both have 10 ships. 5 Remaining Type 148 Tiger class vessels are still in service, but due to be retired in the near future.
Mine countermeasures are provided by 5 Type 343 Hameln Minesweeping Drone Control vessels and 5 Type 343 Kulmbach Minesweepers, with 12 somewhat less capable Type 332 Frankenthal Minesweepers in support.
The fleet support auxiliary force is quite good considering the size of the navy, and maintains two medium-sized multiproduct replenishment ships, and a pair of smaller fleet oilers. In addition, there are 2 small ammunition ships and 9 supply tenders. This actually gives the German Navy a much better extended operating capability than most navies, including those of France and the UK. The other auxiliary force is of the standard ilk, with mostly tugs and research ships.
The naval aviation arm is quite solid, with about 50 IDS variants of the Tornado poised to strike at opposing naval forces, and 11 medium range Atlantique maritime patrol aircraft are in line with the coastal nature of the navy. However, 9 P-3C Orions have been ordered, and regardless of whether they're intended to replace or supplement the Atlantiques, they will be providing a significant boost in patrol capability. Additionally, there are 7 of the ELINT variant of the Atlantique, which gives the German navy a solid reconnaissance capability that's missing from most other forces. The 21 Sea Kings, though dated, provide a solid SAR force, and the 22 Lynx ASW helicopters are just sufficient for the destroyer and frigate force.

Requirements for Copying the German Army
1. Population of 60 million or greater
2. Good economy or better
3. Very limited power projection beyond the nation’s immediate borders
4. No capability of deploying heavy or mechanized forces beyond the region.
5. Navy sufficient only for coastal defense and moderate protection of shipping.
6. Forces are almost exclusively armored or mechanized, with only paramilitary forces (National Guard type units) and airborne units relying heavily on infantry.
7. Most equipment can be modern, but some will invariably be outdated
8. Air force sufficient only for supporting ground units and denying air space. Very limited interdiction and air superiority capability.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Again, it’s hard to find a lot of good info on German deployments, but I can give a good breakdown of the forces here.
Command of Land Forces
-2 Airborne Brigades
-1 Commando Brigade
-1 Army Co-Operation Aviation Brigade
-1 Electronic Warfare Brigade

3 Corps Commands, totaling 4 Armored, 2 Motorized Infantry, and 1 Mountain Division, with:
-9 Armored Brigades
-7 Mechanized Infantry Brigades
-7 Reconnaissance Battalions
-7 Artillery Regiments
-7 Antiaircraft Regiments
-7 Engineer Brigades

Eurocorps Contingent
2 reduced Tank/Motorized Infantry Brigades

Special Forces
The most notable special operations force in Germany is the famed GSG-9 counterterrorist unit, formed in 1973 after the humiliating failure against the Black September terrorists in the 1972 Munich Olympics. Because the army refused to take part, it was decided that the force would be recruited from the Border Guard instead. Training is intense, but thorough, and focuses more on intellectual than physical capability, allowing for a lower drop-out rate of only 80%. This force is also unique in that it’s a loosely defined unit under the Federal Police, and therefore has powers normally allotted to special investigations units as well as those of special police (ie SWAT) units. Thus, the GSG-9 has a tendency to be a bit more intrusive than other similar forces.
Additional special forces consist of Fernspah, which are LRRP units recruited from airborne brigades and trained at the famous NATO LRRP school in Weingarten.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

04-03-2005, 10:15

Army
211,800 active personnel
294,800 reserve personnel

Tanks
1770 Leopard 2
751 Leopard 1

Recon/Misc
523 Luchs SC
133 Wiesel

IFV/APC
2110 Marder 1A3 IFV
807 Fuchs APC
1803 M113 APC

Artillery
519 M109A3G
86 PZH 2000
192 FH-70 155mm TH
143 M101 105mm TH
18 GebH 105mm TH
151 MLRS
78 LARS 110mm MRL
889 assorted Mortar

Antitank
157 Jaguar 1 (HOT)
210 TOW (for Wiesel)
1606 Milan ATGM

Antiaircraft
143 Roland SAM
300 Stinger SAM
380 Gepard SPAAG
1145 20mm towed AAG

Aircraft
120 PAH-2 (ordered)
204 BO-105 (PAH-1)
107 CH-53G
126 UH-1D
95 BO-105M
35 Alouette II

Air Force
70,550 active personnel
59,200 reserve personnel

Combat:
36? EFA 2000 (180 ordered by 2014)
94 F-4F ICE
193 Tornado IDS
38 Tornado ADV

Recon/Surveillance
36 Tornado ECR

Tanker
4 A310 MRTT

Transport
86 C-160
6 CL-601
1 Do-228
3 A310

Helicopter
86 UH-1D
3 AS532 Cougar

Training
35 T-37B
40 T-38A

Air Defense
36 Patriot PAC-2
72 Hawk
84 Roland

Navy
26,050 active personnel
9500 reserve personnel

Submarines
3 Type 212A SSK (1830 tons) +1 planned
12 Type 206A SSK (520 tons)

Major Surface Combatants
3 Type 124 DDG (5960 tons) last end of year
2 Type 103B Lutjens (4720 tons)
4 Type 123 Brandenburg FF (4490 tons)
8 Type 122 Bremen FF (3800 tons)

Minor Surface Combatants
1 Type 130 LFF (1580 tons) 6 planned, first operational this year
10 Type 143 s71 Gepard FAMB (390 tons)
10 Type 143 s61 Albatros FAMB (393 tons)
5 Type 148 Tiger FAMB (264 tons)

Mine Warfare
12 Type 332 Frankenthal MHC (650 tons)
5 Type 343 Hameln MSDC Vessels (635 tons)
5 Type 343 Kulmbach Minesweepers (690 tons)

Auxiliaries
2 Type 702 Berlin MPRS (20,400 tons)
2 Type 704 Spessart FRO (14,260 tons)
2 Type 760 Westerwald Ammunition Ship (4042 tons)
3 Type 701 Luneberg Supply Tender (3900 tons)
6 Type 404 Elbe Supply Tender (3450 tons)
26 assorted other auxiliary

Aircraft
49 Tornado IDS
9 P-3C Orion (ordered)
11 Atlantique MPA
7 Atlantique SIGINT
4 Do-228
21 Sea King SAR
22 Lynx Mk.88 ASW

Clan Smoke Jaguar

05-03-2005, 10:26

Italian Army

Some Basic Stats:
Country: Italian Republic
Population: 58 million
GDP: $1.455 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $25,086.21
Active Military: 230,350
Portion of Population: 0.397%
Military Spending: $20.2 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.62%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $87,692.64
Military Nature: Expeditionary (primarily intraregional)
Infrastructure: Very Good
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderately High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means
The Italian military, like so many others, has had a dramatic change in role since the fall of the Soviet Union. However, with the strong desire of Italians to play a much larger role in the modern world (in short, relive the old glory days of the Roman Empire), the Italian military has had a clear goal. This has been helped by the strategic location of Italy, which allows it to influence events in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, as well as control the Mediterranean. To that end, the Italian military has geared primarily for peacekeeping duties. However, while there is excellent infrastructure due to NATO’s investment in the nation due to its location, the actual logistical support is limited, and Italy is currently incapable of projecting significant forces that far beyond its borders, thus making it an intraregional power instead of a global one like France or the UK. This is further hindered by the isolated nature of the Mediterranean, as Italy does not control either of the entry points into the sea, and could conceivably be shut out from operations beyond the Med. On the other hand, with such close proximity to the troubled Balkans (indeed, Italy was the main staging point for the operations in Bosnia), it will remain a major player in international politics. They have downsized to a much smaller and more professional military, and it is rather well equipped. Like most western European powers, Italy has no current enemies that pose a military threat.

Equipment
The bulk of the Italian armored force is still comprised of a large number of outdated Leopard 1 tanks, though the nation’s attempt at a domestic replacement, the Ariete, is slowly coming in to take their place. Unfortunately, the Ariete, from what I’ve seen, is really only a mediocre performer, lacking the protection and mobility of most contemporaries. Furthermore, the program has been wrought with delays, still not having met the current order 200 units after over 20 years (the program started in 1984). Much more numerous are the excellent Centauro wheeled tank destroyers, which are armed with 105mm guns and have excellent mobility and fire control. These are products of the same program that spawned the Ariete, though are notably more successful. Some 363 of these are in service in reconnaissance, antitank, and fire support roles.
For infantry, the Dardo IFV, another product of the project that brought the Centauro and Ariete, has entered service, with about 200 vehicles having been produced, giving Italy its first real operational IFV. It is believed that up to 300 more may be procured. These units are on the high end for their class, and are particularly superior to the French AMX-10P and German Marder, and probably only a notch or two below the US M2 Bradley. Beyond that are large numbers of VCC 1 & 2 APCs, which account for nearly 2/3 of the total force with over 1600 vehicles, and the M113s, which are about half as numerous. Added to the end are about 100 Puma APCs, and 15 LVTP5 APCs from the US, which are notable in that they leave Italy as one of a very few nations that possess such units, which are invaluable for amphibious operations.
As far as artillery, Italy is one of the few nations still clinging onto 203mm heavy artillery pieces, though only a handful of these are still around in the form of the M110 self-propelled unit. The bulk of their artillery is in the form of 192 M109G & L units from the US, which provide solid capability, though they’re notably inferior to some of the newer weapons coming out. Backing them up are 96 FH-70 towed guns, and 54 older M114 weapons. The latter in particular could use replacement, as they’re a couple generations behind the current crop (the M114’s replacement, the M198, is already starting to be replaced). The 105mm M56 howitzers are quite old, but remain useful in the fact that they’re Pack Howitzers, which can be broken down and transported by troops, horses, or light vehicles, providing much greater mobility than other weapons. Rocket systems are provided by almost two dozen MLRS launchers supplied by the US, with infantry artillery being in the form of 460 120mm and 1200 81mm mortars.
As for antitank systems, Italy currently has large numbers of both ITOW and the newer TOW-2B unit, giving them an excellent heavy ATGM force. Lighter infantry fores will be equipped primarily with the Milan, and there are a few hundred 80mm recoilless rifles for general infantry use as well.
Italy has a solid medium-range missile net provided primarily by 60 HAWK systems purchased from the US. However, these are supplemented by 36 Skyguard systems, which use the Aspide missile (a licensed AIM-7 Sparrow derivative) and have much longer range. There are a small core of about 112 Stinger launchers for the infantry, and the primary forward air defense is provided by the 25mm SIDAM self-propelled AA system. The biggest problem here is the reliance on older systems, with the Aspide and Hawk both lacking in capability against many modern threats, and the Stingers too short on numbers to provide proper coverage. Furthermore, the army could really benefit from a longer ranged forward air defense system, as he SIDAM is vulnerable to ATGMs and ground attack missiles due to its limited range.
The aircraft department is about average, with 45 A129 attack helicopters, which are in the class of the US Cobra gunship in capability. The 27 A109 helicopters are complemented by a large number of AB.205, 206, 212, and 214 helicopters to provide a solid utility and airlift arm, with 36 CH-47C units to provide a heavy lifting capability. All around a decent force, though this could definitely use some more gunships.

The Italian Air Force has been suffering from some problems. For some reason, they never got rid of their F-104 Starfighters, which were still their primary interceptor into the 21st century. This has always left me wondering, as the design for the F-104 dates back to 1952, and the last aircraft was built 30 years ago. These aircraft should probably have been retired before I was born. With the long-delayed retirement of these, however, there are no real air superiority or interceptor aircraft, leaving a massive hole in the order of battle. While the EFA 2000 was supposed to be the replacement, it has simply been delayed too long to fulfill that task properly. As a stop-gap, the UK provided 24 Tornado F.3 fighters in 1993 on a free 5-year lease (starting in 1995) with an additional 5-year extension, the idea being to prevent the Italians from purchasing US aircraft, which would slash EFA orders. Unfortunately, the lease didn’t last long enough, and there won’t be a sufficient force of EFA 2000 aircraft by the time the lease runs out, so the Italians also leased 29 US F-16A Fighting Falcons, which will help tide the air force over until the Eurofighters come online. Deliveries for the EFA 2000 should have started by now, and there may even be a full squadron (say, 24 aircraft) equipped already. The eventual plan is for 121 EFA 2000 aircraft to equip 5 squadrons, replacing the original F-104S aircraft almost one for one. The 74 Tornado IDS heavy and 66 AMX light strike aircraft provide a solid ground attack force, and while these airframes are getting old, there appear to be no plans to replace them.
The maritime patrol role, as in the UK, is fulfilled by the air force in Italy, and they operate 18 French Atlantique medium range units. These are solid and capable aircraft, though they could probably use a good number of additional airframes. In a real conflict, these could be spread thin too easily, especially considering the location of Italy and its reliance on sea routes.
Italy maintains a modest EW capability with about 10 Tornado ECR aircraft. Additionally, there are a pair of large G.222VS aircraft modified for ELINT and modest ECM duties, giving a greater capability in that area than most other air forces.
Italy also has a decent tanker force, with a quartet of Boeing 707TT aircraft (similar to the KC-135). These are quite old however, and 4 of the brand new KC-767 have been ordered as a replacement. When these are delivered, Italy will have a decent sized tanker force including some of the most modern aircraft in that class.
The Italian Air Force’s transport force is, however, abysmal to say the least. With only 12 C-130J and 10 C-130J-30 aircraft, plus 15 G.222TCMs, they would be hard pressed to deploy a reinforced airborne brigade by air, let alone deploy or supply a respectable force. A handful of airliners provide intranational transport, but they’re hardly equipped for delivering troops or supplies to a crisis zone.
The helicopter force is a mixed bag, with 33 HH-3F aircraft providing the primary long-range SAR capability. Though quite old, these are capable, but could certainly be dropped in favor of Cougar, Super Puma, or Merlin helicopters. The 34 AB.212 aircraft are reasonably capable for short-range SAR.
The air defense is also a mixed bag, with the three Nike-Hercules SAM battalions being quite dated and of limited utility. The Spada system, with it’s Aspide missiles, is much better, but only provides coverage out to 25 kilometers. There are 9 Spada battalions.

The navy is quite well off, being equipped primarily with solid equipments. For example, the Italian Navy has managed to cut a deal for 2 German Type 212 submarines, being delivered over the next two years. These will enter service as the Savatore Todaro class, and will provide Italy with one of the best and most modern conventional submarines in the world. These will complement existing domestically produced units, which include 2 modern Primo Longbardo units, 2 somewhat older Salvatore Pelosi units, and 3 older Nazario Sauro units. The oldest of these are still relatively young, with a design going back to the late 1970s.
The carrier force is modest, with the small Giuseppe Garibaldi unit acting as the navy’s flagship. However, in a few years, the new Andrea Doria class vessel will be commissioned, and that unit will be twice as large and on par with the UK’s Invincible class. There’s also the Vittorio Veneto, which is used as a training and helicopter cruiser, but this unit is quite old and due to be decommissioned this year. It’s most notable in that it’s designed specifically to fire the SM-1ER SAM, which is quite rare among foreign vessels.
The current air defense force is made up of two relatively new Luigi Durand de la Penne multirole destroyers, which are equipped with SM-1MR missiles. A further two units were initially planned, but dropped in favor of a pair of Horizon destroyers to be commissioned over the next 4 or 5 years. These will provide a much superior platform, and a needed boost in air defense. The SM-1 system is simply too dated to be that valuable these days. The two Audace destroyers are much older, but have undergone upgrades bringing them close in capability to the de la Penne class. Still, these should be nearing the end of their service lives in the next decade or two, and a replacement may be needed eventually, possibly more Horizons. The 8 Maestrale multirole frigates provide additional patrol and escort capabilities, and should be up to the task. The 4 older Lupo vessels that they were based on, however, have all been placed in reserve by now. The 4 Artigliere patrol frigates were Lupo units originally built for Iraq, but never delivered. They had their ASW systems removed, and serve as patrol vessels.
The most notable minor combatants are the 8 Minerva frigates, which provide general military patrol duties. The remaining force of 12 minor vessels are mostly for civil patrol, with 8 offshore patrol vessels and 4 coastal patrol boats, all armed only with light guns for police duties.
The mine countermeasures force is unique in that the Italian navy actually has a command ship, something I’ve only really seen in the US navy. The single Alpino mine countermeasures command and support ship is an ex frigate converted to minesweeping duties, and provides a decent jump in capability from the average minesweeper. This supports 8 modern Gaeta minehunters, and 4 older Lerici units, which provide a decent, if somewhat limited, modern minehunting force.
The Italian navy’s amphibious force is maintained solely by a trio of small San Giorgio LPDs, which rely mostly on the LVTP5 AAVs to deliver troops ashore. A larger 10,000 vessel is planned, but there’s little information on this, and I neither know the planned capabilities nor the expected delivery date.
The auxiliary force is generally solid, with an ELINT ship and a lot of coastal logistics vessels. However, there is very minimal underway replenishment capability, with only 3 light fleet oilers in service. This isn’t much of a problem if the Italian navy restricts itself to Mediterranean operations, but they could really use a multiproduct replenishment ship or two.
The naval air arm is modest, including 14 AV-8B Harrier II aircraft for use on the Giuseppe Garibaldi aircraft carrier. With the deployment of the Andrea Doria in a few years, this force won’t be sufficient though, and while there are plans to eventually deploy the STOVL variant of the US F-35 JSF on the Andrea Doria, they may need to procure additional Harriers while waiting. 35 SH-3D & H Sea Kings provide both SAR and ASW duties, with about 15 EH-101 aircraft complementing them in the same role. I would have thought that the EH-101s would be there to replace the Sea Kings completely, but apparently that’s not the case. Possibly because of the high price tag. Lighter ASW work is provided by over 60 AB.212 aircraft, which are operated from the escort vessels.

Requirements for Copying the Italian Military:
1. Population of at least 50 million
2. Good economy or better
3. Very limited interregional capability.
4. Limited amphibious and overseas deployment capability
5. May have capability to support large forces from friendly nations in local conflicts.
6. Mostly modern equipment, but some key systems should be outdated. Particularly bad about replacing obsolescent and obsolete aircraft.
7. Force can be primarily mechanized, but with a decent portion of light infantry formations, mostly in specialized roles.
8. Most air defense systems are moderately to seriously outdated.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Again, not a whole lot of information on specific deployments, but I can give a quick rundown:
2 Defense Commands, totaling:
-2 Armored Brigades
-4 Mechanized Infantry Brigades
-2 Armored Cavalry Brigades
-2 Engineer Regiments
-1 Army co-operation Aviation Regiment

Alpine Armies:
-3 Mountain Infantry Brigades
-1 Engineer Regiment
-1 Army co-operation Aviation Regiment
-1 Alpine Parachute Battalion

Mixed Brigade
-1 Mechanized Brigade
-1 Airborne Brigade
-1 Amphibious Regiment
-1 Engineer Regiment

Combat Support Command
-1 Air Defense Division (2 Hawk SAM regiments, 2 AAA regiments)
-1 Artillery Brigade (1 heavy artillery regiment, 2 artillery regiments, 1 NBC protection regiment)
-1 Engineer Brigade
-1 Aviation Division (3 regiments & 1 detached battalion)

Special Forces
The primary special forces unit in the Italian military is the Folgore Parachute Brigade, which is part of the Rapid Reaction Force. The unit includes the 1st Carabinieri Parachute regiment, and more importantly, the 9th Para-Assault Regiment (Col. Moschin). The latter was created for sabotage and intelligence operations during the Cold War, but was expanded to cover all special forces operations. Training for the unit includes an 8 month segment at parachute school, after which volunteers must serve in the 1st Carabinieri for one year before being considered fit to join the Col Moschin. The unit has taken part in numerous and varied operations, both public and covert, since the 1960s.
The other special forces unit is the NOCS, which is the special operations division of the anti-terrorism state police. This unit is, naturally, a specialized antiterrorist unit, and maintains only 50 men. Their primary focus are night and covert surveillance operations.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

05-03-2005, 10:28

Army
137,000 active
11,900 reserve

Tanks/Assault Guns
167 Ariete
~200 Leopard 1
363 Centauro B1

IFV/APC
200 Dardo IFV
1638 VCC 1/2 APC
827 M113 APC
101 Puma APC
15 LVTP5 APC

Artillery
9 M110 203mm SP
192 M109 155mm SP
54 M114 155mm TH
96 FH-70 155mm TH
71 M56 105mm Pack
22 MLRS
459 120mm mortar
1200 81mm mortar

Antitank
426 TOW-2B
432 I-Tow
752 Milan
434 80mm RR

Antiaircraft
32 Skyguard SAM
60 Hawk SAM
112 Stinger SAM
208 SIDAM 25mm SPAAG

Aircraft
45 A129
27 A109
36 CH-47C
23 AB.412
14 AB.212
62 AB.206
86 AB.205A

Air Force
55,350 active
30,300 reserve

Combat
121 EFA 2000 (ordered)
24 Tornado F.3 (stop-gap lease)
29 F-16A (stop-gap lease)
74 Tornado IDS
66 AMX

Maritime Patrol
18 Atlantique

Recon/EW
10 Tornado ECR
2 G.222VS ECM/ELINT

Tanker
4 KC-767 (ordered)
4 Boeing 707TT

Transport
12 C-130J
10 C-130J-30
15 G.222TCM
5 C-27J (ordered)
4 Falcon 50
2 Falcon 900EX
3 A319CJ

Helicopter
33 HH-3F SAR
34 AB.212 SAR
2 SH-3D

Trainer
18 MB.339PAN (acrobatic team)
4 F-16B
26 AMX-T
36 SF.260
77 MB.339A
16 MB.339CD
8 G.103
49 NH.500MD

Air Defense
3 Nike-Hercules Battalion
9 Spada Battalion

Navy
38,000 active personnel
23,000 reserve personnel

Submarines
2 Savatore Todaro SSK (1830 tons) - German Type 212 in 2005 & 2006
2 Primo Longobardo SSK (1862 tons)
2 Salvatore Pelosi SSK (1662 tons)
3 Nazario Sauro SSK (1637 tons)

Carriers
1 Andrea Doria VSTOL Carrier (26,660 tons) in 2007
1 Giuseppe Garibaldi VSTOL Carrier (13,850 tons)
1 Vittorio Veneto Helicopter Cruiser (9500 tons) decom 2005

Major Surface Combatants
2 Horizon DDG (6700 tons) 2007 & 2009
2 Luigi Durand de la Penne DDG (5400 tons)
2 Audace DDG (4554 tons)
8 Maestrale FFG (3200 tons)
2 Lupo FFL (2525 tons)
4 Artigliere Patrol FF (2400 tons)

Minor Combatants/Patrol Vessels
8 Minerva Patrol FF (1285 tons)
2 Sirio OPV (1580 tons)
4 Comandante Cigala Fulgosi OPV (1520 tons)
2 Storione OPV (700 tons)
4 Exploratore CPV (165 tons)

Mine Countermeasures
1 Alpino MCMCSS (2689 tons)
8 Gaeta Minehunter (697 tons)
4 Lerici Minehunter (520 tons)

Amphibious
3 San Giorgio LPD (7665 tons)
10,000 ton transport planned

Auxiliaries
1 Etna FRO (13,400 tons)
2 Stromboli FRO (8706 tons)
1 Eletta ELINT ship (3180 tons)
1 Anteo Salvage Ship (3070 tons)
8 Ocean Tugs (650-750 tons)
1 Carabiniere Weapon Trials Ship (2689 tons)
1 Ammiraglio Magnaghi Survey Ship (1700 tons)
6 Coastal Tankers (1900-1950 tons)
4 Coastal Tankers (863 tons)
6 Coastal Logistics Vessels (631 tons)
5 Logistics Tenders (608 tons)
2 Coastal Support Vessels (700-750 tons)
2 Sail Training Ships (4146 & 1341 tons)

Aircraft
14 AV-8B Harrier II
35 SH-3D/H Sea King
15 EH-101
62 AB.212 ASW
2 TAV-8B

The Freethinkers

08-03-2005, 06:58

This is an obviously disguised bump masquerading as praise. Nice Job CSJ, I think everyone needs to see this.

Scandavian States

08-03-2005, 08:18

[These are great, CSJ. I'm learning things I never knew about the Euro armies, which is perhaps a good thing considering that I'll be interacting with their troops in the near future. However, as an US Army recruit, I'm anxious to see what you have to say about the US Armed Forces.]

Vastiva

08-03-2005, 09:42

US and Aussie forces would be interesting...

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 14:17

Well, next up are Greece and Turkey, which are almost complete, just halted briefly for the mid term. Seriously, my teacher decided to screw us over. After over a week of studying and preparing, he gives us a take-home test. Of course, it's 23 essay questions (that took 8 hours and 11 pages - single spaced) and due the next day. Strangely, it had less extra credit than he promised and several questions that we didn't even touch on in class (no, they weren't in the book either). Sometimes I just have to wonder about that guy.

As for the US, I initially wanted to steer clear of that, as info there is so readily available any idiot could get it. The stuff here I actually had to really search for, and the recent I'd been holding off on because, until about 2 weeks ago, I couldn't find much current info on ground forces - the best I had was a book written in 2000. If everyone wants me to do the US though, I certainly can.

As for Australia, that was planned in the future, as well as Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Libya, Taiwan, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, Vietnam, and Spain. I may also due some of the former Soviet republics, depending on how good the info I can find is. Since I'm getting back into this during lols in school requirements (all my teachers rely entirely on tests, which occur generally around the same time). It may take a few months, and I might add in some others as people ask, though anything beyond the nations listed will be somewhat more limited, as 2-4 of my major sources won't cover them.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 14:22

Greek Army

Some Basic Stats:
Country: Hellenic Republic
Population: 10.65 million
GDP: $203.3 billion
GDP Per Capita: $19,089.20
Active Military: 159,000
Portion of Population: 1.493%
Military Spending: $6.12 billion
Portion of GDP: 3.01%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $38,490.57
Military Nature: Defensive (Specializing in mountain warfare)
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderately High
Training: Moderate
Equipment: Generally outdated

What it Means
The Greek Army has been playing a vital role in many affairs over the centuries due to its strategic location, which is even better than that of Italy as a meeting point for Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Furthermore, it’s right by the Balkans. Now, due to sharing a land border, the Greeks are naturally very concerned over Balkan conflicts, and thus maintain a notable presence there. However, there main opponent, since the end of WWII, but especially since the invasion and occupation of Northern Cyprus in 1974, is Turkey. With constant disputes over ownership of Aegean and Mediterranean islands, Greece has been faced with a far larger opponent. To help defend these places, the Greek military has invested heavily in amphibious and airborne forces, but they recognize that they have little hope of blocking a Turkish attempt to seize several of the islands, as they did with Cyprus, and thus have to rely on an alternate strategy of threatening a second front over their shared land border with Turkey, small though it may be. Thus, the bulk of the Hellenic Army is based in a very small portion of the nation. Because of the nature of its role, the Greek army has very limited capability to deploy troops abroad, as they already spared everything they could afford with the collaborative initiatives with other European powers, such as the ARRC. Thus, they only have limited infrastructure sufficient to support their own army in or near their own borders. This is hardly surprising considering that the Turkish army outnumbers them by nearly 4 to 1 in active personnel. It’s a little better when reserves are put in (2 to 1 advantage for Turkey), but the Greeks barely have the infrastructure for a sustained conflict, while the Turks do. Even with the Greek reputation for fighting prowess, they’re on the losing end of this equation. This puts Greece in one of the most tenuous situations of any modern army today.
The Greek military, due primarily to budgetary constraints and the need for higher quantities of equipment, has relied primarily on systems that have now been around for 3-4 decades. While a number of units are more modern, with a few even being top of the line, they still rely mostly on Vietnam-era equipment. However, the Turkish military is in the same state. In fact, in numerous areas, the two nations are using the exact same systems! The biggest threat to the Greek army right now is the Turkish attempt to acquire upgrades to their M60 tanks. If they get the nearly 1000 modernized units they desire, they’ll be able to seriously overmatch the Greek force. The Greeks countered with their trials for a new MBT (which was won by the Leopard 2 btw), but they will likely have trouble finding the funding to purchase significant numbers of those units should the Turkish attempt pan out.
Due to Turkey’s relationship with Israel, Greece has opened up old ties with Egypt, but this isn’t really much of a counter, as the Turkish ties give them access to top of the line Israeli equipment, while Egypt has primarily hand-me-downs.

Equipment
The core of the Greek army is its modest armored force, consisting of 669 M60, 712 M48, and 352 Leopard 1 tanks, all being very old and generally outdated systems, though common in less well equipped militaries. This is still less than 1/2 of the Turkish force (which has the same models), though the difference is mostly in M48s, which are the oldest of those three designs. However, since their capabilities are so similar, this isn’t as big a deal as it could be. Both nations have looked into 120mm armed tanks with composite armor, but neither have, to my knowledge, gotten anything yet.
The recon sector is definitely dated, with the 8 HMMWV and 37 VBL armored cars being the most modern units there. The bulk of the recon force is made up of M-8 Greyhound armored cars, 130 of them. To it’s credit, this design did serve the US well - in WWII.
In terms of IFVs, the Greek army picked up 500 BMP-1s from Russia, which give it one of the few areas where they have an advantage over Turkish Army. However, the BMPs are outdated, and have a tendency to turn into deathtraps (more so than other units) when they get hit. The APC force is, naturally, formed primarily by M113s, with 1670 units in service. There are also 308 Leonidas APCs (based off an Austrian design though). This unit has excellent handling in rugged terrain, and is thus well suited to the Greek advantage in mountain warfare.
In terms of artillery, we again see Vietnam-era equipment. For starters, the Greek army has one of the largest contingents of M110 heavy self-propelled howitzers, with 180 in service. Backing that up, and more unusual, are 12 M107 175mm field guns (on the same chassis as the M110). Greece is one of a very few nations that still use this system. The 141 M109 howitzers are of varying quality, with many being the original A1 and A2 units, but at least some being more capable A5 upgrades. I’m not sure of the specific breakdown. There are also 73 M52 105mm self-propelled howitzers, which date back to 1954. Towed weapons, predictably, include 266 of the older M114 howitzers, along with 445 of the similarly aged M101s. Additionally, there are 18 M56 pack howitzers, which though very old, are invaluable in mountain warfare. The most modern artillery units in Greek service are the multiple rocket launchers, specifically the 18 MLRS systems, though there are also 116 less capable RM70 units. There’s a decent force of 107mm heavy mortars, with over 620 in service, including 231 on vehicles. However, 120mm weapons would be much more effective. Finally, there’s a large force of 2800 81mm medium mortars.
The antitank force is a mixed bag. There are 320 vehicle-mounted TOW missiles, though these are likely older models, and there are also 290 Milan launchers, as well as 262 Soviet AT-4 systems. However, these should be more than sufficient to deal with the current Turkish armor, regardless of age. But again, if the Turks get Israeli upgrades on their M60 or M48 tanks, most of these weapons will likely be rendered impotent. There are also thousands of recoilless rifles laying around, in various calibers, and these provide a modest antitank force (again, due only to the age of the Turkish armor), but are much more useful as general purpose support weapons. Finally, there are 2500 RPG-18 and 1700 M72 LAW light disposable rocket launchers.
The most modern component of the Greek air defense force is a unit of S-300 (SA-10) SAMs that were purchased to protect Crete. Beyond that, medium range coverage is provided by 41 I-Hawk SAM units, and, to a lesser extent, 20 Russian SA-8 systems. The best, and most effective of their forward air defense units are the 21 2S6M Tunguska gun/missile systems purchased from Russia, with additional coverage coming from 1000 shoulder-fired Stingers. There are also 506 towed ZU-23-2 antiaircraft guns, which provide a moderate degree of protection for static and semimobile forces.
The most notable component of the Greek Army’s aviation force is the batch of 20 AH-64A Apache gunships, which provide a significant advantage over Turkey’s 45-odd Cobras, the vast majority of which are older models. This advantage will be further enhanced by 12 AH-64D helicopters on order. 16 CH-47D helicopters provide relatively modern heavy lift capability, with 84 older UH-1H Iroquois units for general duties. There are also 47 AB.205/6 helicopters, and about 20 NH90s on order to provide utility work. 43 U-17A aircraft provide fixed-wing observation platforms, backed up by a pair of C-12R ELINT aircraft.

The Greek Air Force is probably the best equipped of the three branches, with a number of somewhat dated, but still quite capable aircraft. The star of the show here is the force of 93 F-16C aircraft (29 older Block 30 units, and 64 of the modern Block 50), supported by 31 similarly capable Mirage 2000s, and 56 older F-4Es. The only dedicated ground attack aircraft are the 37 A-7E and 41 A-7H units, making them probably the only nation left that still uses the old Corsair II.
Reconnaissance is provided by 23 of the RF-4E.
The cargo force is rather limited, with 10 C-130H and 5 C-130B aircraft, as well as a quartet of WWII era C-47s and a number of civilian units in internal transportation roles. The force is sufficient to drop a modest airborne contingent, but could certainly use some more and more modern aircraft.
The SAR force is comprised primarily of the AS.532 and 332 aircraft, with 4 of each model. There are also a number of smaller aircraft for short range duties, most notably the AB.205/206/212 helicopters.
There are also a number of combat capable trainers, including 34 F-16D tow-seaters (6 Block 30 and 28 Block 50), 3 Mirage 2000BGMs, 5 TA-7Hs, and 13 TA-7C aircraft. In an emergency, these can provide a significant amount of additional firepower to the front lines.
Air Defense is provided primarily by 36 Nike-Hercules long-range SAM units, which as one might guess, are pretty outdated. There are 12 somewhat more capable Skyguard batteries, but the Aspide missile still isn’t the best medium range system out there. Maybe they could pick up some decent Russian SAMs like the army did.

The navy is decent sized, but in relatively poor shape with most of its vessels being cast off Vietnam era units acquired from other nations, primarily the US, France, and Germany. The submarine force, however, is gaining the benefit of the fact that they’ve acquired the Type 214 u-boat (under the designation Katsonis Class) from Germany, whose AIP propulsion and FAS sonar system put it well ahead of the Turkish Navy, whose most modern boats are Type 209/1400s. These will likely be mated with a low-cost version of the Mk.48 torpedo acquired from the US, which will further increase the gap, and help account for the smaller numbers of boats. The Greek Navy should have acquired the first Type 214 from Germany by now, and three more are expected to be built domestically. These are added to the 8 Glavkos class boats, which are Type 209/1200s and upgraded Type 209/1100s, which are on par with the bulk of the Turkish navy.
The most valuable surface ships in the Greek Navy are the three Kimon class air defense destroyers, which are little more than modified US 1960s Charles F. Adams units that were transferred in the early ‘90s. These are larger and more powerful than anything in the Turkish navy, and are only offset by numbers. Their SM-1MR missiles are certainly outdated, but the Turkish Navy doesn’t have anything better either. Greece also acquired a trio of 1970s Knox class frigates at around the same time, which are identical to the six units the Turks acquired shortly afterward. However, two of these have since been decommissioned, and the role they had has been taken over mostly by 8 smaller but more modern Elli class (Dutch Kortenaer) frigates. The Greeks also have 4 German MEKO 200 type patrol frigates, with 2 more possibly built to a modified and more capable design (Turkey has 8 of these, but several are of a probably inferior design). If those 2 frigates are built, the Greek navy will actually have a rough parity with the Turkish navy in major combatants, with the Turks having slightly better numbers, but lower quality.
The largest of the Greek Navy’s minor combatants are the Niki (German Thetis) ASW corvettes. These, however, are of questionable value. Originally designed as torpedo recovery boats, they failed in that mission and were relegated to training duties before being modified for ASW patrol. These are also among the oldest combat vessels in the Greek navy, initially being built in the early ‘60s. The crème of the force, however, would be the three Super Vita craft being built with UK assistance. These, when delivered, will be the only modern missile boats in the Greek Navy. However, I would consider them somewhat inferior to their slightly older Turkish contemporaries by virtue of armament; the Turkish Harpoons being more powerful than the Greek Exocets. The bulk of the Greek missile boat fleet is made up of variants of the French Combattante unit, in three main derivatives. The most modern are the 5 units built to a domestic design, which incorporate six Penguin antishipping missiles. The other 8 boats all fire 4 of the older MM.38 Exocet (the modern variant is the MM.40). 4 of these are of the Combattante IIIN type (Antipliarchos Lascos in the Greek Navy), and the other 4 are the smaller and older Combattante II units, under the designation Ipopliarchos Arliotis. Finally, there are 6 Pexopoulos missile boats (German Type 148 Tiger), which are the oldest units in the group, though they’ve been modernized. All told, the Greek missile boat force is generally superior to its opponent in numbers and overall firepower, but they could use some more modern systems. There are also 4 small missile boats using the SS-12 SSM (a wire guided missile). Two of these are US Asheville patrol craft under the designation of Ormi, and the other two are the domestic Kelefstis Stamou. Rounding out the force are four Esperos torpedo boats (German Jaguar), which are long overdue for retirement, but should provide some utility. Finally, there are 4 patrol boats in two classes, with one class having had missiles planned, though as yet unfitted.
The Greek Navy has a modest minelaying force, with a pair of WWII-era US LSM vessels converted to that role. Mine countermeasures is somewhat limited, though, especially considering the large territory that needs to be patrolled. There are two Europi class mine countermeasures vessels (British Hunt class), which provide a relatively modern core. However, the 6 Atalanti vessels, which serve as both minehunters and training craft, are all hand-me-downs from other navies, with most of the boats having been built in the 1950s. The 8 Pleeias class minehunters (US Falcon) are a bit more modern, but still date back to the 1960s. Thus, the bulk of this force is sorely outdated and replacements and additions would be extremely welcome, if the funds to provide them were ever found.
Mine Warfare
The landing force, due in part to the nature of the area being defended, is made up entirely of breaching vessels, rather than investing in an unnecessary dock-type landing ship. The largest units here are a pair of US Terrbonne Parish LSTs in service under the designation of Oinoussai. Though dating back to the 1950s, these units have a 2200 ton payload, which could easily include a tank company or two (or three), and provide a solid core for the landing force. 5 smaller Chios LSTs are also in service, which are actually quite modern and capable units in their class. There are also a pair of Ipopliarchos Grigiropoulos LSMs (US LSM-1), which provide a modest additional capability best served for cargo or troops. Finally, a quick response force is formed around a quartet of Kerkyra LCACs (the Russian Zubr class), which, while generally believed to be rather unreliable, still provide a solid fast unit for delivering troops quickly to a contested area. It is believed that up to for more vessels of this class may be acquired.
The auxiliary force is notably limited, as the Greek Navy is interested primarily in patrolling the Aegean and protecting its own territorial waters. Thus, only six small oilers and replenishment ships provide fleet support, while transport tankers provide over 40% of the auxiliary force, with 10 vessels, The remaining 8 vessels are the standard crop of tenders, survey ships, and tugs.
With few platforms from which to operate aircraft, the air arm is predictably small, with only about 20 combat aircraft. Of these, 11 are the S-70B-6, which is a modified Black Hawk variant that’s been dubbed the “Aegean Hawk.” These are used for a variety of roles, most notably CSAR and ASW. Additionally, 8 AB.212 units provide backup ASW coverage, and there are two AB.212 EW units, which are a bit of an oddity for a navy, but nonetheless useful in protecting both the ships and other helicopters from attack.

Requirements for Copying the Greek Military
1. Population of 8 million or more
2. Good economy or better
3. Limited defense spending
4. Must have a significantly more powerful (both militarily and economically) hostile neighbor.
5. The vast majority of equipment will be outdated, even obsolete, particularly expensive systems like ships, air defense, and aircraft
6. Operations limited to very close to the border.
7. Amphibious and airborne capability can exist, but is limited to operations close to the border and among territorial islands.
8. Military focused almost entirely on defending the nation. Very limited expeditionary forces
9. Can have a decent number of (moderately to poorly equipped) mechanized units, but light infantry is the primary unit.
10. Incapable of launching sustained operations beyond own borders. Even land invasion of a smaller nation over a shared border would be very dicey.

ORDER OF BATTLE

Total Forces:
5 Infantry Divisions
5 Armored Brigades
7 Mechanized Brigades
5 Infantry Brigades
1 Army Aviation Brigade
1 Marine Brigade
4 Reconnaissance Regiments
5 Field Artillery Battalions
10 Air Defense Battalions
2 SAM Battalions

Notable Deployments:

1st Army HQ:
This command is in charge of the land border with Turkey, and maintains most of Greece’s armored and mechanized troops. It would be responsible for opening up a second front with a land strike against Turkey should the Aegean conflict escalate into a military confrontation. It includes:
2 Infantry Divisions
4 Armored Brigades
5 Mechanized Infantry Brigades

B Army Corps:
This is the command that units which are supplied for NATO and ARRC, among other international forces are under. It consists of the following:
1 Mechanized Infantry Division (for ARRC)

Inner Islands Command:
This command covers the islands east of the main peninsula, including all the disputed Islands in the Aegean Sea and Crete as well. It consists of the following:
1 Infantry Division
1 Amphibious (Marine) Brigade
1 Airborne Regiment
1 Commando Regiment

Special Forces:
The primary special forces unit in the Greek military is the ETA (Ediko Tmima Alexiptotiston – aka “special airborne unit”). This was formed in 1959 as an LRRP unit and has adopted a role similar to the British SAS and US Delta Force. This unit specializes in Sabotage, Strategic Reconnaissance, and Direct Action Raids. Training emphasizes mountain warfare, but also includes training in parachuting (duh), combat swimming/underwater warfare, and NATO’s LRRP school in Germany.
The other special forces unit is the 13th Commando Regiment, which is a regularly equipped collection of light forces whose task is to make a Turkish occupation of the disputed Aegean Islands extremely difficult and ultimately undesirable.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 14:31

Army
110,000 active personnel
235,000 reserve personnel

Tanks
669 M60
712 M48
352 Leopard 1

Recon
130 M-8
37 VBL
8 HMMWV

IFV/APC
500 BMP-1
1669 M113 APC
308 Leonidas APC

Artillery
180 M110A1 203mm SP
12 M107 175mm SP
141 M109A1/2/5 155mm SP
73 M52A1 105mm SP
266 M114 155mm TH
445 M101 105mm TH
18 M56 105mm Pack TH
18 MLRS
116 RM70 122mm MRL
624 107mm mortar (231 on vehicles)
2800 81mm mortar

Antitank
320 TOW (vehicles)
290 Milan
262 AT-4
1290 106mm RR
1314 75mm RR
2000 84mm RR
2500 RPG-18
1700 M72 LAW

Antiaircraft
12 S-300 (SA-10) SAM
41 I-Hawk SAM
20 SA-8 SAM
21 2S6 SAM/AAG
1000 Stinger SAM
506 ZU-23-2 AAG

Aircraft
43 U-17A
2 C-12R ELINT
12 AH-64D (on order)
20 AH-64A
16 CH-47D
20 NH90 (on order)
84 UH-1H
32 AB.205A
15 AB.206

Air Force
30,000 active personnel
32,000 reserve personnel

Combat
93 F-16
31 Mirage 2000EGM
56 F-4E
41 A-7H
37 A-7E

Recon
23 RF-4E

Cargo
10 C-130H
5 C-130B
4 C-47
10 CL-215
13 Do-28

Helicopter
4 AS.332
4 AS.532
7 Bell 47G
4 AB.212
13 AB.205/206

Trainer
34 F-16D
3 Mirage 2000BGM
5 TA-7H
13 TA-7C
20 T-41D
33 T-37B/C
28 T-33A
45 T-6A
35 T-2

Air Defense
36 Nike-Hercules
12 Skyguard Battery

Navy
19,000 active
24,000 reserve

Submarines
1 Katsonis (1700+ tons) Type 214, 4 total ordered
8 Glavkos (1207 tons) Type 209/1100 and 1200

Major Surface Combatants
3 Kimon DDG (4825 tons) C. F. Adams
1 Ipiros FF (4250 tons) Knox
8 Elli FF (3786 tons) Kortenaer
4 Ydra FF (3100 tons) MEKO 200, 2 more may be built to modified design

Minor Surface Combatants
5 Niki ASW Corvette (732 tons) Thetis
3 Super Vita FAMB (? tons) option for 4 more
5 Antipliarchos Lascos FAMB (396 tons) Greek derivative of below
4 Antipliarchos Lascos FAMB (447 tons) Combattante IIIN
4 Ipopliarchos Arliotis FAMB (255 tons) Combattante II
6 Pezopoulos FAMB (264 tons) Type 148 Tiger
2 Ormi PG (240 tons) Asheville
2 Kelefstis Stamou FAMB (115 tons)
4 Esperos Torpedo Boat (221 tons) Jaguar
2 Pyropolitis PT (550 tons)
2 Armatolos PT (515 tons) missiles planned, but not yet fitted

Mine Warfare
2 Aktion coastal minelayer (1100 tons) Ex-USN LSM
2 Europi MCM (725 tons) Hunt
6 Atalanti MHC/training craft (402 tons) Adjutant
8 Pleias MHC (394 tons) Falcon

Amphibious
2 Oinoussai LST (6225 tons) Terrbonne Parish
5 Chios LST (4400 tons) Jason
2 Ipopliarchos Grigiropoulos LSM (1095 tons) LSM-1
4 Kerkyra LCAC (550 tons) Zubr, 4 more may be acquired

Auxiliaries
1 Etna FRO (13,400 tons) ordered
2 Axios MPRS (3709 tons) Type 701C Rhein
2 Arethousa FRO (4335 tons) Patapsco
1 Evros Ammunition Ship (2395 tons)
1 Atlas Salvage Tug (1630 tons)
1 Hermis ELINT Ship (1497 tons)
2 Survey Ships
2 Coastal Logistics Ships
1 Net/Buoy Tender
10 Coastal Tankers
1 Training Ship

Aircraft
11 S-70B-6
8 AB.212 ASW
2 AB.212 EW

GMC Military Arms

09-03-2005, 14:35

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 15:01

Turkish Army

Some Basic Stats:
Country: Republic or Turkey
Population: 68.1 million
GDP: $489.7 billion
GDP Per Capita: $7190.90
Active Military: 515,100
Portion of Population: 0.756%
Military Spending: $8.1 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.65%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $15,725.10
Military Nature: Undecided, but still rather defensive
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderately High
Training: Low
Equipment: Generally outdated

What it Means:
The Turkish Army, since the end of WWII, has been a key part of NATOs defensive plans. Holding key chokepoints that could prevent the Soviet Black Sea Fleet from being deployed to the Mediterranean, and serving as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, it was a key target for Soviet incursion. Thus, NATO provided large amounts of aid and equipment to allow Turkey to repel the considerable threats that lay along two separate fronts: the Soviet Union to the northeast, and Bulgaria and Romania to the northwest. As a result, the nation has been at the forefront of NATO defensive planning for most of the Cold War. However, with the end of the Cold War, the army was left, as with many others, without a clear role. However, unlike most other nations, Turkey has had considerable trouble along multiple borders, and thus has needed to maintain most of its Cold War strength to deal with them. Foremost of its problems is a long-standing dispute with Greece over a number of islands in the Easter Aegean Sea, which Turkey has repeatedly threatened to take by force, and has led to the very real threat of a military confrontation. Somewhat related to the Aegean conflict, was the incident in 1974 where Turkey invaded Northern Cyprus, which resulted in international condemnation. A garrison must be maintained on the third of the island that’s occupied, lest it fall back into Greek hands. On the eastern border, there have been disputes with Syria and Iraq regarding Turkish plans to divert the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which to be honest, should really have never been considered. Threatening one of the main sources of arable land in those two nations could easily result in military action. Finally, there’ve been numerous problems with Kurdish and Armenian insurgents. In short, there are potential conflicts with 5 of the 7 nations that border Turkey, which is not good. Even worse, Turkey’s military is in need of modernization, which at present simply can’t be afforded due to the low economy. Thus, Turkey has begun to work with Israel in the hopes of using that as a stepping stone to better ties with the US, and the critically needed aid the US can bring. The move is pretty much desperate, but there’s little other hope for a resolution of Turkish problems.
The military itself is in similar shape to the Greek one, with notably more troops and equipment, but similarly heavy reliance on cast off weapons from the Vietnam and Korean War eras. Despite the larger size and military, Turkey only spends a few billion more on defense than Greece, which results in less than half the funding per active soldier, which shows in training and equipment purchases.

Equipment
The Turkish Army has been trying to get a new top of the line tank for years, and in 2001, was looking at competing deals from the US and Israel for massive upgrades of its 900+ M60 Patton tanks. However, the dealings here have not been entirely satisfactory for either side, and after a lot of fighting and dealing, Turkey finally pulled a contract with IMI for 170 of Israel’s upgrade, dubbed the Sabra. This unit, like the US M60-2000, provides a tank that’s roughly equivalent to an M1A1 in capability, with the only failing being in mobility, as the units are still no faster than the old M60. They include a new low-recoil 120mm gun, new fire control, and new composite armor for passive protection (as opposed to reactive on other Israeli upgrades). The contract for the first 170 tanks is really double what the Turkish military had expected to pay for that many, and in the end, it’s highly likely that this will either be the only batch upgraded, or make up a significant portion of the vehicles. Considering the cost, it’s highly doubtful that the entire force will be upgraded. However, with even 170 of these tanks, things will look up for Turkey, most of whose opponents don’t have anything in the class of the Sabra. These would be especially useful in conflicts with Syria or Greece. The former because the Sabra is a serious threat to its stock of T-72s (M48s, M60s, and Leopard 1s aren’t), and the latter because they don’t have anything close to matching those units. Naturally, there are still a large number of basic M60s, 762 of them in fact, and there’s an even larger crop of the slightly older and less capable M48A5, with 2876 units, making up nearly two thirds of the total force. Finally, there are 397 Leopard 1 tanks, which are on par with the M60s.
Reconnaissance is provided mostly by Cobra armored cars, which are moderately capable, with decent speed and firepower, but are short on numbers with only 110 vehicles.
Turkey’s IFV force is modest, consisting of about 650 TIFVs, which are based on the LP AIFV, and are really little more than an M113 chassis with 1 25mm turret stuck on top. Not exactly top of the line, but definitely better than nothing. However, these don’t fare too well against the BMPs possessed by Iraq, Syria, and Greece, and this is one area where the Turkish military falls behind, and they could definitely use more and more modern weapons. APCs are filled primarily by 2200 M113 derivatives, with a further 1700 FMC carriers providing a decent general force.
The artillery force is a mixed bag with a wide array of weapons of varying quality. The most powerful are the 219 M110A2 heavy howitzers, which are slightly improved versions of the unit in service with Greece. These provide solid heavy firepower with decent mobility, and are supported by 36 M107 long-range 175mm heavy field guns, based on the same chassis. Medium self-propelled artillery is provided by the very old M44, with 222 units in service. There are 28 M108 light self-propelled units (the last 105mm SPH built by the US), but the bulk of the capability there is from 365 Korean-era M52s. Towed artillery consists of 162 M115 203mm howitzers, which combine with the M110A2s to give Turkey one of the largest forces of heavy guns in the world – an interesting note. Medium artillery is provided by 517 outdated M114 howitzers, with 600 of the similarly old M101 units providing light support. Rocket artillery is provided by 36 MLRS launchers, with 48 lighter 107mm MRLs in support. There is also a very large mortar force, with 757 120mm weapons (180 vehicle mounted), 1264 107mm weapons, and 3790 81mm mortars. This provides one of the largest heavy mortar forces in the world, with over 2000 120 and 107mm pieces.
Antitank forces include 360 vehicle mounted TOW heavy ATGMs, with 392 Milan units providing primary infantry support. 180 older Cobra missile launchers are also in service. The real killer here, though, is a whopping 2300 106mm recoilless rifles, which is again one of the largest collections of such weapons still in existence. These are supported by 620 75mm and 900 57mm weapons, resulting in a huge force of these multipurpose support weapons. If not for the outdated nature of Greek, and to a lesser extent, Syrian and Iraqi armor, these would not be effective antitank weapons. Modern MBTs, including the Sabra upgrade now being fielded by Turkey, will generally be protected against such weapons.
Antiairraft systems are somewhat limited, with the only self-propelled air defense units being 262 old (Vietnam-era) M42 “duster” antiaircraft gun systems, which use twin 40mm guns, but are optically aimed, resulting in limited effectiveness. There are also over 1400 towed antiaircraft guns, mostly the enduring 40mm Bofors weapon. The only SAM cover provided is through 620 shoulder-fired launchers, of which 500 are for the abysmal Redeye, and only 120 fire the more capable Stinger. There are no medium or long-range systems under army control.
The aviation force is another mixed bag, which is notable in that it includes 2 Do-28 aircraft modified for ELINT duties, a rarity in any army. Gunships support is provided by 45 AH-1 Cobras, of which 9 are modern AH-1Ws, and the remainder are older AH-1P models. There are also 3 OH-58B and a single Bell 206L helicopter for recon duties. Transport is provided by 120 UH-1H helicopters, which provide decent service, and 78 AB.204/5/6/12 units, which are generally similar in capability to the UH-1. There have been orders for 30 AS.532 Cougars and 94 S-70 Black Hawks to provide a much more modern medium lift helicopter force. Should these be delivered, it will greatly boost the utility helicopter force.

The Turkish Air Force is moderately well equipped, considering the nature of the nation’s equipment. The most important contribution here is a force of 185 F-16C aircraft, which serve as the primary interceptor and air superiority force. The 156 older F-4E and 56 older F-5A aircraft, while still capable in the air-to-air role, are used primarily as strike units, a role which both have been know for their effectiveness in – more so than in air combat.
The recon role is served by 39 RF-4E aircraft, which appear to be the standard recon bird of less modern western-equipped militaries (and even some cutting edge ones). Though not overly exceptional, they get the job done, and they can afford to be lost. The real killer in this category though, are the 4 Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft that have been procured. When delivered, they will provide the Turkish army with almost the only AWACS coverage in the region, providing a massive advantage over their potential opponents.
For the tanker role, the nation possesses a modest force of 10 KC-135R aircraft, which are quite sufficient to provide extension for a good portion of the fighter force, allowing more of their large combat aircraft force to be brought to bear at a time, or to assist deep strikes and long-endurance patrol operations.
The air force has a very modest force of transports, including 7 C-130E, 7 C-130B, and 19 C-160T aircraft, all of which are quite dated by today’s standards (especially the C-130Bs). There are also about 50 CN-235 aircraft for additional transport duties. Currently, there has been an order for 10 A400M aircraft, which will provided a significant boost in capability when delivered, being far superior to all models currently in service.
The helicopter force is moderately equipped, with 20 AS.532 Cougars to provide a longer-range SAR platform, while the utility role is filled by 85 UH-1H helicopters.
The training force also has some combat capable aircraft, most notably the 43 F-16D and 25 F-5B trainer versions, which can fill combat roles if necessary.
The air defense coverage is rather extensive, but outdated, consisting of 92 batteries of Nike-Hercules SAMs, which are of limited utility against many modern threats. About 86 Rapier units provide a much more capable, albeit short ranged platform.

The Turkish navy is a mix of mostly old systems, with a few modern ones stuck in. There is a decent submarine force, centered around the German Type 209 series of conventional submarine. The most modern of these are the 6 Preveze class units (Type 209/1400), most of which are less than a decade old. There are two more of these planned, and they make a capable unit. However, the Type 214 units in Greek service have these units clearly outclassed, and the Turkish submarine fleet doesn’t have much advantage over the country’s primary adversary. These ships are complemented by 6 Atilay submarines (Type 209/1200), which are 15-30 years old, and due for a modernization. These are comparable with the best Greek units outside of those nasty 214s. Now, for some reason, there are still a few WWII era boats in service, including 2 Hizir class (US Tang) and 3 Burak Reis class (US Guppy IIA) vessels. These are completely obsolete, and several are in questionable condition, which isn’t surprising when their age is considered.
The most dangerous general combatants in the Turkish fleet are the 8 Gaziantep class frigates, which were US Oliver Hazard Perry vessels transferred over the past 7 years. These are notably weaker combatants to the Charles F Adams destroyers in service with the Greeks, but have the same air defense armament, and make up for their lower power in the fact that they’re more modern and outnumber the Greek destroyers almost three to one. As with the Greek vessels, however, their SM-1 systems are of limited value against modern opponents, and only the relatively low level of equipment of potential adversaries leaves these as viable weapons. Backing these up are 6 Muavenet frigates (US Knox class), which provide a decent, though somewhat dated, ASW platform. The 8 MEKO 200 type frigates in Turkish service are operated under 2 classes, the newer Barbaros, and the slightly older Yavuz class. Both are capable units with Sea Sparrow missiles for air defense and 8 Harpoons for striking at enemy shipping.
The minor combatant force, however, tends to leave a bit to be desired. The most powerful vessels here are 6 D’Estienne D’Orves ASW corvettes transferred from France,. Which are old, but have a decent antisubmarine armament. However, they’re lacking in ASuW and air defense systems, leaving them vulnerable on their own. The newest minor combatants are the 5 Kilic missile boats, with the oldest of these being only 7 years old. These are the second upgraded version of the original Dogan missile boat produced (of which 8 are still in service), and are significantly larger than their predecessors. The other upgraded version, the Yildiz, has only 2 vessels in service. These 15 ships form the core of the missile boat fleet, with their primary armament of Harpoon missiles. The problem is they’re too short on numbers, particularly if challenging the Greek fleet, which has over 30 missile boats, though they’re not as well armed. Some additional capability comes from the 8 Kartal Missile/Torpedo boats, though their two Penguin missiles are of only limited value. There are 6 remaining Sultan Hizar ASW patrol boats, which have been around for about 40 years now, and are definitely towards the end of their useful service lives. The additional smaller, but more modern Girne ASW boat provides additional assistance, and the force is rounded out with about 19 odd patrol craft.
The Turkish Amphibious force has only 2 large LSTs in service, though this is deceptive because 5 additional LSTs serve as minelayers, but can be used in their original role as well. Still, they rely mostly on a large fleet of LCUs (37 of them), which are only useful because of the proximity of the Islands they would invade. The LCUs can make long voyages, but the troops being carried would suffer greatly due to the less than stellar handling in the open sea.
The Mine warfare force includes 1 Nusret minelayer, and 5 LSTs modified for the mine laying role. This gives an excellent force for denying sea lanes to enemy vessels, and would be particularly useful in a confrontation with Greece. To counter their opponents’ mines, the Turks have 5 Edincuk minehunters (French Circe), which though old, have decent capability in the area. There are also some newer German Frankenthal vessels being delivered, with as many as 8 planned. These would be valuable, as all 16 of the remaining vessels date back to the 1960s, and aren’t the most capable units.
The only fleet support auxiliaries in Turkish service are a pair of small Akar fleet oilers. The rest of the auxiliary force is the standard collection of noncombat vessels, including an Electronic Surveillance Ship, 7 tugs, and 12 coastal logistics vessels. Nothing overly spectacular.
The naval air arm has some modest capability, with the most notable unit being the 6 CN.235M maritime patrol aircraft. Aside from those, there are 7 SH-60B and 12 AB.212 ASW aircraft for operation from their escorts. There are also 3 AB.212 EW aircraft, and 3 AB.204 aircraft devoted to SAR, though all the ASW units can perform that role too.

Requirements for Copying the Turkish Military:
1. Population of at least 60 million
2. Developing economy or better
3. Must have either a very powerful hostile neighbor or numerous smaller threats.
4. The vast majority of equipment will be outdated, even obsolete, particularly expensive systems like ships, air defense, and aircraft
5. Operations limited to very close to the border.
6. Amphibious and airborne capability can exist, but is limited to operations close to the border and among territorial islands.
7. Very limited expeditionary capability. Forces limited almost entirely to own borders.
8. Can have a decent number of (moderately to poorly equipped) mechanized units, but light infantry is the primary unit.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Army Headquarters: The first of these HQs covers the forces in the small European part of Turkey and the Aegean Sea. This is, in other words, the first player in any confrontation with Greece. Naturally, with the greatest mechanized threat being here, this HQ has the largest mechanized contingent, including over half of the armored brigades. Forces include:
2 Corps HQs
8 Independent Armored Brigades
4 Independent Mechanized Brigades
1 Commando Brigade
1 Border Defense Regiment

Army Headquarters: The second HQ covers the Mediterranean coast, as well as Southern Turkey and the Cyprus garrison. These forces are mostly earmarked for further operation against Greece, though can reinforce the Eastern borders as well. Units include:
3 Corps HQs (1 in northern Cyprus, 2 on mainland)
1 Infantry Division
2 Independent Armored Brigades
5 Independent Mechanized Brigades
3 Independent Infantry Brigades
1 Commando Brigade

Army Headquarters: The third HQ covers Northern and Central Turkey, and is again most likely going to give its units in support of any action in the west or east, with little to do on its own. Forces include:
1 Corps HQ
1 Mechanized Infantry Division (earmarked for ARRC)
1 Independent Armored Brigade
3 Independent Mechanized Brigades
2 Independent Infantry Brigades
1 Presidential Guard Regimental Group

Army Headquarters: The fourth and final HQ covers the Eastern and Southeastern borders, in other words, those with Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Georgia. This one is spread a bit thin, with half the nations covering these borders being potentially problematic, to the point where a war could erupt. Forces include:
3 Corps HQs
3 Independent Armored Brigades
5 Independent Mechanized Brigades
4 Independent Infantry Brigades
2 Commando Brigades
4 Border Defense Regiments

There are also 26 independent border defense battalions, though I don’t know how they’re divided. Most likely, the vast majority are with the fourth HQ.

The Turkish army has a long history of using special forces, dating back to the 1920s where such units proved devastating against Greek forces. Today, much of that tradition remains, and there are several units in service in the role. The primary special forces in Turkey are the 4 commando brigades. These are mostly deployed in counter-insurgency operations, but may provide most of the general special operations duties as well. The 1st and 2nd Commando Brigades are deployed to the east, and have been primarily occupied with pursuing and engaging Kurdish and Armenian insurgents. Occasionally, the 4th Brigade has lent assistance, though this one is earmarked mostly for operations in Northern Cyprus. The third unit is technically a Marine Brigade, being trained and equipped for amphibious operations in the Aegean. These are well trained and equipped units with a reputation for excellence. However, they’re slightly marred with a lack of focus on certain aspects such as airborne insertion, with only modest HALO and HAHO training. Of course, with the nature of the Turkish air arm, this isn’t surprising, even if it does hinder rapid deployment efforts.
The other special forces are the OIKB (National Police Jandarma Commandos), which are the main counter-terrorist unit in Turkey. These include three companies of some of the best trained personnel available, and while under the control of the Ministry of the Interior in peacetime, they revert to army control in war.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 15:03

Army
402,000 active personnel
258,700 reserve personnel

Tanks
170 Sabra
762 M60
2876 M48A5
397 Leopard 1

Recon
110 Cobra

IFV/APC
650 TIFV
2200 M113
1400 FMC

Artillery
219 M110A2 203mm SP
36 M107 175mm SP
222 M44 155mm SP
28 M108 105mm SP
365 M52 105mm SP
162 203mm TH
517 155mm TH
600 105mm TH
36 MRLS
48 107mm MRL
757 120mm mortar (180 on vehicles)
1264 107mm mortar
3790 81mm mortar

Antitank
360 TOW (on vehicles)
392 Milan
180 Cobra ATGM
2300 106mm RR
620 75mm RR
900 57mm RR

Antiaircraft
262 M42A1 Twin 40mm SPAAG
120 Stinger SAM
500 Redeye SAM
40 T1 AAG
803 40mm Bofors AAG
120 35mm AAG
439 20mm AAG

Aircraft
2 Do-28D-2 ELINT
9 AH-1W
36 AH-1P
3 OH-58B
1 Bell 206L-4 OH
30 AS.532 Cougar (ordered)
94 S-70 Black Hawk (ordered)
120 UH-1H
35 AB.205A
13 AB.204
27 AB.206
3 AB.212
26 Hughes 269C Trainer
66 Assorted Fixed-Wing Trainer/Transport

Air Force
60,100 active personnel
65,000 reserve personnel

Combat
185 F-16C
156 F-4E
56 F-5A

Recon/Surveillance
4 Boeing 737 AEW&C
39 RF-4E

Tanker
7 KC-135R

Transport
10 A400M (ordered)
7 C-130E
6 C-130B
19 C-160T
51 CN-235
1 King Air 200
6 Cessna Citation

Helicopter
85 UH-1H
20 AS532 Cougar

Trainer
43 F-16D
25 F-5B
69 T-38A
41 T-37C
25 T-37B
26 T-41
40 SF.260D

Air Defense
92 Nike-Hercules Battery
86 Rapier

Navy
53,000 active personnel
55,000 reserve personnel

Submarines
6 Preveze SSK (1586 tons) Type 209/1400 + 2 ordered
6 Atilay SSK (1285 tons) Type 209/1200
2 Hizir Reis SSK (2600 tons) US WWII Tang
3 Burak Reis SSK (2440 tons) US WWII Guppy IIA

Major Surface Combatants
8 Gaziantep FFG (3700 tons) US Perry
6 Muavenet FF (4250 tons) US Knox
4 Barbaros FF (3350 tons) Ger MEKO 200TN
4 Yavuz FF (2994 tons) Ger MEKO 200

Minor Surface Combatants
6 D’Estienne D’Orves ASW Corvette (1250 tons)
5 Kilic FAMB (520 tons)
2 Yildiz FAMB (398 tons)
8 Dogan FAMB (398 tons)
8 Kartal Missile/Torpedo Boat (210 tons)
6 Sultan Hizar ASW PT (477 tons)
1 Girne ASW PT (399 tons)

Patrol
2 Trabzon PT (400 tons)
1 Bora PT (240 tons)
12 AB 25 PT (170 tons)
4 AB 21 PT (144 tons)

Amphibious
2 Ertugrul LST (5786 tons)
17 C139 LCU (600 tons)
20 C107 LCU (580 tons)

Mine Warfare
1 Nusret Minelayer (1880 tons)
2 Bayraktar Minelayer (4140 tons) modified LSTs can serve original role
1 Oman Gasi Minelayer (3773 tons) modified LST
2 Sarucabey Minelayer (2600 tons) modified LSTs
5 Edincuk MHC (510 tons)
2 Frankenthal MHC (650 tons) 1 more ordered (2007), 3-5 more may be purchased
9 Samun Minesweeper (392 tons)
3 Karamursel MHC (383 tons)
4 Foca MHC (239 tons)

Auxiliaries
2 Akar FRO (19,350 tons)
1 Electronic Surveillance Ship
2 Training Ships
2 Survey Ships
7 Tugs
2 Net Tenders
10 Coastal Tanker
2 Coastal Logistics

Aircraft
6 CN.235M Maritime Patrol
7 SH-60B
12 AB.212 ASW
3 AB.212 EW
3 AB.204 SAR
7 TB20 Trainer

Clan Smoke Jaguar

09-03-2005, 15:10

Um, what has endlessly posting real-life military stats got to do with Nationstates, given that the NS political situation means the development of RL equipment is unlikely and RL force layouts would basically be insane?
Well, um, gee, er . . . well. It gives me a purpose in life I guess.

Seriously. RL army breakdowns and deployments are valuable in that they generally work (yes, even in NS). They may need some tweaking to suit specific situations, but the fact remains that they do work. This is valuable in that most people don't want to go out of their way to make an elaborate army, and so finding an RL nation whose force suits their requirments, and then scaling it as necessary is a very popular thing. I'm just providing the information for use (and I do know it's getting used). This is also a valuable guideline regarding equipment, organization, and funding, as well as limitations and advantages in realistic militaries.
Most importantly, however, I keep getting asked to continue, and just like a few customer service additions I add at work, so long as people show that they want me to, I will continue doing this.

Mauiwowee

09-03-2005, 16:17

Um, what has endlessly posting real-life military stats got to do with Nationstates, given that the NS political situation means the development of RL equipment is unlikely and RL force layouts would basically be insane?

I find it useful as a RL base line against which to measure an NS military and claims by others during a war when they say their 15 million man army has just crossed the ocean with 40,000 tanks and are landing everything on my beaches for an invasion.

Scandavian States

09-03-2005, 17:08

Kroblexskij

09-03-2005, 17:21

can you do russia?

Beth Gellert

09-03-2005, 17:43

Long term, if you were the Greek government/military, would you want to bank absolutely on NATO picking you if Turkey tried to snatch some strategic territory? I mean, if Turkey were viewed as more important for its position over the Middle East than Greece for its position by the Balkans...

Yeah, it doesn't seem very likely, but I'd say that the Greeks have more reason for maintaining preparedness to face Turkey than Belgium or Canada have for spending a Euro cent on defence. Or if they haven't now, they had recently, and one wouldn't expect them to entirely give up the idea as a threat over night.

Meh, anyway, I quite like this thread. BG exists in a relatively insular RP community using realistic populations and [largely] real world geography, so it's arguably an even better guide for us. Things still don't fit exactly, but I can come and have a look here any time I worry that I might be commissioning an economic suicide into the military :)

Don't mind me, I'm just rambling after countless hours of Total War frazzled my brain. Mh. Carry on.

Scandavian States

09-03-2005, 18:15

not in the good graces of the US.]

Beth Gellert

09-03-2005, 23:54

Maniac :)

Clan Smoke Jaguar

10-03-2005, 04:45

[I have a question, how is it possible for two NATO countries to go to war with each other? I mean, doesn't the NATO charter expressly forbid it? And even if it didn't, doesn't the threat of first-rate NATO forces supporting the attacked party place a restraining barrier on the two sides?]
The issue over the Aegean is a long-standing one between the two nations, and the real problem is the nature of the conflict that would erupt.

It would go something like this:

1) Turkey launches (or prepares to launch) a fast amphibious assault on key islands near its coast (which they've threatened to do before)
2) Greece, lacking the power to defend or retake the islands, uses the other option, attacking over their land border with Turkey
3) Since both sides are invading the other, it's already gotten out of hand, and NATO peacekeepers would find it difficult to stop both sides, yet would be unable to fight for one side or the other without major political reprecussions.
Specifically, NATO can't afford to drop Turkey due to its location, yet they can't really support them in aggressive conquest of Greek territories, as that makes them the aggressor. Thus, they have to wait it out and try and broker a peace, which will only work well if it's a stalemate.

If not for problems like this, the Turkish conquest of Northern Cyprus wouldn't have been successful. As it is, all that did was get Turkey out of the good graces of the US and European nations, but they're pulling back in through Israeli support now. That desire to get back within the graces of the US and European powers is the real reason for not trying anything. They're also having trouble in the east, and aren't dumb enough to start of conflict that would put too much strain on their military, which is already spread thin in several areas.

Scandavian States

10-03-2005, 04:59

[Yeesh, what a Charlie Foxtrot.]

Clan Smoke Jaguar

10-03-2005, 06:41

Australian Army

Nation: Commonwealth of Australia
Army: Royal Australian Army
Air Force: Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
Navy: Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
Population: 19.73 million
GDP: $525.5 billion
GDP Per Capita: $26,634.57
Active Military: 50,700
Portion of Population: 0.257%
Military Spending: $7.6 billion
Portion of GDP: 1.45%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $149,901.38
Military Nature: Expeditionary
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Somewhat outdated (but rapidly improving)

What it Means:
Australia went through the Cold War with a “Fortress Mentality” being dedicated solely to defending itself from Soviet, and later Chinese, predations. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, and the declining power of the US in the Pacific, Australia is recognizing that it may need to move to the forefront as the major peacekeeper in the region, assisting, or even completely supplanting the US. For that, there has been an improvement in defense spending for its small army, which will include a massive upgrade program to replace its current equipment, much of which is quite outdated, with new top-of-the line systems from the US and Europe. With this improvement, Australia hopes to be capable of sending its small, but well trained and equipped force, to act as peacekeepers abroad, particularly in Indonesia, where there is constant strife. However, the current size of the army is quite small, and while a reorganization has left a greater proportion of troops available for combat formations, they may need to significantly increase the size of the military to fully take on the role they envision. If that happens, than Australia could become the major power in the southern Indo-Pacific region, due to Japan’s inability to deploy forces abroad (both for political and logistical reasons), and the other southeast Asian nations being preoccupied with their own borders.

Equipment
Currently, Australia’s armored force is comprised of a handful (71) of outdated Leopard 1A3 tanks from Germany. However, one of their most important recent purchases was an order for 59 US M1A1 tanks, which are used units that will be completely refurbished, and incorporate some improvements as well. These should be delivered by 2006. Though a small force, these are probably the best tanks available to any Pacific nation, and would provide invaluable support in peacekeeping operations.
For IFVs and APCs, there are a small number of relatively modern units available. For starters, the ASLAV-25 (a variant of the vehicle used by the USMC) provides a capable platform, and while only a little over 100 units are currently in service, plans exist for as many as 257 vehicles. On the somewhat less capable side are 463 upgraded M113AS4 vehicles, which are modified M113s with a 25mm turret and numerous other improvements. About 350 of these are in service, with the remainder in mothballs. All told, there is a very good light IFV force perfectly suitable for rapid deployment and amphibious operations.
Artillery is provided primarily by 250 odd light 105mm towed guns of a somewhat dated design, many of which, however, are receiving upgrades, and though the 35 M198 155mm guns are a bit dated as well, they give good performance. Currently in the works, however, is a plan to acquire a wheeled self-propelled artillery system, preferably with a 52 calibre barrel. While the South African G6 would be the most effective unit available, it’s likely too heavy for the role envisioned, and something like the French Caesar or the FH-77 would be a much more likely choice. There are no firm plans on the number of units to be acquired, but these units could either be used to replace, or more likely, complement, the M198 guns in service. There has also been a desire to add a rocket-launcher capability, which will almost certainly be provided by the US MLRS system. These plans have caused the scrapping of previous ones for self-propelled 120mm mortars, which are not seen as being as important, but it’s possible that these may find a place in the budget too, as either an interim or later addition.
Antitank capability, in the past, was provided entirely by 106mm and 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifles (the latter of which are receiving upgrades). However, a purchase in 2003 of US Javelin missile systems (92 launchers and 600 missiles) will bring the Australian Army to the forefront, with a sold force of one of the best manportable antiarmor missiles around. These are expected to enter service in 2005-2007.
Antiaircraft capability, however, is rather lacking. Currently, the longest-ranged system is the short range Rapier SAM, and worse, these are on towed launchers, with limited mobility. With only 19 systems in service, they’re hard pressed to defend even the key static targets, let alone forward forces. This leaves forward troops with a mere 17 RBS-70 shoulder-fired SAM launchers, which again, is hardly sufficient for supporting more than a small contingent. Additionally, both missile systems have been around for some time, and are nearing the end of their service lives. While an upgrade program is expected to extend them for another 5-10 years, they are clearly running short. Thus, there is a major project involving the procurement of additional, and possibly more modern systems to provide a much improved air defense capability.
The current aircraft force is somewhat dated. It consists of 6 CH-47 heavy lift helicopters, 40 Bell 206 scout helicopters (civilian model of the OH-58 Kiowa), 35 S-70B Black Hawks, 25 older UH-1Hs, and 17 AS.350B aircraft. All told, the majority of these, particularly the B 206 units, are in need of replacement. To that end, there’s a major program for revitalizing and modernizing the helicopter force, the first stages of which are already in place. First off, there has been an order for 22 Tiger helicopters to perform the scout and light attack roles, with additional purchases likely. These will provide long overdue replacement for the Bell 206, as well as the first dedicated gunship available. Delivery is to start this year, with the last of these being fully operational by 2008. The second part of this is the procurement of a variant of the NH90 helicopter. There have been 12 of these ordered, and while some problems have come up, an additional order of 10 is likely, with up to 30 more after that being planned. These will replace the Black Hawks in service. The last of the first 12 units is likely to be delivered by 2008. The other acquisition is going to be a light helicopter to replace the UH-1H and AS.350 aircraft currently in service. I’ve heard talk of the A109, but nothing substantial as of yet.

The Australian Air Force, is a small, but well equipped force with some surprisingly heavy striking power. Though older, their 35 F-111G aircraft provide a significant heavy strike capability, and with a current project to acquire long range cruise missiles (JASSM, SLAM-ER, and Taurus are competing), they’ll only get better. On the lighter side, Australia is one of several nations to pick up the F/A-18 Hornet, and have 71 of the original F/A-18A and B variants in service. However, these aren’t really suitable for the new role of the military, being too short ranged for long range strike operations. This leaves the more expensive F-111Gs for that role. However, Australia has been participating in the F-35 program, and it is expected that they may procure up to 100 of these to replace both aircraft types currently in service.
17 P-3C Orions provide a solid maritime patrol capability. More would certainly be useful, but with limited submarine and surface combatant threats in nearby nations, and even more limited personnel in the air force, it’s unlikely that they will appear.
The recon force is small, but includes 4 RF-111C aircraft, which are a little better than the RF-4 used by most other western-equipped nations. Added to that are a pair of EP-3C ELINT aircraft, leaving the Australian Air Force as one of the smallest ones in the world with such capability.
A recent purchase will provide the Australians with 5 A330 MRTT aircraft, which will provide a solid tanker force that the country is currently lacking. These will allow combat and transport aircraft to support operations well beyond Australia’s borders, a critical requirement considering the nation’s current role.
Transport capability is provided primarily by 24 C-130H and J-30 aircraft, which provide solid, albeit dated, capability. Additionally, there are 10 HS-748 aircraft, which are sorely outdated and used only for their ability to operate where even a C-130 can’t. There’s a program to extend their service life a bit further, as they’re already near the end. Beyond that, are a handful of civilian airliners as are frequently found in use for VIP and internal transport duties.

The navy is the most modern and well equipped branch in the Australian military. For starters, they’ve grabbed 6 Collins class conventional submarines, which are highly capable units built to a Swedish design, and on par with the Type 214 units ordered by South Korea, and far surpassing most other submarine forces in the region. However, the Collins boats have been problematic, and have had a lot of trouble with electronics and fire control systems, which have made them very expensive, and have significantly delayed their entry into operational service. It may indeed be a few years before all of them are fully operational.
On the other hand, there are a decent crop of frigates, which provide pretty much the entire surface combat force. At the top here are 6 Adelaide guided missile frigates, which are exported US Oliver Hazard Perry units (4 built in the US, 2 domestically). It’s interesting in that these provide the only real area SAM coverage in the Australian military, though they suffer from the age of their SM-1 missiles. Of course, like many others that use the weapons, the Australians don’t have many potential opponents with top of the line aircraft and missiles to threaten them. For general patrol duties, there are 8 ANZAC frigates, which are modified MEKO 200 vessels designed in cooperation with New Zealand. At present, they’re underarmed, though with significant space for additional weapons. When fully fitted, they will certainly be a force to reckon with in the Indo-Pacific region. The 15 Fremantle patrol boats are lightly armed vessels more in tune with policing duties than actual combat, though they could help operations somewhat. There are plans to replace these patrol boats with more modern and capable craft.
In the mine warfare role, there are 6 Huon class minehunters, which are of a solid modern design provided by Italy. Though short on numbers, there is not much threat of mines near Australia, just in the island chains where they may deploy peacekeeping forces. Thus, this force is sufficient. To back these up, there are two Bandicoot auxiliary minehunters, which are converted ocean tugs, and could be returned to that role as well, if necessary.
The amphibious role is provided primarily by a pair of US Newport LSTs which have been converted into helicopter assault ships under the designation of Kanimbla. Though of limited capability due to their size, they’re perfect when the small size of the Australian Army is considered. Backing them up is a single British Tobruk landing ship, which was originally scheduled for disposal, but will now remain in service to back up the Kanimblas
The auxiliary force is also quite good considering the nation. With 1 small MPRS and a full-sized fleet oiler, they have more than sufficient resupply capability to keep their fleet operating for extended periods abroad. The remainder, however, consists of 2 survey ships and 6 modified landing craft used for a variety of roles, notably training.
The air arm of the navy was originally intended to get rid of all fixed wing aircraft, however, the leadership has refused to give up the 2 HS-748 EW aircraft, which provide a vital service to the fleet. Besides, the air force already has the more capable EP-3C, right? Regardless, the rest is simply an ASW and SAR force, consisting of 3 Sea Kings, 16 S-70B Seahawks, 11 SH-2G Super Seasprites, and 12 AS.350B & 5 Bell 206B light helicopters. The Seahawks and Seasprites are both quite capable modern designs, while the Sea King is a bit outdated. However, the Seahawks and Sea Kings must also help with SAR duties, as the smaller aircraft are hardly sufficient to the task with their limited range.

Requirements for Copying the Australian Military
1) Population of 14 million or greater
2) Good economy or better
3) Very small force (comparatively)
4) No major nearby threats
5) May be outdated but modernizing. Actual modernization should be RPed
6) Limited ability to deploy forces abroad due to lack of personnel
7) Military suited mostly for peacekeeping duties in low-key conflicts. Limited warfighting capability

ORDER OF BATTLE
While I could provide a complete breakdown, Australia has small forces deployed in numerous places, and since I like to stick with brigade sized or better, I’m going to just list the total units:
1 Armored Regiment
2 Armored Reconnaissance Regiments
1 Special Air Service Regiment
1 Commando Regiment
6 Infantry Battalions
2 Independent Armored Personnel Carrier Squadrons
1 Medium Artillery Regiment
2 Field Artillery Regiments
1 Air Defense Regiment
3 Combat Engineer Regiments
2 Aviation Regiments

Australia, being a former British colony, benefited from British SAS experience, and formed its own SAS Squadron in 1957, which grew into a full regiment with three squadrons in the 1960s. The Australian SAS Regiment performed superbly in Vietnam, earning a well-deserved reputation for effectiveness, with a confirmed kill rate of 500 to 1! A sub-unit, the Tactical Assault Group (TAG), was established as a fourth combat formation, and has been the primary anti-terrorist formation since its inception. The regiment also has an Offshore Installations Group, with combat swimmers. Non-combat support includes the HQ and a Signal Squadron.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

10-03-2005, 06:42

Army
24,150 active personnel
17,900 reserve personnel

Tanks
59 M1A1 (delivery in 2006)
71 Leopard 1A3

APCs/IFVs
111 ASLAV-25 (146 more planned)
463 M113AS4 (have 25mm gun turret, 119 mothballed)

Artillery
Wheeled 155mm SP (future)
35 M198 155mm TH
246 105mm TH
296 81mm mortar

Antitank
92 Javelin (2005-07)
74 106mm RR
577 84mm RR

Antiaircraft
19 Rapier SAM (towed)
17 RBS-70 SAM

Aircraft
6 CH-47
22 Tiger (ordered, delivery 2005-2008)
40 B.206 (Kiowa)
12 NH90 (ordered, with delivery by 2008, 40 more likely)
35 S-70 Black Hawk
25 UH-1H
17 AS.350B

Air Force
14,050 active personnel
2220 reserve personnel

Combat
100 F-35 (planned)
71 F/A-18A/B
35 F-111C/G

Maritime Patrol
17 P-3C

Recon
4 RF-111C
2 EP-3C

Tanker
5 A330 MRTT (ordered)

Cargo
24 C-130H/J
5 Boeing 707
4 DHC-4
5 Falcon 900
10 HS-748

Trainer
62 PC-9A
25 MB-336H

Navy
12,500 active
1220 reserve

Submarines
6 Collins SSK (3350 tons)

Surface Combatants
6 Adelaide FFG (3962 tons) OH Perry
8 ANZAC Patrol FF (3600 tons) MEKO 200 variant
15 Fremantle PT (275 tons)

Mine Warfare
6 Huon Minehunter (720 tons)
2 Bandicoot Aux Minehunter (520 tons) modified tugs

Amphibious
2 Kanimbla LPH (8700 tons) converted Newport LST
1 Tobruk Landing Ship (6000 tons)

Auxiliary
1 Success MPRS (17,933 tons) Durance
1 Westralia FRO (40,870 tons) Appleleaf
2 Pacific Survey Ship (2550 tons)
6 Balikpapan Support Craft (503 tons)

Aircraft
2 HS-748 EW
3 Sea King
16 S-70B Sea Hawk
11 SH-2G
12 AS.350B
5 Bell 206B

Vastiva

10-03-2005, 06:50

Scandavian States

10-03-2005, 07:09

[CSJ, just out of curiosity, have you heard anything about the Aussies developing their own MBT to rival the current Euro tanks? AFAIK they've always relied on imported designs, so when I heard about it I found that they'd be doing this a bit odd, especially when they have more pressing needs elsewhere.]

GMC Military Arms

10-03-2005, 07:16

We like it.
Gives us templates to play with.

Really - as it harms none, what problem?

Curiousity? I'm not always posting as a mod, y'know.

Vastiva

10-03-2005, 07:19

Austrailia, I'd note, has made an art and science of ambush. The smaller units isn't as "telling" as it would be in Greece; Austrailia fights more like Israel then the US.

Do Aussies and Yanks fight the same way?

No. In France, New Guinea and in Korea and particularly in SVN there were obvious differences.

Here are some of them.
Australians aggressively patrol, especially in front of their perimeter.
Americans clear their perimeter by using artillery and machine gun fire, at set times.

Australians take and hold ground, but make sure that all the enemy are either dead or prisoners, as they go.
Americans tend to rush ahead in an attempt to "get the job done", often leaving dangerous pockets of resistance to their rear.

When attacked Aussies tend to dig in and hold, stubbornly, and counter attack when the enemy is tiring after his attack has been blunted or stopped and he is demoralised and vulnerable.
When attacked Americans tend to either counter attack immediately or withdraw immediately to a defensive line behind them. They call it "bug out".
The American Army can "go like hell...in both directions"

The Yanks are Gung-ho. We are not. Ambush is an Australian military art form; the Yanks say, "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle".

Australians would never be allowed to carry transistor radios on patrol,
the Yanks often did.

Australians tend to go find the enemy and engage him
An American tactic is to act as a target hoping the enemy will engage so that massive firepower can be bought to bear.

Quoted from Here (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-help/faq3.htm)

Vastiva

10-03-2005, 07:22

Curiousity? I'm not always posting as a mod, y'know.

Uhm.... could you tell us when please? Its hard to tell from flat text what is "just a question" and "GOD HATH SPOKEN AND HE REQUIRES AN ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING:"

GMC Military Arms

10-03-2005, 07:28

Uhm.... could you tell us when please? Its hard to tell from flat text what is "just a question" and "GOD HATH SPOKEN AND HE REQUIRES AN ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING:"

The missing addition '...because I'm thinking of locking this thread' would be the clue.

Scandavian States

10-03-2005, 08:37

[Vast, might I suggest you bug out a bit so you don't get CSJ's thread locked?

GMC, I know I have no business telling you this, but chill out. Whether you like it or not, you are a mod and everybody knows it. So, when you post something like that it doesn't come across as curiosity but demanding justification for the thread's existance, and your last response just reinforced that.

Really, you both need to go to your respective corners and take ten, cause otherwise I have a feeling that either one or both of you are going to do something that you'll regret later.]

GMC Military Arms

10-03-2005, 08:51

GMC, I know I have no business telling you this, but chill out. Whether you like it or not, you are a mod and everybody knows it. So, when you post something like that it doesn't come across as curiosity but demanding justification for the thread's existance, and your last response just reinforced that.

Um, in my last response I noted that because I didn't mention a moderation-related consequence I obviously wasn't asking the question from the point of view of a moderator. Looky:

The missing addition '...because I'm thinking of locking this thread' would be the clue.

As in because I didn't say that, I was posting the question as a player, and had I been posting the question as a moderator-level 'justify your existence' demand I would not have have said:

Um, what has endlessly posting real-life military stats got to do with Nationstates, given that the NS political situation means the development of RL equipment is unlikely and RL force layouts would basically be insane?

I would have said:

Um, what has endlessly posting real-life military stats got to do with Nationstates, given that the NS political situation means the development of RL equipment is unlikely and RL force layouts would basically be insane? If you don't have a good reason, this thread will be locked

In the second, there is a threat of moderator-level action if an answer is not given, in the first, what I actually posted, there isn't. Therefore, since there's no mention of possible punishment, I'd say it was fairly obvious that I was just asking a question as a player, not making any kind of demand.

Anyway, enough dragging this thread off-topic, since the question's been answered and there's no real need to dwell on it any further.

Daistallia 2104

10-03-2005, 16:29

GMC Military Arms, as others have said, some players like this style of play, and we look to CSJ as a valuable source.

(I've seen so-many non-realism players complain at being "stiffled" by realist players. This is not the first time I've seen complaints at posting realistic advice. As a player who wants as much realism as I can put into it, I also originally saw your post as a threat to CSJ, and realism players in general. I realise you didn't intend it as such, but it did come across that way. Thank you for clarifying. :) I hope you understand our viewpoints and sensitivities.)

Drunken FratBoy Island

16-03-2005, 22:02

Wow. :eek:

Clan Smoke Jaguar

26-05-2005, 05:43

Well, I figured it's been long enough, and I have so many of these in varying stages of completion, along with nothing better to do . . .

Nation: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Population: 24.3 million
GDP: $269 billion
GDP Per Capita: $11,069.96
Active Military: 126,500
Portion of Population: 0.521%
Military Spending: $27.1 billion
Portion of GDP: 10.1%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $214,229.25
Military Nature: Defensive
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Mostly Modern

What it means:
Saudi Arabia is a relatively small (by population) country that is both blessed, and cursed, with an important geopolitical location. Due to the fact that it borders most of the Middle Eastern nations, and is at least reaches close to a border with those it doesn’t touch directly, it has been placed in a unique situation. Also, due to the geographical size and location, the nation is quite wealthy, thanks to large numbers of oil fields and excellent sea access. However, with this come many minor, and several major potential military situations. Many of its borders are disputed by neighboring countries, and it thus must maintain a solid military to protect against predations. In the recent past, the primary threat came from Iraq, which, as we know, has been generally dismantled as of late. With that gone, the primary opponent has been Iran, who’s routinely tried to control the vital sea lanes of the Persian Gulf. Though Saudi Arabia would be better off than most if this happened, the fact remains that building a pipeline to the Red Sea would be very costly, and that can still be sealed off too. Additionally, most of the southern neighbors – the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Oman, have disputed borders with Saudi Arabia, which has resulted in numerous border clashes of varying intensity, the most notable of which in recent history was a short conflict with Yemen in 1998. Because of all this, Saudi Arabia has built up one of the best trained and equipped armies in the world, made possible by lavish expenditures thanks to oil revenues. And it is the oil that, above all else, the army is geared to protect. However, due to the fact that only a small portion of the nation is populated, logistics and infrastructure have been problematic. Though the nation has done as much as it can to improve these, the fact remains that this is an area of weakness, with troops and supplies often having to cross large expanses of open desert to get where they’re needed. Thus, the Saudi Arabian army is often spread a bit thin, as it needs to have forces at every flash point capable of handling at least the initial confrontations. However, one of the greatest problems for Saudi Arabia is the unpredictable political situation in the region. With numerous shifting alliances, they must be careful where they tread, though they were wise enough to cultivate a relationship with the US. They need a solid backing by a powerful nation that they can trust not to shift away. Also of note, the Saudi military is entirely defensive. They have almost no power projection capability, and would be hard pressed to sustain military actions beyond their own borders due to limited logistics and infrastructure.

Equipment:
Currently, Saudi Arabia has some of the best military equipment money can buy (purchased mainly from the US), thanks to the lavish military spending, though there are still a number of older units in service. At the forefront of the military is the tank corps, whose pride and joy are the 315 M1A2 Export tanks procured from the US. These are downgraded units, which have all they advanced systems of the US M1A2 except the armor, which is still only the same as that on the M1A1. However, this is still better than almost any other tank in the region, with only one or two potentially hostile neighbors having anything that can match it. Beyond that are some 290 AMX-30B2 tanks, and 450 M60A3 units, both of which are several decades out of date, but still solid performers compared to most militaries in the region.
For reconnaissance, there are some 300 AML armored cars, of varying types. While not the best units in existence, they serve their role well, though I wouldn’t be surprised if a replacement started coming in sometime in the near future.
As far as infantry carriers go, Saudi Arabia is at the top of the game. With 400 M2 Bradleys, they have one of the best IFVs today, and in sufficient numbers to be felt. These are backed up by 580 AMX-10P IFVs, which while capable, are now very old, with the original producer (France), desperately wanting to replace them as soon as possible. 1750 M113s provide standard APC support, with nothing spectacular, but nothing lacking either. Same with the 150 Panhard M3s. These are fine for the assigned role.
Artillery is somewhat varied, and is not quite as mobile as the rest of the force, but is still quite capable. The core of the force are 90 French-built GCT weapons, which are modern tracked 155mm howitzers with solid capabilities. Backing them up are 110 of the older, but extremely common, M109A2 howitzers from the US. Both of these are solid systems, but not overwhelmingly effective, and they may be a bit short on numbers as well. Towed forces fare a little better, with 8 203mm M115s still in service, and 140 M198 and FH-70 howitzers, which, while a generation out of date, are still quite effective. Not so for the older M101/2 105mm units, which could use replacement in the near future, though they’re still on par with the weapons of most contemporary nations. Rocket artillery is provided by the modern and capable ASTROS II from Brazil, which isn’t quite up to the MLRS, but is still quite good. 510 heavy and 300 medium mortars round out the force.
In the antitank field, however, Saudi Arabia lags behind. Though they have a good number of TOW and HOT launchers, many of which are vehicle mounted, these are both heavy ATGMs, and a lighter system is needed to support them. This is currently provided by the M47 Dragon, which while capable, was never really all that good, owing to some glaring design deficiencies, and they’d do well to procure a more comfortable weapon. They also have a number of recoilless rifles, most notably manportable 84 and 90mm weapons.
For air defense, as with many other nations, there is a distinct lack of mobile medium and long range systems. The best unit they have is the French Crotale SAM, with a few dozen systems operational. However, with a range of less than 20 km, this is unsuitable for anything but the most basic point defense, and is a situation that should be rectified. The 300+ Stinger launchers, on the other hand, provide a solid infantry SAM, though the 500 Redeyes are poor enough that they almost shouldn’t even be counted.
A separate air defense force provides less mobile defense of fixed formations and rear areas, with 16 batteries of IHawk SAMs (128 launchers), along with 141 Shahinya and 40 Crotale launchers (essentially the same missile). These are supported by 50 self-propelled AMX-30SA antiaircraft guns, and over 200 towed antiaircraft guns. Altogether a credible force, though the large expanse of desert ensures that it’s very easy for air strikes to hit many key targets while evading most of the air defense.
In the aircraft category, the Saudi Army has a small number of excellent units, most notably 12 AH-64 Apaches for the attack helicopter role. Beyond them, there are 34 Black Hawk helicopters, of both military and civilian variants, and 15 B406CS units. While these are not quite effective as dedicated attack units, they can serve the role, but are more valuable as transports, particularly for special forces.

The Air Force is centered around US-delivered F-15s, 142 of which account for almost 2/5 of all combat aircraft. These provide a very credible air superiority capability, and thus the remainder are mostly strike units, with only two dozen Tornado ADV interceptors backing them up. The most numerous ground attack aircraft are the modern Tornado IDS, and the vintage F-5E, with a little over 75 examples of both. While the former is large and capable of heavy payloads, the latter is cheap, easy to maintain, and has proven to be a capable aircraft. Also, unlike previous incarnations, the F-5E has a notable air-to-air capability, and is a match for most versions of the MiG-21 used by many other Middle Eastern nations.
For reconnaissance, the Saudi Air Force uses a photorecon version of the venerable F-5E, with 10 such aircraft in service. There are also several E-3A Sentries, with enough planes to provide constant around-the-clock AWACS coverage over key areas.
Tanker support is provided by 8 KE-3As (similar to a KC-135) and 7 KC-130H aircraft, which provide significant capability considering the size of the force, though appropriate considering the size of the force compared to the size of the nation.
The cargo force is made up of 41 C-130E and C-130H aircraft, though with almost 30 additional aircraft providing VIP transport, which the Saudis take quite seriously.
The helicopter force is made up mostly of civilian versions of common military helicopters: the 22 AB.205s are essentially Hueys, the 25 AB.206s are Kiowas (minus the mast sight), and the AB.212 is a civilian counterpart to the UH-1N. A number of units from Eurocopter round out the force, but the light AB.205/206/212 units are still the mainstay.
Training is provided by a number of PC-9 and Hawk aircraft, the latter of which can also serve as light attack units in support of combat operations. Additionally, a handful of F-15D and F-5F two-seat trainers are mixed in to provide advanced training for the combat units. These are also combat capable.

The navy is probably the most modern of all branches, with few principle vessels exceeding 25 years old. The backbone of this are the three Arriyad frigates, which are built to a modified French Lafayette design, and are equipped to fire the excellent Aster missile. These are coming online only now, and have probably the best air defense capability of any non-US ships in the Persian Gulf. These are backing up the four recently modernized Al Madinah frigates, also from France. However, there is some disparity, as the Al Madinah has only Crotales for self defense, and while the Arriyads have Exocets, the Al Madinahs are armed with Otomats, though the latter might actually have been the better choice if not for the confined waters of the Persian Gulf where they operate.
Additional ASuW capability is provided by 4 corvettes and 9 missile boats from the US, all armed with 8 Harpoons, and a number of small guns that make them suitable for patrol and police duties as well. Both designs are relatively modern, and perfectly capable. These are supported by 4 Addriyah patrol minesweepers, which, hailing from the late 1970s, are among the oldest ships in the fleet.
Mine countermeasures are provided by 3 Al Jawf Minehunters (UK Sandown), which provide a modest capability of protecting the ports.
A pair of small replenishment oilers provides an interesting addition, as there should be minimal need for such vessels, due to the limited patrol range of Saudi ships, though the capability could certainly prove useful for future application. Also, as with the Air Force, the Navy takes VIP transport very seriously, and maintains a pair of luxury yachts for the Royal Family.

Requirements for copying the Saudi Arabian military:
1. Reasonable economy or better.
2. If not a very strong or better economy, must have a major export to provide revenue (usually mineral)
3. Population of at least 20 million
4. Do not RP any major conflicts beyond your immediate borders
5. Most equipment should be about 10-20 years old, with some cutting edge.
6. Supply difficulties should be noted if you occupy the same or similar geographical location, due to the interference the desert poses.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Again, it’s difficult to find specific information, so here’s a basic rundown:

Regular Army
3 Armored Brigades
5 Mechanized Infantry Brigades
1 Airborne Infantry Brigade
1 Royal Guards Mechanized Infantry Regiment
8 Artillery Battalions
1 Army Co-Operation Aviation Command (2 brigades)

National Guard
3 Mechanized Infantry Brigades
5 Motorized Infantry Brigades
1 Cavalry Squadron

Air Defense Command
33 SAM batteries (Hawk)
17 Mixed batteries (4 Shahinya SAM, 2-3 AMX-30SA SPAAG)
73 Detached Stationary elements (Shahinya/Crotale)

Special Forces
8 battalions SSF (3500 total personnel)
1 SWU (100 personnel)
3 Airborne Special Forces Companies (under airborne brigade)

The primary special operations forces of the Saudi army are the 8 battalions of the SSF (Special Security Force), which comprise of 3500 solid personnel who train alongside the French GIGN and German GSG-9 units. As would be expected considering who they train with, this is primarily a counter-terrorist and hostage rescue unit, even though it was established eight years prior to obtaining those roles. The size and equipment of this force is due primarily to the large influx of foreign workers, especially Palestinian, and the major terrorism and sabotage threat that they pose, especially to the oil fields. Beyond this, there is the true elite unit, the Special Warfare Unit, which consists of 100 National Guard volunteers. This unit has also received special training from the GIGN. In addition to these forces, there are a further 3 companies of special forces personnel in the Airborne Regiment. These units, in addition to filling the anti-terrorist role of the other units, are also trained (duh) parachutists, explosive ordnance disposal experts (anti-sabotage), and LRRP personnel (as expected from airborne troops). This forces has the most extensive contact with outside special forces units, and regularly trains alongside US Navy SEALs, and Delta Force, as well as the GIGN and GSG-9. However, despite this large crop of dedicated special forces personnel, Saudi Arabia has insufficient quantities to provide all the security and support needed for their oil fields, US military bases, and their own military operations. Thus, additional units may already be forming.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

26-05-2005, 05:43

Army
75,000 active personnel
75,000 national guard

Tanks
315 M1A2 export
290 AMX-30B2
450 M60A3

Recon
300 AML 60/90

IFV/APC
400 M2 Bradley
580 AMX-10P
1750 M113
150 Panhard M3 APC

Artillery
110 M109A2 155mm SP
90 GCT 155mm SP
8 M115 203mm TH
90 M198 155mm TH
50 FH-70 155mm TH
100 M101/2 105mm TH
60 ASTROS II MRL
110 120mm mortar
400 107mm mortar
300 81mm mortar

SSM
10 CSS-2 MRBM

Antitank
600 TOW ATGM (200 on vehicles)
600 HOT ATGM (100 on AMX-10P)
1000 M47 Dragon ATGM
50 106mm RR
100 90mm RR
300 84mm RR

Antiaircraft
40+ Crotale SAM
300+ Stinger SAM
500 Redeye SAM

Aircraft
12 AH-64
12 S-70 Black Hawk
22 UH-60
15 B406CS

Air Defense
16,000 active personnel

SAMs
128 I-Hawk (16 batteries)
141 Shahinya (68 in 17 mixed batteries, 73 detached stationary)
40 Crotale

AAGs
50 AMX-30SA 30mm SPAAG (17 mixed batteries)
128 35mm AAG
90 20mm AAG
150 40mm Bofors AAG (mothballed)

Air Force
20,000 active personnel

Combat
142 F-15
24 Tornado ADV
76 Tornado IDS
77 F-5E/F

Recon
5 E-3A
10 RF-5E

Tanker
8 KE-3A
7 KC-130H

Cargo
41 C-130E/H
6 VC-130H
4 Cessna 172
8 L-100-300HS
2 C-140
4 CN.235
2 Gulfstream
2 Learjet

Helicopter
22 AB.205
25 AB.206B
28 AB.212
12 AS.332
3 AS.61

Trainer
50 Hawk
50 PC-9

Navy
15,500 active personnel (incl 3000 marines)

Frigates
3 Arriyad FF (4650 tons) modified Lafayette
4 Al Madinah FF (2610 tons)

Missile/Patrol Boats
4 Badr Corvette (1038 tons)
9 Al-Siddiq MB (495 tons)
4 Addiriyah Patrol Minesweeper (407 tons)

Mine Countermeasures
3 Al Jawf Minehunter (480 tons)

Auxiliaries
2 Boraida FRO (10,500 tons)

Marines:
3000 active personnel

Vehicles:
140 BMR-600P

Coast Guard
4500 active personnel

4 large patrol boats
30 small patrol boats
16 air cushion vessels

Pasture boy country

05-06-2005, 19:31

Daistallia 2104

06-06-2005, 04:43

Where in Nationstates do you find info like this? I'm really new... :P

Nation: Blablalblalbla
Population: 24.3 million
GDP: $269 billion
GDP Per Capita: $11,069.96
Active Military: 126,500
Portion of Population: 0.521%
Military Spending: $27.1 billion
Portion of GDP: 10.1%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $214,229.25
Military Nature: Defensive
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Moderate
Experience: Moderate
Training: High
Equipment: Mostly Modern

Most of this is figured out by the players themselves. Read this thread through, especially the earlier parts, and it should help explain. Also read the stickies at the top of the forum.

As for this particular thread, CSJ does lots of research (TY, CSJ!), and the stats he's posted here are supposed to be models for you to build on. Pick a real country that fits you (size, economy, mindset), and use the stats as a model. Tweak (within reason) to fit.

Heh. Adjust those number ever so slightly, and you'd be pretty spot on for yourself, according to the thirdgeek calculator: http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Pasture%20boy%20country

New Emartia

20-06-2005, 22:00

Syskeyia

20-06-2005, 22:12

Clan Smoke Jaguar

21-06-2005, 02:08

How about this?
(I actually use the Sunset Experimental Calculator)

Nation: New Emartia
Population: ~69,000,000
Economy: Good
Total National Production: $673,261,610,720
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita: $9,757
Government Budget: $217,767,109,339
Military Spending: $44,359,160,172 (21% of Budget)
Military Total: 311,342
Active Millitary Total: 241,557
Spending per Active Soldier: $183,638
Spending per total Soldiers: $142,477
Militia: no official millitia
Military Nature: Defensive
Infrastructure: Good
Logistics Support: Very Good
Experience: Moderately High
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

Navy:
Active:
11,727 combat ship crew at any one time
128,997 support (support craft, additional crews, etc.)
140,724 total
Reserve:
30,000
Marines:
1,000 combat
7,000 support
no reserve
Air Force: None
Army:
39,785 reserve
92,833 active
132,618 total

Army subdivision
~47,000 support
~45,000 combat
The ~45,000 combat consists of roughly 76% support lower that division level (total) leading to a total overall 1:7 fighting:support
brigades (of 5,000)
3 armoured (160 MBT each, plus artillery and LBT support)
4 infantry
1 urban warfare infantry
1 artillery

Ships:
Battleships:1
Light carriers: 2 (16 DAAC-113 Pegasus, similar to Harrier)
Amphibious transport dock: 1 (counted as combat)
Guided Missie Cruiser: 2
Destroyers: 3
Guided Missile Cruisers: 2
Attack Submarines: 1
Battlecruisers: 2

Additional Notes:
New Emartia is bordered on the north by Emartia, the country from which it originally rebeled. This border is heavily disputed, and as such New Emartia maintains a constant presence on this border. All arms are provided by Lishtan, it's southern neighbour.
There is no problem with the overall numbers. In fact, this is one of the better ones I've seen in awhile. However, your navy is too capital-ship heavy. Essentially, you have an all-or-nothing force, with only enough escorts for one of the capital ships, or all of them if they stick together. I advise a ratio of at least 5 escorts per capital ship, with 7-10 being more optimal. Even if those battlecruisers qualify as escorts (which I kind of doubt they would, as even the Kirov should have its own escort with it), you have a rather poor 3:1 ratio, and if they're not escorts, as I suspect, that 1.75:1 ratio is just painful. The options are either to drop a few capital ships (for now), or add more escorts.
With a force like that, you also need more ASW capability, with more purpose-built ASW vessels (frigates in western, ASW DDs in Warsaw pact tech), and some more submarines. As it stands, one or two of my subs would probably wipe out your entire fleet in a single sortie. You don't want that kind of vulnerability.

Finally, if you're dealing with a hostile neighbor who shares a sea border with you (don't know if this is the case, but I'll assume it is), you should be focusing mostly on littoral warfare, with fast corvettes and missile boats being the bulk of your fleet, and a few diesel-electric or AIP patrol submarines. The current force is expeditionary in nature, and would only be advisable if you had no seaborne threats.

New Emartia

22-06-2005, 23:33

There is no problem with the overall numbers. In fact, this is one of the better ones I've seen in awhile. However, your navy is too capital-ship heavy. Essentially, you have an all-or-nothing force, with only enough escorts for one of the capital ships, or all of them if they stick together. I advise a ratio of at least 5 escorts per capital ship, with 7-10 being more optimal. Even if those battlecruisers qualify as escorts (which I kind of doubt they would, as even the Kirov should have its own escort with it), you have a rather poor 3:1 ratio, and if they're not escorts, as I suspect, that 1.75:1 ratio is just painful. The options are either to drop a few capital ships (for now), or add more escorts.
With a force like that, you also need more ASW capability, with more purpose-built ASW vessels (frigates in western, ASW DDs in Warsaw pact tech), and some more submarines. As it stands, one or two of my subs would probably wipe out your entire fleet in a single sortie. You don't want that kind of vulnerability.

Finally, if you're dealing with a hostile neighbor who shares a sea border with you (don't know if this is the case, but I'll assume it is), you should be focusing mostly on littoral warfare, with fast corvettes and missile boats being the bulk of your fleet, and a few diesel-electric or AIP patrol submarines. The current force is expeditionary in nature, and would only be advisable if you had no seaborne threats.

First, there was a typo. It was supposed to be "2 Guided Missle Frigates" the second time, not "2 Guided missle cruisers."

Guided Missie Cruiser: 2
Destroyers: 3
Guided Missile Frigates: 2

Agreed, it is capital-ship heavy. A littoral fleet is currently under contstruction, (but I can only design ships so quickly , and I prefer my own designs.) The Battleship and Battlecruisers are more of a statement and part of New Emartia's contribution to MERDEP (the region's defense alliance) than necessarily an actual defensive asset.

Actually, the destroyers, I think(I don't have the information on me right now) have some decent ASW capability, and the frigates definately do.

What are you counting as capital ships and escorts, in this case?

Finally, its only so good because I've been reading your numerous military threads for the past few days. I really enjoy them. Keep it up.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

23-06-2005, 05:24

Capital ships are essentially those vessels that provide a significant presence (even in RL, one does not tremble over the presence of a single destroyer near their shores, but even a light carrier . . .). While this does provide an open term, another way to look at it is that they are high-profile surface vessels that would not be sent out alone. Battleships and Carriers/Aviation Cruisers are the most obvious examples, as only a fool would send them out alone under any circumstances, but battlecruisers, gun cruisers, and other "large cruisers" are all vessels that could be considered capital ships, to some degree. Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes, and some types of Cruiser would all be considered patrol or escort vessels, and missile/torpedo/patrol boats are considered patrol vessels. That's the breakdown in a nutshell.

Tom Joad

23-06-2005, 19:04

Firstly, don't quote huge chunks of pointless text like that, it's rather annoying.
Secondly you decide for yourself how much of your budget and GDP is assigned to the military.
Thirdly issues are a game device, there's nothing that says you have to RP under those conditions though. Plenty of people completely ignore the stats provided by the game and go do their own thing.

Spanigland

23-06-2005, 20:41

Superb, although, i have one question, even though my nation has no millitary funding whatsoever, would we have any millitary at all, as in, volunteers and militta and the like... considering we have a population upwards of 350 million?
Oh, and can someone give me the thirdgeek URL....

Mozraq

24-06-2005, 00:05

Where you guys getting these numbers? Are they made up or is there really a way to get these details on your nation?

Narius

24-06-2005, 01:31

OOC: I would first like to say thank you very much for all the time you've put in this, and all the other articles you have written. You have pretty much caused me to return to NS. BTW, I would love to RP with you sometime (with either this, or my actual nation, the Canadian Tundra)

Some back story on Narius, it has gotten out of decades of civil unrest and conflict between various clans, families, and independent warlords. Groups of these forces came together and created a new democratic government, and quickly brought the rest of the nation into the fold. As such, the nation is in ruins, and I will be posting economic development threads soon (tonight or tomorrow morning, if anyone is interested) thus the military is a thrown together force of the militaries of these various factions

IC:
Population: 5,000,000
Active Military: 115,000 (2.3%)
Militia (unofficial): 127,000 (armed civilians who are willing to fight, only when attacked, or can be raised into combat formations, generally lack any sort of training, not supported by government)
Grand Total (govenment funded): 115,000 million (2.3%)
GDP Per Capita: $3,660.33
GDP: $18,301,642,379.84
Military Budget: $777,004,614.89 (9%)
Budget Per Active Soldier: $6,756.56
Military Nature: Guerilla warfare, attrition

115,000 personnel total:
Air Force:

272x Yak-3
21x Mig-15
24x An-2 Transport planes
Total: 3,122 personnel

Navy:
6x Merchant Cruisers
12x Patrol Boats
Total: 1,500 personnel

Army:
389x T-34 Tanks
109x T-55 Tanks
128x BTR-40 APCs
37x BMP-1 IFVs
92x 76.2mm Pack Guns
23x 122mm SP guns
42x towed 122mm guns
241x towed twin 23mm AA guns
Combat vehicle/artillery/AA force total: 10,610

487x 2.5 ton trucks
609x Technicals
212x Jeeps
Crew and maintenance personnel: 7,848

91,920 Light Infantry (official designation, personnel contain all sorts of skills and perform
variety of tasks, infantry formations also often double as engineer and combat support formations)

Army:
Specialties: Guerilla Warfare
Infrastructure: Non-existant
Logistics Support: Extremely poor
Experience: Very High
Training: Varies, mostly very poor
Equipment: Antiques

Narius' army is built around the personal armies of the various families, clans, and warlords that have been fighting for control over the past decades. For the most part, the army is composed simply of light infantry equipped with Kalashnikov rifles, WW2 sniper rifles, WW2 and early cold war vehicles, and an utterl lack of training and cohesion. Being forged out of so many different forces it is an ad-hoc organization with no clear chain of command and is more or less unable to put up anything but a guerilla defence. The armour force is small, and comprised mostly of T-34 tanks, the only IFVs are a handful of BMP-1s and the few APCs are BTR-40s. There is only enough transport, in the form of APCs, trucks, technicals, and jeeps to move a fraction of the army, and not a single dedicated engineering vehicle to the whole force. There are no missile systems, and the air defences are comprised only of twin 23mm guns. The artillery arm consists of a couple dozen self propelled 122mm guns, 76.2mm pack guns, and core force of 122mm towed guns.

The army formations vary from group to group, although the government is trying to hammer out a set chain of command, training standards, and organization. Training is mostly next to non-existant, most having been crash trained by their clan or family, and the only truly trained troops are the elite (relatively) Parliamentary Guard regiment, the only professional, disciplined, and dedicated force in the whole army. This force was the private army of warlord Theodore Herring, and he still retains command and is the minister of defence.

The rest of the army is all infantry, who have to double as combat support, logistics, engineers, and fill the various other roles needed by the army. They are equipped mostly with RPD and RPK machine guns, AK-47s, and RPGs. The saving grace of the army however, is its extensive combat experience from decades of war. What each soldier lacks in training, he can make up for from brutal first hand experience of warfare.

While the army desperately needs to be thinned out, reorganized, retrained (or in some cases, trained in the first place), and re-equipped, the goverment lacks the funds to do so, and while it does have a decent budget, much of the military budget is being redirected towards reconstruction and economic development, and there is little if any available for reform, only barely enough to maintain soldiers' paychecks and meals. The government also hopes to use the army as part of the economic development programs, as a labour force, to help with construction and farming mostly.

Navy:
Specialties: None
Infrastructure: Almost none
Logistics Support: Very poor
Experience: Low
Training: Very low
Equipment: Antiques
The Narius navy consists of a mere twelve converted merchant ships, which have been fitted with machine guns, rockets, mortars, and small cannons, and a dozen patrol boats which have small guns, machine guns, and a pair of torpedos each. Narius also has 5 WW2 U-boats in possession, but they are in need of repair and crews before being able to be used.

The only purpose of the Narius navy is anti-piracy and river/coastal patrol, mostly against any sort of insurgency opposed to the new democratic regime.

Air Force:
Specialties: Ground assault
Infrastructure: Very poor
Logistics Support: Horrific
Experience: High
Training: Very poor
Equipment: WW2 planes
When looking at the numbers, the Narius air force looks impressive, with a whopping 293 combat aircraft to its name. However, 272 of those aircraft are WW2 Soviet Yak-3s fitted with 20mm and 12.7mm guns. Each Yak however can also hold small bombs, so they often perform ground attack operations against infantry formations, the predominate combat formation of the decades of war going on in Narius. There are also 21 Mig-15 fighters, which, while slightly more useful than the Yak-3s, are unable to stand up to anything in use with any modern nation.

The airforce also has 24 An-2 transports, these were used by the Arein family to transport their paratroopers, these paratroopers form 1 Airbone regiment and 2 airborne regiment, and besides the Parliamentary Guard, are the only other half trained outfit in the Narius army. As for support, the airforce controls seven airbases, with planes spread more or less evenly around them. All air defences are under army control in the form of 23mm guns, everything else having been destroyed. The government is considering cutting back half of the Yak-3s and converting them to crop dusters, as the propeller planes are useless in modern combat.

Service Levels:

Active: These are the former armies of the families, clans, and warlords who fought for control of Narius over the past decades. It is an ad-hoc group, unable to effectively defend the country with almost no training or decent equipment besides AK-47s. It will most likely be used to assist in economic development, then reformed.

Independent Militia: These are civilians who still hold mostly family, clan, or warlord loyalties. They generally have no training but will often have a semi-automatic or an AK stashed at home, and be willing to fight. They will usually only fight if there homes are attacked, though under extreme conditions, they could be recruited and formed into rag-tag brigades for delaying an enemy, or act as guerilla fighters.

Enlistment: Many are volunteers, others were conscripts who simply ended up in service to the government when it formed. Each clan or family or warlord had their own recruiting methods, so it varies from group to group, person to person. The government intends to maintain a conscript based army for the forseeable future, though this may change one day.

Commissions: Narius has no military school to speak of, and all officers are either self appointed, elected by their own troops, or granted the rank based on their wealth, social status, position within a family or clan, or because they proved themselves on the field of battle. This has lead to a range of officers from charismatic politicians who simply got groups of troops to fight for them, to utterly useless commanders with family ties, to excellent battle hardened veterans.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

24-06-2005, 02:56

Spanigland: If that's what a calculator says, you can just ignore it. The calculators are a tool that only provide things in very general terms at best. Budget breakdowns are especially bad in just about all of them, so no one will think less of you for ignoring them. In fact, many will think more highly of you for doing so :p
If this is the way you actually want it though, than no, your nation will not have an official army under the control of the government. This does not stop you from having private military formations (ie, small militia units, or warlords like those in the above post, who wouldn't necessarily answer to the government). You have the freedom to do as you choose. But I can guarantee this, you have to have some form of military power, or you have no excuse for the autonomous existance of your nation, especially in NS. :D

Mozraq: The numbers are mostly generated by us, but usually through informed comparisons to things in real life, such as the numerous nations I've provided detailed military info on.

Narius: If I get finished with what I'm doing, I may take you up on that offer. Right now, however, a massive update to the store front is underway. To give an idea, I just put together 30 pages worth of equipment for the ground section, and I've got a long ways to go.
When that's done, it's possible, though I may end up with other plans by then.

As for the army, I really like the detail, and especially like the "Horrific" description of Air Force Logistics. However, I do have a few suggestions:
I think the 75 and 105mm howitzers, and 40mm AA guns don't quite fit in with the cast-off Soviet motif. For the howitzers, the 105mm caliber is distinctly western in origin (most notably Germany and the US in WWII). For the USSR, it would be 122mm weapons, maybe the M-30 (aka M1938), which was the standard WWII light howitzer for the Soviet Army. Also better for the future, as it has the same carriage as the D-1 (M1943) 152mm gun, making an easy transition or inclusion of that weapon. Similarly, the Red Army was equipped mostly with 76.2mm howitzers rather than the 75mm guns just about everyone else used. They also were used mostly for direct support.
For air defense, it's a similar thing. The 40mm gun, while famous and well-known, was a Swedish design, and saw use in the USSR mostly through Lend-Lease. Distinctly Russian AA guns would be 14.5mm (twin or quad), 20mm, 23mm (twin), 57mm (single), and 76.2mm (heavy).

Also an interesting choice in the MiG-3, which was a rather weak performer even when it was in its prime. I'd personnally have gone for something that's unknown, but still effective, like a Yak, or maybe a version of the P-39 if you really want to be adventurous (I know it's a western design, but that was definately a Soviet fighter).

Narius

24-06-2005, 12:01

Thanks for the advice, I'll start switching around that equipment, I didn't have time to search for proper soviet equipment, been studying for exams. Can't wait to see your storefront update, might just head over there to start rebuilding the military once the economy's up a bit

Hate Gays

30-09-2005, 17:50

How do you create armies and things of that sort?? bc i m lost....i didn't know that you could bc i am new and yea...i wasnt sure of all of that stuff :headbang: ............................... :sniper: walled LOL

Resdyn

24-02-2006, 22:17

Hope I'm not posting in the wrong spot, but this seemed right.... Is the size of my military appropriate for a nation of 18 million? If not, please give me some suggestions. And yes, I know I don't have any support vehichles written down. I just assume those to be part of my support troops.

PEOPLE'S ARMY
Five legions of 1200 mechanized infantrymen (using M2A3 Bradly Linebackers) and 100 M201 Crusaders each (2,400 combat troops & 9,600 support troops each)

Two Legions of 1000 M1A2 Main Battle Tanks and 100 M201 Crusaders each (4,600 combat troops & 23,000 support troops each)

Three wings of 36 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs each (36 combat troops & 432 support troops each)

Additional troops: The People's Army maintains additional forces, including 300 Avengers and approx 40,000 additional support troops (Total: 41,200 troops)

Total Forces: 21,308 combat troops & 93,496 support troops

PEOPLE'S NAVY
Resdyn possesses no major naval forces at this time, though production has begun on several frigates and the nation's flagship, BBN-001 Resdyn, is nearing completion.

PEOPLE'S AIR FORCE
Ten wings of 12 F-22A Raptors and 24 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (modified to have missile bays the size of the F-35A & C) each (36 combat troops & 432 support troops each)

Two wings of 36 B-52H Stratofortresses each (180 combat troops & 900 support troops each)

Total Forces: 720 combat troops & 6,120 support troops

*And if this all seems a little expensive, I've been building this up from Day 1 on the principle that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, AND I took out a loan - that I'm not quite sure I needed... Oh well, I'll do the calculations later...

Layarteb

25-02-2006, 06:46

Very good thread. During peacetime I have 1.1% of my population in my armed forces and I can go to about 4% during full total war.

Clan Smoke Jaguar

25-02-2006, 09:41

Neuvo Rica

25-02-2006, 14:55

I tend to rest my peace time military at about 1.4%ish in war that can go much higher, 3%-3.5%

Resdyn

25-02-2006, 15:11

The force itself isn't much of a problem, but you're short on support personnel. For an army, there should be at least 5 support personnel for every combatant all told, and up to 8 or more in a more modern mechanized force (which this is). For an aircraft unit integrated into army infrastructure, there should be about 14-15 support personnel per aircraft. For an air force, I'd look to at least 45 total personnel (including pilots) per aircraft. This goes up when you add force multipliers with large crews like AWACS (most modern air forces are closer to 70 personnel per aircraft).

Better?

PEOPLE'S ARMY
Five legions of 1200 mechanized infantrymen (using M2A3 Bradly Linebackers) and 100 M201 Crusaders each (2,400 combat troops, 19,200 support troops each)

Two Legions of 1000 M1A2 Main Battle Tanks and 100 M201 Crusaders each (4,600 combat troops , 36,800 support troops each)

Three wings of 36 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs each (36 pilots, 1,620 support troops)

Additional troops: The People's Army maintains additional forces, including 300 Avengers and approx 40,000 additional support troops (Total: 41,200 troops)

Total Forces: 21,308 combat troops & 215,660 support troops

PEOPLE'S NAVY
Resdyn possesses no major naval forces at this time, though production has begun on several frigates and the nation's flagship, BBN-001 Resdyn, is nearing completion.

PEOPLE'S AIR FORCE
Ten wings of 12 F-22A Raptors and 24 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (modified to have missile bays the size of the F-35A & C) each (36 combat troops & 2,520 support troops each)

Two wings of 36 B-52H Stratofortresses each (180 combat troops & 16,200 support troops each)

Total Forces: 720 combat troops & 57,600 support troops

*And if this all seems a little expensive, I've been building this up from Day 1 on the principle that 1 RL day = 1 NS year, AND I took out a loan - that I'm not quite sure I needed... Oh well, I'll do the calculations later...

Clan Smoke Jaguar

25-02-2006, 16:56

That looks good there. Now, just remember that once you're a dozen or two times your current size, you might want to start thinking about dropping active numbers a bit (I'm assuming those are all active). 1.5% is a bit high for a good modern military.

Layarteb

25-02-2006, 17:00

CSJ, I must ask, is there anything like a 7% rule? I have never heard of it now have I seen it anywhere. I knew about the 5% being wartime and lesser for peacetime but I was never aware of anything larger or rather even people keeping as many as 7% during peacetime.

Resdyn

28-02-2006, 21:11

I'm actually planning on focusing more on my air force than anything else - lots of bombers and fighters can really ruin someone's day....

Clan Smoke Jaguar

06-03-2006, 08:11

Japanese Army

Nation: Japan
Army: Japanese Ground Self Defense Force
Air Force: Japanese Air Self Defense Force
Navy: Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force
Population: 127.417 million
GDP: $4.623398 trillion
GDP Per Capita: $36,285.57
Active Military: 238,300
Portion of Population: 0.187%
Military Spending: $45.841 billion
Portion of GDP: 0.99%
Spending Per Active Soldier: $192,366.76
Military Nature: Defensive/Garrison
Infrastructure: Moderate
Logistics Support: Poor
Experience: Virtually Nil
Training: High
Equipment: Modern

What it Means:
The constitution drafted at the end of WWII renounced the right of the nation to use military force to influence global events, and consequently, the nation cannot have offensive military capability. After the devastation caused on the home islands by the USAAF in WWII, peace has been a prevailing notion among the Japanese people, and this article has extremely widespread support. However, a loophole existed. There was nothing about establishing a defensive force for the purposes of protecting the nation against foreign aggression, and despite massive disapproval from the Japanese people and many other nations, the Japanese Self Defense Forces were established in 1952 (though it would be another two years until they did anything more than provide security for US bases), and were accorded the right to provide “the minimum defense necessary to face external threats.” Through the next 30 years, the primary role of the Self Defense Forces was merely to stall any invasion long enough for the US to come to Japan’s aid. However, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and buildup of forces in the Far East during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Japan began a major program to improve its defensive capabilities, both due to internal needs and pressure from other nations, especially the US, to maintain a more assertive role in its defense. Over the past few decades, the Japanese military has gradually began to accept a wider role, and can now also fight in support of US forces around Japan. It has also benefited from improved public relations, mostly due to a high emphasis on civil assistance and disaster relief rather than actual combat. They can also send troops abroad in accordance with UN peacekeeping mission, but care is taken to avoid sending combatants, which would still incite a great deal of unrest, both internally and internationally. Additionally, due to the long memories of Japanese atrocities in WWII, the nation should never send forces onto the Asian mainland, as this would incite China, North Korea, Vietnam, and a host of other Asian nations.
Today, Japan has one of the best militaries in the world, at least on paper. With a good standard of training and modern equipment, and the most powerful navy of all Asian nations, it can certainly hold its own against aggression. However, the defensive nature of the Self Defense Forces has dictated that they have the worst logistics support and infrastructure of any major world power. Indeed, due to lack of logistics and infrastructure, combined with the mountainous topography of most of the nation, the majority of the units in the Ground Self Defense Force are more like garrison units, with insufficient support to even operate beyond a specific assigned area, and the Self Defense Forces have little capability to project power beyond their borders, with few standoff weapons for aircraft and nothing more than a destroyer for naval power. They can defend themselves, and engage most Asian navies, but they can’t really launch a serious operation against mainland nations. The amphibious and air transport forces, while they are there, are barely sufficient for transporting troops among the Japanese home islands themselves, and there is no logistics support to back up an invasion, or even a raid, against holdings of other nations. Finally, as noted, the Self Defense Force’s primary role is civil assistance, especially disaster relief, due to both prevailing public opinion and lack of anything better to do. As such, the Self Defense Force is only capable of stopping an attack on the Japanese islands, not that any neighboring nation has the necessary forces, equipment, and support to launch a successful invasion in the first place.
As far as threats and enemies go, there are very few. Due to Japan’s strong ties with the US, as well as its status as a major economic power, it is within the best interests of neighboring nations to maintain at least cordial relations. Even North Korea tends to play nice. However, underneath, all nations that were subject to Japanese occupation during World War II have a deep seated hatred, especially China, though both Koreas, Vietnam, The Philippines, and several others can be included. However, they would not do anything without provocation due to both Japan’s own strength, and the backing of the US. More immediate threats are limited to potential attacks on Japanese soil due to American military presence, most notably as a means of slowing American reinforcement should North Korea again invade South Korea, and North Korean missiles can reach Japan. Similar things might happen if the US engages China. Beyond this, there is only the dispute over the Kurile Islands, which are claimed by Japan but have been occupied by the Russia since 1945. Though their only real strategic value is as a launch point for an invasion of Japan proper, which the CIS won’t do, the Japanese have long waited for a chance to take them back, and might try to do so by force if they think they can get away with it.

Equipment
Japan has a significant tank force, which isn’t surprising considering that they were expected to go up against a Soviet invasion. The mainstay of their forces are the Type 74 main battle tanks, which are comparable to the US M60, and have been in service since 1975, with a total of 870 having been built. It was originally intended to replace these with a new, advanced tank, which has become the Type 90, but due to economic and political considerations, procurement of Type 90 tanks has been painfully slow, and even now, only about 275 units have been built after 14 years of production. This low rate has also served to make the Type 90 phenomenally expensive, and it is, in fact, one of the most expensive tanks currently in service, despite being notably inferior to major western designs like the Challenger, Leopard 2, and Abrams. Because of the slow Type 90 production, only a modest number of Type 74 tanks have been decommissioned, with some 700 still in service, and they will probably provide most of the armor for the JGSDF for some time to come. Reconnaissance support is provided by the relatively modern Type 87 RPV, which provides good service for the rough terrain found in Japan, but is not amphibious and is otherwise not especially noteworthy, at least based on what info I could find. 90 of these have been delivered as of 2000, with initial statements suggesting a final requirement for 250 vehicles. Also, there are 290 Type 82 command and communications vehicles, which also can perform the reconnaissance role, and also include several NBCR units. These also have a capability to serve as APCs.
The infantry arm of the GSDF is being boosted by the continued production of the Type 89 ICV, which is an excellent IFV armed with a powerful 35mm cannon and a pair of ATGM launchers, and it has mobility and protection rivaling most western designs. However, only about 100 of these were in service by 2000, though there are certainly plans to equip more of them. On the lighter side, there are two older APC units, the Type 73 and Type 60, both of which date back to the Vietnam War. The Type 73 was intended to replace the Type 60, but due to the low production of the former, the latter will be in service well into this century. As of right now, I don’t know of any plans to replace these units, though it might be about time to think about that considering their age.
Artillery forces are modest, but contain some decent weapons. At the top of the list are 60 US MLRS launchers, which provide heavy and accurate long-range firepower through one of the best rocket artillery platforms currently in service. These are backed up by the US M110 203mm self-propelled howitzers, 90 of which are in service, and provide a serious heavy artillery capability. These are backed up by 200 Type 75 self-propelled 155mm guns, which provide a decent alternative to the M109 in service with most other US clients. Additionally, there are some 480 FH70 155mm field howitzers, which also provide solid performance. Though not very mobile, they fit well into the defensive and garrison nature of the GSDF. Another 60 lighter 130mm rocket launchers also exist, along with 1300 assorted mortars for the infantry. Altogether a notable force considering the nature of the military, though greater mobility might be something to think about in the future.
Antitank forces are one that I’m not too sure on. Though I have numbers, actual capabilities have been very difficult to find, so I really don’t know how well these units stack up against contemporaries, but I’ll assume equal footing for other weapons of the time. The mainstay of the force is the Type 87, which is a development of the older Type 64, as is the Type 79. All of these are manportable, but are lacking in range (only 2 km max), which leaves a need for longer-ranged weapons for vehicle and helicopter use, of which I don’t see. Future developments include the Type 96, which is a fiber-optic missile that looks extremely similar to the US EFOGM program, and will provide a good vehicle-launched unit, and a smaller missile intended as a replacement for the 84mm recoilless rifles like the Carl Gustav.
For air defense, the Japanese military is notably undergunned right now, relying mostly on semi-fixed HAWK units (200 of them) to deny the airspace above Japan to the enemy. The more mobile vehicle-mounted Type 81 was designed to replace the HAWK in some roles, but lacks the range to truly supplant it. A new medium range SAM is in development, but this isn’t going to be in service for some time, so for now, the HAWKs will have to do. For shorter range, there are some 320 US Stingers in the hands of the infantry, along with 110 of the indigenous Type 91 SAM launcher. Additionally, a similar missile to the type 91 is used in the Type 93 SAM vehicle, which is comparable to the US Avenger in role and capability (as well as appearance). Further support is found with a few dozen Type 87 twin 35mm self-propelled guns, which appear similar to the German Gepard, and an additional 30 or so towed 35mm weapons. All told, there is a solid point defense capability, though there is a lack of longer-range air defense support, though this could be covered by the Air Force, as any Air Self Defense Force Patriots would certainly be able to cover the GSDF considering deployment.
For aircraft, the GSDF is rather well equipped. Primary combat capability comes from some 86 license-built AH-1S helicopters, which, while certainly not the best, are still capable. However, plans are in place to replace them, and as many as 100 of a newer design may come in to do the job. Similarly, the recon force right now consists of some 160 Vietnam-era OH-6D helicopters, which could certainly use some replacement, as they’re more suited to a light attack and transport role than as scouts on the modern battlefield, lacking a mast-mounted sight (which would be phenomenally useful given the rugged terrain in Japan). As such, a new helicopter, dubbed the OH-1, has been put into production. So far, there are about 18 of these in service, and plans are for as many as 200, though that number may drop. For transports, the US CH-47 provides a heavy lift capability, with some 32 units in service. Backing these up are 23 Japanese variants of the UH-60 Black Hawk, and for the lighter role, 155 of the dated, but robust UH-1H and UH-1J helicopters, the latter of which are still in production.

The Japanese Air Self Defense Force is quite well equipped, with the mainstay of its combat capability coming from some 202 F-15J aircraft (including F-15DJ two-seat trainers). Though these are excellent performers, the design is feeling its age, and these are notably inferior to many of the Russian and western fighters on the market. However, they are more than a match for the other Asian air forces, which all lack sufficient numbers of such high-end aircraft to truly threaten Japan. And there have been some whispers of a possible sale of US F/A-22A Raptor fighters to Japan, which could give the nation complete air dominance in the region if procured in any but the most modest numbers. Added to these are some 90 F-4EJ Kai aircraft, which are F-4Es that have been heavily upgraded, and are still quite capable. These are expected to all be retired by 2014. Similarly, the 18 remaining F-1 aircraft are expected to be retired within the year, as the more capable F-2 comes online. There are currently some 60 F-2s in service, with up to 130 aircraft intended (some suggest as many as 200 though). The F-2 is a heavily modified F-16 (the most notable difference being its larger size), and will replace all F-4EJ Kai and F-1 aircraft by 2014.
Reconnaissance is provided primarily by 27 RF-4EJ aircraft, which are still rather capable in that role, though reconnaissance will likely be eventually taken over by the F-2 aircraft. AEW is provided by a quartet of Boeing E-767 AWACS aircraft, which have the same AN/APY-2 radar as the newer E-3 Sentries in US service, but with a much more modern and capable airframe, as well as updated computer systems. Added to these are 10 smaller and somewhat less capable E-2C Hawkeyes, which can also perform maritime surveillance as well.
The cargo fleet is relatively modest since, as noted earlier, the GSDF is more of a garrison force, negating the need to ferry large amounts of personnel or equipment significant distances. The most important aircraft here is the indigenous C-1 transport, with 20 examples. These are very small (half the payload of a C-130), and quite old (1970s), and are currently intended to be replaced, along with most of the other models, by a new cargo aircraft, the C-X, that will also have high commonality with the indigenous P-X maritime patrol aircraft. Over 40 C-X aircraft are expected to be procured. In addition to the C-1s, there are 10 C-130H aircraft, which form the heaviest capability in the ASDF, and there are 10 YS-11E units, which are based on a small civilian airliner. 31 assorted utility aircraft round out the transport force.
The helicopters are a bit better, with 47 UH-60J aircraft for various utility duties, and 18 CH-47J units for a heavy lift capability. All told, this is a solid force considering the size of the ASDF.
The ASDF, as expected, has a solid force of trainers of varying age and quality (the T-1, which still remains in service, dates back to the 1950s). The most notable units here are the 40 T-2 advanced trainers, which are essentially F-1s, and are quite combat capable.
The air defense force is also quite significant, being designed to deal with both incoming ballistic missiles and large air campaigns, though its operation is hampered by the mountainous terrain of the nation, which can make it difficult to engage low-flying aircraft once they’re over land. The mainstay of this force comes from 27 air defense batteries made up of US Patriot PAC-2 missiles. These are excellent weapons, but of limited utility against potential North Korean missile strikes, and thus plans are up to procure PAC-3 missiles as well. Currently, a full launcher load of 16 PAC-3 missiles has been ordered (to be delivered by next year), with a total requirement for 200 PAC-3 missiles, primarily to protect against possible strikes from North Korea, which has been aiming its weapons at Japan in preparation for the possibility that the US will launch a campaign against its regime.

The Maritime Self Defense Force, as noted, is actually the most powerful Asian navy, with some 58 destroyers and frigates (still called destroyer escorts), along with 16 modern diesel-electric submarines. The submarine force consists primarily of the Oyashio submarines, which are quite capable, most notably in the area of sensor systems, and these stack up well against most other diesel-electric boats. By now, 8 of these should be in service, and it is expected that two more will be finished by 2007, which will complete a procurement of 10 vessels, and it has been suggested that at least one more has been ordered, for a total of 11 by 2010. These are supported by 6 Harushio submarines, which are essentially larger and quieter versions of the previous class, and are also quite capable (a 7th, the Asahio, was built as a training ship due to the limited capabilities of older vessels being insufficient for the role). At the bottom of the force are Yushio submarines, which are just a notch below the Harushio in capability. Of the original units, 6 have been decommissioned or relegated to training duties by now, leaving only 4 left. They will likely be removed from the active roster as well within a few years, though the last two may stick around for awhile, as there is a requirement to maintain a force of 16 submarines.
Of the greatest concern to many are the DDH-X units, up to four of which are planned, and will be 13,500 ton vessels with 4 helicopters, which may be capable of operating as very light carriers (carriers and nuclear submarines for the Japanese military have been strongly opposed by the US and Asian nations). These are intended to replace the Shirane and Haruna helicopter destroyers, which are capable ASW and patrol vessels intended for escort duties.
The most significant fleet capability comes from the 4 Kongo class guided missile destroyers, which are the first Non-US vessels to have employed the Aegis System, and are quite similar to the US Arleigh Burke vessels in capability. Additionally, an improved model is planned (the DDG-X), with at least 2 vessels being procured, and likely 4, possibly more. The Kongo vessels are intended as part of a two-tier air defense system, and will engage incoming aircraft and ballistic missiles as they cross the sea. Providing a less capable air defense are a pair of Hatakaze destroyers, which are equipped with the SM-1 missile. 3 Older Tachikaze class air defense vessels are also still in service, with their original Tartar missiles having been upgraded to SM-1s. It is expected that these will be phased out as the new DDG-X vessels come online.
The escort force is headed, after the DDH vessels, by the new Takanami class of general purpose escort destroyers, of which 4 should be in service by now, with another 4 planned. These are improved versions of the previous Murasame class, and judging from the armament, they appear have modest capabilities in all areas, being something of a jack-of-all-trades, though they still outperform most other Asian destroyers in most roles. The older Murasame vessels are somewhat less capable, particularly in the air defense role, but are still excellent modern vessels, and with 9 of them in service, they can do quite a bit themselves. Falling further behind are the 8 Asagiri vessels, which lack VLS, and are thus much more lightly armed than the succeeding classes, which were either designed with 32-cell launch systems, or had them installed later. The Hatsuyuki class vessels are old, but also the most numerically important, with 12 units in service. These set the tone for the current vessels, being the first to shift away from the ASW emphasis to a “general escort” role. There is also a single surviving Yamagumo light ASW destroyer, which is of a seriously dated design, and can be expected to join her 5 sisters in retirement soon. Further escort is provided by the 6 Abukuma DE vessels (an outdated class name that’s essentially a frigate), which are dedicated ASW units. The smaller Yubari and Ishikari classes (totaling 3 ships), are dedicated coastal patrol units.
A missile boat capability is also being generated, with 6 200-ton Hayabusa vessels commissioned, and some 4 more planned, which will provide a more credible local defense.
With the role of the Maritime Self Defense Force in the past, and the love of Soviet and Chinese planners of mine warfare, Japan provided a significant mine countermeasures force, including over 30 assorted minehunters and minesweepers, and 2 large tenders to support them.
The amphibious force, as previously noted, is rather small, consisting of a pair of decent sized LSD vessels, with 2 LSTs and 4 smaller LSU and LCU vessels, as well as 8 LCACs. As expected, this force would be hard pressed to deploy or support troops outside of the home islands, and are used mostly for ferrying troops internally.
The auxiliary force is quite large, including a number of training ships and submarines taken from the roster of older vessels that were intended to be decommissioned, as well as a quartet of small multiproduct replenishment ships, which provide some capability for extended deployments.
The naval air arm is quite significant, including some 97 P-3C Orion aircraft, which are among the best ASW and patrol aircraft in service, though they’re getting old and are intended to be replaced by 80 of the P-X that’s currently in development. There were are plans for them to acquire EH-101 units for mine countermeasures and transport work, along with several dozen of the SH-60K, which is an enlarged version of the older Seahawk. Some 36 of these are expected to be procured, in addition to the two evaluation units already delivered. These are supported by 97 of the SH-60J helicopter, as well as 10 MH-53E mine countermeasures unit, and 30 1960s era HSS-2B ASW helicopters (the latter two likely to be phased out within a few years), altogether providing a significant force.

Requirements for Copying the Japanese Military
1. Population of 60 million or more
2. Good Economy or better
3. Minimal capability to deploy combat forces outside of own borders
4. Limited internal transport and reinforcement capability
5. Most equipment can be modern, but some may be outdated for various reasons, especially if political freedoms are high.
6. Forces are almost entirely heavy infantry formations, with some armor and artillery support, but limited mobility.

ORDER OF BATTLE
Note: Mechanized Divisions generally have about 9000 personnel, while Infantry Divisions have 7000. Independent brigades have 3000-4000.

Northern Army:
Headquartered in the city of Sapporo, on the northern main island of Hokkaido, this was the vanguard of any defense against a Soviet invasion, which was expected to come from the Soviet-occupied Kurile Islands, which lie just off the northeast coast of Sapporo. As such, it is the single largest command, with about 40% of Japan’s total ground combat capability contained within (consider that the 7th is the only armored division in the GSDF, and has pretty much all the Type 90 tanks). The command’s four divisions are stationed around the island of Hokkaido, and include the following:
-7th Armored Division (headquartered at Higashi-Chitose)
-2nd Mechanized Infantry Division (headquartered at Asahikawa)
-11th Mechanized Infantry Division (headquartered at Makomania)
-5th Infantry Division (headquartered at Obihiro)
-1st Artillery Brigade (headquartered at Kita-Chitose)
-1st Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade (headquartered at Higashi-Chitose)
-1st Tank Group (headquartered at Kita-Eniwa)
-3rd Engineer Brigade (headquartered at Minami-Eniwa)

Northeastern Army
This command is headquartered in Sendai on the main island of Honshu, which lies about halfway between the northern tip of the island and Tokyo. The command encompasses most of the northern part of the Island. In the advent of an invasion that could not be contained in Hokkaido, this force would be holding the main route to Tokyo, and would also protect the area against smaller-scale operations such as airborne strikes. However, the area isn’t as strategically important and is not as heavily populated as the southern half of the island, so this command includes only two divisions, including the following:
-6th Mechanized Infantry Division (headquartered at Jimmachi)
-9th Infantry Division (headquartered at Aomori)
-2nd Artillery Group (headquartered at Sendai)
-5th Antiaircraft Artillery Group (headquartered at Hachinohe)
-2nd Engineer Brigade (headquartered at Funaoka)

Eastern Army
This is the central force, and is headquartered in Ichikawa, and is responsible for the area around Tokyo. However, it’s more of a central reserve, consisting of several brigades but only one division, including the following:
-1st Infantry Division (headquartered at Nerima)
-12th Infantry Brigade (headquartered at Somagahara)
-2nd Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade (headquartered at Matsudo)
-1st Engineer Brigade (headquartered at Asaka)
-1st Training Brigade (Takeyama)

Central Army
This command covers the area from Nagoya all the way through the western tip of Honshu, as well as the island of Shikoku, and covers many of the nation’s biggest cities, including Nagoya, Kobe, Kyoto, Hiroshima, and Osaka. The actual headquarters is in the city of Itami, and with two divisions and two independent brigades, this is the largest command beyond the all-important Northern Army. It includes the following:
-3rd Mechanized Infantry Division (headquartered at Itami)
-10th Infantry Division (headquartered at Moriyama)
-13th Infantry Brigade (headquartered at Kaitaichi)
-2nd Mixed Group (a combined infantry & armor brigade, headquartered at Zentsuji)
-8th Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade (headquartered at Aonogahara)
-4th Engineer Brigade (headquartered at Okubo)
-2nd Training Brigade (headquartered at Otsu)

Western Army
The final command is responsible for the island of Kyushu, as well as Okinawa, and is headquartered in Kengun. It consists of two divisions and one combat brigade, including the following:
-4th Mechanized Infantry Division (headquartered at Fukuoka)
-8th Infantry Division (headquartered at Kumamoto)
-1st Mixed Group (headquartered at Naha, on Okinawa)
-2nd Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade (headquartered at Iizuka)
-3rd Artillery Group (headquartered at Yufuin)
-5th Engineer Brigade (headquartered at Ogori)
-3rd Training Brigade (headquartered at Ainoura)

Special Forces:
Up until 1996, Japan had no genuine special forces units, with all roles they normally play going out to police forces. However, with several acts of terrorism, most notably the 1995 Sarin attack in the Tokyo Subway, and the rise of political and religious fanatic groups, they have been forced to provide increased capability in this role. The first unit formed was the Special Assault Team, a paramilitary force comprising of ten 20-man platoons and trained by such units as the French GIGN. It places particular emphasis on close-quarters situations, and maintains a specialist hostage rescue unit. These troops have also gotten the nickname of “modern ninja.” In addition to this, a Special Operations Warfare Center was established a few years later, and has facilitated a buildup of strong counterinsurgency and special operations forces drawn from the elite Airborne Brigade, with the capability still growing.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know