Vrak
18-12-2003, 06:58
Combat support ratios
I've been toying around with several approaches in fleshing out my military while trying to remain realistic. That is, I'm trying to fit in the very necessary combat support services which include, among other things: logistics, procurement, high command, research and development, and additional admin support. Keep in mind that this approach has not been meshed with the actual costs of said equipment.
One spread sheet had the number of 39% to include all of this. With aplogies to the author, I can't figure out how that number was arrived at so I essentially used some parts of it while discarding the rest.
Basically, I came at this with the idea of ratios. That is, a support ratio of actual fighting personnel as opposed to combat support personnel. I define "combat support personnel" as including the following: logistics, procurement, high command, research and development, and admin support. The categories of procurement, and research and development will most likely never be found on the field directly engaging the enemy. Will some scientist holed up in his lab suddenly grab his handy gun and go? If things got that desperate I would think that the local police, reserves, and citizen milia would be called up first.
This also means that I'm aware that if 1% of the total military personnel are involved in R&D and procurement (with quite a bit say being done by the civilian sector) it doesn't necessarily mean they will be getting 1% of the military budget. It would be safe to say that they get quite a bit more. Same with unique or special equipment - such as nukes.
So, using a population of 1.7 billion and one half of one percent (0.005) = total military personnel I get 8.5 million. I then divide it like so: 60% Army, 20% Navy, 20% Airforce, 10% Special (all the weird stuff)
Army = 5.1 million
Navy = 1.7 million
Airforce = 1.7 million
Special = 850 000
Some guidelines for my ratios. Generally, the more complex the equipment the more support I feel it needs. The more crew it takes to operate something will also require more support.
I'm also keeping in mind a statement made by William S. Frisbee Jr. ( a US Marine Non-Commisioned Officer and a squad leader.)
http://web.qx.net/warcat/milsf/
"It has been said that for every fighter there are five to twenty rear echelon non-combatants that support him and the other rear echelon non-combatants. Cooks, finance clerks, lawyers, chaplains, doctors, dentists, military intelligence specialist, cargo plane and helicopter pilots, military police, technicians, mechanics and more.
Logistics is the life blood of a military. If logistics is poor or nonexistent than the fighters will be severely vulnerable and unable to fight effectively."
So a light infantry soldier with AK-47, pistol, and gear needs a support ratio of 1:3 while an aircraft carrier is 1:50. Keep in mind I tried to translate these ratios covering all the branches of the military while keeping it simple. As well, it is assumed that the combat support doesn't need more support itself! It's built in the system. Finally, these numbers don't need to be whole numbers either. 1 soldier requiring 2.5 support works equally well and would be incentive for me to increase efficiency - like any large organization does. It's not like a squad of 4 troops have 1.6 people following them around.
Army
Light infantry 1:3
Medium infantry 1:4
Heavy infantry 1:5
mechanized 1:10
artillery light 1:5
artillery heavy 1:10
flying assets (helicopters, etc...) 1:20
Navy
Anything below a destroyer 1:20
destroyer, frigate, cruiser, sub 1:30
battleship, aircraft carrier 1:50
Airforce:
aircraft (older):support 1:20
aircraft (new):support 1:30
*debatable about the aircraft (or anything else for that matter) being older needing less support I suppose. If something keeps breaking down then it could be argued that it needs the same as a newer, fancier piece of equipment.
This seems to help me get a feel for how much I can actually field in accordance with how much support is required. So yeah, a large light infantry army could be done (5.1 million divided by 3 = 1.7 million) but that means zero ships, tanks, aircraft, etc...
I get some pretty bizarre figures though. A single Kreml class Aircraft Carrier Cruiser with a total crew of 2626 (1960 crew, 626 airgroup, 40 signal) has a support of 131 000 personnel! I don't know how much overlap is going on here, but to me it means that having 10 of these babies is testing the limits of my support and most likely, a very lopsided navy.
I'm also mindful that if I'm in a war footing, raising infantry would be the easiest. After all, the more complex the equipment usually translates into a longer training time. I would say it would be very doubtful for anyone who's country is under attack to suddenly field 30 magically appearing aircraft carriers, complete with experienced air groups.
As well, does civilian support get included in the military totals? I recall a recent IRC chat and so far, it was inconclusive.
I welcome your input and sorry for the monster post.
I've been toying around with several approaches in fleshing out my military while trying to remain realistic. That is, I'm trying to fit in the very necessary combat support services which include, among other things: logistics, procurement, high command, research and development, and additional admin support. Keep in mind that this approach has not been meshed with the actual costs of said equipment.
One spread sheet had the number of 39% to include all of this. With aplogies to the author, I can't figure out how that number was arrived at so I essentially used some parts of it while discarding the rest.
Basically, I came at this with the idea of ratios. That is, a support ratio of actual fighting personnel as opposed to combat support personnel. I define "combat support personnel" as including the following: logistics, procurement, high command, research and development, and admin support. The categories of procurement, and research and development will most likely never be found on the field directly engaging the enemy. Will some scientist holed up in his lab suddenly grab his handy gun and go? If things got that desperate I would think that the local police, reserves, and citizen milia would be called up first.
This also means that I'm aware that if 1% of the total military personnel are involved in R&D and procurement (with quite a bit say being done by the civilian sector) it doesn't necessarily mean they will be getting 1% of the military budget. It would be safe to say that they get quite a bit more. Same with unique or special equipment - such as nukes.
So, using a population of 1.7 billion and one half of one percent (0.005) = total military personnel I get 8.5 million. I then divide it like so: 60% Army, 20% Navy, 20% Airforce, 10% Special (all the weird stuff)
Army = 5.1 million
Navy = 1.7 million
Airforce = 1.7 million
Special = 850 000
Some guidelines for my ratios. Generally, the more complex the equipment the more support I feel it needs. The more crew it takes to operate something will also require more support.
I'm also keeping in mind a statement made by William S. Frisbee Jr. ( a US Marine Non-Commisioned Officer and a squad leader.)
http://web.qx.net/warcat/milsf/
"It has been said that for every fighter there are five to twenty rear echelon non-combatants that support him and the other rear echelon non-combatants. Cooks, finance clerks, lawyers, chaplains, doctors, dentists, military intelligence specialist, cargo plane and helicopter pilots, military police, technicians, mechanics and more.
Logistics is the life blood of a military. If logistics is poor or nonexistent than the fighters will be severely vulnerable and unable to fight effectively."
So a light infantry soldier with AK-47, pistol, and gear needs a support ratio of 1:3 while an aircraft carrier is 1:50. Keep in mind I tried to translate these ratios covering all the branches of the military while keeping it simple. As well, it is assumed that the combat support doesn't need more support itself! It's built in the system. Finally, these numbers don't need to be whole numbers either. 1 soldier requiring 2.5 support works equally well and would be incentive for me to increase efficiency - like any large organization does. It's not like a squad of 4 troops have 1.6 people following them around.
Army
Light infantry 1:3
Medium infantry 1:4
Heavy infantry 1:5
mechanized 1:10
artillery light 1:5
artillery heavy 1:10
flying assets (helicopters, etc...) 1:20
Navy
Anything below a destroyer 1:20
destroyer, frigate, cruiser, sub 1:30
battleship, aircraft carrier 1:50
Airforce:
aircraft (older):support 1:20
aircraft (new):support 1:30
*debatable about the aircraft (or anything else for that matter) being older needing less support I suppose. If something keeps breaking down then it could be argued that it needs the same as a newer, fancier piece of equipment.
This seems to help me get a feel for how much I can actually field in accordance with how much support is required. So yeah, a large light infantry army could be done (5.1 million divided by 3 = 1.7 million) but that means zero ships, tanks, aircraft, etc...
I get some pretty bizarre figures though. A single Kreml class Aircraft Carrier Cruiser with a total crew of 2626 (1960 crew, 626 airgroup, 40 signal) has a support of 131 000 personnel! I don't know how much overlap is going on here, but to me it means that having 10 of these babies is testing the limits of my support and most likely, a very lopsided navy.
I'm also mindful that if I'm in a war footing, raising infantry would be the easiest. After all, the more complex the equipment usually translates into a longer training time. I would say it would be very doubtful for anyone who's country is under attack to suddenly field 30 magically appearing aircraft carriers, complete with experienced air groups.
As well, does civilian support get included in the military totals? I recall a recent IRC chat and so far, it was inconclusive.
I welcome your input and sorry for the monster post.