NationStates Jolt Archive

Got a question as to the validity of your military? Want to know if something can be done, and how long appx. it would take? Want to know just how many men your naval task force comprises? Post your questions here, and I'll answer them as I see them. I have several years of experience as a plebe at the US Naval Academy, the US Army (infantry), deployment to Iraq for the initial invasion of the war, more than a year over there etc....I know quite a fair deal about the military, and what I don't know, I am in touch with people who DO know.

I've seen quite a bit of godmode-ing, and unrealistic militaries here. Hopefully I can help fix that.


Any questions, telegram to Iraqistoffle, addressed to Sultan Mustafa Walid al-Hussein Ahmad al-Muhammed.

or email daniel.g.rosenthal@us.army.mil

Perhaps one could answer me this: In peacetime, construction of a battleship of a certain class takes about 16 months. If I were to enact a full, Soviet-style wartime mobilisation of the population to industrial and military ends, and furthermore if I were to allocate approximately 35% of my available resources to it (population 1.63bn, Frightening economy), how much would this accelerate construction?

Question referred to my buddy, a ex-machinist mate 1 in the navy and current yacht repairman.


OOC I'm gonna be gone for up to a week doing relief for this hurricane....I'll answer any questiosn when I return.

According to him, the problem is this. Whilst you may have a population of 1.63 billion, only a comparatively small portion of those will be skilled in the necessary tasks to creat the ship.

ASSUMING THE SHIP HAS BEEN BUILT BEFORE, I.E. NOT A PROTOTYPE.....

There should be molding structures, lathes, and machine shops available for all the hull materials, however building those still takes time. Skilled electricians must be used to lay all the cabling, as well as IT engineers to lay the network infrastructure, weaponsmiths to make the cannons, etc. All this is limited too, by the fact that these people must pass a security clearance, not the easiest thing for most to do.

If you devoted every single resource you had to this, you may be able to do it in 3 months. Since you're looking at only 35%, his and my best guesses are 7-8 months. (the 35% doesn't carry well cause that doesn't take into effect that shipwrights won't be needed to design tanks for example.)

Could you please take a look at part of my storefront and see if prces are right. I try and use sensible numbers, but I dont trust myself.

The Site is www.freewebs.com/anatoray

(Only look at the Tank and APC page plz :P)

Thanks!

Righto, ta very much matey. Pass on my thanks to your friend, too. Turns out my estimate wasn't so wildly off after all, which is nice.

edit *deleted double post....oh, and I just noticed....your artillery unit shouldn't fire at 6-8 rpm....the fastest US SPH still fires at 4 rpm, dropping to 1 rpm for sustained fire. Even towed howitzers still fire an average of 5 at the most. at 6-8 sustained, barrel would foul too quickly.

Could you please take a look at part of my storefront and see if prces are right. I try and use sensible numbers, but I dont trust myself.

The Site is www.freewebs.com/anatoray

(Only look at the Tank and APC page plz :P)

Thanks!

APCs: Your prices are WAY too low.

Consider the m2 Bradley IFV has an average unit cost of a little over 3.1 Million.


Your designs are more similar to a stryker vehicle, or a modified LAV 25 style unit.

Your first unit is comparable to a LAV 25, with a per unit cost of a little over 900,000. Then again, yours have this remote gun system, advanced armor, etc. I'd say add an additional 60% for technical costs in your turret mechanism.

You're heavier projects look like the upcoming MAV/ICV/MGS projects, who's prices I don't have access too, but according to hearsay are definately upwards of 3 million a piece.

Oh, and unless you're looking at future armor designs (where you would have to at least double if not triple price per unit), your APC's are decidedly NOT going to stand up to 30mm cannon fire, nor will they survive a direct hit from a 105mm or higher MBT round.

BTW, the Fox looks pretty accurate in terms of price/survivability etc.

Now as for your tanks:

Your tanks contain a mix of designs from the t-72/merkava/leopard II and m1a2 Abrams.

Your "hammer" is underpriced. Average unit price for an M1a2 abrams is 4.3 million.

Your artillery piece....I can't find an accurate number hold on. It's comparable to the US m108 SPH........and at the moment I can't find costs for it. I'd venture to say, however, since the chassis is that of the m109 paladin, if you degun it down, it probablt would fit square into the 1.5 million range.





Overall: unless you're going for a future force...your armor is too strong, prices too low, and moving too fast for what you have.

Thank you very much. And yea I am exaturation on speed and armor. But hey this is NS you can do that a little. I will alter prices. Agai thanks

Yarr, likewise, will alter the secondary armament firing rates. I just remember being told that the 2S19 can get off that many shells per minute, somewhere...lol

Usually only towed artillery can get off more than 4 rpm. Self propelled artillery have too many limiting factors.

Does anybody know the rough number of tanks in a soviet union late warsaw pact era tank platoon, company, battalion, division?

Thank you

-Samantha, reigning General of the Vendrican Nation-

I found this. It appears to be fairly similar to a US armored battalion, appx. 12-16 tanks per company (4 per platoon.)


Infantry Tank Battalion

In 1940, a Infantry Tank Battalion. consisted of two Tank Companies, and support units.

38 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

16 x T-38 amphib tanks

22 x T-26



Paratroop Tank Battalion

In 1940, a Paratroop Tank Battalion consisted of three Tank Companies, and support units.

50 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

50 x T-38 amphib tanks



Independent Tank Battalion

In 1940, a Independent Tank Battalion consisted of three Tank Companies, and support units.

50 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

15 x BT tanks

35 x T-28



In September 1941, a Independent Tank Battalion consisted of three Tank Companies, a Motor Rifle Company, and support units.

29 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

130 x troops

29 x T-26 or BT tanks



In November 1941, a Independent Tank Battalion consisted of three Tank Companies, a Motor Rifle Company and support units.

36 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

202 x troops

20 x T-60 / T-70 tanks

11 x T-34/76 tanks

5 x KW tanks

now that I look at it, the numbers are right, but the TO+E is wrong.

for example...it says:

Paratroop Tank Battalion

In 1940, a Paratroop Tank Battalion consisted of three Tank Companies, and support units.

50 tanks and 0 armored cars were included.

In total the whole brigade consisted of:

50 x T-38 amphib tanks


They refer to the battalion as a brigade. All of this should be battallion level.

How much would one of these cost?

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

g11?

It wouldn't , because the rifle was never produced out of prototype. The plan was scrapped by HK.

Theoretically?

If HK had gone through with the rifle, it would probably cost about 800-1000 dollars per unit, due to the complex machinery of the weapon. (And that HK's are overpriced for their worth.)

Note this wouldn't take into account the hugely expensive ammo costs of paying for the caseless ammunition.

Does anybody know the rough number of tanks in a soviet union late warsaw pact era tank platoon, company, battalion, division?

Thank you

-Samantha, reigning General of the Vendrican Nation-
Obviously the information that followed your post was WW2 era.

The question is a bit of a muddled one because organization varied doctrinally depending on the nature of the unit. Basically there are tank divisions and mechanized infantry divisions. Both have tank units, and both have infantry units. In general the tank platoons and companies within an infantry division were smaller, based on 3-tank platoons.

So in a tank battalion within an infantry division:
4 per platoon, 13 per company, 40 per battalion.

In a tank battalion of a tank division:
3 per platoon, 10 per company, 31 per battalion.

For the division numbers I would have to do some checking because it gets a bit weird at the higher levels ("independent" units, etc.).

In an infantry division you need to think of the tank units as the heavy punch that you only see after the mechanized infantry makes contact and develop the battle. In a tank division you are more likely to see tanks earlier on the attack.

Situation and terrain dictate, but in general tank units are more suited to the offence and exploitation operations and infantry units more suited to defence.

Another big consideration is if the force Soviet or just "Sovietesque". The satellite nations of the USSR were decently (if not well) trained and maintained and sometimes had an operation niche within the larger Warsaw Pact. For example, Romania had chemical warfare expertise. African and Arab "client" states used Soviet equipment and sometimes organization but varied in quality from laughable to mediocre. While a tank battalion from one of these countries may have 40 tanks on parade, the number reaching the line of departure would be much less.

hey don't use any of that information I just posted there....it's all fucked up out of date. I just saw that it has "in 1941 an armored division blah blah" and its listing t-60 tanks. WTF? try waiting another 20 years.

Ok so as far as I can tell up through the end of the soviets they followed the 4 tank platoon, 4 platoon company, 3 company battalion method. Their motorized rifle regiments consisted of 2 BTR mechanized infantry battalions, and an armor battalion. Their heavy armored regiments were 3 battalions tank, with reinforced companies of organic infantry to support them (i.e. dismounts, for site security and labor.)


That should solve what you need.

Ok so as far as I can tell up through the end of the soviets they followed the 4 tank platoon, 4 platoon company, 3 company battalion method. Their motorized rifle regiments consisted of 2 BTR mechanized infantry battalions, and an armor battalion. Their heavy armored regiments were 3 battalions tank, with reinforced companies of organic infantry to support them (i.e. dismounts, for site security and labor.)
I'm 90% sure that the Soviets only used 3-platoon companies. As to 3 vs. 4-tank platoons, I addressed that in my previous post.

Just a nit to pick, but "motorized" and "mechanized" have particular meanings and it's not good to mix them up. Soviet motorized units were equipped with the BTR series of wheeled APCs while mechanized units were equipped with the BMP series of tracked infantry fighting vehicles.

Discussion of RP doesn't belong in Gameplay.

I'm 90% sure that the Soviets only used 3-platoon companies. As to 3 vs. 4-tank platoons, I addressed that in my previous post.

Just a nit to pick, but "motorized" and "mechanized" have particular meanings and it's not good to mix them up. Soviet motorized units were equipped with the BTR series of wheeled APCs while mechanized units were equipped with the BMP series of tracked infantry fighting vehicles.

I believe that you are forgetting to take into account the commanders tank in the tank divisions. I was always under the impression that they were 4-tank platoons (at least since the t-72) to try and counteract us M-60 platoons by the same amount of superior tanks, thus denying the m-60's the advantage of flanking. Then, when the M1 came out, they were forced to keep the same strategy so they wouldn't be attacking into a technologically superior tank with less numbers.


And as for motorized/mechanized...I know the correct term is a motorized rifle regiment/battalion. I refer to the BTR's as mechanized infantry because...well I was mechanized with the Army, and I'm used to referring to anything that a joe can ride on being mech. Technically the new SBCT Stryker's would be a motorized unit, but we refer to them as mech. Just a clash of two cultures I guess.



Stirner, you seem to be pretty knowledgable about modern military, feel free to help out here.

Got a question as to the validity of your military? Want to know if something can be done, and how long appx. it would take? Want to know just how many men your naval task force comprises? Post your questions here, and I'll answer them as I see them. I have several years of experience as a plebe at the US Naval Academy, the US Army (infantry), deployment to Iraq for the initial invasion of the war, more than a year over there etc....I know quite a fair deal about the military, and what I don't know, I am in touch with people who DO know.

I've seen quite a bit of godmode-ing, and unrealistic militaries here. Hopefully I can help fix that.


Any questions, telegram to Iraqistoffle, addressed to Sultan Mustafa Walid al-Hussein Ahmad al-Muhammed.

or email daniel.g.rosenthal@us.army.mil

I might have misunderstood, but do you mean you have several years as a plebe at USNA? You are only a plebe for one year....(or are only supposed to be) I'm just sorta confused... :(

I believe that you are forgetting to take into account the commanders tank in the tank divisions. I was always under the impression that they were 4-tank platoons (at least since the t-72) to try and counteract us M-60 platoons by the same amount of superior tanks, thus denying the m-60's the advantage of flanking. Then, when the M1 came out, they were forced to keep the same strategy so they wouldn't be attacking into a technologically superior tank with less numbers.
While I can see how a Western soldier could believe that the Soviets would have shifted doctrine because of a disparity between Soviet and American tank platoons, I doubt Soviet doctrine writers believed a tank platoon vs. tank platoon confrontation as worth consideration. When your smallest tactical unit is the division (rather than Western brigades and now even battle groups) you just don't worry about a one-tank flanking. Don't think of it as 3 vs. 4, but rather 10 vs. 4 or 31 vs. 14.
I did account for leader tanks at the company and battalion level. But at the platoon level in both East and West the platoon commander's tank is not independent but rather an integral part of the platoon. A tank company commander will move to where he can best influence the battle. A tank platoon commander must conform to the formation. If he breaks formation his platoon will probably either become confused or attempt to follow him (at which point the company commander will have some angry words to say over the radio). This is unlike a dismounted infantry platoon where the platoon commander has no "hard" place in the formation and can move to where he thinks he is needed most. A tank platoon commander has a degree of movement freedom analagous to an infantry squad leader (ie: not much).

Keep in mind that the ORBAT we are discussing is the Fulda Gap Soviet Horde scenario. The farther we get away from that, the more necessity influences organization.

And as for motorized/mechanized...I know the correct term is a motorized rifle regiment/battalion. I refer to the BTR's as mechanized infantry because...well I was mechanized with the Army, and I'm used to referring to anything that a joe can ride on being mech. Technically the new SBCT Stryker's would be a motorized unit, but we refer to them as mech. Just a clash of two cultures I guess.
Well the distinction is important because of the different capabilities of the BTR and the BMP (and now the Bradley and Stryker). I know that if the Intelligence Officer briefed me to expect one and I saw the other in combat I'd be a bit upset.

Stirner, you seem to be pretty knowledgable about modern military, feel free to help out here.
I may do that, but this thread is likely to get buried now that it is in a forum that is almost ten times as active as the one it was born in.

(this is my first post, so forgive me if it somehow goes wrong)

In case you need any more help with this thread, i happen to be a treadhead, so i know a fair bit about tanks, ifv's, and the like, and i've been looking for a way to get these storefront guys to stop with their insanly illogical tank designs, so if you need my help, just say so.

I might have misunderstood, but do you mean you have several years as a plebe at USNA? You are only a plebe for one year....(or are only supposed to be) I'm just sorta confused... :(
That's what I was about to say. You are only a plebe (freshman) for one year, and why, after five years in the Navy, are you joining the Army?

I might have misunderstood, but do you mean you have several years as a plebe at USNA? You are only a plebe for one year....(or are only supposed to be) I'm just sorta confused... :(

No I was a plebe for a summer, then dropped out. The several years includes the rest of time in service in the Army (where I continue today.)

"Keep in mind that the ORBAT we are discussing is the Fulda Gap Soviet Horde scenario. The farther we get away from that, the more necessity influences organization."

Which as we draw closer to the present time grew less and less realistic in reality.

As for what an intelligence officer would say.....eh. I'm an infantry grunt, all I care about is food, sex and blowing shit up.

yeah being buried would suck. I wonder if we can get a sticky?

and I'll keep it bumped.

Bizump

How long would it realistically take for me to recruit, train, and equip two mechanized infantry divisions of about 15, 000 men each?

With a population of 89 million, I have a fair economy bolstered by Arms Manufacturing and Uranium mining, I'd like to bring 1 division in within a year at a minimum of cost (how much would it cost?) and the 2nd within 2 years of beginning.

Additionally, how long would it take and how much would it cost to produce an air to ground attack capability to augment the effectiveness of these two divisions? I was thinking along the lines of an airborne gunship such as an Apache helicopter as opposed to a Fighter-bomber like the CF-18.

As a coastal nation, I find my security is often best enforced by a well-maintained coastal fleet with a well trained and equipped ASW capability. Right now I maintain 4 destroyers 3 diesel electric submarines and 7 frigates (with ASW helos such as the EH-101) that mainly enforce sovereignty, fishing rights and engage in anti-submarine war games. Any ideas on how to improve this naval force, complete with time and cost for any proposals? Large surface fleets are not in out strategic plans.

Usually only towed artillery can get off more than 4 rpm. Self propelled artillery have too many limiting factors.

Would you mind listing off a few?

How long would it realistically take for me to recruit, train, and equip two mechanized infantry divisions of about 15, 000 men each?
There are some factors involved that you'll have to consider for a realistic answer. The biggest factor is if this force is "from scratch" or simply an expansion of an existing military capability.

If your nation has 10 divisions then establishing 2 more isn't so hard. If your nation only has 1 existing division then getting 2 more is a big deal.

You've obviously modelled your nation after Canada, so I can use the Canadian context to explain...

First, recruiting new soldiers. In Canada it takes about 3 months to enrol a new soldier from the time he first submits an application. The time includes a security background check, interviews, aptitude tests, and medical testing. Once enrolled the soldier will be posted to a training unit for basic and trade-specific training. Total time for training is about 6 months and doesn't include advanced training for specialties including driving, vehicle gunnery, mortars, anti-armour, etc. Also that training time is increased from 2 weeks to 2 months because they'll be placed in a holding unit until the next course starts. Once a recruit is trained they are ready to be employed on operations, though they'll still be pretty green.

Assuming you don't have time to wait around for specialty training for new recruits, you'll have to use existing, more experienced soldiers to fill the newly created advanced positions, like driver or vehicle gunner. These will have to come from existing units. If the army is already large then this won't be a huge issue, but if this is a major expansion then the quality of existing units will decline as experienced soldiers are stripped away. Also the instructor cadre will have to be increased for both new recruits and advanced training. The likely result of all this is that whatever operations your military was previously engaged in are going to have to grind to a halt while these new divisions are trained up.

New leaders will have to be trained up as well. Existing corporals and trained privates (the same pool for advanced positions) are going to be trained for junior leadership roles. More senior non-commissioned officers are even more problematic because you'll need to train existing section commanders to be platoon second-in-commands and sergeants-major, but these same section commanders are needed to train recruits, advanced positions, and junior leaders!

On to officers. A mechanized infantry platoon commander takes at least a full year to train, and that's without any other military education like a service college. Company commanders don't grow overnight either. An officer needs at least 5 years experience before becoming a company commander (in Canada most company commanders have at least 10 years experience). Battalion commanders need about 10 years experience, brigade commanders 13, and division commanders about 18. Note that these numbers are all much lower than normal, but they are possible. Aside from platoon commanders, these officers are all going to come from your existing pool of officers, and there will be a general dilution of talent (commesurate to the size of your pre-expansion army).

Once all the individual training is complete your new units need to train collectively. Cohesive companies will take at least 3 months to make from scratch. You can train the more senior commanders by sending them on exchange to other countries (a Canadian officer is going to gain experience in brigade and division operations by going on exchange with the Americans or British), though a certain amount of time for collective training at battalion level is desirable. Brigade and division training can mostly happen through simulation, especially as time is a factor.

With a population of 89 million, I have a fair economy bolstered by Arms Manufacturing and Uranium mining, I'd like to bring 1 division in within a year at a minimum of cost (how much would it cost?) and the 2nd within 2 years of beginning.

Your population is about 3 times that of Canada, so we can assume an existing military of 3 divisions. Going from 3 to 5 is an increase of about 60% so that gives you some context for what I've said before. Your economy sounds somewhat worse than Canada's. The equipment is going to depend on the specifics of your economy and also possible trading partners. Is anyone equipped to build the necessary vehicles? Are there existing stockpiles? If a big friendly nation has a bunch of semi-obselete infantry carriers in storage then your order could be filled within a couple months. If the number of vehicles you require is a small blip in their normal production then you could get new vehicles delivered within a year. A division is going to be at least 450 armoured vehicles, with an average cost ranging from US$1 million to $3 million depending on quality. Other costs include salary (average of say US$25,000) for 15,000+ troops, maintenance, ammunition, fuel, infrastructure including barracks, and weapons. And remember, if you are desperate, the price goes up!

Additionally, how long would it take and how much would it cost to produce an air to ground attack capability to augment the effectiveness of these two divisions? I was thinking along the lines of an airborne gunship such as an Apache helicopter as opposed to a Fighter-bomber like the CF-18.
Quoting a webpage: "In September 2003, Greece ordered 12 AH-64D for a total cost of $675 million (presumably including weapons and support), indicating a gross unit cost for the AH-64D of $56.25 million."
Now that's high-end for the most advanced model and a small order. But pilots are expensive, especially to train, and they take several years to be combat-ready. You can speed this along by paying out big cash for foreign pilots for the first few years. Also aviation units have huge supporting costs, including mechanics and other logistics.

As a coastal nation, I find my security is often best enforced by a well-maintained coastal fleet with a well trained and equipped ASW capability. Right now I maintain 4 destroyers 3 diesel electric submarines and 7 frigates (with ASW helos such as the EH-101) that mainly enforce sovereignty, fishing rights and engage in anti-submarine war games. Any ideas on how to improve this naval force, complete with time and cost for any proposals? Large surface fleets are not in out strategic plans.

During the election, Canada's Conservative Party brought up buying support ships that could transport battlegroup sized forces with equipment. You may have heard them referred to as "aircraft carriers" when the Liberals attacked the proposal, but they are no such thing.

Also if there are constricted seaways you might consider a SOSUS network. Basically it is an underwater passive sonar array. You can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS).

Hope this helps!

Would you mind listing off a few?
Iraqistoffle may have more but one I can think of is that the enclosed nature of the vehicle means that it is harder to load, and sustained fire is difficult because you can't stockpile ammunition as conveniently. Barrel heat and vehicle ventilation are other reasons that may apply.

This webpage (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109.htm) states the rate of fire for the M109 SP artillery as:

Maximum Rate of Fire......4 rds/min for 3 min
Sustained Rate of Fire......1 rd/min for 60 min......1 rd/ 3 min thereafter

Would you mind listing off a few?

Fewer crewmembers, less space for ammunition, barrel cannot be changed in the field, more complex system etc.

SPH's are designed to shoot and scoot to avoid counter battery fire. Hence a Paladin can go from full speed, stop, aim, fire, and move again in 60 seconds.

Just so you know, usually the driver is the least experienced member of the crew (unless you have a loader, in which case, he is the least experienced.)

I don't think those numbers for command time are all that low. In fact the battalion command one seems a bit high.

To throw out a number, it took a year to for the Stryker Brigade Combat team to coalesce into a cohesive unit of action.

There are some factors involved that you'll have to consider for a realistic answer. The biggest factor is if this force is "from scratch" or simply an expansion of an existing military capability.

If your nation has 10 divisions then establishing 2 more isn't so hard. If your nation only has 1 existing division then getting 2 more is a big deal.

You've obviously modelled your nation after Canada, so I can use the Canadian context to explain...

First, recruiting new soldiers. In Canada it takes about 3 months to enrol a new soldier from the time he first submits an application. The time includes a security background check, interviews, aptitude tests, and medical testing. Once enrolled the soldier will be posted to a training unit for basic and trade-specific training. Total time for training is about 6 months and doesn't include advanced training for specialties including driving, vehicle gunnery, mortars, anti-armour, etc. Also that training time is increased from 2 weeks to 2 months because they'll be placed in a holding unit until the next course starts. Once a recruit is trained they are ready to be employed on operations, though they'll still be pretty green.

Assuming you don't have time to wait around for specialty training for new recruits, you'll have to use existing, more experienced soldiers to fill the newly created advanced positions, like driver or vehicle gunner. These will have to come from existing units. If the army is already large then this won't be a huge issue, but if this is a major expansion then the quality of existing units will decline as experienced soldiers are stripped away. Also the instructor cadre will have to be increased for both new recruits and advanced training. The likely result of all this is that whatever operations your military was previously engaged in are going to have to grind to a halt while these new divisions are trained up.

New leaders will have to be trained up as well. Existing corporals and trained privates (the same pool for advanced positions) are going to be trained for junior leadership roles. More senior non-commissioned officers are even more problematic because you'll need to train existing section commanders to be platoon second-in-commands and sergeants-major, but these same section commanders are needed to train recruits, advanced positions, and junior leaders!

On to officers. A mechanized infantry platoon commander takes at least a full year to train, and that's without any other military education like a service college. Company commanders don't grow overnight either. An officer needs at least 5 years experience before becoming a company commander (in Canada most company commanders have at least 10 years experience). Battalion commanders need about 10 years experience, brigade commanders 13, and division commanders about 18. Note that these numbers are all much lower than normal, but they are possible. Aside from platoon commanders, these officers are all going to come from your existing pool of officers, and there will be a general dilution of talent (commesurate to the size of your pre-expansion army).

Once all the individual training is complete your new units need to train collectively. Cohesive companies will take at least 3 months to make from scratch. You can train the more senior commanders by sending them on exchange to other countries (a Canadian officer is going to gain experience in brigade and division operations by going on exchange with the Americans or British), though a certain amount of time for collective training at battalion level is desirable. Brigade and division training can mostly happen through simulation, especially as time is a factor.



Your population is about 3 times that of Canada, so we can assume an existing military of 3 divisions. Going from 3 to 5 is an increase of about 60% so that gives you some context for what I've said before. Your economy sounds somewhat worse than Canada's. The equipment is going to depend on the specifics of your economy and also possible trading partners. Is anyone equipped to build the necessary vehicles? Are there existing stockpiles? If a big friendly nation has a bunch of semi-obselete infantry carriers in storage then your order could be filled within a couple months. If the number of vehicles you require is a small blip in their normal production then you could get new vehicles delivered within a year. A division is going to be at least 450 armoured vehicles, with an average cost ranging from US$1 million to $3 million depending on quality. Other costs include salary (average of say US$25,000) for 15,000+ troops, maintenance, ammunition, fuel, infrastructure including barracks, and weapons. And remember, if you are desperate, the price goes up!


Quoting a webpage: "In September 2003, Greece ordered 12 AH-64D for a total cost of $675 million (presumably including weapons and support), indicating a gross unit cost for the AH-64D of $56.25 million."
Now that's high-end for the most advanced model and a small order. But pilots are expensive, especially to train, and they take several years to be combat-ready. You can speed this along by paying out big cash for foreign pilots for the first few years. Also aviation units have huge supporting costs, including mechanics and other logistics.



During the election, Canada's Conservative Party brought up buying support ships that could transport battlegroup sized forces with equipment. You may have heard them referred to as "aircraft carriers" when the Liberals attacked the proposal, but they are no such thing.

Also if there are constricted seaways you might consider a SOSUS network. Basically it is an underwater passive sonar array. You can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS).

Hope this helps!

Just so you know, usually the driver is the least experienced member of the crew (unless you have a loader, in which case, he is the least experienced.)
Of the crew, yes, but not if you factor the squad that sits in the back. In a rapidly created mech unit the greenest guys are going to be riflemen, right?
I don't think those numbers for command time are all that low. In fact the battalion command one seems a bit high.
In America, maybe. Higher turnover and a constant operational footing means faster promotions. In contemporary Canada there isn't a chance in hell to see a battalion commander without more than 10 years in the service.
To throw out a number, it took a year to for the Stryker Brigade Combat team to coalesce into a cohesive unit of action.
I'll bet that nearly none of the members of the Stryker brigade were new, untrained recruits at the start of that year.

Anyway, to expand an army by 60% without undue strain and loss of quality is probably going to take 10 years. It can be done in less but for the reasons I laid out the faster the expansion occurs, the more unit quality will decline.

Of course, I'm referring to america, as thats where my knowledge lies.

In the US army, in a mechanized infantry unit, your vehicle crew and squad in the back are all qualified infantry, and can operate interchangeably should anyone go down. Your driver is most likely an E-2. Your lowest ranked squad members will be an E-3 (your rifleman for each fireteam.)

As for stryker brigade, no they weren't untrained, but then again, they came mostly from a non mechanized unit (most were pulled from 25th ID (light), and the rest from 2nd ID.) And none of them had any experience in a wheeled vehicle with the capabilities of the stryker (whisper mode, remote operation, remote data transfer, etc.)

Of the crew, yes, but not if you factor the squad that sits in the back. In a rapidly created mech unit the greenest guys are going to be riflemen, right?

In America, maybe. Higher turnover and a constant operational footing means faster promotions. In contemporary Canada there isn't a chance in hell to see a battalion commander without more than 10 years in the service.

I'll bet that nearly none of the members of the Stryker brigade were new, untrained recruits at the start of that year.

Anyway, to expand an army by 60% without undue strain and loss of quality is probably going to take 10 years. It can be done in less but for the reasons I laid out the faster the expansion occurs, the more unit quality will decline.

In the US army, in a mechanized infantry unit, your vehicle crew and squad in the back are all qualified infantry, and can operate interchangeably should anyone go down. Your driver is most likely an E-2. Your lowest ranked squad members will be an E-3 (your rifleman for each fireteam.)
Well I'm not mech and you are, so I'll gladly accept your point about drivers. It's still going to be 8 or more months after enrollment before a recruit becomes a driver in an operational unit, and apparently riflemen will take even longer.
As for stryker brigade, no they weren't untrained, but then again, they came mostly from a non mechanized unit (most were pulled from 25th ID (light), and the rest from 2nd ID.) And none of them had any experience in a wheeled vehicle with the capabilities of the stryker (whisper mode, remote operation, remote data transfer, etc.)
You're right about this, but I don't think it changes my greater point about widescale expansion. The creation of the Stryker brigade was in the context of a 10-division army, albeit during a period of high operational tempo. The soldiers skimmed from other units were a drop in the bucket for the army overall. Expanding from 3 divisions to 5 would be like the U.S. army creating 15 new Stryker brigades.

As a final point, the evolution of the Stryker brigade didn't start with its inception as a unit. I saw the Canadian LAV-3s that the Stryker is based on in Ft. Lewis in early 2000 being evaluated. The concept of the high-tech medium-weight unit was probably created a few years before. The unit's first operational deployment was early this year when they went to Iraq. So we're talking about at least 4 years.

I stressed personnel in my first large post on this issue, because I've seen how even in an army trying to simply maintain numbers it is bloody hard to get people trained, especially senior non-coms since they are needed as instructors for everyone else. I believe individual training is the bottleneck of expansion, and the consequence is people doing jobs for which they are under-ranked, under-qualified, and under-experienced. A good number rise to the occasion and thrive with the opportunity but some get pushed too far, too fast, and quality suffers.

All this is, of course, fertile ground for roleplay.

Not exactly. The creation of Stryker brigade was not in the context of a 10 division army, nor a 12 division army. It was in the context of the new Unit of Action system. The entire US Army is moving to Brigade Units of Action, in which you serve for 3 years before PCSing. the SBCTs are the first ones, with 10th Mountain, and 3rd ID being the first full scale units to move to the new system.

In essence as I understand it, it will no longer be "Hey you're going to Korea. Lets stick you with 2ID. Oh you're year is up. You said you want to go to Germany. Stick you with 1AD. Yeah I know, you'd rather be with 1ID but oh well." Now its "Ok, You want to go to Germany? OK, you do a 1 year stint in Korea, and you get to pick which brigade in germany to join."

Well I'm not mech and you are, so I'll gladly accept your point about drivers. It's still going to be 8 or more months after enrollment before a recruit becomes a driver in an operational unit, and apparently riflemen will take even longer.

You're right about this, but I don't think it changes my greater point about widescale expansion. The creation of the Stryker brigade was in the context of a 10-division army, albeit during a period of high operational tempo. The soldiers skimmed from other units were a drop in the bucket for the army overall. Expanding from 3 divisions to 5 would be like the U.S. army creating 15 new Stryker brigades.

As a final point, the evolution of the Stryker brigade didn't start with its inception as a unit. I saw the Canadian LAV-3s that the Stryker is based on in Ft. Lewis in early 2000 being evaluated. The concept of the high-tech medium-weight unit was probably created a few years before. The unit's first operational deployment was early this year when they went to Iraq. So we're talking about at least 4 years.

I stressed personnel in my first large post on this issue, because I've seen how even in an army trying to simply maintain numbers it is bloody hard to get people trained, especially senior non-coms since they are needed as instructors for everyone else. I believe individual training is the bottleneck of expansion, and the consequence is people doing jobs for which they are under-ranked, under-qualified, and under-experienced. A good number rise to the occasion and thrive with the opportunity but some get pushed too far, too fast, and quality suffers.

All this is, of course, fertile ground for roleplay.