NationStates Jolt Archive


OOC: Rate my Military

Serpania
31-08-2004, 21:25
I'm just not sure of the standards that a military should be measured, so I tried coming up with a military for my nation by my own judgement. Now, I just want to know, is it too big? Too small? Too advanced? If you see anything wrong, please inform me on how to make it more realistic.

Army:
30,000 Combat Infantry
60,000 Reserves
80,000 Non-combat/vehicle crews
1,000 Special Forces
150 T-72 MBTs
75 M1A1 MBTs
125 M2A3 Bradley IFVs
150 BTR-80 APCs
80 Shilka AA tanks
80 M-109 "Paladin" Self-Propelled guns
75 MRLSs
200 ZPU-4 AA guns
60 SAM-6 AA missile tanks
30 PAC-2 AA missile sites
600 Humvees
800 2-ton transport trucks

Air Force:
10 F-16 fighters
40 UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters
20 Mi-24 "Hind" Attack chopper

Navy:
40 PG-class Gunboats
7 Spruance-class Destroyers


Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Is this better?
Sarzonia
31-08-2004, 21:35
I'm pretty limited in Army and Air Force knowledge, but my impression is that you've got a pretty high amount of artillery and tanks for a 6 million population country.

Your infantry number is probably about right. I'd say the ratio for direct frontline troops to the rest (including non-combat support and logistics and combat vehicle crews) should be about 5 to 1 (in favor of non combat).

The Air Force seems a little small, but reasonable allowing for your small population size. You'll want to augment everything once you get larger.

The Navy may be a little bit big owing to the large number of gunboats. I would recommend you thinking toward building with submarines, corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers. You'll eventually need aircraft carriers and support ships (such as tankers, replenishment vessels, amphibious assault ships, submarine tenders) that will probably be about half to two thirds of your total navy size. Also, in the NS world, battleships still play a huge role in naval units.

Looks like you're making an effort to be reasonable about your buildup. I wish you luck with it.
New Genoa
31-08-2004, 22:19
Well, I'd include support numbers as well.
Serpania
31-08-2004, 23:15
A few more replies before I start changing things.
Serpania
01-09-2004, 11:50
Sorry for double-posting, but I need to bump this up. I also edited the list. Is this an improvement?
Anime-Otakus
01-09-2004, 12:11
IMHO, your Navy should have lesser gunboats, and a couple of corvettes and frigates, and a smattering of submarines (e.g. the Sjoormen-class operated by the Republic of Singapore Navy). I am basing my opinions off Singapore, which has a current population of 4+ million, and a Navy with around 12 Patrol Vessels, a similar number of Gunboats, Corvettes, and the Lafayette-class stealth frigates due in service in around 2007. Not to mention the Sjoormen. Maybe you could just...improve a little. :)
Harlesburg
01-09-2004, 12:52
Army:
20kCombat Infantry
10k-20kReserves
10k Non-combat/vehicle crews
1-2kSpecial Forces
75 M1A1 MBTs
25 M2A3 Bradley IFVs
150 BTR-80 APCs
20 M-109 "Paladin" Self-Propelled guns
75 MRLSs
20 ZPU-4 AA guns not quite sure what they are if hand held*10 doubt though
16 SAM-6 AA missile tanks
10 PAC-2 AA missile sites
200 Humvees various types
80 2-ton transport trucks

Air Force:
20 F-16 fighters
40 UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters
2 hercules
4 orion
2 hawkeye
20 Mi-24 "Hind" Attack chopper
10 iroqious
Navy:
10 PG-class Gunboats
3 Spruance-class Destroyers
2 frigates
1 refuelling/supply ship
Serpania
01-09-2004, 22:48
Thanks for the list Harlesburg, but a few things I disagree with:

1. Why did you remove the T-72? Sure it's nothing when compared to monsters such as the M1A2, Challenger 2, or it's own big brother the T-90, but if well mantained and equipped it's still a fairly effective and very economical combat tank, especially for roles such as infantry support or taking out light armor

2. Same thing with the Shilka. It can defend armoured columns against low-flying aircraft or helicopters.

3. The ZPU-4 is a towed auto-cannon which has a similar job to the Shilka: protection against choppers and low-flying aircraft.

4. Why reduce the number of trucks? They are dirt cheap compared to armoured vehicles, and are the backbone of supply and reinforcement lines. Good for towing artillery too.

5. I'm not sure if my nation is ready yet for recon planes such as the Hawkeye.

Otherwise the list is much appreciated.
New Genoa
01-09-2004, 22:51
I would include some support ships and transport ships for your navy.

You can generalize it with a blanket "support ships" statement if you want.
Harlesburg
09-09-2004, 12:48
Why did you remove the T-72? Sure it's nothing when compared to monsters such as the M1A2, Challenger 2, or it's own big brother the T-90, but if well mantained and equipped it's still a fairly effective and very economical combat tank, especially for roles such as infantry support or taking out light armor
guess 1 type was enough but you are right 150 or more bradleys maybe 25 more
plain ignorance
2. Same thing with the Shilka. It can defend armoured columns against low-flying aircraft or helicopters.
plain ignorance

3. The ZPU-4 is a towed auto-cannon which has a similar job to the Shilka: protection against choppers and low-flying aircraft.
plain ignorance just didnt know but yeah good
4. Why reduce the number of trucks? They are dirt cheap compared to armoured vehicles, and are the backbone of supply and reinforcement lines. Good for towing artillery too.
your right 80 too few but 800 too big guess 15 per truck you would need 1333 but allowing for armour and pure infantry yeah 800 is spot on

5. I'm not sure if my nation is ready yet for recon planes such as the Hawkeye.
always just big enough for one need that intel of battle field borders etc

Otherwise the list is much appreciated
Dyelli Beybi
09-09-2004, 14:37
one thing I'd like to reccomend you ignore are people who tell you to cut down on tank numbers.

You can get 10 or more tanks for the same price as a jet fighter.
The State of It
09-09-2004, 15:01
I agree with Dyelli Beybi.

Tanks, despite modern developments in anti tank weapons, are still an integral part of a ground army.
Dyelli Beybi
09-09-2004, 23:08
I agree with Dyelli Beybi.

Tanks, despite modern developments in anti tank weapons, are still an integral part of a ground army.

mhhhm yes, definantely, but my point was also that compared to a lot of other stuff in the military, planes, ships etc, tanks are also quite cheap.
Harlesburg
12-09-2004, 12:52
thats true i wasnt telling him to forget about tanks for jets but as they probably couldnt sustain that many and trucks
GMC Military Arms
12-09-2004, 13:33
Warsaw Pact and NATO armour in the same logistical chain makes the baby Jesus cry.
Cirdanistan
12-09-2004, 13:50
As GMCMA said; in war-time, you'll find the supply chain gets sufficiently messed up (and your frontal commanders sufficiently pissed off at not getting the supplies they call for) without having two different kinds of MBTs with different-calibre guns. Not to mention the spare parts and the different types of fuel.
Harlesburg
12-09-2004, 13:58
actually during the cold war thr russians specifically designed their weapons so they could be converted to use western equipment so supplies would never be a problem as when they roll up the western lines you just pinch their stuff the roskies also built bridging vehicles as they knew if war broke out the bridges in europe would be blown so just drive some of these into the water and your set
Cirdanistan
12-09-2004, 14:03
some western equipment could be recovered, but not ammunition or most tank spare parts (bolts and the like they might be able to use, but NATO equipment wasn't even standardised so i don't see how you can claim they would be able to just grab what they needed from vanquished western troops).
Chiefy Drill
12-09-2004, 16:20
More worryingly, your logistics support is essentially 0.

You need fuel, an MBT will run for a few hundred miles and then stop, at that point it is essentially a fixed emplacement. Get some medium/high mobility fuel tankers.

Supply of ammunition is a problem, those 2 ton trucks will not carry enough to replenish a single tank. In the Brit arty, there is a DROPS truck for every two guns. Plus plenty to supply food, water, soft toilet paper etc.

No medical support means lots of messy bleeding bits lying around the battlefield. Decent medical support that can treat casualties in theatre can return as many as 40% to battle, significantly cutting down your losses.

No repair or recovery facility will again hurt you. By including at least one ARRV and a couple of techies in each of your armoured formations, you'd cut down your losses by being able to return damaged or abandoned vehicles to combat.

Having no engineering support mean that your army is about as mobile as a fleet of Daleks. Anyone facing you would lay a few mines or knock down a couple of bridges effectively rendering you immobile. Having Engineers and kit like AVLB, AVRE and Giant Viper will reduce the effect of this and allow your to deploy your own counter-mobility measures. Engineers also typically deal with explosive ordinance disposal which is a major threat to both your civvie population and your deployed forces.

The size and disposition of your Navy really depends on your location, what you have wouls probably be okay for a country with limited access to the sea and no requirement to project power or deploy troops or equipment.

Warsaw Pact and NATO armour in the same logistical chain makes the baby Jesus cry.
Entirely agree. Apart from anything else, it just looks gash!
Glozaria
12-09-2004, 20:33
Also, in creating and paying for your Army, one musent forger maintinance and training. Buying the equipment is quite cheap compared to the costs of personell and maintinance.
I try to include these costs in my budget as well.
Harlesburg
15-09-2004, 07:37
some western equipment could be recovered, but not ammunition or most tank spare parts (bolts and the like they might be able to use, but NATO equipment wasn't even standardised so i don't see how you can claim they would be able to just grab what they needed from vanquished western troops).
thats exactly it Nato dosent need to be if you are they could use nato gear/euipment/munitions dont ask me how but they could because they knew supplies are always a worry and if you can plunder someone elses then theres no problem otherwise you get a situation like the bulge or scorched eartth policy