NationStates Jolt Archive

Just for some kicks, making fun of many people (myself included). Yes, these 'documents' are in the public domain and anyone can quote from them.

Tactics of Modern Warfare

Although previous generations emphasized mobility, mobility, mobility, modern (OOC:here meaning NationStates) warfare runs contrary to almost all theories from fairly recent years, and has gone from 3rd of 4th generation warfare back to 2nd generation warfare, and even 1st generation warfare if one stops to think about it. Because of the major differances between this modern warfare and previous warfare, modern warfare shall be called the '5th generation' of warfare.

The 5th generation emphasizes numbers, technological superiority, and for some odd reason, naval power. Previously it was thought air power would win wars, yet some nations such as Doujin appear to fall back upon more arcane conflicts to support thier naval ventures.

As for numbers, many nations just send a mass of troops organized only superficialy and then only at the army level, sending 'Marching Fire' attacks of tanks, aircraft and men rushing for an equaly unorganized enemy, which unfortunatly lacks sufficient machineguns to make quick work of the enemy. It then seems incompetance is a prime charactoristic in modern warfare as well.

As for technological superiority, the more firepower and less speed it has, it appears to be better. The Doujin-class warship goes against all logic in its low manueverablity, high armament, and high armor. It also falls back, as many nations do now, to arcane conflicts of battleship on battleship. More sane nations strike a balance between speed, armor, and firepower, yet for some odd reason they always end up losing.

Tactics in this age simply are rushing the enemy with an attack on a single point while most enemies try and defend or counter against the attack by attacking or defending in that point with everything. No traps, variations, or anything set most nations apart. A simple unorganized mob attack is all that appears to be needed. Although combined arms are in place, many countries just do not have artilery emplacements-the prime source of firepower on the battlefield-or machineguns-capable of killin entire platoons-which thus furthers our arguement of military incompetance. There are variations, however.

In what appears to be a 4th generation movement still in place, there are many terrorist groups who seek to undermine enemies not through military strength, but economic and political destruction. Killing of leaders, destroying of currencies, terror attacks, and hijackings are all common terror tactics. Many of them are so poorly done leaders simply ignore them, because many of them don't kill anyone.(OOC: refering to ignoring many of these guys)

THe 6th Generation

In order to combat obvious mistakes made in the 5th generation of warfare, we here in the Confederate Army are adopting the so called 6th generation which falls back upon manuever warfare, which was proven in our conflict with Whittier, before extreme political pressure forced a truce.

Nevertheless, the blitz attacks on positions in Jordan prior to asault and the effective ordering of units to various positions throughout Jordan appears to have confused the enemy; it also eliminated a large portion of the enemy airforce and hurt the enemy army. The effective war appeared as if it was going to be over with a seige of the Jordanian capital, yet a ring around the capital would have alleviated losses. Political pressure broke the war down before this point. Which brings up another point in the 6th generation: political pressure is important.

If one can get a number of nations, no matter how small, to issue a declaration of support for the enemy, eventualy the leaders of the nation will, in time, end the conflict they are in and seek peace. Only the most determined nations will end up finishing a conflict of enemy support, no matter how weak the nations in support of the enemy are. Only those who feel invincable-which they surely aren't-act against public opinion because they have spread propaganda that they are the most powerful. They can still be destroyed through tactics, which leads us to tactics.

In the 6th generation, as in some previous generations, encirclement is essential for a less numerous or less organized, or even under armed force. One example of great results of trapping are observable in the war between Finland and Russia and Germany and Russia around World War II. Had it not been for incompetance on the German behlaf, as we seek to eliminate from our army, it is debatable that they would have won. Also furthering entrapment is Ilek-vaad's trapping of our own naval forces, which were decimated, and that can not be denied or hidden. It must be improved upon.

-end of exerpt-

Meh, got bored and had to post something. Enjoy.

OOC: a good topic.
of course there is the question of on what level do you work the attack? Do you tell the story from a full on army/corps level? (ie the basic "I send 1 million men with AKs to cap yo ass") if done properely a tthis level it should be assuemd that the lower ranking officers are at least competant. Actual strategic manouvering is of lesser importance as it happens further down the command chain than the RP setting.
I call this the Risk level RP after the board game

next you take things down to divsion/brigade level (best level from the point of veiw of balancing ease and detail) here soem actual tactical play is required as the offciers involved will be acting on the front lines, this can be helped by smaller scale detail IC sections illustrating points of view from basic grunts.
I would call this "Axis and Allies" level Rp (at least i think A&A is played at a divsional level, if i'm wrong feel free to suggest a game system either board or PC that does).

Then you have regiment/battalion level conflicts, much much more detail with specific objectives and manouvers being required.
Known to me as "panzer general" level RP (or people's general or rights of war).

penultimatly you have company/platoon RPs fairly small soem overal strategic play but lots of tactics, a good bit of character development helps.
here think your general RTS level of detail.

finally you have squad/individual RP, this is for specs ops and for when you have important events to detail.
I would call this FPS style RP


Just soem weird ideas so feel free to add to and destroy.

Soem RPs do tell a more modern appraoch to war but they can be hard to find are very often eclipsed by more hurried tat.

OOC: a good topic.
of course there is the question of on what level do you work the attack? Do you tell the story from a full on army/corps level? (ie the basic "I send 1 million men with AKs to cap yo ass") if done properely a tthis level it should be assuemd that the lower ranking officers are at least competant. Actual strategic manouvering is of lesser importance as it happens further down the command chain than the RP setting.
I call this the Risk level RP after the board game

next you take things down to divsion/brigade level (best level from the point of veiw of balancing ease and detail) here soem actual tactical play is required as the offciers involved will be acting on the front lines, this can be helped by smaller scale detail IC sections illustrating points of view from basic grunts.
I would call this "Axis and Allies" level Rp (at least i think A&A is played at a divsional level, if i'm wrong feel free to suggest a game system either board or PC that does).

Then you have regiment/battalion level conflicts, much much more detail with specific objectives and manouvers being required.
Known to me as "panzer general" level RP (or people's general or rights of war).

penultimatly you have company/platoon RPs fairly small soem overal strategic play but lots of tactics, a good bit of character development helps.
here think your general RTS level of detail.

finally you have squad/individual RP, this is for specs ops and for when you have important events to detail.
I would call this FPS style RP


Just soem weird ideas so feel free to add to and destroy.

Soem RPs do tell a more modern appraoch to war but they can be hard to find are very often eclipsed by more hurried tat.

OOC: Yes, good thread.

Feline's military is emphasized on the following, in no particular order:

1. Speed and Manuverability
2. Minimization of supply lines
3. Quickly disabling an enemy's ability to fight, thus ending the war.
4. Technological Superiority

So, it is sort of like what you are talking about, but we have a strong emphasis on technology.

Feline: As noted by our latest thread, we emphasise FIREPOWER. Lots of it.
Coupled with speed.

A very good thread. Speed and mobility wins wars in this day in age. Hitler showed that as did Patton.

Even in Iraq, we blitzed straight to bagdad. Yes we had the firepower but it was the quickness that won it.

As for naval power, I go with a carrier force over a battleship force. Carrier planes can spot an enemy long before the guns of the Battleships are in range and can suffer casualties from the air as Billy Mitchell Proved and was seen throughout WWII!

A very amusing thread. SO TRUE. Though there are other ways to deal with the 'angry mob' (remember C&C generals? 'Ak-47s for EVERYBODY!!'). In a regional wargame, i managed to defeat such a massively numerically superior mob through the use of mines, Time-on target artillery firing cluster munitions and napalm filled shells, along with infantry in trenches remanicent of WWI, but backed up my tanks in hull down positions. Not to mention, of course, I had a full division providing enfielading fire on my left flank from across a river, and my right was anchored in mountains, and my center was on the edge of a forest... his swarm of 1000 apaches (where do people come UP with these numbers) did prove irritating, though.

Thanks for the approval :wink:

I'll probably post a follow up to this very shortly, with lower level tactics (Platoon, COmpany, etc.) so that anyone can use it and have thier army appear to be sexier than the opponents army, just gotta look some things up.

[The Doujin isn't slow, it just takes time to get up to speed. And the reason people loose against such ships and their accompanying fleets is because those ships are designed to take on common NS threats (at least the ones Freethinkers do.)]

Superb work.

Muktar's military functions on a basis of 'independent cooperation', that is, although the smaller units work independently of each other, their commander directs their general actions toward a common objective. This allows complexe strageties that, unless met with a similiar method, are near impossible to respond to effectively.

As for speed vs power, we favor speed, although we don't do so to such a degree firepower is neglected. Both are important assets to a military force, and you can be devastated if you are wanting in both areas.

As for technological superiority, we prefer mechanical flexibility. Basically it's about having a versatile force. An infantry legion from Muktar can fight just as well in an urban enviroment as it can on a snowy tundra. Tanks can be converted into ad hoc artillary in minutes for defending a position recently aquired that faces a counterattack. Helicopters function toward combat and infantry transport. This edge allows to perform all the tasks neccessary with a minimal force.

We do not neglect to consider our enemy. A nation who focuses heavily on air strikes will face STA batteries in numbers normally seeming excessive. Nations that opt toward a ground rush will face bombardments and guerillas. Nations who defend with a particular tactic will face an assault which that method is weak against. Our military ability comes not from raw power, but from flexibility.

dp

True...so true.

Kriegos forces are prioritised in order.

Force Priorities:

1) Firepower.
2) Mobility
3) Technological Superiourity
4) Superiour Training.
5) Well Equipped Men

Tactics also not in order.

Tactics:

1) Attrition
2) Cutting off supply lines
3) Bombardment
4) Psychological Warfare (drains enemies will to fight, ending war)
5) Lightening Strike Raids

Basic Squad Tactics

In most armies, the smallest group is a group of 5 men, two riflemen (think of them now as holding M16s or something to that effect), a commander, a scout, and a base of fire. This is called the fire squad, to use American terminology. In our army we also attach a Tech Officer whose job is to maintain communication with commanders in other squads, units, etc. to coordinate attacks. The commander of course is still in charge yet the Tech Officer relays messages from him and others to ensure the chain of command is kept at all times. But, now, we must inform you of what a commander must know in order to lead a squad.

The Moving Under Fire tactic is a slightly complex move that is best when coupled with another squad for maximum effectiveness. One group of people in the fire squad, or one whole fire squad if helped by another group, moves forward from cover to cover to draw enemy attention while the scout covers the flank and the base of fire provides supressing fire. A small group then moves yo flank the enemy while they are distracted. Again, because of man power concerns, this is better when provided with another fire squad.

Marching Fire is another simple tactic that is not exactly a good idea for any group, regardless of wether an army or a fire squad is doing it. It involves a blind rush towards the enemy, shooting anything in sight. Prior to the rush the base of fire and his heavy machinegun will provide suppressing fire in order to try and get the enemy heads down. He would be wise to try and hit any machinegun emplacements. After this, they all rush at the enemy guns blazing, no strategy at all. This works well only when well defended from the air and when armed with artilery, but a well entrenched enemy with artilery and machineguns will destroy the assault. For armies, it is best done in waves of thinning numbers.

One popular tactic, which we have called the Covered Rush, is where one part of a squad moves forward to cover while the rest of the squad covers them. After the initial rush, the men that stayed behind run in front of them to cover, while the first running people cover. This goes on until they all reach cover. It is more confusing if the people rushing start on say, the left side and run to cover on the right, with people on the right running to the left, all moving forward.

Basic Army Tactics

Flanking is the most obvious tactic an army could attempt. If they are fortified on the right, hit the left. In a similar school of thought, if the enemy has a fortress you don't think you can take, just forget it and move on, keeping the fortress surounded. Eventualy they will all die of hunger or eventualy surrendor. If used on trenches, start on say the left side of the trench and follow all along the trench, capturing as much as possible. Because they are all in a line in the trench, entering it and moving down the trench is great because a smaller unit, even if facing a large unit, faces only part of it at a time. Also, enemy machineguns don't seem to be aimed at thier own trenches.

To counter flanking, allow a breach in your line. Let them attack the breach, let them come in that open spot. As they come in and feel succesful, have units all up and down the line rush towards the breach from all sides, with reserve units behind the lines attacking the encircled unit as well, possibly causing a surrendor or killing them all. Heavy grazing fire from machineguns and air/artilery support will crush assault elsewhere. This requires extreme organization and a good amount of communication to ensure all goes well. Which is why we attach Tech Officers to our units.

War of attrition is when both sides try to outlast the other by causing more casualties than recieved, we stress that this not be tried no matter how stupid the enemy. Heavy casualties in such a fight are not acceptable, and they will come with trenches. A well placed artilery barage can ruin your trench's day, even from a less numerous enemy. Don't be stupid, use manuever warfare.

In manuever warfare, cunning and speed own the battlefield. He who responds quickest with the most advanced manuevers and tactics can easily crush those with more troops or better ones. Case in point is the German Empire of WWI vs. Russia of WWI. Germans with less men that outmanuevered and surrounded the Russians were quick to achieve victory. It is advised that any commander try to surround the enemy.

This is of lower quality in my mind, but heh, give me a break.

Our confederacy is made up of 12 member states. Each of theses has it's own army. Then there is a national airforce and national army. I'll be talking about the confederate army.

The goal of our army is to have an excellent balance between tank battalions and infantry brigades. Usually when comabt actions are planned they use tanks to support the main infantry force.

We also employ large numbers of all purpose helicopters in our airforce which coordinate with infnatry brigades to provide transport and support fire.

We place a large emphasis on:

-Mobility
-Flexibility
-Endurance
-marksmanship
-ammo conservation
-discipline

We make sure that our troops will not scatter in the line of fire.

We have no navy. Instead we rely on our air forces to provide transport and heavy support. Rather than maintaining transport ships, we use C-5 Galaxies.

Generally our major tactics are to do as much damage to the enemies munitions and supplies as is possible. We also target radar and anti aircraft stations. When launching offensives we move as quickly as possible and strike as hard as possible. We rarely go on the defensive. Our primary military doctrine is that the best defense is a good offense.

Another point to make is that on the modern RL battlefield, greater emphasis is being placed on the individual soldier. With increasing firepower being available to smaller and smaller units, thanks to miniaturisation and ‘ruggedisation’ of electronics and other advances (better quality steels and machining technologies, etc.), fewer soldiers are able to hold larger portions of ground and possess a greater awareness thereof than their predecessors.

In the INA, the first unit above the individual soldier is the fire team, consisting of two soldiers, one of whom generally carries a section support weapon (light machine gun or grenade launcher, as the INA hasn’t completely moved into the OICW era). Above the fire team is the two fire team, four soldier fire group consisting of a lance corporal or corporal, a specialist (signals, medic, forward observer, etc.) or a spare rifleman, and two section support weapons (one LMG and one GL). Above the fire group is the section commanded by a sergeant or senior corporal and comprising two fire groups. This force type is similar to that currently used by western armies, and is quite flexible as well as offering decent firepower and maneuverability.

To expand on the infantry tactics:

When sucessful is assaulting an enemy postion never ever stop on that psotion for a rest, this is the surest way to a early grave, because if there is one thing the enemy mortar and arty units know, its where their postions are...

The Republic relies heavily on technology for her military. Of course, diplomacy is preferred first, before deterrence.

-unnamed source within the Republic of Anime-Otakus

(OOC: Hope I'm not disrupting anything or stuff, lol)

I don't know about the rest of NS, but Kilean has made extensive use of mobile combined-arms tactics in all of it's wars, with inter-service cooperation, tactical air support, and crushing and timely artillery support. Our navy (well, before Dra-Pol nuked it) was a very tiny service, but that didn't stop us, did it? The Kilean army has operated in units as large as Army Groups and as small as Regiments (2,500 men, ~half a Kilean brigade).

Our enemies have also all been (up to this point) communist powers that love chinese-style human wave attacks. Belive me, Kilean troops have come to love the MG-87 and it's high sustained rate of fire.

We've also had some damn crafty enemies that have used all sorts of subversion tactics, and logistics have played huge roles (the attacks on the Kilean bridges across the santander river, severing the supply lines of Army Group South, and the effort to deplete Dra-Pol jet fuel stocks) in all of our wars.

So, really, the state of NS warfare isn't as bad as you make it out to be- you just need to find the right people.

Even in Iraq, we blitzed straight to bagdad. Yes we had the firepower but it was the quickness that won it.



In Iraq the main reason we pretty much rushed through the country into Bagdad was our overwhelming airpower, and the fact that Suddam's forces had little to no moral, and were ill-prepared to fight.

Well, for us in the Omzian Army, we follow the US Army method of organization a bit at the lower levels. Basically there's a 4 person fireteam, with typically a fireteam leader (O18 rifle), rifleman (O18 rifle), grenadier (O18 rifle with O226 40mm grenade launcher), and automatic rifleman (M249 SAW). Generally, there are also sniper FTs, machine gun FTs (using the heavier M240), and others... Indeed, small unit tactics are very important here, and my army greatly emphatise that.

We also favor mobility, aside from a wide range of different air and artillery support with great coordination. Communication is important for us, although we primarily operate with smaller units working together (at maximum maybe division-level working together). As my Army changes its doctrine to homeland defence and peacekeeping, defence and reconissance is important here. Logistics also plays a role of course, as a strike by our enemies on an Army base greatly interrupted the supplying of missiles, fuel, and equipment towards missile bases.

Technology doesn't play such a huge role as we are often faced with superior technology, but the way for us to use our technology is important. We also implement technologies to make up for the disadvantage, which means that we don't have that much of a disadvantage despite our policy and size.

Anyways, a superb thread. Indeed, mobility and speed is important. Ever knew how they did that Thunder Run armored strike and made it into Baghdad? A nice thing abou NS is that unlike some other RPs and computer games (which ist more "deadlocked" with specific rules and such), is that it's highly flexible, allowing a lot of different tactics and such to be used.

The military of the Democratic Federation of International Terrans emphasizes, in this order:

- speed
- adaptability
- quick response
- co-operation between forces
- small unit cohesion

This leads to a relatively small, but highly effective military, which can react quickly to numerous conflicts across the sun-sized NS world. We never, ever get involved in major conflicts, however - we always either get into "police actions", "border skirmishes", or act as a supporting member of an alliance.

Another thing to add -- by the time that the US went into Baghdad, espite all the surrenders, there are still fierce resistance there especially by the Fedayeen Saddam. However, the cause for them to have such a successful capture is not only their technology and their superior firepower, but also because they relied on very fast speeds and avoided a long siege of Baghdad (which could mean more losses), with the change of decision to allow a bunch of tanks to get into the city, push through and achieve their objectives.

If you really want to read the inside story of this, I'd suggest you to read the book Thunder Run by David Zucchino.

From what I have read from past threads and such, it would seem that a well supplied geurrilla(sp?) force would be able to cause a large amount of damge if done right. While not inflicting many casulties, they can bring with them a sense of fear and paranoia that would be enough to slow any army down (minus maybe AMF's Sentinals).

This is just my opinion but I think it would work (if the enemy rp's it correctly. If not then who knows).

If used agaisnt an army designed and trained to fight conventional warfare guerilla warfare can be very successful, how ever if your opposition has troops trained to deal with the situation then things can go baddly very quickly.

GW2 is interesting in that for oen of the first times in modern warfare the ground troops were actually out pacing thier air support. Even with the massive increases in command and control and FAC systems allied air control were finding it very hard to keep up and had to use a number of makeshift answers (like using P3 orion maritime patrol aircraft with marine FAC teams on board to try and bring better control to the massive killbox stacks).

Guerilla warfare is good, and is even better if coupled with a modern army. Imagine a US level of training and equipment with guerilla warfare tactics....

I thought that was what the S.E.A.L.S. and such were used as Geurilla warfare units.

Green Berets are the special forces unit that specializes in setting up and fighting geurilla units/wars