NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is the best place for military tactics, numbers, and guidelines for NationStates nations. The ideas below have been collected from the *ahem* best minds on NS so if you want help with wars this is your one stop.

1. Military Numbers
The largest of militaries is only roughly 2%-5% of the total population of that nation. The larger the nation the smaller percent of the population will be in the army. An example: The total population of Nation X is 2 billion, and it has a draft that assured 2% of the civilian population is in the army. That would mean that their armed force is roughly 40 million men. Just trying to organize such an army would be a logistical nightmare. However, if Nation Z has a population of 6 million with a conscription rate of 2%, the armed forces would be 120,000 men, a much more manageable size.

2. Military sizes and their appropriate tactics
While there is a wealth of information about this subject, this will be quick and to the point.

A. Smaller, well-trained armies have a few advantages compared to other forces. They are usually cheaper, easier to maintain, and easier to manage then massive forces. Also, they can move to new locations with much more ease. This force is perfect for nations with no active threat, and is great for quick strikes against threats.
-In a war against a numerically larger force, it would be best to avoid going head to head. Instead, try to attack the supply lines, and flanks. Starve them of supplies, and make them lash out and hopefully make mistakes. Make sure you always have room to maneuver because that is your biggest advantage. Avoid getting into a war of attrition with a larger force, because while the larger force may be less trained, or not as well equipped, they will be able to replace troops much easier and faster.
RL examples: United States Army, British Army.

B. Larger forces have some advantages of their own. They can easily over-run smaller opponents with their sheer size. Also, their size can act as a deterrent to attack, because no one wants to mess with an army four-million man army.
-Try to engage in wars of attrition, due to your large number of troops. Avoid conflicts or battlegrounds that might give your opponent time to attack your flanks or your rear area. Use your size to your advantage, do not give them room or time to maneuver. However, do to their size, they are often hard to organize, whether in battle or not. Also, they are hard to maintain and supply, and very hard to maintain.
RL examples: The Red Army in WWII, modern-day Chinese army.

C. Guerilla forces are perfect for defensive combat in sympathetic urban territory. You can strike easily and then slip into the darkness. It is also a pain in the butt for invading armies, because it means that they have to keep more troops than otherwise necessary in the occupied territories, which means fewer troops on the frontlines. It also can bolster support for your cause and help lead to a rebellion in your favor.
-However, this type of warfare is limited to areas that are sympathetic to your cause. The reason for this is simple; as a guerilla force you have no supply base, or really in many cases one fixed location to operate from. This means no way to grow food, or to produce other necessities of war such as bullets and guns, though local support. While it is possible to steal or even to have stored these goods before hand, this means you are constantly, in the case of stealing goods, forced to show roughly the area in which you operate. And in the case hiding supplies, it means being tied to certain locations, limiting the area in which you operate, among other things. In keeping with the idea of a sympathetic population, you need to have contacts within the local population who are willing to supply you, feed you and even house you. You need to have contacts or informants in the local enemy force, or other individuals, who are willing to tip you off to a raid or other similar activity.
RL examples: current insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq.


3. Logistics
Remember, the logistics side of the military, roughly 40%-75% of all personnel in every branch will be devoted just to driving supply trucks and making sure everything got to where it was supposed to. Also, once you create the goods you still have to transport them to the troops, which takes time. For more information about transportation, see below.

4. Workers vrs Soldiers
As more civilians are recruited/drafted, less are available for the economy. It may seem like a simply idea, but it is often overlooked. Even if Nation Z is invaded by a larger nation and says 'well all my fighting age people attack you and you lose' fighting a occupying force like that is just not sustainable for long periods of time. If every competent/skilled person is fighting, who runs the factories? Eventually the defending nation would run out of the basics such as bullets, fuel, and food. Then what do they do?

5. Production
'Well my nation uses uber machines that build everything and plant everthing.' First off thats a sure fire way to get you ignored. Second, use common sense. Every level of production at a factory will most likely suffer some sort of production error at some time in its existence. If you have no one to check for mistakes, your going to find out about them in battle, or when your food crop dies because the irrigation system is broken, not exactly the times. So, your going to have to use some competent workers to catch the mistakes before they get to the front lines, or before they become irreversible .

6. Transporting goods
Face it people, like it or not moving goods whether across the country or across and ocean takes time. There is not a fleet in the RL World that can move an entire army across an ocean at once, much less one that can do it in a few days. And don't point to RL Normandy for an excuse or an example. Normandy was right across the channel from the United Kingdom. This mean't they could make multiple trips in one day. Also, that fleet was massive, and took a very long time to make and was very costly in both man and material that had to be diverted from other jobs. Just as Rome was not built in a day, neither was your fleet or any other transportation system for that matter.

7. WMD's
As a rule, WMD's whether nuclear or biological are probably a bad idea to start throwing in the middle of a RP. Also, if your nation is younger then two or three months, most nations will probably say that you haven't had time to develop them. This is because of the costs of designing, building and using/launching/deploying them. Then there is the fact that if you start throwing them, your enemies might too. This means a boring RP, and it might get you ignored by a lot of nations. You can use them against yourself, say if your RP’ing rebels in your own country with another nation. Or, if you okay their use with the other main nations in the RP.

8. Final Points
This last point is not so much as a guideline as a reminder. Some nations will do/will not follow the suggestions listed above. Some nations have armies that are 6% or even 10% of their population, which is fine for nations who have armies not needing so-called modern battlefield necessities (bullets, guns, and the like). If you encounter such a nation, whether in an RP you’re both in or somewhere else, you don’t have to come crying to the moderators or to other nations involved in the forums, looking for help against them. Simply ask them to explain how they can manage such large forces or use such unheard of futuristic technology. If they pretend you didn't ask the question or they don't have a answer that satisfies you, feel free to simply ignore them 'till they change their ‘evil’ ways.

9. Have fun!
These suggestions/guidelines are to help people make their wars more realistic, not to make them boring. This game we call NS is supposed to be fun! This should be common sense, and not a fact, so if you think all this information is too serious for you or it cramps your creative style, then who cares, and don't listen to it. This is the most important guideline.

There are some great links/threads related to this topic:

Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064

An Informal guide to navel landings:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367974

What logistics is:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828
http://www.military-sf.com/Logistics.htm

Think their Godmoding? Check here for help figuring it out!
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367578

Guide to Roleplaying Terrorism v2.0
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366018


Note:
Thanks to all the kind people who posted things here. All of the links and most of the ideas above are theirs not mine.

Updated semi-continuously!

*sigh* even the invinciblenoobs post is above this one. bumpity

My army's in my factbook which is in my sig, check now.

One problem with creating realistic figures in NS is the fact that many of the countries in NS that are active role players have populations that far exceed the U.S.'s near 300 million population. That size disparity between the RL world and the NS world means that "realistic" military forces can mean 2,000 ship navies in NS, but the U.S. Navy reports having less than 300 ships in its active service.

There might be a sliding scale between your country's population size and a realistic peacetime or wartime figure. Five million population countries can devote about 2% of their population to military service, whereas countries up over 1 billion are going to use a smaller percentage of their population because 25 million man armies are a logistical nightmare waiting to happen, for example.

Other limitations on the size of military forces...

percentage of the population that has enough education to be competent technicians and officers that can be spared from the economy without causing damage to that same economy (education level in other words)...

this was a severe limitation for both the Old Soviet Army and the Current Chinese Army... both outnumbered the US in sheer population, but faced a serious disadvantage in servicability rates and experience, not to mention flexibility versus western trained militaries....a big factor in Eastern Front 1941 - 45 (big reason for consistantly high Soviet losses) and for China against the US in Korea, and a reason why the Chinese demobilized roughly a third of their army in the last 10 years.... simply can't afford to take that many competent people out of the economy

A problem with the super nations (anything over a billion) is that in real terms, they would have already essentially taken over the planet, or imploded if forced to feed themselves with current technology levels.....

maybe they should be considered worlds and essentially become planets dealing with each other in a more far future situation? game mechanics aren't really set up for that, but essentially that is what is going on with them.

Even China and India, with populations above or approaching a billion, are reaching the point where their ability to maintain their cohesion is becoming iffy.

Not much we can do about that though...

Other limitations on the size of military forces...

percentage of the population that has enough education to be competent technicians and officers that can be spared from the economy without causing damage to that same economy (education level in other words)...

this was a severe limitation for both the Old Soviet Army and the Current Chinese Army... both outnumbered the US in sheer population, but faced a serious disadvantage in servicability rates and experience, not to mention flexibility versus western trained militaries....a big factor in Eastern Front 1941 - 45 (big reason for consistantly high Soviet losses) and for China against the US in Korea, and a reason why the Chinese demobilized roughly a third of their army in the last 10 years.... simply can't afford to take that many competent people out of the economy

A problem with the super nations (anything over a billion) is that in real terms, they would have already essentially taken over the planet, or imploded if forced to feed themselves with current technology levels.....

maybe they should be considered worlds and essentially become planets dealing with each other in a more far future situation? game mechanics aren't really set up for that, but essentially that is what is going on with them.

Even China and India, with populations above or approaching a billion, are reaching the point where their ability to maintain their cohesion is becoming iffy.

Not much we can do about that though...

We exist in an imaginary world where anywhere else is three hours away but somehow grows so everyone has enough land and that gets bigger everyday.

I wonder if a nation devotes more than 30% of its budget towards Education would be able to field better armies and logistics because of a much more intelligent and literate population?

Also, what about improvements in farm technologies, or hydrogen fuel cells providing water to farms?

What about nations that have a powerful railroad industry (like my nation)?

What about robotic factories eliminating menial labor?

I'd like answers to these questions, so I'll have a better idea how to logistic RP my small army.

There are some great threads related to this topic:

Economy, Militaries, and Invasions - More things to know:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=297064

What logistics is:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828

I wonder if a nation devotes more than 30% of its budget towards Education would be able to field better armies and logistics because of a much more intelligent and literate population?

Also, what about improvements in farm technologies, or hydrogen fuel cells providing water to farms?

What about nations that have a powerful railroad industry (like my nation)?

What about robotic factories eliminating menial labor?

I'd like answers to these questions, so I'll have a better idea how to logistic RP my small army.

Education definately helps - if you have an intelligent population, it would be easy for your military to have quite a few intelligent and competent officers and NCOs, and even your weapons development would allow you to have better technologies within a shorter time period. A railroad industry IMO wouldn't help much in this - but you do need strength in other types of industries (such as engineering of computer technologies) if you want a high tech, well-developed nation with a good military.

As for automation, surely it could free up a number of people if your tech allows you this, but it would still need people. Robots can't do everything, and your farm technologies would only bring some help to the farmers. To an extent, you would still need people to manage the manufacture and production processes, so unless you somehow have a bunch of 2050-tech "ultrasmart robots" capable of doing just about everything, you would still need more people in your industries.

As real life example of military percentages. Before WW2, Finlands standing army was about 30 000 or so, from population of 3,7 million. At the end of the war army was 540 000, which put huge economical drain to nation, as we were almost completely at the mercy of foreign food imports. Also, most of the industry jobs were filled by women, teenagers, and elderly.

"Not much we can do about that though..."

Dra-pol's population according to game mechanics: 2.5bln and growing fast
Dra-pol's role-played population: Around 34million and fluctuating slightly back and forth.

Hey! It's really easy to do something about it!

Since Marimaia is now part of Dra-pol's 'realistic RP movement', I've been doing a bit of research into a realistic military.

Realistic Marimaia - pop. 94 million, military 900,000 (approx. 400,000 front-line personnel spread throughout army, air force and navy; the rest are logistics and support)

I came up with that after looking at the size of militaries in countries like Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq, i.e. regimes that are similar to Marimaia's. Marimaia's economy is booming (Frightening), while Education and Defence are our top two priorities (the third is Commerce), so I thought it was reasonable to say that Marimaia has a fairly advanced military; the country also came within the top 6000 nations in Largest Defence Forces Per Capita, which also helps explain the numbers.

I plan to RP my military as being a similar tech level to the US today, but obviously there won't be as much hardware. Not only that, but as Marimaia has a lot of jungle terrain (as do her neighbours), there won't be many heavy tanks or things like that.

Bit out of topic. I had considered also "small is beutiful"-approach, and make separate Coalition of Duckistan (my four NS-states, Rubberduckistan, Raving Duck, Hippiekajee, Duckhaven) as few million strong state.

Back to topic, sorry. :)

Education definately helps - if you have an intelligent population, it would be easy for your military to have quite a few intelligent and competent officers and NCOs, and even your weapons development would allow you to have better technologies within a shorter time period. A railroad industry IMO wouldn't help much in this - but you do need strength in other types of industries (such as engineering of computer technologies) if you want a high tech, well-developed nation with a good military.

As for automation, surely it could free up a number of people if your tech allows you this, but it would still need people. Robots can't do everything, and your farm technologies would only bring some help to the farmers. To an extent, you would still need people to manage the manufacture and production processes, so unless you somehow have a bunch of 2050-tech "ultrasmart robots" capable of doing just about everything, you would still need more people in your industries.

I was under the impression that having a powerful railroad industry and infrastructure can help you transport large amounts of military hardware and troops around quickly and efficiently. The railroads can haul thousands of tons of goods at far less fuel consumption than if you used 500 big truck rigs which guzzles gas / oil.

As for the farming improvements, they can help feed MORE people for less land farmed. Suppose China in real life employs my hydrogen fuel cell technologies for farming (generating power while giving water as byproducts) then it could feed its billion people much better. China wouldn't have to rely on foreign food imports, and more people will be freed up from farming to pursure other jobs. Hydrogen fuel cells can theoretically be used to develop lush farms in the middle of deserts, as well as reducing strain on rivers and freshwater sources by several orders of magnitude.

The robotic assembly lines I had in mind would be packaging, assembling cars, cutting wood and processing wood products, cutting metallic parts (like DVD's, hinges, drills, etc.), and pretty much most "menial" factory work. There will of course be engineers and such to oversee the robotics in each factory, but I won't need 1,000 factory workers to do all the work. I can cut it down to like 200 engineers and maybe 100 maintainence workers. That's a large improvement.

Factoring in all these things, I could theoretically free up a considerable amount of workers, while reducing the impact of "relocating" workers on the economy during war-time. That could give people a solid military of 5% or so comfortably. In addition, this could actually make 20 million man militaries more feasible for nations with 1 - 3 billion populations.

Just offering another 2 cents.

Ok your persentage of how many people in your pop are in the army is to high hell 3% to high a peace time standing army should only be about 1.5% at the most. Now I did some research and I have compliled data on this topic. With the help of Clan Smoke Jaguars thread on war and such and here is my calculations:

7 million - Basket Case Econ

Total 105,000 - Active 52,000 - Total War Consripts 150,000

Total - Support - Fighting
8,000 - 6,000 - 2,000 (Navy)
12,000 - 8,000 - 4,000 (Air Force)
30,500 - 10,000 - 20,500 (Army)

Now for each 1 million more you have then this you times each of these by 1.14. Say if you have 14 million well you just times 1.14 * 7 = 7.98, then you times all the numbers above by 7.98.

Yeah, most armed forces cant exceed 1% of the pop, because if a lot of your population is in the army and 10% is about as high as you could go sustainably, you cant equip a large chunk of your nation well.

That is to say, if you have 5% recruitment, and spend 8% on GDP, your equipment, logistics, support vehicles, combat vehicles, navy, aircforce and so on, cant exceed 1.6% of GDP per head. Ie a thriving economy with about $25000 per head isstill only going to manage $40000 of equipment per head. So by the time you pay for, feed, train and position your troops, they cant afford more than assault rifles. No navy, no airforce, no anything else.

If you actually want a large mechanised force, with good equipment and training, try recruiting .5% top. Ornage state has a 0,2% recruitment rate, my MT nation NQP has a .3% recruitment rate, both have cutting edge equipment, thousands of tanks and large navies and airforces in the thousands of planes, and neither godmode (both have frightening economies now). The point is, id rather be well equipped because a 3bil nation waving 50million men at me, will lose. Becasue all he will have will be a large load of infantry transports and maybe a couple of corvettes, because he blew his budget on sheer size. While i have tanks, anti infantry tanks, aircraft, a superb navyetc.

Manpower doesnt impress. So why recruit a load. Most of the best armies recruit at a low rate. I mean they measure attaclking force (leaves a little at home) of huge size in hundreds of thousands, and still beat people who will mobilize 20mil without thinking.

Yeah, most armed forces cant exceed 1% of the pop, because if a lot of your population is in the army and 10% is about as high as you could go sustainably, you cant equip a large chunk of your nation well.

That is to say, if you have 5% recruitment, and spend 8% on GDP, your equipment, logistics, support vehicles, combat vehicles, navy, aircforce and so on, cant exceed 1.6% of GDP per head. Ie a thriving economy with about $25000 per head isstill only going to manage $40000 of equipment per head. So by the time you pay for, feed, train and position your troops, they cant afford more than assault rifles. No navy, no airforce, no anything else.

If you actually want a large mechanised force, with good equipment and training, try recruiting .5% top. Ornage state has a 0,2% recruitment rate, my MT nation NQP has a .3% recruitment rate, both have cutting edge equipment, thousands of tanks and large navies and airforces in the thousands of planes, and neither godmode (both have frightening economies now). The point is, id rather be well equipped because a 3bil nation waving 50million men at me, will lose. Becasue all he will have will be a large load of infantry transports and maybe a couple of corvettes, because he blew his budget on sheer size. While i have tanks, anti infantry tanks, aircraft, a superb navyetc.

Manpower doesnt impress. So why recruit a load. Most of the best armies recruit at a low rate. I mean they measure attaclking force (leaves a little at home) of huge size in hundreds of thousands, and still beat people who will mobilize 20mil without thinking.

Some good points, Orange State.

However, sometimes quantity wins over quality. Your soldiers can only fire so many bullets before their magazines are depleted, and the enemy can keep on coming.

On the other hand, if your soldiers were trained to not waste shots or spray lead like newbies in online FPS games like Halo or such, then quality can win over quantity.

I think all of this kind of misses the point. I have come up with similar figures for maximum manpower using Singapore and Taiwan as examples on another thread. They look similar to what has been said here. What is missing is what do these things cost in terms of game dollars? There needs to be some system, so that if I have "Arm Manufacturing" as an industry in my country I can produe and sell those items to other nations. Or perhaps through alliances give them away. You might not be able to buy the best because you might have a country that can't afford it.

Top of my head
Armour ratings start at 0 (zero) for an unarmoured vehicle like a jeep, humvee or passenger car. Add 1 for each degree of armour plating Let us assume that each one represents .1 cm (1/2 an inch) of steel armour. You could even, because most armoured vehicles have armour that varies in thickness, divide the vehicle into sections Top, Turret, Front LS,RS Back Bottom

You then have weight which could be a unified amount per cm per pannel, speed and bog conditions to deal with. Use the same system for these stats starting at 0 and working up.

Imaginary Example.
Victory Motors LBT (Light Battle Tank)
Armour Front = 4
Turret = 6
Top = 2
LS = 4
RS = 4
Bottom = 1
Equals 21

There should probably be a vehicle size modifier and armour on the top an bottom shoud weigh twice as much because it covers more surface area.

You would then have to figure the cost of adding and engine and electronics which could be a s siimple as as a leikhert scale after all good electronics are going to cost the same regardless of vehicle size and a multiplier for range ( fuel use) That would get you a value for the vehicle which you could multiple against you currency value to obtain a price. You could also have a cost multiplier for reducing weight through things like Chobham Ceramic armour type things

The same could be done with small arms and the weapons on the vehcle.

What this kind of system would do, if setup right is make the godmodding military uinits nearly impossible. As you build more armour you have to have a bigger engine and use more fuel. The correction to a godmodder would be built into the system. If someone tries to make a super tank with a 150 armour rating on all sides and a 240mm cannon that runs 70mph and can climbe telephone poles he probably can. but could only afford one or two of them

Once a list like this was published then nations could sign onto it. If you don't sign onto the list your opponant can ignore you. Once the basic parameters were put in place it would probably fit on a table format and be pretty simple to use.

A couple of things to think about when deciding what percentage of your population can be in the military:

What % is of military age (17-35 year olds for most nations)?
How many of those are fit for service?
How many of them will be needed for regular (non-military) work?

The Game stipulates that your population will grow by 5-6 million people per RL day. This is not merely 5-6 million births, but 5-6 million more than the losses caused by emigration, deaths, etc. This means you can realistically assume that roughly 20% of your population is of military age. A nation of 100 million people would therefore have 20 million old enough to serve in the military.

This does not mean that there are 20 million people eligible for military service, however. Unless you plan on conscripting parapalegics as infantrymen (for one of the more ludicrous examples), the number of military-eligible people will merely be a large percentage of that number. Pregnancy, illness, lack of physical fitness, lack of mental acuity- all of these things will reduce the number of eligible personnel.

This number will be reduced still more when you realize that a lot of these young men and women will have to work in regular businesses and industry- for the purpose of training new workers to keep the country going. No matter what kind of economy you have, some industries need the same quality of young, healthy people to do the work.

So now our mythical nation of 100 million people only has about fraction of the military-age people eligible for military service. Remember that the larger the nation, the more civilians are required to support the entire military force. We will make an adjustment to the basic logistics formula for military forces and apply it here. For every person in the military, there will be 2 civilians directly supporting that person.

This (admittedly simplistic) formula will help you keep your military at some reasonable facsimile of a rational level. If our 100-million-man nation has 5 million people in the military (including reserves), then there will be 10 million civilians who work directly in support of the military (truck drivers, stevedores, parts manufacturers, farmers, etc).

We now have 10% of the total population of our mythical nation directly involved with the military. These people are providing only indirect input to the nation's economy and GDP. Remember that militaries are inherently wasteful. Except for wartime, all they do is practice and consume and litter otherwise valuable landscapes with weapons and bases. Those 10 million working-age people are a massive drain on your economy.

My brace of small copper coins.


TEO

Sharina... yes.. but the extreme example i took wouldnt even have anti tank weapons or aircraft, they could just be run over or even... n00ked without any defenses to stop them.

Im just saying that before you even what and who supports what... that you have to equip people too.

James Dunnigan in one of his books (Dirty Little Secrets I believe) made an interesting observation...... in the last 100 years of conventional military coflict, generally, the side with the less spiffy (or just plain ragged) uniforms has won... in otherwords, armies that dress fashionably has lost most wars in the last century

An amusing observation

One thing I have noticed is that many nations love shiny toys.... weapons systems come first no matter what. It seems amazingly important to have LOTS of tanks, fighters, bombers and missiles...

whether they work or not, have reasonable serviceability rates, or will actually launch when the missile key is turned.

an army in a recent thread sent 20 divisions of troops to another nation, but counted only the divisional troops, leading a reasonable person to believe that perhaps the various corps and army support troops were forgotten somewhere along the way.

in the real world, these combat divisions would be in deep trouble within a week after the divisional stocks of supplies, parts and spares where used up.

looks good on paper though....

there is a reason that in World War II, to supply a combat division in the Southwest Pacific required 1 man at home base, 1 man at the port of embarkation, one man at an intermediate port, 1 man at another intermediate port, still more men (2 or more) at forward support bases, plus another man in the division itself just to support 1 rifleman. Add more for aircrews and ships and artillery... in others, 1 man required 10 men to support him particularly as the front was close to 8,000 miles from the homeland... the Japanese neglected that (more of a 1 to 3 ratio) and suffered severe and at times catastrophic losses not only in combat, but from the climate, disease, starvation and accidents....

Modern post world war 2 ratios have not changed (if anything, gone up slightly) so to supply an infantry man in current Iraq requires a similar ratio

Armies that neglect this simply melt away or suffer extreme losses requiring masses of replacements that usually are less capable than the men they are replacing (lack of experience, confidence and for that matter, instincts)

and the shiny toys aren't always the best answer either.... in Somalia, multimillion dollar helicopters manned by expensively trained pilots and specialists were downed by salvos of really cheap RPGs fired by marginally trained (but moderately experienced) militia........ talk about extreme cost benefit problems.. for about $100,000 (including pay to date, cost of the RPGs etc) the Somali militia cost us about $30 million dollars an aircraft lost (including the cost of training both pilots and some of the specialists)

history is littered with examples like this

another humerous example occured in the same thread cited above.. a nation launched a relatively large conventional assault.... but failed to read the initial post that stated the territory involved was an island. The nation involved was somewhat surprised to learn that his bold move had some substantial problems as he forgot to bring along ships....

oops

...Are you sure those two men at this post, one man at that, one at another are all in a chain built for one rifleman? I mean, does Man A on Station 1 get a box of bullets, and send it on to Man B on Station 2, who blah blah to Rifleman A, and then just sit the war out until Rifleman A is low on ammo again? Surely they keep working and each supply chappy is serving a whole mess of riflemen, eh? Yes, one man may have required ten to support him, but those ten were also supporting the rest of his squad... I don't remember three million American labourers sitting in Guam or something.

...Are you sure those two men at this post, one man at that, one at another are all in a chain built for one rifleman? I mean, does Man A on Station 1 get a box of bullets, and send it on to Man B on Station 2, who blah blah to Rifleman A, and then just sit the war out until Rifleman A is low on ammo again? Surely they keep working and each supply chappy is serving a whole mess of riflemen, eh? Yes, one man may have required ten to support him, but those ten were also supporting the rest of his squad... I don't remember three million American labourers sitting in Guam or something.


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.

http://www.military-sf.com/Logistics.htm

I take it to mean that, in general number terms, there are quite a bit more people on the support side than the combat side.

Vrak, good link in general about tactics and stuff, people overlook in their stories. :)

This is all getting a bit abstract. There's no point trying to pin these things down, because Dra-pol's Unified People's Army is never going to look even a tiny little bit like the US Marine Corps.
Where Nation X wants to fight coalition-based peace-keeping actions anywhere on earth, and Nation Y wants to rampage across an ocean and conquer what's on the far side, Dra-pol wants scream through the last few score miles of Korea to the south coast and has no reason for her own military capacity to survive the event.

I'd say that figuring out realistic military forces comes from making mistakes and realising what they were, and trying always to think on them to their logical extremes so each avenue of failure is completely covered by one related mistake... and that was going to make a lot more sense, but there's bacon burning.

I have seen people saying that a nations army would conceivably only be a small percantage of it's population. From what I have been told of Switzerland I would have to say it could muster a far greater percentage of its populace as a standing army, mainly due to the fact that most households own at least 1 M-16 assault rifle as a result of their national service. I am also led to believe that anyone who held a rank of officer levels is permitted to have 3 hand grenades in their household. Would it therefore be unrealistic to expect those of us that have compulsory national service (such as myself) to be able to - in crunch times - put forward a far larger number of armed people in the theatre of combat?.


High Lord X, Emporer of the Xarlantine Empire

Its not just the percentage of your popluation, but how much you spend on them for training and equipment.

Clan Smoke Jaguar's Post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5630042&postcount=1) <-- Tibortia has already linked to this, and it seems no-one is reading it. This is a very useful post.

And for a budget, I personally use the NSEconomy on Thirdgeek. This gives you your budget percentages based on your Issue choices, like mine. (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/?nation=starblaydia)

Obviously just replace 'starblaydia' with your nations name

Dra-pol has already emntioned it a bit but you first and foremost have to think about what you require of your military.

Today no military or govenrment look at things from the point of veiw of :
"Oh i can buy lots fo shiny things"
the point of veiw is more
"Well we need this part of our military to do this. To do that we need between X-Y units. Can we afford X/Y units or can we make Z units do the job"

A good example would be the UK's current Airfroce reductions which are primarily driven by the fact that together the Harrier Gr7/9 and Tornado Gr4 should have a combined capability needed for expeditionary forces thus the jaguar is no longer required.

Even in the most militant govenrment they will try and scrimp savigns where they can.

Personally i'm a bit of a fan of the fixed Rp population (hence my african Rp puppet of Strathdonia with its fixed 12million) it does help quell soem of the more rampant insanities.

Dra-pol has already emntioned it a bit but you first and foremost have to think about what you require of your military.

Today no military or govenrment look at things from the point of veiw of :
"Oh i can buy lots fo shiny things"
the point of veiw is more
"Well we need this part of our military to do this. To do that we need between X-Y units. Can we afford X/Y units or can we make Z units do the job"

A good example would be the UK's current Airfroce reductions which are primarily driven by the fact that together the Harrier Gr7/9 and Tornado Gr4 should have a combined capability needed for expeditionary forces thus the jaguar is no longer required.

Even in the most militant govenrment they will try and scrimp savigns where they can.

Personally i'm a bit of a fan of the fixed Rp population (hence my african Rp puppet of Strathdonia with its fixed 12million) it does help quell soem of the more rampant insanities.

Oops that was me, wrong login ID...

I have a pop. of 8 million, with about 3% of which in the military. That comes to.... 240,000 individuals. After removing 60% logistical personnel, I'd have...

96,000 people for military action. I had 2 destroyers, 1 aircraft carrier, 20 submaries, and around 300 planes. About 50 each of tanks, mobile AA batteries, SAM batteries, and large anti-tank/personnel carrier type military equipment. There are 200 elite soldiers, like a SWAT team, of 4.

Both destroyers, 90 planes, 7000 infantry, 80 special ops, 1/3 the crew of a small aircraft carrier, 80 elite soldiers, and 20 of each of the military equipment peices were lost in the recent disasterous attempt to intervene in the conflicts in Doomingsland. Am I over the top?

Its not just the percentage of your popluation, but how much you spend on them for training and equipment.

Clan Smoke Jaguar's Post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5630042&postcount=1) <-- Tibortia has already linked to this, and it seems no-one is reading it. This is a very useful post.

And for a budget, I personally use the NSEconomy on Thirdgeek. This gives you your budget percentages based on your Issue choices, like mine. (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/?nation=starblaydia)

Obviously just replace 'starblaydia' with your nations name


good gdp calc but horribly flawed...

A) it assumes the US is the most efficient and highest GDP per head possible. Which is a load of warm turd. Honestly, there are nations with economies that the US couldnt dream of. Like mine. *laughs* no honestly.

B) it forgets that as tax rises the government has to buy other things, like food and shelter, not just the old goods. Otherwise everyone dies because they are taxed broke. At 100% tax almost everything will be public. Unless there is a huge welfare sector, either way, it means that 20% of a 100% tax rate budget will be spent on defence, when such things couldnt happen, without everyone dying.

We have the GDP calculator, but does anyone know if anybody has come up with anything that could give a crude idea of what kind of military a nation could afford to field in the theatre of combat?


High Lord X, Emporer of Xarlantine

Try using your imagination and remembering, no nation can sustainably spend more than 10% GDP on military (in extreme cases) and trying differne sizes. that kind of stuff is all over this thread and this forum. Its just hard to dig up.

tag

On the Switzerland thing, though I know almost nothing about their case especially, Dra-pol has a different but not entirely dissimilar set-up, because we are a small and poor nation surrounded by geopolitically opposite, larger, wealthier states, and we have a centrally planned economy that can (sort of) cope with it. With regular and elite armed forces already consuming a significant weight of the population, Dra-pol has four reserve formations. These could be vaguely related to the Swiss model in capacity, I think (well, I expect ours are better organised, to be honest, but in the end it doesn't matter much), in that they're huge, but they are emergency forces... they can't just mobilize and storm into the next country. They can't do it if you give them ten years to prepare. They can't even mobilize to concentrate their numbers against the enemy at one point. This is because they're basically citizen militias tied down to other duties. They have to stay home and stick to their task for the sake of the war effort, taking up arms only when the war bursts into their town.

Units like our People's Rear Defence Organisation, United Workers Militia, Working Womens Home Brigade, and Kuro Student Defence League, and the Swiss armed citizenry (I assume) can not be used as army units. I can think of an example of someone trying to use his nation's as such, but then he poisoned his wife and shot himself when surprisingly enough his new army groups couldn't carry out the counter-attacks he ordered. In Dra-pol, the citizen militias will only ever activate a few cells at a time as the enemy advance reaches each formation's area of responsibility, and each will have to look after itself individually. I don't know how organised the Swiss are, but I'd assume they're basically the same. It means the enemy gets some hassle for every inch of the country he takes, but it never means he's facing anything that a concentrated army group can't face-down.

Try using your imagination and remembering, no nation can sustainably spend more than 10% GDP on military (in extreme cases) and trying differne sizes. that kind of stuff is all over this thread and this forum. Its just hard to dig up.

Actually, the CPRD's military production may at any given time account for up to 34% of gross domestic product.
Of course, the results of this have been several fold. A really bad famine, a less serious famine dressed-up as a really bad famine as a means to acquire aid and trick enemies into a false sense of security, and ironically enough a stagnation of military technology as production that might have been given over to trade for new systems and technologies is instead expended on replacing tank treds and artillery shells are just some. The defection of many thousand weary Drapoel to an enemy-held protectorate on our shores is another. I think, in my own humble(ish) opinion, that it would be a vast improvement to see people RPing negative aspects that their nation's ideology has upon their state in some way besides having somebody take a shot at the president or start a terrorist campaign. I think a darn site more people tried to cross the Berlin wall than tried to shoot the Soviet premier.

Switzerland isn't a good military model for the vast majority of NS nations simply because their system is a reflection of local circumstances.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v166/antoku/andermatt.jpg
This is Andermatt, in the Swiss Alps near Altdorf. It is also the site of an emergency command post for the army. I don't know about you, but if someone was invading my country, I'd be happy to defend a place like this.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v166/antoku/CH-Andermatt.gif
The only access to Andermatt is by way of four roads- three of which are over high alpine passes. In other words, a defender's dream; even a part time militia army could hold this place against a vastly superior enemy, simpley coz' if you can't get your numbers and technology to the foe, then you might as well not have either.

My point is that Switzerland, a neutral, mountainous, and above all small nation is well suited for the system it uses. Being neutral, the entire army is geared to defence- you can forget offensive action, something few NS players seem to be able to do ;) As a result they can concentrate on establishing a force which, to quote Dra-Pol, will hassle the enemy for every single inch of territory.

As an aside, the Swiss armed forces may be part time but they are very well organised, almost to an apocalyptic degree. Valley sides have aircraft hangers and strongpoints blasted into them for use as emergency staging posts, and it is a requirement (at least in built up areas) for all citizens to be within a few minutes walk from a nuclear bunker (most homes have them; when I lived there, we used ours as a wine cellar as part of our drink-yourself-to-death-during-a-nuclear-war-policy :) ). In Basel, there is an entire 1000 bed hospital buried underground behind reinforced concrete. Bunkers in houses are also inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are working, and any contents can be removed with a few minutes in case of an emergency.

Plus for the swiss add in the fact that in soem towns the high street is actualy a runway...
I know not fancy but soem of the pics i have seen of swiss exercises with fighter jets crossing road junctions as the traffic sits patiently on the other sides...

We have the GDP calculator, but does anyone know if anybody has come up with anything that could give a crude idea of what kind of military a nation could afford to field in the theatre of combat?


High Lord X, Emporer of Xarlantine

I have several saved on my hard drive, copied from the various posts before the Jolt move. They are all in Microsloth Excel format. If you TG me with an email address, I will send them to you.


TEO

bump

bump for updates

With the exception of the post above this one, no nations have bothered to use this for one of the main reasons I created it, to be able to post information and (hopefully) get a response about a realistic military size. If your not sure on your ablity to make accurate guesses about a countries military strength, practice with my nation. It has roughly 2.25 billion people and military spending takes up about 32% of the budget. Anyone hazard a guess to test their skills? Don't worry if you guess some crazy number I won't automatically using the number, cause I already have a # in mind.

Real world effects of military budgets...

The Soviet Union spent roughly 20% of their GDP (although the figures are hazy as they didn't even know what they really spent, but it was the best 20%) on their military from 1964 until 1990... and they went belly up, have a seriously degraded industrial plant and were notorious for having severe shortages of consumer goods and serious shortages of food (they bought wheat on the world market in huge quantities from about the mid 1970s on)

The US spent between 5 - 8% of its GDP (depends on the administration) between 1960 and 1992.... not counting the extra costs of Vietnam. In 1990 and for most of the period, had huge budget deficits and has a staggering national debt to this day (but survived)

the Japanese spent 1% of their GDP on military forces from 1950 on, and have an extremely modern industrial plant, a highly effective military and had an amazingly good 1970s - 1990 rise not only in their overall GDP, but also the general standard of living and are still doing pretty well (in spite of an unstable money market and stock market system)

An estimate from the book How to Make War (2003 edition) has determined that between 1950 and 1992, the Soviet and NATO nations spent enough money to have fought World War 2 at least 3 or 4 times.

So thats what happened in real life. Now all three of these nations would be considered relatively small compared to the big boys in this game with over 1 billion people.

Mods, I ask that this thread be stickied. I know there is a limit to the ability to do that, but this is an extremely important issue that raises its head in NS on a regular, almost daily basis. The information provided here and how to find additional info. on the issue is proving invaluable.

For economics, go by your nations XML feed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=). Note this is generated by the game. NSEconomy calculator (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/) is a very detailed calculator providing a realistic budget.

For percentages and actual numbers of military personnel, make a few calculations.

Here's my current figuring:
51% of the population is female and 49% is male.
As The Evil Overlord pointed out, about 20% of the population will be of military age - 17-35. I'd say you could push that up to 25-30%, depending on the exact circumstances of your nation. Poorer nations with poor health care, generally have a higher youth population, while richer industrialized nations should have a lower one. (I go by 25%.)
Most military personnel are conscripted or recruited at the earliest age. (Yes, I know not all, but it's a handy figure. If you want to be really geeky about it, figure the percentages available at different ages.) The span of military service years above is 19 years. Dividing 1 by 19 gives us .053 (rounded), or 5.3% of that age group, which is 1.06% of the entire population.
Of that percentage, around 15% will be judged unfit for military service. This generally means the physically and mentally handicapped and criminals. This number can also be played with. Use your UN health ranking or health budget from the XML feed to determine this. You should also include the UN smart ranking or education budget. The worse you are, the higher the percentage of unfit people you should have. If you have bad rankings, but high inclusion rates this means you have low recruiting standards, which makes for poor soldiers. That 15% excluded means only 85% are now available.
So we now have a few basic figures on who is available. (I go by 80%.)

20% of the total population is between 17 and 35 years, 1.06% of the total being 17.
85% of the total population is fit for service.
.901% of the total population is at the military conscription/recruitment age and fit for service.

An army of 10% would mean nearly every single male between the ages of 17 and 35 in most countries (or half the male and females). 5% would mean half the male population between 17 and 35 (or 25% of the males and females). This would cause sever strain on the economy.

Now you have some choices.
Do you allow, or require, women to serve?
If so, in what numbers?
Do you have conscription?
If so, is it 100% of those available, a lottery, or selection by the military? What percentage does the military take in?
Does the conscription system allow people to opt out as conscientious objectors or opt for another form of national service?
If so what percentage do so?

Here in Daistallia 2104, we have a mixed conscription system. All those of age are conscripted, male and female. Alternative national service is available. Males tend to take alternative service at a 30% rate and Females at a 70% rate. Of those conscripted, the majority are simply sent through a 6 month basic training program and returned to civilian life (but have a militia obligation of at least 5 years). 10% of each yearly group of conscripts are "cherry picked" or volunteer for further service.

Now, to determine the total numbers of available personnel. First, you need to decide what kind of army you have. A conscript army usually has 10-30% long term regulars. A professional army will have more. And a long service army will be near 100% (people do get cashiered, killed, etc.). Determine the number of conscripts and their term of service. Then determine how many long service regulars you have and their term of service. Add the two together, and you can get a good idea of your numbers.

(More later, but time to leave for work.)

sticky sticky sticky

bump

Right, although we have many clever and detailed posts here, I would like to add a little to them. What you all essentially miss is the point of NS, you create your nation through RP. Now, how you create your military is entirely up to you. Percentage of military budgeting doesn't actually matter in some economies, since only in state orientated economies would that matter, since the rest you can have your people's needs mainly provided for by the private sector. So only in state owned economies (like RL USSR), must the Government budget for other needs that in Capitalist economies would be provided by the private sector.

As for logistics, I believe that it depends how you organise your military but I believe you must answer the following questions:

How do you troops get supplied? (Air, Truck, Rail?), since each one has its own implications, I chose the former, simply because it fits into the logistical system I have created for my Legions (i.e. having a specific logistics/supply regiment, which distributes said delivered supplies as ordered)

How much of your military budget goes upon supplies?

What do you troops need in the way of supplies on the ground? What are you going to give them?

Also, I would remind you all of the concept of forage, troops can get some of their supplies from the local populance/area but only for a short period of time before that source is bled dry.

As for how many people can you have in your military:

I say about 10% at full conscription rate, why? You need essential workers etc for your war effort etc as well and those have to come out of the general population, which must include a lot of the potential young recruits. I based this upon Nazi Germany in WWII, but if you include women in that you can probably double it in fieldable military personel.

Essentially, what I am saying is that you must make basic decisions for your military and RP your military accordingly. I would also suggust if you make changes to those basic decisions in wartime, you RP them (e.g. increasing the age range for conscription etc).

At the moment i would say i have a truly realisttic military. Everything included it is 22,769,530 men. That is a 10:1 ratio of logistics/admin to combat troops and crew for vehicles/artillery and planes. In all that comes to 1.276% of my present population. Annual upkeep is 998 billion out of a total budget of 3.31 trillion which is 8.75% of my governments total budget. I havent worked out exactly all my logistcal units but i think that i have got numbers abut right. As i havent bought anything for a while this gives me a healthy surplus with which to fund wars while not draining too much from my work populace. I would highly recommend excel to anyone who whants to build up an accurate and detailed army. The thing is its all well ignroing logistics and saying you have 20million men but you don't really need that many. but if you do use excel to keep track of all your units and assign logictical units to them so you don't get all this crap about you not being able to (my opion is if you have the figures and have worked it out then fine)

The first post is semi-updated. Have ideas that you think people should read in the first post so they don't have to read up to the last page? Make your suggestions now!

Right, although we have many clever and detailed posts here, I would like to add a little to them. What you all essentially miss is the point of NS, you create your nation through RP.

Nope. This topic was on realistic militaries, so the posts reflect realism. Some people don't want to play realistcally, and that's great. Some people do, and this thread was intended for them.

Now, how you create your military is entirely up to you.

Percentage of military budgeting doesn't actually matter in some economies, since only in state orientated economies would that matter, since the rest you can have your people's needs mainly provided for by the private sector. So only in state owned economies (like RL USSR), must the Government budget for other needs that in Capitalist economies would be provided by the private sector.

Sorry, but that's just not so. Someone has to pay the payroll and buy the gear, even if it's on the open market.

As for logistics, I believe that it depends how you organise your military but I believe you must answer the following questions:

How do you troops get supplied? (Air, Truck, Rail?), since each one has its own implications, I chose the former, simply because it fits into the logistical system I have created for my Legions (i.e. having a specific logistics/supply regiment, which distributes said delivered supplies as ordered)

How much of your military budget goes upon supplies?

What do you troops need in the way of supplies on the ground? What are you going to give them?

Also, I would remind you all of the concept of forage, troops can get some of their supplies from the local populance/area but only for a short period of time before that source is bled dry.

All good questions. Just a few notes though. Logistics is not the only support. You need to account for

As for how many people can you have in your military:

I say about 10% at full conscription rate, why? You need essential workers etc for your war effort etc as well and those have to come out of the general population, which must include a lot of the potential young recruits. I based this upon Nazi Germany in WWII, but if you include women in that you can probably double it in fieldable military personel.

10% is do-able only under very limited circumstances, as I pointed out above - a wartime crisis army and only for a short time. A standing army of 10% would criple an economy.

Essentially, what I am saying is that you must make basic decisions for your military and RP your military accordingly. I would also suggust if you make changes to those basic decisions in wartime, you RP them (e.g. increasing the age range for conscription etc).

Again, agreed. Play how you wish. As always if you don't like how someone plays, don't play with them.

Some good points, Orange State.

However, sometimes quantity wins over quality. Your soldiers can only fire so many bullets before their magazines are depleted, and the enemy can keep on coming.

On the other hand, if your soldiers were trained to not waste shots or spray lead like newbies in online FPS games like Halo or such, then quality can win over quantity.

Here is where technology comes into play. If I have MetalStorm and clusterbombs, a handful of troops can hold off a much larger force.

Try using your imagination and remembering, no nation can sustainably spend more than 10% GDP on military (in extreme cases) and trying differne sizes. that kind of stuff is all over this thread and this forum. Its just hard to dig up.

Depends what you define as military spending, as it can include research and development...

Nope. This topic was on realistic militaries, so the posts reflect realism. Some people don't want to play realistcally, and that's great. Some people do, and this thread was intended for them.

Yes, I was refering to REALISTIC players. My point was because you create your own military you have to create a structure for it, thus it can be realistic but still be totally of your own creation. As long as you account for any discrepencies etc...



Sorry, but that's just not so. Someone has to pay the payroll and buy the gear, even if it's on the open market.

No, I wasn't refering to the military budget, I was simply refuting the claim that spending 20-25% of your GDP on military, wouldn't nessacarily cause your economy to collape, I wasn't refering to HOW you spent your military budget.


All good questions. Just a few notes though. Logistics is not the only support. You need to account for

Yes, from what I've read of the RP's on here most people have grasped most of the other varieties bar the need for military police. Sort of why I have an attached several support branches to my military in order to allow for that kind of support to be given.



10% is do-able only under very limited circumstances, as I pointed out above - a wartime crisis army and only for a short time. A standing army of 10% would criple an economy.

Yes, I had thought it was infered that 10%-20% (depending on whether you recruit men/women and to what age range you recruit) was a crisis army. Standing Armies in my opinion should be around 1-5% of your population depending on what you want... e.g. if you have 5% of your pop in the military, then your troops aren't going to super troops are they? There lots of them and how on earth are you going to afford super training for all of them? Unless you have a mil budget of 30-40%.

As for simple ideas on realistic militaries:

1) Make sure your military has discernable weaknesses (everybody has them).
2) Do you recruit men and women?
3) What is your recruiting/conscription age range?
4) How do you troops get supplied at the front?
5) Have a large admin department in your military (I would say at least 5% of your military will be involved in this)
6) Set the level of your troops training etc at a realistic level depending on how many troops you have and your military budget.
7) Replacing dead/injured troops takes time, you can't do it instantly it's a form of logistics as well.
8) When on campaign remeber your troops can get some of their supplies from the local population but only for a limited period (a few weeks I should think).
9) Look at what kind of economy you have, if you have a more state-orientated economy remeber increased military spending means less money on things for the people etc, if you have a more free-market economy, then it means there is less money for law & order and attracting new business. Remeber, that and remeber the maxim, short wars are a great boost for the economy, but long wars are a great drain on the economy.

Yes, I was refering to REALISTIC players. My point was because you create your own military you have to create a structure for it, thus it can be realistic but still be totally of your own creation. As long as you account for any discrepencies etc...

Ah, ok. I'm just used to players trying to claim that any injection of realism was cramping their style. if you look at my % in the military post above, I think you'll find I agree that RP and nation set up should affect the miliotary set up.

No, I wasn't refering to the military budget, I was simply refuting the claim that spending 20-25% of your GDP on military, wouldn't nessacarily cause your economy to collape, I wasn't refering to HOW you spent your military budget.

Again, I misunderstood, but this wasn't clear in your post (at least to me). Oh well. :)

Yes, from what I've read of the RP's on here most people have grasped most of the other varieties bar the need for military police. Sort of why I have an attached several support branches to my military in order to allow for that kind of support to be given.

Hmmm... That hasn't been my experience. I've found that more players tend to simply make a list along the lines of: "1 million infantrymen, 1 million XM-8s, 2 million tankers, 2 million M1a1 tanks, etc." with no organization at all, much less any form of combat support. I'm hard pressed to think of more than one or two storefronts selling engineer vehicles or other various support vehicles.

Yes, I had thought it was infered that 10%-20% (depending on whether you recruit men/women and to what age range you recruit) was a crisis army. Standing Armies in my opinion should be around 1-5% of your population depending on what you want... e.g. if you have 5% of your pop in the military, then your troops aren't going to super troops are they? There lots of them and how on earth are you going to afford super training for all of them? Unless you have a mil budget of 30-40%.

Again, this wasn't clear in your post (at least to me). 5% should be the absolute maximum standing army, and should only be considered for very small nations or larger nations with conscription, high military spending (25%+, as by the game's XML feed (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=), and an imploded economy.

As for simple ideas on realistic militaries:

1) Make sure your military has discernable weaknesses (everybody has them).
2) Do you recruit men and women?
3) What is your recruiting/conscription age range?
4) How do you troops get supplied at the front?
5) Have a large admin department in your military (I would say at least 5% of your military will be involved in this)
6) Set the level of your troops training etc at a realistic level depending on how many troops you have and your military budget.
7) Replacing dead/injured troops takes time, you can't do it instantly it's a form of logistics as well.
8) When on campaign remeber your troops can get some of their supplies from the local population but only for a limited period (a few weeks I should think).
9) Look at what kind of economy you have, if you have a more state-orientated economy remeber increased military spending means less money on things for the people etc, if you have a more free-market economy, then it means there is less money for law & order and attracting new business. Remeber, that and remeber the maxim, short wars are a great boost for the economy, but long wars are a great drain on the economy.

All good questions and points. :D

Here is where technology comes into play. If I have MetalStorm and clusterbombs, a handful of troops can hold off a much larger force.

Not really, depending on how you define "handful" and "much larger", and if you count support forces. Any given unit can only defend so much frontage. A larger unit can easily engage and envelop a smaller unit, regardless of technology, especially if the defender is unsupported and the attacker is significantly larger. For example, a squad (a handful of men) can control about 200m of frontage and a company attacks on a 500-1000m frontage. (all data from How to Make War, by Jim Dunnigan, a book I highly reccomend.) All the attacker has to do is send a platoon against the squad and the rest of the company can bypass the squad. Even a single squad would suffice to temporarily engage the defenders while they are bypassed and cut off.

Clusterbombs imply artillery or even air support, which necessitates a large support force.

Oh, and Metalstorm would require a large ammount of logistical support. The faster you use ammunition, the faster you deplete your stocks.

I agree with Daistallia 2104, even with support and advanced tech your small number of units woudl simply be enveloped.

hence why small units tend to choose to defend areas where the enemy cannot use thier wider frontage, or go on the offensive and attack small parts of the enemy line.

Modern western armies can be deceiveing. Yes they all rely on a small number of well equipped troops but it must be remebered that these are now by and large expeditionary force designed to make limited strikes and engage in manouver warfare. The smaller western forces of the Cold war weren't that small in reality and even then they relied primarily on terrain to save them from the soviet jugernaught.

Not really, depending on how you define "handful" and "much larger", and if you count support forces. Any given unit can only defend so much frontage. A larger unit can easily engage and envelop a smaller unit, regardless of technology, especially if the defender is unsupported and the attacker is significantly larger. For example, a squad (a handful of men) can control about 200m of frontage and a company attacks on a 500-1000m frontage. (all data from How to Make War, by Jim Dunnigan, a book I highly reccomend.) All the attacker has to do is send a platoon against the squad and the rest of the company can bypass the squad. Even a single squad would suffice to temporarily engage the defenders while they are bypassed and cut off.

Clusterbombs imply artillery or even air support, which necessitates a large support force.

Oh, and Metalstorm would require a large ammount of logistical support. The faster you use ammunition, the faster you deplete your stocks.

I agree whole heartedly with you on "How to Make War" the current 2003 edition is excellent, but if you can find older (1981 and 1994) editions it also has information on Cold War situations that are useful for nations using older tech, and really goes into the the Balance of Terror very well (minor details like NO ONE has ever fired a ICBM over the pole for obvious reasons, therefore no one knew just what effect the higher radiation levels and magnetic pole would have on the inertial guidence systems of that day)

it also really goes into attrition very well, and how just sitting still in a combat zone while in contact with the enemy will still cost an army about 2% of its force in overall casualties each day (half of which will return, the rest won't ever or at least for the duration of the campaign)

Not really, depending on how you define "handful" and "much larger", and if you count support forces. Any given unit can only defend so much frontage. A larger unit can easily engage and envelop a smaller unit, regardless of technology, especially if the defender is unsupported and the attacker is significantly larger. For example, a squad (a handful of men) can control about 200m of frontage and a company attacks on a 500-1000m frontage. (all data from How to Make War, by Jim Dunnigan, a book I highly reccomend.) All the attacker has to do is send a platoon against the squad and the rest of the company can bypass the squad. Even a single squad would suffice to temporarily engage the defenders while they are bypassed and cut off.

Clusterbombs imply artillery or even air support, which necessitates a large support force.

Oh, and Metalstorm would require a large ammount of logistical support. The faster you use ammunition, the faster you deplete your stocks.


Uhm, have another look at reality, folks. Particularly the wars in Israel. A much smaller force mauled much larger forces because of differences in technology, intellegence, mobility, and training.

If I have the defensive position of Switzerland, a small force can hold off a larger force nearly forever. If I've got machine guns against spears, a larger force will get mauled. If I've got machine guns and tanks, a force armed with spears is going to get thrashed.

Finally - if I'm the smaller force, job #1 is to kill the larger forces supply lines. Having no support, they fall that much faster. Doesn't matter if you have a million man army if you only have one clip. Total.

We could also go into the different forms of warfare. Attrition warfare, perhaps youre right. Mobile warfare - as my intent is to strike flanks and supplies, you have a problem with a smaller but more mobile force. Finally, if we're talking a Guerilla war, the smaller force enjoys many advantages, particularly the lack of that huge ammo dump sitting out there, lack of center, and giving the huge army no target to strike decisively at (see also Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet invasion of), Iraq (current)).

I agree whole heartedly with you on "How to Make War" the current 2003 edition is excellent, but if you can find older (1981 and 1994) editions it also has information on Cold War situations that are useful for nations using older tech, and really goes into the the Balance of Terror very well (minor details like NO ONE has ever fired a ICBM over the pole for obvious reasons, therefore no one knew just what effect the higher radiation levels and magnetic pole would have on the inertial guidence systems of that day)

it also really goes into attrition very well, and how just sitting still in a combat zone while in contact with the enemy will still cost an army about 2% of its force in overall casualties each day (half of which will return, the rest won't ever or at least for the duration of the campaign)


:D Anyone who may be interested can find it at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009012X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-2751736-2260030?v=glance&s=books).

I 1st picked up the 2nd (1988) edition. I was pleasantly surprised to find it on my reading list for my senior year International Relations seminar. It was the only text I ever used in college that I already had on hand that I hadn't bought for another class. I had to leave it behind when I moved to Japan, but I have the 3rd and 4th editions. :)

His Quick and Dirty Guide to War is also quite good, but in dire need of a post 9/11 update. :(

However, his web page (http://www.strategypage.com/) has lots of good data.

Another good source book is Tom Clancy's series detailing US military: Armored Cav (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425158365/qid=1098123005/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-2751736-2260030?v=glance) and so on. Those books have their faults (over-optomism re the US armred forces technology and becoming long in the tooth) but are still a good read.

Not really, depending on how you define "handful" and "much larger", and if you count support forces.

Uhm, have another look at reality, folks. Particularly the wars in Israel. A much smaller force mauled much larger forces because of differences in technology, intellegence, mobility, and training.

If I have the defensive position of Switzerland, a small force can hold off a larger force nearly forever. If I've got machine guns against spears, a larger force will get mauled. If I've got machine guns and tanks, a force armed with spears is going to get thrashed.

Finally - if I'm the smaller force, job #1 is to kill the larger forces supply lines. Having no support, they fall that much faster. Doesn't matter if you have a million man army if you only have one clip. Total.

We could also go into the different forms of warfare. Attrition warfare, perhaps youre right. Mobile warfare - as my intent is to strike flanks and supplies, you have a problem with a smaller but more mobile force. Finally, if we're talking a Guerilla war, the smaller force enjoys many advantages, particularly the lack of that huge ammo dump sitting out there, lack of center, and giving the huge army no target to strike decisively at (see also Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet invasion of), Iraq (current)).

My prime objection was the suggestion that a mere handful of troops could defeat much larger forces in the defense simply on technological merit alone. A "handful" of troops does not equal a nation's defense organizations (at least in most cases- exceptions can be found both IRL and INS). Nor does a handful equal a guerrilla organization. Guerrillas usually require extensive support, especially intelligence, from the populace, and usually from outside sources. The Viet Cong had the support of the USSR. The Mujhadeen had the support of the US. Iraqi insurgents have the support of numerous outside players. (Further discussion, if needed, on the current insurgancy in Iraq should be taken to the General forum, so we don't stink up NS. ;))
None of your examples fit the original claim that a "handful" can defeat a much larger force.

the main thing about armies and combat is not numbers, but who has the superior combat power...

small (relatively) forces of Europeans (including US Europeans) mangling huge numbers of locals during the Imperial Age is an example of superior combat power overcoming raw numbers

The English during most of the 100 years War

Israel vs Arab States

Germans vs Russians in 1941

Finns vs Soviets in 1940

UN forces vs Communist forces in Korea 1951 - 1953 (although a draw in that case)

however, smaller opponents generally only win short wars... if a war is prolonged, then attrition wears down the smaller opponent first as the larger opponent learns from his mistakes and improves his combat power sufficiently to equal and then surpass the combat power of the smaller power. Only in situations where the larger opponent is not able to increase his combat power relative to the smaller one does the larger nation fail to win or at least impose a draw

I cannot think of a single example where in a long war a smaller nation has beaten a larger one in the end.... short wars are a different story and there are lots of examples...

So if a large nation has sufficient combat power to prevent collapse, it will generally outlast the smaller one

unless of course, a small 21st century nation takes on an early 20th century nation (which is possible in NS) or a similar situation

unless of course, a small 21st century nation takes on an early 20th century nation (which is possible in NS) or a similar situation

Ever read Harry Turtledove's World war saga? (basic aliens with 2000-2010 tech armed forces vs ww2) unfortunatly just like all of turtledove's baddies the lizards hamstring themselves soemthing aweful on a regualr basis. it does however have good examples of how ww2 soviet tnak tactics might actually work against 2000tech tanks etc.

Ever read Harry Turtledove's World war saga? (basic aliens with 2000-2010 tech armed forces vs ww2) unfortunatly just like all of turtledove's baddies the lizards hamstring themselves soemthing aweful on a regualr basis. it does however have good examples of how ww2 soviet tnak tactics might actually work against 2000tech tanks etc.

Yes, read the whole series....although it seems he has lost interest (as none have come out lately)..... the Lizards dispersed their effort, had zero knowledge of tactics (apparently) but were a cool alien race (especially the Ginger addiction... nice touch)

and they still conquered most of the planetary surface by the end of the invasion

lets try to keep it on topic shall we?

"UN forces vs Communist forces in Korea 1951 - 1953 (although a draw in that case)"

Interesting example to cite... I mean, although, in an effort to explain or even excuse the rapid collapse of ROK and US forces, American propaganda insisted that millions of Chinese had come flooding over the border (because they're Chinese, that's all they can do, duh!), the fact of the matter was that a hastily raised communist army with pathetically basic equipment and equal numerical strength had routed them and sent them running the length of the peninsula. Okay, that wasn't the end of it, but it happened none the less. I think that it is especially important in such difficult terrain as dominates Korea to emphasise tactics over technologies.

[This concludes the totally reasonable explanation for the predominance in Drapoel (AKA North Korean) military service of rusty T-62-alikes, 75mm anti-tank guns, and creaky sub-sonic jets, heh]

"UN forces vs Communist forces in Korea 1951 - 1953 (although a draw in that case)"

Interesting example to cite... I mean, although, in an effort to explain or even excuse the rapid collapse of ROK and US forces, American propaganda insisted that millions of Chinese had come flooding over the border (because they're Chinese, that's all they can do, duh!), the fact of the matter was that a hastily raised communist army with pathetically basic equipment and equal numerical strength had routed them and sent them running the length of the peninsula. Okay, that wasn't the end of it, but it happened none the less. I think that it is especially important in such difficult terrain as dominates Korea to emphasise tactics over technologies.

[This concludes the totally reasonable explanation for the predominance in Drapoel (AKA North Korean) military service of rusty T-62-alikes, 75mm anti-tank guns, and creaky sub-sonic jets, heh]

actually, the Chinese Army was the same one that had just kicked a reasonably well trained and equiped (with US equipment)(although terribly led) Nationalist Chinese Army in 1949 completely off the mainland after destroying a lot of it

the US combat advantage (and UN, don't forget the CW division, the Turks, the French etc) was in artillery, air support, combat support and logistics and generally from 1951 on, 1 million communist troops faced about half a million UN troops (including the ROKS)

but yes, the UN got its ass handed to it in the first stage of the war by the NKPA until overstretch and casualties (and better US leadership after the deadwood was cleared away, sometimes in combat) and then again near the Yalu River... once it stabilized though, UN firepower overcame Chicom light infantry in every significant engagement after mid 1951

Thinking about turning this into a thread about NS warfare in general, anyone like this idea?

It would make sense, since thats the way it's sort of gone, how to fight an NS war realistically...

Take losses
Accept tactical disadvantages
Remember its a game
Have fun

That would be about it.

Another one would be:

Don't be afraid of losing and/or retreating.

If i had a population about..um, i think its at 98 million, how large do you think my military would be? I am going to war soon, and have no real idea what my standing forces amount to!

:D Anyone who may be interested can find it at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009012X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-2751736-2260030?v=glance&s=books).

I 1st picked up the 2nd (1988) edition. I was pleasantly surprised to find it on my reading list for my senior year International Relations seminar. It was the only text I ever used in college that I already had on hand that I hadn't bought for another class. I had to leave it behind when I moved to Japan, but I have the 3rd and 4th editions. :)

His Quick and Dirty Guide to War is also quite good, but in dire need of a post 9/11 update. :(

However, his web page (http://www.strategypage.com/) has lots of good data.

Another good source book is Tom Clancy's series detailing US military: Armored Cav (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425158365/qid=1098123005/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-2751736-2260030?v=glance) and so on. Those books have their faults (over-optomism re the US armred forces technology and becoming long in the tooth) but are still a good read.
You also might want to add General Sir John Hackett's The Third World War and The Third World War: The Untold Story. Some very good source info in there on politics, logistics, and relative forces.


Fintlewoodle, I would suggest maybe 2-3 million personnel, tops, with about 1/4 of them being well equipped regulars, and the rest being mobilized reserves and militia. Your government budget doesn't really leave much room for funding.

Some new links, and a new section on tactics which will hopefully have some more info added soon.

tag

bump

I cannot think of a single example where in a long war a smaller nation has beaten a larger one in the end.... short wars are a different story and there are lots of examples...

I don't know if you were including guerilla or unconventional wars but the Soviet-Afghan war and the Vietnam war are examples of protracted wars in which the larger nation lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Military Numbers

If you are a male from the ages 18-23 there is a mandatory draft in my nation in which you would be in the military for six months. The reason for this draft is so that citzens of Mussia would be performing a duty for their nation.

Military sizes and their appropriate tactics

The Mussian military isn't very large because it relies on a well trained military rather than a large one. If war becomes extended then the draft time for people can be extended.

Logistics

Around 60 to 65% of the Mussian military is involved with logistics.

Production

A lot of the weapons and equipment produceded are licensed Russian weapons that may have been modified. For example the main tank being used by my nation is the T-90E MBT and an example of a tracked APC is the BMP-3. These vehicles aren't necessarily the most advanced because the army relies on innovation and well trained crews over advanced technology.

WMD's

My nation is new so it doesn't have any nuclear or biological weapons but it may receive chemcial weapons soon which wouldn't be used except for dire situations.

I don't know if you were including guerilla or unconventional wars but the Soviet-Afghan war and the Vietnam war are examples of protracted wars in which the larger nation lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Military Numbers

If you are a male from the ages 18-23 there is a mandatory draft in my nation in which you would be in the military for six months. The reason for this draft is so that citzens of Mussia would be performing a duty for their nation.

Military sizes and their appropriate tactics

The Mussian military isn't very large because it relies on a well trained military rather than a large one. If war becomes extended then the draft time for people can be extended.

Logistics

Around 60 to 65% of the Mussian military is involved with logistics.

Production

A lot of the weapons and equipment produceded are licensed Russian weapons that may have been modified. For example the main tank being used by my nation is the T-90E MBT and an example of a tracked APC is the BMP-3. These vehicles aren't necessarily the most advanced because the army relies on innovation and well trained crews over advanced technology.

WMD's

My nation is new so it doesn't have any nuclear or biological weapons but it may receive chemcial weapons soon which wouldn't be used except for dire situations.


60 to 65% is very low. Even 1:3 gives you 75%.

And are you planning on using a US tactical base (well trained units) or a Soviet tactical base (floods)?

I don't know if you were including guerilla or unconventional wars but the Soviet-Afghan war and the Vietnam war are examples of protracted wars in which the larger nation lost.

Except that in both cases the smaller nation had the backing an support of several other powers - the US UK and others supported the Afghan guerillas, while The USSR and PRC supported the NVA/VC.

1. Military Numbers

If you are a male from the ages 18-23 there is a mandatory draft in my nation in which you would be in the military for six months. The reason for this draft is so that citzens of Mussia would be performing a duty for their nation.

Military sizes and their appropriate tactics

The Mussian military isn't very large because it relies on a well trained military rather than a large one. If war becomes extended then the draft time for people can be extended.

Logistics

Around 60 to 65% of the Mussian military is involved with logistics.

Production

A lot of the weapons and equipment produceded are licensed Russian weapons that may have been modified. For example the main tank being used by my nation is the T-90E MBT and an example of a tracked APC is the BMP-3. These vehicles aren't necessarily the most advanced because the army relies on innovation and well trained crews over advanced technology.

WMD's

My nation is new so it doesn't have any nuclear or biological weapons but it may receive chemcial weapons soon which wouldn't be used except for dire situations.


As pointed out above, 65% is a bit low. That equals 1.5 support troops for each combat troop. 80-90% would be a more realistic minimum, considering that 10% of a modern infantry division is actually infantry. Remember that support forces should include medical, MP, engineer, intelligence, signals (communications and electronic warfare), headquarters, chemical defense, transportation, and maintainance.

Actually, 10% is a bit low.
A pre-XXI US armored/mechanized infantry divison had 5 mechanized infantry battalions and 4 armored battalions, each with 58 vehicles. Even accounting for the fact that 10 IFVs in each infantry battalion were command vehicles, vehicle crews and dedicated infantry accunted for over 3500 personnel, or about 20% of the total strength. That's also discounting recon, antitank, artillery, and aviation crews, which could all be considered combatants, and might add another 5-10%.
Light infantry formations tend to have a higher proportion of primary combatants than mechanized ones due to lower logistical demands.

Now, while the division has only 65-80% of the troops in support roles, things change at the corps, and above that, army group. It's only when you factor in the support troops that are part of the division's parent units that you see 90% or more of the total personnel in support roles.

other examples...

in the Vietnam War, the US at the height of the war had around 500,000 troops in country (Army and Marines).. of these, only 90,000 were infantry, with another few thousand helicopter crew, AFV crew and similar number of artillery, and combat engineers....

In Iraq, there are 100,000 US troops (more or less), basically, 2 divisions, a couple of brigades, and a Marine brigade.... in other words, only about 27 manuever battalions or about 27,000 men in the combat battalions. Everyone else is support or combat support troops (although they are getting shot at, blown up and injured in a higher than usual proportion due to the guerilla warfare underway)

For the record, that same armored/mechanized infantry division had a recon platoon of 10 HMMWVs attached to each battalion (180 troops), along with an Armored Cavalry Squadron with 27 tanks and 41 CFVs (313 troops). Artillery included a mortar platoon with 6 120mm mortar carriers per battalion, and another 6 with the Cavalry (360 troops). Artillery includes 54-72 M109 self-propelled howitzers (battalions originally had 24 guns each, but it was dropped to 18 in several units during the '90s), plus 18 MLRS launchers (378-486 total troops). Combat helicopters included 48 Apaches and 16 Kiowas (128 troops). An air defense battalion maintained 36 Avengers and 24 BSFVs (240 troops). Finally, there are 18 M728 CEVs in the engineer brigade (72 troops). That's a total of 1671-1779 troops, or about 10% of the division's strength. Added to that are 3478 troops in Tank/IFV crews and dedicated infantry (company and battalion command staff are excluded here), for a combined total of about 30% of the personnel in combat roles.


A US Airborne Division has 480 infantrymen in each battalion. That's a good 4320 infantrymen right there, out of a division of about 17-18,000, for about 25% of the total.

Actually, 10% is a bit low.
A pre-XXI US armored/mechanized infantry divison had 5 mechanized infantry battalions and 4 armored battalions, each with 58 vehicles. Even accounting for the fact that 10 IFVs in each infantry battalion were command vehicles, vehicle crews and dedicated infantry accunted for over 3500 personnel, or about 20% of the total strength. That's also discounting recon, antitank, artillery, and aviation crews, which could all be considered combatants, and might add another 5-10%.
Light infantry formations tend to have a higher proportion of primary combatants than mechanized ones due to lower logistical demands.

Now, while the division has only 65-80% of the troops in support roles, things change at the corps, and above that, army group. It's only when you factor in the support troops that are part of the division's parent units that you see 90% or more of the total personnel in support roles.


I believe we're simply talking slightly different definitions. For example, you're counting IFV crews (and probably small headquarters elements - platoon "HQs" for example - I assume) as pure infantry, while I wasn't. ;)

Oh, and we might want to address future forces. Some future tech players seem to cut their support forces due to these functions being automated. Any coments?

bump for some updates

Oh, and we might want to address future forces. Some future tech players seem to cut their support forces due to these functions being automated. Any coments?

Personal opinion - Future tech should be 25:1 or better or x10 the maintenance costs.

bumpity

Bump Forrest, Bump!

Would it not be great if a mod stickied this? (hint hint)

yes, yes i think it would...