NationStates Jolt Archive

1) Think Firebase Fabus in Hogsweat, Western Saharan Slave Rebellion, Angolan Decolonization war, Egyptian war of Conquest, Libyan war of Conquest (note we ultimately won Egypt and Libya but losses were higher due to the ignoring of large movements of Egyptians and Libyans against Mississippian flanks)

2) I think our tactical leadership is great. (most officers have 5-8 years training in the youth regiments before being sent to a 2-4 military training school or one of the academies)

3) I think our funding is great. (we spend about 5.5 trillion at the least)

4) I think our officers ability to show initiative is fine. (Junior officers are allowed to make decisions that can potentially impact foreign policy, such as anybody ranked captain or above may authorize the use of tactical chemical artillery and air units against enemy military units in their direct vicinty and region of control)

5) I think our battle spirit is great. The men are all die-hard fanatics who will fight to the death rather than surrender (as evidenced by the loss of the entire Field Army in Western Sahara, except for the two thousand cavalry whose horses carried them away after getting spooked by noises and shells landing nearby) and the soldiers at Firebase Fabus too weak and wounded to launch suicide charges with bayonets (they'd gone over 15 days without food and over 3 without water, and in the last day, no unit inside the base had ammunition, so the few that could run, made suicide bayonet charges, but they achieved little)

6) I think our experience is great (Everyday is a war, operation, battle, etc, in some part of the empire. We often have ongoing insurgencies that need to be put down (Radical muslims in Western Sahara and Mississippian Egypt) (Most soldiers and officers have 5-20 yrs exp)

7) I think our combined arms coordination is better than fine, our academies train students to excellent and demanding standards.

8) I think our strategic leadership is fine. Our generals were able to use 40,000 soldiers to defend Angolan White cities from 4 million blacks, they held the defenses for about 3 months before the units simply ran out of ammunition and were stormed.

9) Specify

Definately the first option. ITD was once overthrown by a minority tribe, much of the royal line was killed in that war.

My opinion as follows...

I think overconfidence and arrogance is the downfall of most, if not all empires. Their militaries grow complacent with all their victories, and they keep expecting "easy victories".

I think if your forces lost some of that arrogance and overconfidence, then treat every battle as if it was a life or death situation for Mississippi, then your armies would become even more fordimable.

Empires who treat every battle as a battle to survive, rather than "oh, a few rebels. Just send 10 tanks to crush them. No big deal". would last far longer in competition aganist other empires.

My nation follows this philosophy, by treating every battle as the Battle of Troy or "300 soldiers defending aganist 10,000 soldiers" type of battles.

1st of all: Transnapastain is an idiot and is hereby banned from ever posting in one of my threads again, or participating in a single poll (poll killer!)

Secondly, I believe my armed forces biggest drawback is the inability to conduct a proper Counter Insurgency Campaign (COIN Campaign) without resorting to genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, rapes, and other atrocities. Also the overall poor quality of most COIN campaigns, even when properly conducted from an ethical viewpoint. Unless the campaign is conducted by SRG, RG, SAAS, or paratroopers or other light infantry specially trained for it, it rapidly falls apart into DA forces get ambushed, so they shoot up the nearest civilian population they can find. DA forces see a few comrades hit by sniper fire, they level a village with artillery.

Only the SRG, RG, SAAS, and paratroopers really have the training and restraint to conduct a proper counter-insurgency.

One of the reasons that the ASAAS and Parachute divions were so successful in Angola but ultimately the war there was lost because the other forces were unable to properly conduct the campaign, attempting to use sheer firepower against a light and swift moving enemy that could never be pinned in place long enough for the firepower to be effectively brought to bear.

Other: You end up pissing off the civilian population with your occupation policies.

Look at Hitler and the western Soviet republics. The people there were tired as hell with dealing with Stalin's murderous regime, and welcomed the initial offensive troops as liberators. If the Nazis played their cards right, they could have had thousands more troops, and protected their supply lines more effectively, ultimately leading to victory on the Eastern Front.

But no. The dumbass Hitler, proclaiming that the Eastern Europeans were "inferiors" made the civilians hate their new conquerers, and subsequently threw them into the arms of Stalin, who cleverly manipulated patriotic fervor to success against the Germans.

Similarly, during your African campaigns, if you dealt with the natives as equals instead of treating them like dirt, your job in the COIN operations would have been infinitely easier.

Instead, you pissed them off and caused them to start sheltering the insurgents, which led to mass genocide, which led to foreign intervention... and so on.

Other: You end up pissing off the civilian population with your occupation policies.

Look at Hitler and the western Soviet republics. The people there were tired as hell with dealing with Stalin's murderous regime, and welcomed the initial offensive troops as liberators. If the Nazis played their cards right, they could have had thousands more troops, and protected their supply lines more effectively, ultimately leading to victory on the Eastern Front.

But no. The dumbass Hitler, proclaiming that the Eastern Europeans were "inferiors" made the civilians hate their new conquerers, and subsequently threw them into the arms of Stalin, who cleverly manipulated patriotic fervor to success against the Germans.

Similarly, during your African campaigns, if you dealt with the natives as equals instead of treating them like dirt, your job in the COIN operations would have been infinitely easier.

Instead, you pissed them off and caused them to start sheltering the insurgents, which led to mass genocide, which led to foreign intervention... and so on.


Ooc- I still don't see how you can claim our tactical and strategic leadership is lacking. Most of the generals and field marshals have 20 plus years experience, attended the finest academies, and won a few if not more, wars along the way. Most of the junior officers, our lieutenants and captains, that are now in their early mid 20s, have been training since age 10-12.

I also fail to see anything wrong with our combined arms, everything always comes together, almost without fail, tanks, planes, helicopters, infantry, mortars, artillery, ship bombardments, bombers, etc, the works, right where it is needed and when it is needed.

You know, its your "Inability to Properly Comprehend an Ethnic Situation" that WILL lead to your downfall.

Meaning: You WILL go too far with this policy.

You know, its your "Inability to Properly Comprehend an Ethnic Situation" that WILL lead to your downfall.

Meaning: You WILL go too far with this policy.


Ooc- Our answer to most racial and ethnic backed rebellions is simply ruthlessly smash the group that is behind the rebellion and eventually support for them will dry up as either A) The people are all dead or in camps, or B) They get tired of living under constant war and just stop backing the guerilla armies.

Arrogance, overconfidence, and ignorance (even though it was not mentioned, it goes hand-in-hand with the others). All commanders like to think that their forces are invincible, but the best ones know that their men are only human. This type of problem within the chain of command can lead to serious errors in judgement, but can only be corrected through experience. The more battles you fight, the more you'll learn about your shortcomings as a commander. You can have the best equipped, most extensively trained soldiers in the world, but if you make one move blinded by the aforementioned traits, then those troops could be toast.

My other piece of advice to you would be to observe battles between some of the experienced commanders on this board (I have no idea who they may be, here, but someone else should), and see how they approach things. You may find that some of their problems mirror your own. It's always easier to spot someone else's problems, even if they may be the same as yours, so use the acquired knowledge you gain from watching repeated actions to try and find those weaknesses within yourself, and patch them up. Then you'll be a force to be reckoned with. ;)

(I know it may not seem like I should be talking, as I have even less than 15 posts, but this isn't the only board on the wide web where you can RP. :) )

Ah, well, your forgetting another possibility for that:

A Mass Rebellion Insues

That is a High Possibility with an Oppressive Dictatorship, unless that dictatorship ruthelessly disposes of anyone brave enough to go against it. However, depending upon your Poll, I would say that is an extreme possibility.

Anywho.

The Vorta Hadar, you're an idiot, stay out of all my threads and all my polls from now on.

All right, except for the fact that it's flaming to call someone an "idiot", it's rude and spammy to throw off the vote by choosing every option. The Vorta Hadar, Transnapastain, please cease and desist.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Personally I think you'd most likely have poorly maintained/trained soldiers, and lack tactical mobility.

If I remember correctly you have around 20 Million or so soldiers. Now excluding those Republic Divisions, or whatever you call them, you can't really extensively train your men. For example I spend around 900,000 USD per Active soldier, ensuring he has the absolute best equipment, and training avaliable.

With such a large army I wouldn't think you could really mobilize a large portion of your military, not to mention that you'd have a hard time trying to out manuever another Opposing Force. Size isn't always the way to go.

Overall though I think you could RP yourself out of any real dangerous situation, since you're one of the best around.

Personally I think you'd most likely have poorly maintained/trained soldiers, and lack tactical mobility.

If I remember correctly you have around 20 Million or so soldiers. Now excluding those Republic Divisions, or whatever you call them, you can't really extensively train your men. For example I spend around 900,000 USD per Active soldier, ensuring he has the absolute best equipment, and training avaliable.

With such a large army I wouldn't think you could really mobilize a large portion of your military, not to mention that you'd have a hard time trying to out manuever another Opposing Force. Size isn't always the way to go.

Overall though I think you could RP yourself out of any real dangerous situation, since you're one of the best around.


We spend 40% of our entire budget on the armed forces, our soldiers train from age 8-12 all the way into adulthood, be it in the woods with militias and WKM for guerilla warfare, or in the Fabus Youth regiments. We teach them military maneuvers, tactics, small units theory, armored warfare, and such in school. All schools basically are (for the bulk of people, the gifted get a real education) is just military training centers and political loyalty facilities.

We spend about 5.5-6.5 trillion on the armed forces, Commonwealth Nations pay for their own armies. Overall our training programs are ranked as excellent by our allies, enemies, and ourselves.

As for mobility, each division is based on speed, rapid advanced, mechanized infantry, airmobile infantry, horse mounted infantry (only for the few cavalry units we have) etc, we move fast and swift.

I respect the wishes of DA, and will not post here, or in his threads or vote in his polls forever more

That being said…I hereby defend my actions

This poll, im assuming, was meant Icly, that is my IC opinion. Transnapastain has pretty bad superiority complex, we believe we’re better than everyone, so, of course we’d think that ever last little thing is wrong with your army…because we think we’re better than you.

Keeping in mind that those thoughts are IC not OOC.

Also, if you’re poll isn’t a yes or no question, how is voting for more than one, or every, option throwing of the vote, maybe someone thinks your Army has all those problems?

Also note, None of thoughts about superiority are OOC, purely IC.

And now, in compliance with the wishes of DA, I will post here no more.

I respect the wishes of DA, and will not post here, or in his threads or vote in his polls forever more

That being said…I hereby defend my actions

This poll, im assuming, was meant Icly, that is my IC opinion. Transnapastain has pretty bad superiority complex, we believe we’re better than everyone, so, of course we’d think that ever last little thing is wrong with your army…because we think we’re better than you.

Keeping in mind that those thoughts are IC not OOC.

Also, if you’re poll isn’t a yes or know question, how is voting for more than one, or every, option throwing of the vote, maybe someone thinks your Army has all those problems?

Also note, None of thoughts about superiority are OOC, purely IC.

And now, in compliance with the wishes of DA, I will post here no more.


Ooc- I apologize for my jumping to a conclusion, but it was highly doubtful what your intentions were, I have no idea your nation is suffering from an inferiority complex, or had no idea, now I do. But you only need to tell me these things, preferrably before I yell at you, then it seems less likely you are just looking for a way to make it seem you meant something else, in my mind you meant to skew my poll. I apologize if that was not the case, but I have no way of knowing for sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You may argue with me about my armed forces, type up a briefing on each of the poll sections and how we are wrong in that area, and I'll read it and reply, if you wish.

In a word - Logistics.

In several - insufficient support of troops. Supply lines too open to attack by enemy forces at 1:3, and insufficient for the troops you field.

In a word - Logistics.

In several - insufficient support of troops. Supply lines too open to attack by enemy forces at 1:3, and insufficient for the troops you field.

We've never had supply problems in the past, except when at Firebase Fabus, totally surrounded in poor terrain, and with the enemy keeping aerial resupply from happening with massive numbers of SAMS and AAA. Other than that, each division carries with it massive amounts of supplies, and our forces are well adept at "Living off the land" when it comes to food, water, and fuel from local sources.

Most of our logistics and supply are handled by private contractors and civilians. They load it all up back home, get it ready, it gets on planes and ships, and then the people that actually hand it to the troops are usually military, but probably 80-90% of our logistics is not handled by the government of Mississippi but rather by private firms based in Mississippi and by Mississippian civilians. Thus we don't really have to worry about generals worrying about it, it's somebody elses problem.

Other-Their OOC leader.

typically you need about 1,000 non divisional troops for 1,000 divisional troops in modern (post world war 2) NATO or Warsaw Pact armies...

corps, army, frontal (or army group) and theater level plus base troops at home.... divided however....

also, generally, for every battalion of divisional artillery, there is generally a battalion of corps or army level artillery (heavier stuff or MLRS/BMD type)

same ratio with air defense troops (although frequently twice as many nondivisional as more base areas to cover) and engineers (construction plus combat engineers, plus really specialized types)

with your political system, I would expect to see a LOT of security troops as well, the Soviets had all kinds of independent battalions and regiments, plus some divisions of this (just because they were commies didn't mean it wasn't a well organized police state)

lastly, how are you organizing your helicopters...are they part of the air force or army, and if air force, do you have seperate airforces devoted toward strategic and direct support functions..

you don't have to answer, but you might want to look at all that

with your political system, I would expect to see a LOT of security troops as well, the Soviets had all kinds of independent battalions and regiments, plus some divisions of this (just because they were commies didn't mean it wasn't a well organized police state)

lastly, how are you organizing your helicopters...are they part of the air force or army, and if air force, do you have seperate airforces devoted toward strategic and direct support functions..

you don't have to answer, but you might want to look at all that

We have twenty divisions in the "Republican Guard Internal Security Army" devoted entirely towards internal political policing operations, check my factbook (link in my signature) and go to the 2nd post on the thread, where you can see my army listings. We have large numbers of aircraft permanently attached to army units, and large numbers operating independently.

First option.

Since my soldiers are Mississippian citizens, and all my citizens are products of my society and the society is set by the government, and they are told non-whites and non-first worlders are inferior swine not to be taken seriously, and not even to be treated human, it would be unrealistically that any large number of the soldiers treat them as serious opponents, more than on seldom and rare occasions that probably vary by commander. That is why in most battles against non-white enemies, if ever there is a loss, it is most always due to arrogance and underestimation of the enemies capabilities.

I saw them, I just wasn't sure if the were politically elite combat troops (like the Waffen SS or Iraqi Republican guard) or troops created to keep an eye on the regular army (like the Saudi National Guard vs the Saudi Army) or internal security troops...

incidently, as to your Air Force, most nations have about 1 support aircraft (be it trainers, tranports, tankers, liaison aircraft, SAR etc) to every combat aircraft....

I would expect you to have a LOT of trainers for all the pilots you need annually (not counting combat, you lose pilots to accidents, retirment, medically failing their flight physical, promotion and other reasons)

You probably have rather sizeable border / coastal patrol force to I would expect as your borders were rather non porous for a while

We've never had supply problems in the past, except when at Firebase Fabus, totally surrounded in poor terrain, and with the enemy keeping aerial resupply from happening with massive numbers of SAMS and AAA. Other than that, each division carries with it massive amounts of supplies, and our forces are well adept at "Living off the land" when it comes to food, water, and fuel from local sources.

Most of our logistics and supply are handled by private contractors and civilians. They load it all up back home, get it ready, it gets on planes and ships, and then the people that actually hand it to the troops are usually military, but probably 80-90% of our logistics is not handled by the government of Mississippi but rather by private firms based in Mississippi and by Mississippian civilians. Thus we don't really have to worry about generals worrying about it, it's somebody elses problem.

Who carries it? And how?

Now, I'm not talking at home, because at home civilians can handle many of the supply chain necessities. However, in the field, 1:3 means you have to put lots of combat troops on the supply lines, which weakens your ability to get supplies from point A to point B. You also need combat troops to defend the supply dumps.

This is a weakness, as it detracts from your front line. Further, a "scortched earth" campaign would remove your troops ability to "live off the land" (which can't support armies for that long anyway).

Serious weakness for operations outside the home.

I saw them, I just wasn't sure if the were politically elite combat troops (like the Waffen SS or Iraqi Republican guard) or troops created to keep an eye on the regular army (like the Saudi National Guard vs the Saudi Army) or internal security troops...


The Republican Guard is our version of the modern Waffen SS.

Who carries it? And how?

Now, I'm not talking at home, because at home civilians can handle many of the supply chain necessities. However, in the field, 1:3 means you have to put lots of combat troops on the supply lines, which weakens your ability to get supplies from point A to point B. You also need combat troops to defend the supply dumps.

This is a weakness, as it detracts from your front line. Further, a "scortched earth" campaign would remove your troops ability to "live off the land" (which can't support armies for that long anyway).

Serious weakness for operations outside the home.

Most of our logistics in the field are handled by the women, the only thing we really let women into the army for. Also in Western Sahara and Mississippian Egypt we let the non-whites handle large parts of logistics, except the airborne and shipborne components. We let the blacks and arabs load trucks, drive trucks, unload trucks, all under close watch from whites of course.

In a word, logistics. You may have plenty of firepower, but you're not so great at projecting much more than air power. :)

In a word, logistics. You may have plenty of firepower, but you're not so great at projecting much more than air power. :)


We have plenty of artillery for each division and corps and we carry plenty of ammunition in trucks to accompany the artillery.

What is the greatest weakness of the DA armed forces Their Player.

9) everything

9) everything


Ooc- Can we at least try to be realistic and not just flamebaiting or insulting?

Their Player.

I consider that a flamebait or bordering on one at the least, I ask you please leave this thread and don't say anything if you can't say it constructively.

We spend 40% of our entire budget on the armed forces,

Not according to the XML (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=decisive_action)...

<GOVT>
<ADMINISTRATION>4%</ADMINISTRATION>
<WELFARE>0%</WELFARE>
<HEALTHCARE>0%</HEALTHCARE>
<EDUCATION>0%</EDUCATION>
<SPIRITUALITY>15%</SPIRITUALITY>
<DEFENCE>30%</DEFENCE>
<LAWANDORDER>41%</LAWANDORDER>
<COMMERCE>8%</COMMERCE>
<PUBLICTRANSPORT>2%</PUBLICTRANSPORT>
<ENVIRONMENT>0%</ENVIRONMENT>
<SOCIALEQUALITY>0%</SOCIALEQUALITY>
</GOVT>

Not according to the XML (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi/nation=decisive_action)...

<GOVT>
<ADMINISTRATION>4%</ADMINISTRATION>
<WELFARE>0%</WELFARE>
<HEALTHCARE>0%</HEALTHCARE>
<EDUCATION>0%</EDUCATION>
<SPIRITUALITY>15%</SPIRITUALITY>
<DEFENCE>30%</DEFENCE>
<LAWANDORDER>41%</LAWANDORDER>
<COMMERCE>8%</COMMERCE>
<PUBLICTRANSPORT>2%</PUBLICTRANSPORT>
<ENVIRONMENT>0%</ENVIRONMENT>
<SOCIALEQUALITY>0%</SOCIALEQUALITY>
</GOVT>


I go by this one: http://members.fortunecity.com/thracetailteann/html/gnp.html

Seriously, I would list all of the above but if you want a specific part that is even more lacking I would say #1

Seriously, I would list all of the above


Ooc- Yeah, my army is a worthless force of idiots who have no training, well they have 8-10 years worth, but it just doesn't do anything for them at all, because my nation is a nation or morons, retards, and idiots (people who aren't genetically engineered to be better soldiers and better human beings) My nation's army is so weak the Texas Air National Guard commanded be George Wrong Bush could take us over. We are so crappy we are still using T-55s and T-72s, even though we have T-98s and T-99s. We don't have anything in the form of leadership, despite having massive numbers of well-trained leaders, the field marshals and generals having fought in the 1984 civil war, and most having served since 1980, giving them about 20-24 years experience in numerous wars. And you know what, we're so worthless we couldn't even save our nation from the Felbenites during the civil war. Seriously, not to be mean, but are you insane?

(Aren't you that guy who doesn't like me OOC and who has the future tech army with space marines, and is probably judging my army by your ridiculously high space tech standards) at any rate, I'd say my armed forces probably make the top 100 list, at least the top 1,000 list. They are a well-rounded, and massively battle-hardened force, and they've been well RPed and established as a force to be reckoned with. I'd say #1 is probably AMF or somebody of comprable size with an also well RPed army that shows its position. But honestly, I believe my national armed forces are pretty high up on the ranking list for best overall well-rounded forces.

Ooc- Yeah, my army is a worthless force of idiots who have no training, well they have 8-10 years worth, but it just doesn't do anything for them at all, because my nation is a nation or morons, retards, and idiots (people who aren't genetically engineered to be better soldiers and better human beings) My nation's army is so weak the Texas Air National Guard commanded be George Wrong Bush could take us over. We are so crappy we are still using T-55s and T-72s, even though we have T-98s and T-99s. We don't have anything in the form of leadership, despite having massive numbers of well-trained leaders, the field marshals and generals having fought in the 1984 civil war, and most having served since 1980, giving them about 20-24 years experience in numerous wars. And you know what, we're so worthless we couldn't even save our nation from the Felbenites during the civil war. Seriously, not to be mean, but are you insane?

(Aren't you that guy who doesn't like me OOC and who has the future tech army with space marines, and is probably judging my army by your ridiculously high space tech standards) at any rate, I'd say my armed forces probably make the top 100 list, at least the top 1,000 list. They are a well-rounded, and massively battle-hardened force, and they've been well RPed and established as a force to be reckoned with. I'd say #1 is probably AMF or somebody of comprable size with an also well RPed army that shows its position. But honestly, I believe my national armed forces are pretty high up on the ranking list for best overall well-rounded forces.

Nope I'm modern tech with just a few hints from FT which I rarely use. As for me not liking you, you'll have to do alot more to get me to hate you. The greatest weakness for any army are the politicians that pull the strings, therefor I listed everything. ;)

Having asked the question, I am assuming you want a realistic assesment, so I hope none of the following offends you... :)
I choose Poor strategic leadership/Other, because of your poor organization.
You have no military intelligence, military police, signals, engineer, or other support assets. As someone above pointed out, you should have at least a 1:3 ration of combat to support personnel.

Your numbers are also way to high - I count roughly 15 million combat personnel in the army alone. You haven't listed your naval or airforce personnel, so I assume you have equal numbers there. To add it all up, that brings us to 45 million combat personnel. To bring it up to a minimal support level, would mean 90 million military personnel, and a proper support level would be at least 135 million.

15 million (2.4% of your population of 616 million) would just barely be doable without causing serious economic strain. 45 million (7.3%) would be stretching it during wartime, 90 million (14.6%) would mean roughly half of your adult workforce (more if your women aren't serving in large numbers in the military) and 135 million (22%) would be a "cripples and insane" included military, with every adult male serving.

All that having been said, you do have your military better thought on than some I see.

How to fix it?
40 Republican Guard Armored Divisions (Each 18,000 Republican Guard Panzer Grenadiers, 500 T-98 Tanks, 2,250 BMP-3s, 300 G-6 155mm SPA, 200 SA-19 Mobile SAM, and 200 assorted reconnaissance vehicles)

can be easily changed to something like this:

40 Republican Guard Armored Divisions (19,000 each 1200 tankers, 300 T-98 Tanks, 6000 Panzer Grenadiers, 600 BMP-3s, 1200 artillerymen, 150 00 G-6 155mm SPA, 1200 ADAmen 100 SA-19 Mobile SAM, 100 recon men, 50 assorted reconnaissance vehicles, 9700 assorted support personnel)

The numbers may be off, but you get the idea.
Or you can go for one like mine.
Here is how mine is organized: http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/daistallia/military/armedforces.html
Follow the links to get to the TO&Es. Note that it hasn't been updated in a long time. (I currently working on that. :))

Here's another detailed layout: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/NorthAmerica/US/DM/DMUS.htm

http://globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/intro.htm is a good place to get started.

I go by this one: http://members.fortunecity.com/thracetailteann/html/gnp.html
Well, yes, that's all well and good, but that lets you pick any damn number for your percentages. The link I gave you is what NationStates says your military budget is based on how you answer issues. No offence, but I'll take the word of the game over some unaffiliated, third party "calculator".

I believe that the weakness of the DA armerd forces are there sense of superiority, (#1) and their navy which is a battleship navy, seriously lacking in any escorts, and especially in airpower. (#9) Any sane nation that wishes to war with DA would first achive naval superority, cutting DA off from it's colonys, and all the forces there. After that convetional startegies will take over.

-Exerts from Admiral Grants lecture on tactics at the academy.