NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm trying to figure out what would be militarily realistic for a nation my size (619 million), so I thought I'd start by posting the specifics of my Army. I'll post Navy, Air Force, Strategic, and Fleet later.

Point 1: Logistics
A major point of contention I've noticed is logistics. I've read in some threads that half your army needs to be in logistic positions, while in others I've read that you need as much as a 6:1 ratio of logistics to combat personnel. I think I've found a reasonable compromise: a 4 to 1 ratio. As my troops are often deployed in humanitarian missions that later turn into full-scale war because of my own imperial ambitions/betrayal by allies/betrayal by host country or some combination of the three, they must be able to act independently of a supply line, at least for a short period of time. Thus, all my troops are trained in basic vehicle repair and basic medicine. This allows them to survive while cut off for at most a month (NS), but more often 1-2 weeks, depending on supplies available wherever they became isolated. Naturally, the bigger the unit, the less time it can remain self-sufficient. Let me know if this is unrealistic.

Point 2: Combat
Moving on to my combat forces. As I stated before, my population is 619 million, which allows my standing army to be roughly 30.95 million (or about 5%). However, due to economic strains and the fact that it's a volunteer army, I keep it at 11.5 million (just Army, no other branches). How can I figure out how much of that should be infantry, armor, artillery, etc? I arbitrarily decided 10 million infantry, 870,000 tanks/APCS/other vehicles, and 650,000 artillery peices (mortars, howitzers, field guns, along with crews). I very much doubt that this is realistic, and I need some help figuring it out. Comments on the subject are appreciated.

Sub-group A: Infantry Weapons
Numbers are still in the air (see point 2), so I'll stick to the basics. The standard weapon of the Malkyeri soldier is the Malkyeri-made New Aberdeen X-19 (http://home.arcor.de/x-gfx/images/Assault_Rifle.jpg). It uses standard 7.62mm ammunition, and is made of lightweight composites, weighing about 6 pounds. It has a scope with both thermal and NightSight capabilites. The rifle also as two weapon add-ons, a magazine-fed shotgun with eight rounds and a belt fed M-203 grenade launcher with four rounds. The rifle costs $1100US. Other infantry weapons include the M-289 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon)(http://www.benning.army.mil/iobc/IOBC%20Hooah%20Pix/27%20sep%20b%20co%20live%20fire/Saw%20Fire2.jpg), the Colt .45 (http://www.sightm1911.com/1911pix/historic/1905%20Colt%20.45%20ACP.gif), and the M-60 machine gun (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60-mg.jpg), as well as various other anti-air and anti-tank weapons.

Sup-point B: Armor
The Malkyeri Armored Corp uses two Main Battle Tanks, the American-made M1A2 Abrams and the British Challenger II. Information on the Abrams is available here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm), and the Challenger II here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/challenger2.htm) . Other major vehicles include both the M2A2 and M3A3 versions of the Bradley IFV (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm), as well as the Stryker (http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm) and numerous other support vehicles.

Sub-point C: Artlliery
I use several different callibers for my artillery, ranging from quick firing three- and five-inch guns to massive 12-inch and 175mm cannons. I can't really think of any I need to add to this, besides of course the number of each, but I need to figure out the total number of cannons first, then I'll update it.

Sub-point D: Army Air Support
As fighter and bomber aircraft are in service with the Air Force and Navy, the Army Air Corp is essentially transports and helicopters. First, the primary transports I use are C-130s, KC-135s, and the Malkyeri-made Hebron-7. Helicopters are primarily used as light transports and in supporting roles in conjunction with infantry and armor attacks. I use five main kinds:

AH-64A/D "Apache" (Assault/Tank Hunter) (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/)
AH-1W/AH-1Z "Super Cobra" (Assault) (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/)
RAH-66 "Comanche" (Reconissance/Assault) (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/comanche/)
S-70A/VH60 "Blackhawk" (Multi-purpose) (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/)
CH-47D/MH-47E "Chinook" (Heavy Lifter) (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/chinook/)

Point 3: Unit Formation
The Malkyeri Army is divided into 40 Army Groups. 20 of these are Expeditionary Forces (used outside Malkyer) and 20 are Home Army (used within Malkyer). Of course, Home Army troops may be sent overseas, or vice versa, as the mission dictates. Each Home Army Group is stationed in a Military District, of which there are 5 (Northwest (9AG), Center (4AG), Southeast (3AG), Coastal (3AG), and Capital (1AG)).

Each Army Group consists of 288,000 combat soldiers. it is made up of three Armies, each numbering approximately 96,000 men. Each Army is divided into two Corps of 48,000. Each of these is then seperated into two divisions of 24,000. One division is made up of four brigades of 6,000 (two infantry, one armor, one artillery). Each brigade consists of two regiments of 3,000 each. Each regiment is made up of five battalions of 600 (three combat, one HQ&Command, one logistics and support). A battalion consists of three companies of 200. From there, platoons and squads are form based on mission, purpose, training, and supplies; they usually consist of 40 men for platoons and 6-10 men for squads.

Point 4: Officers and Command
There is a fairly ordered officer hierarchy within the Army. Army Groups are commanded by Marshals, Armies by General-Colonels, Corps by Major Generals, Divisions by Lieutenant Generals, Brigades by Brigadier Generals, Regiments by Colonels, Battalions by Majors, Companies by junior Majors and senior Captains, Platoons by Captains, and Squads by Lieutenants, NCOs, and Corporals, depending on experience.

If you have any suggestions, advice, or criticism, comments are welcome.

OOC: A couple quick points--

First, just because 5% has been thrown out by some folks as the max allowable percentage of population to be in the military, doesn't mean you should use that many. If you take a look at statistics of militaries, you'll find that the only states that use close to 5% are North Korea, Israel, and the like. Not exactly the lifestyles I's want my citizens to be living. (But by no means impossible. Nationstates is a dangerous world, after all.

Second, I strongly, strongly suggest you establish at least a division-level organization of your army. Just saying that you have X infantry, Y armor, and Z artillery won't mean a whole lot, to you or anyone else. Plus, it makes the logistics problem you've run into that much harder. I would recomend going to a brigade-level. Take a look at Clan Smoke Jaguar 's storefront. He offers a group of packages which can start you off on understanding the distribution of logistics and support vehicles and personnel to each unit. Here's the link:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=281544&highlight=clan+smoke+jaguar

From there, you can look at Army, Naval, and Air Force packages for any sized unit. Even if you don't want to buy from him, you can learn about the unit organizations involved. I can try to help if you want to try substituting with Soviet-era stuff.

A third point: You need a significant air force, and if you're a littoral country (Have a coast), you need a navy. Air forces are necessary to protect your army from air attack, gather intelligence, and keep your enemy off balence and incapable of reinforcement. A navy is necessary to project power beyond your borders, and to protect your economy's access to foreign goods, as well as restrict your enemy's economy. Your expeditionary army groups mean nothing if they don't have a reliable means of landing and being supported with air power, bombardment, and logistical support.

Enough preaching, TG me if you want more info.

I'm not using 5%. My standing army is about 1.8% of my population. As for the division/brigade organization point, I'm not sure what you mean. I already have those units in the military. I was asking how I figure out how many of my troops should be infantry, armor, and artillery. Or if I'm totally missing your point, please correct me.

And for the Airforce and Navy issues, I just haven't posted those specs yet. I'll get around to it. Tryin' to fix one thing at a time :D .

I'm not using 5%. My standing army is about 1.8% of my population. As for the division/brigade organization point, I'm not sure what you mean. I already have those units in the military. I was asking how I figure out how many of my troops should be infantry, armor, and artillery. Or if I'm totally missing your point, please correct me.

And for the Airforce and Navy issues, I just haven't posted those specs yet. I'll get around to it. Tryin' to fix one thing at a time :D .

Aha! Sorry, my misunderstanding.

Well, to elaborate on my earlier post, the ratio of infantry, armor, and artillery should be decided by the sorts of divisions and brigades you organize your army into. Most modern armies use a combination of Armored Divisions and Mechanized Divisions--Where Armored Divisions are the heavy-hitting fists of an army, Mechanized ones have the increased infantry resources to hold terrain, and are more economical. Each of these divisions should have their own artillery and armor resources, as well as military police, medical, and other resources necessary to operate. I would suggest that each division follow the standard breakdown of:

Headquarters Brigade
Artillery Brigade
Air Defense Brigade
Aviation Brigade
Engineering Brigade
Light Infantry Brigade
Support Brigade
3-4 Combat Brigades

Armies will also have a more limited number of light infantry and light mechanized /armored divisions for airborne and amphibious duty. I would suggest that these come in about a 1:4 ratio, or thereabouts. For every four ground combat divisions, have an airborne or amphibious one.

Hope this helps more than my last post.

That seems logical, but I already have headquarters, aviation, engineering, and support battalions within each regiment, so creating the seperate brigades seemd to me like unnecessary clutter. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

OOC--Well, I'm definately in no place to say that something is wrong. Bringing your support elements down that low in the organization chain makes each of your regiments more capable of operation on their own, which can be a very good thing. Many RL armies are structured in this way. However, such a structure can be less efficient for a military of your size.

Let's think about aviation sections, as a case study. In a standard CSJ armored division (Representing NATO/Western doctrine), there is a Brigade-strength aviation support unit with 2 battalions of attack helicopters supporting 9 combatant battalions. This works out to 48 AH-64Ds in two centralized battalions. These two battalions would each need a weapons unit, an avionics unit, an engine maintenance unit, an airframe unit, an admin unit, and other related support features.

If, however, they were split up between the division's three regiments of armor and mechanized infantry, each of the regiments would have 16 Apaches. However, these groups of sixteen would each need the support units accessable at a battalion level--weapons, avionics, engines, and airframes would all need to be able to be fixed without sending the aircraft too far away from the fight. Plus, it seems that under your system, you would probably be fielding more combatant regiments, since you don't have separate supporting brigades, which would mean even fewer aircraft per regiment, still requiring similar maintenance support.

Though I used aviation as a more obvious example, the same problems are found in the other support fields. Artillery units need counter-battery radars, Support units need surgical hospitals, Signals units need all sorts of gadgets, Engineer units need bridges and anti-mine systems, and Air Defense units need radars and a variety of missile types to engage different threats. Bringing these sorts of support functions down to a regimental level would thus require either your units doing without some of these functions, or your needing to duplicate so many systems as to make the regiments both more cumbersome and more expensive to field.

Might I suggest instead an alternative--The bulk of your units be organized at the more efficient and centralized divisional level per western doctrine, while you field a more limited number of units within your expeditionary forces at the Brigade level. In this way, you would have self-sustaining amphibious and airborne units capable of capturing toeholds, in order to allow for the quick insertion of your more capable and harder-hitting divisional-sized units. I think autonymous brigades still have a lot to offer, and have organized the expeditionary corps of my army in such a manner.

As a final note, after all this discourse, I think it might be neat to explore the possibility of some sort of alliance between our states--Perhaps a joint professional military academy or war college wherein we could continue these discussions IC.

According to the US model, a heavy division is a flexible force that can be broken up into reinforced Brigade Combat Teams, which in turn can be broken up into reinforced battalion task forces. Most support units will be capable of being distributed evenly among the (usually 9) combat battalions. This level is excellent for armies that might be involved in smaller peacekeeping operations, or on the defensive, but might not be optimal for large-scale offensive operations. Remember though, the support assets don't necessarily have to be distributed evenly, it's just that there's the possibility to. Whether or not they are is based entirely on the operational requirements of the nation fielding the unit.

The most well known alternative is the Soviet division. This will generally have a bit more combat support, but far less combat service support (logistics, engineers, etc), and you will find that each brigade will attack separately, with only the most successful getting full use of the support assets available. This is, of course, quite wasteful on manpower and resources, but if you were to make it an integrated force, and appropriately increase support elements, you might be able to make this a little better.


Now, a US heavy division has maybe 3500-4000 primary combatants (the infantry and vehicle crews who fight directly on the front lines). It also has a total of around 18,000 personnel, for about a 4 to 1 ratio of support to primary combatants. Now, if you include combat support elements like air defense, artillery, and engineers, you account for another 2000 or so personnel, which means that about 1 in 3 personnel in a heavy division are in combat service support, primarily logistics.
However, that's not quite the end of it. You see, there are also corps and army-level forces, and independant commands that are not part of the combat forces. When these are combined, you will often find that there are 2-3 personnel outside those divisions for each one in them. The US army has 480,000 active personnel, and only 10 equivalent divisions.

A nice little place to look at is here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/images/force-structure02.gif). That gives a nice breakdown. Now, considering the divisional combat to support ratio (and a little extrapolation), we get a grand total of maybe 11-13% of the personnel actually filling combat and combat support roles. In other words 7-8 support personnel for every combat one.

For a little more fun, you can look up the US TOE for Corps-Level Units (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/toe/corps.htm). It's a bit of an eye-opener as to just how many troops aren't in the divisions.
Similarly, check here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/index.html) for a look at some specific units and commands, and what they contain.



On other issues, I would suggest equipping the Home Army primarily with Challenger tanks (a bit slow for offense), and the Expeditionary forces having mostly M1s. Now, you might want at least a little overlap, as expeditionary forces might fight defensively, and home guard should have faster units for counterattacks. However, it should mostly be split that way, with faster units being the primary component of the Expeditionary Forces.

The artillery might be a bit too varied. The fewer calibers you deal with, the better. Most nations use either 105mm or 122mm as light artillery, 152 or 155mm as medium, and 203mm as heavy. Some nations also have long-range field guns, with 130mm being light, 152 or 155mm being medium, and 175 or 180mm being heavy. Heavy artillery always appears at corps or army level, while light and medium are primarily at division, though they can be at corps or army as well, especially in the case of field guns. 3" (76.2mm) weapons would only be useful as very light pack howitzers that can be carried by infantry. 12" (304.8mm) would be difficult to effectively mount as a mobile weapon (it can be done, just not that effectively), and really should only be seen as a component of fixed coastal gun batteries. But with the low weight of modern 105mm pieces, this isn't much of a benefit.