NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is some good info for those not already involved:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405274&page=1&pp=15

I am open to ideas...I have more but here is the basics:

Can't attack members

Founders are the only ones who can let people in or expel people

The whole member attacked we attack thing

Maybe Financial Aid thing

Protecting Democracy, but no taking out Communism stuff I hate that

Idea Welcome!

Turetel would like to join this program, possibly as a high ranking member within it.

I suspect a statement of principles would be a good place to start, something binding on the members so that you don't end up with a situation where a member is in dire need, but half the Alliance has separate treaties with the people bombing him into the pliestiocene, and won't interfere, while the other half are engaged in a dozen other wars (Some simultaneously) and can't spare the effort. (Saw that Last Year, finally burnt out on it after six months, and it took another six months before I wanted to play again-as a different country.)

Some coordinated diplomatic efforts might be a good idea as well-to prevent some problems from occuring and other problems from re-occurring.

These are the founding members:

Nellisland
Turetel
Malkyer
Cadillac-Gage
Muktar

All member nations:

Nellisland
New Nellisland
Third Jerusalem
Esscose
Muktar
Turetel
The Massive Ethiopians
Lucky Seaville
Novikov
Malkyer
Matrex
Cadillac-Gage

The Republic of Esscose would like to be involved

OOC: Now why wouldn't I want to help out an old friend?
IC:
From what we have gathered, the intentions of this alliance are noble, and its members without prejudice. As such, Muktar is more than willing to join this alliance. Perhaps now we can see about dealing with those who would make our economic system look like an enemy of democracy.
Official Statement of the National Council of Muktar

The United Socialist States Of Lucky Seaville would like to join the alliance

Both are accepted...but Muktar arent you future tech now?

OOC: D, All of the above! I play all three on seperate timelines. That's why I'm vague on the added histories of modern and future in my Factbook, reference signature.

(Whatever Muktar.) Here is some ideas: feedback is awesome!

Article 1: Founders
*The founding members shall be Nellisland, Turetel, Muktar, Cadillac-Gage , and Malkyer.

Article 2: War
*No member nation may attack another member nation.
*If a member nation is attacked the other member nations are obligated to assist in any way possible i.e. money, supplies, troops; a nation can be excused to this by the Founding nations
*If a member nation does not assist in times of war and does not have a proper excuse, then the Founders may decide to vote to expel that nation. Majority rule in such a situation.

Article 3: Entry/Expulsion
*A nation may apply to join if they have a member sponser; then a majority rule by the founders will decide there fate.
*A nation may be expelled by majority rule of the founding members; any member and request for expulsion of a member at anytime

OOC - Yay, another "uberalliance". This must make all those small nations feel "safe"

This is to counter an alliance that some other nations are making to take out democracy...sorry that you feel this way.

Okay, we have a list of members, and some are quite powerful, while others are... not.
How are priorities going to be doled out to the member states? I imagine we could end up in a situation where more than one enemy is threatening on more than one border of more than one country. How is alliance involvement going to be prioritized, and what kind of physical committments would each member be expected to fill? Will it be proportional, or a fixed base-number of troops in a war situation? Wars are expensive, how will smaller nations be expected to fill their contributions?

Perhaps we can create our own army thing with people from all member nation...we supply and fund it...then we deploy them...and if we need more than we request for member nations to deplot there own troops. If you have any ideas then please post.

Allocation of resources should be based on neccesity. So, if a pair of population 1.5 billion nations were to attack myself and Nellisland, more interest would be put toward Nellisland, assistence only going toward me as needed. Indeed, it is a good thing for the smaller nations.

However, we should also consider members throwing their weight around, then hiding behind the alliance when they bite off more than they can chew. Such should be grounds for expulsion from the alliance.

As for how smaller nations provide, might I suggest they provide supplies and aid to nations that are under fire? That way, they don't risk leaving themselves vulnerable, but they can still do their share to help the war effort.

Perhaps I should make an article that outlines certain things for explusion.

I agree with the supplies thing for smaller nations

I agree with the population size thing as well

I need to outline that we are democracyies in this alliance

We also need a creed maybe too: things that we stand for and what we stand against...I dont want this to be like we are goning to fight communism or facism, but I think we should have some values besides just helping each other i.e. genocide, oppresion, imperialism

We also need a creed maybe too: things that we stand for and what we stand against...I dont want this to be like we are goning to fight communism or facism, but I think we should have some values besides just helping each other i.e. genocide, oppresion, imperialism

Agreed. we need some kind of criteria-based on a common ground between the members, maybe, for external intervention. Broad principles that are neither a straitjacket, nor a license.

Just dont get in our way.....

Just dont get in our way.....This an alliance of modern tech nations. I highly doubt the alliance will be involved in the affairs of Halo Covenant Protestants.

As for the creed:

We, as member nations of the Alliance of Free Peoples, agree to uphold the ideals of a government ruled by the people and peace among our numbers.

Note the suggested name of the alliance.

Muktar that is funny because the name I had in mind was the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples. Wierd huh...whatever...I think it is good.

We, as members of the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples, agree to uphold the principles of a government that is by the people and for the people. We pledge to protect the rights of all people throughout the world and do all that is possible to maintain peace with in our ranks. As members of this alliance we pledge to fight terrorism in all forms, genocide with arguement, and protect our people from oppresive regimes.

Something like that...I added terrorism...if anyone minds then talk to me.

Muktar that is funny because the name I had in mind was the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples. Wierd huh...whatever...I think it is good.

We, as members of the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples, agree to uphold the principles of a government that is by the people and for the people. We pledge to protect the rights of all people throughout the world and do all that is possible to maintain peace with in our ranks. As members of this alliance we pledge to fight terrorism in all forms, genocide with arguement, and protect our people from oppresive regimes.

Something like that...I added terrorism...if anyone minds then talk to me.

That's a good start. "The Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples" is a good name, as well.

Try this:

"The powers of government derive from the consent of the Governed, therefore:
We, as members of the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples, agree to uphold the Principle of a government that is by the people, and for the people.
We pledge to protect and defend the rights of all Free people throughout the world.
We Pledge to do all that is possible to maintain Peace within our ranks.
As members of this alliance, we pledge to fight against Terrorism, in all of its forms. To confront Genocide, and to protect our people from Oppressive Regimes and those who would deny them the rights that are theirs."

italics are my suggestions.

I like that alot better...i was thinking about founders of the region since you and Muktar have been helping...I am going to add them there so...but I like the creed...I still think it needs more though...I think it is missing stuff

I like that alot better...i was thinking about founders of the region since you and Muktar have been helping...I am going to add them there so...but I like the creed...I still think it needs more though...I think it is missing stuff

A creed is a statement of beliefs, a "Base principle". You get detailed when you write the treaty, but a Creed should be able to fit in a soldier's wallet, like a good-luck charm.

Okay...i will write the offical one right now...which will most likely be yours...and do care about being a founder? also do u know how to make a forum thing because I dont

Article 1: Founders
*The founding members shall be Nellisland, Turetel, Muktar, Cadillac-Gage , and Malkyer.

Awesome. I think that you had a good point about us needing some sort of defining creed rather than simply mutual self-defense. Though I don't know what it should be. There are a lot of alliances out there for most ideals. For example, the CFA has anti-genocide. Should we try for something original or go for something tried-and-true?

Okay...i will write the offical one right now...which will most likely be yours...and do care about being a founder? also do u know how to make a forum thing because I dont

I don't particularly need to be a founder-with only seven million people, I'd say I'm one of the smaller nationstates to join, I expect it wouldn't be very impressive and that might limit recruiting.

As for creating a Forum... sorry, my HTML skills ended around version 4, and were never very good.

Okay then we need another founder!

Okay then we need another founder!

Do we really need five founders? Or is that just an arbitrary number?

We could do something democratic and elect a nation among us to represent the alliance internationally as a sort of spokesperson, for a term of 1 RL month or something.

The spokesnation wouldn't need to have supreme executive authority, for example, if we are voting on expelling a member or allowing a new member, then all member nations can vote on whether or not to do whatever.

What do you guys think?

I want five so we can have something like the security council.

Okay then we need another founder!
Sadly, in this case I am forced to agree-while being a Founder (even getting the offer) is quite an honour, my whole population is maybe one of your larger cities.

I want five so we can have something like the security council.

Ah. Good stuff.

So if anyone has any ideas for that nations...I am open ears.

So if anyone has any ideas for that nations...I am open ears.

Actually, if you need a "Security Council" setting up one seat as a "Rotating" position to be held by one of the lesser members for a period of time. This would give the smaller/lesser nations a voice "In Council" on matters that may not be all that important to the larger nations.

Actually, if you need a "Security Council" setting up one seat as a "Rotating" position to be held by one of the lesser members for a period of time. This would give the smaller/lesser nations a voice "In Council" on matters that may not be all that important to the larger nations.

Good idea.

I love it...you the man!

I love it...you the man!
Thanks. This would also allow a certain amount of turnover while keeping the Alliance up. (grimly remembering the 'Legion of Defense' and how quickly and badly it decayed, because it lacked both cohesion, and flexibility).

So... figure a position for five NS years or thereabouts? The mechanism for change should be something fairly regular, and easy to grasp for the 'Advisory seat', so that newer members can latch onto the mechanism without too much trouble. I think either that, or a "Population size limit" (under a certain number then it HAS to change...) might be a good option.
As for selection, that's one that I'll leave to y'alls to decide on-either acclaim by the Larger powers (the actual "Founder" members), or election by the "lesser powers"-both have their advantages and disadvantages.

OK, we have a creed and a leadership system. I think now's the part where we refine the rules.

We'll start with the basics:
Membership requirements.
To join the DAFP, a nation must be a democracy that has been suggested by a member nation. Once approved by a founder, the nation can join. If they were suggested by a founder, another founder will be required for approval.
Member expectations.
Members of the DAFP are expected to uphold the ideals of democracy and maintain a democratic government. Member nations may not attack another member nation under any circumstances. If another member is threatened, other member nations must provide military aid as they are able, unless some other factor is present. (IRL responsibilities, ally with offending nation, etc.) Member nations are also expected to remain active (as able) and supportive of other members of the DAFP.
Expulsion
Should a member nation fail to meet the expectations of membership, the founders will vote on the removal of the nation in question. Expulsion occurs on majority.

Questions/Comments thus far?

I like...i am working on getting all that ready in a more proper form...i also need someone who knows who to make a forum.

What then happens to the larger nations like mine. Do I get left out to be a lesser nation. I have a very large population. Where does that put me? I would think that I would be donating alot because I have more. AM i just to be left out as a lesser nation?

You'd be in a very good position to be in the rotated seat.

You would be...and you would have more power in that spot anyway!

But then I lose the seat in 5 NS years if we go by that plan. I'm going to be puttin in alot of money and forces in but then I don't get to sey how we use it, but for only a limited amount of time?

Tell me ifI'm not understanding this correctly. I just don't see what's hppening. I'm going to be recognized as a lesser nation when some of these nations are like one of my cities. I am just tring to understand what is being said here.

It will be smiliar to the U.N. security council...five nations...one of them rotates between the others...you always have a say in how we use it...the main powers of the founders will be approving explusion and entries and stuff...the actual troop deployment is approved by us but you will have a huge say in it...i promise

But then I lose the seat in 5 NS years if we go by that plan. I'm going to be puttin in alot of money and forces in but then I don't get to sey how we use it, but for only a limited amount of time?

Tell me ifI'm not understanding this correctly. I just don't see what's hppening. I'm going to be recognized as a lesser nation when some of these nations are like one of my cities. I am just tring to understand what is being said here.

depending on how the rotation cycle is handled, you might, or might not lost that seat in five NS years. During those five years, though, you have, essentially, the tiebreaker vote on any close decision, and presumably the backing of the other "Minor" member-states when you make a proposal (Since you are, after all, representing their interests...at least, in theory.)
Effectively, as Nellisland said, it's actually a quite powerful spot to be in-but the trade off is that you can lose it if you abuse the position, meaning it quite possibly is also the most accountable seat on the council, and the most responsible seat. Accountable to the ones whose interests you represent (as well as being accountable to the other four members), and responsible because holding that seat isn't something you just get for having a big nation, or being on NS for a long time-that seat represents what amounts to the 'rank and file' countries. It's a built-in 'safety' against anyone usurping power for their own interests. In a Democracy, that's called both check, and balance. (the Balance being that there are, after all, more 'non-founders' than Founders. it's the potential to 'deal break' in the event a major Nation tries to abuse the alliance for their own ends...)
So... as long as you (as holder of the seat) represent the collective interests of the minor memberstates in good faith, you should be able to hold the position indefinitely... so long as you do it well.

It's called a "Leadership slot", and unlike the previously-noted founders, it's one that has to be both Earned, and Maintained.

You'll note I'm not seeking this very actively. Once the Alliance is set up, I tend to be more of a 'team player' than a 'team captain'. I tend to prefer to leave the really big risks for other, more dynamic types, to take.
;)

I hate to get off topic, but...

I like where this is going, except I have just one issue with it. The alliance is called the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples, right? It may be just me, but that has an air of totalitarian communism about it. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc. Maybe we should just be the Alliance of Free Peoples?

or we could keep it as Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples & claim back the word.
And what about Federal Democratic Republic of Germany ie the Western half?

Everything else sounds good though, and I like the smaller nations add supplies in times of warfare. As a new nation, this appeals...

or we could keep it as Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples & claim back the word.
And what about Federal Democratic Republic of Germany ie the Western half?

West Germany was just the Federal Rpeublic. You might be thinking of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic.

But taking back the word is a good idea, I hadn't thought of that.

West Germany was just the Federal Rpeublic. You might be thinking of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic.

But taking back the word is a good idea, I hadn't thought of that.

that's embarrasing. i'm a uni history student.

but thanks

Okay, so it looks like we have two crises, maybe. One involving a possible WMD 'experience' in Schliswieg Holstien, (revolving around a crooked election and possible purging), the other involving an attempted raising of an alliance to attack Democracies.

Since neither war is "On" yet, we might want to figure out what each active member of this Alliance can commit to foreign operations, and figure out what kind of Logistical nightmares we may have to deal with-especially if Muktar and Nellisland have to deal with multiple enemies on either front.

I don't get to deal with mulitple fronts? :(

I propose we create an Alliance Rapid Reaction Force, for situations such as these. I can offer two divisions (armored or mechanized infantry) to the force, if need be.

If such a force is created, I also suggest that for expediency's sake, the RRF be under the control of whichever Founder (Nellisland, Muktar, myself, Turetel, or the rotating seat) nation responds first to the thread. If that's a problem, I'm open to other suggestions.

I don't get to deal with mulitple fronts? :(

I propose we create an Alliance Rapid Reaction Force, for situations such as these. I can offer two divisions (armored or mechanized infantry) to the force, if need be.

If such a force is created, I also suggest that for expediency's sake, the RRF be under the control of whichever Founder (Nellisland, Muktar, myself, Turetel, or the rotating seat) nation responds first to the thread. If that's a problem, I'm open to other suggestions.

That sounds reasonable... but it requires a certain level of standardization between members, wouldn't you agree? Some nations like the 5.56mm rifle ammo, some prefer 7.62x39 or 7.62x51, or 5.45x35. I prefer the 6.8x43 and 6.5x55, there could be a real tangle in the supply lines over an extended campaign with all those different rifle-calibres, and that doesn't include things like different Artillery types/platforms, aircraft, missiles, fuels... the RPF would need a "Standard" that all the participating member countries can use and agree upon, like the NATO and STANAG standards of the 1980's and 1990's.

I'm going to be out of town for two days, so if anything happens that requires an urgent military response, I'm giving Nellisland RP control of my two RRF divisions until I return.

We and muktar and T.M.E. will be having a private war agiainst three of those commy nations..so that is what is going on...

Me and muktar and T.M.E. will be having a private war agiainst three of those commy nations..so that is what is going on...

Me and muktar and T.M.E. will be having a private war agiainst three of those commy nations..so that is what is going on...

Ah... okay then.
Gives me more time to work on my own details. (Geography, climate, internal politics, TO&E, etc. etc. etc.)

I'm thinking of going down the list of allied members and proposing an NTC/JRTC style facility to let the smaller ones pool resources in training and development so that we're a bit more... "Useful" in the future.

Good idea...I need to get going on the articles ans tuff so we start reqruiting and junk. These couple of nations that we are fighting today are really small but I dont think they get that at all...so...

Article 1: Founders
• The founding members shall be Nellisland, Turetel, Muktar, and Malkyer.
• All members shall vote monthly on a fifth temporary founder.
• The founders will have various powers in the Democratic Alliance of Free Peoples which will be outlined in the other articles.
• If, for some reason, a founder is unable to fulfill his duties than another member nation will fill in for them. This will be determined by the other founders.
Article 2: Democracy
• All nations in the D.A.F.P. agree to follow the principles of democracy.
• All nations agree to have free and open elections in their nation.
• All nations agree to promote free and open election in all nations.
Article 3: Terrorism
• Terrorism is denounced by the D.A.F.P.
• No nation in the D.A.F.P. will ever negotiate terrorists.
• No nation in the D.A.F.P. will ever fund terrorists in any way.
• The D.A.F.P. pledges to fight terrorism throughout the world.
Article 4: Genocide
• Genocide is denounced by the D.A.F.P.
• No nation in the D.A.F.P. will ever commit genocide.
• No nation in the D.A.F.P. can help genocide in any way.
• The D.A.F.P. pledges to fight genocide throughout the world.
Article 5: War
• If war is declared on member nations then all other member nations must help in any way possible.
• Smaller nations Are not required to send troops, but are required to send supplies and provide non-combat assistance to other nations within the alliance
• If a member nation can not help then they must produce a valid reason to at least one the founders.
Article 6: Tariffs
• All nations in the D.A.F.P. agree to tariff free trade between each other.
Article 7: Entrance to the D.A.F.P.
• To be accepted into the D.A.F.P. a nation must have the backing of a member nation. Then the founders will vote to decide if they gain entry. This is of course majority vote.
Article 8: Expulsion
• A member can be expelled by the founders only. This also majority vote.
• They can, but may not, be expelled by:
o Choosing to not hold free and open elections.
o Supporting or committing terrorism.
o Supporting or committing genocide.
o Declaring war on a member nation
o Not helping in times of war without a valid excuse.
o Any other reason that the founders find reasonable.
• A member nation, including a founder, must request expulsion before a vote can take place.

Article 5, item two needs some work I think. Instead of:

" Smaller nations may not have to send troops, but will have to send supplies to the other nations."

I think (for the sake of future issues) it should read:
Article 5, second item:
"Smaller nations Are not required to send troops, but are required to send supplies and provide non-combat assistance to other nations within the alliance."

The reason for this, is that there may be situations where a smaller nation is the target of aggression, or has close commercial and cultural ties to a larger nation.

(i.e. the smaller nation's player is keen to test out his new nation in a major crisis, this still gives the larger members the ability to provide supervision and assistance to the newbie, and gives smaller nations that wish to stay out of the fighting the ability to stand back and remain in a supporting-cast position until they're bigger.)

The second reason for this suggested change, is that it encourages smaller nations to develop "Specialties" within the alliance-say, instead of having a big military/industrial complex, a given nation may have very good medical doctors, or civil engineers, or excellent shipping capacities, or a good Intelligence section- by mandating assistance instead of merely supplies, the alliance gains more than just materiel, and it gives newer players the option of developing more three-dimensional capabilities in Roleplay.

Once again another great idea!

Thank you.

On an aside note: I still think we need to work on some kind of "alliance Standard" for equipment and training, and maybe an NTC facility with a dedicated, multinational OPFOR to sharpen and develop the capabilities of the member-states. Say, a battalion from each member being assigned through Malkyer's suggested "Rapid Reaction Force" structure, to be based at an NTC/JRTC style facility as a single command. Then have members rotate units in to train against this force in simulated live-combat conditions. (ala the Blackhorse at Ft. Irwin, or the 2nd ACR over at Ft. Polk's JRTC).

Benefits: with a dedicated multinational Cadre, standards of training across the memberstates's militaries can be more easily achieved, units learn to work together against a variety of opponents and tactical doctrines.
Further: Tactical and strategic doctrines can be built up, allied unit-cohesion is reinforced, the RRF is able to train during peacetime to work together under a variety of command styles and conditions. Since this would be paid for by the member-states, the facility doesn't present significant costs to any single member-state (though real-estate to train on would be, naturally, donated as part of the donating member's dues)
This also gives less-experienced armies the chance to "learn to play chess from a Master", rather than having to learn by speculation and potentially disaster.

Drawbacks: As a multinational facility, the proposed Alliance Joint Readiness Training Centre would naturally entail having armed forces from foreign governments on the host-nation's soil, virtually at all times. Depending on climate and terrain, this could also require the host-nation to submit to the movement of non-local forces through civilian areas as a matter of course. A STatus of Forces Agreement (SOFA) would need to be put into place to protect visiting units from overseas (as well as non-local-memberstate Cadre personnel) from prosecution for off-base incidents that may occur (particularly where a soldier does something legal at home that is in violation of local laws!)
A Status Of Force Agreement places any charges levelled against a visiting or stationed trooper into the hands of his or her chain of command, and acts as a kind of "Diplomatic Immunity"-this is not true immunity per-se, but rather, it prevents a visiting soldier from missing duty by nature of being in the local hoosegow for a victimless crime (in some states), or for crimes that aren't crimes at home (ages of consent vary significantly between nations, that sixteen-year-old girl might be perfectly legal in Country "A", but if the centre is in country "B" where the age of Consent is 21...)

Other drawbacks to look at are climate and terrain. Cadillac-Gage has terrain that falls into three categories (roughly) outside of the more populated areas:

1. Sandy and cold, with snow and ice.
2. Cold, rough, and Mountainous (barren)
3. Cold, marshy, and Muddy. (Summertime only-for six months night is only four hours long)

This may not be ideal for training to fight in 120+ degree weather, or for Jungle operations. While we're not as barren as some of the rougher sections of Muktar, for instance, and territory-wise we're kind of a 'postage stamp', We did suggest the facility in the first place...

Siting in other places runs into similar difficulties-as does siting in more heavily populated nations with higher population densities (live fire becomes difficult when you have to worry about a nearby suburb catching a bad wind-drift during artillery practice, yes?)

So... the JRTC/NTC system should likely be placed in less-developed areas-which creates a certain amount of Terrain/Climate bias (unless we go for multiple facilities, which increases transportation costs, but allows for a broad variety of settings).

Either way, most any site will need a SOFA arrangement-this will make things easier to handle diplomatically later on if it's in place ahead of time.

Standadization of equipment

Currently, there seem to be two popular choices in amongst the current allied nations where small-arms are concerned.

NATO-Standard, and Warsaw-Pact Standard.

NATO standard includes your M-4/AR-15 style rifles, Enfield L-85, FAMAS, HK G-3/G-36, and FN FAL/FN LAR type rifles, the Galil ARM series... Calibres tend to be 5.56x45 or .223, and 7.62x51 or .308.

Warsaw Pact Standard would be most AK-47 and AKM derivatives, AK-74's, and AN-94 rifles. Calibres are usually 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, and 5.45x39.

While you could, theoretically, cram a .308 into a 7.62x54 chamber, you can't do the reverse, and neither choice is particularly smart or wise.
the smaller 7.62 round used in AK-47/AKM rifles is incompatible with any of the others.

Likewise, the 5.45 and 5.56 aren't compatible with each other or the others either.

We haven't even got to rounds like the 6.8mm or 6.5mm, which have their own tricks associated with 'em.
Small Arms
The RRF should be armed with One round, across the board-this makes joint supply easier and smooths out logistical snarls that can and will develop in joint-national Alliance-based operations.

Particularly since smaller member-nations may be supplying the bullets and spares for Allied missions.

In general, it's a good idea to use the same kind of ammunition across the board. Whether it's the more popular calibres, or the less popular calibres, fielding a common design of ammunition, and using compatible magazine designs means the Allies can more easily and cleanly coordinate supply and logistical operations, which acts as a speed and recovery multiplier in combat operations, eases joint training problems, and provides commanders with the ability to draw from more than a single source in the event of enemy attempts at supply interdiction.

Artillery
Similarly, Artillery ammunition and tank-gun ammunition should be as close to a common standard as is practicable. 123mm soviet rounds aren't the same as 120mm NATO rounds, neither of which is in any way similar to 152mm rounds.
We don't have MLRS, but we have 8 in. Howitzers (they were inexpensive and surplus...)-the two don't share any physical resemblence, and one cannot load an MLRS rocket into an M-110 howitzer and rationally expect it to perform correctly.
Users of the "Stalin Organ" rocket systems are in a similar fix-the ammunition for an MLRS system won't fit the firing tubes or platform for the soviet-style rocket-battery.

Heavy Weapons
Within NATO standards for Tank main-guns, there are also differences in the 105mm L7 gun (found on the Stingray, M1, M-60A1/A3, Leopard Mk1, AMX-40, AMX-30, Kurassier (austrian tank), and Merkava Mk-2/3 designs) and the 120mm Rhinemetall (M1A1/A2, Leopard II, LeClerc), and the 120mm British (Chieftain, Challenger I, Challenger II).
The 120mm Brit uses separate projectile/powder, is rifled, and has longer range. The 120mm Rhinemetall uses single-piece ammunition and is smoothebore, doesn't have the effective range/accuracy at range that the Brit does, but weighs less and may be more lethal with APFSD rounds.
The 105 can be mounted on lighter chassis, is rifled (in most cases), and is somewhat less common in MBT applications, but more common in light-tank/scout tank applications.

Warsaw-Pact standards are... somewhat similar in the differences, but there is no cross-compatibility between the two standards, or within them.

Choosing one or two "Tank main gun" calibres for the RRF is a good idea, if two, then standardizing across the Alliance (I'd suggest 105 and 120mm common standard) is doable.

Fuel: Recommend standardizing on a single-grade of Diesel, possibly JP-4, as it will run in standard diesel engines, as well as most Helicopter and subsonic Jet applications, permitting the same fuel-source to feed everything from Humvee/Jeeps to Transport aircraft and Helicopters.
This choice also allows a greater number of refinery facilities to feed the system, and permits cross-service fueling.
this lowers your cost per gallon of refined fuel, as there are more sources.

CSOP:
Communications SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) between Services should be compatible whenever and wherever possible. an "Allied Code" department might be a good operation to put into effect, as Signals is a key weakness in most armies, one that can, in the case of multinational forces, be sabotaged without enemy action by large differences in how communications is conducted. Not being able to communicate with a component of your multinational force can and has resulted in 'friendly fire' incidents. A 'uniform' structure and doctrine is necessary-as well as a mechanism for concealing this uniform doctrine from an enemy.

Joint Intelligence:
Therefore, having Intelligence coordination between members is desirable, as is maintaining a Joint Communications department (possibly put them under the same department). For the purposes of the Alliance, this probably should not be a department that conducts its own Covert Operations, but rather acts as a clearinghouse and counter-intelligence group for the Alliance as a body. (i.e. no field agents, but lots of analysts)

Sattelite/Long Range signals
No doubt the Larger and more important members have extensive Sattelite coverage. Alliance-wide, however, Sattelite access may be less than adequate. Dues-paying members might be encouraged and assisted in development of a joint-sattelite project. Such a project would provide contracts to more developed nations, (money for contractors) while providing memberstates that lack a space-programme or space-launch capability access to a dedicated network of reconaissance, weather, and communications sattelites, this can provide two benefits-

One: it provides a dedicated network of sattelite coverage for Allied Miltary operations, and...

Two: it provides a 'secondary source' to confirm data obtained by National systems already in use-a backup, if you will.

Another route might be Long-wave radio systems, but those are somewhat more vulnerable to weather and conditions on the surface, and are more vulnerable to less-expensive forms of physical sabotage. (Try driving a truck up to a communications sattelite to blow it up.)

I think I will let you be in charge of that!

I'm going to need to read that tomorrow. I have limited time on the computer, and I need to save up for the war in a hour or two. (NL, did they decide specifics?)

No...Ii honesty don't know if they know what they are doing but I did tg them to give us them.

I think I will let you be in charge of that!
I can only make proposals and recommendations to the Alliance. It's up to the leadership and membership whether those proposals and recommendations are adopted, and at what level.

Re-tooling armies to match an Alliance-standard requires the consent of the owners of said armies, and some may want to make their own recommendations, or debate my suggestions.

To get the ball rolling, though...

Small Arms standards (recommendation by Cadillac Gage)

Rifle: Configuration should be compatible with NATO/STANAG (that means M-16 magazines) I recommend (obviously) change to 6.8x43 SPC caliber, burst or select fire.

Pistol: Semi-Automatic in Caliber .40 Smith and Wesson. This gives the same ammunition capacity benefits as 9mm Parabellum, but with increased knockdown power over the same range brackets. Pistols would ideally have a common magazine configuration and capacity for ease of supply and replacement.

Submachinegun: Recommend either rifle/carbine (short barrelled rifle or bullpup), or 10mm submachinegun of a common type (Uzi, MP5, etc.)

Sniper Rifles: Sniper rifle should ideally either use the same ammunition and magazine as the infantry rifle, (and same caliber), or be of a bolt-action configuration using the same cartridge type as the standard support-machinegun (squad level). Our ordnance board recommends 6.5x55 as the standard based on range, lethality, and recoil/weight considerations.

Squad Machinegun: Belt-fed, standard infantry calibre (6.8x43), recommend FN-Minimi. (M-249 rebarrelled for the 6.8SPC cartridge)

Platoon/GPMG : Recommend either the MG-3 or FN-MAG in 6.5x51 or 6.5x55 (six-point-five Swede)

AMR/Platoon Sniper: Recommend Barrett M-85 or McMillan Big .50 bolt-action for this role.

heavy Machinegun: Recommend Browning M-2HB in .50 Caliber for this role based on reliability, lethality, and accuracy.

Man-Portable anti-armour: Recommend Armbrust over AT-4, following reasons:
1. Backblast is reduced in the Armbrust design, making it more suitable for urban combat
2. Armbrust is less easily detectable by enemy counter-fire in open conditions.
the Armbrust is as effective as the AT-4 in the standard role, but can be employed in a broader range of conditions.

Armour specifications

Recommend adoption by the Alliance of two tank main-gun calibres, based on general effectiveness and commonality:
105mm L7 for light tanks
120mm Rhinemetall for MBT

Road speed should exceed 42MPH (65 Kph) on tracked vehicles.
Light tanks should be air-transportable without disassembly, and should be able to survive minimum of .50 caliber to the side and rear armour.
Recommend use of applique' armour on all combat vehicles under 25 tons in weight.


Fuel specification should be: Multifuel with a preference for JP4 Diesel to simplify supply.

Recommend installation of IVIS or equivalent system to enhance coordination at the Troop, Battalion, and Regimental levels, with some similar network to be researched at the Divisional, Corps, and Theatre levels.

Commo

Recommend development of, or use and distribution of, synchronized encryption systems similar to or better than, the KY-57 SincGaRS system

Recommend adoption of a common GPS frequency for all allied units.

Recommend adoption of a common SatCom frequency for all allied units.

Recommend minimum of 128 bit encryption for company-level and above communications, with encryption key changing minimum of twice per day.

Aviation

No recommendations at this time, save provision of common-fuel specification and drogue-type refueling capability on allied combat aircraft.

Naval Forces
No recommendations at this time. Further study is recommended on Naval doctrine, tactics, and capabilities of member states.

Strategic Weapons
Recommend a study to determine usefulness of Theatre ballistic weapons and anti-ballistic-missile systems such as THAAD.

Strategic Doctrine

Recommend further study.

Bump

*bows down before Caddilac-Gage's infinite knowledge*

*bows down before Caddilac-Gage's infinite knowledge*

(cowers) It's just a set of recommendations. I can't speak to Naval considerations ...
Also, the suggestions themselves are very debatable- the use of the 6.5x55 round fits with their supply and tactical doctrines-for nations with larger, more established armies using the 7.62 NATO round, it's kind of a 'pipsqueak', with the main benefits being a bit better ballistic coefficient for the same bullet-weights, and deeper penetration due to higher sectional density.

The cost of ammunition for an army is bloody huge, and hard to justify in a less-aggressive 'peacetime' economy.

Similarly, the 6.8x43 round is also recommended-it so happens that the Cadillac-Gage military uses this round, but that doesn't mean that someone who's been using m-16's and M-4's is going to be willing to throw out thirty plus years of accumulated gear, barrelling machines, and bullet-loading equipment to adopt a round that uses more magazine space for only 150 meters of additional lethal/accurate range (especially nations that subscribe to the "Under 300" doctrine and base issue off of that).

Likewise, Nations that have used Warsaw-pact tactics and equipment will find most of the recommendations uncomfortable (especially from a nation of only 12 million souls in a relatively remote and unpleasant place), since the adoption of the rifle ammo means retooling those AK factories, adoption of the machinegun design means total retooling of THOSE production lines, disposal of thousands of weapons (or hundereds of thousands) that can't, for one reason or another, be reworked. Then, there's the Tank-main-gun issue. The 120mm Rhinemetall tube is a long/soft recoil design, making it incompatible with the autoloader, mounting, and sighting hardware of the T-series warsaw-pact tanks. (up to, and including, the T-90), and the 105 L7, while it fits most NATO-standard tank designs (including the Swedish S-Tank), is a step "Down" for Warsaw-Pact users, and again, retooling the turrets on Pact-derived tanks is a major expense.

further, there are nations looking into the "Holy Grail" tank guns in 152 and 153mm, which, if this standard is adopted, won't happen without changing the standard (which only happens with either rejection, or discussion).

The Cadillac-Gage people recommended, in other words, systems they're either using, or can produce and intend to use.

My out-of-character point, is that My nation's one of, if not the, smallest nations in the Alliance- They've made a suggestion, but the larger, wealthier, and more populous nations might want to argue a bit before adopting any of my nation's suggestions.

On the gripping hand, the Cadillac-Gage nation can't speak to Naval standards, since their "Navy" is mostly close-in and riverine systems. If an 'Alliance Standard' is adopted, or 'Alliance' CSOP/MSOP is adopted, then Naval Standards need to be written by one or more of the wet-naval powers.

The Recommendations should be debated before they're either adopted, or rejected. There's a lot to debate, and there are gaps-I deliberately omitted Mortar, Grenade, and Grenade-launcher standards, among other things...

There's also the proposed JRTC. While training for cold-weather or night operations in extreme cold conditions (long, dark winters) is pretty good inside CG, along with cold, wet, muddy training (hardening training), our territory doesn't include anything that might be even remotely called "Tropical". (incidentally, that's also why we use the bullets we do-high sectional density and good velocity-retention, because our troops wear quite a bit of cold-weather gear along with the usual infantry body-armour types. Adopting with the assumption the other guy's dressed the same way means going for long-range penetration over short-range wounding... this would bring up another issue for Nations that might be dealing with/planning to fight people in more pleasant and temperate climates, where so much penetration and range aren't as important as capacity and full-auto capabilities in close quarters.)

Likely, if the JRTC is assembled, it will be ideally located somewhere closer to the equator-or have sattelite/branch locations closer to the equator to allow for training in temperate/desert/jungle environments as well as barren, rocky land with deep valleys and muskeg.
(This model would allow for a larger command, as well-setting up an OpFor regiment in each "Sattelite" location allows more nations to participate, and provides a broader training experience for the Alliance Rapid Reaction Forces, as well as alternate climate training for National Forces of each member-state.)

I'm neither Omniscient, nor even overpoweringly wise, I'm just trying to do my bit to make this Alliance as strong/cool as possible, so that people notice, and respect, it.

Since I'm responsible for it...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406662

The JRTC facility is now open.

There's also the proposed JRTC. While training for cold-weather or night operations in extreme cold conditions (long, dark winters) is pretty good inside CG, along with cold, wet, muddy training (hardening training), our territory doesn't include anything that might be even remotely called "Tropical".

If needed, Malkyer has desert and subtropical environments that we would more than happen to establish training centers in.

If needed, Malkyer has desert and subtropical environments that we would more than happen to establish training centers in.

Yes, PLEASE do. (huh...maybe with Malkyer's greater experience, one of your General Officers should be in charge of the whole programme... at least, in character-wise.)

bump; I don't want to see this die!

This won't die...there is just other stuff going on!

Psh, I know that...but they don't! *looks around furitively for the black helicopters*

oh...they know! oh...yes they do...lol!

Okay, so we have four sites so far, the "Prime" site in Cadillac-Gage (mainly because of a small population, lots of empty, barren land, and decent access), and the "Alpha Site" in Malkyer.

Site Prime: Cold Weather/Tundra and Night Operations [Cadillac Gage]

Alpha Site: Desert/Temperate combat[Malkyer}

Bravo Site:Beach/Tropical for Wet-Naval and Landing excercises {Assigned: Nellisland]

Charlie Site: Jungle Warfare Centre (somewhere dedicatedly tropical/rainforest would be ideal.)[Nellisland]


Right now, we have:


JRTC/Cold Weather-Tundra in Cadillac Gage, Local Commander is Brigadier Hans Fesslowe of the Cadillac-Gage Defense Forces, local contingent OpFor is the 1st Battalion, 1st Mechanized Infantry(Heavy).
1 Batt includes a company of mechanized combat-engineers, two companies of Mechanized infantry, one battery of SP artillery, Three Light Tank platoons, and a Headquarters/Supply element.

Unit components still awaiting finalization include:
A single Troop of heavy, tracked Armour (That's a company of Main-Battle tanks with their supporting elements)[Malkyer, 2 Battalions Mech. Infantry]

A troop or company of Air-Assault Infantry (that's Heliborne or Helicopter forces)

Two Aviation Companies/Troops (Prefer units from different nations, these would be attack-Helo units)

At minimum one experienced Special Forces group.

One battalion of O/C (Observer/Controller) elements (One platoon per member-state minimum) Billets filled: 1 Company from Cadillac Gage, 2 Companies from Malkyer.

Overall Command of the JRTC Command has yet to be appointed, this will require a separate selection process to appoint the General-Officer. Requirements for the position include, but are not limited to:

1. Experience in Joint operations-this immediately disqualifies CGDF Personnnel at this time, due to a lack of experience in Joint Task Force operations.
2. Battlefield Experience
3. Good Administrative skills
4. Proven Training/Field experience.

Candidates should be near the end of their career-path and ideally should be within fifteen years of retirement, but remain promotable.
We still need a CG for the Joint Readiness Training Command.

Basque Spain would like to join

I'll take beach and jungle warfare!

If needed, Malkyer can provide one or two battalions of Mechanized Infantry for the OpFor.

I would also like to say that I am sorry for my lack of helping with this. I have been real busy in the real world and all that. Plus I am in the middle of a war so...But I am still here to help and give insight but I will not be as active as I would like to be...especially if what happens in this war is supposed to happen...

If needed, Malkyer can provide one or two battalions of Mechanized Infantry for the OpFor.

Good! yes!! One company out of that should be detailed to the O/C group, the others can fill in for heavy units still outstanding.
We still need Aviation/VTOL units, Air-Assault units, and several other positions.

Cadillac Gage will send to:

JRTC Alpha Site: 3rd Battalion, Airborne/Air Assault (Helicopter-borne infantry with Attack helo support)

JRTC Bravo Site: 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment (Light) and Charlie Company 2nd Engineers

JRTC Charlie Site: 4th Battalion, 1st Armoured Cavalry (Light Tank outfit, Stingrays and Ferretts)

hi guys,

apologies for appearing dead to everything, but various things in the outside world forced me to retreat to a calmer place, where i lived without internet & mobile phones in peace for a week.

back now though

Malkyer will officially designate the following to act as the primary OpFor at JRTC Alpha Site:

2nd Battalion, 19th Tanks Regiment
5th Battaltion, 43rd Mechanized Infantry Division

Also, construction will begin on the actually training area and it will be done soon. Is there anything else I need to do, C-G?

Malkyer will officially designate the following to act as the primary OpFor at JRTC Alpha Site:

2nd Battalion, 19th Tanks Regiment
5th Battaltion, 43rd Mechanized Infantry Division

Also, construction will begin on the actually training area and it will be done soon. Is there anything else I need to do, C-G?

Um... Putting forward a candidate for the Commanding General slot for the whole Joint Readiness Training Command. So far, I have exactly zero Officers to fill that slot, and while I seem to be designing this, I'm extremely reluctant to use one of my own characters for the job... it really DOES belong to a more senior state (either more powerful, or older, or more respected internationally. Cadillac Gage itself is a pretty small nation, and they're not the most experienced nation in the Alliance when it comes to fighting wars. Geographical isolation and limited foreign contacts have kind of kept them out of things for the last few decades.)

Ths Silver Sky would like to join the Democratic Alliance of Free People, we use extensive naval tactics, and forces, we also are an Island nation, mountains towards the north, desert in the south, and grassland mixed with forest inbetween the two, so we would be perfect for naval gunnery practice, and amphibious forces training.

Please admit us to this alliance, we have a pop. of about 135 million, our Navy is almost 40% of our total forces, Air force 30%, Army 30% (yes small but very combat ready and uses very modern weapons.)

Edit:
Naval Forces: 6 fleets, 100 ships for each fleet
Air Forces: 6 Theater Combat Sections, 300 fighters per section
Army: 2 Army groups, each consisting of 8 divisions(4 Mech. Inf., 2 Light Armored, 2 Heavy Armored), Mech. Infantry Division 18,000 men, Light Armored Division 16,000 men, 150 tanks, Heavy Armored Division 14,000 300 tanks,
Marine Corp.: 6 Divisions each the same as a light armored divisions except with 18,000 men.

Your potenial Ally,
President Jason Garner of The Silver Sky

it really DOES belong to a more senior state (either more powerful, or older, or more respected internationally.

If international respect is what you're going for...I don't know if I'm that well known in the world at large. Anyway, onto business.

I propose General Bernard Thomas to be Commanding Officer for the JRTC. He has led the Royal Army to victory in the past three wars we have fought, and is best remembered for his defense of Jerusalem during the New Crusade. A four-star general of the Royal Army, I think he will do quite well as the CO.

I assume we'll be voting on this?

I expect we will be... provided "We" are more than two... what's this about you getting into it with two larger powers?

Roach-Buster's move to democracy. I've declared war on J.L.'s government and Parthia. Should be interesting.

Roach-Buster's move to democracy. I've declared war on J.L.'s government and Parthia. Should be interesting.
Ah... I noticed the RP's are closed now. (sigh) oh well, gives me time to do a TO&E now...

New Business: Silver Streak. I'll sponsor you to the remaining "Founders" as a prospective member, we're going to have to handle this by Quorum until Nellisland's little RP with Massive Ethiopians is done-so instead of needing three votes out of five, it's probably going to be two out of three. Since we're still in the "assembly" stages of the Alliance (i.e. no in-character treaty has been written up), for now, you can probably count me as a direct ally, with the others on an individual basis until the DAFP is fully assembled.

Thank you for sponsoring me, I'm forever grateful, and just e-mail me when you get involved in a war, I'll try to help.
Thanks again

New Business: Silver Streak. I'll sponsor you to the remaining "Founders" as a prospective member, we're going to have to handle this by Quorum until Nellisland's little RP with Massive Ethiopians is done-so instead of needing three votes out of five, it's probably going to be two out of three. Since we're still in the "assembly" stages of the Alliance (i.e. no in-character treaty has been written up), for now, you can probably count me as a direct ally, with the others on an individual basis until the DAFP is fully assembled.

Since the problem is touchy I say we just let him in. Nellisland has no objections conisdering he is sitting right next to me...all in favor?

Aye

Aye.

So does this mean I'm in or do other people still have to vote?

Three of the five Founders have voted "Aye," so unless I missed something, you're in.

Ok, thanks for letting me in, do you need me to do anything (i like to carry me own weight)?

Thanks again, i hope this will turn into a great alliance.

Ok, thanks for letting me in, do you need me to do anything (i like to carry me own weight)?

Thanks again, i hope this will turn into a great alliance.

Actually, there's a lot left to do that needs both doing, and disucussion.

Discussion first (for my part)...

Check the earlier threads-look for the "Alliance Standard" proposal. read it, comment on it, it needs debating whether we do it, or not, and if so, what we do with it.

Bump

I have no idea what's going on, if this has died, or you people are dicussing this somewhere else, also I have no idea if this is the right place to post this.

WOW! Cadillac-Gage, you sure know alot about tanks and their weapon systems!

I'm in favor of the weapon standards, I personally use the 120mm Rhinemetall (in a double gun turret), and the JP-4 for my Tanks (turbine-diesel engines) and helicopters. And I prefer to use the standard NATO rounds for my M-4/AR-15 rifles, and the 10mm Submachine guns (MP-5K), my sniper forces use 6.5x55 rounds, I go with your idea on the Machinegun ideas (both of them), although I use the .50 cal sniper rifle ammo, I use a semi-auto sniper rifle(recently introduced into service in the US army, forgot the name :mad: ), well thats all the input I have for now.

We are...ahhh...working on it...i guess...ummm...okay...let us get in gear. I will yell at Nellisland to get the stuff done. Meanwhile Cade you put together the military thing okay.

lol, yeah, let me guess, real world stuff, or just lazyness (I have plenty of it :D ), or maybe you just forgot (which also happens to me alot), don't worry I can wait.

We are...ahhh...working on it...i guess...ummm...okay...let us get in gear. I will yell at Nellisland to get the stuff done. Meanwhile Cade you put together the military thing okay.

Okay...

Rifles:
Silver-Sky: you issue the M-16/M-4 rifles, that's a rifle in 5.56x45...
Massive Ethiopians/Alaidos: Issues the XM-8 (same caliber)
Magazines and ammunition interchange between you. IIRC, Nellisland used to use the same round and rifle combo that ME and Third Jerusalem used.
That's four members that issue 5.56 as the standard rifle round, and one that uses 6.8x43 instead.
Does anyone know what Muktar's issuing? I thought it might be 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 Soviet rounds, but I can't be 100%...
Anybody know what Malkyer's issuing? (haven't seen much of him in the last few weeks...)

For Alliance Standard, I think we're going to have to go with a consensus, but I'd strongly recommend going to the 6.8 because of range and penetration issues-particularly against opposition that employs at least light body-armour. the conversion for most M-16/M-4 users isn't difficult (swap the upper recievers and bolt-face and you're done), for the XM-8 crowd, it might take using the "modularity" features of the design. Retooling ammo industries is the real cost here, and replacing stocks of ammunition.
For AK-users it's a bit more complicated, since the whole ball-of-wigglers is different (you'd need to change magazine specs, recievers, barrels...the whole weapon, really, and tooling for it is a (censored) even though once in place, it's easy to stamp out the new designs quickly.)

I'm for changing to the 6.8 round, it might be expensive, but I don't really keep a lot of ammo stocked (never really been in a ground conflict, so i've never seen the need) the same for rifles (gonna start to stockpile after retooling)

also i've been wondering, is this purely modern tech (Present-2010 for me) or some Post-modern (2010-2020 I only use small amounts of post-modern tech such as ETC guns, nothing beyond that)

OOC:
Does this alliance of yours have a Constitution like some of the other alliances? or what?

OOC:
Does this alliance of yours have a Constitution like some of the other alliances? or what?

Yes we do...ummm...have one...at least that is what Nellisland claims or what not. We is gone for the day and probably wont be able to post so said it is done though so...sorry...Real world sucks some times.

I'm for changing to the 6.8 round, it might be expensive, but I don't really keep a lot of ammo stocked (never really been in a ground conflict, so i've never seen the need) the same for rifles (gonna start to stockpile after retooling)

also i've been wondering, is this purely modern tech (Present-2010 for me) or some Post-modern (2010-2020 I only use small amounts of post-modern tech such as ETC guns, nothing beyond that)

Most of the Alliance's more active membership is Moderntech-edging-postmodern in one or two areas.

therefore, 'Alliance Standard' munitions will fall into the Moderntech catagory-this means that for joint-operations, and forces that might be expected to participate in same, post-moderntech weapons and equipment won't be 'to standard', This would include ETC cannon (though the spec might be different on the Naval end-I'm not about to try and handle that one until ground-forces are sorted out.), THOR (orbital kinetic weapons), ACS suits and gear (Future Combat Soldier systems), Most 'metalstorm' hardware, drones, robots, and droids, Caseless Assault Rifles, Guided rifle munitions... Basically your post-2010 stuff. You don't have to get rid of it, but for purposes of DAFP Standard gear, it's just not going to be covered in any real detail.

Areas where PM tech can be integrated without huge material costs to members would be: Communications/data and ELINT/counter systems. (Field-ready computer systems, encryption units, radios, Night Vision systems and such.)
Communications, Coordination, and Control are the three most important force-multipliers in modern warfare all other factors being equal (or even inferior) your C3 can make or break any operation. A well-coordinated force armed with muskets can defeat a poorly-coordinated force armed with modern Assault rifles.
Another, is in Intelligence and Battlefield Deception technologies. Sattellite and small-drone UAV's can provide inexpensive recon of a target area, IVIS (Inter Vehicle Information Systems) can coordinate Tank and APC-equipped units to take quick advantage of that information. Brought to the squad-level with infantry, manpacked infosystems can provide critical data in urban fights, or under low visibility in a variety of terrain.
Since not all memberstates can afford the best, we need to have a set of systems and frequencies to allow, say, a nation with 1990's tech to communicate and coordinate with a nation based on 2006 or 2008 tech, or (in your case) 2010 tech.
This is the biggest item next to common supplies in establishing the DAFP standards-they have to be both common to members, and secured from enemies who might be able to 'hack' into systems using superior tech.

Cade...do we reaelly have to change my standard weapons cause the XM-8 is the new weapon on the market and I am in love with it...or do you have other plans cause I don;t know a lot about this?

Cade...do we reaelly have to change my standard weapons cause the XM-8 is the new weapon on the market and I am in love with it...or do you have other plans cause I don;t know a lot about this?

The XM-8 has a variant in 6.8x43, (I checked the H&K site when involved in a debate over it...)
so you wouldn't necessarily need to change the rifle, just order it in a different chambering. this does bring up the cost of ammunition for the conversion, though-the size of your army listing says it's going to be significantly higher for you than, say, me, or any of the younger nations with smaller armies. (or older nations with smaller armies...) I lost count somewhere around your 300th division of troops (I've got twelve in regular service...) Figure that over a training cycle for a thousand men, an average army uses up close to a billion rounds of ammunition (That's 1,000,000,000) to achieve what is considered in U.S. terms "Proficiency". The Ballistic differences between the 6.8 and the 5.56 are significant enough that the changeover is going to require requalification of existing forces-and you've got a LOT of forces to retrain. Maintenance qualification costs (Thrice per year) average about 1000 rounds per man minimum (about a billion rounds per thousand men, used up in 330 round batches every three to four months.)

Combat usage is, of course, higher.

Changeover for a force already committed to 5.56 is going to be very high-esp. as the rounds aren't necessarily equal in cost. 5.56x45 SS109 ball ammo doesn't cost as much per round (five to fifteen cents, depending on manufacturer) as 6.8x43 will (seven to twenty cents/round depending on materials cost and manufacturer), The extra two to five cents difference on the scale means a LOT when you get past one or two million troops-even at peacetime expenditures. Supporting my existing forces (not including the Canton-level units in the Reserve and National Guard formations) takes roughly 20% of my tax-revenues per year. In order to accomplish this, I 'load' most of my other spending down at the Canton (what you would call "State" or "Province") levels. Governments with greater spending on social-welfare, Education, or Regulatory structures will tend to have a smaller percentage to spend on Military forces, just to maintain their existing programmes.

How that spending is applied has a direct impact on what you buy- you've got a huge army equipped with some very expensive hardware, and a large nation (Alaidos) that requires a large number of civilian and military officials to administer-all answerable directly to the Central Government. Somewhere, you are going to have to make sacrifices. My nation made its sacrifices in keeping a relatively small, but deeply-trained and well-armed, military. the average age of my lowest-ranking officer is 32 years old, and my Regular troops include Privates with six years of training and experience in the Reserves and National Guard before they went 'regular'.
The tradeoff, is that my Regular forces are quite small-even miniscule by most standards in comparison with other nations with my stats.
Ergo, I can afford better ammunition and higher standards on the same percentage of budget and population.

This is why my statements when I was suggesting the adoption of a 'Standard' for the Alliance emphasized debating it-I don't think you can afford to adopt even the majority of my suggestions without radically changing your Military structure to something smaller-and that may impact negatively on your ability to maintain order in your Nation if you do. (Someone was sure shooting back when you annexed Nellisland, and it wasn't us!)

Up to this point, I've been lobbying and focusing on certain portions of Logistical needs for the lowest-common-item in any army: The Infantry.
I've left some things unaddressed, (body armour, for instance, as I consider that to be part of each nation's national uniform).

But I've mainly focused on what amounts to the Conventional Infantryman.
The last post I made lit up something important, though-Logistical trains.

It costs to field an army-of any size, at least, and a united force is going to cost a lot too.

We're going to need a means to pay for this, and a means of in-character oversight to prevent skimming.

Bigger economies can pay for more with smaller percentages. This is a fact, 3% of a million is a smaller percentage than 30% of a thousand... but a bigger raw amount of money.

Armies cost billions to trillions to equip, train, field, and maintain.
One way to figure it, is that for each dollar (or equivalent) spent acquiring a piece of kit, (rifle, uniform, jeep...) you can expect to spend between five and ten per year maintaining both the piece of kit, and the operator of that piece of kit-minimum. That means a two-hundered dollar rifle, with ten-dollar magazines, is going to cost between eight hundered and a thousand per year (spare parts, cleaning solvent, rags, lubricant, storage costs and ammunition) Cost is higher because of the need for control (Beaurocracy), Security(someone in the Arms room), Training for the Operator (three months plus), and ammunition (Figure ten cents a bullet at the range, figure around three hundered rounds per trip, for a year, with quarterly qualifications, meals, bedding...it adds up.)

in 1991 dollars, it costs the U.S. Army $80,000 to train one infantryman to 'proficient'. It then costs around $30-50,000 dollars to keep that man proficient in peacetime-this average cost per man, and it's just infantry riflemen (not machinegunners, mortarmen, grenadiers, vehicle crew...)

So, 100,000 rifle infantry Privates will cost eight billion dollars to train, and three to five billion dollars to maintain-each year.

A machine gunner costs around the same, plus anywhere from ten to fifty percent more. (none of this includes wages and benefits.)

Mortar crew, recoilless riflemen, Specialist air-defenders (Stinger, blowpipe, SA-7/14/18 gunners) cost roughly double.

If you go with a proportion of two riflemen and a support-weapon per fireteam, and three fireteams per squad... well... it adds up. A platoon of four squads of ten men (not including NCO's, or officers) will cost...
$2,880,000 per platoon. this is without pay, and just trainees.

For an already existing platoon...
$2,160,000
Again, this is less NCOs and officers, along with not including specialist training beyond base infantry skills.

Almost three million dollars to train forty private soldiers, and almost two-and-a-quarter million for those soldiers to be maintained.

NCO ranks and pay-grades usually scale on a percentage. If you pay a corporal ten percent more than a private, and you pay a Sargeant ten percent more than a corporal, the more NCO grades you have, the bigger your difference from the base number is. Officers, on the other hand, cost as much as a whole squad of soldiers to train (Tuition at a 'mid range' university averages 80 grand a year in 1990 dollars. Service Academies can be expected to maintain a higher standard than that. Figure eighty-grand per year, for two to four years depending on how much emphasis you put on it.)
160,000 to train a two-year officer (ROTC boy or Shake 'n Bake), or 320,000 to train a four-year college-graduate officer.

The U.S. puts one officer in charge of a platoon of forty enlisted soldiers.

A brand new platoon without NCO's but with a brand new officer costs:
2,880,000+360,000=3,240,000 1990 U.S. Dollars (roughly).

Luckily, Officer maintenance doesn't cost as much as Officer training, and most armies include a percentage of "Mustang" officers promoted to the position from the Enlisted ranks.

Mustangs are NOT cheaper than Academy officers-except in terms of what you lay out immediately. Their training usually comes through experience, and therefore, the cost is amortized over a longer period.

Scaling pay for Officers is similar to pay for Enlisted, but the base number is higher (an O-1 is paid roughly twice what an E-1 is paid) the differences even out at higher levels (an O5 and an E5 don't share the same tax-bracket, but the difference in pay is less than it is for the O-1 to E-1 pay.)
Time-in-Grade (Seniority)Pay can close this gap further, or open it wider. An E-5 with five years as an E-5 could (in theory) make as much as an O-3 who just got pinned and has 'short' service-time (i.e. is only recieving base-rate, with no Time in Service or Time in Grade adjustments). A Sgt. Major (Twenty years in Regular service, ten as a SGM) might be able to match a Colonel's pay (If the Colonel, for whatever reason, is recieving only minimum pay. This tends not to happen very often), while an O-1 with four years at that pay-grade (RARE) might still recieve more than a newly minted Corporal or Sargeant (E-4, E-5) because of Time in Service/Time in Grade.

Payroll is a significant cost separate from training and troop skill maintenance.
If you pay your E-1 Private poverty-line wages (12,000 a year), and your base officer is paid (24,000a year), your platoon's pay (not including NCO personnel) is going to be $504,000. this is NOT including NCO pay, Jump-pay, etc. etc.etc. Now, account for 96,920 for E-4 fireteam leaders (corporals, eight), Pay for four Sgt's (E-5, 12,240 not including time in service/time in grade), one Staff Sgt (weapons platoon, 13,000 with skills bonus and E-6 pay), and a Platoon Sgt. (NCOIC, the 'daddy' of the enlisted, (13,130 without time or skill bonuses))

Platoon payroll for what amounts to 44 men is $628,010-not including variables like time-in-service, time-in-grade, or special skills (Jump qualification, medic training, bomb-disposeal/demolitions, technician training).

A company of infantrymen (rifle, foot) is three or four platoons.
Payroll comes up to almost two million dollars per year, not including special skills (but including four bottom-rung officers, one middle-management Company Commander, an Executive Officer, and a First Sgt.)

And that's if you're paying bottom-scale on everything, and don't include Benefits (health insurance, life insurance, entertainment, etc.) It is reasonable to assume that your airborne infantry are going to cost yet MORE in pay and allowances, as well as maintenance costs for skill proficiency.


Notice: we haven't got to maintaining anything bigger than a man with a rifle yet, or paying aviators and SF troops. This is grunt-line-shoeleather infantry.

Every School you send your men to costs additional money not factored into the above, every year they serve, costs money that isn't factored into the above.

all of this has to come out of your budget, and the more advanced your gear is, the more it costs to train your soldiers and maintain their proficiency.

There's a breakpoint, where mass-numbers of troops is more expensive than small numbers of highly-trained troops with good capital equipment. Depending on size of your nation, and mission, this number varies. Transportation costs come into the mix, for instance, as does fuel and ammunition costs for capital assets. (Diesel @ $250 a 55 gallon barrel, tank munitions often exceed 1,000 dollars a shot, missiles can reach over a million...)



This brings us to 'bang for the buck'. A half-million dollar rifle platoon can be relatively inexpensive, (you can buy more of them) to obtain, but a two-million dollar rifle platoon can cost less over time, and be as effective as an entire company of the low-budget troops, able to move faster, shoot further, more accurately, and with greater effect, as well as being able to out-think an opponent (Force Multiplier!).


Extensive training is one way to lower your long-term costs by investing in the immediate now. Another is purchasing reliable equipment that requires less in maintenance, is reliably accurate (even as cheap as a thousand dollars a shot, an accurate gun will use less ammo, and therefore, your tank will have a lower cost-in-training and cost-per-kill vs. one that is less accurate, but only costs, say, $500 a round to fire), and relatively efficient.
Thus, that T-72 at 3 million might look the bargain compared to a five or seven million dollar Leopard II, Challenger, or Abrams, but the more expensive tanks (at purchase) will cost less in the long-run on the real cost-multiplier: The battlefield.
Similarly, using M-8 AGS or Commando-Stingray tanks can be a good 'interim' or special-conditions choice against the T-72 and the like, by out-ranging and out-punching them-but the long-term costs are so similar... (main advantage for the Stingrays or M-8's is that they cost less in maintenance and fuel, and can move further, faster. the disadvantage, of course, is that the light tanks are less durable in battle, and will die swiftly when hit by even moderately wel-armed opposition.)

Logistics determines Strategy-not the other way 'round. the Ability to supply, support, and move your forces determines your ability to seize the initiative, and it determines how you will commit your units, where, and for how long they can be comitted. Larger armies require larger supply lines, more supply lines, or a combination of the two. Smaller armies require fewer or smaller supply lines, but benefit disproportionally to larger and more sources of supply.
A well-trained, disciplined, and well-supported smaller force can force the issue against a larger, less-well-trained, force that is not as well supplied-this has happened time and again. The limits are twofold: reserves to make up fatigue and losses, and supply reliability over distance. The larger and more effective your support-base is in relation to your line-troops, the better your line-troops will perform in either defense, or attack.

This isn't to say that the gods don't favour the larger battalions, but only that the favour is contingent on those larger forces being well-supplied and less vulnerable to 'friction'.

*Looks at last post* Cadillac-Gage you have way too much time on your hands, well time to downsize my forces to a company of basic rifle infantry seeing that's all I can afford at the prices you listed above.

Good thing no one ever takes into account all the "extra" expenses, lol

Ouch my head hurts.

*Looks at last post* Cadillac-Gage you have way too much time on your hands, well time to downsize my forces to a company of basic rifle infantry seeing that's all I can afford at the prices you listed above.

Good thing no one ever takes into account all the "extra" expenses, lol

Ouch my head hurts.
Sorry I made your head hurt. I think that's an exaggeration, btw-at 229 million, you've got ample $$$ coming in (even at, say, 1% taxation...)

To figure out how much military you can afford, there are a few good links in the 'pinned' threads. YOu need to figure out your GDP, (based on your population), Divide by your tax rate, and divide that sum by your % of spending on the Military.

That's your Base Annual Budget for Military expenditures. From that, you can figure out how much $$$ you have to spend per-year on your forces. Remember that you can spread big expenditures (Aircraft, Ships, Tanks) out over time, through the use of bond-issues, or Credit purchasing (or both.)

There are other methods to finance large purchases as well-if you have a very low tax-rate, you can use Lotteries, or (again) bonds as a means of financing large, one-time expenditures-this won't show up on your tax-rates, but can be very useful for obtaining the moneys needed to operate your forces.

In any case, at 229 million people, you can afford a fairly significant force-up to several divisions. What you probably can't afford, is the infamous twenty-million-man-armies so popular in Nationstates. (most of which were MADE popular by dint of people ignoring the basics of Logistics Logic.)



If you were under 7 million people, you'd be tied down to a single rifle company.

My economy (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=The+Silver+Sky)

Okay here the deal...Aliados is no more...we scrapped it so please ignore the notion of it. Thanks.

TME and I will retain our possions as founders.

We need to get this up and running so first thing is first:

I soon will create a thread that soley outlines rules for the allaince. That is step one. Then we will do other stuff and when we have it all done I will put into ont thread. So i will post the thing here.

Cadillac TG'd me awhile back about working on an official charter, though I don't know how that's going.

Let me know what I can do to help.

If you guys need anything just contact me through TGs or I can give you my MSN address (I got MSN messenger too), I can help on a charter and I have pretty good knowlegde of fighters/bombers too.

Okay here the deal...Aliados is no more...we scrapped it so please ignore the notion of it. Thanks.

TME and I will retain our possions as founders.

We need to get this up and running so first thing is first:

I soon will create a thread that soley outlines rules for the allaince. That is step one. Then we will do other stuff and when we have it all done I will put into ont thread. So i will post the thing here.

Must...not...strangle... GHHAAHHHHH!!!

Let's see... I've got two IC threads that are toast, a factbook to update, plus the JRTC thread. Ah well... at least I don't have to figure out too much more than those...

May I join this alliance as well?

I have already posted a threat to the Communist Alliance, telling them that if they do not negotiate with us, I will declare war on them and launch my nuclear missiles. It would be most beneficial if I had an alliance against these tyrants to "add to the table" and represent our interests.

May I join this alliance as well?

I have already posted a threat to the Communist Alliance, telling them that if they do not negotiate with us, I will declare war on them and launch my nuclear missiles. It would be most beneficial if I had an alliance against these tyrants to "add to the table" and represent our interests.
At six million people, you don't have any nukes (unless someone sold them to you.)
That's point one.
Point two, is this alliance isn't about going around making threats and starting fights. It is a Defensive alliance with some benefits for the membership and a moral compass (the Statement of Principles, located somewhere earlier on this thread, I think like page 3 or something.) There are several more-belligerant alliances if that's your fancy.

Yeah, going around making threats when we're still in the planing stages isn't a good thing to do.

Oh and Cage if you want any help just send me a TG, and if you have MSN IM maybe we could do some work there.

May I join this alliance as well?

I have already posted a threat to the Communist Alliance, telling them that if they do not negotiate with us, I will declare war on them and launch my nuclear missiles. It would be most beneficial if I had an alliance against these tyrants to "add to the table" and represent our interests.

This alliance is not something that you can just back yourself into. Request denied!

Yeah, going around making threats when we're still in the planing stages isn't a good thing to do.

Oh and Cage if you want any help just send me a TG, and if you have MSN IM maybe we could do some work there.

I don't use any instant-messenger services. I DO check my TG's daily, and.... I post here, and check this thread regularly.

Oh, ok, just TG if you want help then.