NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok ladies and gentlemen, I’ve had this idea for some time now. Back in the glorious days when I just started with my old nation there was some sort of MT Armed Forces Competition. There were several categories like helicopter vs. ground troops, urban combat scenario’s, tank vs. tank et cetera. It was great fun and a good way to learn new things, tactics and how to RP properly. Now I’ve decided to reintroduce this concept (that is if there’s enough interest). I’ve decided to make several classes, from a sniper competition to a combined arms competition. First the list of different classes:

-Aerial Combat
a) Air Defense [Air Superiority, Air Supremacy, Air Interdiction]
b) Close Air Support
c) Strategic Bombing

Operational Methods
a) Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare , Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense and Special Operations

-Naval Warfare
a)Amphibious Assault
b)Submarine
c)Surface Fleet

-Combined Arms (3 rounds)/Terrain Warfare
a)Urban Warfare
b)Mountain Warfare
c)Jungle Warfare
d)Arctic warfare
e)Desert warfare

[I]With the help of United Earthlings, I’ve changed the events a bit. In the Combined Arms Warfare Competition there are five different terrains. By rolling a dice the terrain will be chosen. If I roll a one, it will be terrain A (Urban Warfare), two will be B (Mountain Warfare) etc. If I roll a six one of the judges will chose a terrain.

These are just proposals, if anyone has objections or better ideas, feel free to speak out!

If you want to join, welcome! State which competitions you want to join, with how many troops+equipment (max brigade size plus fighter/helicopter/strike fighter/naval detachment). I’ll make separate threads for each competition. But note, if not enough people want to participate in a competition it may be cancelled. If the number of participants is just poor, I’ll combine certain competitions. In the worst-case scenario I’ll only start the Combined Arms phase.

Everyone will be judged on how they RP (most important), realism and humor. Each person in the jury gives a score between the 0 (for very n00bish) to 10 (the new f*cking Napoleon!). The person with the highest combined score is the winner!
The winner gets of a competition gets 5 points
No. 2 gets 4 points
No. 3 gets 3 points
And the rest of the participants get 1 point.

Every thread will also hold a poll where the NS Community can vote for their favorite RPer. It’s just for the honor and to promote good RPing. The winner only (!!!) gets a cookie.

I will still need some people who can help me for:
[I]a) making maps for the terrain which we use (I’m very shitty at making maps)
b) act as a jury who decide on a winner for the competitions (Experienced and well known players are preferred). People in the jury can still compete but naturally they can’t judge themselves.

I have several basic rules which I have tried to follow in every RP I joined or started myself:
1. Try to be as realistic as possible. NS Tech is allowed but I’d rather have RL equipment (please do give info on your equipment if you designed it yourself) This RP is strictly modern tech. I won’t accept a rotating, fast firing 300mm guns on a 200 ton tank which can reach 100 km/h in 2 seconds and which has a nuclear fission powersource.
2. Be friendly to each other. Help each other with good advice. And accept it if other give you advice, they are only trying to help you.
3. Accept the decision of the jury. Childish behaviour will not be tolerated. This is meant to be fun!
4. Last but most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

Competitors:
-Aerial Combat
a)Air Defense [Air Superiority, Air Supremacy, Air Interdiction]
Karshkovia, Muryan Endor, United Earthlings, Dynamic Revolution
b) Close Air Support
Karshkovia, Muryan Endor, United Earthlings
c) Strategic Bombing
United Earthlings

Operational Methods
A) Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare [Insurgency], Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense, Deep Operations and Special Operations [Insurgency and Counterinsurgency]
Sarpadiia, Nosovia, Mokastana, The PeoplesFreedom, Dostanuot Loj, Third Spanish States, United Earthlings

Naval Warfare
a)Amphibious Assault
Sarpidiia, Muryan Endor, The PeoplesFreedom, Nasovia, United Earthlings
b) Submarine Warfare
Delkor, Muryan Endor, United Earthlings, Dynamic Revolution
c)Surface Fleet Warfare
The PeoplesFreedom, Akimonad, United Earthlings

-Combined Arms (3 rounds)/Terrain Warfare
a)Urban Warfare
b)Mountain Warfare
c)Jungle Warfare
d)Arctic warfare
e)Desert warfare
Nosovia, Mokastana, Muryan Endor,The PeoplesFreedom, United Earthlings, Third Spanish States

I Present you, the Jury!

1. Delkor
2. Sarpidiia
3. STILL OPEN!!!

IC THREAD (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548640)
Operational Methods Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548892)

I like this idea, and would be willing to be a judge and create some maps. I do have a question: Can we have some sort of one-on-one submarine competition? I have a large sub fleet (as opposed to a surface fleet), and would enjoy a good round of 'Down Parascope'. Also, Delkor has some thick moutains, and would be honored to host some of the ground events...

I like this idea, and would be willing to be a judge and create some maps. I do have a question: Can we have some sort of one-on-one submarine competition? I have a large sub fleet (as opposed to a surface fleet), and would enjoy a good round of 'Down Parascope'. Also, Delkor has some thick moutains, and would be honored to host some of the ground events...

Thanks! I'm totally cool with the one-on-one submarine competition. It would be great If we could some ground events in Delkor. Maybe we could even add a Alpine Warfare Category if enough people join.

So everybody, join!

Kool. When the time comes, let me know which events I can 'host". I will informmy allies of this competetion. Also, consider this a request to join the sub-vs-sub competetion.:


I.D.S. Blade of Tirus SA-1, Captain Darragorn (pic and more info up later, as it is on my home pc)

Great! I'll count you in for a sub vs. sub competition.

I would like to join the combined arms competition as well as the ground combat competition.

I would be willing to submit ground forces to participate in the competition, and perhaps some fleet vessels.

The Sarpadiian Empire is a relativly small nation, and so the small-scale aspect interests us, as our military is not as large as a majority of internationally active nations.

The platoon-sized combat and armored unit combat are specifically what I'm interested in.

I would be willing to submit ground forces to participate in the competition, and perhaps some fleet vessels.

The Sarpadiian Empire is a relativly small nation, and so the small-scale aspect interests us, as our military is not as large as a majority of internationally active nations.

The platoon-sized combat and armored unit combat are specifically what I'm interested in.

Great! I'll Count you in for the Ground Combat A and B competitions, ok?

I would like to join the combined arms competition as well as the ground combat competition.

Welcome! I've signed you up, how many troops will you enter?

Great! I'll Count you in for the Ground Combat A and B competitions, ok?

Perfect.

no guerrilla competition? if anything thats one category that needs some work or is that under small forces combat, i really think there should be a catergory of commando/guerilla vs. large forces

I would like to enter a total of one Nosovian Legion(30,000men 1,000 tanks). If this is to much I will enter a regiment(5000men 100 tanks).

As well as a detachment of 20 MIGs for the combined arms compition.



Nosovian Mechanized Regiment


500 medical and general support forces and 120 support trucks
------------------
200 artillary personel

10 howitsers

50 motars
-------------
120 anti air personel

4 Buk-M1-2

18 M1097 Avengers
--------------------

15 Hind attack/transport helicopters

2 china hook transport choppers

4 apache attack helicopters

75 chopper pilots
------------------
25 leaperd tanks (100 personal)

75 merkava tanks (300 personal)

100 Styker ACP's (200 personal with the ability to transport 900 troops)

40 Humvee's (120 personal )

2500 Combat Infantry

no guerrilla competition? if anything thats one category that needs some work or is that under small forces combat, i really think there should be a catergory of commando/guerilla vs. large forces

You could use guerilla tactics in small unit combat, hell even in Combined Arms if you want.

I would like to enter a total of one Nosovian Legion(30,000men 1,000 tanks). If this is to much I will enter a regiment(5000men 100 tanks).

As well as a detachment of 20 MIGs for the combined arms compition.

A legion is too large but the Regiment is ok.

Might be interested. Ground warfare, specificly Armoured warfare, is where I'd be. Although combined arms looks interesting.

Please join! We need experienced players like you, both in the competitions and in the jury.

Might be interested. Ground warfare, specificly Armoured warfare, is where I'd be. Although combined arms looks interesting.

Well in that case i shall enter one Mokan Shock division, for all of ground combat and combined arms.

For combined arms however i will add 20 Sukhoi Su-34s for support

Shock Division Regiment:
5,000 Jaguar Infantry
500 IFVs (16,000)
125 Type 99 MBT
100ATMG
100 SAM
12 Iron Heart Command post
50Iron Heart Ambulances
50 AH-64D Apache Longbow
50 Mi-24 Hinds
1,125 Transport trucks
2,000 Support Personnel

The Sarpadiian Empire does not have a large military, and will therefore avoid any large-scale, division sized combined arms engagements.

All told, I'll be sending a regiment of mechanized infantry (5,000 soldiers, 500 armored personnel carriers, 100 main battle tanks, and assorted light wheeled vehicles and heavy transport trucks).

They will be accompanied by a detatchment of aircraft, numbering twenty-five fighters and one-hundred helicopter gunships.

All of this will be transported aboard a squadron of the Imperial Sarpadiian Navy, comprised of the battleship Nikomachos, escorted by a pair of heavy cruisers, three light cruisers, three destroyers, and the light carrier Panther. They will be followed by the heavy transport ship bearing the ground compliment, as well as a single amphibious assault ship, carrying a battalion of one-thousand naval infantry.

In the light of those naval infantry, I propose a series of naval categories, including amphibious assault and naval gunnery.

Findanian waters can be used for Naval Exercises if a need arises.

Please join! We need experienced players like you, both in the competitions and in the jury.

It'll depend on the size of the units of others. I really don't want to go much higher then one of my Battalions (Say 3,300 personnel).

I would like to enter a total of one Nosovian Legion(30,000men 1,000 tanks). If this is to much I will enter a regiment(5000men 100 tanks).

As well as a detachment of 20 MIGs for the combined arms compition.



Nosovian Mechanized Regiment


500 medical and general support forces and 120 support trucks
------------------
200 artillary personel

10 howitsers

50 motars
-------------
120 anti air personel

4 Buk-M1-2

18 M1097 Avengers
--------------------

15 Hind attack/transport helicopters

2 china hook transport choppers

4 apache attack helicopters

75 chopper pilots
------------------
25 leaperd tanks (100 personal)

75 merkava tanks (300 personal)

100 Styker ACP's (200 personal with the ability to transport 900 troops)

40 Humvee's (120 personal )

2500 Combat Infantry

Great sheet, thanks!

Well in that case i shall enter one Mokan Shock division, for all of ground combat and combined arms.

For combined arms however i will add 20 Sukhoi Su-34s for support

Shock Division Regiment:
5,000 Jaguar Infantry
500 IFVs (16,000)
125 Type 99 MBT
100ATMG
100 SAM
12 Iron Heart Command post
50Iron Heart Ambulances
50 AH-64D Apache Longbow
50 Mi-24 Hinds
1,125 Transport trucks
2,000 Support Personnel

Welcome in the RP!

The Sarpadiian Empire does not have a large military, and will therefore avoid any large-scale, division sized combined arms engagements.

All told, I'll be sending a regiment of mechanized infantry (5,000 soldiers, 500 armored personnel carriers, 100 main battle tanks, and assorted light wheeled vehicles and heavy transport trucks).

They will be accompanied by a detatchment of aircraft, numbering twenty-five fighters and one-hundred helicopter gunships.

All of this will be transported aboard a squadron of the Imperial Sarpadiian Navy, comprised of the battleship Nikomachos, escorted by a pair of heavy cruisers, three light cruisers, three destroyers, and the light carrier Panther. They will be followed by the heavy transport ship bearing the ground compliment, as well as a single amphibious assault ship, carrying a battalion of one-thousand naval infantry.

In the light of those naval infantry, I propose a series of naval categories, including amphibious assault and naval gunnery.

Damn, how could I forget Amphibious Assault!

Findanian waters can be used for Naval Exercises if a need arises.

Thanks for the offer! Do you have a map of some sorts? And you are more than welcome to join! ;)

It'll depend on the size of the units of others. I really don't want to go much higher then one of my Battalions (Say 3,300 personnel).

The max amount of troops per competition is brigade/regiment/whatever-you-call-it size as long as the number of troops doesn't exceed 5000. You can send regular infantry and a naval infantry battalion like Sarpidiia.

You can join with your battalion if you want.

I'm game. Karshkovia will send the pilots of the Karshkovian Air Command's 199th "Black Dragons" Su-33 squadron for the air combat and ground strike competition (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4mUZ4zgvAvE).


They commanded by two ex-Russian pilots which have immigrated to Karshkovia. Captain Dimitri "Lev" Andropov and First Lieutenant Matryonan Bazhukov, the pilots which have recorded Karshkovia's only ground kill or air kills in combat.



Personnel Rank & Name: Captain Dimitri Andropov
Age: 39
Callsign: лев (or "Lion" in English)
Service Branch: Karshkovian Naval Air Command
Current Assignment: 199th TFS, военно-морская основа забастовки четыре (Naval Strike Base Four, Volograd)
Aircraft: Su-33
Flight experience: 3,167 Hours
Confirmed kills: 1 confirmed kill (ground)

Bio: Captain Andropov Pavlov is the son of a test pilot. After graduating from secondary school in 1990, he joined the Karshkovia Higher Military Aviation School for Fighter Pilots. He graduated with honors in 1996, receiving his Pilot-Engineer diploma. Served as a fighter pilot in the Soviet Air Force until 2000. Left the military to enroll in the Ministry of Aviation Industry Test Pilot School. Upon graduation, assigned to test position as an experimental test pilot at the Gromov Flight Research Institute and Russian Federal Space Agency. Left Russia in 2007 for personal reasons. Took Karshkovian citizenship.

Helped in organize Karshkovian Air Command. Total flight experience includes over 2500 flight hours (4000 flights) in +20 types and modifications of aircraft. Often performs in flight demonstrations and helping train new pilots. Only Karshkovian who is a trained Russian Cosmonaut and is helping to head up Karshkovia's new space program.


Personnel Rank & Name: First Lieutenant Matryonan Bazhukov
Age: 39
Callsign: тигр (or "Tiger" in English)
Service Branch: Karshkovian Naval Air Command
Current Assignment: 199th TFS, военно-морская основа забастовки четыре (Naval Strike Base Four, Volograd)
Aircraft: Su-33
Flight experience: 3,095 Hours
Confirmed kills: 1 confirmed kill (ground)

Bio: Matryonan was born in 1969 in the city of Nizhny Tagil and graduated from secondary school in 1986. She began flying at an air club at the age of 16. She attended the High Air Force Pilot College at the city of Armavir from 1986 - 1989, graduating with the rank of Lieutenant to the Air Force Regiment. She served as a pilot with the Russian Air Force from 1990 until retiring from the service in 1999. She then spent three years attending the Test Pilot School in Zhukovsky and was admitted to pilot 15 types of aircraft, including all MiGs. Since 2003, she's been a training pilot at the Karshkovian Air Combat College. Matyonan is married to Captain Pavlov.

Welcome in the game! I saw your previous RPing, it's great!

I'm game. Karshkovia will send the pilots of the Karshkovian Air Command's 199th "Black Dragons" Su-33 squadron for the air combat and ground strike competition (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LDpm7kA0iWU).


They commanded by two ex-Russian pilots which have immigrated to Karshkovia. Captain Dimitri "Lev" Andropov and First Lieutenant Matryonan Bazhukov, the pilots which have recorded Karshkovia's only ground kill (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4mUZ4zgvAvE) or air kills in combat (http://myweb.cableone.net/bschott/military.htm).



Personnel Rank & Name: Captain Dimitri Andropov
Age: 39
Callsign: лев (or "Lion" in English)
Service Branch: Karshkovian Naval Air Command
Current Assignment: 199th TFS, военно-морская основа забастовки четыре (Naval Strike Base Four, Volograd)
Aircraft: Su-33
Flight experience: 3,167 Hours
Confirmed kills: 1 confirmed kill (ground)

Bio: Captain Andropov Pavlov is the son of a test pilot. After graduating from secondary school in 1990, he joined the Karshkovia Higher Military Aviation School for Fighter Pilots. He graduated with honors in 1996, receiving his Pilot-Engineer diploma. Served as a fighter pilot in the Soviet Air Force until 2000. Left the military to enroll in the Ministry of Aviation Industry Test Pilot School. Upon graduation, assigned to test position as an experimental test pilot at the Gromov Flight Research Institute and Russian Federal Space Agency. Left Russia in 2007 for personal reasons. Took Karshkovian citizenship.

Helped in organize Karshkovian Air Command. Total flight experience includes over 2500 flight hours (4000 flights) in +20 types and modifications of aircraft. Often performs in flight demonstrations and helping train new pilots. Only Karshkovian who is a trained Russian Cosmonaut and is helping to head up Karshkovia's new space program.


Personnel Rank & Name: First Lieutenant Matryonan Bazhukov
Age: 39
Callsign: тигр (or "Tiger" in English)
Service Branch: Karshkovian Naval Air Command
Current Assignment: 199th TFS, военно-морская основа забастовки четыре (Naval Strike Base Four, Volograd)
Aircraft: Su-33
Flight experience: 3,095 Hours
Confirmed kills: 1 confirmed kill (ground)

Bio: Matryonan was born in 1969 in the city of Nizhny Tagil and graduated from secondary school in 1986. She began flying at an air club at the age of 16. She attended the High Air Force Pilot College at the city of Armavir from 1986 - 1989, graduating with the rank of Lieutenant to the Air Force Regiment. She served as a pilot with the Russian Air Force from 1990 until retiring from the service in 1999. She then spent three years attending the Test Pilot School in Zhukovsky and was admitted to pilot 15 types of aircraft, including all MiGs. Since 2003, she's been a training pilot at the Karshkovian Air Combat College. Matyonan is married to Captain Pavlov.

I would like to apply for the Urban Assault one.

I would like to submit the 304th Urban Regiment, the 32nd Grenadier Regiment, the 3rd Lancers Regiment, and the 403rd Swordsworn in conjunction with the 3rd and 5th Dragoon Regiments.

(OOC: Urban Regiments are Infantry that specialize in Urban Warfare, Grenadiers have twice the normal compliment of Grenade Launchers, Lancers are Marksmen, Swordsworn are CQB, and Dragoons are Heavy, Mechanized Infantry)

(w/ 600 soldiers per Regiment, that comes to a total of 3,600 soldiers)

I would like to apply for the Urban Assault one.

I would like to submit the 304th Urban Regiment, the 32nd Grenadier Regiment, the 3rd Lancers Regiment, and the 403rd Swordsworn in conjunction with the 3rd and 5th Dragoon Regiments.

(OOC: Urban Regiments are Infantry that specialize in Urban Warfare, Grenadiers have twice the normal compliment of Grenade Launchers, Lancers are Marksmen, Swordsworn are CQB, and Dragoons are Heavy, Mechanized Infantry)

The Urban Assault round is a part of the Combined Arms competition, perhaps you would like to sign up for the entire competition? I'd really like to see you in.

And I don't know how large your regiments are, but mind that the number of troops used in each competition cannot exceed the 5,000 mark.

I would like to send a armored warfare group, a unit for combined arms, a surface fleet, and an amphibious assault group, as well as an air-to-air group.

Are helicopters allowed in the amphibious assault in conjunction with sea-born landing craft?


Do we fight one on one in elimination competitions or do we fight each other all at once in each competition? And do our casualties in one competition count in the next one?

I would like to send a armored warfare group, a unit for combined arms, a surface fleet, and an amphibious assault group, as well as an air-to-air group.

You're in! Welcome!

And now some general announcements:

1. I still need members for the Jury, do any of the more experienced nations want to be part of it?

2. It looks like this baby is rolling! :D I propose we start tomorrow with the Small Unit Warfare Competition. Do any of the participants have a preference who will start? And Delkor, can you make a map with the terrain for the Ground Combat part?

People can still join!

3. I'll make a "Military Declarations Thread" where people can post their troop numbers and equipment.

Trouble is it'll actually depend on 'coolness' of the gun and RPing skills more than anything else. Unavoidable, due to the nature of this place, but still...

Are helicopters allowed in the amphibious assault in conjunction with sea-born landing craft?


Do we fight one on one in elimination competitions or do we fight each other all at once in each competition? And do our casualties in one competition count in the next one?

Good questions, glad you asked them.

To answer your first one, of course! Both to attack enemy positions and to transfer troops. I believe it is the current US Doctrine to actually skip the beach part of a landing and directly move inland with choppers and hovercraft.

As for your second question, I'd prefer one on one battles with the point system. Say, for example, that we have three participants in the amphibious warfare competition, each will face the others once. We will flip a coin to decide who will defend and who will attack.

And your third question: Casualties count for one competition only. It'd be unfair if you've had a though fight in one competition and move on to the next with only 1/3 of your force.

Trouble is it'll actually depend on 'coolness' of the gun and RPing skills more than anything else. Unavoidable, due to the nature of this place, but still...

Yeah, it is a bummer. But this is really meant to train your RPing skills but we will keep (as far as possible on NS) close to reality.

Good questions, glad you asked them.

To answer your first one, of course! Both to attack enemy positions and to transfer troops. I believe it is the current US Doctrine to actually skip the beach part of a landing and directly move inland with choppers and hovercraft.

As for your second question, I'd prefer one on one battles with the point system. Say, for example, that we have three participants in the amphibious warfare competition, each will face the others once. We will flip a coin to decide who will defend and who will attack.

And your third question: Casualties count for one competition only. It'd be unfair if you've had a though fight in one competition and move on to the next with only 1/3 of your force.

Sounds good! Sign me up for amphibious assault as well:headbang:

The Urban Assault round is a part of the Combined Arms competition, perhaps you would like to sign up for the entire competition? I'd really like to see you in.

And I don't know how large your regiments are, but mind that the number of troops used in each competition cannot exceed the 5,000 mark.

Okay, I would like to have a couple Regiments as Substitutions. For the Open, I would like to have the 304th Rangers (Forest Warfare) Regiment replace the 304th Urban, and the 22nd Rifles replace the 403rd Swordsworn. And for the Night Combat, I would like to Substitute the 39th Recon for the 304th Urban.

Count me in for armoured warfare then, if only to crush TPF.
I'll send a Battalion.

Count me in for armoured warfare then, if only to crush TPF.
I'll send a Battalion.

You wish ;)

Nakil or Lince?

Sounds good! Sign me up for amphibious assault as well:headbang:

Great! Added!

Okay, I would like to have a couple Regiments as Substitutions. For the Open, I would like to have the 304th Rangers (Forest Warfare) Regiment replace the 304th Urban, and the 22nd Rifles replace the 403rd Swordsworn. And for the Night Combat, I would like to Substitute the 39th Recon for the 304th Urban.

No problem, as long as you use one regiment per event. You can use other troops for the other events.

Count me in for armoured warfare then, if only to crush TPF.
I'll send a Battalion.

You wish ;)

Nakil or Lince?

Aha, I sense an old rivalry!?!? ;)

You wish ;)

Nakil or Lince?

You might just have to face the first battalion to get the M.

I can do Naval Surface Warfare, because it gives me a good reason to duel TPF. :P

I'm not sure if I should join or not...

I can do Naval Surface Warfare, because it gives me a good reason to duel TPF. :P

You're in!

But can someone tell me why everyone seems to join just to smack TPF?

But can someone tell me why everyone seems to join just to smack TPF?

Because he's TPF.

I'm not sure if I should join or not...

Well, why not?

Because he's TPF.

Ah, that explains a lot!

Because he's TPF.

ya rly

Is it too late to join? I would love to be a part of the air-to-air and submarine warfare...

No problem, as long as you use one regiment per event. You can use other troops for the other events.

Ummm, because each Regiment is only 600 men, they are meant to be used in Joint Ops. These total into 3,600 total soldiers in a JointOps Reinforced Brigade.

Ok ladies and gentlemen, I’ve had this idea for some time now. Back in the glorious days when I just started with my old nation there was some sort of MT Armed Forces Competition. There were several categories like helicopter vs. ground troops, urban combat scenario’s, tank vs. tank et cetera. It was great fun and a good way to learn new things, tactics and how to RP properly. Now I’ve decided to reintroduce this concept (that is if there’s enough interest). I’ve decided to make several classes, from a sniper competition to a combined arms competition. First the list of different classes:

-Aerial Combat
a) Air-to-air
b) Strike
c) Close Air Support

-Ground Combat
a) Small unit (platoon size) open field combat
b) Armored Warfare
c) Artillery

-Naval Warfare
a)Amphibious Assault
b)Submarine
c)Surface Fleet

-Combined Arms (3 rounds)
round 1) urban assault
round 2) open terrain (normal, lightly forested)
round 3) night fighting

[I]These are just proposals, if anyone has objections or better ideas, feel free to speak out!

For starters, I have a few proposals.

Aerial Combat Section
1. In the Aerial Combat section replace Air to Air with the following, Air Defense which then can be added Air Superiority, Air Supremacy and/or Air Interdiction. AD, AS and AI all imply different things in case anyone is wondering.
2. Since, most Strike missiles are mainly as CAS[Close Air Support] the two can be combined and Strategic Bombing added to replace Strike.
3. Three more terms can also be added. SEAD, DEAD and CSAR. Suppression of enemy air defenses, Destruction of enemy air defenses and Combat, Search and Rescue.
4. There’s quite a bit more you can add, but that's it for now.

Ground Combat/Combined Arms
1. Since, ground forces never for the most part operate alone and adding to that, that both Combined Arms and Armored Warfare are a type of operational method it makes sense just to have a section called Operational Methods. In this section various people could play different methods with one player assigned a specify method to face off another player with a different method. It would allow each person a chance to roleplay a specify way and learn it's strengths and weaknesses. Or whatever combination is agreed upon.
2. The following is a list of operational methods. Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare [Insurgency], Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense and Special Operations [Insurgency and Counterinsurgency].
3. If there is a desire, a section on ground unit tactics could be added. For example, Overwatch.

Naval Warfare
1. Along with what you got can be added Anti-surface warfare, Anti-Submarine warfare, Air warfare, Anti-Air warfare and Mine Warfare/Mine Countermeasures.

Combined Arms
1. Those three things you listed under Combined Arms are types of warfare I.E. the terrain and location of where battles and conflicts take place.
2. Replacing those three things with Urban Warfare, Mountain Warfare, Jungle Warfare, Arctic warfare, Desert warfare so on and so on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the reformed list this is how it would look.


Aerial Warfare
A)Air Defense [Air Superiority, Air Supremacy, Air Interdiction]
B)CAS[Close Air Support]
C)SEAD and DEAD
D)Strategic Bombing
E)CSAR

Operational Methods
A) Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare [Insurgency], Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense and Special Operations [Insurgency and Counterinsurgency

Naval Warfare
A)Surface Warfare/Anti-surface warfare
B)Submarine Warfare/Anti-Submarine warfare
C)Air warfare/Anti-Air warfare
D)Mine Warfare/Mine Countermeasures
E)Amphibious Warfare

Terrain Warfare
A)Urban Warfare
B)Mountain Warfare
C)Jungle Warfare
D)Arctic warfare
E)Desert warfare

If, anyone needs those terms explained I be glad to provided their full and complete definitions.

On that note, Muryan Endor you can sign me up.

Count me in for all ground combat categories, Sniper, SpecOps(if you add one for it), BlackOps(again, if you decide to add it) and for combined arms. Also I need to test my Kiev Class based Oso Class Cruiser with Airwing on the field and double check my new light fighter and MACK on their effectiveness, so I'm in on air-to-air and Surface Fleet as well. Iron Columns(Columnas de Hierro) are the divisions of infantry while the Andantes de Azo(Steel Striders) are the divisions of armored vehicles. Oh, and every special force needs one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-11_Raven).

Now on forces:

Sniper

Because for each hundred of your soldiers we have one Fyodor Okhlopkov
(This comment was just for the LULZ)

Blackguards Sniper/Anti-materiel: 10 specialized 4-man fireteams, each with 1 Dragunov SVD, 1 Steyr IWS 2000 anti-materiel rifle and 2 soldiers armed with scoped 6.5x39mm Grendel FA-65 AR service rifles (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1831) to give cover and additional fire support to the snipers, and one of them also carries a RQ-11 Raven UAV. In dense jungles and urban warfare 500m is usually more than enough for sniping some closer threats.

Amphibious Assault

Galicia Class Amphibious Transport Dock: 10
LHD1 Juan Carlos I Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship: 5
USS Freedom Littoral Combat Ship: 25
USS Independence Littoral Combat Ship: 18
Fridtjof Nansen Class Frigates: 10
Zumwalt Class Destroyers: 3
Oso Class Cruiser-Carrier (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1797&view=findpost&p=2777929): 1
Virginia Class Subs: 6
Ensdorf Class Minesweeper: 2
Kulmbach Class Minehunter: 1


Ejército Negro del Mar(Sea Blackguards) SpecOps: 10 fireteams
Columna de Hierro Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Platoons: 16, each with:


12 Guerrillas
6 Heavy Infantry(3 LMGs, 1 TOW and 1 MANPADs)
2 Demolition/Stealth Specialists
5 MMEV135-B Librecielo Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles
2 HIFV40-C Hacha Infantry Fighting Vehicles
1 ST120-A Sino Stealth Main Battle Tank


Aircrafts:

Kamov Ka-28s ASW: 5
Kamov Ka-31s Recon/AEW: 10
EH-101 Utility/Medium-lift Helicopters: 10
Eurocopter EC 635s: 16
CH-53K Super Stallions: 5
Mil Mi-28N: 10
CSAL-32 Buitre Light Air-superiority Fighters: 8
F-35Bs: 4
F-22 Raptors: 6
A-10C Thunderbolt II: 4
EA-18 Growlers: 2

Surface Naval Warfare/Submarine

1 Gerald R. Ford Class Supercarrier
3 Oso Class Cruiser-Carriers
4 Zumwalt Class Destroyers
6 Hobart Class Destroyers
5 Iroquois Class Destroyers
12 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers
3 Ensdorf Class Minesweepers
2 Kulmbach Class Minehunters
18 Fridtjof Nansen Class Frigates

16 Virginia Class Attack Submarines
4 Ohio Class Ballistic Submarines


Small Unit open field combat(I'll remove the tanks if it's purely for infantry)

5 combined arms forces, each with:

20 Guerrillas armed with 6.5mm FA-65 ARs, frag grenades and anti-tank grenades as a "last resort".
8 Infantería Pesada(Heavy Infantry)- 6 ametralladoras 6.5x39mm Grendel A-31 LMG , 1 lanza-misiles guiados 135mm GEM, tandem charge warheads(est. CE penetration 850mm RHAe) and White-phosphorous warheads.
2 Ejército Negro(Blackguards) fireteams(8 soldiers)
8 Médicos
2 ST120-A Sino(Fate) Stealth MBTs (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1650)
1 HT120-C Cáscara(Shell) Assault MBT (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1697)
4 HIFV40-B Hacha(Axe) (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1668) Heavy IFVs
40 Operadores de Logística(Logistics Operatives)
40 RQ-11 Raven Recon UAVs

Armored Warfare/Artillery/Combined Arms

I might lower them according to the average numbers around, I want either a balanced combat or one where I'm at a numeric disadvantage.

Infantry

40 independent anti-tank/anti-air platoons with 20 Infantería Pesada(Heavy Infantry) each - 10 lanza-misiles guiados anti carro de combate(GEM launcher with tandem charge AT missiles, WP Anti-infantry missiles and surface-to-air infrared-visual guidance missiles). Total of 400 GEM launchers.

1 Iron Column regiment with 5,000 men and 2,500 combat-ready forces, where each of the 150 300-man companies is divided into:

150 logistics operatives
30 demolitions and stealth experts
20 heavy infantrymen(4 with GEM launchers and 16 LMGs)
90 guerrillas
4 independent blackguards(1 fireteam)
1 electronic warfare officer
2 electronic warfare assistants.

And further to be point of becoming 10 small General Infantry combat squads of:

9 Guerrillas
2 Heavy Infantryman(1 with GEM launcher 1 with 6.5mm Grendel LMG)

And 10 SpecOps Squads of:

3 Demolitions/Stealth experts

Vehicles

20 Steel Striders Companies with a total of:

160 ST120-A Sino Stealth MBTs
40 HT120-C Cáscara Assault MBTs*
600 HIFV40-B Hacha IFVs
220MMEV135-B Librecielo Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1734&view=findpost&p=2752922)
220 DR135-B Libertad Resupply Vehicles
80 CA155-A Oso Self-propelled Cannon Artillery (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1759&view=findpost&p=2757398)
80 DR155-A Pescado Resupply Vehicles

20 logistics regiments with a total of 1,600 mechanics and workers
20 Recovery Teams with 5 Hercules Recovery Vehicles each

And behold the pinnacle of armored deployment: Technicals! >:D

10 Improvised Fighting Vehicles platoons(Hillbilly armor of 30 RHAe frontal armor, 10 RHAe all-around, 5 RHAe top and rear, and nothing at the bottom), each with:

10 Anti-infantry and Recon 4x4 300hp technicals armed with A-31 LMGs and equipped with infrared and visual surveillance cameras.
4 Anti-tank 4x4 300hp technicals armed with 135mm GEMs equipped with AT warheads
4 Anti-air 4x4 300hp technicals armed with 135mm GEMs equipped with MANPAD warheads
2 Heavy Anti-Infantry and Troop Transport Actros Trucks, each armed with three 14.5mm KPV-T Heavy Machinegun emplacements

40 Logistics Vehicular Squads, each with 1 armored Actros Truck and 4 armored fast transport pickups.

Air support

40 Kamov Ka-50-2 Erdogan divided in 10 squadrons
25 Mil Mi-28N Hind divided in 5 squadrons
1 squadron of 5 A-10C Thunderbolt IIs

Air Transport and Paratroopers(Besides An-124s, Dash 7 and cheap utility aircrafts like the Y-5):

5 V-22 Osprey Multimission STOVLs
2 AT-42 Gaviotanegra Multimission STOL Airplane (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1976&view=findpost&p=2846872)
12 Air Blackguards Fireteams

UAV/AWACS

100 RQ-11 Ravens
15 MQ-9 Reaper Attack/Recon
30 CQ-10 Snowgoose Cargo UAVs
25 RQ-4 Global Hawks
5 Watchkeeper WK450 ISTARs
3 E-10 MC2A AEW&C

Air-to-Air/Combined Arms Air Defense

8 squadrons of 5 CSAL-32 Buitre Light Air Superiority/Multi-role fighters
6 squadrons of 4 F-35As Multi-role fighters
7 squadrons of 3 F-22 Raptors Air Superiority fighters

You might just have to face the first battalion to get the M.

Well, that, dear sir, is just mean.

Well, that, dear sir, is just mean.

Would you rather face the G in the hands of the experts of the Republican Guard?

Or Worse yet, in the hands of the near-godlike Temple Guard?

Would you rather face the G in the hands of the experts of the Republican Guard?

Or Worse yet, in the hands of the near-godlike Temple Guard?

Psh, your pesduo-uber divisions don't scare me!

Psh, your pesduo-uber divisions don't scare me!

That's because you've never had to face them.

That's because you've never had to face them.

Send them in.

Recommendations from me: Stealth Operations, Illegal Operations?

For starters, I have a few proposals.

Aerial Combat Section
1. In the Aerial Combat section replace Air to Air with the following, Air Defense which then can be added Air Superiority, Air Supremacy and/or Air Interdiction. AD, AS and AI all imply different things in case anyone is wondering.
2. Since, most Strike missiles are mainly as CAS[Close Air Support] the two can be combined and Strategic Bombing added to replace Strike.
3. Three more terms can also be added. SEAD, DEAD and CSAR. Suppression of enemy air defenses, Destruction of enemy air defenses and Combat, Search and Rescue.
4. There’s quite a bit more you can add, but that's it for now.

Ground Combat/Combined Arms
1. Since, ground forces never for the most part operate alone and adding to that, that both Combined Arms and Armored Warfare are a type of operational method it makes sense just to have a section called Operational Methods. In this section various people could play different methods with one player assigned a specify method to face off another player with a different method. It would allow each person a chance to roleplay a specify way and learn it's strengths and weaknesses. Or whatever combination is agreed upon.
2. The following is a list of operational methods. Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare [Insurgency], Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense and Special Operations [Insurgency and Counterinsurgency].
3. If there is a desire, a section on ground unit tactics could be added. For example, Overwatch.

Naval Warfare
1. Along with what you got can be added Anti-surface warfare, Anti-Submarine warfare, Air warfare, Anti-Air warfare and Mine Warfare/Mine Countermeasures.

Combined Arms
1. Those three things you listed under Combined Arms are types of warfare I.E. the terrain and location of where battles and conflicts take place.
2. Replacing those three things with Urban Warfare, Mountain Warfare, Jungle Warfare, Arctic warfare, Desert warfare so on and so on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the reformed list this is how it would look.


Aerial Warfare
A)Air Defense [Air Superiority, Air Supremacy, Air Interdiction]
B)CAS[Close Air Support]
C)SEAD and DEAD
D)Strategic Bombing
E)CSAR

Operational Methods
A) Active Defense, Air Assault/Airborne Assault, Air-Land Battle, Armored Warfare, Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms, Defense in Depth, Guerrilla Warfare [Insurgency], Indirect Approach, Mobile Defense and Special Operations [Insurgency and Counterinsurgency

Naval Warfare
A)Surface Warfare/Anti-surface warfare
B)Submarine Warfare/Anti-Submarine warfare
C)Air warfare/Anti-Air warfare
D)Mine Warfare/Mine Countermeasures
E)Amphibious Warfare

Terrain Warfare
A)Urban Warfare
B)Mountain Warfare
C)Jungle Warfare
D)Arctic warfare
E)Desert warfare

If, anyone needs those terms explained I be glad to provided their full and complete definitions.

On that note, Muryan Endor you can sign me up.

First of all, welcome! Which competitions do you want to join?

I also like your proposals.

But with the SEAD and DEAD events, I think it would be part of the Close Air Support event. I had thought about adding them separately but I decided against it for a simple reason. The CAS event would be pretty boring without any AA Defenses. If AA Defenses were included, it would be natural to "neutralize" the threat as part of the mission.

I'll take over your proposals for Combined Arms/Ground Combat Competition etc. because I simply think they're good proposals :p

You wish ;)

Nakil or Lince?

Sarpadiian armored forces are not experienced, but they are well-equipped. The ST-39K7 Mekhev II is fit to be pitted against other such legends.

If you wish...

Well in that case, I will need to bring along the 37th Highlanders (Arctic Troops), 75th Lowlanders (Swamp and Jungle Troops), the 55th Camelry (Desert Troops), and the 14th Mountaineers (Mountain Troops) for substitutions as well.

Is it too late to join? I would love to be a part of the air-to-air and submarine warfare...
Must of skipped over this

Well in that case, I will need to bring along the 37th Highlanders (Arctic Troops), 75th Lowlanders (Swamp and Jungle Troops), the 55th Camelry (Desert Troops), and the 14th Mountaineers (Mountain Troops) for substitutions as well.

Roger!

Must of skipped over this

Sorry, I'll aad you to the updated list.

I'll update the 1st post and make a Military Declarations Thread after my dinner.

First of all, welcome! Which competitions do you want to join?

I also like your proposals.

But with the SEAD and DEAD events, I think it would be part of the Close Air Support event. I had thought about adding them separately but I decided against it for a simple reason. The CAS event would be pretty boring without any AA Defenses. If AA Defenses were included, it would be natural to "neutralize" the threat as part of the mission.

I'll take over your proposals for Combined Arms/Ground Combat Competition etc. because I simply think they're good proposals :p

First off, I would like to join all of them. If, additional ones are added I decided then if I would like to join those competitions as well.

Second, I'm glad you like the proposals and your free to take them. :) I didn't post them for nothing, so I'm glad your putting them to use.

Third, I understand your point about not adding SEAD and DEAD. However, in the real word SEAD/DEAD missions are carried out very differently then CAS. Both in weapons used and in the tactics used to accomplish the mission. Hence, why they have their own category. However, if you don't wish to make them a separate competition I have a very simple solution. Just added them to CAS. In the title it would say CAS/SEAD/DEAD. This way people would know that particular competition combines all three. Problem solved.

If I can help in any other way, just let me know. Until, then I'll get to work on coming up with what forces I will be sending once you get that Military Declarations Thread up. Once you do, might I suggest you place a link to it in your OP.

Are these like wargames? How are hey organized? All versus all? Or one person versus one person (round robbing type thing)? I'd like to join, but I can't post more than once a day (or really, maybe even once every other day). Would that be a problem?

First off, I would like to join all of them. If, additional ones are added I decided then if I would like to join those competitions as well.

Second, I'm glad you like the proposals and your free to take them. :) I didn't post them for nothing, so I'm glad your putting them to use.

Third, I understand your point about not adding SEAD and DEAD. However, in the real word SEAD/DEAD missions are carried out very differently then CAS. Both in weapons used and in the tactics used to accomplish the mission. Hence, why they have their own category. However, if you don't wish to make them a separate competition I have a very simple solution. Just added them to CAS. In the title it would say CAS/SEAD/DEAD. This way people would know that particular competition combines all three. Problem solved.

If I can help in any other way, just let me know. Until, then I'll get to work on coming up with what forces I will be sending once you get that Military Declarations Thread up. Once you do, might I suggest you place a link to it in your OP.

Great! I'll post the Military Declarations Thread in half an hour or something. And I'll change the CAS to CAS/SEAD/DEAD as you suggested.

ps. check your TG's ;)

Are these like wargames? How are hey organized? All versus all? Or one person versus one person (round robbing type thing)? I'd like to join, but I can't post more than once a day (or really, maybe even once every other day). Would that be a problem?

First of all, welcome!

This can be compared to wargames but with a more competitive nature. It is one-on-one. Each participants battles the other participants once. As for your posting rate, it doesn't matter at all! I prefer quality above quantity so take your time. Just try to post as much as possible of course ;)

The Ejército de Tierra is relatively small (twelve brigades), and so we can't really compete on all levels. The Legión Naval would like to partake in an amphibious assault, and our Brunete armor brigade would like to take part in 'armored warfare'. I'll have to figure out exact assets as I go, but in general both are 'brigade sized' (between 6,000 and 8,000 men strong) - since we haven't prepared all of the equipment in forms of write-up, I'll probably be using real-life equipment as well, for the sake of the role-play.

In my opinion, blitzkrieg should be omitted and replaced by 'deep operation'. Blitzkrieg as a strategy/operation is hard to define, given that it's a loose term invented by the Italians and used simply to define German warfare. And, an active defense can work in conjunction with a defense in depth (i.e. Battle of Targul Frumos, May 2-8 1944).

The Ejército de Tierra is relatively small (twelve brigades), and so we can't really compete on all levels. The Legión Naval would like to partake in an amphibious assault, and our Brunete armor brigade would like to take part in 'armored warfare'. I'll have to figure out exact assets as I go, but in general both are 'brigade sized' (between 6,000 and 8,000 men strong) - since we haven't prepared all of the equipment in forms of write-up, I'll probably be using real-life equipment as well, for the sake of the role-play.

In my opinion, blitzkrieg should be omitted and replaced by 'deep operation'. Blitzkrieg as a strategy/operation is hard to define, given that it's a loose term invented by the Italians and used simply to define German warfare. And, an active defense can work in conjunction with a defense in depth (i.e. Battle of Targul Frumos, May 2-8 1944).

I'll add you to the list. And I see we have a military expert/historian! ;)

IC THREAD IS UP!!! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548640)

As for the order of battle, I don't know if I can come up with one that is completely accurate (for example, most of those presented on this thread are horribly unbalanced). Woudln't it be better to just leave it to free form role-play? For example, is it really important if I make up the amount of landing ships on the spot? I don't know how many I would need to land ... say ... two battalions worth of infantry, light armor, other AFVs, et cetera. For example, I have a general idea of what two naval battalions (tercios in the Castillian Ejército de Tierra) will be like (let's say around 2,400 men total for the men to partake in the amphibious landing wargame), but I would be hard pressed to find out exactly how many vehicles it's made up by. But, I guess I can try at home. I will have to download some order of battles to base it on.

As for the order of battle, I don't know if I can come up with one that is completely accurate (for example, most of those presented on this thread are horribly unbalanced). Woudln't it be better to just leave it to free form role-play? For example, is it really important if I make up the amount of landing ships on the spot? I don't know how many I would need to land ... say ... two battalions worth of infantry, light armor, other AFVs, et cetera. For example, I have a general idea of what two naval battalions (tercios in the Castillian Ejército de Tierra) will be like (let's say around 2,400 men total for the men to partake in the amphibious landing wargame), but I would be hard pressed to find out exactly how many vehicles it's made up by. But, I guess I can try at home. I will have to download some order of battles to base it on.

It isn't really necessary to give the exact amount of vehicles used, how many supplies etc. It's handy and even better for RPing (I personally appreciate detail) but I doubt you'd be hammered for RPing the following for example:

His hart hammered as his landing ship made it's way to shore. This wasn't the first time SSGT. Jackson was in a "hot" action. Officially this was just a competition, but it felt like the real sh*t. He heard the LT shout "two minutes lads!" as the enemy started firing on the landing craft. Jackson quickly looked over the edge of the ship and he saw a long line of landing craft edging towards the shore. It was encouraging to know you weren't alone. He turned back and sat down on the deck. Everywhere around him young privates where preparing for their first action... blablabla

Instead of:

His heart heart hammered as SSGT Jackson and 3452 other marines made their way to shore in 54 landing craft. Giving air cover were ten F15E Strike Eagles and 20 Apache AH-64D would give close air support. Three Destroyers were close to the shore and fired volley upon volley at the enemy...blablabla

If you just put the number of troops, a rough number of vehicles etc. in the Military Declarations Thread everything will be fine.

It isn't really necessary to give the exact amount of vehicles used, how many supplies etc. It's handy and even better for RPing (I personally appreciate detail) but I doubt you'd be hammered for RPing the following for example:

His hart hammered as his landing ship made it's way to shore. This wasn't the first time SSGT. Jackson was in a "hot" action. Officially this was just a competition, but it felt like the real sh*t. He heard the LT shout "two minutes lads!" as the enemy started firing on the landing craft. Jackson quickly looked over the edge of the ship and he saw a long line of landing craft edging towards the shore. It was encouraging to know you weren't alone. He turned back and sat down on the deck. Everywhere around him young privates where preparing for their first action... blablabla

Instead of:

His heart heart hammered as SSGT Jackson and 3452 other marines made their way to shore in 54 landing craft. Giving air cover were ten F15E Strike Eagles and 20 Apache AH-64D would give close air support. Three Destroyers were close to the shore and fired volley upon volley at the enemy...blablabla

If you just put the number of troops, a rough number of vehicles etc. in the Military Declarations Thread everything will be fine.

Very true. It isn't neccessary for the RP, or for any RP. However, I am going to be putting it all on anyway, because I am anal like that. I have even gotten it down to how many clips are available to each soldier on basic load out. Why? Because I can. It is not necessary to be that detailed, but it will help your own RP'ing if you do.

When will we get a map of the city? I want to begin planning for the mission first. And some requests for it.
1. Train Station.
2. TV Studio.
3. Warehouse Area near Train Station.
4. Hotel Complex near TV Studio and Train Station.
5. Gas Stations nearby.

does the ship's support crew in Amphibious Assault count towards the5000 limit?

In my opinion, blitzkrieg should be omitted and replaced by 'deep operation'. Blitzkrieg as a strategy/operation is hard to define, given that it's a loose term invented by the Italians and used simply to define German warfare.

Blitzkrieg-military tactic calculated to create psychological shock and resultant disorganization in enemy forces through the employment of surprise, speed, and superiority in matériel or firepower.

Wow, your right that was hard. :rolleyes:

Source-http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015664/blitzkrieg

I don't know where you have been learning your history, but the term blitzkrieg was actually first termed by an American with it's first recorded use being on September 28th, 1939 in TIME magazine.

Since, TIME magazine keeps an archive of the majority of their magazines published I have provided the courtesy of providing the exact issue it was used in along with the specific article it's first use was mentioned in should you wish to see for yourself. I will also quote the paragraph it's used in.

Edition: U.S. Vol. XXXIV No. 13 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601390925,00.html) and Article: Blitzkrieger (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761969,00.html)

"The battlefront disappeared, and with it the illusion that there had ever been a battlefront. For this was no war of occupation, but a war of quick penetration and obliteration—Blitzkrieg, lightning war."-Page 2, second paragraph

BTW, your welcome for the history lessen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Deep Operations, I agree it should be added, but added as an addition to Blitzkrieg as that's what it was. An offshoot of Blitzkrieg, but still adhering to the basis principles of Blitzkrieg.

While, were adding new operational methods. I have another one that can be added. Shock and Awe, also known as rapid dominance.

-snip-

If I were you, I wouldn't try to school CyB. He knows what he's talking about, likely more so than you.

Blitzkrieg-military tactic calculated to create psychological shock and resultant disorganization in enemy forces through the employment of surprise, speed, and superiority in matériel or firepower.

Wow, your right that was hard. :rolleyes:

Nice, sarcasm - unfortunately, it doesn't add any substance to you argument. The problem is that definition can apply to any type of warfare, whether it be classified as blitzkrieg or not. In fact, that definition is not even standard - some books define blitzkrieg as a combination of tanks and aircraft, just because those were the two main weapons that the Germans are known for (the Panzers and the Stuka for close air support). The problem is that you can't define blitzkrieg, because in reality blitzkrieg is a loose term used to describe German tactics during the war (which was in fact deep operation). In fact, in some ways the Germans preformed 'blitzkrieg' during the First World War, but this isn't called blitzkrieg.

Blitzkrieg shouldn't be used to define a military operation, in other words.

I don't know where you have been learning your history, but the term blitzkrieg was actually first termed by an American with it's first recorded use being on September 28th, 1939 in TIME magazine.

According to William Fanning in [i]The Origin of the Term Blitkkrieg: another look[i] (The Journal of Military History, Volume 61, Number 2, April 1997). The article mentions that many Western journalists argue that what you've just said is true, it's probably not. Apparently, the Italians used the word 'lightning war' before the Second World War.

BTW, your welcome for the history lessen.

Please ...

As for Deep Operations, I agree it should be added, but added as an addition to Blitzkrieg as that's what it was. An offshoot of Blitzkrieg, but still adhering to the basis principles of Blitzkrieg.

On the contraire; blitzkrieg, if anything, is an 'offshoot' of deep operation (deep operation, in any case, was 'founded' before blitzkrieg, according to you descriptiong above).

Okay, I realized i need more things for this.

1. 10th Hyperion Gunship Squadron (26 Hyperion Gunships)
2. 4th and 13th Helicopter Gunship Squadrons (52 Apache Longbows)
3. 2 J-STARS AWAC's
4. 5th Airborne Assault Regiment (And accompanying 99 Hind Helos)
5. 3rd Medical Company
6. 1st Electronic Warfare Company

When will we get a map of the city? I want to begin planning for the mission first. And some requests for it.
1. Train Station.
2. TV Studio.
3. Warehouse Area near Train Station.
4. Hotel Complex near TV Studio and Train Station.
5. Gas Stations nearby.

Well, I believe Delkor would provide us with maps. Can you design a few maps ASAP?

does the ship's support crew in Amphibious Assault count towards the5000 limit?

I should have been more clear, 5,000 men combat troops. The average carrier (such as Nimitz Class RL) has close to 5,000 men aboard so that'd mean we couldn't use carriers.

Okay, I realized i need more things for this.

1. 10th Hyperion Gunship Squadron (26 Hyperion Gunships)
2. 4th and 13th Helicopter Gunship Squadrons (52 Apache Longbows)
3. 2 J-STARS AWAC's
4. 5th Airborne Assault Regiment (And accompanying 99 Hind Helos)
5. 3rd Medical Company
6. 1st Electronic Warfare Company

No problem!

As for the addition of Deep Operations, I'll add it. BTW, wasn't it Tuchachevsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuchachevsky)y who first used the term Deep Operations?
And please guys, it's nice if you discuss, but let's keep this civilized ok? I've got no problem if it becomes a little heated, but I won't tolerate any insults. Not that we would use them of course, I've confidence in you guys to behave nicely ;)

And I'll be away during the weekend to some sort of conference. The hotel where I'm staying probably has internet so keeping track of things shouldn't be a problem. Just don't be surprised if I disappear until sunday in the worst case.

I'll put the first thread (probably Operational Methods) up on sunday 6 pm Central European Time (or 12 am on the US East Coast).

PS. Guys, don't forget to enter your forces in the Military Declarations Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548640).

Well, I believe Delkor would provide us with maps. Can you design a few maps ASAP?



I should have been more clear, 5,000 men combat troops. The average carrier (such as Nimitz Class RL) has close to 5,000 men aboard so that'd mean we couldn't use carriers.



No problem!

As for the addition of Deep Operations, I'll add it. BTW, wasn't it Tuchachevsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuchachevsky)y who first used the term Deep Operations?
And please guys, it's nice if you discuss, but let's keep this civilized ok? I've got no problem if it becomes a little heated, but I won't tolerate any insults. Not that we would use them of course, I've confidence in you guys to behave nicely ;)

And I'll be away during the weekend to some sort of conference. The hotel where I'm staying probably has internet so keeping track of things shouldn't be a problem. Just don't be surprised if I disappear until sunday in the worst case.

I'll put the first thread (probably Operational Methods) up on sunday 6 pm Central European Time (or 12 am on the US East Coast).

Very true for the carriers. And as I am sending in support personal outside of the competition, I would be more than willing to include them as part of the submarine operations as a targeted convoy if someone want to include that as part of their exercise.

As for maps, well, I am working on finding something to do an urban one, but I might be able to do one. I will post my idea later tonight.

Very true for the carriers. And as I am sending in support personal outside of the competition, I would be more than willing to include them as part of the submarine operations as a targeted convoy if someone want to include that as part of their exercise.

As for maps, well, I am working on finding something to do an urban one, but I might be able to do one. I will post my idea later tonight.

Sorry bout that. It is me, I was logged in as my puppet. I am waging internal war on it, so I was logged in as him.

Okay, I think I found a couple city maps that will work for this.

http://www.saexplorer.co.za/general/map_download.asp?map=213

http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=6831

http://www.mechanicville.com/history/images/mville_street_map_small.jpg

http://inlapaz.com/images/map_main_small.jpg

http://www.mechanicville.com/history/images/mville_zoning_map_small.jpg

Let me know what you think.

If I were you, I wouldn't try to school CyB. He knows what he's talking about, likely more so than you.

Are you sure? You don't even know me, so how can you even begin to say with any accuracy that he does know more then me? Anyway to the matter at hand, I wasn't trying to school CyB. I have no interest in doing that. I saw what I thought, according to what I know, was an error on his part and spoke up to set the record straight. You can't fault a guy for that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice, sarcasm - unfortunately, it doesn't add any substance to you argument. The problem is that definition can apply to any type of warfare, whether it be classified as blitzkrieg or not.

Maybe, maybe not. However, while that definition may not be a very good definition. It does show that Blitzkrieg can be defined.

In fact, that definition is not even standard - some books define blitzkrieg as a combination of tanks and aircraft, just because those were the two main weapons that the Germans are known for (the Panzers and the Stuka for close air support). The problem is that you can't define blitzkrieg, because in reality blitzkrieg is a loose term used to describe German tactics during the war (which was in fact deep operation).

While, the term I used before wasn't very specify, I do have one that is and can be backed up with multiple sources.

"Blitzkrieg-Tank spearheaded motorized forces achieve deep penetrations of the enemy front to disrupt communications, cut supply lines and sow panic, thus setting the stage for the envelopment of the (disorganized) defenses." It should be added that for Blitzkrieg to be considered Blitzkrieg and for it to work that the attacking force must have a few prerequisites, one of them being air superiority.

Deep Operations on the other hand, as pioneered by the Soviet military in the 1920s and finalized in the 1930s doesn't require air superiority to function as adapted by the Soviets followed by the remaining powers including up to today.

The two terms, also differ on a number of other occasions. One being, Deep Operations is mainly used to apply to corps or army sized formations, though today it does also apply down all the way to Brigades. Blitzkrieg was more applied towards the Divisional level. Then again, Deep Operations was showed to be the superior operational method and hence why it has seen widespread adaption vs Blitzkrieg.

So, while some of the terms and methods of Blitzkrieg have become part of Deep Operations over the period following World War Two. It should be remembered that when both methods were first being written out they meant very different things, even if the line between the two has become somewhat blurred today.

In fact, in some ways the Germans preformed 'blitzkrieg' during the First World War, but this isn't called blitzkrieg.

Funny thing about history, were always learning new things. Some of the new research that has come out has even began to propose that the Germans didn't even fight with what we call "Blitzkrieg" during World War Two.

In fact, Blitzkrieg gets thrown around so much today, for better or worse that it's even been stated that Napoleon himself used Blitzkrieg. And that's just the beginning. So, I'm not surprised when you state and I'm quoting "The problem is that you can't define blitzkrieg, because in reality blitzkrieg is a loose term". On the one hand, I have to disagree with you on that in can be defined. On the other, I'm forced to agree with you given how easily the term Blitzkrieg gets thrown around.

:rolleyes:Don't you love conflicts of interest.:rolleyes:

According to William Fanning in [i]The Origin of the Term Blitkkrieg: another look[i] (The Journal of Military History, Volume 61, Number 2, April 1997). The article mentions that many Western journalists argue that what you've just said is true, it's probably not. Apparently, the Italians used the word 'lightning war' before the Second World War.

First off, I would like to personally thank you for listing the source. It's rare to see that. So, Thank You.

While, I would love to read that article. I did a search and while, I found the Journal of Military History. I couldn't find the article in question. So, if you have a link to it or saved it in a PDF or something that would be great.

Ignoring the fact that the article was published over 10 years ago and not taking into account that were learning new things about history every day. I only had two problems with your statement about the origin of Blitzkrieg.

1. In all my time, I have never heard of anyone stating that the Italians invented the word. You'd think that after 10 years, you'd have more people stating that fact along with additional research. As far as I can tell, that Journal is the only source that proposes such a thing.

2. Apparently- Base on historical records either the Italians did or they didn't. It can't be a maybe.

Blitzkrieg shouldn't be used to define a military operation, in other words.

In closing, at least there's one thing we agree one. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Sorry, Muryan Endor for hijacking your thread. CyB, if you so wish to continue this debate I'll be glad to do so in another thread.

Maybe, maybe not. However, while that definition may not be a very good definition. It does show that Blitzkrieg can be defined.

The problem is that the dictionary, or an ecyclopedia, isn't necessarilly written by a historian or someone who particularly cares to be accurate on the subject. The definition is enough for the purpose of the source, but it doesn't mean it's right. Their definition of Blitzkrieg, according to other definitions (as an example), is wrong.



"Blitzkrieg-Tank spearheaded motorized forces achieve deep penetrations of the enemy front to disrupt communications, cut supply lines and sow panic, thus setting the stage for the envelopment of the (disorganized) defenses." It should be added that for Blitzkrieg to be considered Blitzkrieg and for it to work that the attacking force must have a few prerequisites, one of them being air superiority.

1. Deep operation is designed to cut supply lines and envelope defenses (whether disorganized, or not).

2. The shock is provided by deep operation, as well, given that the shock is a product of the overwhelming force placed upon a specific location of any given front. The Soviets experienced with shock divisions and battalions simultaneously with the Germans, and it wasn't termed 'blitzkrieg'.

3. The first part is ironic, given that the majority of the German Wehrmacht was notoriously unmotorized/mechanized.

Deep Operations on the other hand, as pioneered by the Soviet military in the 1920s and finalized in the 1930s doesn't require air superiority to function as adapted by the Soviets followed by the remaining powers including up to today.

It's a matter of when it was 'designed' and when it wasn't. In the 1920s and 1930s the power of aerial assets was still dubious to many military strategists. Nevertheless, the Soviets did apply air power with 'deep operation' in the field, before 1943. I.e. the Battle of the Brunete and the Ebro Offensive during the Spanish Civil War. The soldiers were not Soviet, but the equipment was (the majority of it) and the idea was (Soviet attachés in the Republican Army).

One being, Deep Operations is mainly used to apply to corps or army sized formations, though today it does also apply down all the way to Brigades. Blitzkrieg was more applied towards the Divisional level. Then again, Deep Operations was showed to be the superior operational method and hence why it has seen widespread adaption vs Blitzkrieg.

The problem is that blitkzrieg, largely, is a subset of deep operation. For example, the German 1941 offensive, Typhoon and Blau were more so deep operation than blitzkrieg. If anything, blitzkrieg can only be applied to the opening moves of the operation - the application of overwhelming force along a specific location of the front. Because, in the end, what the Germans did was a less refined version of deep operation (lack of mechanization and motorization).

Blitzkrieg is a word largely just to describe German operations in the Second World War, versus the tactics and strategies of the Western Allies. Deep operations wasn't 'known' in the West, really, until the late 70s and 1980s, and attributing operational art to a Cold War enemy was heresy (which is why only recent books cite that planned Soviet amphibious operations on the Japanese home islands accelerated the decision to drop the two nuclear bombs, and the same drove the Normandy landings [fear of the Soviets having an advantage to cover more land in Eastern, and even Western, Europe]. Blitzkrieg is an erraneous term which has been adopted because it has been used for quite a while, and it would be confusing to eliminate it. Nevertheless, more contemporaneous authors (i.e. David M. Glantz) are correcting past mistakes.

So, while some of the terms and methods of Blitzkrieg have become part of Deep Operations over the period following World War Two.

If you read Tukhachevsky's memoirs, and the memoirs of generals contemporaneous to him (pre-1937), the 'terms and methods of Blitzkrieg' were used in deep operation before the Second World War.

Some of the new research that has come out has even began to propose that the Germans didn't even fight with what we call "Blitzkrieg" during World War Two.

Because blitkzkrieg is largely a made-up term with no concrete definition, and it was used to dramatize the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. When I write articles for magazines I try to argue my position that the word blitkzrieg should only be used as a term to characterize the Werhmacht, as opposed as an accurate term of warfare.

In fact, Blitzkrieg gets thrown around so much today, for better or worse that it's even been stated that Napoleon himself used Blitzkrieg.

Obviously, if it's based on warfare in the past 2 millenia, examples of 'blitzkrieg' or 'deep operation' (Cannae can be similar, for example) are easy to find. The exploitation of weak points in the enemy line has existed before the Greek phalanx (i.e. Battle of Kadesh).

So, if you have a link to it or saved it in a PDF or something that would be great.

Sure thing - once I have internet access at home I'll upload it.

1. In all my time, I have never heard of anyone stating that the Italians invented the word. You'd think that after 10 years, you'd have more people stating that fact along with additional research. As far as I can tell, that Journal is the only source that proposes such a thing.

The article searches for the etymology and doesn't claim the Italians invented the word - that might have mispoke when I originally posted. In fact, the article cites examples of the word being used many centuries before modern warfare.

EDIT: Sorry, Muryan Endor for hijacking your thread. CyB, if you so wish to continue this debate I'll be glad to do so in another thread.

If you want, we can continue this on the NS Draftroom (it is, indeed, dedicated to things like this).

Sorry for the delay fellas, but the Operational Methods Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548892) is finally up!

*Edit: Forget it. But I'm not sure if the ORBAT I have currently is correct.

bump

I'm interested, if there's still a slot open for me. I'd like to apply some of the stuff that I got after my last disastrous war.

If it isn't too late, I'd like to send one mechanised infantry brigade for defence in depth.

74th Mechanised Infantry Brigade (5,000 troops)
- 2x Heavy Infantry Battalion (2,000 troops)
- - 100 Strykers
- 1x Light Artillery Battalion (1,000 troops)
- - 50 155mm AMX-30 AuF1 SPG's
- 1x Air Assault Battalion (1,000 troops)
- - 50 Apache helicopters
- 1x Sustainment Battalion (1,000 troops)

I'm interested, if there's still a slot open for me. I'd like to apply some of the stuff that I got after my last disastrous war.

If it isn't too late, I'd like to send one mechanised infantry brigade for defence in depth.

74th Mechanised Infantry Brigade (5,000 troops)
- 2x Heavy Infantry Battalion (2,000 troops)
- - 100 Strykers
- 1x Light Artillery Battalion (1,000 troops)
- - 50 155mm AMX-30 AuF1 SPG's
- 1x Air Assault Battalion (1,000 troops)
- - 50 Apache helicopters
- 1x Sustainment Battalion (1,000 troops)

I'm sorry but the Operational Methods Competition is closed now and is about to start. You can still sign up for the other competitions though. Why don't you join the combined arms competition?

*Snip

*Snip*

I enjoy your discussion guys, I don't mind if you discuss here. We can all learn from it!

School busy. Will, hopefully, have a Battalion or such up tonight.

I'm sorry but the Operational Methods Competition is closed now and is about to start. You can still sign up for the other competitions though. Why don't you join the combined arms competition?

Very well, combined arms is fine - but I'd want a bigger force, an entire division (25,000 strong) - two brigades of mechanised infantry, one each of airborne infantry, air defence artillery, and sustainment. There'll be armour and arty attached to it.

I'll get my armored ORBAT up today after I speak to Sumer about specifics.

Will there be a map for operational methods?

I didn't see this before but are we doing sub operations as well? I'd love to RP with others about sub warfare. I have an Akula I'd love to bring in for a one on one with another nation.

Second question, as air superiority goes, I was thinking this was more like a 'Red Flag' event where only one squadron max was allowed per type (bomber, figher, multirole). I'd really feel it would be poor rp to have one squadron to face off against someone with 5-10 squadrons. Not to mention you have better RP (in my years of experience) with smaller numbers than larger. With larger it's more number wanking than RP, where with a smaller number you can rp most if not all the people behind the squadron actually fighting one on one. When you have +50 pilots in the air of your own, it's hard to make quality post depicting each one. With a smaller number you can get the feel of the people behind the aircraft. If it would be possible, I would request rping against only people that would be using squadron strength only for air battles. (in ground combat I can see this being different though with special forces, again it's pretty nice to get back to the individuals)

Thoughts? Comments?

I didn't see this before but are we doing sub operations as well? I'd love to RP with others about sub warfare. I have an Akula I'd love to bring in for a one on one with another nation.

Second question, as air superiority goes, I was thinking this was more like a 'Red Flag' event where only one squadron max was allowed per type (bomber, figher, multirole). I'd really feel it would be poor rp to have one squadron to face off against someone with 5-10 squadrons. Not to mention you have better RP (in my years of experience) with smaller numbers than larger. With larger it's more number wanking than RP, where with a smaller number you can rp most if not all the people behind the squadron actually fighting one on one. When you have +50 pilots in the air of your own, it's hard to make quality post depicting each one. With a smaller number you can get the feel of the people behind the aircraft. If it would be possible, I would request rping against only people that would be using squadron strength only for air battles. (in ground combat I can see this being different though with special forces, again it's pretty nice to get back to the individuals)

Thoughts? Comments?

Actually the large numbers of squadrons I described are basically for "Air Support to ground forces and for Naval Warfare rather than pure air-to-air combat. For that I would rather have only 1 CSAL Light Fighter Squadron against a similar group of fighters in capabilities like a squad of HAL Tejas or F-20 Tigersharks.

And one more thing: I'll be changing my armored vehicles organization to add the L55 Sino 2 MBT (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1650&st=15) as a complement to the L60 Cáscara Assault Tank and L44 Sino Stealth Tank

I really think the idea of one massed "Operational methoeds" idea is pretty stupid. I signed up here to play the thing I like and have some time for, armoured warfare, and I have no interest in trying to cram all of those in, or trying to deal with someone else on what they want to do, as likely unless it's TPF we'll have very different ideas about what we want to play. It is much much better to break them down.

Edit:
Sarpadiian armored forces are not experienced, but they are well-equipped. The ST-39K7 Mekhev II is fit to be pitted against other such legends.

If you wish...

Just saw this. And while SB does good for tanks, I'd be weary of believing that. His writeups are full of wording that decry the reality, and of course, it's a fairly old design by now.
Plus you're not meeting the Lince or Nakil, you're facing the mighty Timber Wolf now, and that's not going to be plesant.

The problem is that the dictionary, or an ecyclopedia, isn't necessarilly written by a historian or someone who particularly cares to be accurate on the subject. The definition is enough for the purpose of the source, but it doesn't mean it's right. Their definition of Blitzkrieg, according to other definitions (as an example), is wrong.

Well in this case, the second definition of Blitzkrieg I provided was written by a historian and someone who cares to be accurate on the subject. So in this case, it is the correct (right) definition. If, indeed it can be agreed that Blitzkrieg can be defined.

1. Deep operation is designed to cut supply lines and envelope defenses (whether disorganized, or not).

3. The first part is ironic, given that the majority of the German Wehrmacht was notoriously unmotorized/mechanized.

That's only partially true, as what you just described has more to do with Blitzkrieg as it is defined with the second definition I gave you. While, you are correct that deep operation can be used to cut supply lines and envelope an enemies defenses, that's only part of it. As taken from the US army field manual. "The purpose of deep operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations. Deep operations can also isolate the close battle by preventing the enemy from concentrating his forces. Its depth expands the battlefield in time, space, and resources.

Attacking enemy formations in depth destroys, delays, disrupts, or diverts enemy combat capability. Simultaneous attacks in depth cause confusion, destruction, and demoralization."

That pretty clearly states what deep operations is as it relates to modern operational methods.

3. Agreed, but the Germans still did have at least enough vehicles to motorized/mechanized a few brigades/divisions. At least, during the early war years.

The problem is that blitzkrieg, largely, is a subset of deep operation. For example, the German 1941 offensive, Typhoon and Blau were more so deep operation than blitzkrieg. If anything, blitzkrieg can only be applied to the opening moves of the operation - the application of overwhelming force along a specific location of the front.

Agreed for the most part, however Blitzkrieg can be used along an entire front not just a specific location of it and furthermore, Blitzkrieg can be applied not just with the opening moves of an operation, but during an entire operation if the conditions permit.

Then again it doesn't really matter because as you so delicately put it "The problem is that you can't define blitzkrieg, because in reality blitzkrieg is a loose term". If blitzkrieg can't be defined, then it can't be an operational method since that requires a specific definition, hence it can't be a subset of anything since it technically doesn't exist as supported by you and others. Put simply, Blitzkrieg is a myth.

Because, in the end, what the Germans did was a less refined version of deep operation (lack of mechanization and motorization).

Or it could be that the Germans practiced neither deep operation nor blitzkrieg, but an operational method entirely suited towards the German Way of War as it had been practiced going all the way back in some form to the 1600s.

Sure thing - once I have internet access at home I'll upload it.

If you could send me a TG once you have uploaded it that would be great. Along with the link to it if possible. Thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW-Muryan Endor I got part of my Military Declaration up. I just need to add a few things to the Naval part and add the Air forces.

Mokastana, as we will be facing off in the first round, I would like to offer you our TTR's for the event. TTR is a Tactical Training Round, that delivers a contact Neuro-Toxin with the strength of a mild sedative. When hit by it, the "Casualty" will be rendered unconscious for the rest of the day. We use them in training because they move like deadlier bullets. Standard training procedure means that thre rounds to the chest or a round to the head is a kill. A round to the arm or leg deadens that limb for the rest of the round, putting that soldier into a position as a casualty, and requiring him to be dragged away.

TTR's are sold to us at a cost of $100,000,000 for the DPR. Are you interested?

Also, I signed up for Terrain Combat scenarios, not operational methods. If i have to compete in that, I will need to ship in a lot more forces, because I have didn't think to bring my Defenders or Dusters. I will need to change my OrBat for that.

100 million for production rights to a very effective training drug...we would like to see one, currently we use bean bag rounds mainly due to the fact they are cheap and easily reproduced, but for this we will try your rounds for both effectiveness and realism, if they seem to work then we will buy them.

It appears they did change up a lot of the scenarios from when i signed up. How many forces were you going to use? I was under the impression that regiment size combat is what we are using here.

100 million for production rights to a very effective training drug...we would like to see one, currently we use bean bag rounds mainly due to the fact they are cheap and easily reproduced, but for this we will try your rounds for both effectiveness and realism, if they seem to work then we will buy them.

It appears they did change up a lot of the scenarios from when i signed up. How many forces were you going to use? I was under the impression that regiment size combat is what we are using here.

The rounds are made out of a plastic polymer that maintains the ballistics of an actual round as it is fired. it has a small, bio-electric proximity fuze that causes it to dissolve into a blob of red paint that carries the toxin, which is a tactile and localized anesthetic that will shut down use of a limb.

We use them for training purposes.

And as for Regimental system, we use that as the basis of our organization.

Your OpFor will be the one indicated for the terrain. a regiment is only about 696 men, and as such, we use large numbers of regiments for combat.

Overall, you are looking at 4,872 ground soldiers and about 200 in terms of Aircraft Crew
In terms of vehicles
99 Hind Attack Helos
52 Apache Longbows
595 Cougar 6x6 (APC)
60 Light Battle Tanks
20 Abrams MBT's
and some heavy weapons

Question
What kind of assault rifles does your force use?

My troops use the standard AM-07, it is my national rifle, it fires a 7.62x54mm round. As a description it is a lot like an AK-101 or so in looks. However internally it has been redesigned to increase accuracy and withstand underwater firing.

For this game I was going to try out a new idea for a light machine gun, Called a JAM gun (Jaguar Assault Machine Gun). It would a belt fed weapon similiar to PKM, only firing 8x60mm rounds.

will post my troops and organization later

My troops use the standard AM-07, it is my national rifle, it fires a 7.62x54mm round. As a description it is a lot like an AK-101 or so in looks. However internally it has been redesigned to increase accuracy and withstand underwater firing.

For this game I was going to try out a new idea for a light machine gun, Called a JAM gun (Jaguar Assault Machine Gun). It would a belt fed weapon similiar to PKM, only firing 8x60mm rounds.

will post my troops and organization later

Okay, so range should be typical for a 7.62x54mm round

Do you have a link to the vehicles?

I will provide you with mine if you would like them.

OK, Here we go:

Shock Division: (recently revised)
20,000 Jaguar Infantry
2,000 IFVs (16,000)
400 ATMG
400 SAM
400 LY6 Werewolf Assault Gun
200 LY6 Werewolf Indirect fire
50 Iron Heart Command post
200 Iron Heart Ambulances
200 AH-64D Apache Longbow
200 Mi-24 Hind
6,000 Transport trucks
8,000 Support Personnel


for this game we will be only one regiment so....

5,000 Jaguar Infantry
500 IFVs
100 ATMG
100 SAM
100 LY6 Werewolf Assault Gun
50 LY6 Werewolf Indirect fire
12 Iron Heart Command post
50 Iron Heart Ambulances
50 AH-64D Apache Longbow
50 Mi-24 Hind
1,125 Transport trucks
2,000 Support Personnel

IFVs ATMGs and SAMs are all Ironhearts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533583&postcount=1)

Werewolfs are here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13386886)

and equipment with the troops is pretty much...

-AM-07 Jaguar Assault Rifle
(7.62x54mm)
-JAM Heavy Machine Gun (8x60mm)
-M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System
-M67 Fragmentation Grenades
-AN-M8 White Smoke Grenades
-JD .45 Caliber Pistol (JagD)
-Gas masks of different types
- Night Vision Goggles
-etc etc

OK, Here we go:

Shock Division: (recently revised)
20,000 Jaguar Infantry
2,000 IFVs (16,000)
400 ATMG
400 SAM
400 LY6 Werewolf Assault Gun
200 LY6 Werewolf Indirect fire
50 Iron Heart Command post
200 Iron Heart Ambulances
200 AH-64D Apache Longbow
200 Mi-24 Hind
6,000 Transport trucks
8,000 Support Personnel


for this game we will be only one regiment so....

5,000 Jaguar Infantry
500 IFVs
100 ATMG
100 SAM
100 LY6 Werewolf Assault Gun
50 LY6 Werewolf Indirect fire
12 Iron Heart Command post
50 Iron Heart Ambulances
50 AH-64D Apache Longbow
50 Mi-24 Hind
1,125 Transport trucks
2,000 Support Personnel

IFVs ATMGs and SAMs are all Ironhearts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533583&postcount=1)

Werewolfs are here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13386886)

and equipment with the troops is pretty much...

-AM-07 Jaguar Assault Rifle
(7.62x54mm)
-JAM Heavy Machine Gun (8x60mm)
-M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System
-M67 Fragmentation Grenades
-AN-M8 White Smoke Grenades
-JD .45 Caliber Pistol (JagD)
-Gas masks of different types
- Night Vision Goggles
-etc etc

That's a big regiment.

So, my stuff
Cougar HE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_%28vehicle%29)
With the CROWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS) system
M1A4 is an Abrams that is a little faster, with a 120mm Rifled Bore replacing the smooth bore cannon.
The M26 Pershing is a faster model of the original Pershing, with a 90mm Rifled Bore
the standard HMG is the M312 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM312)
we have replaced our Mk. 19's with M307 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307)
Our standard sniper rifle is the CheyTac Intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CheyTac_Intervention) chambered with .408 Chey Tac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.408_CheyTac)
Marksmen use the USMC DMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle)
And, we use the Hyperion Gunship (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft&action=display&thread=1148863844) for Aerial Supremacy

any questions, feel free to ask

I'll join. One Regiment(5,000) of Air Calvary supported by 2 Regular Divisions.(20,000 each)

coilgun in Abrams or pershing= no.

any questions, feel free to ask

Ok, here's a big question, Why do you use TPM stuff? Its horriblely unrealistic, and wastes of money and make easy targets. A signle penatrating HE shot and you lose the entire thing. The shrappnel will rip the gas bags apart, even if it can still float, a shot in the middle will basicly (if I undertsand this right) Snap in half from the up lift on the ends will increase pressure on the center. With all the wieght on the gondal it will snap. A regular air ship will not snap, just sink.

coilgun in Abrams or pershing= no.

Let me reiterate this.

Coilgun in a tank = impossible for MT and early/mid PMT.

Unless by coilgun you mean a single use slingshot, which is what any coilgun you make and can fit in a tank will be able to do.

coilgun in Abrams or pershing= no.

Okay, it has been voted, and I will replace them with Rifled barrels

Ok, here's a big question, Why do you use TPM stuff? Its horriblely unrealistic, and wastes of money and make easy targets. A signle penatrating HE shot and you lose the entire thing. The shrappnel will rip the gas bags apart, even if it can still float, a shot in the middle will basicly (if I undertsand this right) Snap in half from the up lift on the ends will increase pressure on the center. With all the wieght on the gondal it will snap. A regular air ship will not snap, just sink.

And, though it may not be a perfect vehicle, I do like them. That is for one. For two, these are equipped with ABL's, which can be used to target Flak or HE rounds. For three, no one uses those types of rounds. I could ask why someone uses Russian stuff when they are prone to breakdowns and faulty wiring, but I don't. Why? Because everyone is entitled to their own opinions on technology. Now, if you insist into getting into an argument over this, please take it off the thread and into Telegraphs. I don't want us to weigh down the thread with this talk.

For two, these are equipped with ABL's which can be used to target Flak or HE rounds


ABL's are useless really, and everybody thinks that they are practical or awesome because the U.S. had its program. Never mind that it has gone way over budget and is on the verge of being canceled due to engineering problems. Plus, who the hell uses Flak rounds of HE rounds against aircraft? Also, I laugh at that ariship now because I just realized that the cannons onboard would have recoil issues that would make them unusable. And LOL using ceramic armor on that ship. It would weigh so much that it couldn't get airborne.

I could ask why someone uses Russian stuff when they are prone to breakdowns and faulty wiring

This is hardly true, and I won't even bother to get into it.

Why? Because everyone is entitled to their own opinions on technology. Now, if you insist into getting into an argument over this, please take it off the thread and into Telegraphs. I don't want us to weigh down the thread with this talk.

Everybody is entitled to a reasonable opinion on technology rather than an opinion on outdated or wanked technology. Also, as the OOC thread is here, we might as well use it since that's what its for.

Okay, it has been voted, and I will replace them with Rifled barrels

Why? Abrams uses smoothbore IRL. Only advantage Rifled has is more accuracy which is only barely increased.

I would like to be included on Amphibious Warfare, Armored Warfare only(bring it back, I agree with Sumer on this), Naval Warfare, Air Defense and Close Air Support, I did lists for all of them although they might or not be updated according to further information I acquire regarding organizing AFV companies.

And regarding that TPM stuff and feasibility issues, I actually do use large amphibious hovercraft ships and coil guns... in my FT nation.

I would not use a rifled barrel either for MT/MT+1/Low PMT, but instead a smoothbore with Electrothermal-Chemical Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology).

But the thing is, Rifled barrels of this size have been used in WWII, WWI, and farther back. And yes, I am using them for improved accuracy, as it is highly useful, and would allow me to get more hits per shot.

And as for that Electrothermal-Chemical Technology, I will need to look into it more, but will not use it in this RP.

Also, not all ceramic armor is heavy, some of it is very light. And actually, Russian tech is prone to breakdowns.

To quote from How to Make War by James F. Dunigan

Russia has gone for massive numbers of effective yet expendable tanks. Its tanks have had large guns, but incomplete fire-control systems and shoddy ammunition. Armor has been thick, but crude. Externally, the armor is well sloped to prevent direct hits. Russian tanks are low and wide to prevent less of a target. The Russians go for a high horsepower-to-weight ratio. Their tanks are cramped, uncomfortable, difficult to maintain, and numerous.

The BMP caught fire easily, and was difficult to maintain.

Russian aircraft are not as durable or maintainable as Western ones.

Russia favors a large number of smaller, some what cheaper, and, ton for ton, less effective ships. These vessels appear to bristle with weapons, especially when compared with Western ships. Indeed, Russian ships do carry more weapons. But they also carry some serious liabilities as well. Work space and equipment access are less than in Western ships. This makes it very difficult to get at anything that breaks down.

The multiplicity of weapons and other equipment also serve to ensure that something will be working when the battle begins.

More serious problems are the lack of vibration dampening and onboard repair facilities. Electronic systems are very prone to vibration damage. Equipment that would quickly be put to right in Western Ships would remain broken on Russian ships.

Moreover, combat will reveal that a relative lack of compartmentalization makes damaging hits catastophic ones.

All from one book. I am sure I could dig up many more books saying you are wrong. Also, ceramics are not that light, Abrams has something like 30 tons of physical armor on a way smaller actual size. I know near nothing about airships, but I'll have Talost and APA come in here tomorrow to better explain it.

But the thing is, Rifled barrels of this size have been used in WWII, WWI, and farther back. And yes, I am using them for improved accuracy, as it is highly useful, and would allow me to get more hits per shot.
Important thing to know about rifled guns.
Much lower muzzle velocity.
At ranges beyond 2000m you won't hit anything moving with a rifled gun no matter how good your FCS is, unless they're just moving slowly in a straight line, which they never will be. The round will simply move too slowly. And on top of that you must use a stubbier, lighter round then a smoothbore gun, which means less energy on a larger area. Simply put, the penetration capability for rifled guns is signifigantly less then that of a smoothbore for no gain, at all. Unless you intend to use this as artillery where you'll be using longer ranges and no need for battlefield motion. But as a tank, not good. A smoothbore is just as accurate at 2km, and twice as powerful.

Also, not all ceramic armor is heavy, some of it is very light.
And the light stuff is worthless. Keep in mind ceramic armoures work by breaking apart. The thicker (And thus heavier) it is the better, because there is more broken path to absorb energy. Plus the steel plating ahead and behind it takes up a lot of weight, and you can't get away from those.

And actually, Russian tech is prone to breakdowns.
All tech is prone to breakdowns.
I would suggest you read a recognised expert on Soviet and post-Soviet weapons, like Steven Zaloga. For Zaloga, among others, makes a distinction Dunigan does not, that almost all of our information about Soviet equipment capability comes from the third-rate stuff they gave away to have more nations freindly to them then to the west. In effect, they gave away the cheap and old broken K-cars to their freinds, and kept the Ferraris.

All from one book. I am sure I could dig up many more books saying you are wrong. Also, ceramics are not that light, Abrams has something like 30 tons of physical armor on a way smaller actual size. I know near nothing about airships, but I'll have Talost and APA come in here tomorrow to better explain it.

Sources used by Dunigan include
Jane's Annuals
International Defense Review
Military Technology
Strategy and Tactics
World Armies
Official U.S. Government Publications from the Department of Defense

on the issue of Ceramics
It is possible to create ceramics as light as Titanium and as strong as Steel. Using the right composite materials, you can have lightweight, strong armor. Though the Abrams has Heavy Ceramic Armor, it is a different type of armor than that used by soldiers in body armor, which is lighter.

Important thing to know about rifled guns.
Much lower muzzle velocity.
At ranges beyond 2000m you won't hit anything moving with a rifled gun no matter how good your FCS is, unless they're just moving slowly in a straight line, which they never will be. The round will simply move too slowly. And on top of that you must use a stubbier, lighter round then a smoothbore gun, which means less energy on a larger area. Simply put, the penetration capability for rifled guns is signifigantly less then that of a smoothbore for no gain, at all. Unless you intend to use this as artillery where you'll be using longer ranges and no need for battlefield motion. But as a tank, not good. A smoothbore is just as accurate at 2km, and twice as powerful.


And the light stuff is worthless. Keep in mind ceramic armoures work by breaking apart. The thicker (And thus heavier) it is the better, because there is more broken path to absorb energy. Plus the steel plating ahead and behind it takes up a lot of weight, and you can't get away from those.


All tech is prone to breakdowns.
I would suggest you read a recognised expert on Soviet and post-Soviet weapons, like Steven Zaloga. For Zaloga, among others, makes a distinction Dunigan does not, that almost all of our information about Soviet equipment capability comes from the third-rate stuff they gave away to have more nations freindly to them then to the west. In effect, they gave away the cheap and old broken K-cars to their freinds, and kept the Ferraris.

Well, I didn't know that about the lower velocities. so, while I will use it in this RP, mainly because I already said I would, I will have to change it as soon as I am done. I am going to be undergoing a major overhaul in terms of equipment after I had NOVA fry my nation's comps, so that will be included.

Yes, Ceramic armor does work by breaking apart. But that is the traditional stuff. Most steel and metal armors work by giving slightly. If you can make the right composite, then you can have a lightweight ceramic with the ability to take a round without major breakage.

Also, Zaloga is wrong on some of that information. We have information coming from Soviet defectors that showed the handicaps faced by the Russians. For example, Russian Tanks use alcohol for their Hydraulics. You can imagine the problems that causes. And second, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were able to get first hand examples of their material and found th same major problems in them. Russian tech is more prone to mechanical failure, and for a very important reason. Soviet doctrine made it so that combat divisions would be almost pure combat. anything that broke or stopped working would be left behind for the mechanics and replacements brought up. Thus, they built tanks that where heavy hitting and effective for a few months or so, and could be built in large numbers. Western doctrine on the other hand, espoused keeping machines in working order and not rotating them in that way. Thus, they are made to be more durable for long term combat operations. The same can be said of their Warships, which are designed for Coastal Warfare, where docked repairs make repairs at sea almost unnecessary.

That's a big regiment.

So, my stuff
Cougar HE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_%28vehicle%29)
With the CROWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS) system
M1A4 is an Abrams that is a little faster, with a 120mm Rifled Bore replacing the smooth bore cannon.
The M26 Pershing is a faster model of the original Pershing, with a 90mm Rifled Bore
the standard HMG is the M312 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM312)
we have replaced our Mk. 19's with M307 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307)
Our standard sniper rifle is the CheyTac Intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CheyTac_Intervention) chambered with .408 Chey Tac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.408_CheyTac)
Marksmen use the USMC DMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle)
And, we use the Hyperion Gunship (http://phoenixdynamix.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Aircraft&action=display&thread=1148863844) for Aerial Supremacy

any questions, feel free to ask

naw your good, but i dont have a problem with you changing to smoothbore for this game, after all, thats just what it is

naw your good, but i dont have a problem with you changing to smoothbore for this game, after all, thats just what it is

Well, we are testing new tech, and the change to Rifled Bore is part of that. Same with the CROWS system.

But the thing is, Rifled barrels of this size have been used in WWII, WWI, and farther back. And yes, I am using them for improved accuracy, as it is highly useful, and would allow me to get more hits per shot.

Actually, smoothbores are more accurate when firing APFSDS, since the round goes faster - and the range is lengthened. Rifled tank guns are obsolete; the British chose to introduce the rifled gun due to the amount of money spent on the HESH program. They are changing their rifled guns for Rheinmetall's smoothbore 120mm L/55 tank gun, however.

And as for that Electrothermal-Chemical Technology, I will need to look into it more, but will not use it in this RP.

I wrote that article for Wikipedia (look up Catalán), but I wrote a more up to date one as an Informative for the NS Draftroom.

Also, not all ceramic armor is heavy, some of it is very light.

All current ceramic armors are actually lighter than steel.

And actually, Russian tech is prone to breakdowns.

So is Western technology, what is your point? Russian weapons have actually gotten to be far more reliable.

so this is pretty much a massive battlefield test of toys ehh?

so this is pretty much a massive battlefield test of toys ehh?

Kinda. That and I want to test out some ideas I have for tactics for defense and assault on urban warfare. Also, I am willing to help judge the naval combat section in this role-play.

It is possible to create ceramics as light as Titanium and as strong as Steel.


Actually, titanium alloy can already be made to be as strong as steel; the issue with titanium is cost (although there are new processing techniques) and problems with welding thick pieces of titanium.

Using the right composite materials, you can have lightweight, strong armor.

Ceramic will always be lighter than steel, but that doesn't mean it's lightweight. It's lightweight when compared to steel, but otherwise it's still heavy and the thickness and weight will depend on the thickness of the armor and its level of protection. Furthermore, ceramic will always have to be encased in metal, preferrably armored steel (RHA).

Though the Abrams has Heavy Ceramic Armor, it is a different type of armor than that used by soldiers in body armor, which is lighter.

The weight in the Abrams is actually due more to the use of depleted uranium and the armor inserts introduced with the M1A1HA+. SAPI plates are made out of fiber reinforced boron carbide, which is light but prone to spall (higher hardness). The Abrams probably uses alumina or silicon carbide; titanium-diboride is probably superior to both of these.

Yes, Ceramic armor does work by breaking apart.

Well, that's not completely correct. Against kinetic energy munitions ceramic armor works by dissipating the energy of the impact among a broad surface area (crater width) and by deforming the long-rod nose. Ceramics crack because they're brittle; theoritically, when they are fully encased a cracked ceramic can offer multi-hit capability, though.

Most steel and metal armors work by giving slightly.

Steels actually work in much of the same way; ceramic/metal armors just offer a superior mass efficiency. Laminated steels, like triple hardness steel, might also bulge a bit.

then you can have a lightweight ceramic with the ability to take a round without major breakage.

No, the ceramic will crack when it dissipates the energy. The larger the crater, the less the long-rod will penetrate.

For example, Russian Tanks use alcohol for their Hydraulics.

Errr, when was this? Whatever source that's from is lying, or is using a singular example to describe Russia's entire tank fleet. Whatever it is, it's obvious fictitious.

And second, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were able to get first hand examples of their material and found th same major problems in them.

The only tanks the U.S. has been able to study are T-72M1s (i.e. export T-72As) and early T-64 versions. Since then, the Russians have been using T-72BVs, T-80Us modernized T-64s. These are very capable tanks.

Russian tech is more prone to mechanical failure, and for a very important reason. Soviet doctrine made it so that combat divisions would be almost pure combat.

Actually, Soviet tanks were made to withstand long-distance travel on their own tracks (see: Simpkin, Richard, Tank Warfare, 1979, Brasseys).

so round one: where is it and who's defense?

Well in this case, the second definition of Blitzkrieg I provided was written by a historian and someone who cares to be accurate on the subject. So in this case, it is the correct (right) definition. If, indeed it can be agreed that Blitzkrieg can be defined.

There are a large list of historians who do not agree with the definition, so which historian is correct?



While, you are correct that deep operation can be used to cut supply lines and envelope an enemies defenses, that's only part of it.

Well, no kidding ... what's your point? It's only part of Blitzkrieg, too.

As taken from the US army field manual. "The purpose of deep operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations. Deep operations can also isolate the close battle by preventing the enemy from concentrating his forces. Its depth expands the battlefield in time, space, and resources.

Great definition, albeit generalized - the same is true for blitkzrieg. It doesn't prove my argument wrong.

Attacking enemy formations in depth destroys, delays, disrupts, or diverts enemy combat capability. Simultaneous attacks in depth cause confusion, destruction, and demoralization."

What the Germans did in Poland, France and Russia - and that's called blitzkrieg. Incredibly, I still don't see a difference.

That pretty clearly states what deep operations is as it relates to modern operational methods.[/quotes]

Yes, that's what I said originally.

[quote]3. Agreed, but the Germans still did have at least enough vehicles to motorized/mechanized a few brigades/divisions. At least, during the early war years.

So? The clear majority of the Werhacht was unmotorized during the entirety of the Third Reich.



Agreed for the most part, however Blitzkrieg can be used along an entire front not just a specific location of it and furthermore, Blitzkrieg can be applied not just with the opening moves of an operation, but during an entire operation if the conditions permit.

And so can deep operation - see the entire Eastern Front campaign. It still sounds like the same thing, or a subset of deep operation.

If blitzkrieg can't be defined, then it can't be an operational method since that requires a specific definition, hence it can't be a subset of anything since it technically doesn't exist as supported by you and others. Put simply, Blitzkrieg is a myth.

Blitzkrieg is a myth because the definition doesn't fit the reality. What the Germans practiced during the Second World War was deep operation, only they were hampered by the fact that they were mostly unmechanized - unlike the Red Army in 1943-1945.

Or it could be that the Germans practiced neither deep operation nor blitzkrieg, but an operational method entirely suited towards the German Way of War as it had been practiced going all the way back in some form to the 1600s.

Every modern war has strategic roots in wars dating back from the wars in Mesopotamia.

so round one: where is it and who's defense?

You are assault, I am defense. No idea on the location.

Actually, titanium alloy can already be made to be as strong as steel; the issue with titanium is cost (although there are new processing techniques) and problems with welding thick pieces of titanium.

Which is why I use a special composite ceramic armor.

Ceramic will always be lighter than steel, but that doesn't mean it's lightweight. It's lightweight when compared to steel, but otherwise it's still heavy and the thickness and weight will depend on the thickness of the armor and its level of protection. Furthermore, ceramic will always have to be encased in metal, preferrably armored steel (RHA).

For now it will. There are already techniques beign designed which would include metal mesh, similar to that used in bullet-proof windows at school.

The weight in the Abrams is actually due more to the use of depleted uranium and the armor inserts introduced with the M1A1HA+. SAPI plates are made out of fiber reinforced boron carbide, which is light but prone to spall (higher hardness). The Abrams probably uses alumina or silicon carbide; titanium-diboride is probably superior to both of these.

Well, I will have to look into that.

Well, that's not completely correct. Against kinetic energy munitions ceramic armor works by dissipating the energy of the impact among a broad surface area (crater width) and by deforming the long-rod nose. Ceramics crack because they're brittle; theoritically, when they are fully encased a cracked ceramic can offer multi-hit capability, though.

Steels actually work in much of the same way; ceramic/metal armors just offer a superior mass efficiency. Laminated steels, like triple hardness steel, might also bulge a bit.

Interesting. Thank you for that information.

For now it will. There are already techniques beign designed which would include metal mesh, similar to that used in bullet-proof windows at school.


Actually, it will always will. In the new MRAP vehicles, the backing is just a different material - for example, the backing material can be S-2 glass or E-glass. Just something to hold the integrity of the ceramic material. If you're interested in reading these write-up contain information on 'new-generation' armors (based on real-life technology and well researched):

Survivability chapter of the Lince main battle tank write-up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13387847&postcount=6)
L113 Centauro Armored Personnel Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13387877&postcount=10)

In terms of light armor, the HIM-TEC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13424494&postcount=31) has the most information, so far.

Actually, it will always will. In the new MRAP vehicles, the backing is just a different material - for example, the backing material can be S-2 glass or E-glass. Just something to hold the integrity of the ceramic material. If you're interested in reading these write-up contain information on 'new-generation' armors (based on real-life technology and well researched):

Survivability chapter of the Lince main battle tank write-up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13387847&postcount=6)
L113 Centauro Armored Personnel Carrier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13387877&postcount=10)

In terms of light armor, the HIM-TEC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13424494&postcount=31) has the most information, so far.

Cool, thanks. I will have to look into that as my knowledge on the subject is a lot smaller than I thought it was.

Well, it seems that you've been busy discussing while I was sick ;)

I already made the Operational Methods Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548892), I only need a good map or something. If anyone can draw a map on paint I would be grateful.

Well, it seems that you've been busy discussing while I was sick ;)

I already made the Operational Methods Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548892), I only need a good map or something. If anyone can draw a map on paint I would be grateful.

I tried and Failed. If anyone has a street map with buildings on it, I can go through and customize it with building types and such.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/merced_ca_1917.jpg

Here is my current idea for the battle ground, though it is very small for a large scale combat operation.

I tried and Failed. If anyone has a street map with buildings on it, I can go through and customize it with building types and such.

Do you mean something like this (http://www.geocities.com/vdbrot/map_big.gif)?

And btw, you posted a few decent maps on page six...

Okay, I think I found a couple city maps that will work for this.

http://www.saexplorer.co.za/general/map_download.asp?map=213

http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=6831

http://www.mechanicville.com/history/images/mville_street_map_small.jpg

http://inlapaz.com/images/map_main_small.jpg

http://www.mechanicville.com/history/images/mville_zoning_map_small.jpg

Let me know what you think.

Do you mean something like this (http://www.geocities.com/vdbrot/map_big.gif)?

And btw, you posted a few decent maps on page six...

Yeah, but I didn't make those maps.

well then lets get this party started, pick a map, pick positions, and lets go...

How to Make War by James F. Dunigan

Good book, however there are two problems with using that book.

A. What edition are you using to quote from? I've read through the most recent edition (fourth) and don't recall those quotes you used being in there.

B. Even though the book has been updated again, it should be remember that the vast majority of the text would have stayed the same as the first edition. Considering that the first edition was written some time in the late 1980s early 1990s, when the Russian military was strapped for cash and barely able to maintain any sort of operational readiness. I'm not surprised they had trouble maintaining their equipment or bringing new equipment into service. However, a lot has changed since those days at the ending of the Cold War. The Russian military is no longer hurting for money to maintain their equipment and/or purchase new equipment. In fact, the Russian military has such a budget today that even the Russian air force has resumed after 15 years of suspension, long ranged patrols with it's Tu-95 Bears and Tu-22M Backfires, just as it did during those Cold Wars years.

There are a large list of historians who do not agree with the definition, so which historian is correct?

The historians that can come to a majority agreement within the community.

Well, no kidding ... what's your point? It's only part of Blitzkrieg, too.

My Point was that was Blitzkrieg in it's entirety with it's stated objective, while only part of deep operations stated objectives. With deep operations to be a success, you don't have to cut off or envelopment the enemy. With Blitzkrieg you do as that's it's stated purpose. That was my point.

Great definition, albeit generalized - the same is true for blitkzrieg. It doesn't prove my argument wrong. What the Germans did in Poland, France and Russia - and that's called blitzkrieg. Incredibly, I still don't see a difference.

Well which is it? First you state the Germans did a less refined version of deep operation and now you state they did Blitzkrieg. :rolleyes:[What follows is sarcasm in case you miss the smiley]How am I suppose to prove your argument wrong when you change it all of sudden.:rolleyes:

For comparison here are the two definitions again. I will underlined the differences between the two so you can see the subtle differences.

1. "Blitzkrieg-Tank spearheaded motorized forces achieve deep penetrations of the enemy front to disrupt communications, cut supply lines and sow panic, thus setting the stage for the envelopment of the (disorganized) defenses."

2. "The purpose of deep operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations. Deep operations can also isolate the close battle by preventing the enemy from concentrating his forces. Its depth expands the battlefield in time, space, and resources. Attacking enemy formations in depth destroys, delays, disrupts, or diverts enemy combat capability. Simultaneous attacks in depth cause confusion, destruction, and demoralization."

While the two operational methods do have some similarities, which you have already pointed out, the stated end goal of the two methods is entirely different hence while why they have been classed as separate operational methods.

Every modern war has strategic roots in wars dating back from the wars in Mesopotamia.

While that is true, that was not what I was trying to imply. That just maybe, from what I read on the subject and agree with, the Germans and before them the Prussians fought in such a way that was UNIQUE to their location of Northern/Central Europe. That the Germans during the Second World War fought neither with as what we've come to understand as Blitzkrieg or with Deep Operations, but with an Operational Method entirely developed to take advantage of the weak position the Germans found themselves in throughout their history going all the way back to the Kingdom of Prussia.

I have Third Edition, published in 1993. The only version I could find in Kansas City when I lived there. Haven't had a chance to go hunting since.

Hey, Muryan Endor, why don't you be the third judge for the Operational Methods scenarios. That way we can get started. Also, I propose that in each round, the Defense form a thread for their particular combat, set up for the assault, and then we begin.

Considering that the first edition was written some time in the late 1980s early 1990s, when the Russian military was strapped for cash and barely able to maintain any sort of operational readiness.

Well, it would be irrelevant, since the Russians still maintained a slight technological superiority to the West.

The historians that can come to a majority agreement within the community.

Besides the fact that 90% of the books on the Second World War are nothing but recompilations of what has already been written, using second hand sources? The historian which defines blitzkrieg as a concrete type of military strategy/operation/tactic is incorrect, because it clearly isn't.

My Point was that was Blitzkrieg in it's entirety with it's stated objective, while only part of deep operations stated objectives. With deep operations to be a success, you don't have to cut off or envelopment the enemy.

Err, that's kind of the point of deep operation. The idea is to strike deep behind the lines to cut off the front lines from their logistics, to make envelopment easier or to decisively crush the forces caught within the pincers. In fact, the only staff that never had stated objectives was the German staff, not the Soviet staff - the lack of concrete objectives is one of the major factors that lost Germany the war, besides the fact that they couldn't win it in the first place.

Well which is it? First you state the Germans did a less refined version of deep operation and now you state they did Blitzkrieg. :rolleyes:[What follows is sarcasm in case you miss the smiley]How am I suppose to prove your argument wrong when you change it all of sudden.:rolleyes:

Um, when did I say the Germans practiced blitzkrieg? I said it's called blitzkrieg, and never specified that I called it blitzkrieg. I think it was pretty easy to decipher what I meant.


For comparison here are the two definitions again. I will underlined the differences between the two so you can see the subtle differences.

1. "Blitzkrieg-Tank spearheaded motorized forces achieve deep penetrations of the enemy front to disrupt communications, cut supply lines and sow panic, thus setting the stage for the envelopment of the (disorganized) defenses."

2. "The purpose of deep operations is to deny the enemy freedom of action and to disrupt or destroy the coherence and tempo of his operations. Deep operations can also isolate the close battle by preventing the enemy from concentrating his forces. Its depth expands the battlefield in time, space, and resources. Attacking enemy formations in depth destroys, delays, disrupts, or diverts enemy combat capability. Simultaneous attacks in depth cause confusion, destruction, and demoralization."

You have underlined and bolded parts that can't be compared - one is apples and the other is oranges. I mean, obviously your argument is wrong when the clear majority of Soviet operations were spearheaded by mechanized and motorized forces. In fact, deep operation was created in tandem with the foundation of Soviet mechanized corps in the mid-1930s - Soviet mechanization was always greater than German mechanization. You are trying to compare two generalized definitions without basing them on any real historical fact.

Both of the parts you underline and bold also suggest the disruption of enemy logistics, and it's strange that the Soviets were far more successful in the envelopment of enemy forces than the Germans, and they used deep operation. It looks to me that deep operations is a far more refined version of blitzkrieg.

You can continue to use the same definition, but you should know that they are over generalized statements.

While the two operational methods do have some similarities, which you have already pointed out, the stated end goal of the two methods is entirely different...

Um, no they're not. Both aimed at destroying enemy formations in their entirety.

hence while why they have been classed as separate operational methods.

Actually, they're really not. Although one author may like to use 'blitzkrieg' to characterize the German Army, it's simply to characterize - accuracy devoid.

That just maybe, from what I read on the subject and agree with, the Germans and before them the Prussians fought in such a way that was UNIQUE to their location of Northern/Central Europe.

Gasp, so unique that the same methods of warfare were used in Southern Syria in 1300 B.C.E. during the Battle of Kadesh, or the fact that German military strategists compared their strategies to Hannibal's defeat of Rome at Cannae in 216 B.C.E. In fact, the beginning of blitzkrieg was practiced both on the Eastern Front and the Western Front during the First World War.

That the Germans during the Second World War fought neither with as what we've come to understand as Blitzkrieg

So, you're making misjudgements by saying that blitkzrieg is something practiced by the Germans far before the Second World War, but yet say that the word was an invention by the Western prense.

or with Deep Operations, but with an Operational Method entirely developed to take advantage of the weak position the Germans found themselves in throughout their history going all the way back to the Kingdom of Prussia.

Actually, it has nothing to do with that - it's simply based on experiences of warfare since the beginning of written history. The Germans were able to practice what they did during the Second World War due to the introduction of fast mechanization, which allowed armies to strike behind enemy lines at great distances due to said mechanization - operations on the operational level (like what you call blitzkrieg, or what is really deep operation) can't be preformed by horse armies because at the time nations lacked the logistics to preform war on a surface area covering areas the size of Eastern France and one soldier could not fight in the same surface area as one soldier could in the 1940s (and a tank in the 1940s could not cover the same terrain a tank in 1991, could).

It's a national evolution of mobile warfare, using assets which allow taking tactics to operations.

Well, it would be irrelevant, since the Russians still maintained a slight technological superiority to the West.

That statement contradicts stated Soviet and later Russian political and military objectives. Can you please further elaborate on what you mean by "slight technological superiority to the West".

The historian which defines blitzkrieg as a concrete type of military strategy/operation/tactic is incorrect, because it clearly isn't.

It can be if so agreed upon. However, considering that modern historians are taking another look at Blitzkrieg itself and starting to agree that it is indeed not an operational method/strategy, you are correct in your above statement. However, until the vast majority of the public does that, the term blitzkrieg still has a valid use whether you agree with it or not.

In fact, the only staff that never had stated objectives was the German staff, not the Soviet staff - the lack of concrete objectives is one of the major factors that lost Germany the war, besides the fact that they couldn't win it in the first place.

Or the German staff had to many objectives. Recorded fact that Hitler was a control freak. The number of directives he issued speaks volumes by itself.

German could of won the war, but 20/20 hindsight works both ways. I'm sure the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union during the dark days of 1941 thought, starting in 1942 we can just sit back and relax because we know without a doubt that the Germans are going to lose.

Um, when did I say the Germans practiced blitzkrieg? I said it's called blitzkrieg, and never specified that I called it blitzkrieg. I think it was pretty easy to decipher what I meant.

The way your wording was used implied at least to me that you were saying the Germans practiced blitzkrieg. So, I stand corrected.

You have underlined and bolded parts that can't be compared - one is apples and the other is oranges. You are trying to compare two generalized definitions without basing them on any real historical fact.

Considering I'm using definitions that are based on real historical facts, those are the best definitions your going to get. All I can tell you is that either you accept them so we can compare the two or you don't accept them at which point that leaves us at square 1 and my original question I have yet to get an answer to. Do you personally believe blitzkrieg can be accurately defined?

You can continue to use the same definition, but you should know that they are over generalized statements.

Then out of curiosity how would you defined Blitzkrieg? Deep Operations? Or do you consider the two to be one in the same. No subsets-equals, meaning the same thing.

Gasp, so unique that the same methods of warfare were used in Southern Syria in 1300 B.C.E. during the Battle of Kadesh, or the fact that German military strategists compared their strategies to Hannibal's defeat of Rome at Cannae in 216 B.C.E. In fact, the beginning of blitzkrieg was practiced both on the Eastern Front and the Western Front during the First World War.

See-"The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich"
by Robert M. Citino for greater understanding on what I'm trying to convey about the Germans unique way of waging war. A very interesting read.

So, you're making misjudgements by saying that blitzkrieg is something practiced by the Germans far before the Second World War, but yet say that the word was an invention by the Western prense.

No, I said the Germans never practiced blitzkrieg, but an method unique to their military culture.

"prense"-:confused: HUH?

Actually, while they might have been able to meet the US and the West on the ground in terms of vehicles, their TOW and Stinger versions where unable to properly track at closer ranges, and they couldn't match us in space. It is why they where so concerned about Star Wars. They knew, that because they had forced their scientists to work in gulags, that they couldn't match us in space. It is one of the costs of repressing their people.


The U.S. President's faith in freedom's eventual triumph was matched by a deep distrust pf totalitarian regimes. When he justified his decision to build an elaborate strategic missile defense system as a means of safeguarding American against Belligerent intentions of a nondemocratic regime, he was essentially telling the world that Andrei Sakharov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov) had told [Sharansky] years earlier: A country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Again, the critics where furious, characterizing Reagan's so-called Star Wars initiative dangerous saber rattling and insane profligacy. But the Soviet leadership was petrified. They had always wanted to restrict competition in High-Tech weaponry and keep the arms race open in low-tech weapons, where the disadvantages of a fear society would not be exposed...When Reagan unveiled his Star Wars intiative and refused to abandon it during the arms control negotiations in Reykjavik in 1986, it was as if a Soviet pensioner on his deathbed were being challenged to run a marathon. Years later, close advisors of Gorbachev admitted that the realization that the USSR could never compete with Star Wars made them finally accept demands for internal Reform. A leading soviet economist, put it this way. If it had not been for Reagan's defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it iis willing to not only stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans

For those who have never heard of Natan Sharansky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky), he was a political prisoner and a Refusenik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusenik_%28Soviet_Union%29).

So, what's the holdup? I want to fight this.

Sweet. I will post an image of my Defensive layout on this thread tonight, and will be ready to begin by Tomorrow. Oh man, this is gonna be interesting.

Sorry guys for my absence. I've chosen a map and posted it in the Operational Methods Thread. I suggest we begin ASAP as this thing is dying a bit...

which way am i attacking from?

I will observe the 'ground war' engagement, and act as judge. Will the battles take place on the 'Operational Methods' Thread, the IC thread, or will you create a new thread for each battle?

Oh, and when the time comes, I'd like to do a battleship-vs-battleship fight in addition to the sub battle...

which way am i attacking from?

You can attack from the Southwest, Northeast, or West. The way I am setting up my forces, you can do any.

Problems with each avenue.

Northeast: You have to take and capture the brigdes

West: two bridges, worse bottle neck than Northeast

Southwest: Lots of open ground over which I can adjust my forces to respond, and which I can fill with Anti-Tread Mines and claymores

Its up to you

ok so its optional...good, do you have your defenses in order yet? I'm assuming satillite coverage gets me an idea of what is where.

ok so its optional...good, do you have your defenses in order yet? I'm assuming satillite coverage gets me an idea of what is where.

Still working on it. And yes they do. Just remember though, that I will be using ALL available satellites in this, which is more than just the Keyholes...

And no, that doesn't include space based weapons

so visual, infrared, GPS targeting systems, etc...

Now this is to try new tactics and stuff, so this is going to be interesting...

When do we start

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e77/Ard_Ri_Niall/AFCDefense.jpg

there ya go. If you want further help on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP-6a#Unit_icons

so visual, infrared, GPS targeting systems, etc...

Now this is to try new tactics and stuff, so this is going to be interesting...

When do we start

Oh no, the Air Force has other Surveillance stuff up there than just EM-Sighting

As for starting, I am ready when you are

can you get a bigger picture for me, i cant see it too well

can you get a bigger picture for me, i cant see it too well

Biggest I can do right now. Trying to make it bigger as we speak.

are we going to RP collateral or other damages? As in will we rp actual damage or RP as if it was a training exercise?

Well, with the TTR's, it will knock out the opponent. We will be using them in this. As for vehicles, we have small EMP bombs that we use for training. These will stop vehicles cold. Our ATGM's have special paint gas warheads that will splatter your vehicles with water soluble paints. Just hose them down and they go from casualty to replacement. Same with our other Anti-Armor technologies.

OK i have a better breakdown of units, spent the last two hours on it....

One shock regiment:

Battalion:x5
4 IFVs = Platoon (IN) 12
2 IFVs + 2 ATMG = Platoon (AT) 10
2 IFVs + 2 Shepards = Platoon (AA) 10
5 LY6 Indirect Fire = platoon (IF) 2
5 LY6 Tank Destroyer =platoon (TD) 4
2 IFVs + 2 Ambulance = Platoon (AM) 5
2 IFVs + 2 CP = Platoon (Battalion Command)
+ 10 Apaches/Hinds


Companies….
1 Infantry Company
1 AM Platoon
2 AA Platoons
5 IN Platoons
2 AT Company
4 AT Platoons
1 TD Platoon
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoon
2 IN Platoons
Support Company
2 IF Platoons
1 IN Platoons
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoons
1 Heavy Company
2 TD Platoons
2 AT Platoons
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoon
2 IN Platoons
Apache Company
10 Apaches
Hind Company
10 Hinds

NOTE: the IFV is assumed with 10 jaguar infantry, with two acting as crew

OK for AT purposes:

Red: anti-infantry munitions
white: High explosive
Yellow: anti-tank

This will be for the Vehicles guns, except the 7.62s which will be your munitions which we will purchase for this exercise.

ok im posting my intro to the IC thread, however I wont get in an attack tonight

OK i have a better breakdown of units, spent the last two hours on it....

One shock regiment:

Battalion:x5
4 IFVs = Platoon (IN) 12
2 IFVs + 2 ATMG = Platoon (AT) 10
2 IFVs + 2 Shepards = Platoon (AA) 10
5 LY6 Indirect Fire = platoon (IF) 2
5 LY6 Tank Destroyer =platoon (TD) 4
2 IFVs + 2 Ambulance = Platoon (AM) 5
2 IFVs + 2 CP = Platoon (Battalion Command)
+ 10 Apaches/Hinds


Companies….
1 Infantry Company
1 AM Platoon
2 AA Platoons
5 IN Platoons
2 AT Company
4 AT Platoons
1 TD Platoon
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoon
2 IN Platoons
Support Company
2 IF Platoons
1 IN Platoons
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoons
1 Heavy Company
2 TD Platoons
2 AT Platoons
2 AA Platoons
1 AM Platoon
2 IN Platoons
Apache Company
10 Apaches
Hind Company
10 Hinds

NOTE: the IFV is assumed with 10 jaguar infantry, with two acting as crew

OK for AT purposes:

Red: anti-infantry munitions
white: High explosive
Yellow: anti-tank

This will be for the Vehicles guns, except the 7.62s which will be your munitions which we will purchase for this exercise.

Sounds good. I have posted my defensive parameters on the IC Thread, and will reveal roadblocks as you get to them. Basically they lead you in convoluted directions around the city until finally reaching the other side.

@ Mokastana and American Privateer, keep up the good work!

How about a trade, Watchman's for TTR's. Those things are damn clever.

my watchkeeper systems you mean? i bought them from Lyras as part of the DPRs for the Ironhearts. very effective in live battle.

EDIT: I may need to pull in out in the event of war with The People's Freedom

my watchkeeper systems you mean? i bought them from Lyras as part of the DPRs for the Ironhearts. very effective in live battle.

EDIT: I may need to pull in out in the event of war with The People's Freedom

Dang, I need to buy those than. Understandable. Let me, know, so that I can send in a couple JSTARS and Hyperions to monitor it. Even with the Civil War, I can spare some Air Force stuff to do observations. So let me know.

monitor the war if it gets that far? geez the last thing i want is to videotaped by the world, they didnt like the footage that came out of the last Mokan war...

monitor the war if it gets that far? geez the last thing i want is to videotaped by the world, they didnt like the footage that came out of the last Mokan war...

Well, we can teach you some things about how to behave in a war if you want. And besides, as Observers we are there to be impartial about the war.

Then why are you sending submarines?

Then why are you sending submarines?

The Subs were going to protect the Mokastana Fleet. As for the teaching, that can be done at our various military academies.

Just wanted to let you guys know I probably won't have internet for the next few days should TAP and Moka finish sooner than I think.

Just wanted to let you guys know I probably won't have internet for the next few days should TAP and Moka finish sooner than I think.

Just out of curiosity, are you waiting for TAP and Moka to finish or are you not ready yet, because I've been waiting about two weeks for you to post something so me and you can get started with our Competition?

im going to have to pull out guys, for both OOC and IC reasons, its been fun...

Just out of curiosity, are you waiting for TAP and Moka to finish or are you not ready yet, because I've been waiting about two weeks for you to post something so me and you can get started with our Competition?

Oh, sorry i thought we were supposed to do this one at a time. My mistake. Are we using the same map?

Oh, sorry i thought we were supposed to do this one at a time. My mistake. Are we using the same map?

First off, I can wait a little while longer if you want to wait till TAP and Moka are finished.

Second, we can use the same map if you want, but I don't remember it being a requirment. I'm up for something different if you are.

Sense their done we could start any time. Personally I'd prefer something with a little more detail, maybe elevations or hills that sort of thing but I don't have anything right now so unless you have something I guess we sould get started with the one we have.

Sense their done we could start any time. Personally I'd prefer something with a little more detail, maybe elevations or hills that sort of thing but I don't have anything right now so unless you have something I guess we sould get started with the one we have.

Well, while I don't have anything on me personally, I'm sure I could find a map with a little more elevation in it. How big of a map would you like? City sized [few sq miles], county sized [hundreds of sq miles], state or province size[thousands of sq miles]?

do to the size of our forces I think either a city or maybe a smaller town with country side would be perfect.

Have you had any luck with a map? Also I think your the defender so you get to set up your troops on the map first.

Need any more judges? That would be the best part.

do to the size of our forces I think either a city or maybe a smaller town with country side would be perfect.

I'll see what I can find.

Have you had any luck with a map? Also I think your the defender so you get to set up your troops on the map first.

Sadly, I haven't had a chance to look yet. Also, from the looks of it your right I am the defender. However, if you would like to be on the defensive that's fine with me. Your probably going to be anyway by the time I get through with you. :D:rolleyes:

Thanks but I'll stick with offensive, evif I end up on the defensive by the end:headbang:

So when did you want to get started?

Federation of New Allied Australia: Population 5million

Military Personnel: 1million

Navy (300,000 Personnel) (Military Commander: Vice Admiral David Cooper)
-5 Valkyrie Class Warship (1500 per ship)
-5 Majestic Class Super Aircraft Carrier (2000 per ship)

Air Force (200,000 Personnel) (Military Commander: Chief Air Marshal Amanda Brown)
-50 F/A-18
-50 UH-60 Black Hawk

Army (500,000 Personnel) (Military Commander: Malcolm Brown)
-Standard Infantry Rifle Steyr AUG A3
-Assasult Rifle HK416
-Light Machine Gun HK MG4
-Standard Pistol HK USP
-Sniper File Steyr Scout

Land Vehicles
-M1A1 Abram Tank
-Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle

So when did you want to get started?

This Thursday or Fridays good.

still there?

still there?

I am, but our friend and creator of this thread is no longer with us as his/her nation has been deleted.

Also, I unfortunately have been unable to found a map meeting your specifications. However, I am determined to keep looking.

Thats fine. Just pm me when your ready as I havn't had time to check the forums as of late.