BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: ANS Kamas P81 on 11 March 2023, 00:33:35
-
There's C-mags that work fine, it's just that the chances of an unreliable one are known to be pretty high. They're not all bad, just enough to make them an iffy choice in large numbers.
I agree with F16 about the LMG/Automatic Rifle choice by the Marines. To me the role calls for a belt-fed, something with deep ammunition reserves that can keep calling down bursts with long gaps between reloading. Something accurate, as well, with tight groups that can be used on a point target as well; it's why I like the Ultimax 100. The constant-recoil system in that does a fine job of reducing kick since the bolt isn't impacting the receiver, and it stays on target better. That it's the weight of an assault rifle is just gravy; less gun weight means more ammo being carried.
Granted, one point in favor of the IAR is the weight, 9 pounds vs 22 pounds for the M249. That's probably being reinvested into ammunition, so the overall load doesn't change (fifteen pounds for 22 magazines) as far as weight goes. Another point of favor is that, with everyone being issued M27 IARs, anyone can operate in the squad automatic weapon role. So there's some good out of this, despite the downsides.
All right, I'll put in a third mortar tube in the weapons company. Including attachments, that brings my company to 203, which is pretty big compared to the Army's light infantry company. Upside, I have 50% more rifle teams than the light infantry company; downside I have 50% less heavy weapons with the missiles and machine guns pushed to company level instead of platoon.
Yeah, the drone prices...something like the Black Hornet Nano (pictured)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Black_Hornet_Nano_Helicopter_UAV.jpg/640px-Black_Hornet_Nano_Helicopter_UAV.jpg)
It lasts 20 minutes and has three cameras, and two of those, a control unit, and a charging unit costs between forty and sixty thousand bucks. That's just insane compared to the price of civilian drones; all I want is something with an phone camera or two on it to send back video to a ground station. I don't care if it's smartphone operated, I'm not looking for anything fancy.
At least the BMP-3 has its fuel tanks in a more logical place than the rear doors. It just strikes me as a light tank, and maybe a decent recon/counter-recon vehicle with its low profile and its firepower. I'd push it into that role and see how well it did myself, out of sheer curiosity. Forget carrying infantry, that thing's out there to hunt anything smaller than an MBT - and with its ATGMs, it can do that job too. Though I'll admit I think the 30mm autocannon is superfluous between the 100mm and the machine gun; get rid of your infantry and load that extra space up with ammo for the 100mm.
A look at Wikipedia brings up a weird variant, the BT-3F with fourteen infantry onboard. Where the hell do they stick them? Even without the turret assembly (only an RWS) I can't imagine there's enough room for seven more troops in the thing. Bigger on the inside indeed; Slavic Space Magic strikes again.
I always liked the Stoner 63 and its modularity; it's just an old long-gone weapons system that has spiritual children in things like the Steyr AUG. Which I admit is something I'm still considering for the mechanized troops; it's got the same modularity and multipurposeness as the Stoner, and feeds M16 magazines just like the modified Beryls do.
The AUG has its HBAR and bipod configuration for a magazine-fed automatic weapon - it's not belt-fed, so it runs into the same short endurance problem the M27 IAR does. It wouldn't be a real weight savings, either, the Ultimax 100 only weighs 11 pounds. I think I'll stick with Beryls, and just give the mechanized infantry side-folding stocks to make their rifles more compact.
Cannonshop, you're right on the needs of a military service - the tricky part is balancing where "adequate" comes in. There's the Heinlein aphorism that the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. I'm just not sure I can afford being anything other than third-rate...
I wonder how much ammo is being carried by my rifle teams, especially with everyone carrying a spare drum for the LMG gunner and probably a spare RPG rocket as well...plus however many magazines they're issued. My mechanized infantry has the BTR to carry extra gear with, so I imagine they're hauling around a lot. I suppose a "standard load" would be six rifle magazines, two thrown grenades, two launched grenades, a drum for the LMG, and a rocket for the RPG. Give that to everyone in the team, mechanized or light, and load up the BTR-80 with extra party favors for its infantry.
-
A look at Wikipedia brings up a weird variant, the BT-3F with fourteen infantry onboard. Where the hell do they stick them? Even without the turret assembly (only an RWS) I can't imagine there's enough room for seven more troops in the thing. Bigger on the inside indeed; Slavic Space Magic strikes again.
it sacrifices the turret for an enlarged and taller passenger compartment. though i suspect that 14 is assuming a degree of packing that wouldn't be normal for prolonged field ops.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0VfadYjHWBQ/WaPx4bb7SEI/AAAAAAAALh0/Rap6S4ueQqAc95dNOwW-Opm_Ui-sKQmsgCLcBGAs/s1600/BT-3F_160817_01.jpg)(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--dLE7rhJr8c/WaP3c1S0vjI/AAAAAAAALiM/XG0wGTBjbbQJBSQbemHoP7UnirWkRpOGwCLcBGAs/s1600/BT-3F_ARMIA-2016_14.JPG)
(http://www.military-today.com/apc/bt_3f_l6.jpg)
-
There's C-mags that work fine, it's just that the chances of an unreliable one are known to be pretty high. They're not all bad, just enough to make them an iffy choice in large numbers.
I agree with F16 about the LMG/Automatic Rifle choice by the Marines. To me the role calls for a belt-fed, something with deep ammunition reserves that can keep calling down bursts with long gaps between reloading. Something accurate, as well, with tight groups that can be used on a point target as well; it's why I like the Ultimax 100. The constant-recoil system in that does a fine job of reducing kick since the bolt isn't impacting the receiver, and it stays on target better. That it's the weight of an assault rifle is just gravy; less gun weight means more ammo being carried.
Granted, one point in favor of the IAR is the weight, 9 pounds vs 22 pounds for the M249. That's probably being reinvested into ammunition, so the overall load doesn't change (fifteen pounds for 22 magazines) as far as weight goes. Another point of favor is that, with everyone being issued M27 IARs, anyone can operate in the squad automatic weapon role. So there's some good out of this, despite the downsides.
All right, I'll put in a third mortar tube in the weapons company. Including attachments, that brings my company to 203, which is pretty big compared to the Army's light infantry company. Upside, I have 50% more rifle teams than the light infantry company; downside I have 50% less heavy weapons with the missiles and machine guns pushed to company level instead of platoon.
Yeah, the drone prices...something like the Black Hornet Nano (pictured)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Black_Hornet_Nano_Helicopter_UAV.jpg/640px-Black_Hornet_Nano_Helicopter_UAV.jpg)
It lasts 20 minutes and has three cameras, and two of those, a control unit, and a charging unit costs between forty and sixty thousand bucks. That's just insane compared to the price of civilian drones; all I want is something with an phone camera or two on it to send back video to a ground station. I don't care if it's smartphone operated, I'm not looking for anything fancy.
At least the BMP-3 has its fuel tanks in a more logical place than the rear doors. It just strikes me as a light tank, and maybe a decent recon/counter-recon vehicle with its low profile and its firepower. I'd push it into that role and see how well it did myself, out of sheer curiosity. Forget carrying infantry, that thing's out there to hunt anything smaller than an MBT - and with its ATGMs, it can do that job too. Though I'll admit I think the 30mm autocannon is superfluous between the 100mm and the machine gun; get rid of your infantry and load that extra space up with ammo for the 100mm.
A look at Wikipedia brings up a weird variant, the BT-3F with fourteen infantry onboard. Where the hell do they stick them? Even without the turret assembly (only an RWS) I can't imagine there's enough room for seven more troops in the thing. Bigger on the inside indeed; Slavic Space Magic strikes again.
I always liked the Stoner 63 and its modularity; it's just an old long-gone weapons system that has spiritual children in things like the Steyr AUG. Which I admit is something I'm still considering for the mechanized troops; it's got the same modularity and multipurposeness as the Stoner, and feeds M16 magazines just like the modified Beryls do.
The AUG has its HBAR and bipod configuration for a magazine-fed automatic weapon - it's not belt-fed, so it runs into the same short endurance problem the M27 IAR does. It wouldn't be a real weight savings, either, the Ultimax 100 only weighs 11 pounds. I think I'll stick with Beryls, and just give the mechanized infantry side-folding stocks to make their rifles more compact.
Cannonshop, you're right on the needs of a military service - the tricky part is balancing where "adequate" comes in. There's the Heinlein aphorism that the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. I'm just not sure I can afford being anything other than third-rate...
I wonder how much ammo is being carried by my rifle teams, especially with everyone carrying a spare drum for the LMG gunner and probably a spare RPG rocket as well...plus however many magazines they're issued. My mechanized infantry has the BTR to carry extra gear with, so I imagine they're hauling around a lot. I suppose a "standard load" would be six rifle magazines, two thrown grenades, two launched grenades, a drum for the LMG, and a rocket for the RPG. Give that to everyone in the team, mechanized or light, and load up the BTR-80 with extra party favors for its infantry.
C-mags are also weirdly shaped for carriage. Box magazines are thin in one dimension and being mostly rectangular makes them easy to fit in pouches. I feel like there's gotta be a different doctrinal jump if every soldier is an automatic rifleman. That allows (and requires thanks to things like cooling) members to switch off as the one laying down heavy fire. You know, like the shootout in Heat!
-
Mechanized Infantry Platoon:
BTR 1
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander/Platoon Commander (CZ-75)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
ATGM Operator (MILAN, CZ-75)
ATGM Assistant (FB Beryl)
ATGM Operator (MILAN, CZ-75)
ATGM Assistant (FB Beryl)
Machine Gun Operator (MG 42/59, CZ-75)
Machine Gun Assistant (FB Beryl)
BTR 2
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander/Platoon Sergeant (FB Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Drone Operator (FB Beryl)
BTR 3
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Medic (CZ-75) (attached)
BTR 4
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Forward Observer (FB Beryl) (attached)
The platoon's total firepower is one MG 42/59, two MILANs, three RPG-7s, three Ultimax 100s, three FR F2s, ten Mini Beryls, nineteen Beryls, and eight CZ-75s. Add in the four BTR-80s and their heavy machine guns, and it's...not great, but effective enough.
Company level assets...the American mechanized infantry company has two Bradleys which are pretty empty with just the vehicle crews and the company leadership mixed into them. I suppose I'll do the same with more BTR-80s. One carries the Company Commander, the other the Company XO. Two LMVs instead of uparmored HMMWVs, one of which carries the First Sergeant and the other a technical support NCO and a radiotelephone operator. Three platoons of mechanized infantry give the company a total of fourteen BTR-80s in a 2+4+4+4 organization.
I never saw Heat, though the idea of swapping in IARs putting down suppressive bursts where everyone's operating as an SAW replacement does make for sound tactics. It also means you don't lose your SAW if the operator gets taken out, you just gotta raid your casualties for magazines.
-
Light Cavalry Squadron
Squadron Command
B1 Centauro
VAB VCI
Mortar Platoon
4x VAB 120mm Mortar
Air Defense Platoon
4 SA-9 Gaskin
4 VAB VCI w/ 8 SAM teams
Chemical Platoon
1 KamAZ 4350 4x4 Truck
Drone Platoon
2 KamAZ 4350 4x4 Truck
Medical Platoon
6 VAB Ambulance
Supply Platoon
10 KamAZ 5350 6x6 Truck
Maintenance Platoon
3 MAN KAT 1
4 VAB
Motor Pool
20 UAZ 469
12 KamAZ 4350 4x4 Truck
Cavalry Troop x3
B1 Centauro
VAB (HQ Vehicle)
2x VAB (120mm mortar)
4x Iveco LMV
Platoon x3
VAB x4
Rifle Team
Scout Team
Iveco LMV x2
Scout Team
B1 Centauro x2
VAB (82mm mortar)
Gun Troop
B1 Centauro x2
Platoon x3
B1 Centauro x4
Artillery Battery
CAESAR x6
The idea for the Cavalry Platoon is that the VABs all carry one four-man Rifle Team with them - the same organization as in the Light Infantry. In addition, a two-man scout team is carried in the VAB as well, as well as a two-man scout team in the LMVs. This way I have the "optimum" six scout teams, plus a gun element with the B1 Centauros and a single mortar for platoon fire support. That does bring me to around forty-four personnel in the platoon, but a third of that is vehicle crews. I was originally thinking of going with the seven-man rifle teams from the mechanized infantry, but the platoon size was fifty-six and that was just too big. The platoon leader's already coordinating a lot of vehicles, I don't need to overload them.
So 35 B1 Centauros between the three cavalry troops and the gun troop.
I decided to shuffle up the operations and procurement budget; that cuts my operating expenses by half down to 41.9 million and lets me spend 83.8 million on Goodies - hence the six CAESAR artillery pieces in the cavalry squadron. The rest of the army is going to make do with two battalions of 122mm 2S1 Gvozdikas and three battalions of BM-21 Grads, but those are still useful.
The Recon Company assigned to each brigade is going to be mixed. The Heavy Brigade gets a more western style mix of ten EBRC Jaguar reconnaissance vehicles and four PT-91 tanks in a 2+4+4+4T organization. The Light Brigades' recon companies are a company HQ of one BMP-1, a platoon of three BMP-1s, a platoon of four BRDM-2s, and a motorcycle section of three scouts on motorcycles. That follows the 1991 organization of a Soviet reconnaissance company.
The tank company of the combined arms battalion, meanwhile, gets fourteen PT-91s, which makes for three tank companies spread out over three CABs and a total of forty-two PT-91s, plus the four in the Heavy Brigade's recon company, gives me a total of forty-six MBTs in my entire army.
At its highest levels, this is the current organization of the Sere-Slav military:
Heavy Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company
Signals Company
Engineer Company
Light Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company
Signals Company
Engineer Company
Light Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company
Signals Company
Engineer Company
-
Cannonshop, you're right on the needs of a military service - the tricky part is balancing where "adequate" comes in. There's the Heinlein aphorism that the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. I'm just not sure I can afford being anything other than third-rate...
"Second best" typically revolves not around the shooty-bits, but around the intangibles. Things like training, doctrinal structure, morale, and logistics play more of a role than hardware does. This was really underlined in the 1956 and 1967 (and again in 1973) conflicts in israel. The Israeli military was running scavenged, second-hand, and mostly second-rate hardware, had a terrain disadvantage, and in two of those conflicts, they were under embargoes, and were grotesquely outnumbered.
When you're stuffing 1950s french guns into 1940s American Shermans to fight T-55's and T-72s, it's not the hardware that's going to win it, it's the training, commitment, and tactics.
The biggest things to encourage in your forces isn't new toys, it's things like "Internal communication" and "Pass knowledge widely" and "we cannot afford for any single man to be irreplaceable".
Those are the factors that LED to Arab defeats against Israel in four wars and counting-the culture, not the hardware. Internal pecking orders that render infomation into little corners leading to bad intel, bad planning, bad execution and bad results.
Even while having lavish equipment budgets versus a scrappy smaller state with shitty terrain and a tiny population.
Things like development of a robust system of NCOs, encouraging initiative among your Officer cadre (including junior officers), extensive, frequent, and objective field skills training and re-training, training and re-certification, review and demanding absolute honesty with no sugar-coating in reports and AARS is how you get a first class military.
At that point, the only things that can foul you up, is if the guns genuinely don't go 'bang' when you pull the triggers or the trucks can't move under their own power. So within that military culture I'm talking about, you need to have a logistics branch that is as close to immune to corruption as you can reasonably achieve, and in that military culture you need to develop a disdain for things like nepotism and favoritism-these have to be something your men themselves consider in the same light as seeing a grown man intentionally shit his own pants rather than use the toilet.
IOW the concepts have to be rendered so disgusting that rumours of them can kill a career outright. THAT is how you get a first class military. Back in the 1990s we were getting close to that thanks to a lot of senior leaders who remembered the dogshit condition things were in during the 1970s and didn't want to EVER go back to that.
Hardware...is just hardware. as I said before, a first class unit armed with Mausers or even Moisin Nagants will kick the dogsnot out of a third rate bunch of hosers with the latest-and-greatest assault rifles...and probably collect the assault rifles as trophies. Your keys are a culture of proficiency and integrity, get one of those going and you can be running early cold war hardware and still stomp someone many times your size who doesn't have that institutional culture.
-
pretty much. the training and structure of the military, its cohesion, is going to be the main important thing. a well trained military can win a war using obsolete gear, but it doesn't matter how well equipped a force is if it can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. as we've been seeing a lot in the middle east the last few decades. (as well as in a currently ongoing european conflict i won't mention by name)
i'm more familiar with the principle as it applies to pre-modern armies, but some of the principles are the same regardless of the technology.
-
pretty much. the training and structure of the military, its cohesion, is going to be the main important thing. a well trained military can win a war using obsolete gear, but it doesn't matter how well equipped a force is if it can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. as we've been seeing a lot in the middle east the last few decades. (as well as in a currently ongoing european conflict i won't mention by name)
i'm more familiar with the principle as it applies to pre-modern armies, but some of the principles are the same regardless of the technology.
some things are principles, because they're principles. Concepts of discipline, cohesion, and integrity are valued in societies because they are useful things, not merely because they're nice.
-
That's going to be a pretty intense transformation coming out of a Soviet system, and the corruption and nepotism rife within those elements. It also requires a government leading that military to see the same problems in the same pants-shitting light. Ukraine has pulled it off in the eight years from the initial invasion by the Russians to the start of the current war, and they've got a well-motivated and honestly pretty damned effective armed forces.
I figure there was a lot of looking close at the Americans after the Gulf War, and watching Poland switch from a Soviet model to a modern military and following suit as best they could. There was probably a LOT of pushback, the power vacuums that happened after the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact likely saw an attempt at an oligarchy in the face of a major reform push. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if things broke out into a low-level civil war for the future of the country in the early 1990s, followed by a rebuilding period.
I admit I kind of like that history, so I'm going to roll with it - UN intervention was probably quick, and Poland sent a sizeable contingent of peacekeepers - hence why there's such a friendly relationship with Serednya Slaviya's western neighbor. Say 1993-1994, with fighting over that winter and spring before the UN arrived to calm things down. Add a few diehard reformers in the government with a Euromaidan-style popular uprising against the oligarchs, and you have a transformed country in its infancy. Add in an Elliot Nesschenko who goes on an anticorruption crusade, I suppose.
That gives me a good reason why they're so aligned with the West, and why Poland plays so heavily in my choices for things. Any suggestions or thoughts on the post-Soviet history?
-
and that tendancy towards corruption within the wider nation is going to be mirrored in the military as well. military forces tend to mirror the peacetime social conditions.. a society based around tribal allegiences is going to have a military that divides itself along tribal lines, no matter what doctrines and traditions it attempts to copy. (you can see this a lot in african nations, but also to a degree in the middle eastern ones. and not just along ethnic lines, but also within tribe and clan within a given ethnicity.) in a society where graft and corruption is common, the military is going to be rife with it as well. possibly worse off, since they'll have access to not only positions of power but also a lot of valuable items that can be sold or traded.
so yeah, you'd need a pretty hardline anti-corruption minded government.
-
Is it just me, or is the Heavy Brigade short an artillery battalion? ???
Also, that's a ridiculous price for a drone system. Commercial is totally the way to go there.
-
The trick with taking on endemic corruption in a system like that is having a reliable system it has to answer to. Capone was taken down by the IRS, for example; I wonder how the Warsaw Pact states managed it without falling into a corrupt oligarchy like other countries did. Though discussing that with real states probably runs afoul of Rule 4, so...I'll go with Serednya Slaviya's national police having a cabal of officials that went after the various heads of the system, sometimes in ways that wouldn't fly under normal laws. Someone had to be Batman taking down the crime families, and going all the way on making sure they were put out of business. The occasional assassination and so on, you'd need a strongman in power to make it stick. Someone like Cincinnatus, who would assume power for the duration of the emergency, then walk away once a proper government was formed.
So yeah, the early-mid 90s were a rough time for Serednya Slaviya, but they got through it in time to join NATO in '99, and start their military reorganization and rebuilding that year as well.
The artillery battalion is missing, yes. I'll fix that. I was originally going to have it as the cavalry regiment absorbing one tube battalion of artillery, but that was before I broke it up into one squadron in each brigade. That way each brigade gets one battalion of tube and one battalion of rocket artillery, while the cavalry squadron brings its own six-gun battery to the field as well.
I also fixed the three battalions in the Heavy Brigade, they're supposed to be combined arms BNs with one company of tanks and two companies of infantry in each.
-
Glad it wasn't just me! :)
-
...you'd need a strongman in power to make it stick. Someone like Cincinnatus, who would assume power for the duration of the emergency, then walk away once a proper government was formed.
Every nation or state needs a Cincinnatus. The problem is that most with his abilities seem to lack his mental fortitude, personal integrity and, commitment to his own stated/internal ideals.
-
Sadly, his American followers were well off his rails when they tried... :-\
-
Sadly, his American followers were well off his rails when they tried... :-\
"They broke the mold after him," as they say.
-
Integrity as part of the state as well as that of the military, that's the key. It's a generational thing, not something easily acquired except by fear. You need to start learning it as a child for it to really be a thing.
That said, I'd imagine there's been enough propaganda put out by the government to encourage that mindset. Give Elliot Nesschenko a movie series, make a heroic film or two about Cincinnatuski, and get the ball rolling that way. Add in crackdowns on the black market and a strong JAG office. Considering the military's only 12,643 personnel between the Air Force and the Land Force, I can't imagine it'd be larger than a couple dozen personnel at most and made of officers from both branches.
So looking over the Land Force brigade breakdown, I come up with nineteen battalions and twelve companies of troops. With 11,500 in the army, that's an average of 525 per battalion and 125 per company. Besides the listed organization, what else should I be adding in? Anything I'm overlooking (like, say, a JAG corps) that would be staffed by military personnel?
-
The trick with taking on endemic corruption in a system like that is having a reliable system it has to answer to. Capone was taken down by the IRS, for example; I wonder how the Warsaw Pact states managed it without falling into a corrupt oligarchy like other countries did. Though discussing that with real states probably runs afoul of Rule 4, so...I'll go with Serednya Slaviya's national police having a cabal of officials that went after the various heads of the system, sometimes in ways that wouldn't fly under normal laws. Someone had to be Batman taking down the crime families, and going all the way on making sure they were put out of business. The occasional assassination and so on, you'd need a strongman in power to make it stick. Someone like Cincinnatus, who would assume power for the duration of the emergency, then walk away once a proper government was formed.
So yeah, the early-mid 90s were a rough time for Serednya Slaviya, but they got through it in time to join NATO in '99, and start their military reorganization and rebuilding that year as well.
The artillery battalion is missing, yes. I'll fix that. I was originally going to have it as the cavalry regiment absorbing one tube battalion of artillery, but that was before I broke it up into one squadron in each brigade. That way each brigade gets one battalion of tube and one battalion of rocket artillery, while the cavalry squadron brings its own six-gun battery to the field as well.
I also fixed the three battalions in the Heavy Brigade, they're supposed to be combined arms BNs with one company of tanks and two companies of infantry in each.
The real secret is that tackling systemic corruption is literally a revolutionary act. When you do that, you are dismantling and directly attacking the existing relationships of power and patronage that ties everyone together and the existing system that you are upsetting will fight back tooth-and-nail from both within and without. That is (literally!) someone's bread and butter that you are taking away from them.
The leaders of that effort need to be (basically literally) crusaders. Unhealthily motivated, disturbingly driven zealots. Unforgiving and merciless when they deem it suitable. They'll effectively be fighting an insurgency (against the incumbent powers) and a counter-insurgency (against reactionary and criminal elements) at the same time.
Divide and conquer. And stay away from unsecured windows in multi-story buildings.
-
Yeah, the anti-corruption movement would need popular support as well as diehard leadership - and I wasn't kidding about going as far as assassinations, on both sides - the kind of endemic corruption that was likely present in the 1980s in the military and government may have been part of what led to a simmering civil war...maybe less that than a straight-up popular revolution against a corrupt government that was made of the remains of the soviet-era power structure. Less an us-vs-them thing and more people-vs-government...probably started with a coup attempt by a cabal of midranking officers in the military to depose those above them, and spiraled into open conflict.
I gotta read up on the post-soviet coup-de-etats in Russia some more.
-
As for missing bits: MI, MPs, Counter-Intelligence, SigInt/Cyber, Civil Affairs, PSYOP, Mortuary Affairs... I'm sure there's more, but that's what I have off the top of my head.
-
Yeah, the anti-corruption movement would need popular support as well as diehard leadership - and I wasn't kidding about going as far as assassinations, on both sides - the kind of endemic corruption that was likely present in the 1980s in the military and government may have been part of what led to a simmering civil war...maybe less that than a straight-up popular revolution against a corrupt government that was made of the remains of the soviet-era power structure. Less an us-vs-them thing and more people-vs-government...probably started with a coup attempt by a cabal of midranking officers in the military to depose those above them, and spiraled into open conflict.
I gotta read up on the post-soviet coup-de-etats in Russia some more.
The real secret is that tackling systemic corruption is literally a revolutionary act. When you do that, you are dismantling and directly attacking the existing relationships of power and patronage that ties everyone together and the existing system that you are upsetting will fight back tooth-and-nail from both within and without. That is (literally!) someone's bread and butter that you are taking away from them.
The leaders of that effort need to be (basically literally) crusaders. Unhealthily motivated, disturbingly driven zealots. Unforgiving and merciless when they deem it suitable. They'll effectively be fighting an insurgency (against the incumbent powers) and a counter-insurgency (against reactionary and criminal elements) at the same time.
Divide and conquer. And stay away from unsecured windows in multi-story buildings.
This here, is what makes it so hard to develop a first-class military despite in some cases (russia) CENTURIES of experience in military operations that OUGHT to inform people what not to do...(China had the same problem during the Opium War, and the Warlord period...)
The base problem with Corruption is that it's easy to fall into and punishes you for climbing out.
-
Hm...I can pull the second artillery battalion from each brigade to have troops to staff those. One becomes an MP battalion, the other two break up to for, the Intelligence, Counter-Intel, Sigint/Cyber, Civil Affairs, PSYOP, and Mortuary companies. That leaves me a couple extra companies for things I haven't accounted for yet.
There's a good book - Every Man A Tiger - that talks about the transformation of the Air Force from the post-Vietnam malaise of drugs and all kinds of systemic troubles into the competent, professional, and strong Air Force that slaughtered the Iraqi armed forces. It came down to the right, bloody-minded determined mid- and upper-level commanders to force through operating and reforms and fire the right personnel, sometimes in large numbers. And it took years of effort to accomplish, but they did it.
One of the big things the book mentioned was the instilling of personal pride in what each individual soldier did; things like making crews responsible for aircraft to the point of putting the chief's name on the plane as well. It became personal to the individual airman, and the systemic changes brought about major results for performance and readiness and esprit de corps. It's a good read, it goes in-depth on the kinds of mistakes made and the way plans worked out for the Gulf War in 1991.
Now granted that was just the problems in one branch of the army, but it's a blueprint for how to transform a suffering organization into something responsive and capable. I can see General Horner being invited with a group of other NATO officers to examine the armed forces and give their opinions on the changes that need to be made, after the civil war and when the reformers finally wrested power away from the previous government. They had the impetus for change, now they have a guiding hand.
Time to read some Polish history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1989%E2%80%93present)
As far as adding in those other elements, I added a support brigade and lumped things together there. Axed the second battalion of artillery, so the army is down to three battalions plus the tubes of the cavalry squadrons.
Heavy Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron (B1 Centauro/VAB)
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion (PT-91/BTR-80)
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion (PT-91/BTR-80)
Combined Arms Infantry Battalion (PT-91/BTR-80)
Artillery Battalion (2S1 Gvozdika)
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (PT-91/EBRC Jaguar)
Signals Company
Engineer Company
Light Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron (BRDM-2 Malyutka/BTR-80)
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion (BM-21 Grad)
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BMP-1/BRDM-2)
Signals Company
Engineer Company
Light Brigade
Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron (BRDM-2 Malyutka/BTR-80)
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion (BM-21 Grad)
Logistics Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BMP-1/BRDM-2)
Signals Company
Engineer Company
Support Brigade
Military Police Battalion
Intelligence Battalion
Military Intelligence Company
Counter-Intelligence Company
Signals-Intelligence Company
PSYOPs Company
Civil Affairs Company
Mortuary Affairs Company
I can always take one of the Combined Arms Battalions out of the Heavy Brigade and convert it into something else if there's other things I'm missing. I admit the brigades are a little smaller than the norm, but so it goes; I'm a little disappointed in losing the extra artillery battalions but I need to fill out the rest of the service somehow and I can't increase the size of the army.
-
The PSYOP company shouldn't be part of the MI battalion... 8)
-
I'd have thought they'd be in that same line of work, but okay. Quick switch!
And reading up on things...Poland really didn't have much in the way of troubles mentioned in the article in transitioning to a free market economy and a democratic parliament. The occasional corrupt official pops up, but they get removed from power and tried for their crimes, which seemed to be a pretty painless process. Though, apparently things were repeatedly bad enough that the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Anticorruption_Bureau) was formed and went hunting public officials; I suppose I'm going to do something similar but quite a bit earlier than the Poles did in 2006.
So the proper constitution would be generated in 1996, and the Serednya Slaviyan CAB probably formed soon after in our country.
-
PSYOP troops are closer to CA than MI. :)
-
What do they do?
-
Overtly inform audiences to persuade them to do (or not do) things to the commander's advantage. It runs the gamut from "wash your hands" (public health) to "earn this reward for turning in insurgents" (counterinsurgency). In Black Hawk Down, the helo with the speakers was a PSYOP bird.
-
I need to watch BHD someday, lol. Okay, that's kind of what I thought they did. I'll still list them as separate from the intelligence though, since they are a kind of front operation getting out the messages that Serednya Slaviya's military wants to get out.
-
Exactly that, but in a way different from Public Affairs. :thumbsup:
-
Made a change to the Cavalry Squadrons for the two Light Brigades; I've been going over finances again and there's really no way I can afford 105 Centauros and 120 VABs together. So I decided to re-equip two of the cavalry squadrons with 9P133 Malyutka ATGM carriers, based on BRDM-2s, and trade their VABs for BTR-80s. I'm focusing my technological improvements on the Heavy Brigade, and using legacy equipment in the two Light Brigades - though the Malyutkas came from Poland; they went from 418 such missile carriers in 1965 to 118 in 2004. I'd be buying about 70-80 of them at a guess, so that totally fits into where some of them might have gone. Granted, they'd need some refurbishment and whatever minor modernization can be crammed into the vehicles, but so be it. At ten grand a missile it's an expensive option, but I can buy 150 missiles or one B1 Centauro.
Definitely does make for an interesting light cavalry force at this point...
-
Now you're sounding like a proper Minister of Defense... ^-^
-
Still focusing on wheeled vehicles over tracks, just as a quirk for Sere-Slav's army. Can't get away from tracks completely, see the 2S1 and PT-91, but anywhere I can I'm taking the opportunity to go wheeled. BRDMs galore; the ATGM version and SAM version are pretty significant to the military. I don't have many regular BRDMs...though I suppose there's a bunch in the Border Guards; maybe they got BRDM-1s instead. I like the shape of that oddball.
-
Wheels are easier on your civilian infrastructure... nothing wrong with that decision... :)
-
If you have to have BRDMs, try to get the types that the Poles or even Ukranians modified. They have side hatches and other incidentals that will make your crews' lives easier--and longer.
Hell, I believe even the Poles eventually dropped their Malyutkas in favor of ATGM-armed HMWWVs (no confirmation of that on my part, though). I am pretty sure the Syrians stopped using theirs before the unpleasantness there; since they were rarely seen during the civil war, they had to have been chopped up or someone would have brought them back out instead of a Toyota. But, mechanically, they are reliable, even if dealing with the rear-mounted transmission is a pain the...rear.
-
Well played... 8)
-
Cheers,
Read through this article, Kamas. Mainly for the fundamental truth behind the basic drive: the AFVs countries decide to give away are often in dire need of overhaul (and, therefore, cash). The rest of the article is stuff we have all heard about and discussed here and elsewhere:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-is-already-sending-one-armored-oddity-to-ukraine-now-it-might-send-a-slightly-odder-one/ar-AA18xwVt?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cb44e150df494de78b307e7474d96abc&ei=38 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-is-already-sending-one-armored-oddity-to-ukraine-now-it-might-send-a-slightly-odder-one/ar-AA18xwVt?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cb44e150df494de78b307e7474d96abc&ei=38)
-
the AMX-10RC certainly seems like a good choice for a light-tank-analog if you want to stick mainly to wheeled vehicles. even if it isn't being classed as a tank by the builders.
-
At present, it looks like we are almost back to where we started: Cold Warish kit with post-GWoT attitudes. Not a complaint, by the way.
-
Perhaps you have some Fagot launchers remaining from the Cold War and can modify Malyutka carriers to carry them, Slovenia did this with their BOV-3, considerable improvement over Malyutka.
-
The BMP-2 is generally regarded as a straight upgrade on the BMP-1. If your country is too pressed for funds to buy new/used BMP-2s, then there's also the option of doing the upgrade yourself by hook or by crook. The Type 86A is kind of a BMP-2 by way of BMP-1 and available from 2000, generally a time when kit from China was both cheap and available without many questions.
If you're feeling feisty, then something like the Bulgarian BMP-23 (or literally Bulgarian BMP-23s) add a bit of flair.
-
Props for knowing about an IFV converted from a SPG. Might be a first?
-
Props for knowing about an IFV converted from a SPG. Might be a first?
Directly, sure. But the 2S1's chassis is based on the MT-LBu, which in turn is an enlarged utility/logistics MT-LB, so in the end, it all comes back to the MT-LB (which seems in turn to have some relation to the PT-76, bringing everything back to the light tank :P)
-
Yeah, I read about the Polish modified BRDMs with the extra wheels removed for more room in the vehicle and the side hatches in their place. Certainly a thing I'd want to go with, especially since it seems like the kind of modification that I could perform with Serednya Slaviya's own industry, as limited as that is. According to Wikipedia's sources they're still operating around a hundred Malyutka and Kornet ATGM carriers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that number has dropped in favor of HMMWV/TOW vehicles.
Read the article, and yeah...digging free stuff out of the boneyard means you're going to be paying hard to restore it to service. That's just things being donated for free, though; stuff being purchased I would imagine is in better condition. That's why I'm limiting my western equipment to the Heavy Brigade, I'm paying market price for working hardware so I'm only affording small chunk purchases.
And yeah, it does kind of circle around - there's at least some western equipment, but the majority is Cold War leftovers. It's not quite the western european military I'd originally had in mind, but it's mine and it mostly comes together reasonably I think.
As far as the Malyutkas go, I can always switch that to Konkurs missiles; the Poles still operate 18 vehicles with Konkurs/Spandrel missile systems along with 100 Malyutka carriers. I imagine they're the later Malyutkas, with SACLOS guidance and improved warheads.
BMPs are pretty scarce in the army; I'm using BTR-80s exclusively for troop transports. The only place the BMP shows up is in the recon role, and all of eight of them between both Light Brigade recon companies. I may scrap the BMP entirely, and go with eight extra PT-91s and twenty BRDM-2s in the 2+4+4+4T organization, copying the western armor platoon somewhat.
That said, BMP-23 intrigues me; a roomier BMP with 9 man squads is tempting. I'd probably keep my mechanized infantry squads the same, and just have the extra room for crew compfort. Bulgaria never exported it, but I could see Sere-Slav copying the design - after all, we use a battaltion of 2S1 artillery units in the Heavy Brigade, so copying the Bulgarian BMP-23 wouldn't be impossible. The question comes down to whether or not to use a tracked vehicle in the wheel-happy Sere-Slav military...no, I think I'll stick with the PT-91/BRDM-2 recon companies and BTR-80 mech-inf companies instead.
That brings me to a total of 57 tanks, 42 across the three tank companies, 3 at battalion level, and 12 more across the three recon companies. BTRs I'd have to add up, but I'm looking at 14-vehicle companies...that's 28 plus 11 more for ambulances and maintenance APCs, so 39 per battalion. That's at least 117 BTR-80s in the army, with probably a few more I'm missing - I imagine the MP battalion would have a few, but I'm not sure what that battalion looks like.
The PT-76 is a neat little light tank, though it's certainly undergunned in the modern era. And it did get used as the basis of a number of vehicles, including the infamous Shilka.
-
That's an interesting idea that leads to more in the future... ^-^
-
So what can u build in house?
-
That's an interesting idea that leads to more in the future... ^-^
Which idea, the BMP-23? I'm still thinking about using it for a personnel transport, just using the same seven-man squads as the BTR-80s use and using the roominess to carry extra goods. Unfortunatly GHQ doesn't have a miniature for that, so maybe I'll stick to BMP-2s instead.
Hm, the Polish BRDM-2s with the belly wheels removed has room for two dismounts. That's a scout pair carrier if I ever saw one, and in a dedicated scout vehicle as well. I suppose I'll put scouts aboard the recon company's BRDMs, improving the capabilities of the company.
So what can u build in house?
Trucks, ammo, and small arms is probably the limit of Serednya Slaviya's industry. We can at least maintain heavy equipment, but construction isn't happening. Something like a BTR-80 is beyond the capabilities of Serednya Slaviya, though heavy trucks are doable. I would suppose it's the electronics and armor welding capability that we don't have; that means we're also importing our missiles from France and other former Soviet states.
In addition to the BMP debate, I'm wondering - B1 Centauro or AMX-10 RC for the cavalry squadrons? The Centauro's got the edge in having a NATO standard 105mm compared to the short-cased AMX-10, and is 20km/h faster on roads, but there's other factors than just stats that justify a vehicle. Things like the AMX-10 RC's skid steering letting it rotate in place, for example... I can find the price for the B1 Centauro at 1.6m Euros, but not the AMX-10 RC's cost.
EDIT: Thinking more on the BTR/BMP mix. I'm debating having one of my combined-arms battalions be BMP-2 based, since the original Motor Rifle Division that made up the Serednya Slaviyan Land Forces had 150 BMPs and just over 300 BTR-80s in it. They seat the same crew and passengers as a BTR-80, but if I go with the mixed force route I'd lose the seventh man in a rifle squad and keep the seat behind the driver empty. It just makes more sense to have the infantry in the infantry compartment and not having to split them up. Other than the heavier 30mm gun and a few ATGMs, what does the BMP bring that the BTR doesn't?
-
I was referring to the PT-76, actually... 8)
And I'm pretty sure this didn't come out quite like you intended:
...from France and other former Soviet states.
:D
-
Which idea, the BMP-23? I'm still thinking about using it for a personnel transport, just using the same seven-man squads as the BTR-80s use and using the roominess to carry extra goods. Unfortunatly GHQ doesn't have a miniature for that, so maybe I'll stick to BMP-2s instead.
You can always email GHQ and see how much they would sell you BMP-2 turrets if you bought a commensurate of 2S1 hulls/packs. They don't really do custom orders like Randy at PFC C-in-C used to do, but I know they do sell them (I just think the price might not be perfectly reasonable).
EDIT: Thinking more on the BTR/BMP mix. I'm debating having one of my combined-arms battalions be BMP-2 based, since the original Motor Rifle Division that made up the Serednya Slaviyan Land Forces had 150 BMPs and just over 300 BTR-80s in it. They seat the same crew and passengers as a BTR-80, but if I go with the mixed force route I'd lose the seventh man in a rifle squad and keep the seat behind the driver empty. It just makes more sense to have the infantry in the infantry compartment and not having to split them up. Other than the heavier 30mm gun and a few ATGMs, what does the BMP bring that the BTR doesn't?
Flammable gas tanks on the rear doors and a few centimeters less head-clearance? Better mobility, though, but that comes with the maintenance cost and irritated locals when you tear up their roads (Russian tracks lacking the rubber cleats/shoes of Western tracks).
You know, an Israeli firm modernized Indonesian Marine BTR-50s and PT-76s with new powerpacks, 90s, and electronics:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210606192323/https://www.nimda.co.il/image/users/199098/ftp/my_files/btr-50/BTR-50.pdf?id=9409600 (https://web.archive.org/web/20210606192323/https://www.nimda.co.il/image/users/199098/ftp/my_files/btr-50/BTR-50.pdf?id=9409600)
You can think of eventually upgrading your PT-76s, at least. I do remember reading that the -76 was okay at fording European rivers, but the Indians found it unsuitable for their monster water obstacle. The engines would overheat and die out partway through a river crossing, which then began to begat deletrious secondary effects. I don't have a source handy for that, but it stuck out in my mind.
-
I was referring to the PT-76, actually... 8)
Ah...it's just an idea, I think I'll stick with the Polish-modified BRDM-2s and their scout teams, and a platoon of PT-91s for the two Recon Companies. It gives some bite to the recon company, but the PT-91s are iffy and I might go with something wheeled, depending on whether I decide the AMX-10 RC or B1 Centauro. I'm still leaning towards the latter, with the fact it serves NATO standard 105mm ammo a big plus.
And I'm pretty sure this didn't come out quite like you intended: :D
Well I won't say it was deliberate, but... :D
You can always email GHQ and see how much they would sell you BMP-2 turrets if you bought a commensurate of 2S1 hulls/packs. They don't really do custom orders like Randy at PFC C-in-C used to do, but I know they do sell them (I just think the price might not be perfectly reasonable).
Well, I could always buy one pack of each and swap turrets to make BMP-23s and Bmptillery pieces :D But as mentioned below there's good reasons to avoiding tracked vehicles, at least the Soviet style ones. All-steel tracks are well...in the words of Homer Simpson, "look at that pavement fly!" (Okay not quite, but the point still remains.)
Flammable gas tanks on the rear doors and a few centimeters less head-clearance? Better mobility, though, but that comes with the maintenance cost and irritated locals when you tear up their roads (Russian tracks lacking the rubber cleats/shoes of Western tracks).
I've read the standard procedure is to only use the door gas tanks on long marches, and keep them empty when planning for combat. Granted, going in short on fuel is its own set of problems, but at least they acknowledge the issue. I think I'll pass for the reasons above; plus who wants to deal with thrown tracks? At least the tanks bring protected firepower to the fight and will last a little while. I just kinda wish I had more of them, but I don't have the means to really support them without foreign assistance.
You know, an Israeli firm modernized Indonesian Marine BTR-50s and PT-76s with new powerpacks, 90s, and electronics:
Interesting slideshow, they did quite the improvement and made it a right little gun truck in the photos on that page. Looks like a Browning 1919 up front and PKMs with a different stock design on the sides. Count on the Israelis to work the deep magic with upgrading hardware...
You can think of eventually upgrading your PT-76s, at least. I do remember reading that the -76 was okay at fording European rivers, but the Indians found it unsuitable for their monster water obstacle. The engines would overheat and die out partway through a river crossing, which then began to begat deletrious secondary effects. I don't have a source handy for that, but it stuck out in my mind.
There's not that many rivers in Sere-Slav, so I can live without an amphibious capability - not that I would turn it down if it came with a vehicle, mind you, but it's not a ride-or-die option. Needless to say, that would utterly suck blowing an engine midriver and floating away with the current...deleterious secondary effects indeed. I hope the crews got out okay.
So I've been staring at the idea of the VAB for a while now and it finally settled in my brain - why am I trading BTR-80s for VABs? I already have the BTR-80s left over from the USSR, and the French vehicle is a design that's ten years older than the BTR, so why would I trade down like that? I feel like I should be focusing on more modern vehicles, and just taking the financial hit and a slow procurement process for them.
I'm leaning more and more to the Freccia, the Centauro redone as an APC. That would give me a strong Italian flavor in the service, but the Freccias only run about 2.5 million USD compared to 5+ for something like a Boxer. I can keep some French influence by switching the LMVs to VBLs, which I kind of wanted to do anyway, as well as keeping the MILAN ATGMs in the infantry. Anyone got a good reason why I shouldn't switch to the Centauro/Freccia family for the cavalry forces?
-
It lasts 20 minutes and has three cameras, and two of those, a control unit, and a charging unit costs between forty and sixty thousand bucks. That's just insane compared to the price of civilian drones
Black Hornets aren't very practical at all in the field, and generally only used for special ops kinda stuff where cost, efficiency or anything except bling is not an issue.
The budget entry level on VTOL drones for infantry or comparable use (read: DJI) with halfway decent cameras is around 10-15 grand right now, for some older (obsolete) models you can get package deals down to around 5-10 grand.
-
That's still prohibitively expensive if I want something at platoon level for both my infantry and my scouts. I'm shopping for civilian drones, something in the 300-500 dollar price hopefully that can send back video to a smartphone or tablet.
-
Which idea, the BMP-23? I'm still thinking about using it for a personnel transport, just using the same seven-man squads as the BTR-80s use and using the roominess to carry extra goods. Unfortunatly GHQ doesn't have a miniature for that, so maybe I'll stick to BMP-2s instead.
Hm, the Polish BRDM-2s with the belly wheels removed has room for two dismounts. That's a scout pair carrier if I ever saw one, and in a dedicated scout vehicle as well. I suppose I'll put scouts aboard the recon company's BRDMs, improving the capabilities of the company.
Trucks, ammo, and small arms is probably the limit of Serednya Slaviya's industry. We can at least maintain heavy equipment, but construction isn't happening. Something like a BTR-80 is beyond the capabilities of Serednya Slaviya, though heavy trucks are doable. I would suppose it's the electronics and armor welding capability that we don't have; that means we're also importing our missiles from France and other former Soviet states.
In addition to the BMP debate, I'm wondering - B1 Centauro or AMX-10 RC for the cavalry squadrons? The Centauro's got the edge in having a NATO standard 105mm compared to the short-cased AMX-10, and is 20km/h faster on roads, but there's other factors than just stats that justify a vehicle. Things like the AMX-10 RC's skid steering letting it rotate in place, for example... I can find the price for the B1 Centauro at 1.6m Euros, but not the AMX-10 RC's cost.
EDIT: Thinking more on the BTR/BMP mix. I'm debating having one of my combined-arms battalions be BMP-2 based, since the original Motor Rifle Division that made up the Serednya Slaviyan Land Forces had 150 BMPs and just over 300 BTR-80s in it. They seat the same crew and passengers as a BTR-80, but if I go with the mixed force route I'd lose the seventh man in a rifle squad and keep the seat behind the driver empty. It just makes more sense to have the infantry in the infantry compartment and not having to split them up. Other than the heavier 30mm gun and a few ATGMs, what does the BMP bring that the BTR doesn't?
So my take on this is that your nation is a poor post-Communist Slavic country. That means between the privations of the Cold War and the poverty that follows, the country is probably teeming with shade-tree mechanics (and distillers, but I digress), and cheap labour (and resulting continuing emigration and working abroad through avenues legal or otherwise) and cheap labour.
That means that any time the question is between "Buy new vs. buy discount and modify", there's a good case to be made for "buy discount and modify" unless a lot of dodgy yachts, hookers, and blow are involved. There's a reason there are so many T-72 offshoots, T-55 upgrade kits, and Ukrainian export tank designs (before the war) and mixmaster kitbashes during the war, with engineers and workers both affordable.
I mean, that runs counter to your idea of using existing designs, but the answer to "Wheeled assault gun" might just be to design some direct-fire ammo and an armour package for existing 2S23 Nona-SVKs.
I would draw inspiration from the ex-Yugoslavia countries, some of which are about the size of Sere Slav, as well as Cold War-era independent projects by WP countries, China from post Sino-Soviet split up to the mid-90s, or Israel from 1948 up to 1970 or so. What's the modern equivalent of an M50/M51 Super Sherman?
Can you turn 2S1 SPGs into tank destroyers by slapping in a 120mm NATO gun lifted from mothballed Spanish Leo 2A4s?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c1/72/74/c1727449bae256e06f27ed873643ff8b.jpg)
And for your "We have Centauro at home" vibes:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/WMA-301_tank_destroyers_of_Djiboutian_Army.jpg/1024px-WMA-301_tank_destroyers_of_Djiboutian_Army.jpg)
Predecessor designs were rolling around in the 80s and 90s, so arranging a license (or not. IP theft is a thing, after all) shouldn't have been an issue, along with an option to keep using old T-54/T-55 guns or L7 105mms.
And just for Failure16, AMX-10RC-at-home vibes from the 1980s development program.
(https://imgur.com/duWh3fb.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/dijp9G8.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/8dq82js.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/hxTPir9.jpg)
Eventually, the PTL-02
(https://imgur.com/aQNEylD.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/74aYw6c.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/Dudstc1.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/d8grvve.jpg)
-
Also, when you get around to painting up minis, keep this in mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHFWcC3DQnY
-
Trucks, ammo, and small arms is probably the limit of Serednya Slaviya's industry. We can at least maintain heavy equipment, but construction isn't happening. Something like a BTR-80 is beyond the capabilities of Serednya Slaviya, though heavy trucks are doable. I would suppose it's the electronics and armor welding capability that we don't have; that means we're also importing our missiles from France and other former Soviet states.
So your nation has no internal "Heavy Manufacturing Base" so once you leave Trucks your are out of "Homemade options"?
So you are one of the few nations that were Soviet Bloc without "Heavy Industries". Might be time to start a plant to "build" spare parts.
-
Pretty much that, yes. Serednya Slaviya's made of an portion of northwestern Ukraine that went independent in the 1910s and got swallowed up into the Warsaw Pact, and only broke into freedom in 1991. It's not a large country, with a current population of 2,184,000 and a land area of 15,520 square miles, in a roughly square shape. If you want to look up more about it, research the Volyn and Rivne oblasts of Ukraine.
Militarily there's 12,643 personnel under arms, with 11,508 in the Land Forces and 1,135 in the Air Force. Under Soviet times the Land Forces was a bit larger, and made up a complete Motor-Rifle Division; since then I've trimmed it down by about 20% into the military that it is now. That left me a large amount of vehicles, which has a surplus that can be sold on the open market. That's probably where I started my procurement from, getting rid of BMP-2s and extra BTR-80s and other hardware.
I picture Serednya Slaviya as having a decent civilian-market factory setting; there's a tractor and engine plant in Rivne (along with a nuclear power plant) but I don't see much in the way of homegrown military hardware. The heavy industry required for armor working and building armored vehicle chassis just isn't there. Small things like VBLs with what amounts to structural steel, okay, I can build those but it's basically a glorified offroad mini-SUV. Electronics...would be imported; I'm dealing with a country that still manufactures vacuum tubes in large numbers. It's a bit behind the times.
As far as comparitive nations go, Slovenia's got a similar population but half the land area. However...a quick check shows they produce their own armored personnel carrier, with help from GenDyn Land Systems Europe. The Valuk isn't heavily armored, only against 12.7mm fire from the front 30 degree arc and 7.62mm fire around the rest of the vehicle. That's not that heavy, and gives me a baseline to work with.
Comparing that to the Freccia and Centauro, well, the Valuk's half their mass so that tells me the armor plate is probably around twice as thick, plus ceramic plates to aid in protection. I suppose I could end up building my own vehicles, licensed production with some technology transfers and bootstrapping of industry from Italy. At the very least, I should be able to maintain and repair the things, if I can't find a way to build them in-house. Something like a VBL, definitely built locally under license.
Soviet Green...it's made of people! Seriously, I figured on a generic olive drab/medium green for my vehicles, something that would blend well in a forest since there's a large amount of woodlands in that portion of Ukraine. Since I'm my own country, I can decide my own color schemes; one benefit of going independent.
I want to try to stick with NATO equipment, since we joined in 1999. But damnit chanman, you made me go look up Chinese hardware just to look at what's available and I found the Type 08 AFV family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_08) that includes a gun carrier with a Chinese copy of a British L7 cannon. It's also got an IFV and APC and artillery and more variants as well, and the biggest thing is that they're all amphibious somehow. They're also dirt cheap due to the Chinese producing five thousand of the things; at 1.6 million USD that beats out even the Freccia's 2.5 million USD.
The IFV even carries Soviet weapons; it's got the same 30mm autocannon as the BMP-2 and carries Malyutka missiles, so I have the gun technology present already. The ZTL-11 carries the British 105mm gun, which is NATO ammunition compatible, so...damn, now I'm not sure. Go Italian or go Chinese? I can get minis from GHQ for both, so I'm not limiting my collection options there. This would be for the cavalry, which I should be able to afford to upgrade hardware wise and leaving the combined-arms battalions with legacy hardware.
-
So I would look at those Chinese units... and I bet the Chinese would love to get access to another "European Country" with their hardware.
The other option would be looking at Israeli military hardware. They worked up Nimda Shoet, a Soviet BTR-152 knockoff/improved..
-
China also makes 155mm artillery. Saudi Arabia and I think Kuwait use it.
I would think the ZTL-08 might be a bit of a political hot potato coming as part of the recent wave of modernization. The older series though were from a time when all was fair.
Mind you, there are no hard and fast rules. NATO member Greece operates a surprising amount of Russian hardware. Thailand operates a bunch of Norinco hardware, including some very new export MBT and wheeled IFVs.
Anyway, my pitch would be that being outside the EU, Serednya Slaviya isn't bound by their embargos (although I'm not sure those even included imports anyway). In the 90s and 2000's, we're still firmly in the 'end of history' era through to GWOT, and even in a best-case scenario, economic reforms still have a ways to go to make Serednya Slaviya a rich or even rich-ish country.
In that context, especially pre-1999, Chinese weapons give your military probably the first new gear since the Soviet commission made a paperwork error in the mid-1970s. The bare-bones nature of those period weapons also address the company store issue (lots of alternative suppliers, and an ability to reverse-engineer designs). For example, one of the first things your army might do is check the engines and rip them out for German diesels as/when needed.
Think of them as a disposable base platform that you plan to replace instead of upgrading forever. Depending on how corrupt or not the country is, maybe they pay a bunch of kickbacks for industrial offsets, or some well-placed individuals get rich quick, or the saved money is plowed into national development, so that the government will have actual money to play with 20 years later when you modernize for realsies.
When you're talking about Ukraine or Moldova or a number of the smaller East Euro states (Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, ex-FRY republics), it makes more sense to consider them as you would an African or SE Asian country fresh out of decolonization and there are things you can (and probably need) to do and get away with before joining the big clubs with their big club rules.
-
The Chinese gear could have been an interim solution before going Italian... ^-^
-
Political hot potato in what way? Obviously avoiding rule 4, but I'm curious what you mean.
I'm mixed on the older stuff, since it'd be contemporary to what Serednya Slaviya has already - I'm thinking that after cherrypicking what was the best hardware out of that MRD that made up their army they had a full set of 1985's BTR-80s and BMP-2s, and T-72s for the land forces. Give the Air Force its squadron of MiG-29s, and as far as Soviet hardware from the mid-1980s goes we're sitting pretty. It's replacing it in the current years that I'm going around in circles on.
Economic reforms...well, the government that rose up in the wake of the coup/civil war of 1994 probably took its sweet time pushing and rebuilding reforms into the economy. I imagine the military began its reforms around that time, watching as the West and especially the Americans shrank and reformed its army, then watched again as that army took on the GWOT. And slowly it modernized, following somewhat in its own organization.
Which led us to the 2000s...maybe Serednya Slaviya didn't join NATO in 1999 or 2004 like Poland or much of Eastern Europe. The later 2000s roll around, and while we've got good relations with Poland (and relied on their modernization of our T-72s to PT-91 standard) we're still the redheaded stepchild of the region. So it's about then that the Chinese offer their unbeatably priced modernized vehicles, and Serednya Slaviya snaps it up over the next ten years. That lets me start the acquisition program for the ZTL-11/ZBL-08 duo and begin getting vehicles, and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 happens and that's when Serednya Slaviya hits the panic button and joins NATO.
It's still a poor country, a domestic GDP per capita of under 5,000 USD per year, but it's getting better and the technology transfers from China, Poland, and France are helping.
I'm liking the Chinese hardware for its price, of course, but also because it makes Serednya Slaviya kind of unique in their makeup. Sprinkling in some French equipment - the VBLs and MILANs, and a couple platoons of EBRC Jaguar scout vehicles - definitely makes for an eclectic mix of capabilities, all of it wheeled. Sere-Slav went Chinese eventually, before realizing NATO was a really good idea post-Euromaidan and applied for membership. I figure they probably got into the alliance in 2015 or 2016, to give time for the debate to occur. We're probably waiting on EU membership, but haven't joined that organization yet.
What say ye, fellow thread denizens. Believable delays in rebuilding things economically and a slower reformation of the economy and military and industry leading to the Chinese buy-in and the ZBL/ZTL buy.
The MiG-29s we have...well, we're probably getting desperate help from the Poles to keep them flying, but they're going to have to be replaced sooner or later before they Theseus themselves.
And Daryk makes a good point; the Serednya Slaviyan economy's taken a buffeting but has been growing in these last years, maybe the Italians finally made inroads and started wooing away the procurement office from Beijing's hardware to replace the rest of its Soviet equipment with the Freccia/Centauro combo. But they don't float, and the Chinese stuff does, and there's a lot of rivers and lakes in those two oblasts...decisions, decisions...
-
The Chinese gear could have been an interim solution before going Italian... ^-^
That would look pretty good with whitewall tires, right? ^_^
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b1/2b/60/b12b60d9472752d85f5d73aed8ad3884.png)
-
I'd push the panic button hit earlier... think Georgia... 8)
-
Whitewall tires on anything after 1939 has struck me as inanely silly. I don't know why, but it gives me hives.
So furthering the idea of the Chinese hardware bought sometime during 2008...maybe a fifteen year contract order to buy those ZBLs and ZTLs at the procurement budget of 40-80 million USD equivalent, at a price of 1.6 million per vehicle that'd let me buy 280 vehicles easily enough - about 105 ZTL-11s and 190 ZBL-08s. That's a lot more ZBLs than I'd figured, but so it goes. At a total of about 480 million, that's a long-term buy-in but I think it's spreadable over the period of 2008-2023, which is 32 million dollars from procurement a year. Expensive...but maybe I can get some support from the Chinese government for some subsidies in the buy. After all, it's tying an Eastern European nation into a Chinese market, which will have follow-on as other industries turn to Beijing for connections. Serednya Slaviyan wood from the forests is going to be valuable stuff, at the very least.
I suppose prior to that the tanks would have been upgraded by the Poles; the PT-91 has been around since 1995 so say it was upgraded around 2000-2003 or so, as a less expensive upgrade than buying new tanks. By 2008 or so, though, the BTR-80s are pushing into their 25th year, and the Chinese deal was pushed through - maybe with a scandal of kickbacks for procurement officers. That goes public, and some colonels get sent to jail, but the assessors decide that the deal outside of the bribery was a solid one and permits the contract to continue.
I'm liking the Chinese option more, it's different and interesting, and the vehicles are pretty decent. The ZBL-08 IFV also carries a seven-man squad, so carrying a five-man fire team plus two scouts in each.
ZBL-08
Vehicle Crew
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Rifle Team
Platoon Leader (FB Beryl)
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100)
Marksman (FR F2)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
ZBL-08
Vehicle Crew
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Rifle Team
Platoon Sergeant (FB Beryl)
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
ZBL-08
Vehicle Crew
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Rifle Team
Medic (CZ-75)
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
ZBL-08
Vehicle Crew
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Rifle Team
Drone Operator (FB Beryl)
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
VBL
Vehicle Crew
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
VBL
Vehicle Crew
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Scout Team
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
Dismounted Scout (FB Beryl)
ZTL-11
ZTL-11
ZBL-08 (120mm mortar)
There's the full makeup of a Light Cavalry platoon, going with the Chinese equipment. I'm warming to the idea of going Chinese, honestly, because it does make for a unique tech base, and I kind of like the background of it all above. Any reasons I shouldn't?
-
Why, uh, why...why would you want to buy anything from China?
I'd rather you stick with the ex-WarPac gear and cook up some excuse to have an Israeli, German, or South African firm upgrade the Hell out of them into something really neat.
-
honestly, given the policies of late stalinist russia, that the area wouldn't have gotten heavy industrial production infrastructure is weird. that was one of the key elements of soviet social policies in their outlying areas, to the point that by the 60's, 70's, and 80's much of their military hardware was mostly being built in factories outside of russia proper, that had been buuilt in the 40's and 50's. (and one of the reasons that russian industry tanked so hard after the USSR broke apart)
i would argue the more probable bit is that they had such industry, but their early years after the breakup of the USSR saw said industry collapse (due to loss of supply lines, economic disruptions, and the general corruption issues) outside of a few specific areas of non-military production.
-
Political hot potato in what way? Obviously avoiding rule 4, but I'm curious what you mean.
I'm mixed on the older stuff, since it'd be contemporary to what Serednya Slaviya has already - I'm thinking that after cherrypicking what was the best hardware out of that MRD that made up their army they had a full set of 1985's BTR-80s and BMP-2s, and T-72s for the land forces. Give the Air Force its squadron of MiG-29s, and as far as Soviet hardware from the mid-1980s goes we're sitting pretty. It's replacing it in the current years that I'm going around in circles on.
Economic reforms...well, the government that rose up in the wake of the coup/civil war of 1994 probably took its sweet time pushing and rebuilding reforms into the economy. I imagine the military began its reforms around that time, watching as the West and especially the Americans shrank and reformed its army, then watched again as that army took on the GWOT. And slowly it modernized, following somewhat in its own organization.
Which led us to the 2000s...maybe Serednya Slaviya didn't join NATO in 1999 or 2004 like Poland or much of Eastern Europe. The later 2000s roll around, and while we've got good relations with Poland (and relied on their modernization of our T-72s to PT-91 standard) we're still the redheaded stepchild of the region. So it's about then that the Chinese offer their unbeatably priced modernized vehicles, and Serednya Slaviya snaps it up over the next ten years. That lets me start the acquisition program for the ZTL-11/ZBL-08 duo and begin getting vehicles, and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 happens and that's when Serednya Slaviya hits the panic button and joins NATO.
It's still a poor country, a domestic GDP per capita of under 5,000 USD per year, but it's getting better and the technology transfers from China, Poland, and France are helping.
I'm liking the Chinese hardware for its price, of course, but also because it makes Serednya Slaviya kind of unique in their makeup. Sprinkling in some French equipment - the VBLs and MILANs, and a couple platoons of EBRC Jaguar scout vehicles - definitely makes for an eclectic mix of capabilities, all of it wheeled. Sere-Slav went Chinese eventually, before realizing NATO was a really good idea post-Euromaidan and applied for membership. I figure they probably got into the alliance in 2015 or 2016, to give time for the debate to occur. We're probably waiting on EU membership, but haven't joined that organization yet.
What say ye, fellow thread denizens. Believable delays in rebuilding things economically and a slower reformation of the economy and military and industry leading to the Chinese buy-in and the ZBL/ZTL buy.
The MiG-29s we have...well, we're probably getting desperate help from the Poles to keep them flying, but they're going to have to be replaced sooner or later before they Theseus themselves.
And Daryk makes a good point; the Serednya Slaviyan economy's taken a buffeting but has been growing in these last years, maybe the Italians finally made inroads and started wooing away the procurement office from Beijing's hardware to replace the rest of its Soviet equipment with the Freccia/Centauro combo. But they don't float, and the Chinese stuff does, and there's a lot of rivers and lakes in those two oblasts...decisions, decisions...
Hot potato because the PRC's regional geopolitical rivalry with the US starts to take off, along with the crackdowns on corruption that come with Xi's ascent. That's why it makes the most sense if that occurs during the 90s before Serednya Slaviyan joins NATO (and the USAF drops some LGBs on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade...)
Military procurement is completely inseparable from geopolitics. Speaking of, Chinese gear is as far as I know, cash and carry and loans are expected to be paid. They're real loans, not 'loan' loans. I don't think China has ever considered entry into the European defence market. Unlike the USSR, the PRC has other (capitalist) ways to generate hard currency than selling MBTs (I'm not being facetious here. There are years where MBTs are one of the main earners of foreign currency for the USSR)
-
I picture Serednya Slaviya as having a decent civilian-market factory setting; there's a tractor and engine plant in Rivne (along with a nuclear power plant) but I don't see much in the way of homegrown military hardware. The heavy industry required for armor working and building armored vehicle chassis just isn't there. Small things like VBLs with what amounts to structural steel, okay, I can build those but it's basically a glorified offroad mini-SUV. Electronics...would be imported; I'm dealing with a country that still manufactures vacuum tubes in large numbers. It's a bit behind the times.
As far as comparitive nations go, Slovenia's got a similar population but half the land area. However...a quick check shows they produce their own armored personnel carrier, with help from GenDyn Land Systems Europe. The Valuk isn't heavily armored, only against 12.7mm fire from the front 30 degree arc and 7.62mm fire around the rest of the vehicle. That's not that heavy, and gives me a baseline to work with.
Valuk is a licensed copy of Austrian Pandur made in Ravne steelworks. However before the 90's economic hardships TAM factory (they made trucks and busses) in Maribor made BOV series of armored vehicles for JLA, their chassis being based on trucks they made. You can make wheeled APCs if you have tractor/truck/bus manufacturing, but they won't be as good as those of established AFV manufacturers, however during economic hardships government might take this route to save a company with military contract, purchase the armor plates in Ukraine, use weapons from stocks and make everything else in house. The end result might not be entirely to army's liking, but jobs saved and spare parts are made locally.
Alternatively your country might make deal with Ukraine for production of BTR-3 or later BTR-4
-
Why, uh, why...why would you want to buy anything from China?
I'd rather you stick with the ex-WarPac gear and cook up some excuse to have an Israeli, German, or South African firm upgrade the Hell out of them into something really neat.
It's because he's becoming a real defence minister! ;D
Picture it: It's 2008 at the Beijing Olympics and Russia has just decided to give Georgia a bad day. The Centauro procurement project is dragging on and keeps getting back burnered as everyone is still dealing with the financial crisis. Slaviyan army HQ realizes they really need something with big guns quickly and on the cheap. Some late night meetings later, Defence Minister Kamas is instructed to inquire discreetly with his hosts while others work the second-hand market.
Minister Kamas gets an informal meeting with a couple of Norinco execs and inquires about an inside line as to some old PTL-02s for immediate delivery. The execs blanch. Obsolete, crappy. Good for brushfire skirmishing in Africa, but nothing that would deter the Russians. Also, none are in deliverable condition. They suspect the good minister is completely out of his depth anyway if he's asking for a 105mm assault gun instead of ATGM carriers to deter the armour-heavy Russians.
They start slamming back shots of baijiu (100 proof+ moonshine distilled typically from sorghum as well as anything with saccharifiable carbohydrates including peas, barley, and rice of which Moutai is probably the best known). Listen, the reps say. If you want the PTLs, we can't stop you, but they won't be ready for a while. The last security deal with <country> included some and they picked over the ones in the best shape already. The only vehicles left are only good for scrap. The Norinco reps confide that they aren't even that cheap for newly-made vehicles because the PTL factory has a bad graft problem and the surplus ones are in poor shape.
"But there's another factory with an up and coming design team that's got something new coming up at the same time. More expensive, but not by as much as you might think. All-new design! Like a Piranha III. Modular, a whole family of vehicles, like Stryker. SKUs with NATO-compatible weapons. They aren't even supposed to be on the market yet, but there's been some hang-ups with the PLA order because the generals are changing what they want again. If you're willing to be the launch customer, we can cut a deal to sell them below cost just to keep the factory busy. Cheaper than stopping and staring again. You know how it is with factories.
Yes, it's a LOT to think about, Minister. Why don't you visit the banya to clear your mind? Why is there a banya in Beijing? Russian businessmen and the Olympic delegation, but we can arrange a session. The Russians are rather occupied with being undiplomatic right now, as I'm sure you know, Minister. They just hired a new Swedish masseuse too. Very blonde. Oh, did we forget to exchange business cards? Senior VP of international sales Francis, but everyone just calls me Fat Leonard."
And if you don't think that's how procurement is actually done...
(https://www.i-f-s.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/27+95_JBG34_accid_MichaelSchneiderCollection.jpg)
-
As far as the why of buying from China, there's a few reasons. The vehicles in question are modular in design, like the Boxer is, comes with all kinds of variants because of it including a 155mm howitzer, it's amphibious, and the price is a third or less of other options. I admit I'm looking at it with a capabilities and statistics mindset, as well as one of price. What don't you like about buying from China, out of curiosity? I admit it's a long way to ship things and get tech support from,
It may be weird that the region doesn't have much in the way of heavy industry, but that's the way things are in the real world - where Ukraine was a part of the USSR; they invested in a nuclear power plant and a truck factory in the region that makes up Serednya Slaviya. If Stalin was investing in Warsaw Pact nations rather than in the USSR republics, then it'd make sense that there'd be some heavy industrial capability in Sere-Slav, but maybe you're right - the economic disruptions post-breakup may have collapsed the industry for a while, and it's only getting rebuilt in the late 2000s/early 2010s.
If the best option for Chinese hardware comes in the 1990s, then I'm gonna have to turn that down, because the vehicles I want don't get developed until 2008 at least and aren't really available until a few years after that in any significant number. As far as the Chinese selling MBTs to raise cash, well, like you said they've got far better options and I suspect those older tanks and vehicles are being kept for their reserve units, just like the Russians and the T-62s and T-64s that are making their way to Ukraine's battlefields.
I suppose I could have the industry to turn out BTR-80s, maybe that's why I have the advanced APC prior to the fall of the USSR. 300 of those produced over five years; that's only five vehicles a month at trickle production. Certainly enough that I'd be able to build BTR-80s.
2008 sees the start of the Chinese vehicle production; it also sees the start of the BT-4 production over in Ukraine. Freccia gets ordered in 2006, but it doesn't say when production starts. Everything I want to invest in shows up around the end of the 2000s, which is about the lifespan of the 1985-produced BTR-80s. I can see the Serednya Slaviyan start putting out its requests for proposals around then. The BT-4 has its problems, to the point that even the Iraqis canceled their contract with Ukraine for them.
If I go Chinese, I can afford the three hundred vehicles required to modernize the cavalry forces. If I go Italian, I can afford to modernize two of the cavalry squadrons, assuming I've got the Freccia's price right. Alternatively I could skip the cavalry squadrons, leave them with BTR-80 and PT-91, and modernize the three combined arms battalions with Freccias and Centauros.
Chanman's depiction of a military sale...is probably highly accurate. I'm going to say that it happened, at least as far as generating interest for the Chinese hardware, but even if I don't go Chinese it's still something entirely believable to have occurred.
One thing that strikes me about the difference between China's ZBL-08 and the Italian Freccia is that there's 20 times as many ZBLs. Over eleven years, the Italians only built and delivered 249 vehicles, while China was turning them out like hot cakes. I don't know if I'd get enough production for Serednya Slaviya if I went with Freccias.
Okay, looking again at the Freccia's price, it's ... a lot higher than I'd thought initially. Apparently the first order of 249 vehicles (plus, I assume, all the development costs) was a 1.588 billion dollar program. That puts the amortized average price at 6.4 million dollars per vehicle. It's regarded as the costliest of the current Italian programs...damn. The Centauro's only 1.6 million, which I can do, but the Freccia's priced out of my range.
So my options are go Chinese, or go Ukrainian with the BTR-4, and have a larger tank supply of PT-91s. At 1.8 million for a BTR-4 at today's prices, 300 of them - enough to replace all the BTR-80s - comes to 540 million, or an average of 36 million dollars out of my 80 million procurement budget. That budget was smaller in the past, so...well, I can always produce the BTR-4 in-house, licensing the design from Ukraine and reinvigorating my heavy industry. Armorwise it's stopping 12.7mm on the nose and 7.62mm all-around, so it's not a heavily armored thing like western IFVs are; that's the same protection as the Slovenian Valuk and they produce theirs locally. Since I'm already producing engines, the only real assistance I'd need is the electronics onboard.
So ZBL-08/ZTL-11 or Centauro/BTR-4, for the future of my cavalry force. At least BTR-4 is amphibious, even if Centauro isn't. So why shouldn't I go with China, then, in the end? The French VBCI was another option I was looking at, but at a price of 4.8 million dollars per, they're out of my price range. I imagine most other NATO hardware is going to be in the 4-7 million dollar price range, which is one big reason I was looking at the Chinese vehicles at 1.6 million per vehicle.
I wonder if you can put a BMP-2 turret on a BTR-80. You can, but you get the abandoned BTR-90 out of it. Scratch that idea...
-
Defense costs are notoriously opaque. One of the biggest is that programs can have huge fixed costs, especially if they've had protracted development times.
Training specialized workers is expensive and time-consuming, as is building the factories and custom tooling and all the rest of that. The advantages of economies of scale can be really dramatic.
It's why export orders have been important to the French and Swedish defence industries. ZTL-08 has the same advantages as the Stryker family or K-9 SPGs or F-16s. A gigantic domestic customer to fund and amortize all of the startup costs. Or even the F-35. Current fly-away cost is now around $100 million, making them cheaper per unit than brand-new F-16s.
China cranks out thousands of ZTLs for the same reason General Dynamics Canada and related facilities were churning out Strykers: massive reorganization including switching a number of heavy formations to medium wheeled brigades.
-
I wonder if you can put a BMP-2 turret on a BTR-80. You can, but you get the abandoned BTR-90 out of it. Scratch that idea...
You can't, different turret ring sizes, that's why they needed a new hull with larger turret ring for BTR-90.
-
I wonder if you can put a BMP-2 turret on a BTR-80. You can, but you get the abandoned BTR-90 out of it. Scratch that idea...
You need to get in touch with your inner crusty hustling small-town mechanic and start slamming together completely unrelated surplus equipment.
How about this Lebanese M113 with a ZSU-23-2 on it?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/25/d3/24/25d32447ee592ac71e56744323db0fb5.jpg)
Like, part of the peace dividend is that a lot of countries dropped dedicated ATGM carriers from their orders of battle. Like TOW Under Armour. Can you take a TUA unit off an M113 or LAV-25 and make it fit a BTR? Get drunk enough, and you just might!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ms1vL7lnawE/U0gONPASGGI/AAAAAAAAAjo/g5fLu6W4UJQ/s1600/LAV+AT+OLD.jpg)
Of note is that if you have a domestic truck industry, you're halfway to being able to make some kind of wheeled AFV.
Anyway, the devil is in the details is that the 105mm is that it's a jack-of-all-trades, master of none compared to say, a dedicated ATGM vehicle and a 120mm gun/mortar like the 2S23 'Nona'.
Even if you go with a new wheeled platform, Serednya Slaviya might end up integrating the Nona turret for ease of logistics instead of switching to AMOS or NEMO.
-
Yeah, it's the economy of scale that leans me to the Chinese market. Add in the fact they've had enough production to wring the bugs out of the system, compared to the Freccia for example, and it does have some attraction. Plus the sheer drive-away price is hard to beat, though Centauros at 450 vehicles are only 1.6 million as well so it's an even split between that and the ZTL-11 assault gun.
It comes down to which family to buy into, and I admit I'm still leaning to China for sheer cost reasons above everything else. And their production is for the same reason I'm looking towards them, a major reorganization to a lighter, faster brigade.
And that also brings up the cost of aircraft, at tens of millions per bird. There's no way I could afford F-16s, for example, even if I wasn't buying IFVs and assault guns on top of my regular procurement requirements for ammunition, food, and other equipment. I'm going to have MiG-29s for as long as the Americans have B-52s, I think.
Idly, the Stryker was 4.9 million per vehicle back in 2012 dollars, which is also priced out of my league. Though I'm sure I could get subsidies from the Americans, if I went that way...but I think I'll rule out Strykers. The Army had enough troubles with its autoloader and lack of mine protection that they got rid of the MGS. And the price is even worse for classic LAVs at 6 million per vehicle based on 2015 buying all the parts and assembling a new one.
As far as ATGM carriers I've got BRDM-based vehicles for that; I was planning on getting some of Poland's discards on the cheap for that regard. The ones with the belly wheels removed and the side doors added, Malyutka carriers for the cheap and still effective ATGM. The Poles got rid of 400 of them somewhere, I figure they got snapped up cheap by the SSLF.
I should work out just how much of a procurement budget I really have, stretched over time. That'd take some research and effort, I'll work on it later.
-
Yeah, it's the economy of scale that leans me to the Chinese market. Add in the fact they've had enough production to wring the bugs out of the system, compared to the Freccia for example, and it does have some attraction. Plus the sheer drive-away price is hard to beat, though Centauros at 450 vehicles are only 1.6 million as well so it's an even split between that and the ZTL-11 assault gun.
It comes down to which family to buy into, and I admit I'm still leaning to China for sheer cost reasons above everything else. And their production is for the same reason I'm looking towards them, a major reorganization to a lighter, faster brigade.
And that also brings up the cost of aircraft, at tens of millions per bird. There's no way I could afford F-16s, for example, even if I wasn't buying IFVs and assault guns on top of my regular procurement requirements for ammunition, food, and other equipment. I'm going to have MiG-29s for as long as the Americans have B-52s, I think.
Idly, the Stryker was 4.9 million per vehicle back in 2012 dollars, which is also priced out of my league. Though I'm sure I could get subsidies from the Americans, if I went that way...but I think I'll rule out Strykers. The Army had enough troubles with its autoloader and lack of mine protection that they got rid of the MGS. And the price is even worse for classic LAVs at 6 million per vehicle based on 2015 buying all the parts and assembling a new one.
As far as ATGM carriers I've got BRDM-based vehicles for that; I was planning on getting some of Poland's discards on the cheap for that regard. The ones with the belly wheels removed and the side doors added, Malyutka carriers for the cheap and still effective ATGM. The Poles got rid of 400 of them somewhere, I figure they got snapped up cheap by the SSLF.
I should work out just how much of a procurement budget I really have, stretched over time. That'd take some research and effort, I'll work on it later.
Fighter jets are a rich country's game. I'd set the floor at somewhere around a population of at least 4 million and a GDP of 300 billion or more before seriously contemplating modern aircraft. An air policing role with armed trainers or old F-5s tops, but your 'air force' is likely to consist mostly of Mi-8 helos and old Soviet SAM systems.
-
Why, uh, why...why would you want to buy anything from China?
I'd rather you stick with the ex-WarPac gear and cook up some excuse to have an Israeli, German, or South African firm upgrade the Hell out of them into something really neat.
because if you want to run ex-warsaw pact gear, after about 2000 AD china is the only place still building spare parts and new versions. once the soviet stockpiles were sold off from all the breakaways in the 90's, and with russia largely discontinuing their older designs, china is the main place you can still get *new* parts for MiG-21's, T-55's, and so on,.
-
So your decision to go with the Chinese market is pretty much down to how much you listen to your Political Advisor, Minister Kamas... :D
Your POLAD is going point out how Taiwan-like Serednya Slaviya is... ^-^
-
So your decision to go with the Chinese market is pretty much down to how much you listen to your Political Advisor, Minister Kamas... :D
Your POLAD is going point out how Taiwan-like Serednya Slaviya is... ^-^
I mean, I did mention scandals and botched procurement would be realistic. A full-blown diplomatic incident and aborted order would certainly qualify! :D
Ex-Minister Kamas at a dive bar several months later: "40 million dollars down the drain, and all I got was this immobile mockup, a divorce, and a crappy T-shirt"
Ex-Flunky on the next seat. "I didn't even get a T-shirt"
-
because if you want to run ex-warsaw pact gear, after about 2000 AD china is the only place still building spare parts and new versions. once the soviet stockpiles were sold off from all the breakaways in the 90's, and with russia largely discontinuing their older designs, china is the main place you can still get *new* parts for MiG-21's, T-55's, and so on,.
Especially where you have a limited ability to "build" spare parts for the older gear. So when you get the spare parts shortage, you come to the POV do you "buy new/used hardware" that your crews are not familiar with or do you go with hardware they know and understand.
-
*snip*
Ex-Flunky on the next seat. "I didn't even get a T-shirt"
Or the divorce, apparently... :D
-
Or the divorce, apparently... :D
If the state wanted you to get married, it would have paid you enough to afford a wedding ;D
-
Mine was in my uncle's back yard... ^-^
-
because if you want to run ex-warsaw pact gear, after about 2000 AD china is the only place still building spare parts and new versions. once the soviet stockpiles were sold off from all the breakaways in the 90's, and with russia largely discontinuing their older designs, china is the main place you can still get *new* parts for MiG-21's, T-55's, and so on,.
That would be the joke though - China doesn't build straight WP gear after the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s. In 2000, the most reliable source of new old stock Soviet equipment would be either Russia or Ukraine.
Especially from the late 1970s to 1989, there's a reason why the WZ551 APC series look more like the Fuchs than BTRs or why their various old tracked APCs look so different from the M113 or MT-LB.
-
My thought for the MiG-29s was that a Soviet squadron was based there, and when the USSR dried up it was left behind like Ukraine inheriting Backfire bombers and part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Looking at the Baltic Trio though, for similarly sized Air Forces they're pretty damn small. Six to eight aircraft each, mostly transport planes with a couple helicopters. So the MiGs are out, and we're operating a mix of An-2s, An-26s, and Mi-8s that we're keeping airborne with prayers and wherever we can get spare parts from.
I suppose that we're turning over airspace defense to NATO, like the Baltics. Serednya Slaviya's got some SA-9 Gaskins still floating around, so we're slightly better off than they are, but it still comes down to MANPADS to defend airspace. Radar stations for surveillance, and I still picture the idea of a couple civilian airstrips having a small military detachment to allow dispersal of aircraft away from the main airbase in time of war.
Aircraft...Say four Mi-8s, four Mi-2s, two Cessna 172 trainers, three An-2s, one An-26 that serves as the presidential transport. Each aircraft has more than one crew; I've got about 45 pilots in the Air Force based on the American ratio of 24:1.
Russia's still got deep stocks of working older equipment, we're seeing them deployed in Ukraine. So spare parts and old hardware is definitely available from Russia, though I'm hesitant as hell to rely on them for equipment. The corruption pandemic in the Russian military means I'd probably be buying empty hulls with all their valuable bits sold off on the black market...
So I found some GDP numbers by oblast for Ukraine, and my economics are even worse than I'd estimated. Serednya Slaviya's total GDP is 7.06 billion USD, which is less than the 10 billion I'd taken from Ukraine's total by average. I can increase defense spending to 3% GDP, and get back to my previous figures.
Ukraine's 2021 national budget was 47.65 billion USD, with defense being 9.6 billion dollars. If I take Ukraine's defense spending and cut it by GDP to cover just Rivne and Volyn's totals, that gives me a defense budget quite a bit higher than I'd expected but right now Ukraine's got good reason to increase its defense spending. I suppose I'd do the same, with the national fear that we're next and staring down the Belarussians. So that comes to a national defense budget of 4.8% GDP, or a total defense spending of 339 million USD.
That does wonders for my procurement budget, pushing it to 135.6 million and improves my choices slightly. Granted that's only for 2021, and doesn't count the same for every year, but Serednya Slaviya's in a tight position, one could argue. I've looked into historical defense budgets but the numbers are all over the place; I can't even get agreement on GDP amounts depending on where I look.
So I'm doing better than I initially thought when it comes to procurement and defense budgets, but I'm either going to have to buy cheap or get subsidized purchases. Cheap means B1 Centauro, but not Freccia; BTR-4 could be doable at 1.8 million and it seems locally buildable. Buying Chinese saves me some cash, and lets me modernize a larger portion of my force. I just looked at the latest contract price for Freccia and the damn things run 7.9 million bucks. Piranha IIIs vary depending on the contract, anywhere from 4 to 6 million each. Looking at the French, there's that new Griffon APC to complement the Jaguar, but it's running 2.5 million USD per vehicle and the Jaguar at 5 million. I still want Jaguars for my recon companies, replacing BRDM-2s, but that's a small enough program (only 30 vehicles) that I can eat the cost on it. LAVs are pretty cheap at 2.5 million each, and the Australians are getting rid of theirs for Boxers, but it comes back to the same question I had with the VAB - why am I trading my worn-out 1980s vehicles for worn-out 1980s vehicles? Procurement wants something new and fancy and cheap.
I've got about 200 APCs and 100 gun vehicles to buy for the cavalry squadrons, and another 200 or so APCs for the combined-arms battalions. I'd like to modernize the cavalry first since they're arguably the core of the army. Whatever I get, I'd like it to have a common family if possible. And I need at least 100 APCs
So it comes down to why I shouldn't buy Chinese, because they've got the economy of scale going on and can seriously amortize development costs across a platform.
-
@chanman
I think old new stuff is a more reliabe option than the chinese way i think.
-
My thought for the MiG-29s was that a Soviet squadron was based there, and when the USSR dried up it was left behind like Ukraine inheriting Backfire bombers and part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Looking at the Baltic Trio though, for similarly sized Air Forces they're pretty damn small. Six to eight aircraft each, mostly transport planes with a couple helicopters. So the MiGs are out, and we're operating a mix of An-2s, An-26s, and Mi-8s that we're keeping airborne with prayers and wherever we can get spare parts from.
I suppose that we're turning over airspace defense to NATO, like the Baltics. Serednya Slaviya's got some SA-9 Gaskins still floating around, so we're slightly better off than they are, but it still comes down to MANPADS to defend airspace. Radar stations for surveillance, and I still picture the idea of a couple civilian airstrips having a small military detachment to allow dispersal of aircraft away from the main airbase in time of war.
Aircraft...Say four Mi-8s, four Mi-2s, two Cessna 172 trainers, three An-2s, one An-26 that serves as the presidential transport. Each aircraft has more than one crew; I've got about 45 pilots in the Air Force based on the American ratio of 24:1.
Russia's still got deep stocks of working older equipment, we're seeing them deployed in Ukraine. So spare parts and old hardware is definitely available from Russia, though I'm hesitant as hell to rely on them for equipment. The corruption pandemic in the Russian military means I'd probably be buying empty hulls with all their valuable bits sold off on the black market...
So I found some GDP numbers by oblast for Ukraine, and my economics are even worse than I'd estimated. Serednya Slaviya's total GDP is 7.06 billion USD, which is less than the 10 billion I'd taken from Ukraine's total by average. I can increase defense spending to 3% GDP, and get back to my previous figures.
Ukraine's 2021 national budget was 47.65 billion USD, with defense being 9.6 billion dollars. If I take Ukraine's defense spending and cut it by GDP to cover just Rivne and Volyn's totals, that gives me a defense budget quite a bit higher than I'd expected but right now Ukraine's got good reason to increase its defense spending. I suppose I'd do the same, with the national fear that we're next and staring down the Belarussians. So that comes to a national defense budget of 4.8% GDP, or a total defense spending of 339 million USD.
That does wonders for my procurement budget, pushing it to 135.6 million and improves my choices slightly. Granted that's only for 2021, and doesn't count the same for every year, but Serednya Slaviya's in a tight position, one could argue. I've looked into historical defense budgets but the numbers are all over the place; I can't even get agreement on GDP amounts depending on where I look.
So I'm doing better than I initially thought when it comes to procurement and defense budgets, but I'm either going to have to buy cheap or get subsidized purchases. Cheap means B1 Centauro, but not Freccia; BTR-4 could be doable at 1.8 million and it seems locally buildable. Buying Chinese saves me some cash, and lets me modernize a larger portion of my force. I just looked at the latest contract price for Freccia and the damn things run 7.9 million bucks. Piranha IIIs vary depending on the contract, anywhere from 4 to 6 million each. Looking at the French, there's that new Griffon APC to complement the Jaguar, but it's running 2.5 million USD per vehicle and the Jaguar at 5 million. I still want Jaguars for my recon companies, replacing BRDM-2s, but that's a small enough program (only 30 vehicles) that I can eat the cost on it. LAVs are pretty cheap at 2.5 million each, and the Australians are getting rid of theirs for Boxers, but it comes back to the same question I had with the VAB - why am I trading my worn-out 1980s vehicles for worn-out 1980s vehicles? Procurement wants something new and fancy and cheap.
I've got about 200 APCs and 100 gun vehicles to buy for the cavalry squadrons, and another 200 or so APCs for the combined-arms battalions. I'd like to modernize the cavalry first since they're arguably the core of the army. Whatever I get, I'd like it to have a common family if possible. And I need at least 100 APCs
So it comes down to why I shouldn't buy Chinese, because they've got the economy of scale going on and can seriously amortize development costs across a platform.
Anytime you approach from a position of weakness, there isn't a situation where you will NOT find yourself in over your head with less than you thought you were buying.
IOW CHINA might benefit from amortizing costs, but that doesn't mean the efficiencies of scale are going to work in YOUR favor unless there's an advantage for THEM.
get what I'm saying here? Regardless of WHO you're sourcing from, they're going to deal for an advantage. If you THINK you can out-negotiate NORINCO, then you probably think you can out-negotiate General Dynamics. (Odds are you're wrong on both counts).
Given where you're at, you don't have anything the Chinese desperately want (or want control over). This doesn't work out to deals in your favor-meaning you'll pay the top price for their goods, which is equivalent to the bottom price for goods from, say, IMI (Israel), South Africa, Czechosolvakia (who make some fine armaments for the market), or France.
Any one of those others might actually see an advantage in giving you a deal. (particularly the EU/European outfits, who have a security interest in you being at least a speed-bump against someone getting conqueror's disease in Eastern Europe).
In the ARMS business, national interests DO factor in on credit and pricing-China's big in Africa because Africa has raw materials China needs, they'e big in the Middle East for trade reasons having to do with the flow of goods and services. Where you're at, there's no advantage for Beijing in selling you good gear at a fair price when they can take your money and give as little as possible....but there might be a few good reasons for wealthier neighbors with arms industries to sell you decent hardware at reasonable rates, if for no other reason than because it makes you a speed-bump when the Russians come looking to re-form their empire (historically, this happens quite a lot and has since the 18th century.)
and a peaceful inclined Russia has that same interest in selling you decent hardware at a reasonable rate, because then, they can use you either diplomatically or militarily to secure their own borders/sphere of influence (see the Russian consternation at the expansion of NATO over the last 30 years.)
Poland, Czech Republic,e tc. are far more likely to sell you decent hardware for their OWN reasons, at reasonable rates, than China. It's not just 'book prices', here. It's ALWAYS going to be influenced by shades of national interest on the part of your arms dealer.
the closest anyone since the 1940s has gotten to "We sell to anyone who has the cash" is France. everyone else either has an ideological motive (soviet union, Eastern Bloc during the cold war) or strategic reason (*you have something they need and enough of it to be a bargaining chip, you're positioned somewhere they consider economically or militarily critical/important for economic or security measures, or both).
This is one reason why the Mirage is so widespread world-wide, the French sold it to anyone with the money, as long as they could pay.
but that was in the 20th century when France was still raising capital as fast as they could to get out of the mess they were in after 1940, and it caused quite a lot of nasty side effects in terms of prominence and international respect, so they don't DO THAT anymore.
So there's a factor in your shopping you need to consider, and that's who benefits from selling you weapons, and how much benefit are they looking to get out of it after the Cheques clear?
-
A position of weakness is definitely where I'm coming from strategically. The only real exportable commodities I have large amounts of are wood and crops, and farming chemicals (fertilizers, etc) production. The Rivne Plant of Tractor Component Units is moving into the car and bus manufacturing fields, so that's expanding industry, but it's still pretty limited.
Well on the topic of who benefits from Serednya Slaviya's continued existance, Poland is probably highest on the list. We don't provide much of a buffer state, but do exist to keep the Belarussians and Ukrainians honest when it comes to "conqueror's disease" (I like that term) in Eastern Europe. China would get an inroad to a new market, and maybe our lumber supply would be of use to them as well as food-chemical production, but not in massive scales that would really interest them that much. France seems to still have that sell-anywhere mindset, at least as far as Europe is concerned. Hard currency is always something a government wants.
So the ones most likely to support us are the Poles, who have Patria AMVs made under license for 4 million USD per vehicle, or the French Griffon at 2.5 million per. The BTR-4 is also an option at 1.8 million, but it's been canceled by several countries for quality control failures and badly made equipment, so I'm hesitant to go in that direction. Italy is looking to get rid of their Centauros for Centauro IIs, and they probably see us as a speedbump in case of Russian expansionism - which as noted earlier in the thread has been going on for some time even after the fall of the USSR. Serednya Slaviya's in NATO since 2016, and probably joined the EU in 2020 just to pick a year.
I need at least a hundred APCs; that bridges the gap between the BTR-70s and BTR-80s that made up the 300 APCs of the motor-rifle division and the 400 and a few required by my current organization. The AMV is amphibious, which is a plus, while the Griffon isn't. I could probably build Griffons indigenously, since they're built on a civilian truck chassis, while I'd want some help and tech transfers from the Poles or else some free store credit to buy direct, which I could probably get considering the strategic situation. The AMV does seat twelve troops, which gives me more options in organizing squads, and has the same firepower as the Griffon. On the other hand, the Griffon shares a lot of components with the EBRC Jaguar, which I'm buying 30 of as well.
So it comes down to Griffon or Patria AMV, with benefits and downsides each way. The tank destroyer, I suppose I'm pretty much definitively set on buying Centauros the Italians are selling off, and the price there is pretty decent. It comes down to "the Griffon's less capable, but cheaper and can be made locally, while the AMV is more expensive but does some things I want."
I could axe one of the Combined Arms Infantry Battalions, which would cut my requirement for vehicles down to around 140 for those remaining two BNs. I'd only need to buy 70 or so APCs to supplement the BTRs, plus around 100 tank destroyers to replace my T-72s in the cavalry units. That would also let me spread out my personnel a bit more and increase the average battalion size slightly.
As far as buying minis, I can get regular Patria APCs with the remote gun station (but not the IFV model) or Griffon APCs as well. BTR-80A and BTR-4 minis are also available, though again I'm iffy on buying those - the BTR-80A being Russian and the BTR-4 having its defects mentioned above.
I'll think on this.
-
A position of weakness is definitely where I'm coming from strategically. The only real exportable commodities I have large amounts of are wood and crops, and farming chemicals (fertilizers, etc) production. The Rivne Plant of Tractor Component Units is moving into the car and bus manufacturing fields, so that's expanding industry, but it's still pretty limited.
Well on the topic of who benefits from Serednya Slaviya's continued existance, Poland is probably highest on the list. We don't provide much of a buffer state, but do exist to keep the Belarussians and Ukrainians honest when it comes to "conqueror's disease" (I like that term) in Eastern Europe. China would get an inroad to a new market, and maybe our lumber supply would be of use to them as well as food-chemical production, but not in massive scales that would really interest them that much. France seems to still have that sell-anywhere mindset, at least as far as Europe is concerned. Hard currency is always something a government wants.
Serednya Slaviya isn't really an 'in' to a defence market though (China's exports typically go to countries that are unaligned). The only major arms sale they've made to a European country that I can recall are SAMs to Serbia just a year or two ago. I think the last major export blitz they had was the 1980s to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war
So the ones most likely to support us are the Poles, who have Patria AMVs made under license for 4 million USD per vehicle, or the French Griffon at 2.5 million per. The BTR-4 is also an option at 1.8 million, but it's been canceled by several countries for quality control failures and badly made equipment, so I'm hesitant to go in that direction. Italy is looking to get rid of their Centauros for Centauro IIs, and they probably see us as a speedbump in case of Russian expansionism - which as noted earlier in the thread has been going on for some time even after the fall of the USSR. Serednya Slaviya's in NATO since 2016, and probably joined the EU in 2020 just to pick a year.
I don't think the Italians would view Serednya Slaviy as a speedbump to Russian expansion. Russia would have to cross multiple NATO borders to reach Italy.
I need at least a hundred APCs; that bridges the gap between the BTR-70s and BTR-80s that made up the 300 APCs of the motor-rifle division and the 400 and a few required by my current organization. The AMV is amphibious, which is a plus, while the Griffon isn't. I could probably build Griffons indigenously, since they're built on a civilian truck chassis, while I'd want some help and tech transfers from the Poles or else some free store credit to buy direct, which I could probably get considering the strategic situation. The AMV does seat twelve troops, which gives me more options in organizing squads, and has the same firepower as the Griffon. On the other hand, the Griffon shares a lot of components with the EBRC Jaguar, which I'm buying 30 of as well.
So it comes down to Griffon or Patria AMV, with benefits and downsides each way. The tank destroyer, I suppose I'm pretty much definitively set on buying Centauros the Italians are selling off, and the price there is pretty decent. It comes down to "the Griffon's less capable, but cheaper and can be made locally, while the AMV is more expensive but does some things I want."
I could axe one of the Combined Arms Infantry Battalions, which would cut my requirement for vehicles down to around 140 for those remaining two BNs. I'd only need to buy 70 or so APCs to supplement the BTRs, plus around 100 tank destroyers to replace my T-72s in the cavalry units. That would also let me spread out my personnel a bit more and increase the average battalion size slightly.
As far as buying minis, I can get regular Patria APCs with the remote gun station (but not the IFV model) or Griffon APCs as well. BTR-80A and BTR-4 minis are also available, though again I'm iffy on buying those - the BTR-80A being Russian and the BTR-4 having its defects mentioned above.
I'll think on this.
I think analogous sized countries include Georgia, Croatia, and Slovenia. Which means if you want heavy AFVs, you better make sure you grab them during the break-up of the USSR. You might look into how those countries are recapitalizing their fleets (if ever). Croatia got donated Bradleys but there is a lot of old gear in use in general. Sometimes you just have to shape your doctrine around the kit you can afford to get.
-
Analagous sized countries, certainly, but they also have nine times the GDP of Serednya Slaviya. This place is poor indeed; I must have picked the hoboest part of Europe to work with. I'm not kidding when I say the GDP of Serednya Slaviya is only 7.06 billion USD, with an annual per-capita of only 3,244 USD based on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnneIzTSAXg this data.
Georgia at least managed to build a defense industry in-country, with help from Israel and Poland. Croatia's in my position of limited funding to buy needed military hardware, but they're getting Patria AMV and PzH 2000 from somewhere on the cheap. Slovenia went the AMV route as well, though there was a big scandal and orders were cut back to only 30 vehicles.
China meanwhile is a total importer when it comes to European weapons: "Unlike most other regions, where China is a net exporter of arms, Europe presents a different story. More than 99 percent of China's total arms imports (13.7 billion TIV) come from Europe, while it exports a paltry 26 million TIV of its own weapons to the continent." So they have no selling market at all in the continent, while their imports are almost exclusively European. Kind of an interesting fact there.
I'm getting more and more tempted to scratch the combined-arms battalions from the Heavy Brigade entirely, and just make them two light infantry battalions - that'd leave just my three cavalry squadrons with mechanized troops. That'd significantly ease my vehicle burden, with only 200 APCs to buy and 100 tank-equivalents. Matter of fact, I'm strongly tempted; that'd give me six battalions of light infantry across all three brigades and about 70 APCs and 35 tanks per each cavalry squadron.
On that note, what's the down side of having mostly light infantry making up the military?
If I do go the route of cutting my mechanized infantry and armor companies, then what vehicles are left over can be traded out easily enough. That poses a question - should I keep T-72s in the army and modernize them to PT-91 status, or should I give up a heavy armor vehicle to modernize to Centauros and their significantly higher speed and significantly lighter weight? I'm not saying the tank is dead, not one bit; I'm just wondering if it's of benefit for Serednya Slaviya's particular status to replace something that I can't maintain and modernize without foreign assistance with something that I can at least maintain if not build in-house.
I suppose the optimum solution is two squadrons with 70 PT-91s, and one squadrons with 35 Centauros; that'd only cost 56 million USD and leaves me with at least some heavy tank capability. The question of APCs still remains; I suppose I'll go with Patria AMVs through Poland and only modernize one of the squadrons. That'll cost 280 million, but it's spreadable over time, and can be a continuing purchase with more orders to come in the future. Maybe the contracts are being signed for enough vehicles to convert a second brigade's cavalry squadron to the new hardware.
The Recon Companies in each brigade get PT-91s and ten EBRC Jaguars each, for another 150 million there, but I'm making damn sure I'm getting good battlefield intel through them.
Shame the Centauros aren't amphibious like the Patria AMV is.
Okay, so squadronwise I have two with PT-91s and BTR-80s and one with Centauros and Patria AMVs. That's the mobile power of my army in those three squadrons, especially if I convert the three CA BNs to two light infantry. I find myself okay with that. So why shouldn't I?
I'm also going to license VBL production and build those in-house; if there's any kind of armored vehicle that Serednya Slaviya's capable of building on it's own it's going to be a VBL...maybe I can get cheap machine guns from the Americans and keep the .50s on them.
EDIT: Note to self, you'll need to reorganize the infantry component of the cavalry platoon to account for the 7-seat BTR-80 and 12-seat Patria AMV. Do that later.
-
Tongue-in-cheek here, but what about making it a fast/light force based on commercial light truck chassis modified for off-road performance? Swing a corporate sponsorship. The first army to be built Ford Tough (TM). Being poor and industrious makes it a good place to set up factory making basic vehicles. You've seen videos of the Ukrainian raiders using humvees as fast attack vehicles, right?
It would be a cross between the Toyota war or SAS LRDG and the PLA's new light brigades (combined arms mechanized formations based around something kind of like a JLTV).
Be cheap, get technical. A T-72 is equally unhappy whether the TOW missile that hits it is from a hull-down Bradley or a Ford Ranger parked behind a bush.
-
Chanman is not wrong, and 4.8% of GDP is a VERY happy NATO number... 8)
-
He is right indeed.
-
and until they are members of NATO, to be honest they need to defend against all comers. After all you never know who might try to upset the apple cart and overthrow the current government for someone more aligned with the upsetter POV.
-
I've been gone too long to unpack all the excellent dialogue of late, but I'll toss my hat into the general "agreement ring".
Ditch the T-72s before someone does it for you, violently. Most here will know that I am a firm believer in the notion that gear is only as good as the troopers who use it. But the other side of that particular coin is that bad gear doesn't get better or more capable in the hands of an expert; it's just that the experts' prior planning and skill manage to camouflage the inherent deficiencies until the odds catch up to them.
Therefore, go with the gear you can afford, and put the overflow surplus into training, facilities, infrastructure, and building esprit de corps.
Chanman mentioned the Toyota War. It is a good example of ersatz gear trumping purpose-built machinery. But it only worked in the sahel because the individuals manning the technicals were motivated, properly staffed and led, and managed to work themselves into some of the finest contemporaneously modern light cavalry in the world. The PLA light brigades are really just an attempt to put into operation concepts that the US Army tried in the 1980s (primarily with the 9th ID and to a lesser extent the 7th LID and their FAV-based "fast-attack battalions"; see https://www.historylink.org/File/10131 (https://www.historylink.org/File/10131), "A High-Technology Test Bed").
Which leads me to...
As far as the why of buying from China, there's a few reasons. The vehicles in question are modular in design, like the Boxer is, comes with all kinds of variants because of it including a 155mm howitzer, it's amphibious, and the price is a third or less of other options. I admit I'm looking at it with a capabilities and statistics mindset, as well as one of price. What don't you like about buying from China, out of curiosity? I admit it's a long way to ship things and get tech support from,
Well, this:
@chanman
I think old new stuff is a more reliabe option than the chinese way i think.
...is the easiest way to say it. As well that Chinese military gear is hardly proven worldwide (and their civilian gear is certainly not fabulous despite its prevalence) and it comes with more strings than a reasonable person or group should assume is reasonable in a business transaction. Further discussion would risk treading in verboten territory which would be a disservice to and derail this wonderful family of threads.
If you manage to swing 4.8% of your NATO spending, I am quite sure you will be able to swing whatever American gear to want (okay, within reason, but you get it). Americans like people who spend money. Especially when you are spending it on them (or are doing something they want, which is often one and the same, not so?).
-
Points well made. I'll reply more later when I've had some time to let my brain settle around things, but the debate over Chinese hardware...understood. Doubly notable that none of their gear is battle-tested, unlike the Patria AMV or B1 Centauro.
As far as a Technical army, not quite, but I'm looking at stripping away the combined arms brigades and going with three squadrons of wheeled armored cavalry and six battalions of light infantry. Any reasons I shouldn't do that? I'm at that point because otherwise I'm still operating a lot of BTR-80s, and I'll have another 200 or so vehicles to replace - at which point it's getting prohibitively expensive to operate, hence my stripping them down to light infantry BNs instead.
-
Battalion Combat Teams don't fare well when operating together. You really need to let the brigades fight and train as brigades.
Any invading force coming in as Brigades or Divisions will eat them for breakfast even if your battalions concentrate.
There's a synergy that comes from operating together regularly.
-
Last year's events pretty well demonstrated exactly that, and I expect this spring will see another Master Class on it too.
-
If you are talking about a certain part of the world where a...borderland...is under sustained attack, the only thing that is being learned there is that mashing individuals into units and then pressing them into deliberate attack* with no training is equally as bad as doing the same to units.
So, you are both right (which is why countries have some form of Joint/National Training Center if they want to succeed), but its a damn shame to see it proved again and again.
I do think that Sere-Slav (and Kamas as its national father figure) will be using brigades/regiments as more than administrative formations, though battalions may find themselves operating semi-autonomously given the small size of the national defense force.
-
As long as they exercise at the regimental level more than once a year, I think they'll be fine... ^-^
-
Right on, brother.
-
As long as they exercise at the regimental level more than once a year, I think they'll be fine... ^-^
Regimental level training is quite necessary for all levels of leadership. Otherwise you cam come quite solaced in some places.
-
The more senior levels need more "tabletop" exercises to stay proficient, but those are WAY cheaper to do.
-
Big post with long lists incoming. And some questions as well, but at least I've solved the vehicle source question.
Yes, I'm definitely using brigades as the major combat element, not breaking it down into battalion groups. The BTG concept didn't work for the Russians, while the American brigade combat team is what I'm trying to reflect but with light infantry forces instead of mechanized troops.
National training center...not sure Serednya Slaviya's big enough for a dedicated area to romp around in the size of the NTC; it's only about 125 miles by 125 miles for the whole country. Our good neighbors in Poland should have plenty of training fields. I imagine the brigades rotate to eastern Poland for large-scale training; they'd deploy as brigades just as they would in fighting. Spend a few weeks a year in Poland for each brigade, and get good training against fellow NATO units.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/IBCT.png)
Click to enlarge.
Since I'm copying American organization when it comes to a brigade combat team, I might as well look at the organization I'm working off of. I got rid of the mechanized infantry/tank combined-arms battalions, and only operating two Light Infantry battalions in each brigade instead of three.
This chart gives me a few questions - what makes up the Forward Support Companies in each of the battalions? I also notice that the Cavalry Squadron lost its artillery, but I made sure to make up with it with NEMO 120mm mortars.
As far as the makeup of the cavalry platoon, that changes some as well. I was originally going with four Patria AMVs and their infantry, two Panhard VBLs for scouts, two Centauros, and an AMV MEMO mortar system. Unfortunately that led to a platoon size of 78 personnel which was way too large. I traded two AMVs for two LMVs, and cut my platoon size down to 54 plus an attached Forward Observer and an attached Medic. Still big, but nearly half of it is vehicle crews.
AMV 1
Vehicle Crew
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Platoon Commander (FB Beryl)
Rifle Squad
Forward Observer (FB Beryl) (attached)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Fire Team
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Marksman (FR F2)
Fire Team
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
AMV 2
Vehicle Crew
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (FB Beryl)
Rifle Squad
Medic (CZ-75) (attached)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Fire Team
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Fire Team
Team Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, CZ-75)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
LMV 1
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Drone Operator (FB Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
LMV 2
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
LMV 3
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
LMV 4
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Scout Team
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Cavalry Scout (FB Beryl)
Centauro 1
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Loader (FB Mini Beryl)
Centauro 2
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Loader (FB Mini Beryl)
AMV NEMO Mortar 1
Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
Loader (FB Mini Beryl)
Nine vehicles in that platoon, though, so it's still going to be bulky.
It's not as heavily armed as it might seem, either; the AMVs only carry M2HB in a remote weapons station. Two of the LMVs also mount M2HB machine guns; the other two LMVs carry 40mm grenade launchers onboard. I figure the LMV's guns can be easily dismounted to set up in observation posts or other dug in positions. I was originally going to go with Panhard VBLs instead of LMVs, but the VBL meant not having a dedicated gunner or extra seat available.
For jobs requiring a translator or other personnel, the LMV seats five, so I have room for three mission specialists to attach to the platoon if necessary.
The revised cavalry squadron looks like this:
Squadron Command Troop
Command Team
Patria AMV x2
Mortar Platoon
Patria AMV NEMO (120mm Mortar) x4
Air Defense Platoon
SA-9 Gaskin x4
Patria AMV x2
SAM teams x4
Chemical Platoon
GAZ 66 4x4 Truck
Drone Platoon
GAZ 66 4x4 Truck x2
Medical Platoon
Patria AMV Ambulance x6
Supply Platoon
Ural 375D 6x6 Truck x10
Maintenance Platoon
MAN KAT 1 x3
Patria AMV x4
Motor Pool
UAZ 469 x20
GAZ 66 4x4 Truck x12
Cavalry Troop x3
B1 Centauro
Patria AMV (HQ Vehicle)
Patria AMV NEMO (120mm mortar) x2
Iveco LMV x3
Platoon x3
Patria AMV x2
Rifle Team x2
Scout Team
Iveco LMV x4
Scout Team
B1 Centauro x2
Patria AMV NEMO (120mm mortar)
Recon Troop
EBRC Jaguar x2
Recon Platoon
EBRC Jaguar x4
Recon Platoon
EBRC Jaguar x4
Gun Platoon
B1 Centauro x4
That comes to 35 Patria AMVs, 19 Patria AMV NEMOs, 45 Iveco LMVs, 25 B1 Centauros, 10 EBRC Jaguars, 4 SA-9 Gaskins, 15 GAZ-66s, 10 Ural 375Ds, and 3 MAN KAT 1s in each squadron. That's a lot of 120mm mortar fire from the various echelons of the squadron.
I wanted to find a place to slot at least a few EBRC Jaguars, and it made sense to put a mounted recon troop of dedicated reconaissance vehicles alongside the dismounted cavalry scouts. It partially replaces what would be the heavier tank troop in the cavalry squadron.
The Squadron Command platoons I have listed, would they apply to the Light Infantry battalion level command as well? That'd let me add up my total number of vehicles, and get an idea of how much I'm actually spending on hardware.
Light Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron (AMV/Centauro)
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion (CAESAR/BM-21 Grad)
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Light Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Light Cavalry Squadron (AMV/Centauro)
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion (CAESAR/BM-21 Grad)
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Support Brigade
Military Police Battalion
Intelligence Battalion
Military Intelligence Company
Counter-Intelligence Company
Signals-Intelligence Company
PSYOPs Company
Civil Affairs Company
Mortuary Affairs Company
As far as the artillery battalions go, I'm thinking each brigade has three batteries, one of CAESAR 155mm guns and two of BM-21 Grad rockets. That's a total of 12 tubes and 24 rocket launchers, which isn't terribly accurate but pretty heavy on the boom. I intend to replace those artillery pieces with CAESAR 155mm entirely, though I'm only doing that at one battery per year.
I cut it down to two fighting brigades instead of three; I had too many battalions that I didn't have enough troops to fill. As it is now, it comes to a total of 16 battalion-equivalents, with roughly 11,500 troops. That average comes to around 720 personnel per battalion. Considering my light infantry companies are 200-strong units, that about fits the numbers I'm seeing. That also cut my requirements for the number of vehicles in the force, losing the third cavalry squadron meant I could afford to modernize the cavalry forces, with the artillery next on the list.
tl;dr: I'm down to two brigades instead of three, I made the cavalry troops smaller, I modernized out most of the old Soviet hardware, I'm trying to copy the Infantry BCT, I don't have all the firepower in the cavalry that I used to.
-
For jobs requiring a translator or other personnel, the LMV seats five, so I have room for four mission specialists to attach to the platoon if necessary.
That sounds like room for a drone operator... ^-^
-
That sounds like room for a drone operator... ^-^
You are of course entirely correct; I wrote that when I still had VBLs on the brain for those vehicles. Edited the post to add a drone operator to one of the LMVs.
-
And that's why threads like these are so cool! :thumbsup:
-
I'm digging this latest force. Aren't you glad this went to a new thread? ;)
When you are not hanging out with the Poles, I am quite sure you can swing a JMRC Hohenfels (https://www.7atc.army.mil/JMRC/)rotation every so often with your 4.8% NATO spending (even if it is just a light-inf battalion sent over to bolster the OpFor).
-
The fact we're at 1600 posts and counting is testament by itself... 8)
-
I'm digging this latest force. Aren't you glad this went to a new thread? ;)
Actually I am, it's been informative and fun to work out the details to fill in Serednya Slaviya's armed forces. Working out some of the history as well was a surprise, especially the early years after the fall of the USSR. It just felt right to have the initial oligarchy rise up and get overthrown by a popular movement and a coup that turned into a short-lived civil war, followed by a big anti-corruption push.
What if, instead of a group of politicians taking over post 1991 it was the military cracking down on civilian governance and installing a particular general as president, who installs a military dictatorship for a few years before the coup. That would be why the military falls in on itself in a civil war, with the rebel forces eventually winning and deposing the general and his cronies. It'd also be one more reason to reformat the military, this time as something that serves the government instead of its own interests. Serednya Slaviya would spend the next few years rebuilding itself and the damage from the civil war, and probably had a UN intervention force after the end of the war to keep the peace - Poland taking a lead role in that, hence why there's such good relations with our western neighbor.
When you are not hanging out with the Poles, I am quite sure you can swing a JMRC Hohenfels (https://www.7atc.army.mil/JMRC/)rotation every so often with your 4.8% NATO spending (even if it is just a light-inf battalion sent over to bolster the OpFor).
4.8% is pretty high, but it's matching Ukraine's numbers for 2021. I suppose ever since 2014 the percentage jumped up, though I haven't worked out how much - though I'm going to be spending around 40 million a year on replacing the Soviet vehicles with NATO equipment, some old and some new. So I'm certainly exceeding NATO's 2% requirement.
Hohenfels looks like a fun place, and I'd certainly happily ship units over there for large-scale and small-scale training. And even if it's only 63 square miles, I'm not sure I could duplicate such a training facility in Serednya Slaviya. At around 125x125 miles, a 7x9 mile section takes up a surprisingly large chunk. So yeah, we'll send battalions or brigades out to NATO facilities elsewhere, and give the logistics and transportation folks plenty of experience.
The fact we're at 1600 posts and counting is testament by itself... 8)
It's also a testament of how many iterations this has gone through, and a big testament of "I can't let an idea go." :D But what's a little OCD between friends, anyway.
Just to rebuild the cavalry cost:
108 Patrias at 2.3 million each: at least 248.4 million USD
90 Iveco LMVs at 390,000 each: 35.2 milion USD
50 B1 Centauros at 1.6 million each: 80 million USD
20 EBRC Jaguars at 5 million each: 100 million USD
All together that comes to only 463.6 million; that's assuming Patria AMV NEMO mortar carriers aren't that much more expensive than the base vehicle. I could pay that off over ten years with relative ease, though that's not the only thing the military's buying. Granted, I'm probably taxing pretty highly to get such levels of defense spending, but what's a European government without high taxes anyway? Gotta pay for stuff somehow.
-
You're keeping your personnel numbers relatively low, so that will help. People are the most expensive things over the long term.
-
No kidding, I'm paying 33.7 million a year in payroll alone. And that's not counting benefits or retirement pay, either. At least small arms are cheap. 11,500 rifles and pistols only comes to under 6 million, assuming 500 bucks per weapon at manufacturer's price.
-
Just to rebuild the cavalry cost:
108 Patrias at 2.3 million each: at least 248.4 million USD
90 Iveco LMVs at 390,000 each: 35.2 milion USD
50 B1 Centauros at 1.6 million each: 80 million USD
20 EBRC Jaguars at 5 million each: 100 million USD
What's the annual cost on upkeep and expendables? I'm pretty sure there's actuarial guides for rough estimation of annual costs barring absolute lemons. Established designs will obviously have more solid data. For cars, it seems to be 3-5% per year. Using 5% as the benchmark, that's going to be about 23 mil a year in upkeep*
*upkeep gets more expensive if you run units harder than expected and start deferring maintenance. Just ask the US Navy
Stretching procurement out and staggering introduction of new designs over a longer period of time also helps in a couple respects:
1) The necessity of having to replace multiple designs at the same time down the road
2) Simplifying familiarization. You don't want depot to accidentally cross Centauro procedures or parts with Patria ones
3) Multiple tranches give space and time to introduce changes that might be necessary for your operating conditions. Centauro traction control or tires might not be up to handling East European mud season and you might need to change say, tires, or doctrine to accommodate. Maybe your troops can't stop doing tank desant so you need to have handholds, footrests, and stirrups tack-welded everywhere
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/011228-N-2383B-509_U.S._Marines.jpg/672px-011228-N-2383B-509_U.S._Marines.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/M1A1_desant.JPEG/1024px-M1A1_desant.JPEG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/White_Falcons_Integrate_Armor_Support_for_Combined_Arms_Live_Fire_Exercise_in_New_Mexico_150930-A-DP764-009.jpg/1024px-White_Falcons_Integrate_Armor_Support_for_Combined_Arms_Live_Fire_Exercise_in_New_Mexico_150930-A-DP764-009.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/International_Mine_Action_Center_in_Syria_%28Aleppo%29_27.jpg/1024px-International_Mine_Action_Center_in_Syria_%28Aleppo%29_27.jpg)
-
The more senior levels need more "tabletop" exercises to stay proficient, but those are WAY cheaper to do.
Time to practice some collaboration with the private sector. You can call it Public-Private partnership, or Military-Civil fusion, or some other mix of buzzwords of various degrees of ominous-ness.
Serednya Slaviya's military needs to partner with its publishing and hospitality industries to host the biggest annual wargame extravaganza seen since the emergence of the personal computer*! :P
It's not new at all - there's plenty of individual cross-pollination between think tanks, wargaming spaces, and staff colleges, but being a niche aspect of all those does leave room for some directed coordination.
*There's room for collaboration with niche publishers or studios that work mostly in the strategy or wargaming space like Paradox or Slitherine, but the caveat is that unless the project is government-funded, there will be commercial considerations and software costs are essentially open-ended. Perhaps the most useful software for you would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabletop_Simulator
*IIRC, while Germany is the center of the board game world, there may be historical complexities with giving wargames a particularly high profile :P
-
Kriegspiel is totally harmless! :D
-
I'll go with 5% a year in maintenance costs, at least for the ground vehicles. Aircraft are probably higher, but I have only a few of those. My operations budget is, for 2023, 81.3 million so that's more than enough for maintaining the new and old hardware.
I forgot to add in the twelve CAESAR howitzers at 7.5 million; that's an additional 90 million to my procurement (and 4.5 million to my maintenance) but I can spread that over 15 years, along with everything else. The only things that would be frontloaded are the Jaguar buy at 100 million, and that's still got a four year window to buy into the program and get vehicles. The Patria AMVs show up in 2002 for Poland, CAESAR for the French in 2008, Centauros date back to 1991 and finished deliveries in 2006, LMV dates back to 2001, so I've got plenty of time to order various tranches and have modifications made as well as pay off my deliveries.
Granted, that's with some pretty high defense spending, but Serednya Slaviya's fear is that Ukraine falls and they're next on the list, with help from Belarus. It's not like they could hold off a determined Russian invasion launched from Ukrainian territory; the sheer mismatch between the Red Army and the SSLF guarantees a Russian win. But the hope is that by god the Russians will feel it if they try, barring NATO alliance support. It's the best I can do, really, but I accept that as the price of running such a small country.
Hm, the idea of wargaming being a national hobby might be interesting. Maybe there's room for some kind of partnership like you mention, but I figure there's only one military academy and staff college in Serednya Slaviya. Whether there's enough room for think-tanks and military development centers is iffy, the whole population is only 2,184,000 or so. The idea of a get-together to introduce people into the wargaming world could be a thing, maybe.
Say something where the academy students take on all comers in various wargames at a major convention, something like that? The ones who do well get potentially scouted for applications into the military, perhaps with an eye to becoming an officer - though I've only got about two thousand officers in the military in total based on this document's 18% estimate (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF10684.pdf).
Serednya Slaviya's pretty rural, with uplands in the south and forests in the north, and it has deep roots in Slavic traditions and folklore. There's a lot of overlap between the majority Christian population and its pagan mythologies, especially reverence of a harvest wolf (http://www.orkneyjar.com/tradition/harvest/wolf.htm), uncommon for a country that far east.
It's old, it's insular, and it's traditional, so I don't see a lot of progressive ideas percolating to the top except in the occasional maverick thinker. And even then there'd be a lot of pushback Hell, it probably took twenty years just to reorganize the military from a Soviet division to match the US IBCT, and only recently succeeded.
-
Article V [almost] guarantees an attack on Sere Slav starts the Big One. Which could lead to an interesting second departure from our timeline (the first, of course, being Sere Slav's existence).
Hey, man, the Fringe awaits only a few hundred years or so!
-
Yeah, NATO is a big thing keeping Serednya Slaviya alive. Probably the only thing, in the end; even with the improvements to the army there's still no real chance for them in a major fight. It all depends on how long they can hold off an invader, and if they can do it long enough for NATO's rapid reaction forces to intervene, and for the rest of the alliance to mobilize. Which comes down to having a good national intelligence apparatus and reading the other guy's tea leaves.
I imagine Serednya Slaviya hasn't changed much by the time of the Fringe setting, either :D still rural, still farming, still got forests, there's not a lot of nightlife even in the big towns. And probably still operating heavily on its light infantry, too.
And yes, that Orkney 'harvest wolf' thing I linked above is why I liked the Ghost Wolf Brigade name so much, it's something that fits the traditional mythology so well. I suppose I'd name the other one the Bulava Brigade, which was suggested a while ago. It can be stationed in the eastern part of the country, while Ghost Wolf is in the west.
-
Serednya Slaviya would be making common cause with the countries on the Baltic Sea, and would probably get much the same from the rest of NATO (rotating forces, air patrols, etc.).
-
Yeah, NATO is a big thing keeping Serednya Slaviya alive. Probably the only thing, in the end; even with the improvements to the army there's still no real chance for them in a major fight. It all depends on how long they can hold off an invader, and if they can do it long enough for NATO's rapid reaction forces to intervene, and for the rest of the alliance to mobilize. Which comes down to having a good national intelligence apparatus and reading the other guy's tea leaves.
I imagine Serednya Slaviya hasn't changed much by the time of the Fringe setting, either :D still rural, still farming, still got forests, there's not a lot of nightlife even in the big towns. And probably still operating heavily on its light infantry, too.
And yes, that Orkney 'harvest wolf' thing I linked above is why I liked the Ghost Wolf Brigade name so much, it's something that fits the traditional mythology so well. I suppose I'd name the other one the Bulava Brigade, which was suggested a while ago. It can be stationed in the eastern part of the country, while Ghost Wolf is in the west.
I may have missed it, but what are the borders of Serednya Slaviya and where's the capital?
-
And when are you designing your military from??
Are moving from what was left when the Warsaw Pact fell apart to present day. And when Serednya Slaviya broke from Ukraine, there had to be fear as they went "West" while Ukraine stayed "Eastern" that they would want to "reclaim" their breakaway area.
-
Serednya Slaviya would be making common cause with the countries on the Baltic Sea, and would probably get much the same from the rest of NATO (rotating forces, air patrols, etc.).
Quasi some kind of a united front concept.
-
I may have missed it, but what are the borders of Serednya Slaviya and where's the capital?
(https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/Ukraine-Administrative-Map.jpg)
Serednya Slaviya is the combination of Volynska Oblast and Rivne Oblast, the two northwestern regions marked off in this map. The capital is Rivne. It was an area that back in the late 1910s when the USSR set up its expansion it was a region that didn't see itself as Ukrainian, but simply as "locals" to the area. So there is a historical independent mindset for the region; hence in its history it wasn't incorporated as an SSR but instead formed a little client state for the Soviets. Language is a local dialect of Ukrainian that isn't terribly different.
And when are you designing your military from??
Are moving from what was left when the Warsaw Pact fell apart to present day. And when Serednya Slaviya broke from Ukraine, there had to be fear as they went "West" while Ukraine stayed "Eastern" that they would want to "reclaim" their breakaway area.
Military design is as of modern day, hence all the commentary about watching the current events happening in its neighbor and how warfare is changing the organizational ideas that come up.
As far as when Serednya Slaviya was formed, that was as mentioned above, spun out of an historically independent region of Ukraine that didn't get absorbed into the USSR. It's not a breakaway area like Taiwan is to China.
Quasi some kind of a united front concept.
That's NATO for you. Though just how united it is can vary from day to day...
-
The more I look at that map, the more I want to enlarge Serednya Slaviya by gobbling up western Ukraine, specifically everything west of Rivne and Khmelnytskyi's oblast borders. Make me stop please.
-
perhaps go the other way, and have parts of belarus and poland join them? since you're postulating what is basically a long running ethnic/cultural divide with ukraine, and those rarely have neat diving lines that end at borders. when the soviet union broke up in 1991, the (then semi-independant since 1990) belarus republic also fractured with a small section of it's southern territory (perhaps the part with brest and pinsk) breaking off and joining Serednya Slaviya based on old ties.
poland might be trickier.. either they did similar despite poland being a nominally sovereign allied nation and not a russian owned republic, or the pre-soviet territory within poland is in dispute, but no serious claims being pressed. this would cause minor tensions when Poland and Serednya Slaviya each join NATO, but you can always claim they're focused on a political resolution to it to avoid warfare.
-
That would be one idea, yeah...what I was thinking about with enlarging Serednya Slaviya into more of west Ukraine was based on the 1919-1920 Polish-Soviet war, and the formation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Have the Riga peace treaty altered based on a slightly more pro-Polish outcome in the war, and form Middleslavia out of the remains of the WUPR. That would leave Belarus alone, and form up those amalgamated territories into an independent state that doesn't get absorbed as an SSR. They don't see themselves as Ukrainian or Polish historically, despite speaking Ukrainian in the majority, so they get to be their own country. Why wouldn't they be forcibly reunified with Ukraine after WWII and the Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe to Berlin is a good question, but I can handwave that as a strong independence movement after the war - not enough to kick the USSR out completely, but enough that they let Serednya Slaviya be its own country.
Which I admit is the same problem I have with Serednya Slaviya as it is now, just Rivne and Volyn oblasts, but I digress.
I was looking for GDP data for Belarusian regions and couldn't find it broken down by oblast. I did get it for Ukraine, which is why I'm focusing on breaking apart that country historically. What I put together for the enlarged Serednya Slaviya is a nation of 10,456,000 and a GDP total of 35.08 billion USD. Which comes to a GDP per capita of only 3,355 USD, so it's still going to be poor...just bigger. Ukraine's nominal GDP is 4,835 USD, so we're still on the poor side compared to Ukraine.
This is what my brain does - seize on something and not let go and keeps changing the idea with another 'what if' thought. And I won't lie, it's bloody annoying at times, but I just picture a larger Serednya Slaviya being more able to be independent in its own industry and politically. What do you guys think?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brest_Region#Economy
-
The more you alter the map... >:D >:D that grow from it basing on West Ukrainian People's Republic, well that should cause long term issue with Poland over old land claims, as well as long term issue with Ukraine.
Soviets while you were under their control would not have been happy your "nation" had supported the White Russians and rejected their help against Poland.
-
The Hungarians will want a word with you if you reach for Transcarpathia... ^-^
-
Hmm. Might want to ditch the light cav and infantry battalions and invest in more heavy equipment after all, Kamas. You might end up needing it ;D
-
Unfortunately that doesn't list the GDP of the Brest region, though it is a pretty detailed breakdown of its industries.
The WUPR was the southern portion of west Ukraine, the Gallicia region. I'd be expanding its territory if I were to go with the larger region, and as far as land claims go well...pretty much all of Belarus and Ukraine were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so there's historic claims all around.
The big change comes with the Peace of Riga, and shifting the Polish negotiators to ones aligned with Pilsudski's desires - that pushes the Soviet border back a ways, and gives Poland western Ukraine. This gets spun off by the Poles in 1922 as the Ukrainian-speaking Serednya Slaviya, and is given its independence that year. With the famine going on in Russia at the time, plus the continuing Russian civil war, they didn't have the ability to forcibly unify the Ukrainian peoples.
Stalin was more internally focused on the USSR rather than being an expansionist, at least in the years prior to WWII. During this time Serednya Slaviya got going economically and politically, becoming a successful independent state like its neighbor Poland, though would fall to Soviet domination when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. Like much of Eastern Europe, the German invasion in 1941 was seen as liberation from Stalin at first. After the Soviets drove the Germans out, Serednya Slaviya's government was reformed with the USSR's "assistance" and turned into a client state like other nations in the Warsaw Pact.
That history works for Serednya Slaviya no matter where I put it or how big it is, really...and dammit I feel like I should make things bigger. That'd give Sere-Slav more industry of its own, where it's still mostly rural but the Lviv area is pretty industrialized and would probably be the capital of the country. It's also big enough to stand on its own, and I think less likely to be forcibly reincorporated into Ukraine - I was having trouble mentally justifying why a small portion of Ukraine would be kept free and not brought back together. A larger initial split makes more sense to me.
Transcarpathia...I think I'll stick with the little corner of it that Ukraine currently owns, but give the Hungarian border some healthy respect.
And hah, yeah...I still like the light cavalry force idea, but I suppose I'm going to have to see how many T-72s I end up with - if I go big, there's going to be a bit more than just one Soviet M-R division making up its military. PT-91s, here we come?
Any counter opinions? Does making a larger Serednya Slaviya make more sense to you guys or should I keep it small?
-
I thought you had a pretty tight story with a small one, but it's your story to do with as you see fit! :thumbsup:
-
A larger version is usefull in my opinion, as you you can get a betterr industrial base from it.
-
I like the smaller nation you were working with.. you were small enough to not be a "threat" to any nation around you.
if u had been independent from post WWI, maybe Russian might not forced you into Ukraine post WW2
-
There's an Itch.io project that might be relevant:
https://fezzik21.itch.io/slava-ukraini-the-board-game
It's under development and is supposed to be a Twilight Struggle-influenced turn-based solitaire board game about the first 21 days of the Ukraine war (from the Ukrainian side).
Note that it's name-your-price and the author suggests donating to a relevant charity directly, although they will also be donating net proceeds.
A Serednya Slaviya code red pre-NATO Article 5 may have some similarities. Funny how we were just discussing this...
Edit: The Windows Zip seems to contain Mac files. I've commented and hopefully the author fixes that soon
-
For keeping Serednya Slaviya small...what justifies their continued existence after WWII as an independent state? A larger one I could see being kept as a buffer state between the Ukrainian SSR and the West, but little Serednya Slaviya seems too easy to gobble up and reunify with Ukraine.
A larger Sere-Slav also has a larger industry like Nightsarge mentions, letting me produce at least some IFVs and APCs locally.
-
the same thing that kept the Baltic countries as independent states. Yes Serednya Slaviya is a tiny state, but look at the number of post soviet breakup small states that were formed/came back into existence = Montenegro.
There honest might have been some post Soviet Breakup who might wanted you to "rejoin" Poland or Ukraine. Part of why my earlier comment that the nation would have to be prepared to people who would want to change the government POV to match theirs. The nation might have had more spooks operating in country from many different nations trying to influence your government POV.
-
Whether I go small or "large*", the question of unification with Ukraine is one that becomes big. I suppose under the military dictatorship in the early 1990s it's not something being considered, but after the overthrow there'd likely be a referendum or two to rejoin Ukraine. What I need is an independently-minded population, and I suppose with the heavily traditionalist mindset I would have it. If I go large, I'm still at a low enough population density to keep things rural, especially outside of the Lviv area.
Going large would actually let me have an air force, small but present, instead of an air defense force. That's something to consider, having a couple squadrons of combat aircraft.
*It'd still only be 40% the size of Poland, so it's not that large. And less than half the population of Yugoslavia.
-
So we are thinking of a military spending of 15-20 billion dollars.
-
That's half the GDP of the large version of Serednya Slaviya; it comes out to a total GDP of 35.08 billion. Military spending for the large version of Serednya Slaviya would peak at 1.038 billion which is 2.96% GDP and what Ukraine's actual spending was in 2021. Not sure where I got that 4.8% GDP spending before. Small Serednya Slaviya would only come up to 209 million USD.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902185627/http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/SOH/SOH_Content/SOH.ORG.US.00.00.00.00.SE.pdf
Found this. Talk about a detailed toe for the army in 2015! (It's already out of date, but I find it to be a useful snapshot.)
And this.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/divided-ukraine-connolly.aspx
It's an interesting look at what would happen if Ukraine divided east and west. His border is further east than I would put it; I'd leave Kiev in the east and only take the western third of the country. And of course the same applies to small Serednya Slaviya, though I wouldn't have access to the Lublin basin shale gas field.
-
It looks like I'll go with a medium-sized Serednya Slaviya instead. I found this map:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Soviet_annexation_of_Eastern_Galicia_and_Volhynia_during_WWII.svg/593px-Soviet_annexation_of_Eastern_Galicia_and_Volhynia_during_WWII.svg.png)
It shows the portion of Ukraine that was given to Poland as part of the Peace of Riga in 1921, which remained part of Poland until the Soviet invasion in 1939 and its reunification with Ukraine. In my alternate history, the Peace of Riga spun it out into a neutral buffer state between Ukraine and Poland, and it spent 18 years independent until the USSR came. After 1945 it retains its independence in a notional way, being made a puppet state of the Soviet Union under the Warsaw Pact.
Since it so closely follows the borders of the oblasts, I'll slightly adjust it to fit the oblasts perfectly, and call those five regions all of Serednya Slaviya. I end up with a country slightly larger than Serbia in area and population, with a total military of 25,384 in the Land Forces and 2,978 in the Air Force. That's enough for five brigade combat teams; I'm thinking one armored BCT, one "Stryker" BCT with Patria AMVs instead, two light infantry BCTs, a Serbian-style artillery brigade, and a support brigade. I'm still heavily reliant on my light infantry, just like before, but I've got some heavier forces to support them, including six companies of PT-91 MBTs in the combined arms battalions and the armored cavalry squadron. That's 84 tanks for the whole army...plus 36 B1 Centauros that replace Stryker MGS in the mechanized infantry BCT.
Armored Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Combined Arms Battalion (Armored)
Combined Arms Battalion (Armored)
Combined Arms Battalion (Infantry)
Armored Cavalry Squadron
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Mechanized Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Heavy Cavalry Squadron
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Infantry Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Cavalry Squadron
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Infantry Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Infantry Battalion
Light Cavalry Squadron
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Artillery Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Howitzer Battalion
Howitzer Battalion
Howitzer Battalion
Rocket Artillery Battalion
Rocket Artillery Battalion
Brigade Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Support Brigade
Military Police Battalion
Military Police Battalion
Intelligence Battalion
Military Intelligence Company
Counter-Intelligence Company
Signals-Intelligence Company
PSYOPs Battalion
Civil Affairs Battalion
Mortuary Affairs Company
What else should go into the Support Brigade, as far as other services for the military?
-
So what was your relationships with Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.. Post Soviet Breakup?
While defining your military is good, defining your political relationships also tell you who have as friends vrs enemies and how it changes over times.
Also the Little chunk of Ukraine south of you, does it stay Ukrainian or does it spin off to another nation(s)
-
The little chunk of Ukraine probably stays a Ukrainian exclave, like the Kaliningrad region of Russia. I picture Serednya Slaviya giving up a tiny corridor there to connect the two regions, without losing any territory in the process. Maybe something traded on the north edge where the red part of the map seeps past the Rivne oblast's border.
Relations with Poland were always friendly, with a pro-EU mindset for Serednya Slaviya. The Russian-leaning governments of Ukraine and Belarus (until 2014) put a split in relations, and things haven't always been the smoothest. More recently Ukraine's shifted into a similarly-aligned mindset, and things got friendly with them after the Maidan protests and the change of government. Belarus has had cooler relations, but there's still trade going on around all three countries.
EDIT: Since I have three different brigade designs, I worked up the different cavalry squadron for each. The HHT for the cavalry remains unchanged across each type, and is the same as what was posted on page 4 of this thread. The individual cavalry troops are below.
Armored BCT Mechanized BCT Infantry BCT
Cavalry Troop x3 Cavalry Troop x3 Mounted Cavalry Troop x2
PT-91 Twardy B1 Centauro Iveco LMV x2
Patria AMV Patria AMV Ural 375D 6x6 Truck x2
Patria AMV NEMO x2 Patria AMV NEMO x2 Iveco LMV (81mm mortar) x2
Cavalry Platoon x3 Iveco LMV x3 Cavalry Platoon x3
Patria AMV x6 Cavalry Platoon x3 Iveco LMV x6
Rifle Team Patria AMV x2 Scout Team
Scout Team Rifle Squad Dismounted Cavalry Troop
PT-91 Twardy x2 Scout Team Iveco LMV x3
Patria AMV NEMO Iveco LMV x4 Ural 375D 6x6 Truck
Tank Troop Scout Team Mortar Section (60mm mortar)
PT-91 Twardy x2 B1 Centauro x2 Sniper Squad
Tank Platoon Patria AMV NEMO Dismounted Cavalry Platoon x3
PT-91 Twardy x4 Recon Troop Iveco LMV
Tank Platoon EBRC Jaguar x2 Scout Squad x6
PT-91 Twardy x4 Recon Platoon Scout Team x2
Tank Platoon EBRC Jaguar x4
PT-91 Twardy x4 Recon Platoon
EBRC Jaguar x4
Gun Platoon
B1 Centauro x4
The irony of making a "dismounted cavalry troop" is not lost on me, and I feel sorry for the guys that have to walk that far. At least the platoon leadership gets an armored vehicle. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward; the Infantry BCT cavalry squadron is plucked from the TOE pdf I linked above.
-
You know, you probably just butterflied away the 2014 coup in Ukraine as Serednya Slaviya is comprised of oblasts that were the heart of pro-Maidan movement and provided the majority of members of combat groups that battled the police during the protests, without them the government can clear out the protests and ride out the political instability to the next elections although there is good chance that the mirror events of 2014 would happen, with rebellion against government in western oblasts with Western support replacing rebellion against coup junta in eastern oblasts with Russian support.
With Serednya Slaviya in the way the impetus for attaching Transcarpathia to USSR is gone so it is more likely to remain with Czehoslovakia and post separation with Slovakia.
Also, the Rivne nuclear power plant does not get built, instead a powerplant elsewhere in Ukraine is built, possibly Zhitomir or Kharkov plant project starts earlier.
-
Yeah, that does throw a monkey wrench into things. But I think there's enough of Ukraine's population that the protests go on anyway.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Euromaidan_RSA_occupations.png)
That shows a map of oblasts where the Regional State Administration buildings were occupied by protestors; there's plenty of revolutionary spirit in central and the rest of western Ukraine to still carry out the revolution and pressure the Rada to depose Yanukovych.
Still, say the protests fail and Yanukovych remains in power until the 2015 elections. Poroshenko defeats him with a slim majority, starts the EU connections, and Ukraine gets invaded and Crimea annexed a year later than in the OT. Elect Zelensky in 2019, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine goes off in 2022 just as in the real history. Or would Yanukovych win the 2015 election, without Serednya Slaviya as part of the country?
The nuclear plant in Rivne probably gets built in Kharkiv, yeah. Rivne does eventually get a 1000 megawatt reactor built in 2004, but the ones historically built in the 1980s get built in Kharkiv instead. That gives us a little nuclear energy, but the core power generation is likely natural gas and coal.
I agree on Transcarpathia remaining with Slovakia, that one oblast hanging off disconnected from the rest of Ukraine.
EDIT: Personally I can see there being enough pro-EU sentiment in the rest of Ukraine that the Maidan protests still end up with the same result, but let's what-if. Say Yanukovych doesn't get deposed, and the protests aren't as large as they were in the real history. There's no 2014 election, since he doesn't flee the country, and takes part in the 2015 election for president. Without Serednya Slaviya's voter base, could he win another election?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png/640px-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png)
That's the results of the 2010 election, where he narrowly defeated Tymoshenko; it's clear that Serednya Slaviya would have been Tymoshenko's core voter base. Looking at the percentages, I'd say Yanukovych would likely win a 2015 election...so what happens to our neighbor Ukraine in such an event?
-
Probably a Syria style civil war, (either during protests or after elections) with Seredny Slaviya being the hub for funneling weapons and advisors to the rebels.
-
I imagine the Russians would invade quickly in that case to shore up their side of Ukraine, declaring themselves peacekeepers. Hm, we should explore this alt-history further, this idea intrigues me.
So Yanukovych wins a highly suspect March 2015 election, and things break apart into a civil war starting with a repeat of the Maidan protests. The Russians insert troops into the Donetsk region soon after, shoring up Yanukovych's government against the western and central regions that are in rebellion. Tymoshenko and Poroshenko probably retreat to Serednya Slaviya and form a government-in-exile, and Sere-Slav supports the anti-Yanukovych rebels. Instead of waiting until 2022, Putin sends in troops in a general invasion later in 2015, probably in summer. Serednya Slaviya petitions for emergency entry into NATO, and gears up to support the rebels.
This would be before Poroshenko would have started the purges of the pro-Russian elements of his military, so there'd be a divide there as well. I imagine both sides would descend into the kinds of trench warfare we're seeing now, with neither side - the Russians, Yanukovych's people, and the western rebels - getting much in the way of momentum for offensive operations. There's probably a large number of Serednya Slaviyans that join the rebel army, and I do like the idea of being the main hub for supporting the rebels.
Just like in the real world's war, it becomes an infantry-hungry artilleryfest, and the Ukrainian army is split as to which side it's supporting. It's an attrition war, and Russia's got the weight of numbers, but neither side can really get going strategically. Russia would make a drive for Kiev from within Belarus, and probably manage to reach it this time, but the intense fighting stalls out their offensive in the city and they're unable to hit the knockout blow by taking Kiev.
I imagine there'd be pressure on Belarus to join in the "peacekeeping operation" and send troops south to support the Russian forces in the east. This really doesn't have an end until Russia gives up and goes home, does it - the Ukrainian rebels aren't going to quit, even in "pacified" regions, just like Syria. And Russia is going to make sure it installs a pro-Russian Yanukovych government...I think the Russians win this one, with sheer numbers on their side. Say it ends around 2020 with much of the country in ruins, Yanukovych reinstalled as president, and the country under Russian control alongside Belarusian troops.
Serednya Slaviya's going to need a modern army quick.
How's that sound for a butterfly effect?
-
First of all Tymoshenko was still in prison at the time of Maidan and would not get a release by the time of 2015 elections. Poroshenko only entered politics when it was absolutely safe for him to do so, thus he would not run in 2015. Thereby the most likely candidate to run against Yanukovich is Victor Yuschenko.
Wy would Putin invade Ukraine that is controlled by President that he is allied to? There is no need for Russians to send troops to Donbass either, their involvement would most likely be similar to that in Syria. The problem for the rebels is that most of the bases and depots are in central and eastern Ukraine, so rebels can't get them, thus firepower scale will massively favor the government. Kiev would be split into government and rebel controlled districts, a brutal urban battle similar to battles of Damascus and Aleppo in Syria. It's possible Starokonstatinovs airbase could hold out like Kuweirs airbase.
Western support would be similar to Russian votrong during Donbass war, sending the rebels same equipment as used by Ukrainian army, so it could be claimed it is actually stuff captured from the army.
Russians would in the start supply the government forces with spare parts (especially for aircraft and helicopters) and munitions, also allowing formation of cossak units and other volunteers. As matters escalated they would probably start doing airstrikes and sending in special forces, later also mercenaries (Wagner). Deployment of regular troops would be more or less in support role, leaving Ukrainians, volunteers and mercenaries do most of the fighting, while Russian BCGs would bolster them where needed.
I lost track, is Serednya Slaviya in NATO? If not, then during increased Russian involvement a stray cruise missile might hit one of the weapons transfer points. Might want to invest in AAD.
-
I wasn't thinking about Tymoshenko being in prison still, she wouldn't be released after the Maidan protests in such a situation. So noted about Poroshenko, Yuschenko as Yanukovych's opponent does make more sense.
My thought about Putin sending troops would be to bolster the pro-government forces under Yanukovych, I didn't think Russia would accept having a civil war on its border without intervention somehow. Especially if they're claiming to be peacekeepers in the east, freeing up government forces to fight in the central and western portions of the country.
So you're saying they'd have a more hands-off approach, supporting the government forces supplying equipment and training rather than direct forces outside of the volunteers and mercenaries like you mentioned. That'd drag things out, I think, which would turn the war into a multi-year fight. Kiev would be a meat grinder for sure, I agree with you there. It'd end with the city a shambles from the fighting, but ultimately in control of government forces. That's how I see this eventually ending after several years, with the government forces eventually winning.
Serednya Slaviya isn't a member of NATO when the civil war starts, but that would be an impetus for them to petition to join quickly like Finland and Sweden have in the real world. So yeah, they'd probably get an "off-course projectile" hitting a transfer point like you suggest, but that wouldn't stop things. The last thing that Serednya Slaviya wants to see on its border is a pro-Russian Ukraine, so there would definitely be support for the rebels plus a number of volunteers joining their forces. As far as AAD goes, they've got relatively limited SAM assets - pretty much what you'd find in the MRD or TD of the old Soviet days, so once NATO membership comes through we're probably begging for Patriots to be stationed in-country.
Here's a question that weighs heavily on the civil war in Ukraine - what does the UN do? Is there an intervention like in Kosovo with a no-fly-zone and troops on the ground, or do they stay out of this one because of the risks of directly fighting the Russians supporting the government forces?
I did some more work on the personnel count for Serednya Slaviya's military. Under the old Soviet system they had two Motor-Rifle divisions and a Tank division, which after westernization turns into three Armored Brigade Combat Teams, one Stryker BCT, two Infantry BCTs, an Artillery brigade, and a Support brigade. Once the fighting begins in Ukraine in 2015, they fast-track the purchasing of more modern equipment to replace what they've sold off to other countries and as of the start of the civil war, started sending leftover Soviet hardware to Ukraine.
Fortunately our arms industry is a little better off with the larger size, and it's possible that we're even building new BTR-80s with various upgrades, probably copying the BTR-80A with the 2A72 30mm cannon instead of the 14.5mm machine gun. We're still going to upgrade our active tanks to PT-91 Twardys, but there should still be a stock of unmodified T-72M1s that we can give to the Ukrainian rebels for support. I like the idea of claiming that Serednya Slaviya-supplied hardware was supposedly captured from the government forces or was part of Ukraine's arsenal all along.
So the copy of the Stryker BCT is the only one with Patria AMVs, it's probably the most modern of our armed forces. The three ABCTs are using new and refurbished & upgraded BTR-80As for their troop transports, and combining their tanks give me a total strength of 315 PT-91s. That's less than half the T-72s I had in the Warsaw Pact days, so even after exports over the years there'd probably still be a number of them to be given to the rebel forces. Small arms and such, those I'm sure we're producing ourselves, and considering we didn't apply for NATO membership until 2015 the need to match NATO equipment is recent - so we've been producing AKMs and 5.45mm ammunition for a good long while. The switch to FB Beryls happens after NATO membership.
-
I think if you look at the AU, what the UN/NATO does look much like how Syria was handled, or worse Iraq when it was divided post Desert Storm.
SS military going to have to become "defensive" because once they go overtly offensive, congrads you just joined a civil war and become a legit target.
-
Here's a question that weighs heavily on the civil war in Ukraine - what does the UN do? Is there an intervention like in Kosovo with a no-fly-zone and troops on the ground, or do they stay out of this one because of the risks of directly fighting the Russians supporting the government forces?
UN does nothing because Russia has veto in the Security Council, it is also unlikely that USA would carry out unilateral airstrikes like it did in Syria, this being Russia's doorstep and all. So there is going to weapons aid and sanctions by USA and it's allies.
Once the fighting begins in Ukraine in 2015, they fast-track the purchasing of more modern equipment to replace what they've sold off to other countries and as of the start of the civil war, started sending leftover Soviet hardware to Ukraine.
Keep in mind that until recently, USA was more then willing to sell the hardware it pulling out of service to the countries it sought to bolster for only the price of transport and refit. Thus SS could get on the cheap stuff like OH-58, MRAPs (don't), humvees... Now, all that stuff goes directly to Ukraine.
but there should still be a stock of unmodified T-72M1s that we can give to the Ukrainian rebels for support. I like the idea of claiming that Serednya Slaviya-supplied hardware was supposedly captured from the government forces or was part of Ukraine's arsenal all along.
Not initially though. In 2014 Ukrainian army used T-64 tanks and a few T-80, T-72s were mothballed in Kharkov, this presented problem for Russians as they scrapped most of their T-64 tanks and thus had only few to give to the rebels, so it became bloody obvious where the tanks are coming from when T-72s started showing up in rebel ranks.
Similarly, in Syria CIA first delivered weapons that could come from Syrian (and Libyan) depots, before going all in and flooding the country with TOWs.
My guess is that initially it will be infantry weapons, including ATGMs and MANPADs, followed by mortars and artillery like ubiquitous D-30, along with copious amount of ammo as most of ammo depots are in government controlled areas. Tanks would be going in once the SS government becomes really worried about the state of rebels and perhaps gets some security guarantees from USA.
-
SS military going to have to become "defensive" because once they go overtly offensive, congrads you just joined a civil war and become a legit target.
That is a very good option to think of your dorctrines to keep you out of a fight.
-
SS military going to have to become "defensive" because once they go overtly offensive, congrads you just joined a civil war and become a legit target.
Yeah, we're not going to get directly involved in the civil war that way. We're supportive, but not dumb.
That said, Serednya Slaviya probably will be the number one destination for Ukrainian refugees, like Poland is for the real world. That's going to massively tax the resources of the country, since there's been over ten million refugees that fled to Poland in the real world - I can see similar numbers going to SS, which only has a native population of seven million. So there's a humanitarian crisis in Serednya Slaviya going on at the same time.
UN does nothing because Russia has veto in the Security Council, it is also unlikely that USA would carry out unilateral airstrikes like it did in Syria, this being Russia's doorstep and all. So there is going to weapons aid and sanctions by USA and it's allies.
I agree on the US airstrikes not being a thing; the last thing they want is a conflict directly with Russian forces that escalates into a shooting war. Okay, so the UN stays out of this one.
Keep in mind that until recently, USA was more then willing to sell the hardware it pulling out of service to the countries it sought to bolster for only the price of transport and refit. Thus SS could get on the cheap stuff like OH-58, MRAPs (don't), humvees... Now, all that stuff goes directly to Ukraine.
Yeah, for a while there was damn near free equipment being flooded on the weapons market. MRAPs I'll pass on, they have their problems, but HMMWVs would get picked up to supplement the Iveco LMV in less combat-heavy roles. I just don't want to absorb a large amount of US hardware; the thought was an army organized like the Americans but with European and ex-Soviet hardware. Which leads to...
Not initially though. In 2014 Ukrainian army used T-64 tanks and a few T-80, T-72s were mothballed in Kharkov, this presented problem for Russians as they scrapped most of their T-64 tanks and thus had only few to give to the rebels, so it became bloody obvious where the tanks are coming from when T-72s started showing up in rebel ranks.
I did a quick read and found out the T-64 and T-80 were both built in Ukraine. According to Wikipedia, the T-64 filled in the Tank Division's tanks, while the Motor-Rifle Division was populated with T-62s. With one TD and two MRDs that gives Serednya Slaviya 328 T-64s and 440 T-62s in the 1960s and 70s. By the time of the breakup of the USSR, we'd have bought a few Ukrainian diesel-powered T-80UDs, probably a battalion's worth. Replacing those with PT-91s frees up T-64s and T-80s to send to Ukraine; I imagine the T-62s were sold off prior to that, probably in the early years after the military dictatorship ended and the army began its reforms.
My guess is that initially it will be infantry weapons, including ATGMs and MANPADs, followed by mortars and artillery like ubiquitous D-30, along with copious amount of ammo as most of ammo depots are in government controlled areas. Tanks would be going in once the SS government becomes really worried about the state of rebels and perhaps gets some security guarantees from USA.
We're still using AKMs around the start of the civil war in Ukraine, so there's production of those that can be fired up to supplement the rebels. Serednya Slaviya also never stopped using RPG-7s, and has those to spare; ATGMs would be a little harder to let go because of their price and relative scarcity. I'd have to go through FM 100-2-3 to really total up what can be sent to Ukraine, but that's probably a waste of time in all honesty.
As far as the civil war goes, how long does it last? Is it still being fought in the modern day? The majority of the weapons depots are on the government's side of the country like you mentioned, but between what's kept in the western and northern parts of the country plus all the military aid being funneled through SS there'd be some kind of parity of forces, at least until the Russians come in on the side of the government.
I figure that Yanukovych's government forces would eventually win, with the Russians supporting them with both arms and troops being what gives the Ukrainian government forces a victory. That puts a pro-Russian Ukraine on our border, and probably leaves the refugees in SS where they are; that population bloat is going to really cause problems. At least it ends with Serednya Slaviya in NATO, begging for EU support for its refugee crisis.
Man this thread has gone far afield of its original intent. Not that it's a bad thing, but I hope it's been interesting to you guys.
-
I did a quick read and found out the T-64 and T-80 were both built in Ukraine. According to Wikipedia, the T-64 filled in the Tank Division's tanks, while the Motor-Rifle Division was populated with T-62s. With one TD and two MRDs that gives Serednya Slaviya 328 T-64s and 440 T-62s in the 1960s and 70s. By the time of the breakup of the USSR, we'd have bought a few Ukrainian diesel-powered T-80UDs, probably a battalion's worth.
Soviet Union did not export T-64 and T-80 tanks, that's what T-72M was for, T-64 and T-80 were for Soviet army alone. All T-64 and T-80 exports are Ukrainian and Russian sales after 1991.
I think the Ukrainian civil war would go on for at least two years, up to five years.
-
this has been interesting..
Yes the SS will endup with a refuge crisis from the civil war.
But I am not sure that the UN/NATO will do much if it stays a "civil war" nor do much more the provide "arms from local" depots to the rebels. Because no one really wants the war spilling over the borders.
-
Right, and Ukraine was an SSR while Serednya Slaviya is its own separate country. So noted on the T-72Ms, I suppose that's what the tank force is made of then. I'll go with the same mix of tanks, only T-72s for my TD and T-55s for my MRDs, giving me 328 T-72s and 440 T-55s instead.
So the Ukrainian civil war starts in March 2015, let's split the difference and say it ends in October 2018. That's three and a half years of fighting, which leaves much of Ukraine (especially the northern and western sections) in ruins. Reconstruction begins, and many of the refugees return to Ukraine...but it's been rough on SS supporting them and I figure not all of them would leave; perhaps a million Ukrainians remain in Serednya Slaviya permanently.
2015 sees Serednya Slaviya's application into NATO, which probably gets approved at the end of the year. The copying of the American military organization begins then as well, instead of earlier; I suppose the Soviet-era organization lasted through bureaucratic inertia up to that point. The BCT structure is in place in the US Army at that point, so with some heavy defense spending (as well as heavy social services for the refugees, taxation must be unfortunately high) it's possible to force the changes through and re-equip with newer hardware.
Prior to that, I figure there was more limited defense spending, but enough to pay Poland for upgrades to the T-55 and T-72 fleet. That'd give us T-55 Meridas and PT-91 Twardys after the SS's own civil war, probably in the 2000s.
As far as Serednya Slaviya's own descent into civil war, I figure it plays out this way. Amidst the breakups of the various communist governments in 1989-91 mass protests against Sere-Slav's own government bring about a military response, which turns into a military coup against the hardliners trying to remain in control. A general assumes power and declares martial law, shuttering the State Council and forming a dictatorship in the country.
This lasts until 1994, when popular democratic movements swell in strength and activity, leading to mass protests against the general and occupations of government buildings. A crackdown and order to open fire indiscriminately on the protestors is the flashpoint for splits in the military and some forces to refuse to follow orders. Fighting starts as other loyalist units are sent to arrest them, and blahblahblah.
Or something. I don't know anymore. I think it's time to wrap this up and call it done, perhaps.
-
I'm not sure your NATO application would be fast tracked in 2015, especially when/if it gets out that you are funneling arms and equipment to rebels in Ukraine. So Ukraine stay in the Russian Sphere?
So is the SS going to try to get involved in reconstruction Ukraine, and if so do they have the $$.
I can see the SS, doing a crash spending spree to improve your military starting 2015, worried that the Ukraine and Soviet might try to recover them too.
-
Ukraine would stay in the Russian sphere of influence, totally.
I don't see Serednya Slaviya having the funds to invest heavily in Ukrainian reconstruction, especially after their heavy spending to modernize the military and care for the Ukrainian refugees. That's going to be expensive.
And yeah, SS's main fear from 2019 onward is that they're next, hence the desperate attempt to join NATO and get the protection of the alliance. Whether that happens or not is up in the air; I personally would prefer it to happen because it's about the only thing that would stop an expansionist Eastern bloc from forcibly unifying it with Ukraine.
Quite the butterfly effect from Serednya Slaviya's formation...
-
So it occurred to me that with Serednya Slaviya making its own BTR-80s, I should probably pick something similar and better to replace it. I took another look at the BT-4 and it's a nice IFV, solves some of the problems of the BTR-80, and carries enough firepower to support its infantry on the modern battlefield and stand in for the Bradley and Stryker in the army's BCTs. The Ukrainian version has its quality issues, which led to cancellations from two countries, but my thought is that SS licenses the design and produces it locally thus solving the quality issue. I know I was originally looking at the Patria AMV for the role, but the BTR-4 brings anti-tank firepower that the AMV doesn't, and it does it for $800K less per vehicle.
Yeah, I know, I'm still monkeying with this. But the BTR-4 seats eight, which changes the mechanized infantry formations from a single large squad of seven into twin fireteams, Australian style. The format is also pretty similar to the Stryker platoon, with six fire teams and a machine gun team across the four vehicles, though there's some attached troops in with the MG team.
BTR 1
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander/Platoon Leader (FB Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
BTR 2
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander/Platoon Sergeant (FB Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
BTR 3
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (FB Beryl + Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (Ultimax 100, Jericho)
Anti-tank Grenadier (RPG-7, FB Beryl)
Rifleman (FB Beryl)
BTR 4
BTR Gunner (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Driver (FB Mini Beryl)
BTR Commander (FB Mini Beryl)
Machine Gunner (FN MAG, Jericho)
Assistant Gunner (FB Beryl)
Machine Gunner (FN MAG, Jericho)
Assistant Gunner (FB Beryl)
Drone Operator (FB Beryl)
Medic (Jericho) (attached)
Forward Observer (FB Beryl) (attached)
Mission Specialist (Various) (attached)
Since the BTR-4 carries its own ATGMs I got rid of the Milan launchers in the weapons squad, leaving a four man team with two MAGs. Originally there was a squad leader for the machine gunners, but I deleted that position to free up space in the fourth BTR-4 for an extra person to attach to the platoon. I also changed the service pistol to the Jericho from IMI, also known as the Baby Eagle. It's a CZ-75 derivative that's the most comfortable pistol I've owned, and I'd forgotten about it earlier - a mistake which has since been rectified. Riflemen that perform well enough on the range and show special aptitude in shooting get designated as marksmen, and get scoped FR F2 bolt-action rifles; a platoon can end up with more than one if the riflemen are good enough.
The BTR-4 is the standard IFV, and takes the place of the Bradley in the Mechanized Infantry companies in the Armored Brigade, as well as the Stryker in the Stryker BCT. There's fifteen BTR-4s in the Mech Inf company, with four companies across the three battalions in the armored BCT for a total of sixty vehicles. Four BTR-80-based 2S23 Nona-SVK 120mm gun-mortar carriers make up the mortar platoon in each battalion's HHC, while other vehicles such as armored ambulances are filled with Iveco LMVs.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/ParkPatriot2015part5-63.jpg/640px-ParkPatriot2015part5-63.jpg)
2S23 Nona-SVK
That brings me to 180 BTR-4s across all three Armored BCTs. Meanwhile the Mechanized Infantry BCT (aka Stryker BCT) has four of them in the platoon, with three platoons in the company and three companies per battalion, three battalions making up the core of the brigade. In addition, at company level there's also a platoon of B1 Centauros and a section of two 2S23 Nonas for mortar support. That makes 108 more BTR-4s, bringing it to 288, probably closer to 350 by the time all of the various ones are added up in the various TOEs.
Having BTR-4s means I can probably spare some along with older BTR-80s to ship to Ukraine during the civil war, though that's an expensive proposition even at 1.5 million per vehicle. If I started building those in 2009, I'd need to build 40 a year, spending 60 million each year to reach 350 vehicles by 2023. That's pretty slow; I'd imagine I could produce twice that, finishing my production in 2016 at 120 million USD a year...fortunately my budget allows for that. I'd have to finish the tank modernization prior to that, though, but that has a wrinkle of its own.
There's only 233 T-72s upgraded or produced to the Twardy standard in Polish service, and 48 in Malaysia. They just didn't make a lot of them, and no longer make tank engines anyway. I suppose only a small number of my T-72Ms would be upgraded. By 2016 the T-72s in Serednya Slaviyan service are in their fourth decade of service...I suppose it's time to start shopping for new tanks entirely. But they're painfully expensive...which makes me wonder if I shouldn't start replacing them with far cheaper B1 Centauros, switching Serednya Slaviya to an all-wheeled force again like it was when it was smaller. The Centauros are only 1.6 million, which is an affordable option...certainly a lot easier than eight to ten million for modern MBTs.
What do you guys think about converting to Centauros? They're fifteen years newer than T-72s, so would still have some life in them, and I could afford to get enough of them to replace at least most of my T-72s. I'd be spending 72 million a year between 2016 and 2023 to buy 45 Centauros each year. That comes to 315 Centauros in total, which fills in the heavy tanks in my army.
I don't know anymore, I give up.
-
I'm iffy on Centauros as replacement for tanks, they have worse mobility than tracked vehicles during mud season and much lower survivability than MBTs. Experience from Ukraine and Syria shows that infantry really needs tank support when on the attack and it's much appreciated on defence as well. While T-64/72/80 are known to toss turret real fast, when properly utilised they do well and are much better protected than Centauro, with many known cases of tanks shrugging of tens of hits and staying in fight, while Centauro can't shrug off anything.
While Western tanks like Abrams and Leopard 2 have much better crew protection and situation awareness, their higher weight makes them problematic for your infrastructure, one of the reasons for weight limitations of Soviet tanks was what their infrastructure could handle.
-
I have doubts Centauros are 1.6 million new though, are they? That's an inexplicably large discount. I think a general rule of thumb is that drive-away cost is roughly comparable for similar capabilities. The R&D and project management costs can spiral out of control, but a modern IFV is a modern IFV and an MBT is an MBT. What is wildly variable are used platforms and overhaul costs, but that's a different kettle of fish.
You can drive unit costs down a bit further through efficiencies of scale, but there's a pretty hard floor, especially where electronics are concerned*
*One thing that might make stuff like the export ZTL vehicles cheaper is that like Iraqi or Egyptian M1A1s, they're presumably been gutted of any proprietary tech like advanced C3I systems. Since those tend to be the expensive bits, it also drops the price down. There's also the ever-present possibility of budget shenanigans, like buying a stripped chassis and charging the labour and materials to finish it later in a separate budget.
I'm iffy on Centauros as replacement for tanks, they have worse mobility than tracked vehicles during mud season and much lower survivability than MBTs. Experience from Ukraine and Syria shows that infantry really needs tank support when on the attack and it's much appreciated on defence as well. While T-64/72/80 are known to toss turret real fast, when properly utilised they do well and are much better protected than Centauro, with many known cases of tanks shrugging of tens of hits and staying in fight, while Centauro can't shrug off anything.
While Western tanks like Abrams and Leopard 2 have much better crew protection and situation awareness, their higher weight makes them problematic for your infrastructure, one of the reasons for weight limitations of Soviet tanks was what their infrastructure could handle.
No getting around it though. Protection is heavy. Challenger 2, Leo 2A7, and M1A2 are the tubbies going from 65 to 70+ tonnes, but every modern MBT, whether K1A1, K2, LeClerc, Ariete, Type 99A sit around the 55 ton mark give or take a bit and that's before all the additional armour kits and crewmember accessories are added. The only exception seem to be Japanese MBTs. 50 tons for Type 90 and 40-48 tonnes for the Type 10. Obviously at the lighter end, it's probably going to be only slightly better-protected than a Griffin II/MPF or Type 15 light tank.
Maybe with the lifting of export restrictions, used Type 90s would be an option as they're replaced by Type 10s. The autoloader means crew roles/requirements are straight transition from T-72. The downside might be parts availability and electronics probably not shared with anyone else.
-
Keep the Centauro and tanks seperate, so you can use their strengts in seperate operations theaters up.
-
Price on the Centauro comes from https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Italy/B1_Centauro-old.php and it's 1.6 million euros according to Tanks Encyclopedia.
I think I finally found the cost of upgrading a T-72M1 to a PT-91 Twardy, and it's a lot less than I thought. https://www.army-technology.com/news/newspoland-to-upgrade-t-72m1-pt-91-mbts/ The combined cost for upgrading 20 T-72M1 tanks (in 2011 dollars) was 7.47 million, or $373,500 per tank. That comes to $485,500 in current dollars; splitting the difference to average out the cost per tank over time brings me to $429,500. With approximately 315 tanks in the fleet, that's a total cost of only $135.3 million. That's easily spread over seven years (upgrading 45 tanks per year) to cost only $19.3 million per year, so it's not eating up my entire procurement budget. Considering it's an engine swap, new fire control & stabilization, and ERA blocks, I think it's something that Serednya Slaviya's industry could accomplish; the big hurdle is the 850hp engine but that should be doable. That might be why I'm only churning out four tanks a month, building a powerplant that big is arguably pushing the edge of what the engine factory can put out.
That still lets me buy my ten EBRC Jaguars for the Mechanized Infantry BCT, as well as buying up and modifying Beryl rifles for NATO commonality, and keeping the rest of my needs met. And the tank upgrade package is a lot less expensive than a B1 Centauro, so I can keep my heavy armor and BTR-4 IFVs.
As far as the Air Force goes...with the revised military, my Air Force increased in size to 3080 personnel, which is just slightly larger than the Serbian Air Force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence#Aircraft
The Serbians run one squadron of MiG-29s and one of J-22 attack jets. I'll upgrade that to two squadrons of twelve MiG-29s, with two trainer versions. It gives me more air combat capability but trades having a dedicated ground-attack jet for supporting the Land Force. Other trainer aircraft are fourteen Yak-52s and twenty L-39 Albatrosses. Helicopters would probably be the same as Serbia, with the anti-tank Gazelles being replaced with more Mi-24s - not as many, say a total of 24 attack helicopters. Doesn't leave me with much in the way of transport planes, but Serednya Slaviya's still under 90,000km2 so a VIP transport is about the only thing I can really see being necessary. Helicopters can do the rest, I'll add a few extra Mi-17s to replace the Gazelles I got rid of. Call it a total of 18 Mi-17s.
So that's the Air Force, and the vehicle modernization program. 2009-2016 was the mass production of BTR-4s, 2016-2023 was the mass upgrade of T-72M1 to PT-91s. The more obsolete equipment such as T-55s and BTR-70 and -80 get sold off or donated to Ukraine's rebel forces. Hm...that does bother me, in honesty.
I admit I want to keep to the real history as close as possible, so I'll say that the Euromaidan protests go on as scheduled but with a large number of Serednya Slaviyans crossing the border and joining them - that way the heart of the protest movement still participates and sees the overthrow of Yanukovych's presidency, the Russian annexation of Crimea and insurrection in Donbass, and the eventual 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the current real-world situation.
-
Price on the Centauro comes from https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Italy/B1_Centauro-old.php and it's 1.6 million euros according to Tanks Encyclopedia.
I think I finally found the cost of upgrading a T-72M1 to a PT-91 Twardy, and it's a lot less than I thought. https://www.army-technology.com/news/newspoland-to-upgrade-t-72m1-pt-91-mbts/ The combined cost for upgrading 20 T-72M1 tanks (in 2011 dollars) was 7.47 million, or $373,500 per tank. That comes to $485,500 in current dollars; splitting the difference to average out the cost per tank over time brings me to $429,500. With approximately 315 tanks in the fleet, that's a total cost of only $135.3 million. That's easily spread over seven years (upgrading 45 tanks per year) to cost only $19.3 million per year, so it's not eating up my entire procurement budget. Considering it's an engine swap, new fire control & stabilization, and ERA blocks, I think it's something that Serednya Slaviya's industry could accomplish; the big hurdle is the 850hp engine but that should be doable. That might be why I'm only churning out four tanks a month, building a powerplant that big is arguably pushing the edge of what the engine factory can put out.
That still lets me buy my ten EBRC Jaguars for the Mechanized Infantry BCT, as well as buying up and modifying Beryl rifles for NATO commonality, and keeping the rest of my needs met. And the tank upgrade package is a lot less expensive than a B1 Centauro, so I can keep my heavy armor and BTR-4 IFVs.
As far as the Air Force goes...with the revised military, my Air Force increased in size to 3080 personnel, which is just slightly larger than the Serbian Air Force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence#Aircraft
The Serbians run one squadron of MiG-29s and one of J-22 attack jets. I'll upgrade that to two squadrons of twelve MiG-29s, with two trainer versions. It gives me more air combat capability but trades having a dedicated ground-attack jet for supporting the Land Force. Other trainer aircraft are fourteen Yak-52s and twenty L-39 Albatrosses. Helicopters would probably be the same as Serbia, with the anti-tank Gazelles being replaced with more Mi-24s - not as many, say a total of 24 attack helicopters. Doesn't leave me with much in the way of transport planes, but Serednya Slaviya's still under 90,000km2 so a VIP transport is about the only thing I can really see being necessary. Helicopters can do the rest, I'll add a few extra Mi-17s to replace the Gazelles I got rid of. Call it a total of 18 Mi-17s.
So that's the Air Force, and the vehicle modernization program. 2009-2016 was the mass production of BTR-4s, 2016-2023 was the mass upgrade of T-72M1 to PT-91s. The more obsolete equipment such as T-55s and BTR-70 and -80 get sold off or donated to Ukraine's rebel forces. Hm...that does bother me, in honesty.
I admit I want to keep to the real history as close as possible, so I'll say that the Euromaidan protests go on as scheduled but with a large number of Serednya Slaviyans crossing the border and joining them - that way the heart of the protest movement still participates and sees the overthrow of Yanukovych's presidency, the Russian annexation of Crimea and insurrection in Donbass, and the eventual 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the current real-world situation.
The price on the Centauro looks to be unsourced. Are you sure those aren't 1986 dollars? 1.6 million USD in 1986 (design date) is ~4.3 mil today. 1.6mil in 1991 (in-service date) is ~3.5 mil today, which look about right for a modern AFV.
Also, the recent Italian contract for Centauro II is 1.159 billion Euro (2020) for 96 Centauro IIs and a 10 year support contract. First tranche was 10 vehicles for 159 million Euro
-
I admit I want to keep to the real history as close as possible, so I'll say that the Euromaidan protests go on as scheduled but with a large number of Serednya Slaviyans crossing the border and joining them - that way the heart of the protest movement still participates and sees the overthrow of Yanukovych's presidency, the Russian annexation of Crimea and insurrection in Donbass, and the eventual 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the current real-world situation.
So the SS will be fully involved/engaged in what would become Civil War in Ukraine. So it going to be harder to "not be involved" nor would it be discreate. That means NATO defense rules should you get membership might not apply.
-
That could well be the case for the price of the Centauros; I'd figure the in-service date would be the more likely of the two. The contract for Centauro IIs comes to just over 12 million per vehicle, which is probably heavily back-loaded into the service contract rather than the price of the vehicle, but there's no way to know how much the Centauro II itself costs with contracts like that.
As far as the civil war in Ukraine goes, I'm trying to avoid that. That's why I'm allowing people to join the protests in 2014 that in the real world left Yanukovych deposed and the switch back to the 2004 constitution. Let the same events play out as they did in history, rather than throwing Ukraine into a civil war.
-
you maybe trying to let this AU go as RL but when you get a whole lot of outsiders involved, things change. A large #SS people being there can be a rallying cry for the Ukraine government, that outside agent provocateur are trying to overthrow the government.
-
That could well be the case for the price of the Centauros; I'd figure the in-service date would be the more likely of the two. The contract for Centauro IIs comes to just over 12 million per vehicle, which is probably heavily back-loaded into the service contract rather than the price of the vehicle, but there's no way to know how much the Centauro II itself costs with contracts like that.
As far as the civil war in Ukraine goes, I'm trying to avoid that. That's why I'm allowing people to join the protests in 2014 that in the real world left Yanukovych deposed and the switch back to the 2004 constitution. Let the same events play out as they did in history, rather than throwing Ukraine into a civil war.
"Hey, listen. I got a line on those used Centaur- *static* in Jordan at 1.6 million, and they're willing to cut it down to 1 million if we sign right away. Otherwise they're going to start converting them into IFVs. They call them Tariqs over here"
"Oh, I didn't know they'd already picked a name. We're talking about the same vehicle right? 8 wheels and all?"
"105mm gun, 4 crew, well-used but in good condition?"
"Alright, alright"
8 months later:
"So we sent you to buy:"
(https://www.janes.com/images/default-source/news-images/fg_3953261-jdw-11668.jpg?sfvrsn=6a7a6282_2)
"And somehow we got:"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Royal_Tank_Museum_28.jpg/1024px-Royal_Tank_Museum_28.jpg)
"How is that 8-wheeled?"
"Don't the idler and drive thingy count? They're round and they turn. And there's 8 per side!"
:D :D :D
-
That's a procurement official with a pink slip right there... ;D
-
So I went through that PDF I linked that listed all the equipment for each company in the various BCT structures and totaled up all the equipment that I'd have in the SSLF. Three Armored BCTs, one Stryker BCT, and two Infantry BCTs total up to the following hardware:
MRAP: 158
HMMWV: 2555
HMMWV Ambulance: 113
HMMWV 120mm Mortar: 24
Two Axle Heavy Truck: 371
Three Axle Heavy Truck: 1202
Four Axle Heavy Truck: 1065
Four Axle Bridge Layer: 4
Heavy Forklift: 27
Forklift: 41
Backhoe: 35
Bulldozer: 37
Loader: 10
Grader: 10
Buffalo MPRCV: 10
Husky Mine Detector: 20
Drone Aircraft: 24
M119 105mm Howitzer: 24
M777 155mm Howitzer: 42
Armored bulldozer: 6
Shredder: 12
Abrams Bulldozer: 6
Bridgelayer: 12
Bradley IFV: 450
Abrams Tank: 261
Stryker: 228
Stryker Ambulance: 27
Stryker w/ Mine Plow: 8
Stryker ATGM: 9
Stryker 120mm Mortar: 36
Stryker MGS: 27
M113: 231
M113 Ambulance: 123
M113 120mm Mortar: 18
M88 Recovery Vehicle: 93
M109 155mm Howitzer: 54
Armored Ammunition Carrier: 54
Side note, this doesn't count the Support Brigade - I don't know how those are organized, I just made it up on the fly with Daryk's suggestions.
I look at those numbers of trucks and blink hard - that's something like twice as much transportation as you'd find in an equivalent Soviet force, really bringing home how much the old adage of Americans practicing logistics applies. Seriously, most of the Soviet trucks are two axle machines, with four axle trucks only being tank transporters and heavy missile TELs. I don't see a proper 8x8 until the KamAZ 6350 in 2002. And on the light tactical vehicle level, there's ten times as many HMMWVs in six BCTs as there are UAZ-69 jeep-analogues in two Tank Divisions.
It's not that there's an undersized combat component either; a Motor-Rifle Division has 220 tanks and a Tank Division has 328; an MRD also has 150 BMP-1s and 300+ BTR-60/70/80 APCs. Compare those numbers to my BCTs and there's some level of parity there, but the sheer amount of trucks and their lift capacity is significantly higher with the American BCTs. It's not just the number of trucks in the fleet, but the size of them as well - like I said, I couldn't find a Soviet 8x8 cargo truck to equate to a HEMTT. And there's over a thousand of those among the six BCTs...
I ended up with a bit fewer tanks than I was initially expecting as well, only fielding 261 modernized T-72M1s. The modernization covers the following:
The upgrades include modernization of the W-46-6 engine which develops 780hp (574 kW) and is fitted with a digital starter system. New power supply systems with buffer batteries are also installed, along with passive optoelectronics for the driver ant the commander. The gunner’s station is enhanced with the III-gen. KLW-1 Asteria thermal imaging camera. The modifications also involve the installation of a digital intercom and external comms suite, integrated with the BMS solution. This refers to RADMOR’s radios and the FONET system.
That gives me an improved ground speed of up to 80km/h for the tanks, which gives great road speed compared to its cousins. The thermal viewer is also a nice addition, though it doesn't come with ERA blocks - but what can I expect for under $400K per tank? It's only 104.4 million for the whole upgrade package, so I'll push that through.
I suppose I'm keeping my 300 BMP-2s as Bradley stand-ins and 350 BTR-80s as M113 stand-ins in the inventory, and building 378 BTR-4s replacing 150 Bradleys and 228 base model Strykers for $567 million...that's going to be a seven year, $81 million a year program. The 107 other Strykers get replaced with more BTR-80s. The 158 MRAPs can be replaced with Iveco LMVs; that's a $61.6 million buy in at $390K each, but the HMMWVs...I suppose I'm going to have to fork out some cash for the UAZ version of those.
https://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/vehicles/cars/uaz-hunter-expedition/
It's a 4x4 offroad five-seater, and only costs $12,500 apiece. That's only a 33.65 million dollar purchase, that's not much at all.
The real stopper is going to be acquiring the three and four axle trucks; I can't find Russian equivalent (KamAZ 5350/6350) prices but a baseline HEMTT is $135K, that's $143.8 million for those. A 6x6 truck doesn't have pricing available, but I'll say 3/4 the cost of a HEMTT since it's got 3/4 the axles, so right around $100K. That's $120.2 million for those...and another $94.5 million for 27 B1 Centauros.
All told, it comes to a little over a billion dollars in hard spending for most of the vehicles. Spread over 20 years, starting my production/rebuilding in 2003, means I'm spending only $56.2 million a year on new/refurbished vehicles for the SSLF. Where I'm getting the 6x6 and 8x8 trucks, well, I can get KamAZ trucks from Russia before things started in Ukraine, so that solves that sourcing. At a glance, I suppose I'll load up on KamAZ trucks.
As far as the rest of the vehicles, I'll decide later what replaces what. For now enjoy the pointless thread spam.
Agent provocateurs...well, I can't help it if our socially-conscious Ukrainian cousins are having difficulty, surely we have to support them in their trying time. It's not as if we're controlling or coordinating the protests, they're just happening organically and we're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Ukraine.
Nah, no Centurions in the fleet. Too old and outdated; I've sold off the T-55s and some of the T-72s I had. At least I only have 27 Centauros to buy, so it's not too large a program. The idea of mixing up the order like that is amusing, but not happening.
-
I miscounted the number of BMPs, and I'm sticking with BMP-1s - they're older than the BMP-2s, but they seat eight troops so I can keep my two fire teams matching the BTR-4's organization rather than step down to a seven man squad. I had only added up the number of BMPs in the two Motor-Rifle divisions, and left out the 276 that go into a Tank division. That lets me fully replace the Bradleys with BMP-1s, though I'll have to buy some more to finish replacing all the M113s with BMP-1s as well. BMP-1s are cheap, I can afford that.
So that's 704 BMP-1s in all, of which 576 I already had so a purchase of 128 more BMP-1s in the early 2000s won't be too hard on the budget. The BTR-4 construction drops to only 308 vehicles to replace all the Strykers, for a $462 million contract instead, which is $105 million less than originally expected. That should cover the cost of buying the 128 BMP-1s and then some, so I'm good there. Assuming I do a seven year contract for the BTR-4s, that's a rate of 44 per year so it's not like a crash rapid production run. Four vehicles a month should be more than doable with Serednya Slaviya's military industry.
I wonder if a Nona 120mm mortar turret can be mounted on a BTR-4 instead of a BTR-80; it shouldn't be impossible considering the vehicles are pretty similar in overall dimensions.
Something I notice I'm light on is anti-aircraft defenses among the BCTs. Sure there's the note that a Stinger is often carried in the IFVs along with other spare weapons, I suppose I can do the same and handwave a Strela launcher being carried in the BTR or BMP, and hm...I suppose I'll need to reorganize my platoon to accommodate the SAM gunner. I've got that mission specialist position I left open, I suppose I can have one SAM gunner per platoon in the weapons squad replace them. If I have to attach a translator or something to a platoon, I'll stick them in a Hunter and send it off with a driver for the platoon's benefit. On that note...
(https://modelgrad.com/image/cache/catalog/model/mwh/mwh3505-700x700.jpg)
So okay, there's at least model kits of UAZ-469s (the basis for the Hunter) with heavy machine guns, which tells me the thing exists in the real world. They apparently also carried a 106mm recoilless rifle, so while it's not as tactically versatile as an HMMWV it's still got the ability to be a 4x4 gun truck.
-
Either that jeep is really small, or that MG is really big! :o
-
Bit of both, it's a 14.5mm MG onboard and is 78 inches long with a 53 inch barrel. And the UAZ-469 isn't that big, more like a Jeep-sized vehicle than an HMMWV-sized machine.
So I've been thinking about my Bucephalus BCT, the renamed Stryker BCT, and its cavalry squadron. Each troop nominally comes with sixteen BT-4s; two command models, two mortar carriers, and twelve standard machines across three platoons. I'm taking one platoon of BT-4s out of the unit and replacing them with EBRC Jaguar scout vehicles. One platoon in each troop, for a total of twelve vehicles at 65.5 million for the bunch. I'm doing this because I have the miniatures for it; I'm going to get enough to make a cavalry troop.
That does change what my original cavalry troops looked like; I'm not patterning on the Armored Cavalry Regiment anymore so I don't have the six-vehicle platoons. I'm still going with six dismounts aboard the BT-4, specifically one fire team of four and one scout team of two. That gives me four scout teams, which isn't "enough" according to that one document about scout platoons and the various missions to send them on. I think it's not going to be a problem, since I have the fire teams backing them up. While the scout teams are walking patrols and doing route recon, the observation post they set up is manned by my four rifle teams.
Of course, the Jaguar platoon doesn't have dismounts, instead relying on its own sensors for the reconnaissance role. I wonder how different the role and requirements and capabilities for a dedicated scout vehicle like the Jaguar or the AMX-10 RC are...armed scout vehicles seem to be more in the line of scout hunters, rather than scouts themselves. Moving forward of the line of troops and seeking to discover the opposing force's recon elements and destroy them, rather than patrolling routes and creating observation posts for an area. Or am I wrong, and vehicles like those (or the Soviet BRDMs) can run patrols and observation posts and do all the other things that dismounted scout teams do?
-
Either that jeep is really small, or that MG is really big! :o
bit of both i think.. the vehicle is pretty small
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAZ-469
and i think that is a 14.5x114mm HMG, which is about the biggest you can get before people routinely refer to it as an autocannon..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPV_heavy_machine_gun
-
Kamas, heavily armed scout/recon-classed vehicles are for high-intensity, reconnaissance-in-force operations--think traditional BattleTech/wargame-style action. But even then, they are there to stiffen the rest of the force's elements that are doing the traditional scouting work. The AMX-10RC in French service does exactly that, though their "heavies" and their "lights" are concentrated in different escadrons (that presumably operate heavily with each other).
-
Okay, so inserting a platoon of those in the cavalry troop makes sense to me. Not that the rest of the troop is lightly armed, considering the BTR-4's onboard weapons, but there's definitely an increase in firepower to be had with the Jaguar. Considering the cavalry squadron is operating alone, that means those three troops are on their own and would be relying on immediately available forces on contact with an opposing force.
I almost feel like I should instead operate a separate troop of all Jaguars, instead of blending a troop together with disparate vehicles. It'd be two standard infantry troops and one of Jaguars to operate in the recon-in-force role. Despite the firepower and mobility, the Centauro's not a scout vehicle like the AMX-10RC or Jaguar are (nor is a T-72), so trying to make it fit a square hole seems counterproductive.
I wonder about the Scorpion Program and the networking going on, and how something like that might be retroactively applied to legacy hardware. It's a big NATO program, working on sensor fusion and interconnectedness between different platforms, making for better battlespace management. Which is a lot of big fancy words to say "it hooks up all these vehicles so that the weapons talk to one another" I suppose. Something to factor into my military spending.
-
It's not a bad plan to consolidate your force-types at a company-level, especially if your battalion[-equivalent]s exercise regularly enough to be comfortable making up company-teams to leverage the different strengths each force-type brings (and to mitigate the concomitant weaknesses, naturally). The US Army, as one large example, went through most of the Cold War with nearly exactly that doctrine--infantry and armor battalions trading out a company to each other to make balanced forces.
Hell, one could say that US armored cavalry squadrons of yesteryear did precisely that: three scout troops (albeit with big Brads) and a tank company. As just mentioned, the French light armored cavalry formations do that as well in their regiments (which, like the British, are really five-company-strength units but there is a lot of AFVs in those groupings). Here is a short article that touches on a relatively modern French deployment, Operation SERVAL: https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2014/OCT_DEC/Sainte-Claire.html (https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2014/OCT_DEC/Sainte-Claire.html)
I like the idea of mixing up forces at the troop- and platoon-level, but that does not mean it's the most efficient way to do things. As a dimly-remembered fictional example, I gave the FSR of the Fringeverse mixed-platoons of two-to-four infantry carriers (totaling 40+ dismounts) and two assault guns because they were constantly deployed in active warzones, so it didn't make sense to have administrative groupings other than that used operationally in the field. The other side of that coin, as we have discussed many moons ago regarding slice-elements and attachments, is that it makes more sense to have like forces segregated to some extent so each group can train, recognize, and live amongst their own kind and work more happily with the other groups as the needs arise.
There is rather more historical evidence of the latter concept than the former. A lot of people like to laugh and jeer about how the military (any military) is inept or clueless organizationally, structurally, and culturally. But that wasn't my experience, in general. Mostly, everyone was concerned about how to blow things up and kill people, find a place to sleep and eat, and bring the most people home as possible.
Oh, the Centauro is the closest we have probably been to a wheeled tank. Sure, it's not as beefy as a tracked tank, but neither are a lot of tracked tanks are either, not so?
-
The source of additional BMP-1 could be Germany, they were offering the refurbished East German BMPs fairly cheap. You could also get BMP-1s from Ukraine, they had lots in storage. Keep in mind though that BMP-1 is not particularly roomy compared to BMP-2, cramming in 8 soldiers in their gear is a great commercial for tank desant. BMP-2 going to six dismounts is due to designers reluctantly accepting the realities of space time continuum, to some extent.
replacing all the M113s with BMP-1s as well
Isn't that what MT-LB is for?
-
It's not a bad plan to consolidate your force-types at a company-level, especially if your battalion[-equivalent]s exercise regularly enough to be comfortable making up company-teams to leverage the different strengths each force-type brings (and to mitigate the concomitant weaknesses, naturally). The US Army, as one large example, went through most of the Cold War with nearly exactly that doctrine--infantry and armor battalions trading out a company to each other to make balanced forces.
Hell, one could say that US armored cavalry squadrons of yesteryear did precisely that: three scout troops (albeit with big Brads) and a tank company. As just mentioned, the French light armored cavalry formations do that as well in their regiments (which, like the British, are really five-company-strength units but there is a lot of AFVs in those groupings). Here is a short article that touches on a relatively modern French deployment, Operation SERVAL: https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2014/OCT_DEC/Sainte-Claire.html (https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2014/OCT_DEC/Sainte-Claire.html)
I like the idea of mixing up forces at the troop- and platoon-level, but that does not mean it's the most efficient way to do things. As a dimly-remembered fictional example, I gave the FSR of the Fringeverse mixed-platoons of two-to-four infantry carriers (totaling 40+ dismounts) and two assault guns because they were constantly deployed in active warzones, so it didn't make sense to have administrative groupings other than that used operationally in the field. The other side of that coin, as we have discussed many moons ago regarding slice-elements and attachments, is that it makes more sense to have like forces segregated to some extent so each group can train, recognize, and live amongst their own kind and work more happily with the other groups as the needs arise.
There is rather more historical evidence of the latter concept than the former. A lot of people like to laugh and jeer about how the military (any military) is inept or clueless organizationally, structurally, and culturally. But that wasn't my experience, in general. Mostly, everyone was concerned about how to blow things up and kill people, find a place to sleep and eat, and bring the most people home as possible.
Oh, the Centauro is the closest we have probably been to a wheeled tank. Sure, it's not as beefy as a tracked tank, but neither are a lot of tracked tanks are either, not so?
For in-service vehicles, sure. The direct fire support Boxer variant with a Cockerill C3105 2-crew 105mm turret is probably even more of a tank though, simply because of the Boxer's ludicrous weight. I didn't think it was possible for a wheeled vehicle to get that heavy, but supposedly the platform can get close to 40 tonnes, which passes the AMX-30, T-54/55, MPF/Griffin II, Type 15, early T-64 and puts it around the weight class of an early Leopard 1 or Type 10 in base format
(https://armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2020/september/John_Cockerill_unveils_new_105mm_fire_support_vehicle_based_on_Boxer_8x8_armored_925_001.jpg)
-
I didn't think it was possible for a wheeled vehicle to get that heavy, but supposedly the platform can get close to 40 tonnes
The Boxer chassis was proved to up to 41t in field operations by ballasting it about a year ago to test its technical limits. The RCH155 artillery variant as the heaviest built (as prototypes) sits at around 39 tons, most baseline APC variants run around 35-36 tons (loaded).
Realistically the weight is mostly about the rather large engine that's necessary to get it moving at comparable speeds to APCs half its mass, as well as the massive armor plate underslung underneath for protection against anti-tank mines.
-
I would think the armor drives the engine size? ???
-
Oh, it all sort of blends together into a sort of Venn Diagram of the Damned. A larger hull needs a larger powerpack to move it and more armor to protect it and lends itself to more equipment that can be stuffed into it, needing a larger engine to move it...I'm sure you see the [power]point.
The old Fringeverse's Tankreator helped me figure this out in real time. So far, it hasn't noticeably broken yet (builds ranging from a wheelchair to a Terex 6300AC, as well as many common AFVs from WWI to Cold War modern with proper movement speeds and ammo loads, BattleMechs, and Renegade Legion grav tanks have all been comfortably accommodated). But it helped me learn that you don't just add weight or equipment without second-order effects quickly taking over. And adding internal volume--like dismounts--really starts to torch things.
-
Well said, and now I'm really curious as to this software you mentioned... consider me signed up to your newsletter! :D
-
Oh, it all sort of blends together into a sort of Venn Diagram of the Damned. A larger hull needs a larger powerpack to move it and more armor to protect it and lends itself to more equipment that can be stuffed into it, needing a larger engine to move it...I'm sure you see the [power]point.
The old Fringeverse's Tankreator helped me figure this out in real time. So far, it hasn't noticeably broken yet (builds ranging from a wheelchair to a Terex 6300AC, as well as many common AFVs from WWI to Cold War modern with proper movement speeds and ammo loads, BattleMechs, and Renegade Legion grav tanks have all been comfortably accommodated). But it helped me learn that you don't just add weight or equipment without second-order effects quickly taking over. And adding internal volume--like dismounts--really starts to torch things.
Don't forget the cube-square law and surface area and ground pressure! :D
When people wonder why tank tops can't be heavily armoured, and you point out all the necessary perforations for hatches, sensors, weapons, radiators, air intakes, etc. etc.
-
And that is why we will inevitably make Ogres. Less meat to weigh the metal down.
-
And that is why we will inevitably make Ogres. Less meat to weigh the metal down.
That's why we will invariably still have light infantry. Less metal to weigh the meat down. :))
-
Touche.
-
Well played, both of you! 8)
-
I remember what was said about the slice elements and attachments, hence my thought about making the Jaguar unit its own troop instead of replacing a platoon in each cavalry troop. The role it plays is just different enough that it deserves to live among its own kind, and get parceled out if necessary.
On the balanced forces, each of my armored BCT battalions is two companies of tanks and two companies of infantry; swapping out a platoon to each other for mutual support is something I'd encourage my commanders to do.
Your comment about administrative groupings matching your operational groupings is one I've tried to match, hence the original ideas for the mix-and-match cavalry squadron. I'm still thinking on the organization of cavalry units, and whether or not to go back to that mixed force and replace the current format from the BCT.
I know the BMP is a tight fit, but an eight man squad is an eight man squad and lets me have two fire teams Australian style. Maybe I should switch my armored infantry to bullpups to make life easier on them, but that would mean running two different rifles in the same branch of the service. I'll keep the Beryls, I suppose. If the AK-74 fits the inside of a BMP-1, then so will the Beryl.
I had forgotten about the MT-LB, and you're spot on. It's a perfect replacement for the battlebox, especially the 123 ambulance M113s. That's 334 vehicles I'd have to buy since there's only a handful of MT-LBs in a tank or motor-rifle division. Fortunately, MT-LB should be nice and cheap to buy, though.
The Boxer's just a big damn vehicle anyway, armor plate or no armor plate. And I can't imagine the recoil of that 155mm artillery doing good things to the suspension of the Boxer, either.
I too am intrigued by Tankreator and would like to know more.
-
Apologies, all. I wasn't trying to derail the thread nor use a back-handed way of talking up other wargaming aspects. I just mentioned Tankreator because--to date--it shows the relationship between the fundamental tank-design triad reasonably well. And no, it is not perfect by any means, but it seems to get the job done in most cases. I still need to tweak the Protection and Mobility weights from a "technical" perspective, but colloquially it meshes with the data I have seen or researched in the real-world.
Assuming the attachments work, I just did the T-80U in about fifteen minutes, using data from three sites, but settling on these two:
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm (http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-80U.htm) and https://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/ (https://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/).
The RenLeg Aeneas is ancient, done years ago when we still had the Fringe threads going. The Centurionshows how a BattleMech works out in the system, but there are some things I need to iron out mentally about BTU technology before I'd say I'm happy. And then there is a Terex superheavy dumptruck (a 3319, though).
Of course, all those are meaningless while lacking insight into all the jargon, but it shows they can be built in some system easily enough.
I cannot link Tankreator itself, of course. It is an Excel file, but too large for the attachment function.
EDIT: That's the wrong T-80U RS; it lacks turret armor, which wasn't supposed to be an easter egg! But, I cannot edit the attachments, so, it is what it is now. Apologies!
-
That looks pretty sweet! I hope you still have my e-mail address, good sir! :thumbsup:
-
I'm a big fan of MT-LB, but they are considerably smaller inside than an M113, which is saying something. On this point, I have been inside both so I can say that with some degree of certainty. Both are dead simple mechanically, and the MT-LB almost certainly gets a nod for overall mobility and extant variants. But don't dismiss the ol' 113 so easily.
-
That looks pretty sweet! I hope you still have my e-mail address, good sir! :thumbsup:
Well, of course. If anyone else wants to tank a spin inside the cupola, shoot me a PM.
-
Awesome, thanks! I'll let you know when it arrives... :)
-
And just to return this thread to its real purpose: go with whatever force structure you feel most comfortable with, Kamas. The mixed cavalry scout platoons or mixed squadrons have both been proven to work in real-world, high-intensity/optempo situations by many militaries (and even within said militaries at different times).
The good news is I am pretty sure Sere-Slav will have a better-run, more professional, and more efficacious military than its larger, most likely aggressor/opponent.
-
No worries about Tankreator, I wanted to know more too so it's a fair topic to discuss!
Yeah, I am going with an all-volunteer military, no conscription. The focus on the armed forces is one of integrity and professionalism, and trying to breed esprit de corps in a relatively new and still-reforming military. There's probably been a couple recent purges of the force to get rid of corruption in the service, and this is rebuilding after that - copying a lot about the Americans that they can.
I mean, if I'm buying my troops nice things, the least they can do is be conscious about it.
On the topic of organizing a cavalry troop...I think I'll roll with mixing forces at the platoon level. The Ghost Wolf Brigade, my mechanized infantry BCT, gets three cavalry troops like I mentioned above, with one platoon of Jaguars replacing one platoon of BTR-4s and their infantry. The firepower difference isn't that much - a 40mm cannon and two ATGMs versus a 30mm cannon and two ATGMs, so I'm not gaining a lot there. The big benefit of the Jaguars is the networking and sensor arrays, and sharing them across the troop to build a better picture of the battlefield. So I'd end up with ten BTR-4s and their dismounted scouts and infantry, four Jaguars, and two 2S23 Nona-SVK mortar carriers in each troop. I think that should be enough minis to start with, too.
-
So... when you say "mix at the platoon level", do you mean three platoons of 3 BTRs and 1 Jag, with a fourth platoon of 1 BTR, 1 Jag and the mortar carriers? ???
-
No, I meant mixing platoons up in a company/troop. Two platoons of four BTR-4 and one platoon of four Jaguars, plus an HQ section and two-vehicle mortar section.
-
Ah, ok... when you said networking the sensors on the Jags, I thought you meant spreading them across the whole troop. Thanks for the clarification! :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OqR8c_TK6Y
A video on why the French operate light vehicles with their armor platoons and how it works for them in various types of combat settings, plus a look at the reasons behind it. Pretty interesting, I thought.
-
Thanks! I'll check it out after work... 8)
-
It is interesting to see Jeep named like they are "Warships" in the french forces
-
That is a totally fascinating video! :o
Who else would have thought of combined arms at the PLATOON level? ???
-
That is a totally fascinating video! :o
Who else would have thought of combined arms at the PLATOON level? ???
I swear that video was posted in the previous thread at some point. Or maybe it was the vehicles thread. :D
At least, I recall it being a point of discussion on the merits of a mixed cav platoon with 3 IFV/APCs and 2 or 3 assault guns.
-
Either way I missed it somehow, and the question still stands: who else other than the French thought of combined arms at the PLATOON level? ???
-
That is a totally fascinating video! :o
Who else would have thought of combined arms at the PLATOON level? ???
The US Army's armored cav units in the mid-Cold War through Vietnam into the Division 86 reorganization is probably the sterling example. Depending on the year in question, a cavalry platoon consisted of up to four tanks, 3-6 APCs or even Jeeps (carrying an infantry squad, cavalry scout sections, and TOWs) and in their earlier incarnations a mortar tube.
This treatise does not get into the nitty-gritty details of the different, always-evolving MTOEs (J-series is what you seek here), but it shows how US Army cavalry squadrons changed over time:
https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2018/Summer/3Jennings_DivCav_Part118%20v2.pdf (https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2018/Summer/3Jennings_DivCav_Part118%20v2.pdf)
But, honestly, don't mess around. Read this if you want to know about combined-arms reconnaissance:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA534162.pdf (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA534162.pdf)
At only 579 pages (not counting another thirty of notes and sources), I don't wanna hear any bitching,
-
LOL! That's more evidence than I was looking for, but I'll take it on your say so! :thumbsup:
I'm reminded of the reconnaissance platoon that held off an infantry battalion in the early part of the Battle of the Bulge... 8)
-
CAV does mean "combined arms victory". So they told me.
-
Even better! :thumbsup:
-
I suppose I should find a way to drop a BCT and put in a cav regiment, I'm really missing having that flexibile force in the army. I have three Armored BCTs at the moment, with two Light Infantry BCTs, a Mechanized Infantry BCT, and a support brigade to round out the force. Maybe reorganizing it into two small Divisions, with an armored BCT, a light infantry BCT, and a cavalry regiment in each division? That'd also divide my support battalion up into smaller units organic to each division, but I feel like the divisions are coming in pretty small as far as combat capability goes.
Does two small divisions make sense, or one larger one encompassing the whole army? I suppose the smaller divisions would be more agile in a strategic sense, since they wouldn't have the inertia of a larger force in responding to changes on the battlefield.
The other option is breaking the BCTs up completely into combined-arms units, all the way down to the platoon level. That'd require coming up with all new formations and organization, which would be...interesting. I can take the armored BCT as a baseline, since it's mixing tank and mechanized infantry companies in each battalion.
The French tank platoons with the VBL teams attached to them gives a lot of extra flexibility. Flank security, immediate recon and extra situational awareness for the tanks, plus extra personnel to assist with maintenance and such. The T-72 has an autoloader like the Leclerc, so it makes sense to have extra personnel to supplement the missing loader crewmen. I'm definitely doing that for my tank platoons, four T-72s and four UAZ-469s with the heavy machine gun. The UAZs will get replaced with baseline model VABs as the French phase them out in favor of their new hardware.
EDIT: I'm still thinking on this and just vomiting thoughts. I guess I'm trying to figure out such a small force compared to the US military, where divisions and corps are the norm - I think I'll stick with the two miniature divisions as the top level of my organization, and focus the mechanized cavalry squadron in each BCT as being the small scale equivalent of the division or corps' cavalry regiment. I'm thinking two Armored BCTs in each division since they're combined arms formations on their own, and two Armored Cavalry regiments, one for each division. That loses my light infantry BCTs, but mechanizes more of my army and adds a few more tanks to my force.
So two armored BCTs and a cav regiment in each of two divisions. How important is the helicopter squadron in an armored cav regiment? Are they just the helis transporting infantry from other elements within the regiment, or do they come with their own infantry alongside the helicopter troops?
-
CAV does mean "combined arms victory". So they told me.
And all this time, I thought it stood for "crushing armoured violence"!
-
I'd go with the two smaller formations instead of one larger one. It means there's more billets for each job.
-
And all this time, I thought it stood for "crushing armoured violence"!
Er, you mean those two terms are not synonymous?
-
I will ask the question some in your leadership will ask.
DO WE NEED A CAV FORCE? or is the Military going to wasting money on an idea we don't need?
Should we copy the American/NATO idea or the French?
-
I will ask the question some in your leadership will ask.
DO WE NEED A CAV FORCE? or is the Military going to wasting money on an idea we don't need?
Should we copy the American/NATO idea or the French?
That's such a complex question that the only solution will be to hire consultants to produce a series of very long, expensive, and inconclusive reports. Once the budget has been depleted, no further decision making will be required. :)
-
If the ones doing the studies are smart, they'll spin out the process indefinitely... ::)
-
If the ones doing the studies are smart, they'll spin out the process indefinitely... ::)
No, only until the money runs out. It's not a charity, sheesh! ;)
-
Tell that to any number of think tanks in DC... ^-^
-
I bet a fact-finding trip to NTC will show them just what a cavalry force using WarPac doctrine can accomplish.
We used to have dignitaries of all kinds ride along with us. Bonus points if you got to overrun a BluFor BSA when they were in the BRDM. Because then you got to shower them with all that tasty hot brass.
I'm quite sure TRADOC can jack the price up as needed to fit the buyer's budgetary constraints or limitations.
-
Yeah...I think after seeing what an ACR can do in both Iraq and at the NTC, there'd be a push to form those units. I suppose I'll go with one armored BCT and one mechanized infantry BCT plus the ACR in each division, using the ACR as a combination reconnaissance force as well as a frontline fighting unit; since the divisions are small there'll be more reliance on the ACR as more than just the eyes of the division.
I'm thinking of organizing the cavalry platoons around a combined arms mindset like the French. Two T-72s, two BTR-4s, and four armored HMMWVs from the American free surplus hardware to supplement the UAZ-469 in more frontline roles. Each HMMWV would have a driver and a two-man scout team, as well as carrying spare weapons for the dismounted elements of the platoon. The BTR-4s would split up their infantry into a single four-man fire team and a two-man scout team; that brings me to six scout pairs to fulfill the recon mission while bringing the heat with the tanks and ATGMs of the IFVs. It's only 36 troops in the platoon as well, with three men each in the T-72s and BTR-4s, twelve more between the BTR's dismounts, and three each for the HMMWVs, so I'm not overloading platoon leadership.
Just random thoughts, really, not sure where else to go with any of this.
-
No truck commanders for the HMMWVs? ???
-
I suppose a dedicated commander/gunner for the HMMWV would make sense. I had three-man crews on the brain because I was initially thinking of rolling VBLs instead of armored HMMWVs, but free American hardware is hard to pass up. That'd increase the platoon to all of 40, though I should bring that to 42 with having a separate platoon commander and platoon sergeant riding in different BTR-4s. Scouts can be trained as drone operators, so I'd have that capability spread around the vehicles. Actually that should be 44 personnel - a platoon medic and platoon sniper with a bolt-action.
The HMMWVs...I can see the general use of the .50 M2 instead of a mix of M2s and Mk 19s; the latter are pretty short-ranged and the M2 has more utility in the anti-materiel and anti-aircraft roles. Load up the HMMWVs with extra RPG-7 launchers and rockets for the platoon grenadiers in the fire team.
I'm thinking on the cav fire team as being the Team Leader with a Beryl plus a 40mm grenade launcher, a Grenadier with an RPG-7, a Machine Gunner with an Ultimax-100, and a Rifleman with a Beryl to round out the team. That's a dedicated team leader that takes orders from the platoon commander, rather than the standard mechanized infantry platoon where the platoon leader and platoon sergeant are also a fire team leader (since I only have 8 dismounts in a BMP-1 or BTR-4).
-
.50 cal ammo is also cheaper than 40mm grenades... ^-^
-
Yeah...I think after seeing what an ACR can do in both Iraq and at the NTC, there'd be a push to form those units.
Yes but that was in the Desert, do we really need it in Eastern Europe? Or would it be better with more Armor to Stop Armor?
-
Ukrainians had some success with cavalry (HMMWs and technicals) during the exploitation phase of Kharkov offensive. Once Russians consolidated the frontlines the successes became expensive and once the mud kicked in the missions became suicidal and the units had to be pulled for rear area security.
-
Well, there are plenty of tanks in an ACR, so I'd have the extra armored capability - maybe not as much as an armored BCT, but still pretty solid. Each squadron has 24 tanks, for at least 72 in the whole regiment. An armored BCT only has 89 IIRC, so my tank strength is around 300 in total. Shame the Mech Infantry BCT doesn't have tanks of its own, but c'est la vie.
-
So I've had this percolating in my head lately, and have been wondering. With the economics of the country as they are, I picture there being a very tight fight for budget dollars and the largest outlay going to the Air Force to keep its MiG-29s flying. That leaves the land forces bringing up the rear, and maintaining its heavy equipment was limited at best. What went to the land forces was spread around to keep its artillery up and running, leaving its T-72 fleet on back burner and slowly becoming more dilapidated and worn out over time. Serednya Slaviya just doesn't have the heavy industry on its own to keep its armor in running order. It's probably getting tech support from Poland to keep the MiGs flying, at that.
With the breakout of war in Ukraine, I figure Serednya Slaviya would ship its functioning tanks to its neighbor along with the rest of Europe, leaving a gap in capability that needs to be filled. France is phasing out its AMX-10 RCs, and getting those is easy enough. The trick is using them properly, as the Ukrainians discovered. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/11/01/ukrainian-marines-almost-wasted-their-first-batch-of-french-amx-10rc-scout-vehicles-now-theyre-getting-a-second-batch/)
With joining NATO, the country has less of a need to provide an all-aspect army and can focus, like the Baltic states, on providing a quality force for one mission and relying on foreign support for other capabilities. Transforming the army from its roots as a Soviet MR division into a pure mechanized infantry force with BTRs and BMPs for the primary combat element, and a cavalry force equipped with AMX-10 RC vehicles. Armor and artillery would be supplied by NATO partners, and I suppose I'm going to have to dedicate a large-scale training facility where they can hook up and train together.
-
So I've had this percolating in my head lately, and have been wondering. With the economics of the country as they are, I picture there being a very tight fight for budget dollars and the largest outlay going to the Air Force to keep its MiG-29s flying. That leaves the land forces bringing up the rear, and maintaining its heavy equipment was limited at best. What went to the land forces was spread around to keep its artillery up and running, leaving its T-72 fleet on back burner and slowly becoming more dilapidated and worn out over time. Serednya Slaviya just doesn't have the heavy industry on its own to keep its armor in running order. It's probably getting tech support from Poland to keep the MiGs flying, at that.
With the breakout of war in Ukraine, I figure Serednya Slaviya would ship its functioning tanks to its neighbor along with the rest of Europe, leaving a gap in capability that needs to be filled. France is phasing out its AMX-10 RCs, and getting those is easy enough. The trick is using them properly, as the Ukrainians discovered. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/11/01/ukrainian-marines-almost-wasted-their-first-batch-of-french-amx-10rc-scout-vehicles-now-theyre-getting-a-second-batch/)
With joining NATO, the country has less of a need to provide an all-aspect army and can focus, like the Baltic states, on providing a quality force for one mission and relying on foreign support for other capabilities. Transforming the army from its roots as a Soviet MR division into a pure mechanized infantry force with BTRs and BMPs for the primary combat element, and a cavalry force equipped with AMX-10 RC vehicles. Armor and artillery would be supplied by NATO partners, and I suppose I'm going to have to dedicate a large-scale training facility where they can hook up and train together.
Partner countries can provide the facilities. Singapore keeps F-16s in the US and I think the Luftwaffe had or shared T-38s there during the Cold War for the same reason. The British Army's biggest armour training area is in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Suffield
As for specializations. Might I suggest combat engineering and sappers?
-
So I can station my MiGs in Poland, at least in peacetime, and benefit from their aerospace facilities. Good idea, that; it makes it more believable that there's military industry support for the aircraft in Poland instead of Serednya Slaviya.
On the idea of turning the army into a primarily combat engineer and sapper force, that's quite a bit more interesting than yet another few mechanized infantry battalions. Got any good reading to learn more about those groups and how they might organize, so I can see how to arrange my personnel and determine how large they are?
Just for numbers sake I have 29,700 personnel in the army between volunteers and careerists, so I suppose I'll still have regular infantry alongside a few specialist CE/S battalions. Stryker BCTs are easily duplicated with BTR-4s, and bring 4300 troops in each one. Four of those is 17,200 personnel, leaving me 12,500 for three AMX-10 RC squadrons along with an unspecified number of combat engineers. I suppose I've got enough to add some artillery, but I'd rather focus on the engineers and sappers primarily.
-
AMX-10 is no replacement for MBTs and as short as the life expectancy of an MBT (even one as maligned as T-72) crew might be in a war, AMX-10 crews would have even lower life expectancy, especially if they are a replacement for MBT.
-
Yeah, my thought was to use them specifically in the recon role, considering the Ukrainian attempt to use them in the frontal assault failed miserably. That said, artillery was cited as the cause of the vehicle's destruction, and considering the rest of the combat vehicles in the land forces are just as vulnerable, I'd put the AMX-10's chances as fair enough. I wouldn't be using them as tank standins, but as "light cavalry" (compared to tanks and the heavy cavalry of an ACR) instead.
-
However big you make your engineer and sapper units, make them a little bigger so you can convert some into drone operators... ;)
-
EDIT: For the driest version possible, here is a rundown of a current US Army CEB: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/army/unit/toe/05415L000.htm (https://man.fas.org/dod-101/army/unit/toe/05415L000.htm)
Here is a treatise by the USMC on combat engineer battalions (https://usmcofficer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Introduction-to-Engineering.pdf). I think it is pretty representative and worth taking the time to parse through it. Especially for the organizational bits.
Here is a case study (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA460770.pdf) of US Army CE operations in OIF 1+. A bit long, good to see what CEs do for a force, and how they operate in a real-world setting.
And if you want to go to school, go to NTC (https://companyleader.themilitaryleader.com/2020/04/20/ntc-mar20-engineer/). A good treatise by the OCs that assist the engineer elements at the National Training Center.
I always respected the CEs of the 11th ACR (and was equally glad I wasn't amongst them), because when the line troops and squadron headquarters were deploying back to the rear at the conclusion of a rotation, we would see them still pushing in the anti-tank ditch and rolling up wire as the last HETs were being loaded. As part of S-3, there were no squadron troopers that were out in the box longer insofar as absolute time is considered, but it sucks to be the last on the jobsite too, sometimes*.
As a personal anecdote, you can never have too many combat engineers. There was a minefield in Kosovo that was not properly marked that I wished I had known about. It would have been nice for there have been more sappers in-sector to look after things like that. Infantry units never have engineer support to dig their holes for nightly patrol bases (hasty fighting positions and all), but if you want to see bunch of happy troopers, wait until you see an earthmover of some kind show up when a deliberate defense is being conducted. Digging proper fighting positions (https://www.armystudyguide.com/content/SMCT_CTT_Tasks/Skill_Level_1/0713265703-sl1-construct-.shtml) is no joke, boy, in any terrain. Woods have trees, and trees have roots, and deserts have clay and rocks or shifting bloody sand. And urban areas...well, sappers carry a lot of demo, and you need more demo than you can ever carry.
*The engineers were Regimental assets, so we had no call to sit and watch them police up their business, for example. At NTC, the two line squadrons rotated responsibility for a rotation (10-11 per year plus an internal one for the 11th ACR called Blackhorse Stakes), but the S-3s themselves for both squadrons would usually be out in the field before the rotation started to the moment it ended and the last trooper was back at the motor-hole.
-
You know, Imma just leave this here: https://companyleader.themilitaryleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NTC-Update-MAR-20-Defensive-Operations-Against-a-Near-Peer-Threat-CO-LDR.pdf (https://companyleader.themilitaryleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NTC-Update-MAR-20-Defensive-Operations-Against-a-Near-Peer-Threat-CO-LDR.pdf)
It is the magazine of which the previously linked engineer article is a part. And it reads real quick. It gives some good insight into how all the various arms of a BCT operate and shows that "combined arms" doesn't mean tanks, infantry, and mortars in a company team, but how the combat support elements (from engineers to artillery to aviation) are a part of the whole as well. A lot of wargamers think transitioning from a defense to a counterattack is simply moving their counters out of their starting positions on the map. It's not that easy in the real world. At a base minimum, you have to have your assets, combat and combat support both, positioned to be able to do so, and a plan for them to do so efficaciously.
Combat engineers need to have sited their obstacles properly beforehand, field artillery will need to know where to move, or where (and what and with what) to shoot--and the commanders will need to know how long it will take to do all that--and aviation will need to have the planning and assets in place to emplace blocking units, for example. It's all part of an interlocking whole. Of course, for the riflemen and tankers on the sharp end, it is just a matter of getting out of that comfy hole (just as nearly every mobile engagement is a frontal meeting battle by and large) and going forward. But there is a world more to it than just that alone.
-
It's a lot to read, and I'll get to it, but I like what I'm reading. There's a lot of infrastructure construction involved in engineer and engineer support battalions, and I wonder how that reflects on the nation as a whole - would it be reasonable that the engineer units in the army get tapped to build new roads and bridges in civilian areas as training missions that have the side effect of improving travel infrastructure?
Still gotta read that masters thesis, I'll save that for tomorrow. I'm not sure how many of each type of battalion I'm going to end up with in the army, and I'm still going to need logistics and transportation troops as well as MPs and security companies. I think I'll end up leaving it vague, but it's starting to look like the army has just one Stryker BCT-sized unit of line troops and the rest of the personnel all support and engineer units. That'd fit the tooth-to-tail ratio of 7:1 - higher than the American 5:1, but I'm focusing my capability on those support units and accepting the limited combat capability.
-
It is a lot, but combat engineers do a lot more than force protection and mobility enhancement/countermobility. In Operations Other Than War, they seem to spend a lot of their time doing things like construction, from bunkers to buildings and everything in-between. So, is Sere-Slav's military going to be a sort of "special teams" roster for NATO now, or what? You could set up brigade staff specialists that could deploy to work as advisors for local militaries in places like Africa. Or build up your ADA and MP arms to deploy with your CEs and become a Force Protection adjunct force.
You know, in the Fringeverse, there is a mercenary outfit called the Earth Shakers who were just a regiment of engineers that would piecemeal themselves out on different contracts: construction companies for an invasion force to build a spaceport or FOBs, maybe, or different sapper platoons for light fighter battalions or heavy brigades on an offensive mission; maybe an Obstacle Platoon with minelayer support for a bigger mercenary regiment on a defensive contract, or a Mobility Platoon with AVLB support...It would make an interesting semi-roleplaying campaign, I bet.
Oh, engineers use a lot of trucks, because they need a lot of stuff. And the line units they support better have a lot of it, too, aboard their vehicles (like concertina/razor wire, engineer stakes, etc.)
-
It is a lot, but combat engineers do a lot more than force protection and mobility enhancement/countermobility. In Operations Other Than War, they seem to spend a lot of their time doing things like construction, from bunkers to buildings and everything in-between.
With the focus on the engineers I'm looking for, I suppose that means I'm going to have first-class facilities. At least, it keeps them active and in practice of their skills, and at the very least working on civilian projects. The Army Corps of Engineers does a lot of civil works, so I can see the Engineers Corps doing the same for Serednya Slaviya's civilian infrastructure - which probably suffered a lot of neglect in the post-Soviet years, and took a lot of effort rebuilding into something acceptable.
So, is Sere-Slav's military going to be a sort of "special teams" roster for NATO now, or what? You could set up brigade staff specialists that could deploy to work as advisors for local militaries in places like Africa. Or build up your ADA and MP arms to deploy with your CEs and become a Force Protection adjunct force.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking - a specialist group that focuses on one primary mission, and probably gets parceled out in company and battalion sized elements attached to various foreign missions. The idea of adding air defense and MPs...well, I'd need a lot of MPs to handle the traffic control mission especially during construction projects, and they'd handle a lot of rear-area security missions as well as protecting said facilities.
You know, in the Fringeverse, there is a mercenary outfit called the Earth Shakers who were just a regiment of engineers that would piecemeal themselves out on different contracts: construction companies for an invasion force to build a spaceport or FOBs, maybe, or different sapper platoons for light fighter battalions or heavy brigades on an offensive mission; maybe an Obstacle Platoon with minelayer support for a bigger mercenary regiment on a defensive contract, or a Mobility Platoon with AVLB support...It would make an interesting semi-roleplaying campaign, I bet.
Hah, I dig that idea. Even in the future, there's still need for engineers to build and unbuild things.
Oh, engineers use a lot of trucks, because they need a lot of stuff. And the line units they support better have a lot of it, too, aboard their vehicles (like concertina/razor wire, engineer stakes, etc.)
Yeah, I read the first two documents you linked, and the mention of all the Engineer heavy equipment having its own company in a battalion. I figure there's going to be some transport battalions as well in the service, just to support the engineers with extra lift capability.
So okay, air defense and MPs and engineers, maybe I should drop the Stryker BCT and go with a purely 'tail' military. Air defenses...I suppose there's a good trio of the SA-9, SA-6, and SA-8 organized around their engagement envelopes, with a battery of each making up a battalion. Two SAM battalions seems sufficient, while my MP force...yeah, I'm going to end up with a lot of military police units.
Time to research MP forces...I found their Field Manual, so I'm going to give that a read too.
So much reading.
-
One of the reasons I suggested engineering goes back to your immediate post-Cold War state. At that point, you'll have:
- Lots of unemployment as the economy restructures
- A massive outflow of the young and ambitious leaving (and moving to richer Western countries by hook or by crook)
- Fundamentally mismatched building stock
- Massive funding challenges for the government
- Potentially crumbling infrastructure depending on your area's particular mix of corruption and centrally-planned apathy, especially in the last 10-15 years of Communism
Tying some kind of national service to granting exit visas or whatnot might let you hold on to the grad classes of 89-early 90s for a bit longer and let them build connections that either keep them home or make it more likely for them to return after making their fortune (or seeing how much housing and child care cost in London, natch)
Engineering and construction bridges the military-civil gap, especially in terms of transferrable skills, but also puts (affordable) resources in the hands of the government at a time of chaos (especially budgetary chaos) as the economy dramatically rearranges itself.
Notably, construction and demolition are important for revitalization for quality of life and future development - building nicer housing stock and new infrastructure appropriate for whatever industries push to the fore, and demolishing unnecessary/unsafe/old facilities too. There's a lot of work to be done and not that much money to be done doing it. They can also be hired out North Korea-style, essentially as a revenue-generating instrument of the government (some overlap with State Owned Enterprises or Crown Corporations) with the fundamental implied contract with the troops and officers being they're trading stingy military wages for contacts and knowledge they can exploit after they discharge.
Corruption, of course, will be massive and keeping it down to a dull roar will be an ongoing challenge. Construction as an industry in general has long been infamous for ties to organized crime and graft in all kinds of places.
-
Hm...that poses some thoughts then, if the military was already heavily focused around its engineers even during the Cold War. Say that the majority of the combat elements were Russian troops, while the support elements - the transportation, engineers, maintenance folks - were Serednya Slaviyan locals. When the Russians retreated, they took a lot of their equipment back with them, leaving the locals relatively high and dry in combat forces but well equipped with support troops and equipment.
Centrally-planned apathy though the 80s as well as the corruption issues endemic to the eastern bloc probably left the cities in dismay, and the rural areas downright bucolic. It'd be a place ripe for rebuilding, and the army to do it with. Granted it'd be slow going with the post-Cold War corruption problems in Eastern Europe, but the idea of focusing the army on building a new and prosperous nation might well be something championed in "Building The Communal Future" propaganda for the masses. I'd have to funnel some serious resources to the army to retain its brain trust.
That also means I'm likely to have at least one really good engineering college in the country to train these troops, especially the officers.
I don't think that SereSlav has the major funding to rebuild its combat arms, while maintaining its engineering corps. That leaves them in a weird military situation until they joined NATO, an army for construction and limited national defense. I'm thinking that a Militia Federal Police paramilitary force would end up standing in for the army in a combat situation, while acting as both a border guards and a federal & military police force. That lets me build up my MP corps quite a bit, and turns them into their own separate force from the army. Going with that thought, it would make sense to spin off the ADA troops in the army into an Air Defense Force that generally lacks aircraft (bye bye MiG-29s) but is well equipped with SAMs and other AA vehicles. That leaves me with three military forces operating independently, the Engineer Corps, the MFP, and the ADF.
Corruption...yeah, especially in construction it's pretty endemic. That's probably something in the jurisdiction of the MFP, especially when it involves the Engineer Corps, and is something being fought hard but impossible to root out all together.
As far as the MFP goes...what's the makeup of a Soviet style KGB Border Guards unit? What kind of heavy combat equipment do they get outside of trucks and light vehicles? I'm eyeing the ERC-90 as a combat vehicle for them, something lighter and more amphibious than the AMX-10RC - not to be used as a tank, but as a recon and fire support vehicle. Mexico and a few other South American countries bought into the ERC-90 program as a major component for their land forces, so it's got utility in a military that lacks heavy equipment. This would be something for after their accession to NATO, and an attempt to modernize with Western equipment - and with the French getting rid of their ERCs for Griffons, they'd be dirt cheap and something simple enough for the MFP to maintain. They just don't have the industry for heavier vehicles like main battle tanks.
I like the idea of potentially hiring out the Engineer Corps as a revenue-generating force. They would have a lot of opportunity in Africa, perhaps working alongside the French. Maybe that's what prompts the purchase of ERC-90s and other French equipment...maybe replacing the antiquated Soviet SAM launchers with modernized secondhand Crotale NG vehicles as well for the ADF.
EDIT: I admit I still want at least the one squadron of fighters, even if they're based in Poland and the Poles help with the maintenance and modernization. With an independent ADF of 3100 personnel, that's doable, while still heavily stacking up ADA units in-country. Copying the Croatian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Air_Force#Current_inventory), I could step down to 1,260 personnel and still have a squadron of MiG-21s. Back to the Balalaikas, I suppose, while adding a few more personnel to the force to run four Soviet SAM regiments. I wouldn't have much in the way of transport capabilities, but a good set of firefighting gear if I copy the Croatians completely - which I think I'll do.
As far as those SAM regiments, each has five firing batteries of four SA-6 carriers for a total of twenty vehicles each. Since each of the regiments has just over 500 personnel, that means I'd need to poach a few from the Land Forces to get a total of 2,020 Air Defense Force personnel.
That leaves me with 29,500 between the MFP and the Engineers Corps. A Soviet BTR-transported infantry regiment is 2,523 personnel. Add in an Antitank Battalion of 195 and a Reconnaissance Battalion of 340 and I come to a total of 3,058 personnel. Five of those would make a pretty potent military police force, especially when boosted with a number of ERC-90 tank destroyers replacing the 100mm towed gun batteries and T-72s in the Recon platoons. Each AT battalion would be twelve ERC-90s plus nine BRDM-2-based ATGM carriers for a total of 60 and 45 vehicles respectively. There's also the reconnaissance companies, which would have an additional six ERC-90s replacing tanks in the scout-hunter role. So a total of 90 ERC-90s for the military, that puts me in good with the French if I'm getting that many vehicles from them. The MFP districts settle easily into the five oblasts that make up the country - Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, and Volyn - so that gives me about 15,300 personnel in the MFP.
The remaining headcount is 14,200, which makes up the engineers and logistics folks. The Engineer Battalion of the MR Division and Tank Division is made of the following: BN HQ, Sappers, Assault Crossing, Technical (heavy construction), Road/Bridge Construction, Pontoon Bridge, Engineer Recon, Communications, Maintenance, and Service elements. That comes to about 400 personnel for each battalion, which would give me a whopping 35 Engineer Battalions. I think that many is overkill, so I'll cut it roughly in half to 18 battalions of engineers and let the remainder of my troops be maintenance and logistics personnel. We may not fly stuff around, but between the engineers and transport folks stuff will get where it's supposed to go.
Having 18 battalions also makes it easy to sort again - each oblast gets three engineer units, with three more deployed on foreign soil to work with the locals in building a better future and all that crap.
Thoughts on this? Am I overdoing it with the MFP as a military police force or does it seem like the kind of thing that could be counted on to at least slow down an invader and still handle internal security threats against the nation?
-
MiG-21s sound right for an air policing role. Bulgaria and Romania stuck with them as well, perhaps longer than they should have, but as the air freight industry likes to say - paid off covers a multitude of sins.
Going Western, the peace dividend drawdown sees the general elimination of second-line forces, so when the MiGs start falling out of the sky, replacing them with some F-5s shouldn't be a big ask.
-
MiG-21s sound right for an air policing role. Bulgaria and Romania stuck with them as well, perhaps longer than they should have, but as the air freight industry likes to say - paid off covers a multitude of sins.
Yeah, there's something to be said about outright owning your aircraft, only having to pay for life extensions and ordnance. I wonder about switching to something more modern...but the economy just doesn't allow for it. Croatia is dropping a billion dollars to switch to a squadron of secondhand Rafales, but it's also got 250% of the GDP of SereSlav and can afford the damn things. Maybe we're buying the old Croatian MiG-21s and spare parts as a means of keeping the ones we have flying, and upgrading them like the Romanians did.
Going Western, the peace dividend drawdown sees the general elimination of second-line forces, so when the MiGs start falling out of the sky, replacing them with some F-5s shouldn't be a big ask.
The Taiwanese are divesting their F-5s, which is an option...but I kind of like the MiG-21 with all its drawbacks. The weapons fitment would only be four R-60 missiles (and a fuel tank), but those missiles are still in service across many nations so there'd be plenty of supply. Plus it won't require heavily retraining my pilots and technicians on an all-new airframe, so I think I'll stick with the MiG-21 in the end.
-
Yeah, there's something to be said about outright owning your aircraft, only having to pay for life extensions and ordnance. I wonder about switching to something more modern...but the economy just doesn't allow for it. Croatia is dropping a billion dollars to switch to a squadron of secondhand Rafales, but it's also got 250% of the GDP of SereSlav and can afford the damn things. Maybe we're buying the old Croatian MiG-21s and spare parts as a means of keeping the ones we have flying, and upgrading them like the Romanians did.
The Taiwanese are divesting their F-5s, which is an option...but I kind of like the MiG-21 with all its drawbacks. The weapons fitment would only be four R-60 missiles (and a fuel tank), but those missiles are still in service across many nations so there'd be plenty of supply. Plus it won't require heavily retraining my pilots and technicians on an all-new airframe, so I think I'll stick with the MiG-21 in the end.
The thing is that you don't want to pick up aircraft that are at the end of their service lives. That's a lot of hidden costs with worn out airframes and also why I would expect the MiG-21s to only tide you over to the early-mid 2000s. They are an old and unforgiving design with limited spares availability. China makes the J-7 into the 90s, but there's unknown parts compatibility since the designs diverge almost at the point of origin.
It's why the peace dividend retirements are interesting because some of those older second-line airframes should still have a good deal of life left in them (Mirage IIIs and F1s, F-5s of various stripes). The Swiss keep their Mirage IIIs and F-5s for a lonnnng time and some attempts at offering Mirage III/V upgrades in the early 90s fell through due to the end of the Cold War.
Plus, I'm sure it'd be distinctive as hell if you picked up Kfirs :P
On the gripping hand, you can also drop all the way down to armed-trainer level. Alpha Jets are available and are reasonably high subsonic and pack an entirely reasonable armament (27mm or 30mm ADEN cannon, IR missiles). Or even the old WP standard L-39 if you aren't concerned with air policing. The main limitation for the Czech birds is that they're actually quite slow. You won't be catching any airliner-like platforms at all.
As for the missiles, wiring up for other designs doesn't seem to be a huge issue. I think you see a number of the later users convert their MiG-21s to use Sidewinders or Matra Magics
-
Also, also. Even if you're operating old aircraft, look into getting modern ejection seats for them. Martin-Bakers or Russian K-36s. It's especially important since they're both older/harder to fly designs, and mechanical reliability is also an issue with airframe and component age.
-
What? No AN-2s? ;D
-
Well, there are still countries operating MiG-21s today, including the Indians who are the biggest user of the type. So it's not like life extension programs and spare parts aren't available, and that it's a fossil of an airframe.
Mirage IIIs are probably the most likely contender for a replacement for the MiG-21s, they have the same mission profile of air interception. Kfirs...that'd be an interesting choice, but any supersonic fighter is just going to be damned expensive for the funding I have. Even with 3% GDP spending on the military, my annual budget is 763.8 million dollars, so buying Kfirs or Mirages is probably no bueno.
I've always liked the little Alpha Jet, it's a good combo trainer and attack plane. The fact it's AGM-65 capable is a plus, which is something I don't see on the Kfir or Mirage III - they're just not attack jets, though they can be pushed into the role (especially the Kfir). Pricewise, I ran across one for sale for just under a million dollars in good condition, and that's a hard price to beat.
And it's not like the Alpha isn't a capable air-to-air fighter either, with four AIM-9s in the air-intercept role. There's also the fact it's noearly an STOL aircraft, with a 1350 foot takeoff run and a 2000 foot landing; with the Engineer Corps building small civilian runways here and there I'd have the option of a widely dispersed Air Force in time of war.
I'm liking the suggestion of the Alpha more and more as I think about it, and I'll mark that down as the replacement for the MiG-21. I'll probably be buying them from the French, so the model equipped with the ADEN gun pod - I do love me a 30mm revolver cannon, I tell you what.
That does change the overall mission of the Air Force, though, into a mixed role of air defense and air support to ground troops. Ground troops I generally lack, since it's the MFP's duty to handle the borders and interior while relying on foreign troops for support. So I'm going to be doing a lot of training with the Air Force, working with various nations as they rotate through.
I'd want a high-quality training facility, as an enticement to have NATO rotating troops through. Fort Irwin/NTC is 2600km2, which is a pretty bloody big block. Looking at a map of Western Ukraine...there's just too many small towns and villages everywhere. There's a mountain range to the south end of Serednya Slaviya that's not populated, though, and I could see putting in a smaller facility there - something around 15km x 40km, with only needing to relocate one small town. Myslivka will just have to take one for the team.
Guess it's not going to be that great of a training facility, but at least the empty land is there, and isn't likely to be farmland.
AN-2s...I could replace the six light firefighting aircraft with AN-2s as passenger transports. With a large number of small airfields scattered around the country, it'd be an easy means of hauling VIPs and small numbers of troops around, though they're likely on the soon-to-be-replaced list.
-
Heh... you could probably press the AN-2s into a fire-fighting role in a pinch... ;)
-
Heh... you could probably press the AN-2s into a fire-fighting role in a pinch... ;)
That I could, which is why I'm including them in the force. They're just too useful utility aircraft, even if they're old and outdated.
Yeah, definitely going with Alpha jets. This article is 23 years old (https://www.flightglobal.com/thailand-wants-f-16s-and-shrinks-alpha-jet-plan/27986.article) but shows what the discount price would be for the Germans dumping Alphas on Thailand. The price estimate to bring them back to airworthyness is about 1.5 million dollars each, which comes to just under double that in adjusted dollars per jet. With the acquisition price being virtually nonexistent, I'd say that 3 million per plane gives me enough to add a second squadron of Alphas, for a total of 24 planes at 72 million each. That's well within my procurement budget.
It may not be a supersonic interceptor, but the Alpha's a fine little jet for what it does, and having two squadrons means I can keep one in SereSlav and one on foreign soil, rotating them back and forth.
As far as increasing the size of the Air Force, I'm going to have to add around 300 personnel to account for the extra squadron. I'm keeping the same overall population in the military, splitting five ways between the Air Force (1,573), Air Defense Force (2,032), Engineer Corps (7,211), Logistics Corps (6,654), and MFP (15,307). That gives me a total military of 32,777 personnel for a nation of 7,066,000, or about 0.464% of the total population. Pretty decent for not conscripting folks and having a volunteer-only army.
Which brings me back to the issue of conscripts in the military, but I don't think I can afford doing that - not without paying through the nose for funding. I'd have a larger starting source of Soviet hardware though, if I went that route...but all the work I've done assumes a volunteer force in the post-Soviet era.
Decisions, decisions, and all of it a waste of time.
-
How about universal RESERVE service?
-
Going with a reserve conscription model could work. The question comes up of what model to use, with the limited focus of the military. I could train up my reserves as general riflemen and light infantry, but the heavy equipment just isn't there outside of the APCs and IFVs already used by the MFP.
The Soviet system didn't slot its reserves in reserve units like the Americans do, instead simply training its reserves to fill in gaps in line units as general replacements. If I go with that model, I'm simply training to fill in battle losses rather than organizing combat forces around reservists.
What's a reasonable conscription rate anyway, 20% of military-age folks? Just pulling that number off the top of my head.
-
20% isn't exactly universal... ;)
And handing them shovels doesn't require too much training... ;D
-
I suppose instead of conscript reservists I could switch things up and militarize the schools some. Pre-military education for all, keeping the Soviet model:
The government conducts this training in the final two grades of the ten-year public highschools; in professional trade schools; and for those who have left school, in the factories, offices, and farms where they work. These young people gain a fundamental knowledge of the military and basic military-technical skills which make their transition from civilian to military life easier. The training helps them master modern military equipment more quickly after they are drafted.
So keeping those details together, I'd be training virtually everyone in the country on at least the basics of being a soldier, ensuring a fit and healthy population (supposedly) and at least giving everyone the training of basic riflemen. Maybe only one year of training instead of two, with basic training and rudimentary specialty skills - the idea is making riflemen first for 13 weeks, and then 39 weeks of training in a specialty. From there, military service is voluntary but I imagine there'd be a lot of propaganda for joining up.
Benefits...maybe free college and health care once you get out, but I don't see a lot of things like signing bonuses and such - money is bloody tight. It's easier to waive expenses by fiat than it is to pay out hard cash that I don't have. I mean comparing to real world nations, Serednya Slaviya almost the same size as Jordan, and has about 63% of the population. SereSlav's GDP is 55% of that of Jordan as well, and is between that of Sudan and Armenia to give an idea of the national finances.
Maybe there's a Young Pioneers service as well, more along the lines of 'what if the Boy & Girl Scouts were nationalized' for those age 10-16 to join up and show their support for the party nation with all kinds of civil programs. Earn your badges, serve the country, love your nation. Something for the youth to do on weekends and holidays, keep them busy so they can't get in trouble.
-
Eh, they'll still get into trouble. Just on your time and your dime. As they said in Blood Diamond: "Big kids, big problems."
You could always look into Pilatus Porters vice the An-2s. Of course, you could buy a lot of AN-2s for a PC-6...
Say, about 2 mil USD for a PC-6 (https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/pilatus/pc-6-porter/aircraft), and about 100K for a AN-2 (https://www.controller.com/listings/for-sale/antonov/an-2/aircraft). Poland seems to be selling a lot of AN-2s...
-
I have no qualms using An-2s, especially at that price point. Nice find there...so okay, perhaps a dozen of those in the Air Force as utility aircraft. They're simple enough that even SereSlav can keep them running...
As far as the Young Pioneers, I'll grant that eradicating troublemaking is impossible, but at least there'd be some civil focus to shenaniganery...
-
True.
You could always make money on warfighting in a more direct fashion than simply renting out sappers and headquarters staff:
Get yerself an ammunition plant! (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/northrop-grumman-explores-ammunition-co-production-in-poland/ar-AA1k3wSb?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=c9ac9f374d56428b87ea069c8b14f94c&ei=35)
-
Well, if my engineers are building up a new industrialized future for Serednya Slaviya, the idea of a nascent arms industry is not out of possibility. There's tons of small villages all over the place, so I could set up an industrial area with population virtually anywhere. And if I'm making farm supplies and fertilizer, I'm halfway to munitions propellants already.
I should have thought of that, too, considering there's a GenDyn munitions plant here in Lincoln.
-
Weapons are like ink jet printers... the consumables are where they get you! ;D
-
Ain't that the truth. The real money is in support contracts, after all.
I'm reading the 2006 masters thesis that F16 linked earlier and something that sticks out is a major lack of reconnaissance elements for the engineers. I read in FM 3-34 dated 2014 that there's supposed to be an antitank Stryker company and medical section attached to each Engineer battalion, which I suppose is a reaction to the Engineer Reconnaissance Teams solution used during the timeframe in question.
Route reconnaissance was something that came up several times as well, along with convoy escort. Normally I'd consider those to be more in-line with MP units than engineers, but having an organic asset to the battalion makes a lot of sense in that regard. Instead of Stryker vehicles, I'm going to roll with one platoon of ERC-90s and two platoons of BTR-4s; that adds 72 ERC-90s to the force on top of the 90 in the hands of the MFP.
There's also other issues such as training and equipment/supply availability, which seems to have focused primarily on their role as mobility engineers rather than post-operations reconstruction. Obviously training for those roles is going to be key; reconstruction is a major point to make with future relations with the host nation. Look at the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Europe and Japan post-WWII for example. Considering the situation in Serednya Slaviya, and the generally ongoing construction efforts there to build up the infrastructure, I'd say my focus has been 180 from that of the US military. We're training and exercising in rebuilding and construction, rather than combat and dealing with UXO and other factors.
Good at constructing roads and buildings, maybe not so much in offensive and defensive roles. Things to work on for the Engineer Corps. Versatility comes at the expense of specialization and skill, so it might be best for each of the six engineer brigades to focus their individual battalions on certain tasks and retain flexibility at higher levels.
Good reads, F16, now that I finally get the time to finish reading things.
-
Heh... those drone operators have to come from somewhere... ;)
-
The "engineer reconnaissance team" is a pretty interesting concept. That kind of thing as described in the thesis (p. 57ish) is normally relegated to cav scouts...but those are often in pretty short supply, too. I do agree with your assessment that, doctrinally, convoy escort is or should be an MP task, by and large. Infantry and armor units have historically taken on that role, but the former often have larger missions to fulfill; it is hard to replace armor as an escort-adjunct, though, if you need it, though. See the cavalry's role in Vietnam, for example.
Route recon, well. The cav scouts are trained for that sort of thing, whereas infantrymen are not. Infantry certainly do reconnaissance and patrolling in all their myriad forms, but "route recon" is a very specific set of subtasks.
And, sure, start getting ahead of the game and include drone operators everywhere you can find them. I wonder when soldiers will start seeing trap shooting as part of their Advanced Rifle Marksmanship course? And if the US will finally give a real try at developing a company/platoon-level ADA asset. Not a joke, really.
-
I'm honestly scratching my head at why an antitank company is attached to the Engineer Battalion, especially when it seems to be an answer to the recon role suggested by the thesis. The only thought that comes to mind is breaching operations, which I suppose a Stryker MGS shooting HE can be used for.
I suppose the Engineer Reconnaissance Team is something of a mix of recon and patrols...in Iraq it was done with engineers in HMMWVs, I'm wanting more protection and firepower on the role. Route clearance is an important role, and I imagine a convoy is going to have a route clearance section leading them. Maybe that's what part of the ERT role is? It's left a little vague in the thesis paper. Route recon and convoy escorts...I don't have cavalry troops, but the idea of a section of mobility engineers and those attached antitank troops would fill in that role.
Personally I'd roll the antitank company attached as mentioned above, but with one command section of BT-4s leading two platoons of BT-4s and one platoon of ERC-90s. The BT-4 carries a couple ATGMs, which gives some heavier firepower to the team, plus they'd have a couple platoons of breaching engineers. The engineers would be pressed into the route recon role as well, a platoon leading convoys but leaving the convoy protection role to the MPs.
Drones would help in the engineer role too, going places and examining construction work that it's hard to get to. Power lines, sewer pipes, aerial views of road marches, that sort of thing, not just spotting for enemy forces in the fields.
One question I come across, what's the difference between horizontal construction units and vertical construction units? I haven't come across a definition in what I've read of FM 3-34, though there could be one buried in the rest of the FM.
I should go read the FM, I suppose. I feel like we've beaten the subject to an end, at least as far as working out the details go.
So the final summation is eighteen independent engineering battalions, five brigades of MPs operating as border guards and federal police, and a logistics and support brigade or two. I don't have infantry, artillery, armor, cavalry, or other general combat roles, though. How believable is a setting like this, then, in the modern era?
-
You should definitely have some artillery... everything we're seeing right now indicates artillery remains the king...
-
It remains the king, especially if the armor and infantry aren't up to spec. Let's just say that in some drier climes, infantry and armor and getting their job done, but in cooler locales, the artillery has to do the heavy lifting.
No matter what, no one I know in contact has ever turned down some fire support.
Kamas, the AT Company in a CEB is probably there as force protection. For example, during breaching operations. Either way, the MGS is out so far as I know.
There is a difference between horizontal and vertical construction units, though at present I cannot point to a specific resource of which units do what. I will say that most of the resources I have provided are effectively horizontal construction units. Here is a brief example (https://www.dvidshub.net/news/74649/horizontal-and-vertical-engineer-soldiers-build-training-facilities) of the two operating together.
In Vietnam, (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/CMH_2/www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/vietnam/engineers/appendixd.htm) the 'combat engineering battalions' were "sometimes authorized a vertical construction section as a special augmentation." These types of battalions were differentiated from the construction battalions and were what we consider "combat engineers" in a colloquial sense vice, say, the Seabees.
This is as believable as you want it to be. It's a little alien to me--even Antigua has an infantry company!--but that doesn't mean it's wrong or even implausible.
-
Well, I have the air units figured out, with the two Alpha squadrons as air combatants. Fifteen light observation helicopters and fifteen medium helicopters, 26 trainers, six firefighting aircraft, and a dozen An-2s for utility personnel transport. No heavy-lift capability, so any serious troop transport is coming from NATO. Total personnel, 1,573.
The Air Defense Force is still the same five antiaircraft battalions, for 100 Buk launchers and 75 SA-7s, which I'll probably be in the process of replacing with Polish PIORUN MANPADs. The Buks can stay as they are, they're effective SAMs. Total personnel, 2,032.
That leaves 29,171 personnel for the land forces. I'm going to spin off the MFP as a separate state police force and not count them among my armed forces, and cut back the engineers to twelve independent battalions. The engineer battalions would number about 850 personnel based on the links F16 posted, to increase their number with recon specialists on top of the rest of the engineers as well as add some capabilities that the US Army puts on its reserve units. I've attached a list of the various baseline and specialized units that the Americans have; I'd have to cover that entire list with the SereSlav engineers. And frankly, twelve battalions is pretty good - that gives me two per oblast and two on foreign aid missions, able to handle whatever kinds of roles being thrown at them. That's 10,200 personnel, gives me a solid specialty capability to add to NATO, and leaves 18,971 regular land troops.
That's a bit smaller than the wartime size of the Estonian land forces...if I mostly copy their organization I end up with the following:
1st Division
Headquarters & Signals Battalion
Long Range Rocket Artillery Battalion (HIMARS)
Special Operations Battalion
Military Police Battalion
Logistics Battalion
1st Combined Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (152mm DANA)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
2nd Combined Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (152mm DANA)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Construction
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Bridging
Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Construction
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Bridging
Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Construction
Engineer Battalion, Combat
Engineer Battalion, Bridging
Normally the two brigades would come with an engineering battalion in each, but I'm moving them to the engineering brigades. One brigade covers either two oblasts or the capital and the two foreign units. From that link to the troops in Vietnam, the Combat Engineers would match the TOE 5-35E and the Construction Engineers would match the TOE 5-115D, while the Bridging Engineers follow TOE 5-155E and provide general construction like the Construction Battalion, as well as bridging capabilities.
Reading the other link, okay, I take it that horizontal construction is roads, airfields, parking lots, and other such flat-surface constructs, while vertical construction is buildings and things that go on top of said flat surfaces. That makes sense, and answers that question. The Antitank company provides an oddly slanted force protection; I suppose the engineers are expected to fight like infantry if attacked and lack heavy weapons of their own.
I'm focusing on a more mobile force, hence going lightweight with combat equipment except for the artillery, which was inherited from the Soviets and works well enough to keep. The ERC-90 is lightweight and can be carried in a C-130, while three can fit in a C-17. The early model DANAs are pretty big, just under 30 metric tons, but I can still fit two of them on a C-17. BRDMs are nice and small as well, so they'll fit in the light transports. It means I'd end up with a strategic fast response force, though their tactical effectiveness may suffer for it. I was originally looking at the Dozor-B as a troop transport, but it never made it past the prototype stage due to defects in manufacturing, which is a bummer because they were made in Lviv, the capital of Serednya Slaviya. Instead I decided on the Russian-designed Tigr, though they're being bought from Slovakian manufacture. They're not as heavily armed as a BTR, but they have similar armor and carry more troops in a smaller and simpler vehicle. I can fit two in a C-130, so that keeps the air mobility up.
That means I'm going to need considerable anti-tank capability among my infantry, since I'm not bringing tanks. The BMP-2 is too large to fit in a C-130, and the BRDM has an inch of clearance on either side, so those would get sold off soon after joining NATO and replaced with the Tigr. AT-5 Spandrels match the BRDM-2 ATGM carrier, so I'd have commonality there. There's also the Kornet-D which is a Tigr with sixteen AT-5s onboard, and the capacity to launch eight at a time. I might need to hold my nose and order some of those to replace the BRDM-2s in the antitank role...
Let's see...
Mechanized Infantry Platoon:
Tigr 1 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Platoon Marksman (Scoped Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 2 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 3 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 4 (AGS-30)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Medic (Mini-Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (AT-5, Mini-Beryl)
ATGM Assistant (Mini-Beryl)
ATGM Assistant (Mini-Beryl)
Three of the platoon's squads get an RPG-7, while squad four carries an AT-5 launcher for more dangerous threats. I was thinking of making all four squads carry an AT-5, but the RPG has its uses outside of engaging tanks that it made sense to carry several of those as a utility weapon. I put a marksman in the list with a scoped assault rifle, I figure something like a 4-6x scope to give the rifle a good engagement range. I can always swap out a rifleman for a translator or other mission specialist, so I've got some flexibility built into things. With three riflemen plus a platoon specialist on one side, and an LMG and RPG/ATGM on the other, I can see the doctrine of a maneuver unit and a fire unit being the standard. Or perhaps just settle on each squad being an atom of military strength, and arranging fire and maneuver based on the entire platoon instead.
Special Operations forces...I was surprised to see them in the Estonian order of battle, but they're there and having the capability is a plus. I figure the last twenty years would push them towards a counter-terrorism specialization, with a transition to more traditional SF roles happening after the Russian invasion next door. I don't see them getting much in the way of air assault or airborne training, since I generally lack any transport aircraft beyond fifteen Mi-8s. I don't see the SereSlav military wrapping all its aircraft in one basket to transport them.
Meanwhile, fourteen independent engineer battalions - two in each oblast and four away from the country, with about 500 personnel each. I suppose it's possible to organize based on the engineer missions table I attached, where each battalion is capable of a full range of activities. I don't have the national guard or army reserve to foist missions off on; the Serednya Slaviyan engineers are going to have to do it all.
Thoughts, suggestions, you're-doing-it-wrong, anything? It's a more well-rounded army, at least as far as a combat force goes, though it's still heavily invested in its engineers. Hopefully it's less alien a military.
EDIT: Switched out the Dozor-B for the Tigr, put in the reasons why and adjusted the mechanized platoon layout to fit the 2+9 personnel on board.
-
I think your vertical/horizontal distinction is about right, though I think horizontal covers utilities too (underground or strung on poles).
-
Yeah, that makes sense to include that in horizontal engineering. Though I think the mission list might tend to drop that into its own category, the Prime Power capacity. I dunno, it works for me - after all, I've got my engineers doing everything, so they're doing it anyway.
Also considering the cavalry platoon, rereading this 'spot report' (https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2014/jul_sep/Lowry.html) reminded me to do something with the Cavalry Battalion in each brigade.
Each scout platoon should be two sections of three squads of six scouts. That allows for each section to operate a two-man observation post, a two-man security team, two for crewing vehicles, as well as two dismounted patrols of six troopers.
I'm going to fudge those numbers a bit and go with three ERC 90s and three Tigrs carrying nine troops each for the scout platoon. That gives me a strong mounted scout element of nine personnel, while providing 33 dismounts to fulfill the rest of the mission. That breaks down into the platoon commander and two sections of sixteen, each of which further break down into a two-man observation post, two to crew the Tigrs, and two six-man patrols.
The ERC 90s would provide site security for the OPs when not on the move, and operate as mounted scouts during platoon movement. The three ERC-90s and three Tigrs can also break up into two-vehicle pairs of one of each type, allowing for recon of a main transit route as well as alternates to either side.
I grant that the ERC 90 is an odd choice for the role, but the Sagaie model has a good gun on it and while the armor is light the portability by road or air is very high. Unlike the Tigr, it's also amphibious, but that's not likely to be used much since it'd mean abandoning the rest of the platoon behind.
I'm thinking of copying the French organization slightly for the Cavalry Squadron and giving it four troops. Each troop has four platoons, so it looks something like this.
Cavalry Squadron
Cavalry Troop
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Troop
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Troop
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Cavalry Platoon (3 ERC 90, 3 Tigr)
Anti-tank Troop
Anti-tank Platoon (4 AT-5 equipped BRDM-2)
Anti-tank Platoon (4 AT-5 equipped BRDM-2)
Anti-tank Platoon (4 AT-5 equipped BRDM-2)
Anti-tank Platoon (4 AT-5 equipped BRDM-2)
-
Nigerian Alpha Jets are getting some action (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/naf-airstrikes-neutralize-terrorists-in-kaduna/ar-AA1kbVVh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6a47bc71a09544abb44fb96e95de3716&ei=30):
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1kbVV9.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
Just because Sere-Slav is interested.
-
Good on them, here's hoping for a positive BDA.
-
Their BDAs are always positive.
-
Heh... those drone operators have to come from somewhere... ;)
Apparently, they sometimes come from Grandma's house. Because they are, indeed, Babusya: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukrainian-grandma-says-she-s-too-old-to-fight-russians-in-the-infantry-so-learned-to-pilot-drones-instead/ar-AA1kdXGC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6ec9d59435b04bf78e1ca5cea156edb7&ei=33 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukrainian-grandma-says-she-s-too-old-to-fight-russians-in-the-infantry-so-learned-to-pilot-drones-instead/ar-AA1kdXGC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6ec9d59435b04bf78e1ca5cea156edb7&ei=33)
So, about that universal reserve service in Sere-Slav...
-
I'll be very disappointed if her callsign isn't "Baba Yaga"... ;D
-
Yeah, I suppose I'll be doing the universal reserve service after all, even if the training is only basic. I've been reading up on the DOSAAF, the Soviet pre-military induction training, and they had the typical kinds of problems you'd expect - the instructors weren't trained as teachers, so their methodology had its problems. There was also rampant grade inflation so that the teachers looked good, plus supply and equipment shortages and inefficient use of what they did have.
One of the points noted was that (in 1976) the Soviets had become complacent with living at peace, and the population saw a reduced need for preparedness programs. That's something SereSlav is going to have to overcome as well, though Recent Events(TM) probably erased much of that attitude.
Lack of technical equipment is probably going to be the biggest problem in the program in Serednya Slaviya. I can picture a lot of gear sharing and book learning substituting in the program for hands-on things, especially when it comes to aviation and vehicle operation. Instructor training, though, that I can address by requiring the retired/reservist instructors to go through classes of their own before they're tapped for the DOSAAF-equivalent training program.
So everyone gets at least basic instruction, one hour classes on Mondays and Thursdays, alongside their regular education classes. Saturdays, team sports (especially soccer) are a thing, and over summer break there's field training to learn how to operate in squads and platoons on camping exercises. It's not quite basic training, but it's a start towards it. Of course, there's the problem of inflating grades, but that's hard to get around without auditors sitting in on the program and that ties up even more personnel...
It looks like the Soviets focused the most on patriotic training and political indoctrination, and that's something that Serednya Slaviya is going to find easy to do. It's not hard to make various propaganda media, and teaching the benefits of military service alongside a patriotic slant towards history and political theory classes. The big difference is the elimination of Soviet collectivist theory and replacement with western democratic thinking, but it's not like I can't have that. And there's still the idea of national service that fits both political theories, so that won't change much.
From this study (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA039632.pdf) on the DOSAAF training in 1975-76:
While the Soviets have obviously not achieved all that they desire in the area of basic military training of youth, it should be noted that they have been successful in providing some kind of military training to the vast majority of young Soviet men. Since only about one out of every two Soviet draft-age males is currently being inducted into the Armed Forces, the pre—induction program at the very least provides a basic introduction to military subjects for the 50 percent who would otherwise apparently not receive any such training.
So it's not as if the students are being trained to the same level they'd get in basic training, it's a familiarization and acclimatization program that covers all youth - not just the small percentage that joins the service, but giving at least some training and indoctrination to everyone. I will keep the military itself volunteer-only, at least in peacetime. Fortunately with the DOSAAF-equivalent training, those reporting to emergency callups will already be one step ahead of plain civilians.
And yes, I second the motion to give that drone operator the callsign Baba Yaga. It's too perfect.
-
All I can say at this point is "WOLVERINES!" ;D
-
(https://www.thedrive.com/content/2022/04/Wolvarines-Ukraine-BMP-2-tagged-1.jpg?quality=85&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920)
-
I've seen a few vehicles with the Wolverines tag; someone is definitely a fan. And they're productive, it seems - one of the tagged vehicles was an unspecified tank.
So the Russians have an uparmored Tigr they call the Volk, and one variant adds another axle to it as well as what looks like a 105mm-range artillery piece.
(https://www.militarytoday.com/trucks/volk_l10.jpg)
It's not in service, and neither is the Volk armor package. But I'm reminded of the HMMWV-equipped 105mm howitzer and its rapidity of deployment and firing, and wonder if something like this Artillery Volk might be the future after all.
On universal conscription - I suppose I could set it up to where everyone goes into basic training and then a specialty school, but is turned out to the civilian world after their training programs are finished. Basic training...I suppose twelve weeks is sufficient to turn out a soldier; it's between the ten weeks of Army training and thirteen of the Marines. On graduation, the recruit would either go professional or become a reservist. Volunteering for service puts you into an AIT program for your military specialty, while becoming a reservist sends you to infantry school for another twelve weeks.
That gives me an active-duty army structure as mentioned above, while having a very large pool of trained reservist infantry to supplement it. I know it's a weird way to do things, but I lack the heavy equipment to equip my reserve forces. This way I'm at least getting infantry out of them. Small arms and infantry equipment such as radios are probably things Serednya Slaviya is able to manufacture, so I'm able to equip them in time of war even if they're not going to be terribly effective.
Thoughts on that mid-training volunteer-specialist-or-reserve-infantry idea? Is it viable for a military, or should I be training my reservists in specialty roles as well and then turning them loose as reservists? Or should I be considering other options?
-
It strikes me you'd almost want a separate school for the ones that volunteer for infantry...
-
Something like having two infantry schools, one for reserves and one for active-duty folks? Or should I push all my recruits through regular specialist role training instead?
-
Two infantry schools, exactly!
-
So the Russians have an uparmored Tigr they call the Volk, and one variant adds another axle to it as well as what looks like a 105mm-range artillery piece.
(https://www.militarytoday.com/trucks/volk_l10.jpg)
Russians don't use 105 mm calliber, so it's more likely 120 mm 2B16 gun/mortar. It could be heavily modified D-30, but I doubt it.
-
I've seen a few vehicles with the Wolverines tag; someone is definitely a fan. And they're productive, it seems - one of the tagged vehicles was an unspecified tank.
So the Russians have an uparmored Tigr they call the Volk, and one variant adds another axle to it as well as what looks like a 105mm-range artillery piece.
(https://www.militarytoday.com/trucks/volk_l10.jpg)
It's not in service, and neither is the Volk armor package. But I'm reminded of the HMMWV-equipped 105mm howitzer and its rapidity of deployment and firing, and wonder if something like this Artillery Volk might be the future after all.
On universal conscription - I suppose I could set it up to where everyone goes into basic training and then a specialty school, but is turned out to the civilian world after their training programs are finished. Basic training...I suppose twelve weeks is sufficient to turn out a soldier; it's between the ten weeks of Army training and thirteen of the Marines. On graduation, the recruit would either go professional or become a reservist. Volunteering for service puts you into an AIT program for your military specialty, while becoming a reservist sends you to infantry school for another twelve weeks.
That gives me an active-duty army structure as mentioned above, while having a very large pool of trained reservist infantry to supplement it. I know it's a weird way to do things, but I lack the heavy equipment to equip my reserve forces. This way I'm at least getting infantry out of them. Small arms and infantry equipment such as radios are probably things Serednya Slaviya is able to manufacture, so I'm able to equip them in time of war even if they're not going to be terribly effective.
Thoughts on that mid-training volunteer-specialist-or-reserve-infantry idea? Is it viable for a military, or should I be training my reservists in specialty roles as well and then turning them loose as reservists? Or should I be considering other options?
I think it might be a bit early for SereSlav compared to say, towed guns or picking up another battery or two of Gvozdikas. My main concern with the light truck guns is the long-term durability of the platform. You could end up with more of your vehicles in depot than on strength if they don't prove up to the strains of the job and the the resources and tech available will depend on when in the timeline this occurs.
Here's some footage of the PCL-171. No mention of the gun design, but it's a 122mm howitzer like the 2S1 or D-30. It's a 6x6 base and Wikipedia lists the entire vehicle as weighing 11 tonnes. You can see how much the recoil rocks the truck around even with spades, outriggers, and a humongous brake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPG6Hqb35Ec
-
I think I saw daylight under the wheels on more than one shot... those chassis are taking a BEATING!
-
If you can handle the horrendous pronunciation, this video is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Dro0gpCY8
-
I think I saw daylight under the wheels on more than one shot... those chassis are taking a BEATING!
The oblique direct fire shots were lifting the inboard outriggers off the ground, and the gasses from the muzzle brake threw up dirt even on the indirect fire shots!
But it's back to what you're after. If you have the resources to assume that the base chassis of your howitzer trucks are going to be a consumable item and the gun system will be mounted on a new chassis every say, 10 years of 1000 shots, then you can make it work.
And if you're an insurgent group, you can fire a mortar off the bed of a pickup truck because you don't expect the truck or the mortar to last particularly long.
But from a minimum cost, maintaining proficiency standpoint, it's hard to argue against a good ol' towed gun in the interim.
-
Towed systems are the logistics answer in every case, yep! ;D
-
So that poses a question for the artillery, why towed tube arty over SPGs? I had thought the 152mm DANA would make a good semimodern artillery piece, probably acquired from Slovakia sometime in the 1990s. Why do you guys like towed guns better?
(https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/1323721021_img_9_24728_01248959758.jpg)
-
Did you see the beating those truck chassis were taking from firing the artillery? That's why the logistics guys are for towed arty: less damage to the prime movers (which are SUPPOSED to be cheap!).
-
I can see that, yeah. Literally in this case, and the only way to mitigate potential damage from firing shock is to overbuild your SPG, which results in a much heavier system overall.
Considering I want to keep SereSlav's fighting force strategically mobile, I suppose I'd have to go with towed guns just to keep the transportability. HIMARS fits in a C-130, so that'll be my yardstick to measure mobility with. D-30 122mm guns are prolific as hell in Eastern Europe, and have spread beyond that region with arms sales elsewhere, so I'm down with that.
That gives me a total of two battalions of 36 122mm howitzers each, and a third battalion at the division level of 36 HIMARS units. For two cavalry battalions and four infantry battalions, that's some decent firepower, though I certainly wouldn't mind adding more - but I'm focusing my army on engineers, not artillerists. What I have should be good enough.
-
So that poses a question for the artillery, why towed tube arty over SPGs? I had thought the 152mm DANA would make a good semimodern artillery piece, probably acquired from Slovakia sometime in the 1990s. Why do you guys like towed guns better?
(https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/1323721021_img_9_24728_01248959758.jpg)
If the DANA be rockin', shellfire be knockin'! https://youtu.be/FKRkRczgmMg?t=125
Again, the effect is most pronounced in direct fire, but you can also see they do most of the filmed shots from concrete slab...
These Caesars also flex and they've got outriggers/spades out as well. You can see they're trying to redirect forces to the ground like with a mortar baseplate, but the truck still dances
https://youtu.be/Jp6lFy3xFgY?t=78
-
Damn, that sucker is moving. Granted that's shooting 90 degrees off to the side, so you're maximizing the amount of roll it's getting, but still...that is a huge amount of shock to the vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6x3so6_rQA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6x3so6_rQA)
Meanwhile the 122mm D-30 gun doesn't seem to be quite as fierce in recoil, or else it's better mitigated with its tripod-like legs. There's also a neat shot of it at the end of the video in direct-fire mode taking out a target, and you can see the shell going downrange from the air disturbance it's causing.
-
It is being found out in Ukraine that towed artillery...has problems. It is very vulnerable to counterbattery fire (both because of speed to reposition and the lack of protection inherent to such a system) and discovery/attack by the new means of offensive action (namely, ubiquitous drone usage).
This is something that has been mulled over in recent years, but this article here (https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-shows-towed-artillery-more-vulnerable-in-future-2023-10) provides some of the salient talking points.
-
It is being found out in Ukraine that towed artillery...has problems. It is very vulnerable to counterbattery fire (both because of speed to reposition and the lack of protection inherent to such a system) and discovery/attack by the new means of offensive action (namely, ubiquitous drone usage).
This is something that has been mulled over in recent years, but this article here (https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-shows-towed-artillery-more-vulnerable-in-future-2023-10) provides some of the salient talking points.
Well, sure. It is, now :grin:
It's all about timing. What you need in 2023 isn't necessarily what you need or can afford or is available in 2013 or 2003 or 1993!
-
Good article, and strongly makes points about a slow to mobilize artillery being easy to take out with counterbattery or drone-spotted fire support. That pushes me back into an SPG of some kind, which...huh, does not eliminate C-130 transportability.
(https://www.militarytoday.com/artillery/2s1_gvosdika_l8.jpg)
The 2S1 Gvozdika is just barely able to fit in a C-130, and brings the D-30 howitzer into a tracked SPG that is even amphibious. It's not that fast, only 30km/h offroad, but it ties together all of my desired elements for an artillery piece quite nicely. It may not quite have the punch of the DANA's 152mm, but I can live with that. It's also very likely to be what Serednya Slaviya had in its arsenal before the USSR fell, so it's not as if it's a recent purchase.
I also decided to re-jigger the mechanized platoon setup slightly. Now it has four squads made up of the following organization:
Tigr 1 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Platoon Marksman (M110 SASS)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 2 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 3 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 4 (AGS-30)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
The big change was shifting the 4th squad's AT-5 into another RPG-7, and moving the ATGMs to a Weapons Platoon for each Rifle Company. I also grouped a Forward Observer in with the Drone Operator, it made sense to have the observer hand in hand with the eyes of the platoon. I also converted one Rifleman in each squad into a Squad Leader, allowing the Platoon Leader and his Sergeant to operate without doublehatting. It also means I'm not making my medic lead a squad, which was where I was at before - the unit specialists need to do their thing and not worry about the rest of the squad. Total platoon strength is 44 personnel.
I also gave the Platoon Marksman a M110 SASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi-Automatic_Sniper_System) which is basically an accurized AR-10, currently in use in Armenia, Brazil, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Singapore, and the US. Some have made their way to Ukraine as part of their foreign legion, so it's not as if it's hard to come by.
As far as the Weapons Platoon goes, here's what I was thinking in that direction.
Tigr 1 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Mortar Team Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Gunner (Glock 19, 60mm Mortar)
Mortar Assistant (Beryl)
ATGM Team Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (AT-5, Beryl)
ATGM Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 2 (M2HB)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Mortar Team Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Gunner (Glock 19, 60mm Mortar)
Mortar Assistant (Beryl)
ATGM Team Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (AT-5, Beryl)
ATGM Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 3 (AGS-30)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Assistant (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Assistant (Beryl)
Tigr 4 (AGS-30)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Assistant (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Assistant (Beryl)
That gives me a weapons platoon in the company of two 60mm mortars, two AT-5 ATGM launchers, and four .30 machine guns. Each crew-served weapon has a fire team leader who doubles as an ammo carrier, while each squad has a dedicated squad leader and a rifleman or two to double as more ammo carriers. Total Platoon strength is also 44 personnel.
The headquarters for the company I'm copying from here (https://www.battleorder.org/usa-rifleco-ibct-2020).
Headquarters Platoon
Tigr 1 (M2HB)
Company Leader (Beryl)
Signals NCO (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Ural 4320 1
Company Executive Officer (Beryl)
Company Sergeant (Beryl)
Supply Sergeant (Beryl)
Supply NCO (Beryl)
Senior Medic (Glock 19)
Tigr 2 (M2HB)
Fire Support Officer (Beryl)
Fire Support Sergeant (Beryl)
Fire Support NCO (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
That plus three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon make for a total company strength of 189 personnel, should I cut that back or is that an acceptable size? I can always lose an ammo handler or two from the regular platoons, and drop two of the four MG carriers plus their vehicle, if it's too large.
-
189 is big, but reasonable, I think... :)
-
One option I saw somewhere, was putting the base plate of the mortar on the ground when the mortar fired, but using hydraulics to lift the mortar back onto the vehicle.
So the ground and baseplate take the beating from the shots, but you have the vehicle able to scoot much faster.
The whole setup might be similar to a dump truck for levering the support frame of the mortar up and lowering the mortar to the ground, and merely aiming the mortar while it fires.
Eventually you'll have to replace the baseplate and mortar, but good design means the tube can be disconnected from the vehicle and a new one put in place. Disadvantage is you'll want to keep multiple barrels per vehicle so they can be changed out rapidly.
-
I think that's how the HMMWV mounted howitzer does it...
-
Matsimus had a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYbbp1QRHCg) on the Hawkeye, and mentions that part of the reason it works on a HMMWV without shaking it to bits is a special slow-recoil system. It's also got hydraulic jacks fore and aft that lift the whole vehicle for stability. And as you can see in the video, the shock to the firing vehicle is pretty minimal, especially compared to the DANA and its heavier 155mm gun.
I'm honestly considering having SereSlav look into the Hawkeye as a replacement for its Gvozdikas. It doesn't quite have the same range as the 122mm gun, though RAP rounds can equal or slightly exceed that. The advantages would be not just the rapidity of deployment and fire rate, but also accuracy and lethality as well as commonality with NATO munitions. And like the rest of the arsenal, it's air-transportable by C-130 as well.
Thoughts on down/sidegrading from a Russian 122mm to NATO standard 105mm howitzers?
-
Matsimus had a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYbbp1QRHCg) on the Hawkeye, and mentions that part of the reason it works on a HMMWV without shaking it to bits is a special slow-recoil system. It's also got hydraulic jacks fore and aft that lift the whole vehicle for stability. And as you can see in the video, the shock to the firing vehicle is pretty minimal, especially compared to the DANA and its heavier 155mm gun.
I'm honestly considering having SereSlav look into the Hawkeye as a replacement for its Gvozdikas. It doesn't quite have the same range as the 122mm gun, though RAP rounds can equal or slightly exceed that. The advantages would be not just the rapidity of deployment and fire rate, but also accuracy and lethality as well as commonality with NATO munitions. And like the rest of the arsenal, it's air-transportable by C-130 as well.
Thoughts on down/sidegrading from a Russian 122mm to NATO standard 105mm howitzers?
It's a big step down in throw weight. Also, I suspect the HMMWV mobility in the mud is going to lag the 2S1s badly. If I were to make any change, it might be to swap the Gvordikas for 120mm gun/mortar Nonas and either do without howitzers or tack on a few batteries of M777 or other equivalent 155mm towed guns.
I know F16 will bring up the mobility and survivability aspect, but that's post-2022 experience of drone-saturated battlefields. Seeing it 10 years ago would be prescient. Seeing it 20-30 years ago risks being too early by a long shot as it's verging on an entire generation of equipment in advance.
-
I'll keep the 2S1 as the artillery arm for each brigade then, for a total of 36 guns. It fits like a cat in a C-130, and the Nona - as much as I'd like to go with that - just doesn't have the range of the 122mm artillery. Though...one point for the Nona is that I can put two of them in a C-130 instead of just one 2S1 Gvozdika, so my expeditionary portability is improved significantly. Maybe I should go with the Nonas after all...they're amphibious, which is another plus in their regard. Though so is the 2S1...and the Gvozdika does have nearly double the range of the 2S9 Nona. Points to consider.
Matisimus did a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmk_zOAQoX4) on the 2S1 and its history, and it shows some interesting video clips. Namely, it's got its own bulldozer blade on the bow, and is able to dig its own firing positions. He also brings up the points in favor of an SPG in general, namely their CBRN protection schemes and the ability to fire and move out quickly.
But this article (https://military-blog.com/2s9-nona/) and its video are an interesting read & watch, seeing 2S9s go gallivanting around a training field and doing fire exercises. The article's mention of alternate ammunition for the Nona, including a 120mm HEAT round for the anti-tank role and a laser-guided round, gives me warm fuzzies in retrospect.
I'll go with Nonas for the fire support role, taking the short range into consideration. The army is looking for a lightweight replacement for the thing. Air portability, at least in a C-17, is a requirement, though I'd like to keep the C-130 mobility if at all possible. That way shifting from a 120mm mortar to a 105mm howitzer is much less of a downgrade. Abbots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_(artillery)) are still in service in India, maybe they'd be willing to sell off some of their fleet.
Boy, it feels like the military forces that were present in the Soviet era included a VDV brigade; I'm so heavily into air mobility that it feels like airborne thinking may have been present heavily in Serednya Slaviya in the Good Old Days. The Air Force doesn't have the transports, though, not without heavy reworking of the basic assumptions of the military...I'll keep the organization as it is but say that there's a general or two that came up through the Airborne forces and they're putting that mindset to bear despite there not being an airborne force.
I'm also thinking of reorganizing the mechanized infantry battalion to something more western, instead of large Soviet squads going with the paired fire team model of the West.
Headquarters Squad
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Combat Medic (Glock 19)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Fire Support RTO (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Platoon Marksman (M110 SASS)
Infantry Squad (x3)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Alpha Team
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (M249)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Bravo Team
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Automatic Rifleman (M249)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
Rifleman (Beryl)
I'm splitting up the first infantry squad and the HQ squad between the first two vehicles, while keeping second and third squads intact in vehicles three and four. There's an extra seat in the second vehicle to add a mission specialist of some kind for the platoon.
Tigr 1 (M2HB)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader
Radiotelephone Operator
Combat Medic
Platoon Marksman
1st Squad Leader
1st Alpha Team
Tigr 2 (M2HB)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant
Forward Observer
Fire Support RTO
Drone Operator
1st Bravo Team
Tigr 3 (M2HB)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
2nd Squad Leader
2nd Alpha Team
2nd Bravo Team
Tigr 4 (Mk 19 GMG)
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
3rd Squad Leader
3rd Alpha Team
3rd Bravo Team
The platoon's total weapons strength is six RPG-7s, six M249s, six Beryl+Pallad combinations, one M110 SASS, three M2HB .50 MGs, one Mk 19 40mm GMG, 21 Beryls, one Glock 19, and eight Mini-Beryls. I'm using Tigrs as an intermediate between a more typical larger APC such as a BTR-4 and an armored HMMWV; the Tigr is a light 4x4 like the latter but has seating like the former with two crew and nine passengers onboard each vehicle. It's in between the two vehicles, and an uparmored version is making the rounds at defense expos now.
The company weapons platoon I linked above would shrink to a weapons section for the company. That would leave a headquarters of 16 personnel and three platoons of 43, and a weapons section of 21 for a total of 166 personnel per company. I'm putting them in UAZ-469s instead of Tigrs because the American model has them in HMMWVs, and because I can't use Tigrs for everything as much as I'd like to. They're APCs in Serednya Slaviyan service, not general use vehicles (yet). The weapons section is equipped with two .30 M240 MGs, two M224 60mm mortars, one M110 SASS, twelve Beryls, four Glock 19s, and four Mini-Beryls.
Weapons Section
UAZ-469 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Team Leader (Beryl)
GPMG Gunner (Glock 19, M240)
GPMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Team Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Gunner (Glock 19, M224)
Mortar Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Company Marksman (M110 SASS)
Mortar Team Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Gunner (Glock 19, M224)
Mortar Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Rejiggering the infantry company HQ with dedicated vehicle drivers gives me the following strength. Fifteen Beryls, one Glock 19, and three Mini-Beryls make up the weapons of the HQ platoon.
Headquarters Platoon
UAZ 469 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Company Leader (Beryl)
Signals NCO (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Ural 4320 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Company Executive Officer (Beryl)
Company Sergeant (Beryl)
Supply Sergeant (Beryl)
Supply NCO (Beryl)
Senior Medic (Glock 19)
UAZ 469 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Fire Support Officer (Beryl)
Fire Support Sergeant (Beryl)
Fire Support NCO (Beryl)
Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Total weapons strength for the company is eighteen RPG-7s, eighteen M249s, eighteen Beryl+Pallad combinations, two M240 .30 MGs, two 60mm M224 mortars, four M110 SASS, nine M2HB .50 MGs, three Mk 19 40mm GMGs, ninety Beryls, eight Glock 19s, and thirty-one Mini-Beryls.
At battalion level, the weapons company is equipped with four equal platoons of mixed weapons, allowing each platoon to bring all of the various weapons capability and be attached to different companies or platoons as needed.
Assault Platoon (x4)
UAZ-469 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
HMG Gunner (Glock 19, M2HB)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
GMG Gunner (Glock 19, Mk 19 GMG)
GMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
GMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Fire Support RTO (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Glock 19, AT-5)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
UAZ-469 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Combat Medic (Glock 19)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Glock 19, AT-5)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
The total assault company comes to four .50 M2HBs, four Mk 19 40mm GMGs, eight AT-5 ATGM launchers, eighty-four Beryls, sixteen Mini-Beryls, and sixteen Glock 19s.
Assuming the same 16-man company headquarters size as the infantry company, each assault platoon is 27 personnel in strength and the total weapons company comes to 124. Three infantry companies plus the weapons company come to 622 troops, plus an unspecified amount for a battalion headquarters. Based on the below, I'd round off the BN HQ to about 80 personnel and run a battalion strength of approximately 700 in total.
The Battalion HQ, to quote from FM-3-96:
The headquarters company has a battalion command section, a battalion staff section, a company headquarters, battalion medical,scout,and mortar platoons, a signal section,and a sniper squad. The headquarters company mortar platoon is equipped with 120-mm mortars (trailer towed) and 81-mm mortars (ground mounted).
Why the mortars are emplaced in the battalion headquarters instead of made into a separate platoon in the weapons company is something I don't understand. I'm guessing that it makes the heavier mortars more of a commander's personal weapon, rather than a support weapon called upon by the rest of the battalion. There's only enough mortar crews to man either the 81mm or 120mm mortars, so it depends on the commander to decide what to use. I'd roll with 81mm mortars myself, if only because the M252 weighs less than 1/3 of the M120 mortar - the M252 breaks down into several sub-30-pound pieces; portability is a plus with the army.
I guess the fire team model above has its benefits, and there's a good reason it's being used in modern militaries. It makes sense that SereSlav would copy and reorganize from the old soviet model to a more modern design, so I'm thinking the above is the way to go with the infantry.
Thoughts, suggestions, things I should take into account?
Boy, this is getting down deep into the weeds with this.
-
and a laser-guided round, gives me warm fuzzies in retrospect.
Isn't Srednya Slaviya opposed to Russia? Kitolov is post 2000 development, so unlike Krasnopol they couldn't be acquired in some Cold War fire sale and doubt Russians would be willing to sell their newest ammunition type to a country that is courting NATO.
-
Speaking of light artillery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_howitzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_Mod_56
The latter was even spotted in Bakhmut recently...
-
That's a good point - okay, so no laser-guided rounds.
The Nona's still a useful if short-ranged artillery system, but the idea comes to mind of shifting two battalions of eighteen guns each to four battalions of twelve - shrinking each BN in size, but doubling up on the number. I'd split them evenly between each brigade, with one battalion of twelve Nonas and one battalion of twelve Gvozdikas in each BDE. The best of both worlds, if not a lot of them. That's a net increase in artillery, so I'll have to budget troops for that, but I think I can get away with it and not adjust things too much.
And Daryk, those definitely count as lightweight guns - shame they're so old, they're tempting but I think I'm going to go with my doubled small artillery brigades.
Further thoughts on the whole airborne thing. Two Il-76 and four C-130 transports are enough to haul around 500 paratroopers, which is a few companies of troops. I'd need to enlarge the Air Force by about 200 to accomodate the six planes, but that's still reasonable in keeping things small. Maybe that special operations battalion I have at division level is actually an airborne combined-arms battalion, made up of companies of mixed infantry and light armor.
Each company would have one platoon of four ERC 90 Sagaies, and two platoons of infantry with a mortar section attached to it.
The French (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Parachute_Hussar_Regiment) do their parachute units with vehicles, so I'll go along with that and just rely on foreign air support to help transport the rest of the unit. Maybe I can get a company at a time onboard my transports. It's going to look somewhat like the Cavalry battalion, which I'll detail later. It's 6am and I need to go to bed, so I'll be back in a bit with more organizational lists that you all love so much.
-
Hmmm... AN-2s can carry 12... about a squad and a half... hmmm... ;)
-
No, I'm not running my airborne units in An-2s. They're just too slow.
-
I'm thinking more scout units...
-
I think I've lost track of the current iteration of Serednya Slaviya's history and size. Is it still Volyn + Rivne oblasts and a post-USSR successor state?
-
Going back to the airborne ruminations...one thing that is rarely seen in actual usage for the VDV is all their organic armored assets. Sure, a lot was made of BMDs, ASUs, and so on, but I never got the impression that they saw much action outside of doctrinal texts.
Hell, in Bosnia in 1996 the VDV deployed using normal army equipment (BTRs, mainly). And they might have in Kosovo in succeeding years. More recently, they have made some use of BMDs but I am under the impression they mainly function as light infantry (like everyone else's paratroopers).
I am all for some type of specialist military that focuses on the ancillary functions no one else does, especially if they are not a front-line or frontier nation that may well need conventional warfighting ability for national defense, and need it quickly. I do wonder, though, if the little residual conventional warfighting ability you have is crammed into such a specialized force as an airborne infantry outfit. These types of troops only make up a small proportion of every other military. And it is not a cheap route to go, since instead of driving out to the woods for an FTX, you are driving out to the flightline.
Just some idle thoughts. Always happy to see the scenery on this ride.
-
Speaking of the flight line, Embraer would like to sell you an airplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UH9gIr-qWo
;D
-
Um. Yep. That should be one of the short-list for the USAF's low-component of the CAS/COIN part of their inventory.
https://www.governmentprocurement.com/news/super-tucano-vs-t6 (https://www.governmentprocurement.com/news/super-tucano-vs-t6)
-
It's a little larger than that; I found a map of the territory that Poland conquered at the end of the 1920 war with the Soviets and it almost perfectly matches Volyn, Rivne, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, and Lviv oblasts. That land was given back to the USSR in the real world; I'm using it as the origin of Serednya Slaviya itself. Total land area 89,747 km2, total population 7,066,000, total GDP $25,460,000,000. Per capita GDP is $3,603 which is slightly ahead of Morocco and the Philippines. Military spending in 2023 is 3% GDP, for a total of $763,800,000. It was never absorbed as an SSR and maintained its notional independence in the Soviet era, though it was very much in lockstep with the eastern bloc as far as international relations go.
After the fall of the USSR Serednya Slaviya spun its wheels for a while, but eventually followed after the Poles in embracing the west. SereSlav joined NATO in 2004, and began a plan to overhaul its army to something capable of fighting alongside allies in the GWOT in a more expeditionary manner. That's when the first plans for a more rapidly mobile army were put into place, a ten year plan that lasted until 2014 to sell off the Soviet hardware and re-equip with Western gear, a process that's still going on 20 years later.
I figure that since Lviv Polytechnic has been turning out engineers since 1816, giving Serednya Slaviya a solid technical knowledge base that was snapped up by the military and other countries over the centuries made sense. That explains why the country - outside of the capital Lviv and the cross-country highways/railways - isn't as advanced as it should be. Much of the advances in the country went into military matters, such as transportation assets. Farming is still a major component of the economy, though there are a number of factories around the country especially in Lviv.
There's also the question of how many engineer battalions I really need before I can say I'm specialized in a thing without overloading it in that regard. Right now I have two fighting brigades and three engineer brigades which is lopsided as hell; I can reshuffle that into three fighting brigades and one dedicated engineer brigade which feels more logical to me. I added back a combat engineering battalion to each brigade, and four more battalions in the engineering brigade. The army would look like this:
1st Division
Headquarters & Signals Battalion
Long Range Rocket Artillery Battalion (HIMARS)
Special Forces Battalion
Military Police Battalion
Logistics Battalion
1st Combined Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (122mm Gvozdika)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (120mm Nona)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
2nd Combined Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (122mm Gvozdika)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (120mm Nona)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
3rd Combined Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (122mm Gvozdika)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (120mm Nona)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Construction Engineer Battalion
Construction Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Combat Service Support Battalion
As far as the airborne question goes, I'm going to scrap that idea and simply use a special forces battalion instead. That also scraps the idea for the transport planes, since I don't need big expensive aircraft when I'm not repeatedly airlifting folks. Like F16 said, it's not cheap, and cheap is what I have to focus on. It also allows Serednya Slaviya to have a more standard armed forces, while still having a large engineering component to the army.
On the topic of air power, I'm copying the Croatian Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Air_Force#Current_inventory) up to a point. I've traded the one squadron of MiG-21s for two squadrons of Alpha attack-trainers and the half-squadron of Air Tractors for a dozen An-2s. The Pilatus trainer in Croatian service is ground attack capable, though the Super Tucano has a lot more options for the attack role. The primary mission is training, and the Tucano having a similar weapons fit to the Alpha will help train pilots in that role even if I'm not using the Tucano as a dedicated attack aircraft. Might as well learn the weapons systems while on the training aircraft.
-
AN-2s are cheap enough, your SOF Battalion might try to corral a few of their own... ;)
-
I wasn't looking for it this morning, but stumbled across this short video of a Hawkeye fire mission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtdyjbnHdo
The frame doesn't seem to be too badly affected at all...
-
Yeah, that slow recoil system does a lot to mitigate the shock effect from firing. You can see it pushing the gun forward just prior to firing. I wonder what the shot lifetime for the vehicle is, compared to the barrel life.
Nah, I'm gonna put in that the An-2s are being retired in favor of Piaggio Avantis. They're only 7 million a pop brand new and 2-3 million used, seat nine, and are a great and unique looking airframe. I'm not doing parachute operations with An-2s, but using them as general utility passenger planes; the Avanti can do the same job and do it with a bit more posh and lavish interiors. I'll say that there's one Avanti already in the role in SereSlav, but the An-2s haven't been retired yet. There's likely kickbacks and deals in the government for a nice little procurement scandal, but such is life in military contracts. And someone in the military really liked the looks of the Avanti, so picked it for that reason.
(https://jetflo.com/storage/2022/11/P180_exterior-1.jpg)
-
Thinking further on the artillery, I have nine batteries of four 2S1 122mm guns and nine batteries of four 120mm gun-mortars. I want to have replacements lined up for them, since the systems are 30 years old or more at this point, but I'm not seeing lightweight protected artillery systems except for the equally out-of-date Abbot 105mm gun.
So I'm eyeballing the K9 Thunder 155mm artillery system, and debating on just eating the fact I can't make them airmobile except with the heaviest of transports. It's good enough for portions of Europe I'm allied with, and as a 155mm gun brings some solid range and lethality to the mix. My first thought is ordering 54 of them to make three total battalions of 18 guns each, but I'd still like to have a more mobile artillery component. That idea would involve only 36 K9s, and buying 36 Hawkeyes to replace the 2S9 Nonas.
I grant the Hawkeye isn't a protected system like the K9 is, with the crew out in the open, but it's still got the good shoot-and-scoot capability to protect itself from counterbattery fire. It's still got to be loaded manually, without an onboard ammunition capability, so it'd need resupply points colocated with its firing position, and that is something that can't move as rapidly as the artillery piece can. The K9 has its own armored resuppply vehicle and a command post vehicle as well, so it's got a common family to work with.
I'm thinking consolidating on a fewer number of 155mm guns is the better option, in this case. That would give me one battalion total for each brigade, though I could see cutting that back to 36 guns for financial reasons - each battalion is twelve guns in three batteries of four. That would require one C-17 flight for each artillery piece, however, which sorely limits my strategic mobility.
Meanwhile Hawkeye systems can be mounted on regular pickup trucks (https://www.militarytoday.com/artillery/hawkeye_l7.jpg) and can fit two in a C-130 - or even be carried by a Chinook helicopter. So can towed M777 155mm howitzers, which I considered but nixed because towed guns just take too long to deploy and unass an area after a firing mission.
So what would you guys go with - more of the heavier SPGs, or split between the K9 and the Hawkeye as a 2S9 Nona replacement?
-
Greetings,
I've been following this thread for a while. How about this for your mobile artillery component ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System
155 mm gun, max speed of 43 mph (70km/h) and good shoot-and-scoot capability :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8x8ITwd4Vg
Unit cost is approx. 4.5M USD (Volvo platform), whereas the K9 is about 3.8M USD :
https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_much_a_modern_155_mm_spg_gun_costs_now_examples_of_the_german_pzh2000_korean_k9_and_french_caesar-6251.html
Talking only about used Korean self-propelled guns, then one K9 would cost 3.5 million euros ($3.8 million), as stated in the contract signed by Norway at the end of 2022.)
-
That price bump between the K9 and Archer makes me favor the Korean system more, even if that's only on the base cost of the vehicles and not service contracts and munitions. I imagine that's what inflates the other prices listed in that article into the ten to twenty million dollars per system. In addition, the mass production of the K9 makes (over 1,500 units) it feel like a more mature system, and there'll be parts spares aplenty to buy from Korea unlike the handful of Archer systems built.
Archer's not a bad idea, don't get me wrong, and I did look at it before settling on the K9, but the popularity of the latter was a big point in selecting it. The question now is how many to get...and if I should be bothering with a 105mm artillery system at all.
EDIT: Oh yeah, the fact that there's an armored resupply vehicle doing its thing in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsSLhSrsm6g) along with a FDCV as part of the family were big pluses when it came to the K9 selection. Being able to reload under armor compared to spreading around loose shells, charges, and troops in a firing position was pretty nifty.
-
In the Hawkeye video I watched, the ammo was carried in a second HMMWV, so it was just as mobile as the gun.
-
I wonder how much HMMWVs are on the government surplus market. They're plentiful enough (230,000 in US hands alone, tens of thousands in other countries' arsenals) that they should be dirt cheap due to economies of scale, and probably cheaper than buying new locally made trucks to replace UAZ-469s.
I've also been reconsidering my lightweight forces, and how to work out reorganizing on the four brigade division model. The first two brigades would be regular line combat forces, with proper main battle tanks (T-72s of some variant or another) and typical BTR-4 APCs. They'd be primarily focused on national defense, and remain local, without significant transport needs. Third Brigade would be a rapid reaction force operating on NATO missions, and remain with the ERC-90 and Tigr armored cars for their primary gear. Fourth Brigade is my heavy engineers, and those wouldn't change their roles.
That only leaves 88 Polish-rebuilt PT-91s in the Serednya Slaviyan arsenal, two 44-tank battalions split one in each of the two heavy brigades. The rest became spare parts or were sold off to other countries as we downsized and reorganized from the Soviet model. The light brigade would still be organized around a cavalry battalion instead of a tank battalion; I'd be using the mixed organization I came up with earlier with three ERC-90s and three Tigrs per cavalry platoon. Three platoons per troop, and three troops on the squadron, gives a total of 27 ERC 90s and Tigrs in the light brigade.
Artillerywise, I'm still debating on the Hawkeye for the replacement for the light brigade's artillery. The heavy brigades, which aren't worried about being air mobile, are each going to get one battalion of K9 Thunders to replace their two mixed artillery battalions. The light brigade...I'll keep the Gvozdika and Nona guns since I'm retiring them from the heavy brigades. They'd provide spare parts for the light brigade's artillery, but then I run into NATO compatibility issues - something that would be a problem operating along with NATO forces outside of Serednya Slaviya. It looks like I'm going to buy in on Hawkeyes at some point in the future, and a bunch of HMMWVs to go along with them.
1st Division
Headquarters & Signals Battalion
Long Range Rocket Artillery Battalion (HIMARS)
Special Forces Battalion
Military Police Battalion
Logistics Battalion
1st Heavy Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Armored Battalion (PT-91 Twardy)
Infantry Battalion (BTR-4)
Infantry Battalion (BTR-4)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (155mm K9)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
2nd Heavy Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Armored Battalion (PT-91 Twardy)
Infantry Battalion (BTR-4)
Infantry Battalion (BTR-4)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (155mm K9)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
3rd Light Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Light Cavalry Battalion (ERC-90/Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Infantry Battalion (Tigr)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (122mm Gvozdika)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (120mm Nona)
Air Defense Battalion (SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Construction Engineer Battalion
Construction Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Combat Service Support Battalion
There's a lot of BRDM-2s in this force, but they made useful variants that are lower priority for replacement. Maybe I can start replacing them with HMMWV-based systems like Avenger for the SAM battery and TOW carriers for the anti-tank role.
Going with the heavier vehicles, this just feels like a more cohesive military - and one more logically built, especially with its transition to a NATO ally and a switch toward NATO standards. Poland helps a lot with this, but they've been allies for a while so it makes sense. The PT-91s are the big stretch, since I don't know how much the conversion costs but I can imagine it's not cheap. The other 120+ T-72M1 tanks in the force were sold off to other militaries or the private market, and probably had cash skimmed off the top in that deal but such is life in eastern europe.
Thoughts? Things I should reconsider? Or is it "feeling" right now?
-
New HMMWVs range from ~$70K (unarmored) up to ~$220K (armored). Surplus ones can be had for as low as $10K (depending on condition, of course).
-
Hm, that armored price is competitive with Tigrs, but the seating drops down to only four in the armored version. I suppose I'll keep Tigrs as an armored personnel carrier, and use the HMMWV's regular truck model as a general purpose machine.
The Avenger SHORAD system isn't being phased out, but two thirds of them have been taken out of service. I suppose those would be easy to get my hands on cheap. That'd let me replace the BRDM-2/SA-9 vehicles currently in service while keeping the mid-ranged SA-6 systems in the Air Defense Force. That leaves BRDM-2 cars in the recon company and AT-5 carriers in the ATGM role.
It's an eclectic mix of equipment. Tanks upgraded to Polish PT-91 models, Ukrainian BT-4s and Slovakian Tigrs for APCs, French ERC-90s for cavalry vehicles, American, Korean, and Soviet artillery, American SAM vehicles, Soviet ATGM and SAM vehicles, Polish rifles, Soviet RPGs, French jets, Brazilian attack-trainer planes...multinational is a good description of the forces.
Something that comes up as a question, that one article on the optimum cavalry scout platoon (the 6x36 article (https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2014/jul_sep/Lowry.html)) showed that the preferred platoon was six Bradleys with six men each. The M3 Bradley is only quoted as having three crew and two passengers in all the documentation I can find; is it simply outdated and they now carry three cav scout dismounts each now or is that just a hopeful opinion from the article?
I've also been thinking on the cavalry platoon for Serednya Slaviya, and taking that optimum format. Each platoon should be able to split up into two 18-man sections with each section providing two scout teams of six dismounts, a two man observation post, a two-man security team, and two men operating the vehicles. While mounted, it should be a force that can divide itself into thirds for route and alternate route recon. These requirements argue for a six-vehicle squad mathematically, each vehicle carrying six crew and passengers. The entire concept of the scout platoon is focused around its dismounts...
...which is entirely not how to use the ERC 90, and leaves me wondering how to use and organize a light armored cavalry force. I know that the armored cars, even if they're gun armed, are not to be used as tanks - that article about the AMX-10's use in Ukraine proves that - but they do make good recon vehicles. The French organize their light armored cavalry in troops of 12 ERC 90s and 13 VBLs, but that tidbit of information is all I've been able to find.
I can simply declare 3rd Brigade's cavalry battalion to be a light armor battalion instead and fill it with 44 ERC 90 Sagaies in the same organization as a tank battalion. That would let me fill out the Recon Company in each brigade as having three nine-vehicle platoons of BRDM-2 scout cars. It'd copy the Infantry Brigade Combat Team's nine armored HMMWV organization, with 36 personnel in the platoon.
Looking at this organization proposed here (https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2015/jan_mar/Trottier.html):
(https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2015/jan_mar/images/Trottier2.png)
the cavalry organization still strongly relies on its dismounts for reconnaissance elements, while backing them up with an equal number of tank platoons. Copying that organization with six Tigr APCs carrying the dismounts and the tank platoons replaced with Sagaies would work, and the 120mm mortar platoon can be equipped with more 2S9 Nona mortars instead of a towed or mounted mortar.
That's putting the Sagaie back into the role of a tank, however, and still focusing the cavalry's primary unit on the dismounted scout squad instead of a mounted recon element. Is there anything you guys know of that describes how the French light cavalry regiments do their job and organize their troops, or should I stick with the above organization?
-
This video was a good find (https://youtu.be/nmiIqONvHeQ) and highlights the current organization of a cavalry troop and how it breaks down to fighting elements in the field. The emphasis on a 6x36 organization is pretty strong, and I decided to scratch the BRDM-2 recon vehicles and go with Tigrs instead. They might be underloaded at only six personnel per vehicle, but that gives me room to attach personnel to the platoon if necessary - translators for example.
I came up with a mission organization based on the article linked previously, and a breakdown of the platoon in its potential role.
Observation Post Team
Forward Observer (Beryl)
FO RTO (Beryl)
Observation Post Team
Forward Observer (Beryl)
FO RTO (Beryl)
OP Security Team
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
OP Security Team
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Vehicle Crew Team
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Vehicle Crew Team
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Dismounted Patrol Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Glock 19)
Dismounted Patrol Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Glock 19)
Dismounted Patrol Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Glock 19)
Dismounted Patrol Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
Tigr Driver (Mini-Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Glock 19)
The platoon's two forward observers and their RTO operators can be moved into a dismounted patrol squad, replacing the Rifleman and Tigr Driver in their squad. The two personnel would then take the FO's place in the Observation Post. Each dismount squad also has an LMG and an RPG, giving it some extra firepower in case of enemy contact. Mounted in vehicles, the squads would remain together, hence why the Tigr Driver is listed as part of the squad.
-
That seems like quite a capable Patrol Squad!
-
It's pretty heavy on firepower, yeah, but there's plenty of room in the Tigrs to carry all that hardware and ammunition and supplies for long patrols. And while three of the patrols are not out doing their thing, they can hang around the OP and provide extra teeth to defend it. Breaking it up into 6 hour patrols, with four patrol squads I can have 24/7 readiness while resting one patrol and keeping the other two in reserve protecting the two observation posts.
Going back a ways and re-examining Battalion Tactical Groups. The idea is to embrace the rapid deployment force idea for 3rd Brigade, and build it to accomplish smaller, limited missions that necessitate speed over strength. I'd keep 1st and 2nd the way they are, but what about the idea of building a BTG around each of the two infantry battalions in the brigade, and breaking up the other supporting elements to attach at lower levels to the infantry battalion? The idea is to make it possible to only mobilize one portion of the brigade, and send it to do small-scale operations alongside NATO partners in foreign lands. Would a BTG organization work for that mindset, or are they just too small to be tactically useful?
-
"Tactically useful" depends on a LOT of factors, so I'd say they're not too small for a lot of situations.
-
That's good, here's what I came up with for a Battalion Tactical Group organization.
It takes one battalion of mechanized infantry riding in Tigr APCs, with three companies of infantry in the battalion. Attached to it is a light cavalry troop based on the 2025 optimum organization, and equipped with a mix of vehicles. The 120mm mortar section was easily replaced with Nonas, even if it's not NATO standard ammunition it's still some solid fire support for the cavalry troop. The antitank company was originally going to be more BRDM AT-5 carriers, but I decided to go with HMMWVs carrying TOWs since this is supposed to be a NATO-adjacent force. Commonality of systems plus the fact the majority of them have been taken out of service led me to adopt Avenger anti-aircraft vehicles for an air defense platoon, along with buying Hawkeye 105mm artillery to support the whole BTG. Last in the list is a platoon of mobility engineers, demining and route clearance roles strongly in mind.
Light Battalion Tactical Group
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
HQ Platoon (2 Tigr)
Medical Platoon
Transport Platoon
Support Company
Sniper Section
Mechanized Infantry Company
Headquarters Section (2 Tigr)
Rifle Platoon (4 Tigr) x3
Rifle Squad x3
Weapons Squad
81mm Mortar Section (1 Tigr) x2
Mechanized Infantry Company
Headquarters Section (2 Tigr)
Rifle Platoon (4 Tigr) x3
Rifle Squad x3
Weapons Squad
81mm Mortar Section (1 Tigr) x2
Mechanized Infantry Company
Headquarters Section (2 Tigr)
Rifle Platoon (4 Tigr) x3
Rifle Squad x3
Weapons Squad
81mm Mortar Section (1 Tigr) x2
Light Cavalry Troop
Headquarters Section (1 Tigr)
Scout Platoon (6 Tigr)
Scout Platoon (6 Tigr)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90)
120mm Mortar Platoon (6 2S9 Nona)
Antitank Company
ATGM Platoon (4 TOW on HMMWV)
ATGM Platoon (4 TOW on HMMWV)
ATGM Platoon (4 TOW on HMMWV)
Artillery Battery (6 Hawkeye)
Antiaircraft Platoon (4 Avenger)
Mobility Engineer Platoon
There's 44 dismounts in each rifle platoon, for a total infantry strength of 396 troops, eight armored cars, 63 light APCs, twelve heavy ATGM carriers, six 120mm mortars, six 105mm howitzers, and four AA vehicles, in addition to a number of trucks and utility vehicles.
I also misjudged the number of seats in a Tigr; they fit one driver and eleven passengers. I used that to reformat, again, the mechanized infantry platoon but this time on a more American model. This one has three rifle squads with two fire teams each per platoon plus a weapons squad with two machine guns, an ATGM launcher, and a forward observer team. This format loses dedicated gunners for the Tigr-mounted .50 machine guns, so one of the squad personnel - typically the Squad Leader - would man it while the squad is mounted. Each of the rifle squads has a Marksman with a 7.62x51mm rifle above and beyond the two fire teams, giving whichever team the squad leader desires an longer-ranged rifle capability. Each Rifle Platoon is 48 personnel, with a platoon medic and forward observer team permanently assigned instead of cross-attached from another unit.
Rifle Platoon (4 Tigr) x3
Rifle Squad x3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)/Medic (Glock 19)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Squad Marksman (M110 SASS)
Fire Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Fire Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Weapons Squad
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Machine Gunner (M240, Glock 19)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Machine Gunner (M240, Glock 19)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Javelin, Beryl)
ATGM Assistant (Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
FO Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
Total weapons in the platoon are four Mini-Beryl carbines, thirty-two Beryl rifles, nine Glock 19 pistols, three M110 SASS rifles, six Pallad 40mm grenade launchers, six RPG-7s, six M249 light machine guns, two M240 medium machine guns, one Javelin ATGM launcher, and four M2HB heavy machine guns mounted on the Tigrs.
As part of the Infantry Company, I've attached a two-tube 81mm mortar section. Normally only a 60mm mortar would be attached, but I'm tapping the roomy interior of the Tigr to carry a larger weapon and more ammunition for it. Each one of two mortar squads get their own Tigr, with the squad leader acting as a vehicle gunner again.
81mm Mortar Section (1 Tigr) x2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Mortar Gunner (81mm M252 Mortar, Beryl)
Mortar Assistant (Beryl)
Mortar Assistant (Beryl)
Mortar Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Mortar Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
That's what I came up with for a BTG; call it a Reinforced Rapid Deployment Battalion in SereSlav service. The idea is a combined arms force that can be rapidly relocated by air or by land, with minimum effect to the underlying infrastructure - no tanks running around tearing up asphalt, for example. Send it off on a peacekeeping trip to Africa along with an construction engineer battalion to build up poorer countries perhaps, or on training missions with NATO partner states.
-
NATO-adjacent? I thought you said they were members... ???
Also, I do NOT recommend putting the Squad Leader on the vehicle's gun. They have other things to worry about, and you really want the vehicle gunner transitioning to dismounted operations with a minimum of fuss.
-
I meant working alongside fellow NATO members, sorry. Bad choice of words.
Hm...you know, the M2HB is a pretty significant bit of firepower and as it stands, without dedicated gunners in the vehicle crew, they're only in play while the platoon is mounted. Once the infantry get out of the carriers, they lose the heavy machine guns; it'd be like deploying the Bradley gunner with the infantry. I need to have someone remain with the vehicle on the big gun without disrupting the infantry squad.
Rifle Platoon (4 Tigr) x3
Rifle Squad x3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)/Medic (Glock 19)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Fire Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Fire Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Weapons Squad
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Marksman (M110 SASS)
Machine Gunner (M240, Glock 19)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Machine Gunner (M240, Glock 19)
Machine Gun Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Javelin, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
FO Radiotelephone Operator (Beryl)
I got rid of the squad-level marksman and one of the M240 Ammo Bearers in each team, and added a platoon marksman to the Weapons Squad as well as vehicle gunners to all squads. That keeps someone on the Tigr's M2 at all times, while still maintaining squad integrity in the dismount. I feel like this is my final Rifle Platoon organization, it finally does everything I want and fits in my carriers. I've got plenty of rifles, light and medium MGs, ATGMs, RPGs galore, grenade launchers, an attached fire support team.
Now the question is the BTG organization, because I've only got 8 armored cars for the whole battalion. That's even smaller than the Russian tank company, and the ERC 90 is not a tank. What if I add an armored car company, 14 more ERC 90s, to the unit to supplement its firepower? It wouldn't bulk up the BTG that much more than it is.
-
That could work... :)
-
Okay, but can your light vehicle drivers hoon their mounts around like they're at WRC? :cheesy:
Void every warranty on the first tank of gas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVhkT9NnY7E
-
New HMMWVs range from ~$70K (unarmored) up to ~$220K (armored). Surplus ones can be had for as low as $10K (depending on condition, of course).
Low-cost surplus is a good way to get your mechanics and technical personnel trained on real-world situations?
-
Considering the vehicle choices for the military, I suppose hoonery is something that happens often. You can do it in a Bradley, after all. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ti7z807Dmk) Things like HMMWVs, Tigrs, and ERC 90s; it just comes naturally to them.
The point about refurbishing surplus military equipment's a good one, and Lviv has a factory for doing just that to Ukraine's hardware in the real world. I'll keep that factory active in Serednya Slaviya, taking care of my military equipment. I imagine Lviv is going to be where most of my heavy armor is based, to keep it near its maintenance facility.
-
It's not "hoonery" if it is under control and under the supervision of a well-qualified NCO. Remember that; it's very important.
:laugh:
-
Just because: the TO&E of a modern French armored infantry platoon (https://www.battleorder.org/french-platoon-1999) and a 1950s-era French armored cavalry escadron (https://www.battleorder.org/post/__ebr).
-
Why not peruse an IBCT while you are at it (https://a137e02c-e205-49b8-9057-b38df8af3e50.usrfiles.com/ugd/a137e0_fb0f3e7fb2cb44578b0683be8148b4ea.pdf)? PowerPoint goodness for a lazy Friday night!
-
Frankly I'd love to see some ERC-90 hoonery just because it's a quaint little armored car that can switch to 4x4 control for road races. Not that the center wheels stop, they keep spinning; they just do it a few inches above the road surface.
I'm debating between two APCs for the heavy infantry battalions. The BTR-4 (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3342.html) carries eight dismounts, a 30mm cannon, a .30 machine gun, and up to four Konkurs in the turret. The Nexter VBCI 2 (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product5281.html) is an export-focused model of the VBCI, ten tons heavier with stronger armor up capable of stopping up to 14.5mm AP rounds all-round. In addition, it carries a 40mm autocannon, a .30 machine gun, and up to four ATGMs of your choice in the turret. It only carries six dismounts, but does so in a heavier and better protected vehicle. I like that the BTR-4 is amphibious, but the armor protection suffers for it compared to the heavier VBCI 2.
What may be the gripping hand is that it's very likely all the BTR-4 construction is going to Ukraine's military, while the VBCI 2 is an export-focused model that has been available for enough years to build the 176 I would need to fit out the heavy brigades. I'm curious to see what you guys think and which you'd go for; I'm leaning toward the VBCI 2 right now because of the protection and firepower it brings to the table.
Depending on which vehicle I go with, I'll need to construct a platoon organization to fit it. I'll work that out once I decide on a vehicle. The BTR-4 is a good looker, while the VBCI 2 has a chunky ugliness to it that I kind of am soft on - maybe it's the size of that 40mm autocannon that has me liking it. If I go with the VBCI, I'll buy into Spike missile launchers from Israel...
And thanks for the links, F16, that gives me something to read and think about. Decisions and plans, decisions and plans...
-
I just want to see more French armored cars doing anything, because of their smexiness.
VBCI all day long. The BTRs are indeed lookers, but I wonder about the quality control. I know that the ones slated for Iraq were refused for that reason. On the other hand, a six-trooper dismount squad just doesn't do it for me, since it is really just a fire team-plus-attachments. You won't get very far in even medium-intensity ops if your squads are only starting with six troopers...and the less said about the US Army's Bradley mech-inf platoons and how they break down the better.
So, when I vote for the VBCI, I'm looking at the vehicle, I guess. The 40mm has a lot more utility to me as well, since it will punch larger holes in buildings, and that is a plus for offense and even defense (doesn't hurt if your carrier can make mouseholes for you in a pinch and save you time and/or demo).
What about Rosomaks? Polish, so local in its way. Ukraine-bound, so we may yet see how they function in a modern war (they are there, I guess, but I have yet to read anything about their performance).
And they are 7.62's, brother. :grin: Thirty cal is so...WWII. :smiley:
-
Last thing for the night...it appears that equipping an airborne force with vehicles light enough for the mission doesn't work in protracted, static conflict. I wonder who thought of that? Probably, as we talked of earlier, the Russians, whose paratroopers seemingly rarely operate with their nominally organic AFVs. Not that paratroopers don't need armor (the US 82nd Airborne has long-lamented the loss of the M551, as troublesome as it was), but the BMD-series always seemed sketchy to me.
Ukraine's 25th Air Assault is going Marder (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-s-25th-air-assault-brigade-just-got-tron-like-german-fighting-vehicles/ar-AA1kRsmk?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=d8ac464e25e54c1ba3b330455f8af982&ei=54).
-
I can squeeze an extra seat or two out of the VBCI's commander seating being the platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and having the gunner switch stations to the commander's spot when the dismounts do their thing. That frees up two slots, and gives me 26 dismounts total - that's enough for four squads of six or three of eight. Four of six...I kind of like the challenge that represents, and the French are already using three-man fire teams. Let's see what that might look like.
VBCI 2 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Commander (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Platoon Marksman (M110 SASS)
Team Leader (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
VBCI 2 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
VBCI 2 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
RPG Gunner (Beryl, RPG-7)
VBCI 2 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
ATGM Gunner (Javelin, Glock 19)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Javelin, Glock 19)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Total platoon firepower comes to nineteen Beryls, ten Mini-Beryls, six Glock 19s, one M110 SASS, three M249 LMGs, six RPG-7s, and two Javelin ATGMs. Ten mounted and twenty-six dismounted troops, with one officer and thirty-five enlisted, it's a little bit smaller than a French armored infantry platoon but not by much.
The French use AT-4s instead of RPG-7s, FAMAS instead of Beryls, and Eryx instead of Javelin, but otherwise the platoon is very similar to the French mechanized infantry platoon you linked. I'm missing out on one platoon marksman, and unlike the French I have a platoon medic tucked in with the ATGM squad, but I think I'm squeaking in over the bar of effectiveness with the platoon as it is.
French armored cars are indeed sexy beasts, and the EBRC Jaguar is on my 2035 wishlist for Serednya Slaviya to replace the Sagaies. The fact that it carries the same 40mm CTAS as the VBCI 2 is a big plus for logistics and firepower, though I was thinking of equipping the VBCI 2s in SereSlav service with Spike missiles from Israel instead of a French missile system.
LOL, 7.62x51mm it is; I should get more metric considering SereSlav's location and its measuring sticks. Better be careful or else I'll call the VBCI's main armament a 1.66 inch autocannon...
On the topic of Bradley mech-inf platoons, I could do a 3x8-man squad platoon, but I like having the three maneuver squads and the antitank squad organic to the platoon. If I were going to go with a 3x8, I'd leave the PC and PS in their vehicle commander roles, and have three squads of the following:
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Rifleman* (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Rifleman (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
* One Rifleman in the platoon replaced with Platoon Marksman (M110 SASS).
I'd still be double-hatting my squad leaders, and I'd be losing my two ATGM teams in favor of a couple more M249s in the platoon. That would also play hob with the seating in the four vehicles and mix up squads between them. It may be my autism kicking in but I'm very much in the one-squad-one-transport mindset. It makes things like assigning a dismounted squad to escort a vehicle more coherent, and not leaving one VBCI 2 unprotected.
Looks like the Ukrainians are buying up surplus Marders from the Germans, and not the heavier and vastly more protected Marder 2 series. They're both six-dismount carriers, though, so that doesn't make a difference - but the protection on the Marder 2 justifies the superheavy weight of the thing. I wonder how the Ukrainians are organizing their infantry to adapt to the size of their new carriers.
As far as light forces...I'm reminded of Forrest's quote "Get there first with the most men." Whatever may be said of the man, he had a point there - an armed force that reaches an objective first tends to win said objective. Having a rapid-response force capable of being deployed on short notice to a crisis area before an opposing force can move in heavy equipment is its own reward. In a stand-up fight, a classic meeting engagement against a prepared enemy, I'll grant that my Rapid Deployment Forces are likely to get worked over by a heavier force. And it's not like I don't have heavy forces for Serednya Slaviya as it is, there's two brigades of them to shuffle around as needed.
-
Last thing for the night...it appears that equipping an airborne force with vehicles light enough for the mission doesn't work in protracted, static conflict. I wonder who thought of that? Probably, as we talked of earlier, the Russians, whose paratroopers seemingly rarely operate with their nominally organic AFVs. Not that paratroopers don't need armor (the US 82nd Airborne has long-lamented the loss of the M551, as troublesome as it was), but the BMD-series always seemed sketchy to me.
Ukraine's 25th Air Assault is going Marder (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-s-25th-air-assault-brigade-just-got-tron-like-german-fighting-vehicles/ar-AA1kRsmk?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=d8ac464e25e54c1ba3b330455f8af982&ei=54).
I've been thinking of airborne and amphibious assault forces as essentially one-shot for an operation, especially when it comes to their heavy equipment. The forcible entry mission is just so fraught, and the equipment so compromised by the requirements of the mission that you will essentially always want to swap the amphib/airborne vehicles for more standard fare, or operate the marines/paras as standard light infantry augmented by attached units as needed.
Once the fight is joined, I can't think of cases where you'd want an AAVP (huge, thin-skinned, way too many troops in one basket) over an M113 or Bradley. Or a ZBD-05/ZTD-05 amphibious IFV/light tank vs. a ZBD-04A or ZTQ-15. Or an M22 Locust or Tetrarch over an M5 Stuart or M24 Chaffee or a BMD over a BMP (and the Russians have been replacing their airborne vehicles with regular IFVs over the course of the war).
Not only are they worse for the job, but they're available in smaller numbers, probably more expensive and their crews have specialized skillsets. Take too much of a beating and instead of losing a battalion of light AFVs, you may have lost your ability to perform amphib/airborne operations.
-
The AAV was well known for its issues in the streets of Iraq, but I'd argue that was misusing it - it's a landing vehicle, designed to get troops to the shore and that's about it. Though even then it's got the problems you mentioned, and in a contested landing would be a major target. Does the USMC even practice contested landings into the teeth of a fixed defense anymore, though?
So I suppose this is the final structure of the Serednya Slaviyan Land Force. One division encompassing two combat brigades, two reinforced rapid response battalions, and an engineering brigade. The two heavy brigades still use some ex-Soviet hardware, with the BRDM-2 series vehicles making up the AA and ATGM roles as well as reconnaissance. The T-72M1s that we used to have were upgraded by the Poles to PT-91 Twardy versions, with the enhanced ERA a major feature of the new upgrade. The VBCIs are new, and would be the first major hardware purchase in a while; ballparking each vehicle at 5 million USD (off the top of my head, but the VBCI 1 costs nearly that much) gives me a 880 million dollar purchase order. That's something that's being paid off, probably over a ten year procurement cycle.
1st Division
Headquarters & Signals Battalion
Long Range Rocket Artillery Battalion (18 HIMARS)
Special Forces Battalion
Military Police Battalion
Logistics Battalion
1st Heavy Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Armored Battalion (44 PT-91 Twardy)
Heavy Mechanized Infantry Battalion (44 VBCI)
Heavy Mechanized Infantry Battalion (44 VBCI)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (18 155mm K9)
Air Defense Battalion (18 SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (14 BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (12 AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
2nd Heavy Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Armored Battalion (44 PT-91 Twardy)
Heavy Mechanized Infantry Battalion (44 VBCI)
Heavy Mechanized Infantry Battalion (44 VBCI)
Self-Propelled Artillery Battalion (18 155mm K9)
Air Defense Battalion (18 SA-9 mounted on BRDM-2)
Combat Service Support Battalion
Combat Engineer Battalion
Reconnaissance Company (14 BRDM-2)
Anti-Tank Company (12 AT-5 mounted on BRDM-2)
Military Police Company
3rd Rapid Deployment Battalion
Headquarters & Headquarters Company (2 Tigr)
Light Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Light Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Light Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Light Cavalry Troop (13 Tigr, 8 ERC 90 Sagaie, 6 2S9 Nona)
Armored Car Company (14 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Antitank Company (12 M1167 TOW)
Artillery Battery (6 Hawkeye)
Antiaircraft Platoon (4 Avenger)
Mobility Engineer Platoon
4th Rapid Deployment Battalion
Headquarters & Headquarters Company (2 Tigr)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Light Cavalry Troop (13 Tigr, 8 ERC 90 Sagaie, 6 2S9 Nona)
Armored Car Company (14 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Antitank Company (12 M1167 TOW)
Artillery Battery (6 Hawkeye)
Antiaircraft Platoon (4 Avenger)
Mobility Engineer Platoon
5th Engineer Brigade
Headquarters & Signals Company
Construction Engineer Battalion
Construction Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Combat Service Support Battalion
88 PT-91 Twardy
176 VBCI
36 K9 155mm
18 HIMARS
28 BRDM-2
36 SA-9 on BRDM-2
24 AT-5 on BRDM-2
126 Tigr
44 ERC-90 Sagaie
12 2S9 Nona
24 M1167 TOW
12 Hawkeye 105mm
8 AN/TWQ-1 Avenger
-
Looking good so far. Not too sure about those BRDMs. It's tough, sure, but a maintenance hog and dangerous in combat since its hatches are...eclectic for a combat vehicle. And, after seeing what the IDF, SADF, et al. has done let alone everywhere in Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even Vietnam, AFVs are easy to add all sorts of things to get them to do what you want.
You know, if you want amphib capability and transport space with the ability to flex into a lot of variants, you could always go Fuchs (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/germany-s-rheinmetall-plans-by-2024-to-launch-plant-in-ukraine-to-build-fuchs-and-lynx-vehicles/ar-AA1kSFEn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=492384683c8e437ab5df2c935ffebc02&ei=13). There is talk about starting up production in Ukraine (and I have heard that about other places like Algeria (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fox-among-the-hans-algerias-big-fuchs-apc-order-025023/), so it must be easy to outsource and build locally).
EDIT: Like this.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1kHGwp.img?w=1920&h=1080&q=60&m=2&f=jpg)
-
I was sticking with BRDM to keep some Soviet flavor to the forces, but they do have their downsides. There was also the fact that they made a nice family of vehicles, with recon, antitank, and SAM vehicles all on the same frame. Fuchs would be nice, and they're not in service so they'd be on the surplus market, but...
What about Fenneks? They're pretty small as far as recon vehicles go, and have variants to fill in for where I'm currently using BRDMs. The Dutch made a SAM version of theirs, carrying two twin Stinger launchers in a roof turret. They also have a "long range anti-tank" version with Spike MR missiles onboard, and a launcher over the passenger seat. They don't have a dismount compartment, however; it's just the vehicle's crew of three that is out doing their thing. Admittedly, that's not that different from the BRDM's design, it's just better at being a scout with more modern equipment. The telescoping camera is a neat thing; you can tuck behind a low ridge (the fennek's under six feet tall) and peek without exposing yourself.
I'd need 88 vehicles to replace my BRDMs, which comes to $140.8 million dollars at a per-vehicle price of $1.6 million. It's also a lot less expensive than a Fuchs, based on the Algeria deal of $3.675 billion for 980 vehicles; that came to $3,750,000 per vehicle. If I went with Fuchs, I'd have to fork out $330 million... Even if I buy new - which I'll have to, for the variant vehicles at least - that's still less than half the price of a single Fuchs. You get what you pay for in capability, I suppose...but the Fennek can do the job too, and cheaper.
Here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TyDhEnXYdBw) about the Fennek, mostly good for showing them hooning around in muddy roads.
And thinking on the Fennek further, it's small and light enough to fit two in a C-130, which makes me wonder about using them in the RDF battalions. Instead of M1167s and Avengers, another 32 Fenneks would bring my total buy to 120, for a cost of $192 million new. I suppose I'd swap in more Nonas in place of the Hawkeyes, then, and instead of buying a bunch of general-use HMMWVs from the Americans I'll use locally made vehicles.
I dunno, there's something about the Fennek's looks I just like a lot. It very strongly reminds me of the APC from Aliens, with that low-roofed flat pancake of a design. The fact it comes in variants I need is just gravy.
-
Fenneks are groovy. I'd rather crew them than BRDMs--and I was OpFor, remember, and spent some time around BRDMs (mostly VISMOD, to be fair, which is cheating, but I have been around real ones and I was not a fan).
-
Fenneks it is, then, for the scout car and ATGM carrier/SAM carrier roles. Let's see, that gives me a total combat vehicle count as follows:
88 PT-91 Twardy
176 VBCI 2
36 K9 155mm
18 HIMARS
28 Fennek
44 Fennek SWP
48 Fennek MRAT
126 Tigr
44 ERC-90 Sagaie
24 2S9 Nona
I could buy the regular Fenneks secondhand, but I'd have to buy new models of the MRAT (Medium Range Anti Tank) and SWP (Stinger Weapon Platform) so I might as well just fork over the cash for new ones across the board.
EDIT: That'll eat into the VBCI 2 procurement, unless I buy the Fenneks in the late 2000s and the VBCI 2 purchase in, say, 2015. Eight years of procurement at $110 million a year...that's only half the annual procurement budget, so I can get away with that. I'd still have to buy my Alpha jets in that time, but that's only around $50 million so I can eat that in a single year's budget. You know, it is nice spending 3% of GDP on the military, I can actually afford things.
What did they use to vismod into a BRDM, anyway? M706 Commando kinda looks like the right shape, with some body panels to bulk it out.
EDIT: Pictured: definitive Fennek hoonery with only two wheels on the ground.
-
HMMWVs were the typical stand-in for BRDMs. With either M60s or .50 cals on top. Probably still using them today. In '98/99, there was a deuce and a half and M60 MMG that had 2404s going back to Vietnam(!).
Like to this one:
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:5620/1*m9rgquGPBWx3NRbCToNABA.jpeg)
Mine had a Dragon bungee'd to my front right that I could pretend was an RPG for additional dismounted fun. There were a couple actual BRDMS and MT-LBs there, but they were well on their way out by the turn of the century. But they did go out into the box and insert DRTs, which is how I worked in/with them. Not fun days. The novelty wore out after the first half-hour or so past the gate.
-
I'm surprised the Fennek can only fit three inside... it's looks so wide!
-
I'm surprised the Fennek can only fit three inside... it's looks so wide!
After the beer and the wurst? You'll be lucky to get two inside!
-
Yeah, the Fennek is just one flat vehicle - it's not even six feet high! That gives it that pancake look the same way the MT-LB does. It also carries a decent amount of cargo; it's advertised as carrying enough supplies for its three-man crew for five days. That's quite a bit of water, rations, fuel, and ammo to schlep around.
F16, that's a cool picture - definitely looks like a BRDM from anything but a strong careful look at it. The MT-LB seems like it'd be rather cramped with as small as it is; I can only imagine the BRDM's weirdness with the belly wheels making it equally cramped.
Thinking on the Heavy Mechanized Platoon's organization and the restrictions the VBCI 2 has. I'm stuck with a platoon cap of 36 personnel, twelve of whom are vehicle crews. I came up with one 4x6 platoon organization here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,80729.msg1977653.html#msg1977653) based on the French armored infantry platoon (https://www.battleorder.org/french-platoon-1999) but I'm wondering if those fire teams are just too small to be effective, especially with the mission focus they have. The Netherlands also operate six man squads (https://www.battleorder.org/post/nl-cv90) but they're built into a single coherent squad, not breaking up into fire teams for their organization.
EDIT: The Hungarians also organize on six-man squads (https://www.battleorder.org/hungarian-platoon-2019) which is similar to the Dutch with two LMGs and one RPG-7 per squad. I'm combining the Dutch and Hungarian squad organization into the following:
VBCI 2 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Commander (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, RPG-7)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman/Combat Medic (Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
VBCI 2 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, RPG-7)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman/Combat Medic (Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
VBCI 2 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, RPG-7)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman/Combat Medic (Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
VBCI 2 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Drone Operator (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Spike SR, Glock 19)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Spike SR, Glock 19)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
This organization carries fifteen Beryls, ten Mini Beryls, four 40mm Pallads, eight Glock 19s, three FR F2s, six M249 SAWs, and two Spike SR ATGM launchers. I'm switching from Javelin to Spike because of the lighter weight missiles meaning more can be carried, and trading that lower weight for shorter range (1500m vs 2500m). I'm also switching from the M110 SASS to the French FR F2 rifle, because it's a fantastic looking bolt action.
I originally had a forward observer and a radio operator for him in 4th squad, but I figure I can simply attach a Fennek or UAZ truck with an FO team aboard. Note to self, buy more Fenneks, your FOs will appreciate it. A three-man team consisting of a driver, forward observer, and gunner/drone operator would work for the artillery. I figured it was better to have them attached and operating independently rather than be buried in a squad taking away from the squad's already limited capabilities.
Having three marksmen in the platoon does give some long range fire capability, and may be overkill - but the Dutch like their marksmen, and I would suppose there's a "cult of the rifle" in the army the same way the Marines treat everyone as "a rifleman first." Maybe Serednya Slaviya's boot camp does the same thing the Marines do in teaching riflery, and the best sharpshooters get French bolt-actions (instead of the earlier M110 SASS, I changed it) to work with.
The three medics might be overkill (overheal?) but when bullets are flying, it's nice to have more than just one to treat troops. Granted, if I've got enough work to require three medics, things have gone bad quickly. What intrigues me is the Dutch assigning their medics a Panzerfaust 3, I thought about doing the same but I gave an RPG-7 to the Assistant Squad Leader instead.
What I like about this organization is that it breaks down more easily into fire teams. They're still only three troops each, but I can't get around that without going to a 3x8 format with a platoon leader and platoon sergeant. It may be my autism demanding patterns organize certain ways, but I don't like leaving a vehicle unsupported by infantry. Four vehicles, four squads.
This platoon's lighter on anti-tank capabilities than the other one I wrote up, with only three RPG-7s instead of six, and instead double up on the machine guns. It makes sense, since I'm bringing heavier Spike missiles on my IFV along with a 40mm autocannon. I don't have as much need for the infantry to deal with tanks, but I'm still packing a pair of Spike SR missile systems (instead of heavier Javelins) in the weapons squad.
-
FIVE days of supplies is a LOT of beer and wurst! ;D
-
Kinda makes you wonder if the Germans have a beer ration for their troops, like the Brits used to with rum rations. Probably not, but the idea is amusing.
Edited my last post after some more reading and hammering a mechanized platoon into shape, I'm liking this version more - four six-man squads that can still break down into two fire teams on the following organization:
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Marksman (FR F2)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, RPG-7)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman/Combat Medic (Beryl)
Each team gets an LMG, while the RPG goes one way and the squad sniper goes another. Or the squad can just stay together and form a solid base of fire to allow the other two maneuver squads to close and defeat targets, while fourth squad goes looking for hardened things to blow up.
EDIT: More Fennek hoonery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7U9HDSHNps) and boy does that look fun to drift in.
-
So the Fennek also comes in a Fire Support Team variant, which I'm going to buy into as well. They operate in pairs, so I figure one platoon of four vehicles giving me two FSTs per battery of artillery. Three batteries of HIMARS, six batteries of K9 Thunders, and two batteries of Nonas would receive this platoon; the other two batteries of Nonas are attached to the cavalry units and already have embedded forward observers in the scout platoons. That's 44 Fennek JFSTs to buy, for a total of 164 of the vehicles. That puts it a close second to the VBCI 2 for most common fighting vehicle in the arsenal.
Also I was wrong about the Fennek MRAT; it actually carries an ATGM team and a dismounted Spike MR or LR missile launcher on a tripod mount. I can't find anything saying how many missiles it has, but it should be a good number considering the normal cargo space they have.
(http://tank-masters.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bw-wheeled-fennek1a2-003.jpg)
Fennek 1A2 with a frontal guard to push obstacles around, and a remote weapons station replacing the turreted machine gun over a passenger's seat.
-
Why not peruse an IBCT while you are at it (https://a137e02c-e205-49b8-9057-b38df8af3e50.usrfiles.com/ugd/a137e0_fb0f3e7fb2cb44578b0683be8148b4ea.pdf)? PowerPoint goodness for a lazy Friday night!
I swear there was a Stryker BCT version of that PDF, do you happen to have it?
-
Umm. Try this one (https://www.radionerds.com/images/d/d6/216978118-MCoE-SM-3-90-Sep2013.pdf)
Took a while to track down something on the internet. The file I have saved is too large to attach to a post and I'm not sure I still have your email.
-
That'll do, thanks!
EDIT: After rereading the Estonian Land Forces page on Wikipedia, I can see where I was mixing things up - the two brigades I copied from Estonia are only worth about 4,000 personnel each, while I've got 24,250 personnel in the SSLF. I'm going to have to expand some, which means coming up with a new master organization. Looking at that document F16 provided, it gives me hard numbers of personnel and equipment to work with...I suppose it wouldn't be hard to believe that Serednya Slaviya would copy the American organization with its own equipment. If it works for the biggest military power, it's good enough for the SSLF.
An armored BCT is only 4,743 personnel and a stryker BCT is only 4,509. Two ABCTs and three SBCTs come to a total of 23,000 personnel, which gives me enough for my 5,000 strong engineering brigade and one 1,200-strong rapid reaction battalion. Time to start work on this organization.
1st Armored Brigade
Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Armored Cavalry Squadron
Tank Battalion
Tank Battalion
Tank Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
2nd Mechanized Brigade
Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Cavalry Squadron
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
3rd Mechanized Brigade
Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Cavalry Squadron
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
4th Armored Brigade
Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Armored Cavalry Squadron
Tank Battalion
Tank Battalion
Tank Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
5th Mechanized Brigade
Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Cavalry Squadron
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
6th Engineering Brigade
Headquarters Company
Construction Engineer Battalion
Construction Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Bridging Engineer Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
Rapid Deployment Battalion "Shablya" (Saber)
Headquarters & Headquarters Platoon (2 Tigr)
Light Cavalry Troop (13 Tigr, 8 ERC 90 Sagaie, 6 2S9 Nona)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Mechanized Infantry Company (16 Tigr)
Armored Car Company (14 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Antitank Company (12 Fennek MRAT)
Artillery Battery (6 2S9 Nona)
Antiaircraft Platoon (4 Fennek SWP)
Mobility Engineer Platoon
Time to total up the amount of equipment and see just how big this force is. The Shablya battalion is probably a prestige force, and gets all the latest equipment (except for its artillery, but we don't talk about that) while...oh, maybe 2nd and 3rd Brigade is also equipped with new hardware. I'll have to see how many VBCI 2s I'll need and budget for that.
Sorry for rewriting this again...but I really did screw up my brigade count for my total personnel. Only two brigades for 25,000 troops? That's way overstaffed for that.
-
No helicopters?
-
Those are all in the Air Force, the Land Force doesn't operate aircraft except for drone scouts.
-
Hmm. Drones. The Ukranians have found that you always need more dakka (https://news.yahoo.com/german-made-gepard-systems-prove-103635447.html).
Have any money for a battery or three of old Gepards (https://twitter.com/i/status/1699782851724792197)? What about Zoos, or Tanguska?
-
Hmm. Drones. The Ukranians have found that you always need more dakka (https://news.yahoo.com/german-made-gepard-systems-prove-103635447.html).
Have any money for a battery or three of old Gepards (https://twitter.com/i/status/1699782851724792197)? What about Zoos, or Tanguska?
We really need a precognition index :cheesy:
It would be a slight leap to see the need say... 15 years ago. After the proof of concepts in Syria though, the race is on and then the question is about the responsiveness and flexibility of your organization to recognize the developing threat and to get ahead of the curve vs. ignoring it until the danger becomes blatantly evident and mainstream.
I am always in favour of more medium-calibre autocannon, but the real question is one of electronics and the direction of detection, tracking, and EW technology, which is something small players have less control over, though they can get very resourceful. Both the availability and affordability are largely driven by forces outside your control like the state of industry and direction of research that commercial or larger militaries emphasize.
Not impossible to have the SPAAG all ready and waiting for the sensors to arrive/become cheap enough though. That'd already put you way ahead of the game.
-
So I'm forced to start over again some with the military. Originally the Serednya Slaviyan Army had three Motor-Rifle divisions and one Tank division on the old Soviet model, prior to the collapse of the USSR. That left a total of the following:
T-72M1: 988
BMP-1/2: 726
BTR-60/70/80: 964
BRDM: 417
That's a lot of hardware, but I'm going to be selling much of it off in the interim.
I went back to the drawing board some and reorganized things. The SSLF would reorganize itself starting in 2015 following the American BCT format, adapting and buying into new vehicle programs to modernize its military equipment as well as its organization.
Instead of a mix of Stryker BCTs and Armored BCTs, I'm going with a full set of five Armored BCTs in the Serednya Slaviyan Land Forces. I have a total of 24,800 SSLF personnel, not counting an extra 5,000 in the Engineer Brigade. That's enough for five ABCTs at 23,700, and leaves me 1,100 for Shablya Battalion. It seems they've always been tank-heavy, with nearly a thousand tanks to start with. Five BCTs give them 435 tanks and 600 IFVs, as well as an extra 565 armored transport vehicles. For tanks, I'll buy PT-91 Twardys; the upgrade only costs around $500,000 per tank in 2012 dollars. For IFVs, I'm still buying VBCI 2s, but I can only afford two BCTs worth at the present time. That's 240 vehicles; the other three BCTs would be equipped with 360 BMP-2 IFVs.
One note is that I'm replacing the two cavalry platoons in each troop from three IFVs (and five HMMWVs) to six Fennek armored cars. That brings me to a total of 36 Fenneks per BCT, for a total of 180 vehicles. Six Fenneks is only eighteen personnel though, which is enough for a single observation post, its security element, a vehicle team to protect the Fenneks, and two dismounted patrols. The tradeoff is that they're carrying significant deployable sensor packages and drones, which I'm thinking may make up enough scouting ability for its platoon size. The fact it's capable of independent operations for five days is also a plus.
Cavalry Platoon
Fennek 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Medic (Beryl)
Fennek 3
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Fennek 5
Vehicle Commander/Section Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 6
Vehicle Commander (Beryl+Pallad)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
That organization lets my Fenneks break up into teams of two or three, depending on the mission requirements. Each team has at least one UAV and two or three grenade launchers, depending on how they split up. I was thinking of making the 6th Fennek an ATGM carrier, but decided against it since it would interfere with the scouting duties of the cavalry platoon.
All this costs money, though. That's $900 million for 240 VBCI 2s and $288 million for the Fenneks, which is going to eat my procurement budget pretty hard. I've got the Alpha Jets to buy, though that only comes to $48 million to modernize 24 jets. The other major buy is the Tigr trucks, which would replace the M113s in the BCT. I'd be buying 565 of them, but that only comes to $90.4 million. The PT-91 upgrade is older, since that tank came out in 1995 and well predates the current round of acquisitions.
Air defense vehicles...there's actually no air defense elements in either the Stryker BCT or the Armored BCT. I do have a separate Air Defense Force of 2000 personnnel operating 5 independent Buk-M1 battalions, but no short-range air defenses beyond machine guns on vehicles. I suppose watching the fight against drones would put acquisition of a gun-armed anti-aircraft system a priority.
How is air defense conducted in an armored BCT anyway? Are some of the infantry equipped with Stingers, perhaps in a weapons platoon? Or is the anti-aircraft role simply left to the Air Force to take care of the problem? The Estonians mount a full Air Defense Battalion in their two brigades, I could see the SSLF looking to add at least a battery to each of their BCTs, to be expanded into a full battalion. That'll require getting more volunteers for the military and expanding the force in general. Gepards...not a bad choice, but how many of them are left that haven't already been shipped to Ukraine? Okay, there's 38 in the hands of a private refurbisher that are on the open market, those could be bought and used - that's enough for five batteries of six, with eight vehicles for parts. A bonus is that Germany started making new 35mm ammunition for the Ukrainian Gepards, I'd order some of that production as well if I went that way.
Thales is selling this RAPIDFire system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRCNsxWl-bQ) on a Unimog chassis, it caught my eye because it uses the same 40mm cannon as the VBCI 2 does, which would provide ammunition and maintenance commonality. I've no idea how many millions the entire network of vehicles would cost, but it's something to look into - and it's a mature platform, considering it's already been marketed for ten years.
But what do the Americans do for anti-aircraft work, I wonder...there's a lot of Avengers that have been taken out of service and would be available cheap. Though that comes down to using Stingers against drones, which may be the way to go - I can probably get Stingers dirt cheap from American military equipment donations, and it would be a fair tradeoff against UAVs.
Why DID the Americans get rid of so many Avengers, anyway? I'd imagine they'd be bringing them back into service with the way drone warfare is going, but that's not the case. The Soviets had a combined battery of four SA-9s and four ZSU-23-4s emplaced in regiments, with four regiments per division I have a 240-personnel-strong battalion of sixteen of each system.
I'm also debating axing the Shablya battalion, and sticking with the five ABCTs as my fighting force. It just uses a small amount of unique vehicles and equipment that don't mesh with the rest of the military, and would free up enough personnel for five SHORAD battalions. Probably still using ZSU-23-4s, though I could equip two of them with those Gepards being sold off by OIP (https://global.espreso.tv/belgiums-oip-has-up-to-40-gepards-needed-by-ukraine-but-each-costs-2-mln)...no, I wouldn't be able to get more Gepards, and Ukraine needs them more. I'll buy into RAPIDFire trucks, and just start the acquisition process this year.
Looks like I'm out a rapid reaction force, oh well.
-
Using Stingers to take down small drones is a bad trade...
-
Yeah...even if I'm getting surplus from the Americans on store credit, it's still an expensive tradeoff for the kinds of drones it'd go after. The Avenger's only other weapon is a .50 M3 machine gun, which is going to be pretty prevalent in SSLF service but not the greatest for engaging air targets. Gepards would be nice, but I can only get a few of those; ZSU-23-4 Shilkas will probably remain the ADA vehicles until I can afford to buy some RAPIDFire trucks. The SA-9s on BRDMs, meanwhile, will be replaced with Fennek SWPs, which is another 20 vehicles for $32 million to add to the requisitions list.
I wonder...instead of the rapid response battalion, what if I converted an Armored BCT to light vehicles? Instead of Abrams, ERC 90 Sagaies, and instead of Bradleys, more Tigrs. I'd need an few extra Tigrs, which is nothing financially, and I can sell off more BMPs. The M113s, most of them command posts or ambulances, can be replaced with HMMWVs along with the rest of the SSLF's light trucks. That would leave me with one brigade of 87 Sagaies, four tank brigades of 348 PT-91s, a total of 572 Tigrs, 240 BMP-2s, 72 K9 Thunders (for $216 million, ouch), 18 Hawkeye 105mm howitzers, and 180 Fenneks, plus another 80 Fennek SWPs for the Air Defense Force.
Land Forces:
1st Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 VBCI 2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
2nd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 VBCI 2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
3rd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 BMP-2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
4th Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 BMP-2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
5th Light Brigade
87 ERC 90 Sagaie
120 Tigr
113 HMMWV
36 Fennek
18 Hawkeye
Air Defense Force:
SAM Battalion
20 Buk SA-6
SAM Battalion
20 Buk SA-6
SAM Battalion
20 Buk SA-6
SAM Battalion
20 Buk SA-6
ADA Battalion
16 Fennek SWP
16 ZSU-23-4
ADA Battalion
16 Fennek SWP
16 ZSU-23-4
ADA Battalion
16 Fennek SWP
16 ZSU-23-4
ADA Battalion
16 Fennek SWP
16 ZSU-23-4
ADA Battalion
16 Fennek SWP
16 ZSU-23-4
That 280 Fenneks is going to set me back $416 million, but they've been around since 2001 and it could have been an early vehicle to buy into - something to replace a lot of old BRDMs early on in the nation's modernization. I could spread that out over ten years of acquisitions easy and not run into other major programs. What can I say, I love the little Fennek's looks and design. It's a great scout car that also comes in ATGM and SAM flavors; what's not to love?
More later, currently cleaning up the mess after someone got my credit card number and racked up some big charges on it. Need to de-stress.
-
Sounds workable to me, but I bow to F16's greater experience.
And yikes! Good luck with the credit card thing...
-
I could take a page from previous discussion and turn 5th Brigade into a Light ACR, which would have roughly 4800 personnel from the organization I saw. That would still give me four ABCTs for fighting power, and a strong if lightweight reconnaissance and security force.
(https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm34-35/Fig2-1.gif)
That's an organization from 1990. It consists of a Headquarters Troop, three Cavalry Squadrons, an Aviation Squadron, a Forward Support Squadron, Military Intelligence Company, Engineer Company, and CBRN Company. I originally didn't have aviation assets in the SSLF, but I suppose if I'm copying the Americans I should add some helicopters.
The Americans run nineteen UH-60s, eight OH-58s, and eight AH-64s in the squadron. I can easily copy that with nineteen Mi-17s, eight Mi-2s, and eight Mi-24s. Or...hm, instead of Mi-2s, the Americans started pulling their OH-58s from service in 2017. I'll assume they'll be cheap enough on the surplus market to afford since I only need eight aircraft, though the sensor packages might be pricey. Alright, nineteen Mi-17s, eight OH-58As, and we're keeping the Hinds because Hinds.
The support elements of the Regiment are best left to their own vagueness, I haven't been able to find a document that breaks down their detailed equipment and personnel like that one F16 found for the Brigade Combat Teams. That leaves attacking the Cavalry Squadron itself, and let's see what fresh hell I can inflict upon this thread.
As for the Cavalry Squadron itself...
(https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2015/jan_mar/images/Trottier2.png)
The Headquarters & Headquarters Troop, Surveillance Troop, and Forward Support Company I'll leave off the field since they would mostly use light and medium trucks and aren't combat elements. That leaves each Cavalry Troop to organize, specifically around its scout platoons.
I did some thinking on the makeup of a scout platoon as well as the Fennek scout cars, and I managed to work out a 6x36 organization that fits the Fennek into it as a primary reconaissance vehicle. Each platoon has six vehicles, four Fenneks and two Tigrs carrying ten dismounts each. That gives me 36 scouts in the platoon, though sixteen of them are doing double-duty as vehicle crews. I can break the platoon into two sectons of two Fenneks and a Tigr each, or three sections of two vehicles, with one Fennek and one Tigr and the third with two Fenneks.
I'll also point out in the first organizational image that there's a tank troop and artillery battery attached to the cavalry squadron as well; I'm going to make use of that and put a troop of ERC 90 Sagaies and a battery of Hawkeye 105mm guns in each Cavalry Squadron. The breakdown looks like this:
Cavalry Squadron
Headquarters & Headquarters Troop
Medical Platoon
Sniper Platoon
Cavalry Troop
Troop HQ
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Mortar Section (2 2S9 Nona)
Cavalry Troop
Troop HQ
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Mortar Section (2 2S9 Nona)
Cavalry Troop
Troop HQ
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Scout Platoon (4 Fennek, 2 Tigr)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Mortar Section (2 2S9 Nona)
Armored Car Troop
Troop HQ (2 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Armored Car Platoon (4 ERC 90 Sagaie)
Artillery Battery
Headquarters Section
Artillery Section (2 Hawkeye)
Artillery Section (2 Hawkeye)
Artillery Section (2 Hawkeye)
Surveillance Troop
Military Intelligence Company HQ
UAV Platoon
Human Intelligence Platoon
Signal Intelligence Platoon
Forward Support Company
Distribution Platoon
Maintenance Platoon
Recovery Section
That's a total of 24 Fenneks, 12 Tigrs, 38 ERC 90 Sagaies, 6 Hawkeyes, and 6 2S9 Nonas per Squadron, with three Squadrons in the Regiment.
So I end up with the following instead.
Land Forces:
1st Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 VBCI 2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
2nd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 VBCI 2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
3rd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 BMP-2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
4th Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy
120 BMP-2
113 Tigr
36 Fennek
18 K9 Thunder
5th Light Cavalry Regiment
114 ERC 90 Sagaie
36 Tigr
72 Fennek
18 2S9 Nona
18 Hawkeye
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Air Defense Force
80 Buk SA-6
80 Fennek SWP
80 ZSU-23-4
Total:
348 PT-91 Twardy ($174m)
240 VBCI 2 ($900m)
240 BMP-2 (pre-owned)
488 Tigr ($78.1m)
216 Fennek ($345.6m)
80 Fennek SWP ($128m)
72 K9 Thunder ($216m)
114 ERC 90 Sagaie (unknown)
18 2S9 Nona (pre-owned)
18 Hawkeye (unknown)
19 Mi-17 (pre-owned)
8 OH-58 (unknown)
8 Mi-24 (pre-owned)
80 Buk SA-6 (pre-owned)
80 ZSU-23-4 (pre-owned)
24 Alpha Jets ($48m)
That's a total of $1.89 billion in military spending, not counting the unknowns. Hawkeyes are new, so I'm probably paying full price for it, but the ERC 90s and OH-58s are both being phased out of service and should be very inexpensive to buy a batch of. With a procurement budget of $230 million a year, I could spread that over a 20 year period; things like the Fennek and PT-91 are over 20 years old and would be purchasable at that time.
To quote Joel and Mike, "whaddya think, sirs?"
-
Looking VERY complete to me!
-
One last change I think I'll make, swapping the ERC 90s for AMX-10 RCRs. The armor's better on the RCR, and it comes with advanced sensors including thermal optics; the Sagaie doesn't have that. It's just a better scout vehicle. Meanwhile the Sagaie feels more like the light vehicle you sell to a nation that doesn't have adversary nations but internal policing instead. Sure, I can stick two Sagaies in a C-130 compared to one AMX-10 RCR, but it's still airmobile.
As much as I like it, the AMX-10 RCR is just the better choice - especially when you look at munitions. The Ukrainians are using theirs as fire support vehicles for infantry, since there's no real use for reconnaissance vehicles with a static front and significant drone cover observing that unmoving line. The 105mm makes a good fire support gun, but being a 105mm it can also fit LAHAT laser-guided missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT) as ammunition. This would allow my cavalry scouts to move ahead of the AMXs with a laser designator and spot targets for the missiles, leaving the AMXs in safe positions and only exposing my cavalry scouts to enemy fire.
There is a Falarick 90mm missile system developed by the Ukrainians in the early 2010s. Unfortunately that's only designed for Cockerill 90mm guns and doesn't seem to have considered the ERC 90 in its development.
So I'll switch to the AMX-10 for an armored reconnaissance vehicle, and hope I don't run into scout vehicles with 25mm or higher caliber guns. The armor protection is only good against the lightest 23mm autocannon on the front, and 14.5mm heavy machine guns on the sides and rear.
As far as those cavalry scout platoons go, here's the organization I settled on for them.
Fennek 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Forward Observer (Beryl)
Fennek 3
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Forward Air Controller (Beryl)
Tigr 1
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Tigr 2
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Medic (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
The idea behind this is that there's six squads in the unit, made of a three-man dismount team and a three-man vehicle crew. Each squad then has five rifles, an LMG, and a grenade launcher for firepower, but their primary role is covert scouting so getting into firefights is a bad thing.
Two forward observers allow for both a land based fire support specialist as well as a Forward Air Controller, using the sensors and command networking in the vehicles to call for support. It's a copy of the JFST Fennek concept, which has a pair of specialized vehicles with certain radios to communicate both with artillery units as well as aircraft. With the Alpha Jets and Super Tucanos making up the Air Force's inventory, it's good to have an aerial fire support coordinator as well as the typical artillery spotter.
I'm not giving my cavalry scouts an organic anti-tank capability. They'd rely on the troop's AMX-10s for that, whether in direct fire engagement with the gun or firing scout-laser-guided LAHATs.
-
I think you made a good case for the AMX... :)
-
It's hopelessly outdated though, no gun stabilisation puts it a great disadvantage on the modern battlefield, especially as its thin armor requires it to be on the move during combat to survive. Poor mobility during the mud season just compounds the issue. The the ammo for the gun is also a logistic issue (not compatible with L7 gun and derivatives) also it's capabilities against modern tanks are dismal, tanks with Kontakt-5 would easily shrug off shots to the side armor.
Honestly, in combat with BMP-2 with equally good crew, most of the advantages would be on the side of the BMP as it can hit the target on the move while AMY can't and BMPs 30 mm AP rounds will easily go through AMX armor.
The only good thing about AMX is that it has a good HE round.
-
BMP-2 doesn't have thermal optics, which the AMX does. I'll grant the AMX is lightly armored, but it's not a line combat vehicle like the BMP is despite having the big 105mm gun on it. The Ukrainians have figured out an effective use for the vehicles, using it in a fire support role when they don't need it for reconnaissance.
F16, why do you like the AMX-10, and French armored cars in general, so much anyway?
-
I love the AMX-10RC in particular and the rest of the French armored cars in general because of their looks and the fact that the French light armored units that they populate have a certain amount of elan and esprit that I can identify with the ancient past in the armored cavalry. Those types of regiments are a different world than the armies of which they are a part, one where each and every individual trooper and troop and squadron think they can do the work of three others in a line unit.
It's a conceit put succinctly by David Drake when he said "I rode with the Blackhorse", and he is right.
The AMX-10RC was put into service in 1981 (development back to the 1970s). In comparison, the Stryker MGS was put into service in 2002--and no one is clamoring or even talking about those. Anyone trying to put an armored car designed for reconnaissance up against an MBT is doing it wrong, and doesn't need to be argued with. The reality is that the AMX-10RC (and to a lesser extent the equally beautiful and maybe even more useful Centauro B1) is a good way to get a bunker-busting weapon into the hands of the people who need it most: the infantry, mounted and light both. It is easily transportable, has good ground and even amphibious mobility*, and is cheap enough and basic enough that it can be useful for what it is designed for, which is low/medium intensity OOTW. Not counting the main gun, it is smaller than even a BMP-2, and that is saying something.
Its armament ensures it can reliably destroy anything that threatens it, even though its lack of armor in all but the most robust RCR upgrade means it cannot take a hit, either**. I do not love it because it's a mini MerkIV or M1A2SEP; it is assuredly and notably not that at all. I love it because it's the kind of things that armies have been trying to make for decades since (and decades prior) but have yet to reliably replicate or even improve upon. I love it because it is the kind of AFV someone in some real-world brushfire war would love to have, or that someone in the Slammer- or Fringeverse would make because it's all the time and money they had, interstellar lift capacity is at a premium, or the margins are tight for someone outfitting a star-mercenary regiment. I love it because it's got style and breaking (changing) track sucks; and its skid-steer, which is neat as hell on an AFV (and reminds me of the M577 that I drove for a while). As JHB of these boards is credited with saying: "It's not...bad. It's bad with balls".
*Look at what the AMX-10RC was designed for, and where it has served. Look at the French areas of responsibility for WWIII. The -RC is and has always been part of the French FAR and during the Cold War, the overwhelming majority of the forward European-deployed units fielded AMX-30Bs and -10Ps. The AMX-10RCs were more typically deployed abroad, notably in Africa and the Balkans, where they have done quite well in places and with a military that does not shy away from a fight. Who cares if they did not deal well with the mud of Eastern Europe; that wasn't in the design specs forty years ago.
**The BMP-2 cannot make either claim creditably. Indeed, look into how long a BMP-2's cannon can fire and at what effective RoF, or the machinations one must go through to change the ammunition. It might be hard to believe, but the Bimp's mobility is not as good as some might think, tracked or not, and even uparmoring the vehicle puts the kibosh on its amphibious capabilities (uparmoring the -RC does the same thing, but at least the whole vehicle is being protected because the upgrade is more than just applique armor). And there won't be "equal crews" in an AMX-10RC and BMP-2 fight--as silly a comparison as it is in any event.
-
BMP-2 doesn't have thermal optics, which the AMX does. The Ukrainians have figured out an effective use for the vehicles, using it in a fire support role when they don't need it for reconnaissance.
Some AMXs have thermal optics - second hand thermals from retired AMX-30s and many of those thermals are broken down (happens with legacy equipment). And I wouldn't say Ukrainians figured out an effective use as third of operational ones have been confirmed lost and similar number have been seriously damaged.
AMX-10 is an excellent vehicle for expeditionary warfare, but in modern day peer conflict, it's better than nothing, but crew attrition rates are going to be bad.
-
I thought the Ukrainians lost that third learning the lesson?
I think F16 describes the "arrière-ban" aspect of the AMX perfectly! :)
-
That kind of elan F16 mentions is something I'd like to engender in the 5th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and I have (I think) a neat idea to tie the 5th into the Polish Winged Hussars. They date back to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, of which Serednya Slaviya would have formed a good chunk of back in the 16th-19th centuries. Tying the history of the regiment to the Winged Hussars would give them a long tradition to honor, and a standard to uphold.
The other armored BCTs would be standard line units, but the ACR would take the name of the Winged Hussars. The history of Serednya Slaviya only really diverges from the real world in around 1920, when it breaks away from Poland and forms an independent kingdom. Many of the noble families remained such until WWII and the Soviet occupation, but geneaologies made a restoration of the nobility and monarchy in 1992 possible.
WIth the post-Soviet major reorganization of the army in 2014, the armored cavalry regiment would get the history of the Winged Hussars tied to it. The descendants of those original noble families would find themselves socially pressured to join the regiment, and to make a career of soldiering - a true professional soldier, not just a volunteer. Not everyone does, of course, but there's enough to maintain traditions and battle honors in parade.
There's probably plenty of propaganda films and TV showing the proud and awesome Hussar trooper doing all kinds of proud and awesome things. Add in tank clubs in schools where highschoolers learn how to operate as a team in their vehicle, and participate in parades alongside real soldiers.
It'd make Serednya Slaviya unique among the former Eastern Bloc, with a social noble class and a constitutional monarchy restored from the pre-1941 nation. And while it's not quite conscription, the noble houses are expected to send their young to military service, most of them going into the Cavalry Regiment.
I think I'll settle on the AMX-10, since I've already got a relationship with French armored vehicles with the VBCI 2 purchases. The Centauro's got a better gun, but I like the light weight and maneuverability of the AMX-10 RCR better. As Psiho mentions, it's great for expeditionary warfare and that's the kind of mission I see for the Winged Hussars Regiment. I'll probably end up buying Jaguars in 2030, but that's a decision for the future.
Also, out of 40 AMX-10s sent to Ukraine, only four were taken out - one by artillery, one captured, and two for other reasons. The losses aren't as bad as stated. The others have been doing well as fire support vehicles, and there haven't been any new AMX-10s lost. Their reconnaissance role isn't really workable on a dug-in front where everyone knows everyone else's location from the heavy drone cover, but if they can break a whole in those lines then I guarantee the AMX-10 is going to lead the way into the Russian backfield.
Any thoughts on the idea of a restoration of the noble houses and the monarchy of Serednya Slaviya? Suggestions for that idea are quite welcome and would play into how the military is treated.
And of course, if you guys think the Centauro is the better choice for the SSLF Winged Hussars, try to convince me. I'm open to being persuaded, if the upsides are worth the weight and mobility issue.
-
Undoing land reform to restore a noble class is a bit harder than setting up a constitutional monarchy. If the returning nobles repatriate some significant wealth, that could help...
-
Okay, I'll have to account for that. It'd only be 52 years from the time the Soviets invade to the fall of the USSR; perhaps there was a sizeable amount of valuable art and artifacts that were stashed away and hidden for that time. It's not unbelievable, many pieces of art that the Nazis looted and hid away are still missing - and nobody's spilled the beans on where they're stored in a lot more than just 52 years. Maybe the nobility keeps its social titles and political standing, but gives up the typical landholds outside of big castle homes and returns the missing art and artifacts (and gold and jewels) as part of the restoration.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/0*_denKt3D6esFLYfH.gif)
How French crop circles are formed!
EDIT: I suppose I could look to something similar to the British Restoration in 1660. Instead of the case of Oliver Cromwell's death and the return of King Charles II signaling the end of his Republic, perhaps the Serednya Slaviyan transition from communist rule wasn't a peaceful event. A violent overthrow of the leadership, perhaps something akin to the end of Ceausescu's regime in 1990, would have abolished the government something fierce.
Going back a little, maybe in 1939 when the Soviets invaded on their way to Poland, the royal family and some of the nobility fled the country to England and remained there as a government-in-exile. Come 1990 they see the revolution against the communists, and the royal family returns with popular support for a return to the "original way" of government. A new constitution passes in...oh, say 1992 that reestablishes the monarchy and noble families, with limits put on their power and an elected government that has the real strength behind it.
So perhaps Serednya Slaviya was on the tipping point of civil war, and it was in that moment that the son of the original king returned to claim the throne and negotiated a peace between the different factions, and the noble families (who still had their honor, if not their holdings that would have been stripped away in the communist era) supported him. Add in the promise of the return of a number of national treasures that were evacuated in 1939, and I've got my Restoration.
Workable?
-
Thats a really good start to an 81mm mortar it, though! Love it; thanks!
Land reform is always tricky. Just ask the Gracchus brothers.
-
I thought the Ukrainians lost that third learning the lesson?
I think F16 describes the "arrière-ban" aspect of the AMX perfectly! :)
Cheers.
They did, and they learned it quickly, as Kamas relates. They aren't getting blown up in job-lots now, and I doubt and seen zero indication the Ukrainians have pulled theirs back to sit in rear motor pools.
In our milieu here, putting an AMX-10RC on the front lines of a static, attritional warfare scenario is akin to using Panthers or Hermes IIs to break a shield-wall of heavy and assault 'Mechs in prepared positions. That is not what they are designed for, and their present Ukrainian operators were told that by their French designers/doctrinal experts before they put them in the line. And, news flash, lots of things don't stand up to heavy artillery fire.
I wouldn't say that the AMX-10RC is "better than nothing". It is excellent in its roles: battlefield reconnaissance and (more directly) recon-support, infantry support, and expeditionary OOTW. It is also very old, but its age-lines are less pronounced than many other AFVs that are no longer striding the battlefields of 2023. But it you shoehorn it into roles for which it is not equipped, the crews manning them will indeed suffer. Sometimes using something for which it is not designed is "worse than nothing", because it gives the planners and inflated sense of what can be accomplished, and puts the crews or operators at risk in situations they wouldn't have otherwise been in*.
It's like the Americans saying the HMMWV was bad because they were getting trashed in Iraq by EFPs and IEDs. No kidding. They are and always will be utility vehicles. It wasn't like we didn't know that from exactly ten/twenty years earlier, in 1993. And it wasn't like the operators didn't know there was a big difference in how a normal and uparmored Humvee got around off-road, either. This stuff isn't esoteric rocket-science.
*Consider that an insurgent force that is generally light infantry will be harder to destroy in final, real terms than if they sunk a lot of their operating budget, personnel, material, and fiscal constraints into makeshift armored vehicles/technicals. The force that does the latter makes it easier to properly trained military personnel with purpose-built equipment to find and destroy them, often in situations brought about by the insurgents' resultant flawed operational planning.
-
It is also very old, but its age-lines are less pronounced than many other AFVs that are no longer striding the battlefields of 2023.
See the Stryker MGS, which is no longer in service and has been relegated to the scrapyard for spare parts for other Strykers.
Also your comment about the use of the HMMWV is spot on - it was a replacement for the Jeep, which was a light truck to drive a handful of soldiers around on that could go anywhere the soldiers needed. It had no more protection to it than a Jeep did, because it was supposed to fill the same role. The uparmoring came, from what I understand, because the Americans couldn't stand the idea of acceptable losses in personnel, and demanded protection be put on them.
And land deals...I picture SereSlav's Restoration of the monarchy more along the lines of a political reorganization. The old landholdings would have been put through the wringer in WWII, surviving buildings - mansions, castles, etc - would have been reused as administrative buildings under the Soviet era, or simply torn down to eradicate signs of anything other than a communist government. There's even historical precedent in Romania for the return of royalty to a former communist country, with King Michael I abdicating in 1947 and returning for a visit in 1992 before being allowed to return in 1997.
In this case, I'm simply having the son of the old king return and broker a deal between the different factions of Serednya Slaviya's looming civil war, and garner enough popular support that everyone backs down and accepts the compromise...cue writing a new constitution for the country that reinstates the nobility as a social class, if not large-scale landholders. Some ancestral lands could be restored, others could not, but them's the breaks. What is now a public park is going to remain a public park, even if it was Baron Somebody's former home. Baron Somebody will just have to go back to work.
I suppose that leans into questions of government, and I don't mind copying the bicameral solution that the Americans hit on for the legislative branch - only instead of House and Senate, it's House of Commons and House of Lords. The king is simply President for life, with royal assent or veto powers to legislation passed in the dual Houses and head of the executive branch of government. It gives a longer view, I think, than an official who is focused on winning the next election and how the short-term events can be handled to accomplish that.
Just thoughts.
It's a shame they don't make a HESH round for the AMX-10 RCR's gun, that would be a fun little doorknocker to have. I suppose an HE round will do the same job, namely poking holes in thick walls to let infantry in. And I'm definitely going to stick with AMX-10s, because their air mobility makes it easy to deploy to a nation in crisis for peacekeeping missions, and to protect any engineer battalions I decide to send to said nation - gotta protect my troops while they're rebuilding.
Speaking of HMMWVs, I wonder if I shouldn't be buying those off the Americans or getting them as free military aid. They're cheap, carry more soldiers and cargo than a UAZ-469, and armored ones do limit casualties in a light infantry fight. I'd only need around 1,600-1,800 for the six brigades. Many of these would be ambulances and command post vehicles, so the armoring wouldn't be necessary for those. If I bump that number to 2,000 I could replace Tigrs in the cavalry force, with each scout platoon being four Fenneks and six armored HMMWVs - that'd give me a lot more cargo space for radios and supplies in the HMMWVs, while still carrying twenty four dismounts between the six vehicles. That should still make a flexible, task-organized platoon, with just one more vehicle in it than an IBCT's cavalry platoon.
Fennek 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Forward Observer (Beryl)
Fennek 3
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Drone Operator (Beryl)
Fennek 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner/Forward Air Controller (Beryl)
HMMWV 1
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
HMMWV 2
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
HMMWV 3
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
HMMWV 4
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
HMMWV 5
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
HMMWV 6
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl)
LMG Gunner/Vehicle Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (Beryl+Pallad)
Each of the squads in the HMMWV would team up with three other riflemen to make a full squad of six for patrols, typically the HMMWV drivers since they wouldn't be operating the vehicles while dismounted. The Fennek crews are busy setting up observation points and overwatch positions, using vehicle sensors and drones to spot for targets for the FO/FAC attached to the platoon. I can still divide the platoon into two or three sections, hence the Section Leader in HMMWV 1, allowing for alternate routes to be scouted at the same time as the main route is.
I like this organization better because it leaves cargo space in the vehicles for extra supplies, fuel, and ammunition, allowing the HMMWVs to support the Fenneks for those five-day forward deployments. It also means a portable nest of M2HB machine guns, which can ruin just about everyone's day en masse. Two of those platoons, supported by two platoons of AMX-10 RCs, makes for a fine little troop of cavalry I think.
Am I overlooking anything or missing something I should be considering?
-
It's looking really good, organizationally and organically. I am a little hesitant on ten vehicles in a platoon, but I know that 1960s-era US Army cavalry platoons had nine separate elements (counting infantry squads and their PCs as one element, mind you). They made it work.
Uparmored HMMWVs are fine, as long as they are not facing EFPs. In normal fluid ops, they will save your bacon more often than not. I am more comfortable with them vice some of the other similar alternatives, but that is just familiarity and nostalgia.
Apropos of little, here is a stroll down memory lane and a little personal view on how the US ACRs organized and reorganized themselves along the German Border at the height of the Cold War. Worth looking into for anyone that has an interest in the era of many of our childhoods: https://history.army.mil/documents/BorderOps/ch6.htm (https://history.army.mil/documents/BorderOps/ch6.htm)
-
That'll be a good read after the Army-Navy game!
-
It's not long and has some nicely rendered hues of personal touches that believe to be true from what I know of troopers from that era.
Go Navy!
Probably jinxed the poor bastards, now. :undecided:
-
I'll read it at halftime then.
And you may have; Army just got the first touchdown.
EDIT: Okay, that was a bit of a read, but worth it. The biggest takeaway I got from it was how insane the East Germans built their border "defenses" - the entire country was a prison that they wanted to make impossible to escape from.
The notes on the ACRs and how they evolved and conducted patrols on their own rules was something to note. Don't get predictable with your patrol schedules, and be sure to cover your sector as much as possible and supplement your patrols with air units as well...which I'll be able to do, with the OH-58s bought off the Americans.
A question that comes up as I realize I'm missing Military Police units entirely. Would a company per Brigade/Regiment be sufficient? I could stick it in the Brigade Engineer Battalion alongside the Military Intelligence and Brigade Signals Companies. Call it about 150 people for that company, so a total of 900 extra personnel for each of the six brigades. If that's too much, I could step it down to a single battalion and slot it in with the Engineer Brigade, about 500 personnel for the single battalion. Either way, I can definitely see adding an element of MPs of some size to the Winged Hussars Regiment, because of their propensity for independent operations in foreign territory and OOTW specialty.
Ouch, that strip-and-touchdown by Army late in the 4th; that's probably the end of this game. You jinxed it, F16!
-
Cheers F16, but that particular game is not to be discussed in my household by mutual agreement (my wife was in the Army). Being NROTC, I'm not too invested in it, and the flag with "Go Navy" on it that I hang in my office doesn't say "Beat Army"... what it says is Rule 4, so I'll leave it there... ;)
-
Meh. I was in the Army too. But I was always too punk rock for my own good.
-
Found out I was miscounting my cavalry troop platoons; there's only two in each troop instead of three. That cut back some on the number of fenneks to buy. Each platoon still has four Fenneks and six HMMWVs, it's just that there's only two platoons.
I'm also thinking about the four ABCTs making up the heart of the SSLF, and wondering if I'm short on infantry and too heavy on tanks. Granted, 348 tanks isn't a huge amount, but for a country of only 7 million I feel like it's skewed some to be tank heavy.
The Turkmen Ground Forces are about 20% larger than the SSLF, and Turkmenistan is almost the same population as SereSlav. According to the Wikipedia, back in 2007 they had 712 tanks (702 T-72, 10 T-90), 829 BTRs of various types, and 930 BMPs. That's two tanks for every five personnel carriers; at the moment I'm operating two tanks for every three personnel carriers. That feels like I'm slanted too heavily towards tanks.
So I'm going to convert one ABCT to an SBCT, which drops 87 tanks and 120 IFVs, and adds 294 APCs. That brings me to two tanks for every six personnel carriers, which is closer to the Turkmenistan-based ratio and feels better.
The Stryker is basically a wheeled APC with a machine gun on it, and no heavy weapons, unlike the Bradley. I originally thought of making my Stryker BCT fitted with VBCI 2s, but the VAB is a better choice for that role of vehicle. The French built over 5,000 of them, and they're replacing them with VBMR Griffons already. If I use the VAB as a replacement for both Strykers and M113s (command vehicles, ambulances, mortar carriers, etc) I'd end up needing 610 VABs.
With only six dismounts, the VBCI 2 is making me question my selection for the Armored Brigade's IFV. Sure it's got great firepower in the four ATGMs and its 40mm autocannon, but its transport capability requires really small platoons. I took a look at the CV90, but the export models run nearly nine million dollars apiece, that's far too expensive for me to afford and it doesn't come with an ATGM system, leaving all its firepower to a 35mm gun.
Why not go with the American Bradley? It's got ATGMs, it's got a light autocannon (only 25mm, sadface), and it fits in an Airbus A400M for transport. The M2A3 (https://www.militarytoday.com/apc/m2a3_bradley.htm) is the standard variant, with protection against 30mm gunfire on the front arc and 14.5mm all-round. It has one more dismount than the VBCI, giving me four squads of seven and the potential for two extra seats if I doublehat my squad leaders as vehicle commanders.
Croatia bought 89 M2A2 ODS versions for $196.4 million, $51.1 of which was donated from the US. I would fight for a similar deal on used M2A3s for about the same 2.2 million a vehicle, and get 25% off in military aid. It's only fair, if Croatia can do it.
That would give me a purchase order of 360 M2A3 Bradleys, for a total of $792 million, of which I'd pay $585.9 million. That's over $300m less than buying 240 VBCI 2s, and would let me fill out all three ABCTs with Bradleys.
What do you guys think of the M2A3 as an IFV, compared to the still-unpurchased and untried VBCI 2? They both have similar weight, so neither wins a portability contest. The Bradley is slower, but carries more dismounts. Meanwhile the VBCI 2 carries more firepower, but has is less protected than the Bradley. And of course the cost differential is something to consider as well; 360 VBCI 2s would run $1.35 billion compared to the $792 million for Bradleys.
-
Cost is king... I think your parliament would practically force the Bradley over the VBCI.
-
also never forget to whom the $$ touches when they are doing purchases, what better might not come with better $$ gifts.
-
Longass post, as usual.
Cost is king...yeah, I suppose that would force the Bradleys then. They're better protected with the armor and ERA packages, and for a country with a military as small as Serednya Slaviya it makes more sense to focus on protecting each individual soldier to the best level they can get. I suppose if I were going to go with a maximum focus on low prices, I'd skip the Bradleys and go with VABs entirely as both an APC and a utility armored vehicle. I'd rather have better protection for my troops, plus at least some firepower, and the Bradley does it relatively inexpensively. Combine that with American military aid programs, and maybe I can get further discounted prices on things.
Final platoon organization below. Considering the complexity of the Bradley and its interior layout, plus the need to man all the controls, I kept each vehicle as having a dedicated commander. The French have vehicle commanders for both VBCI and VAB vehicles, even if the VAB lacks the kinds of optics and sensors that the VBCI does. I admit I'm double-hatting my platoon sergeant as the squad leader for second squad, but it made more sense to do that than replace a vehicle commander. That lets the Bradleys operate at full strength in support of their infantry, being fully manned.
Bradley 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Comamnder (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
Platoon Marksman (FR F2)
Bradley 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant/Senior Squad Leader (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Bradley 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Bradley 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Total platoon strength is one officer and thirty-nine enlisted. Twenty Beryl rifles, twelve Mini-Beryl carbines, eight Spike SR missiles, seven Glock 19 pistols, six M249 LMGs, six RPG-7s, six Pallad grenade launchers, and one FR F2 sniper rifle. In addition, each vehcle carries a Mossberg 590 shotgun. I don't have space for attaching personnel to the platoon, so they'll have to grab an HMMWV and follow the platoon.
While I'm operating VABs, I'm not using them as APCs. I'm using them instead in support roles such as armored ambulances, mortar carriers, command vehicles, and the like. The standard IFV is the Bradley, with six M2A3 companies in each of the ABCTs.
I went with Spikes because they're in between an AT-4 and a Javelin, while not being as large - only 10 kilos, less than half of the weight of a Javelin and its launcher. They're also less than half the price, at $75,000 vs $174,000. Penetration isn't quite as good, 700mm+ vs 760mm+, but it's still capable of killing modern MBTs. I don't see anything that specifically states the Spike SR has a top-attack capability, only that some models of Spikes are able to. I imagine that's the larger MR and LR and NLOS versions that can top-attack.
I went back to having four Armored BCTs and an ACR instead of mixing them up; the ratio of tanks to APCs
1st Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
2nd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
3rd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
4th Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
5th Light Cavalry Regiment
114 AMX-10 RCR
72 Fennek
18 2S9 Nona
18 2S1 Gvozdika
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Approximately 400 HMMWV
Total combat vehicles:
348 PT-91 ($174 million)
464 VAB ($185.6 million)
480 M2A3 Bradley ($960 million)
114 AMX-10 RCR (Unknown)
168 Fennek ($268.8 million)
48 K9 Thunder ($144 million)
24 K239 Chunmoo ($72 million)
18 2S9 Nona (pre-owned)
18 2S1 Gvozdika (pre-owned)
Approximately 2100 HMMWV ($336 million)
19 Mi-17 (pre-owned)
8 OH-58 (Unknown)
8 Mi-24 (pre-owned)
The HMMWV price is $160,000 apiece, based on price estimates from around the web. I figure I might as well buy up all the armored vehicles I can get, even if some of them are going to be command post vehicles or other specialty variants.
I was originally thinking of using HIMARS but they've been dramatically overpriced lately (https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/himars-triples-in-price-to-more-than-1-5-billion-for-no-apparent-reason/) to a point where I can't justify even replacing a few Gvozdikas. I did get turned onto the K239 Chunmoo MLRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K239_Chunmoo), which is a far less expensive vehicle and still has plenty of ordnance options. Each artillery battalion in the ABCTs has two batteries of K9s and one battery of K239s for an extra-long-range punch.
The engineer brigade is based on this list (https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/CMH_2/www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/vietnam/engineers/appendixd.htm) of Vietnam-era construction forces. I don't see a need for major changes to the organization to modernize it, a shovel is still a shovel. I put together a five battalion brigade, with a few specialist companies, to make the SSLF's engineer forces not organic to the BCTs.
6th Engineer Brigade 4,996 Personnel
Headquarters and Headquarters Company TOE 5-101E 144 Personnel
Combat Battalion TOE 5-35E 794 Personnel
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Combat Engineer Company x4
Combat Battalion TOE 5-35E 794 Personnel
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Combat Engineer Company x4
Combat Battalion TOE 5-35E 794 Personnel
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Combat Engineer Company x4
Construction Battalion TOE 5-115D 881 Personnel
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Engineer Equipment Company
Maintenance Company
Construction Company x3
Construction Battalion TOE 5-115D 881 Personnel
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Engineer Equipment Company
Maintenance Company
Construction Company x3
Construction Support Company TOE 5-114D 164 Personnel
Dump Truck Company TOE 5-124D 108 Personnel
Light Equipment Company TOE 5-54E 215 Personnel
Port Construction Company TOE 5-129D 221 Personnel
Polish rifles and tanks, Soviet and Korean artillery, German scout vehicles, American trucks and IFVs, French armored cars and APCs, Belgian machine guns, and German scout cars, Soviet and American helicopters, French and Brazilian and Italian planes. Definitely an eclectic mix of equipment...and those prices are likely to go down, considering the free giveaways (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/13/free-army-helicopter-costs-newarks-police-2-million.html) that only require upkeep and maintenance.
tl;dr: platoon organization for the infantry, total equipment numbers and prices, engineer brigade organization
Apropos of nothing, Bradleys for the battle of Robotyne (https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/europe/ukraine-zaporizhzhia-robotyne-bradley-intl-cmd/index.html) and the Ukrainians love the sensors on them (https://www.businessinsider.com/us-bradley-fighting-vehicles-priceless-nighttime-assaults-russia-ukrainian-soldier-2023-9).
-
Looking good! :)
-
A neat video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF32HJoc7_U) about the future upgrade of the Bradley's cannon, upgunning to a monster 50mm autocannon with programmable airbursting rounds as well as APFSDS. The video has some nice clips showing the effect of the airbursts, which look like some nasty effect on light vehicles and infantry. I'm betting that the Bradley replacements aren't going to be selected, and that we'll just swap out the Bushmaster for the 50mm and call it the M2A5.
Then again, I could be wrong, and there'll be a bunch of Brads on the surplus market for cheap...
One thing I notice from this article (https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/) on the potential replacement is that the Army is happy with a six-man infantry compartment. I can only imagine they're going to drop down to an eight-man squad with three squads per platoon, breaking them up between vehicles the way the Bradley does already.
Since I'm only using Bradleys as an IFV, and using the VAB only in secondary roles and not as a line vehicle, I've got the TOWs for anti-tank firepower. Do I still need two Spike ATGM teams in the infantry platoon, or should I remove them for a fourth rifle squad and let the TOWs be sufficient? I'm also debating on a three-squad organization, with eight men per squad; how does that bear up against a four-squad organization with six men per squad? I'm sticking with one of those two organizations, because it gives me room for a Platoon Leader and Sergeant as well as two extra attached personnel without cutting into vehicle crews.
-
A neat video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF32HJoc7_U) about the future upgrade of the Bradley's cannon, upgunning to a monster 50mm autocannon with programmable airbursting rounds as well as APFSDS. The video has some nice clips showing the effect of the airbursts, which look like some nasty effect on light vehicles and infantry. I'm betting that the Bradley replacements aren't going to be selected, and that we'll just swap out the Bushmaster for the 50mm and call it the M2A5.
Then again, I could be wrong, and there'll be a bunch of Brads on the surplus market for cheap...
One thing I notice from this article (https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/general-dynamics-griffin-takes-lead-to-replace-m2-bradley/) on the potential replacement is that the Army is happy with a six-man infantry compartment. I can only imagine they're going to drop down to an eight-man squad with three squads per platoon, breaking them up between vehicles the way the Bradley does already.
Since I'm only using Bradleys as an IFV, and using the VAB only in secondary roles and not as a line vehicle, I've got the TOWs for anti-tank firepower. Do I still need two Spike ATGM teams in the infantry platoon, or should I remove them for a fourth rifle squad and let the TOWs be sufficient? I'm also debating on a three-squad organization, with eight men per squad; how does that bear up against a four-squad organization with six men per squad? I'm sticking with one of those two organizations, because it gives me room for a Platoon Leader and Sergeant as well as two extra attached personnel without cutting into vehicle crews.
Swap the Spikes for MANPADS. Given your theatre and all... When anti-drone tech proliferates, you can swap out the MANPADS for portable ECM or EW guns or well... your own drones I guess.
-
Swap the Spikes for MANPADS. Given your theatre and all... When anti-drone tech proliferates, you can swap out the MANPADS for portable ECM or EW guns or well... your own drones I guess.
I could see converting one of the two ATGM teams into one Stinger team, with a gunner and ammo bearer. I'm using Stingers on my air-defense Fenneks, so it makes sense to use more of the same for my infantry. Since they're due to be replaced in the US inventory, I suppose I can get them at bargain prices, compared to other MANPADS options. Three Stingers per company, with two infantry companies per battalion and three battalions in each BCT gives me a total of eighteen launchers per BCT, or a total of 72 launchers. That's not a significant hit to my budget, though it feels a little light. That'd still leave me with a dismounted ATGM capability, with one Spike SR team still in the weapons squad.
That would lean towards a 4x6 organization to allow the use of a weapons squad, revisiting that question of organization and what to settle on. I suppose I could do it with the 3x8 organization, having a Stinger gunner being one of the four 'floaters' in the platoon along with the PL and PS and a medic. So I'm back to debating my platoon organization again...and I apologize if it's gotten pedantic and repetitively boring with each iteration that comes out of this. I promise, I'm going to finalize it soon once the 4x6 or 3x8 is settled.
Good idea, though, chanman, and definitely one to take into account.
-
I think 4x6 makes more sense, but that's just me.
-
Hm...I hadn't looked at it this way before but with 24 companies of infantry and 24 companies of tanks, I feel light on infantry forces. If I switch back to three ABCTs and one Mechanized BCT, I end up with 27 mechanized infantry companies and 18 tank companies. That's a 2:3 ratio, which is probably still tank-heavy for its size but not to the level of some countries (looking at you, Turkmenistan).
Having 27 companies of infantry gives me 81 Stinger gunners to solve the air defense problem. That doesn't include the 80 Fennek SWP vehicles in the Air Defense Force, nor the 80 Buk launchers still in service. And yeah, there's also 80 Shilkas in the ADF...I suppose my anti-air capability is based on watching the American demonstrations of air supremacy, and the admission that there's no chance I'm going to have a peer level Air Force.
The Mechanized BCT is loosely based around the Stryker BCT, with a mix of Bradleys and VABs replacing the Stryker. It has the same armored cavalry squadron as the ABCT, as well as a self-propelled artillery battalion that like the ABCT is mixed between 12 K9 Thunders and 6 K239 Chunmoo.
I kept an antiarmor company in the Brigade Engineering Battalion, which has three platoons of three VAB-Mephistos, and added a similar antiarmor company to the other ABCTs' engineering battalions as well. That gives me a total of 36 of these lovely little fellows:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/VAB_Mephisto.JPEG/640px-VAB_Mephisto.JPEG)
Granted, that means I'm sourcing ATGMs from France, the US, and Israel now, but nobody said this had to be simple. I thought about going with more Bradleys in the ATGM carrier role, with a dismount team with their own TOW launcher like the M901 ITV, but I'm with F16 in how good the VAB looks and went with it. Besides, having different types of ATGMs means different means of countermeasures to defeat them, making it more difficult for an enemy force to deal with.
1st Mechanized Brigade
135 VAB
146 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
434 HMMWV
2nd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
3rd Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
4th Armored Brigade
87 PT-91
116 VAB
120 M2A3 Bradley
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
418 HMMWV
5th Light Cavalry Regiment
114 AMX-10 RCR
72 Fennek
18 2S9 Nona
18 2S1 Gvozdika
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Approximately 400 HMMWV
Totals:
261 PT-91
114 AMX-10 RCR
483 VAB
506 M2A3 Bradley
168 Fennek
48 K9 Thunder
24 K239 Chunmoo
18 2S9 Nona
18 2S1 Gvozdika
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Approximately 2100 HMMWV
4x6 platoons make more sense to me too, scaling overwatch-and-maneuver from the fire team level to the whole platoon. It also breaks down the vehicles evenly, in sections of two matching the infantry unlike a 3x8 format. Granted, that means each fire team is only three members, but that seems to be a commonplace thing in non-American militaries according to Battleorder. If I stick with 4x6, I'll keep three rifle squads and a weapons squad, with a Stinger team, a Spike LR team, and two Platoon Marksmen in the Weapons squad. That'd be directly under the platoon leader's command, to deploy as he sees fit.
Why Ukraine can't punch through Russian lines (https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/why-ukraine-cant-punch-through-the-russian-lines/) basically chalks it up to the intense minefields and the rapid reaction time for artillery and air assets from the moment a massing of forces is spotted. I've seen other articles where the Ukrainians describe the battlefield sky as black with drones. It's starting to look like the first World War over there, and I can only say I'm glad I went with the suggestion for combat engineers being a specialty of the SSLF. It may not have been clairvoyance, but it's certainly a good choice to have made. Things like more M1150s (https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukraines_troops_were_reinforced_by_the_american_m1150_assault_breacher_vehicle-8453.html)...I wonder if there's a way to convert a T-72M1 into something like one of those; Serednya Slaviya inherited nearly a thousand of those tanks and certainly still has some in storage somewhere that hasn't been sold off yet.
-
You mean the 5 year plan to get a workable replacement for the Stinger, because the US is no longer is building any Stingers, but just refurbishes the old ones.
At what stage will we need to look at replacing what we have shipped out? Can we wait 5 years
-
You mean the 5 year plan to get a workable replacement for the Stinger, because the US is no longer is building any Stingers, but just refurbishes the old ones.
At what stage will we need to look at replacing what we have shipped out? Can we wait 5 years
You do what you can with what you have. Gaps in coverage are inevitable from time to time just due to events and procurement/aging cycles, but the key is to make sure they're only temporary because you know, long-term planning
-
The first link tag is "urm", breaking it... please edit when you get a chance... :)
-
Well, we've sent a fourth of the Stinger arsenal over to Ukraine, with more likely on the way. Getting a replacement for it is going to be a priority. I doubt that was part of the long-term plan, but it should light a fire under the butts of procurement.
Link fixed, sorry about that.
4x6 vs 3x8 platoons...
Bradley 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Comamnder (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Two Spike SR, Beryl)
Stinger Gunner (Stinger, Beryl)
Stinger Ammo Bearer (Two Stinger Missiles, Beryl)
Marksman (FR F2)
Marksman (FR F2)
Bradley 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Bradley 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Bradley 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
or
Bradley 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Comamnder (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Bradley 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Bradley 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
Bradley 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)
Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
The 3x8 makes up for not having a weapons squad by putting an RPG in each fire team compared to the 4x6, where there's only three available RPG-7s. Both platoons have enough room for an attached Medic and Forward Observer, though those attachments can easily be changed depending on mission profiles. The Rifleman in each fire team doubles as an RPG Ammo Bearer carrying three rounds for the RPG.
I'm leaning to the 4x6 because of the weapons squad and the extra capabilities it has, despite the smaller squad and fire team size. I'm wondering if I shouldn't skip on breaking the squad into fire teams, and instead make one holistic squad of six like the following:
Squad Leader (Beryl)
RPG Gunner (RPG-7, Beryl)
RPG Assistant (Beryl)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
LMG Assistant (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
It reduces the general firepower of the squad, but the extra ammo bearers give more endurance to the gunners. Not a fan, personally, I like bringing the extra dakka of the 4x6 fire team model. Still, posted for comment.
-
I'm leaning more heavily toward the 4x6 model. And thanks for fixing the link! :)
-
So looking at the Air Defense Force, and the four divisions that equipped the military in the soviet era. That gives me four SA-6 SAM regiments with five firing batteries each, one per each division, and one battery for each of the infantry and tank regiments in the division. That I can combine into four battalions with three batteries per battalion. Each of these batteries is four SA-9 SAM vehicles and four ZSU-23-4 Shilkas.
I'll break up the Air Defense Force and put the SA-6 regiments in the Air Force, as part of their total forces. That increases the SSAF by 2000 personnel to 3600, since each regiment is 500 personnel according to FM 100-2-3. The SA-9s...I'll delete those from the inventory completely, and go with a Ukrainian update to the Shilka (https://old.defence-ua.com/index.php/en/publications/defense-express-publications/3904-new-capabilities-for-the-zsu-23-4-shilka) that improves the radar, the onboard electronics, adds an HVAC system, and also plops four Igla SAMs on the vehicle.
Each battery is probably 30 personnel and technically a platoon of four Shilkas, so a company sized element would give me three platoons in each brigade's engineering battalion. I'm thinking it might be better to move the anti-armor company out of the engineering battalion and combine it with the air defense company in a combat support battalion. Either way, that gives me a total of 48 Shilkas for the Armored and Mechanized BCT; the Shilka's too big to fit in a C-130 so that forces it out of the Cavalry Regiment. I'll buy some Avengers for that unit, and issue a Stinger launcher for each of the infantry scout troops.
So two Stingers per troop, and six Stingers in a squadron, that's 18 SAM launchers in the Cavalry Regiment. Each of 27 infantry companies has three Stingers, for another 81, plus four more squadrons of cavalry forces in the BCTs for 24 more. That brings me to a total of 123 MANPADS, along with 12 Avengers and 48 ZSU-23-4M-A Shilkas upgraded by the Ukrainians. As far as the Air Force's inventory, the four regiments give me 80 Buk M1 launchers. They've probably not been modernized, still sticking with the older 1980s-era missiles and radar but could definitely use replacement.
The question then becomes, what system to replace it with? Fortunately I've bought most of my military hardware, so budgets are freer.
-
Patriots are the gold standard, but they're VERY expensive...
-
Yeah, boy howdy are they expensive.
PATRIOT System Costs Official (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12297#:~:text=PATRIOT%20System%20Costs&text=According%20to%20a%20December%2016,%24690%20million%20for%20the%20missiles.)
PATRIOT system cost figures are not publicly available. According to a December 16, 2022, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) article, “Patriot to Ukraine: What Does it Mean?,” a newly produced PATRIOT battery costs about $1.1 billion, including about $400 million for the system and about $690 million for the missiles. CSIS further suggests future U.S. PATRIOT battalions (U.S. PATRIOT battalions consist of four PATRIOT batteries) could cost up to $1.27 billion dollars apiece without missiles. PATRIOT interceptors are estimated to cost about $4 million per missile.
It really puts the cost-benefit equation into perspective, doesn't it? Maybe I'm stuck with Buks for a while longer unless Japan wants to sell off its Hawk missiles on the cheap...
-
So I made some changes to the BCT organization, namely in the Brigade's Cavalry Squadron. I'm of the opinion a Squadron should be the same whether it's in a BCT or an ACR, which meant going to this organization:
(https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm34-35/Fig2-1.gif)
This Battleorder video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiIqONvHeQ) goes into more detail and was a good explanation of the role of armored cavalry scouts. One thing I note is that the Cavalry Troop in the organization chart has two tank platoons alongside its two platoons of cavalry scouts, along with a tank company at Squadron level. The video's organization retains the company but lacks those two tank platoons in each troop; I'm keeping them in for a total of 38 tanks in each Squadron.
That skews the ratio of tanks to APC/IFVs pretty hard in favor of tanks, which makes me ask what the proper value should be, and what I can believably support. The Netherlands, looking at the equipment of the RNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Netherlands_Army) gives me one list to work with. The RNA is roughly the same size as the SSLF if you add in the Danish civilians and reservists. The numbers are surprisingly small. Only 70 tanks in the RNA, along with 342 APCs and IFVs and 1,287 "mobility vehicles" along with 345 Fenneks.
That's a lot of Fenneks, and I'll digress for a minute - it makes me want a second Regiment of Hussars, a second ACR to supplement the first. Reconnaissance becomes a Serednya Slaviyan specialty, with its own organization I'll get to. That requires axing one of the BCTs, and the question of what the right ratio of tanks to APC/IFVs is. The RNA has a ratio of 1:5 respectively, and I can organize the rest of the military on the following structure:
Armored BCT: 125 tanks, 265 APC/IFVs
Mechanized BCT: 38 tanks, 299 APC/IFVs
Mechanized BCT: 38 tanks, 299 APC/IFVs
That gives me a total of 201 tanks and 863 APC/IFVs. It's only a 4.3:1 ratio, but it's the closest I'll get to the RNA's "optimum." That gives me a total of 24 infantry companies along with nine tank companies and nine cavalry troops.
On the topic of the SSLF Regiments of Hussars, I decided to follow the direction of the Americans and partially equip the scout platoon with m2a2 Bradleys. It means losing C-130 transportability for the whole regiment, but it dramatically improves the firepower and capabilities of the scout platoon. The new scout platoon is four Fenneks and four Bradleys, which can organize into two equal sections easily. Three sections can be accomplished by detaching one Fennek and Bradley combo to either side of the main element of two Fenneks and Bradleys, for route reconnaissance missions.
Bradley 1
Platoon Leader/Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Bradley 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Fennek 1
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Fennek 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Bradley 3
Platoon Sergeant/Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Bradley 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Fennek 3
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Fennek 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
For dismounted scouting operations, each pair of Bradleys can contribute a full six-man team, while the Fenneks can remotely deploy their sensor masts to form an OP. Eight vehicles is also easier to coordinate than ten, and I'm trading the flexibility of the 6-Bradley platoon for the Fennek's advanced sensor suite and low profile. I like this organization better than the HMMWV based I had previously. Each Cavalry Troop operates two of these Scout Platoons, putting 24 Fenneks and Bradleys in a Squadron and 72 of each for the Regiment.
Artillerywise, I filled the battery attached to each Squadron in the BCT with K9 155mm SPGs. The Hussar Regiments operate older but more portable Gvozdika 122mm howitzers, while the Mortar Section in all Troops is filled with 2S9 Nona gun-mortars.
1st Regiment of Hussars
114 AMX-10 RCR
72 Bradley
72 Fennek
18 2S9 Nona
18 2S1 Gvozdika
12 Shilka
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Approximately 400 HMMWV
2nd Regiment of Hussars
114 AMX-10 RCR
72 Bradley
72 Fennek
18 2S9 Nona
18 2S1 Gvozdika
12 Shilka
19 Mi-17
8 OH-58
8 Mi-24
Approximately 400 HMMWV
3rd Armored Brigade
125 PT-91
141 m2a2 Bradley
124 VAB
24 Fennek
12 2K22 Tunguska
18 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
6 2S9 Nona
389 HMMWV
4th Mechanized Brigade
38 PT-91
167 m2a2 Bradley
132 VAB
24 Fennek
12 Shilka
18 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
6 2S9 Nona
404 HMMWV
5th Mechanized Brigade
38 PT-91
167 m2a2 Bradley
132 VAB
24 Fennek
12 Shilka
18 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
6 2S9 Nona
404 HMMWV
Final totals come to:
201 PT-91 ($100.5 million)
228 AMX-10 RCR (unknown)
619 M2A2 Bradley ($1,361.8 million)
388 VAB ($155.2 million)
216 Fennek ($345.6 million)
12 2K22 Tunguska (pre-owned)
48 Shilka (pre-owned)
54 K9 Thunder ($162 million)
18 K239 Chunmoo ($54 million)
36 2S1 Gvozdika (pre-owned)
54 2S9 Nona (pre-owned)
38 Mi-17 (pre-owned)
16 OH-58 (unknown)
16 Mi-24 (pre-owned)
Approximately 2,000 HMMWV ($20 million)
That comes to $2,199.1 million dollars for known prices. What's left off is important, namely those 228 AMX-10 RCRs - at the rate things are going, I may have to make this the Army of 2025 to get that many AMX-10s from the French. That's a little more than half their stock, and I can't find anything saying how many Jaguars are being produced per month to replace them with.
I suppose that's it; I can't think of anything else to change or add that needs to be addressed. I guess this is an objective look at the military, the result of a fourth five-year-plan to modernize a force structure into a future blueprint for the military. So long, and thanks for all the fish?
-
Sounds good to me! I'm only worried by F16's silence... it's been a while since he posted...
-
He was on yesterday....
@Kamas
Did you see the new version of the Osprey, the AW609? Civi-spec job...
While not new, per say, but on the open market now...
TT
-
Did he post, though? I'm usually in the threads he posts in... :/
-
Yeah, I saw the tiltrotor stuff before, it's intriguing but bloody expensive: "Finmeccanica is counting on customers being willing to pay a premium for this convenience. While the AW609 will have the same cabin space as a four-to-nine-passenger, $4 to $9 million light jet, it likely will sell for around $24 million—about what you’d pay for a super-medium twin helicopter with all the bells and whistles."
Meanwhile I can get used models of the Avanti for a tenth of that price, so I'll stick with those and be confined to standard airports.
(https://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2017/10/1-private-jet-1.jpg)
-
Did he post, though? I'm usually in the threads he posts in... :/
A week ago in the aircraft thread.
He was on yesterday....
@Kamas
Did you see the new version of the Osprey, the AW609? Civi-spec job...
While not new, per say, but on the open market now...
TT
AW609 has notable differences including only the propellers tilting instead of the entire engine.
The V-22 just has a number of mechanical failure modes that can only end catastrophically. Having an accident rate comparable to something like Blackhawks/Seahawks/Pavehawks is misleading because the helos also fly inherently dangerous missions like NOE flight, SAR in bad weather, and very close formation assaults, leading to occasional mid-air collisions.
For the V-22s to have similar or worse accident stats while having a more pedestrian transport mission set doesn't bode well, at least for the V-22 design specifically, especially since the rate of mishaps and total losses seem to be creeping up with age as well.
-
So I came across this video on the Israeli Eitan APC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77UOrkSx2kw) and it pointed out something that immediately struck me. Because of the wheeled design, the Eitans were immediately able to deploy in the midst of the October 7 terrorist attacks, get on the freeway, and book it at 120km/h to the combat zone just north of the Gaza strip. The entire point for the wheeled vehicle was one of high readiness and rapid self-deployment without having to rely on rail or truck systems to get to the fight.
That's the kind of mindset I'm looking at for the two Hussars regiments, with the ability to respond to a situation quickly - and tracked Bradleys aren't going to cut it. I suppose I'm going back to the first generation VBCI for the cavalry force, which like the Bradley can be airlifted in an Airbus A400M. Unlike the Bradley, however, the VBCI can just drive to the crisis area on its own, which is a major point in its favor.
The engineer corps has probably spent quite a bit of time upgrading the road and bridge infrastructure in Serednya Slaviya, so I can see the transportation network being pretty solid and able to support the 32 metric ton IFV.
I'm also switching from the heavier-armed VBCI 2 to the VBCI that's been produced for the French, because the 25mm gun in the VBCI is the same NATO standard caliber as the M242 Bushmaster in the Bradley. That gives me a common ammunition type to work with instead of a 25mm for the BCTs and a 40mm for the Cavalry. Granted that means the cavalry forces don't have a dedicated ATGM-carrying IFV. The solution is converting one of the four Fenneks in the scout platoon to an anti-tank variant, which carries Spike MR missiles on a tripod launcher.
And I suspect that the XM913 50mm chain gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM913_chain_gun) that can be swapped into the Bradley is going to find its way into the SSLF's VBCIs eventually, if the program is successful. That'd be a dramatic increase in firepower and effectiveness, and one I look forward to seeing.
The need for ATGMs makes me want to edit slightly the Cavalry Scout Platoon. So does the need for AA defenses, see below for further information on that.
VBCI 1
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
ATGM Gunner (2x Spike SR, Beryl)
Scout (Beryl)
VBCI 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
SAM Gunner (Stinger, Mini-Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Fennek 1
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Fennek ATGM 2
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
VBCI 3
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Section Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
ATGM Gunner (2x Spike SR, Beryl)
Scout (Beryl)
VBCI 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)
Team Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Scout (Beryl)
Fennek 3
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
Fennek ATGM 4
Vehicle Commander (Beryl)
Vehicle Driver (Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Beryl)
That organization swaps out one M249 LMG in each squad of six dismounts for a Spike SR carrier, leaving a team or section leader and a scout in each team. The total antitank firepower for the scout platoon is two ATGM gunners with Spike SR and two Spike MR launchers between the second and fourth Fennek. This allows the platoon to split in two sections and retain ATGM firepower, or split into three sections with the ATGM Fenneks and one VBCI on each "wing" of the platoon and two standard scout Fenneks and two VBCIs in the center. Extra missiles would be kept in the VBCI for both the SR and MR launchers.
EDIT: Looking closer at air defenses...I'm putting a Stinger team in each infantry platoon's weapons squad, which gives me a total of three Stingers per infantry company and with 24 companies, a total of 72 Stingers between the three Brigades. The Poles attach an air defense battalion at Brigade level, consisting of 24 Grom MANPADS, and 12 modernized Shilkas or 24 truck mounted ZU-23-2 twin autocannon. I'm thinking I'll keep my platoon Stingers, but copy the Poles and put an AD battalion (https://youtu.be/D5hm2d8yqoE?t=518) in the BCT with the same organization, only switching to Stingers instead of Grom. That'll add 24 more Stingers per brigade, concentrated and able to be packeted out to support frontline troops, for a total of 144 Stinger teams in the BCTs. That is, unless the US runs out of Stingers entirely, which is not impossible considering current affairs. This would be in addition to a company of Tunguskas in the Armored BCT and Shilkas in the Mechanized BCTs as part of that air defense battalion.
The two Cavalry Regiments won't just have to make do with a company of Avengers in each regiment; to give each scout platoon organic air defense I raised the Scout Platoon strength to 40. That let me move the Platoon Commander and Platoon Sergeant out of the Vehicle Commander roles and let them operate either mounted or dismounted, and attach a medic to the platoon without doublehatting them in another role, plus of course adding the Stinger gunner. I still have enough dismounts for two six-man patrols, as well as set up an observation post and a two-man security team while keeping all the vehicles fully manned and ready for action. There's also still plenty of room in the VBCI for all the weapons and radios and equipment they'll need, since even the enlarged 40-man platoon still only fills half the seats in a VBCI.
But I feel that in any kind of a peer threat, my forces are going to have to move under an organic SAM/cannon umbrella since my Air Force is generally incapable of gaining air supremacy against such an opponent. I suppose I'm practicing a strategy of air denial with the air defense units rather than competing for the skies with air power, but my Alpha Jets are there to provide support to the ground forces primarily and only secondarily perform the air dominance role. They can do it, but they're attack jets first.
So 72 Stingers in the three brigades' maneuver units, 72 Stingers in the three Air Defense Battalions, and 36 in the two cavalry regiments. That adds up to 180 launchers, plus a good number of missiles. Add to that 24 Shilkas, 12 Tunguskas, and 24 Avengers for the air defenses in the SSLF and it seems to be pretty decent air denial.
-
Well the Iranian make a Hawk knockoff/clone, because they used it as the base to give their F14 a longrange strike missile
-
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33456/iran-equipped-its-f-14s-with-modified-hawk-sams-that-had-bombs-attached-to-their-noses
That was an interesting read, I had not known they were that desperate for weapons. The bomb-equipped version is doubly interesting, since it appears to lack guidance and is the definition of "to whom it may concern" weaponry.
-
Epiphanies are going to epiphany... carry on, good sir! :)
-
So I took a peek at Wikipedia's entry on the Royal Jordanian Army's equipment, and their tank-APC ratio...which is a hell of a lot higher in tanks than the Dutch are. 1,365 tanks in use and in storage for reserves, versus 2,367 APCs and IFVs - that's 1.73 infantry carriers per tank. That...is definitely a land army that means business, and makes me look again at the top level organization for the SSLF.
I'd eliminate the two Armored Cavalry Regiments, instead going with five Armored Brigades that each include an armored cavalry squadron. Instead of tanks and Bradleys, the Squadron would be made up of AMX-10 RCRs and VBCI troop carriers, with the idea of giving each brigade a rapid response force that can react quickly to an incident. Instead of an entire brigade-sized regiment being set up for the role, which is going to have its own size-based inertia to overcome, the individual Squadron is only a battalion-sized force and can get rolling faster and meet a threat rapidly.
Thirty companies of tanks and thirty of infantry. It'd give me a lot more tanks (435 tanks to be precise), while cutting back AMX-10 RCR and VBCI numbers to 190 and 145 respectively. The other vehicles are 560 Bradleys and 620 VABs, so I'm still at a 2.7:1 ratio. That'd put me in between the Dutch and Jordanian figures, which is probably a comfortable medium. It does mean I lose the aviation squadron from the cavalry regiment, but I can always transfer those assets to the Air Force and increase its size to fit.
I'm still debating on what the artillery for the cavalry squadron should be. Towed 105mm? ZUZANA 155mm SPG? Hawkeyes? I want something that can deploy quickly and break down just as quick, and especially wheeled so it can move with the rest of the squadron as a response force. Suggestions in what to equip the cavalry squadron's arty equipment would be appreciated. I mean, there's the Eva 155mm SPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVA_(howitzer)) and it's built to be C-130 transportable, so that's a big plus for it.
-
Jordan has a LOT more terrain friendly to tanks than SS... not sure I'd go that far...
-
Jordan has a LOT more terrain friendly to tanks than SS... not sure I'd go that far...
And a climate more conducive to long-term storage of inactive vehicles as well.
-
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33456/iran-equipped-its-f-14s-with-modified-hawk-sams-that-had-bombs-attached-to-their-noses
That was an interesting read, I had not known they were that desperate for weapons. The bomb-equipped version is doubly interesting, since it appears to lack guidance and is the definition of "to whom it may concern" weaponry.
The Iranians are my go to RW example of what a planet in battletech could "build" if they had to copy/modify already bought weapon systems
-
Jordan has a LOT more terrain friendly to tanks than SS... not sure I'd go that far...
And a climate more conducive to long-term storage of inactive vehicles as well.
That question of terrain is something I hadn't previously considered, and probably should. According to these maps the western portion of Ukraine has a northern forest, a central highlands, and part of the Carpathian mountains. Granted those mountains only go up to 6,700 feet ASL, so they're not significant enough to warrant a mountain brigade to deal with them I think.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anatoliy-Nijnik/publication/258383304/figure/fig2/AS:324937035337728@1454482434973/Forestry-zoning-of-Ukraine-Source-adapted-from-39-and-the-records-of-the-National.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Ukraine_relief_location_map.jpg/640px-Ukraine_relief_location_map.jpg)
The terrain would seem to favor infantry, I suppose, with the heavy forestation making it difficult for armored vehicles to operate there. Compared to Jordan's open desert plains, it's definitely unhealthy terrain for tanks. Tanks are also expensive to operate, especially in large numbers, so that's something to consider as well.
I got rid of the Armored Cavalry Regiments. The size of the SSLF generally promotes a battalion-level mindset, where each soldier sees themselves as a member of the battalion first. This compares to the American mindset of a soldier belonging to a division. I'm thinking that the Squadron has a very independent mindset, with their mission of rapid reaction and being the vanguard of the brigade. They think they're the elite, and arguably are. They get their own special parade uniforms, which are basically stylized historical Winged Hussars battle uniforms with modern materials.
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-114eae67354241a4a706c987cadbbc75-lq)
To keep the Cavalry Squadron mobile, I got rid of the tracked 2S9 Nonas - they're unique and neat, but can't self-deploy like a VAB can. I instead went with the VAB 2R2M which mounts a 120mm mortar in the hull and is pictured below.
Mechanized Brigade x3
38 AMX-10 RCR
29 VBCI
138 M2A2 Bradley
118 VAB
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
6 EVA
12 Shilka
9 VAB Mephisto
18 VAB 2R2M
437 HMMWV
Armored Brigade x2
87 PT-91 Twardy
38 AMX-10 RCR
29 VBCI
112 M2A2 Bradley
101 VAB
24 Fennek
12 K9 Thunder
6 K239 Chunmoo
6 EVA
12 Shilka
18 VAB 2R2M
413 HMMWV
So out of the 988 tanks the SSLF inherited, they modernized 174 - the rest got sold off along with most of the rest of their Soviet era equipment. That 800 tanks, even if only a million each, made for a nice bit of change, plus the money from selling all the troop carriers and artillery.
-
Progress is progress! :)
-
I suppose I should sit down and draw out the uniforms, but I'm thinking the battalion-as-home idea sticks.
MBCT
Headquarters Company
Engineer Battalion
Antiaircraft Battalion
Armored Cavalry Squadron
Mechanized Infantry Battalion x3
SP Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
ABCT
Headquarters Company
Engineer Battalion
Antiaircraft Battalion
Armored Cavalry Squadron
Combined Arms Battalion x3
SP Artillery Battalion
Brigade Support Battalion
While the Armored Cavalry Squadrons have their own parade uniforms based around the old Winged Hussars, the rest of each brigade has its own parade uniform that differs between brigades. I suppose that would foster a more "the brigade is home" mindset instead of the individual battalions, but I'm fine with that. It also highlights the elite status of the Cavalry regiments, since they get their own special outfit across the SSLF.
Something like the below pictured, which are Lithuanian army troops dressed in historical uniforms. The regular daily and dress uniforms are modern in design, though I should probably draw it out, and then there's the combat uniform to design as well.
EDIT: Considering I've got an Air Defense Battalion in each brigade, with 24 MANPADS and twelve Shilkas, I don't need Stingers in the individual platoons. That lets me take my Weapons Squad back to two ATGM teams and a GPMG team. I also reshuffled the infantry squad into a single cohesive whole, rather than two undersized fire teams, and issued a Mossberg shotgun to the Assistant Squad Leader along with their rifle. Last change moved the Marksman out of the weapons squad and put one in each rifle squad.
Bradley/VBCI 1
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Comamnder (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Gunner (Spike SR, Beryl)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Spike SR, Beryl)
Forward Observer (Beryl)*
FO Radio Operator (Beryl)*
Bradley/VBCI 2
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, Mossberg M590)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Mini-Beryl)
Squad Marksman (FR-F2)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Bradley/VBCI 3
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Medic (Glock 19)*
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, Mossberg M590)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Mini-Beryl)
Squad Marksman (FR-F2)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Bradley/VBCI 4
Vehicle Driver (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Gunner (Mini-Beryl)
Vehicle Commander (Mini-Beryl)
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Assistant Squad Leader (Beryl, Mossberg M590)
LMG Gunner (M249, Glock 19)
Grenadier (RPG-7, Mini-Beryl)
Squad Marksman (FR-F2)
Rifleman (Beryl)
* Attached personnel from other units
I swear that's the last change I'm making to the infantry platoon; I just prefer the six-man squad over two three-man fire teams. That's not to say a squad leader can't tell his assistant to take the machine gunner and squad marksman set up a base of fire and lead the rest in an assault. There's room in Vehicle 4 for an extra mission specialist; translator or another medic or whoever might be attached to the platoon.
Total platoon strength is 1 officer and 35 enlisted, with 3 additional attached personnel. Weapon strength is seventeen Beryl rifles, fifteen Mini-Beryl carbines, three Mossberg 590 shotguns, three Pallad 40mm grenade launchers, three M249 machine guns, four Glock 19 pistols, three RPG-7s, and three FR F2 bolt-action rifles.
-
Those are some sharp looking uniforms! :)
-
Those are some sharp looking uniforms! :)
I have an attraction to historical uniforms like that; there's such a panache about riding into battle dressed like that that it deserves to be recognized. The Brits do a fine job with their parade uniforms, so why not steal a page from them and dress my troops in historical costume as well?
It occurs to me that my budget is generally unsustainable for long term, and has likely not been at 3% GDP for some time. Instead it'd have been much closer to 1.5-2% over the years, generally cutting my purchasing power in half. The 2013 reformation of the SSLF gave me my current structure, but the equipment focus was on modernizing the Armored Brigades, all five Cavalry Squadrons, and the artillery with the bulk of the Mechanized Brigades still using mostly older Soviet kit. The supporting elements were small enough numbers to buy and replace outright, but things like IFVs and tanks remained in large numbers. Time to chop some of that purchasing back and see what I end up with.
Mechanized Brigade (x3)
38 B1 Centauro (114) ($182.4 million)
29 KTO Rosomak (87) ($221 million)
138 BMP-1 (414) (pre-owned)
118 BTR-70 (324) (pre-owned)
24 Fennek (72) ($115.2 million)
12 K9 Thunder (36) ($108 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo (18) ($54 million)
6 EVA (18) (unknown)
12 Shilka (36) (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto (27) (unknown)
18 VAB 2R2M (36) (unknown)
437 HMMWV (1,311) ($13.1 million)
Armored Brigade (x2)
87 PT-91 Twardy (174) ($87 million)
38 B1 Centauro (76) ($121.6 million)
29 KTO Rosomak (58) ($147.3 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley (224) ($365.1 million)
112 VAB (224) ($89.6 million)
24 Fennek (48) ($76.8 million)
12 K9 Thunder (24) ($72 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo (12) ($36 million)
6 EVA (12) (unknown)
12 Shilka (24) (pre-owned)
18 VAB 2R2M (36) (unknown)
413 HMMWV (826) ($8.3 million)
That comes to a price total of $1,697.4 million which I can spread across 20 years of purchases for an average procurement expense of $84.9 million a year buying new hardware. Granted, there's unknowns in the list that'll drive that up, but the expensive stuff has been around long enough for purchases to start early on.
And expensive...yeah, I found out the VBCI is a pricey bugger at $5.5 million per vehicle. That was way outside my budget and would have cost $800 million for those vehicles alone.
The KTO Rosomak only costs $2.54 million (10 million zloty) in combat configuration with a Hitfist turret and a 30mm gun. It's still a NATO standard round, even if it doesn't match the Bradley's 25mm like the VBCI did. I also switched from the AMX-10 RCR to the Italian B1 Centauro as a final choice; ammo commonality with NATO guns plus the fact I could find price info for it (only $1.6 million in some year's dollars) tipped the scales in its favor.
That modernizes my cavalry squadrons and armored brigades completely, gives the mechanized brigades solid supporting vehicles, and still gives me a sizeable portion of vintage Soviet equipment - and it makes more sense that way; even the newly purchase-crazed Poles are still operating upgraded BMP-1s. It only makes sense the much poorer Serednya Slaviya would be as well, despite completing the fourth five-year-plan for modernizing the army in 2023.
I swear I'm going to call this done at some point, but this is a big step forward in that. Have a smexy B1 Centauro platoon hurrying up and waiting.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a9/65/6b/a9656b8032f28b08d6c94afa962ce9ea.png)
-
Looking more at the financial and strategic side of things, and making some decisions. Serednya Slaviya was content with its Soviet hardware, getting the occasional life extension to keep things in use, but for the most part still retaining vintage equipment from the 1980s.
That changes in late 2013 to early 2014 when the Euromaidan revolution and the Crimean annexation by Russia occur. These events trigger a stronger lean to the West in Serednya Slaviya, and a push to modernize the military with new equipment as well as join NATO. They look at the 2013 American reorganization to brigade combat teams and think it's a good idea to work off of, considering they're still using a Soviet style organization. That means that my
I also saw this video on the price of an ABCT (https://youtu.be/RH2TTS1kCYg?t=188) and the segment time-linked brings up an important consideration - for every Brigade of 4,000-4,200 troops, there's 12,300 support and administrative soldiers. That's three times the number of line troops in support roles, and as the video says gives a "brigade slice" of about 16,500 personnel to keep the BCT operating.
That requirement of 3x support and administrative soldiers is going to both increase the size of the SSLF to 37,000 personnel, with only two fighting brigades. I'm thinking that that 3x support personnel includes my engineering troops, so that figure of 37,000 covers everything. Two brigades...I suppose I should make one armored and one mechanized, to fit the geography. The tank brigade in the central uplands, and the mechanized infantry in the forested north.
I'm keeping the brigade organization the same as before, with the Mechanized Brigade having an Engineer Battalion (with an anti-tank company attached), Antiaircraft Battalion, Armored Cavalry Squadron, three Mechanized Infantry Battalions, an Artillery Battalion, and a Brigade Support Battalion. The Armored Brigade is the same, trading the three Mechanized Infantry Battalions for three Combined Arms Battalions while retaining the rest.
Fortunately that small size of the fighting forces means I can replace the Soviet gear with Western stuff and modernize effectively. I've had ten years to do so since the Crimean invasion and annexation, so let's see what the price of NATO compatibility is. On that note, I found better price data for the Centauro, an order of 22 vehicles for $70 million, or $3.2 million per vehicle. My focus will be on upgrading the Cavalry and support forces first, and then the regular line troops.
Mechanized Brigade
38 B1 Centauro ($121.6 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
138 M2A2 Bradley ($220.8 million)
118 VAB ($47.2 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
6 EVA (unknown)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto (unknown)
18 VAB 2R2M (unknown)
437 HMMWV ($4.4 million)
Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 Twardy ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($121.6 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($179.2 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
6 EVA (unknown)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto (unknown)
18 VAB 2R2M (unknown)
413 HMMWV ($4.1 million)
That comes to a total of $1,117 million flat for the known equipment. I'll assume the EVA 155mm guns are five million apiece, based on the price of a Caesar 155mm (https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_much_a_modern_155_mm_spg_gun_costs_now_examples_of_the_german_pzh2000_korean_k9_and_french_caesar-6251.html) at 4.26 million, while the ATGM and mortar VABs at an even million to average things out. That's an extra $114 million for a final estimate of $1,231 million. Amortized over ten years, against an annual procurement budget of $259.7 million, that gives me enough to finish the modernization and still afford buying the typical annual expenses. As an aside, 37,000 rifles at $1,570 a rifle is another $58.1 million.
Stuff is expensive...
EDIT: And since I've only got two fighting brigades, with probably six support brigades, the brigade-as-family is the military mindset. With each brigade being specialized for different roles, there's not a lot of lateral movement between brigades - once you're in, you stay in your brigade with few transfers out and upward mobility the only real option.
As far as recruitment goes, I worked out that I'm taking in 7% of the men and 2.2% of the women as volunteers for a three-year term of service. That gives a total of 5.8 per 1,000 people in the military at any given time. No conscription here, though I'm debating on the reserves - I do have that big pile of Soviet equipment, I could set enough aside to put together a reservist force of a couple brigades.
Why am I still at this, I can't put it away...
-
Your VAB variants probably won't cost any less than a base model VAB, so you could use that as a rough approximation... :)
-
Base model VABs come to $400,000 apiece, so I figured a million for an ATGM or mortar variant covered the extra weapons costs and modifications, averaged out.
Tackling pay issues. Ukraine's living wage is right under $125 a month, or $1,500 a year. That gives me a ballpark for military pay; I can make the average annual volunteer pay better than that at $1,800, which for 35,470 volunteer personnel comes to $63.8 million. Meanwhile average careerist pay is $3,000 a year for 5,900 personnel at a total of $17.7 million annually. Military retirees are harder to calculate, but 2022 saw 2.25 million military retirees in the US compared to a total number of 1.4 million active personnel in the same year. I'll use that same ratio (1.6:1) and end up with 66,200 retirees. Giving my retirees an average wage of $1,500 costs $99.3 million a year; adding that all up comes to $180.9 million for my total pay and pension budget.
As far as reserves go, the US has 317,000 serving reservists compared to 1.4 million active personnel, or 1:4.4. At that ratio, I'd end up with 9,400 reserve personnel backing up my active duty folks. That's not enough for a single Brigade Slice, which for an armored brigade comes to 18,000. I've got plenty of spare T-72s, even after selling most of them off to raise capital for procurement, hence the reserve armor brigade. So okay, 18,000 reserve personnel at $1,500 a year is another $27 million to the pay/retirement budget.
That actually lets me cut the budget back by a chunk, dropping down to 2.5% GDP for the last ten years, and still increases my procurement budget to $269.5 million. That's definitely enough for a major buying and modernization program starting in 2014, around the same time we'd have applied for NATO membership.
I'll organize the reserve armored brigade around the US model as well, but built mostly with old Soviet equipment.
Reserve Armored Brigade
87 T-72M1
150 BMP-1
141 BTR-70
24 BRDM-2
24 2S1 Gvozdika
12 Shilka
9 9P148 BRDM-2
18 2S9 Nona
413 HMMWV
That adds another $31.1 million to procurement, but that's for the anti-tank and mortar vehicles as well as the HMMWVs. The BMPs and BTRs are also in the armored cavalry squadron, eventually to be replaced with more Centauros and Rosomaks, and the BRDMs to be replaced with Fenneks. The rest of the vehicles are pretty clear what they correlate to, and I figure the next five year plan will see the Soviet reservist equipment replaced with upgraded gear.
-
$1M is probably a good estimate for those VAB variants... :)
-
So I did some more research and I'm glad I did, I'm making a change to history here and buying up B1 Centauros in 2014 and 2015. In the real world, that's when the Jordanians paid $6.2 million in total for 24 working and 117 non-working Centauros, and had a Spanish company refurbished them for an undisclosed price. That included a modernization covering a significant upgrade to the optics, new machine guns, and new add-on armor packages.
I can forego those upgrades and just get the vehicles running, leaving them as standard first-generation Centauros. I figure a budget of a million dollars per vehicle would be enough to bring them into operating condition, and cover maintenance and training for the rest of the Centauro fleet. This dramatically lowers the price of the second-highest expense in the SSLF's fleet of combat vehicles, and would drop my acquisition price down to only $41.1 million for a Cavalry Squadron's worth of Centauros.
I'm also thinking that only the Mechanized Brigade is operating Western equipment, with both the active and reserve Armored Brigades still operating Soviet vehicles.
Why am I cutting back modernization like this? I have been portraying Serednya Slaviya as a poor nation, and it is with Lviv's GDP being half the national total on its own. A wealthy nation can afford 2.5% or 3% of its GDP on military spending, but not SereSlav. I cut back spending to 1.75% of GDP, which doesn't meet NATO requirements but it's the best they can achieve. It feels more appropriate to the setting, though I had to take a pay cut to 'average' levels for most of my troops as part of that.
That change in spending leaves me with $157.7 million a year in procurement, which is a lot less than I'd started with and shakes up the five-year-plans pretty significantly. The cost breakdown for the Mechanized Brigade gets updated to the following:
Mechanized Brigade
38 B1 Centauro ($44.2 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
138 M2A2 Bradley ($220.8 million)
118 VAB ($47.2 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
6 EVA ($30 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
18 VAB 2R2M ($18 million)
437 HMMWV ($4.4 million)
As far as prices go, I'm still ballparking the VAB variants at $1 million apiece, and taking the price of the Indian Shilka upgrade at $2.167 million as my price for upgrading the air defenses. The EVA artillery is a WAG at $5 million per vehicle, but it feels right to me and is in line with the Korean prices. So far that comes to $538.5 million spent on the Mechanized Brigade.
Other expenses include $58.1 million to upgrade the infantry to Beryl rifles, but that can be done prior to the 2014 changes. The Shilka upgrade as well would pre-date the modernization program, so even if it costs $26 million per company of Shilkas I'm not including it in the modernization budget - it's already taken care of. Same with upgrading the T-72M1s to PT-91s, that's something that was done in the 2000s with an earlier budget.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Bulgarian_bmp-1.jpg)
Bulgarian BMP-1P
That leaves me with two Armored Brigades, with the following equipment:
Armored Brigade
87 PT-91 (176)
38 B1 Centauro (76) ($76 million)
29 KTO Rosomak (58) ($145 million)
112 BMP-1P (224)
112 BTR-80 (224)
24 BRDM-2 (48)
12 2S3 Akatsiya (24)
12 2S1 Gvozdika (24)
12 Shilka (24)
9 9P148 BRDM-2 (18)
18 2S23 Nona-SVK (36)
413 HMMWV (826) ($8.3 million)
It's going to cost another $229.3 million to modernize the Cavalry Squadron for both the active and reservist armored brigade. That brings me to a total of $767.8 million for the reorganized force, which I can spread over the last ten years to ease the burden. With an annual budget of $157.7 million for buying new toys, that's more than enough to afford the new hardware, plus things like trucks, ammunition, food, and so on. The modernization is 48.7% of my defense budget, which is a lot...but I think it'll work.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/ParkPatriot2015part5-63.jpg/640px-ParkPatriot2015part5-63.jpg)
2S23 Nona-SVK
EDIT Idly, I'm half of a mind to move both Armored Brigades to the reserves, and have just the one Mechanized Brigade (and its "brigade-slice" support elements) in the active duty military. It'd mean rejiggering my numbers for active and reserve troops, but I don't see much of a downside to it. I can reduce terms of service to two years, which isn't far off from what most conscript nations do (some even less than that) and lets me save significantly on operations budgets. Any reason I shouldn't do this?
-
Since you seem to enjoy playing on hard mode, I don't see why not... ;D
-
Since you seem to enjoy playing on hard mode, I don't see why not... ;D
Playing on hard mode makes things more interesting, and keeping SS poor makes for an eclectic army. It's supposed to be a rustic, mostly rural country with farming products as its major export, so having a high-end military is pretty unlikely. The roads and bridges are well-kept and maintained with the engineer brigade's efforts, and are built to carry heavy trucks and tanks so strategic mobility is good.
EDIT: I lost my notes to a computer restart (I hate windows) so remind yourself to save often. I was looking at the idea of a four-brigade army, with one mechanized and one armored brigade in both the active and reserve forces. That brought me to about 115,000 personnel, which required pay cuts to the armed forces to bring budgets into something maintainable. It'd also require raising the GDP expense to 2%, though that's a requirement for NATO membership (not that it's paid attention to) though I think that would be doable for the budget. It's probably stretching things financially for the government, but military service has been a prestige thing for society so they're probably allowed to do that.
I'll attack a four-brigade army later, and post what gets afforded and what doesn't. I'll prioritize the cavalry forces and artillery, since they're relatively cheap and I don't have a large number of them compared to the regular infantry IFVs. I may end up switching from Bradleys back to BMP-1s just because of sheer dollar value.
-
Sounds like a plan! :)
-
tl;dr: Joining NATO in 2004, 2% GDP defense spending, 20 year budget, picking the M4 rifle instead of the Beryl, lists of brigade equipment, buying grenade launchers, demographics and pay, one large squad or two fire teams?
So Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999, while Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia all joined in 2004. I'll have Serednya Slaviya join in 2004 as well, part of the bloc that formed the Vilnius Group. That lets me start my modernization ten years earlier, and pushes the 2% GDP spending requirement back over the last twenty years.
Belarus is a neighboring state that has seen a generally peaceful history, unlike Ukraine. The only major financial crises it had was the 2008 world economic crash, and a big drop in 2014/15. Its 2023 GDP was $68.86 billion, and averaged $56.79 billion over the last 20 years. With Serednya Slaviya's 2023 GDP at $25.46 billion, the average would come to $20.99 billion over those same 20 years. That comes to just shy of $420 million a year for defense spending, of which 36% goes to procurement for a average of $151.2 million a year.
That is going to have to cover all expenses, not just buying specific hardware. I'll say I can use half my budget for buying military equipment, leaving the other half for basic expenses that occur normally. Going with that half gives me a total of $1.5 billion.
First off is tackling the problems of a rifle. The Beryl is $1,550 per rifle, while going with an HK 416 rifle is $1,580 each. Steyr AUGs price at $1460 each France is selling the FAMAS for a whopper $3,300, though that included a million rounds of ammunition in the order as well. M4 carbines meanwhile price in at $713 per, which is a damned hard price to ignore. With needing to buy 114,600 rifles (or sidearms) to equip the whole military, as Daryk said - "price is king" and that means I'm equipping with M4 rifles at a total price of $81.7 million.
Armored Brigade (active)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($44.2 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($182.6 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
18 K9 Thunder ($54 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
18 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Mechanized Brigade (active)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
138 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
118 VAB ($47.2 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
18 K9 Thunder ($54 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
18 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
437 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
18 K9 Thunder ($54 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
18 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Mechanized Brigade (reserve)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
138 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
118 VAB ($47.2 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
18 K9 Thunder ($54 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
18 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
437 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Air Force
24 Alpha Jets ($48 million)
1 Avanti ($2 million)
All that comes to a total of $1,511.1 million to modernize the air force, armor, artillery, and cavalry forces, and partially modernize the infantry. I'm keeping the Nona-SVKs despite phasing out the BTR-80 for the VAB, and have partially replaced BMP-1s with M2A2 Bradleys. I figure the remaining BMP-1Ps will be phased out over the next five years, with an additional $632.5 million spent to replace them with more M2A2 Bradleys.
I'm going to have to set up a munitions plant to provide the 120mm mortars to the Nonas and 23mm shells for the Shilkas. Missiles would likely be bought from other countries,
All told, that's 174 PT-91 tanks, 152 Centauros, 116 Rosomak IFVs, 112 Bradleys, 348 BMP-1s, 460 VABs, 96 Fenneks, 72 K9 Thunders, 24 K239 Chunmoos, 48 Shilkas, 36 VAB Mephisto, 72 Nona-SVKs, and 1,700 UAZ-469s. That doesn't count the vehicles in the 'brigade slice' support elements, things like engineering and construction vehicles or regular trucks for motor pools.
Since I'm issuing M4s as the standard rifle, that eliminates the difference between the original Mini-Beryl and Beryl rifles. Everyone, including vehicle crews, gets the 14.5-inch-barreled carbine, which will make things slightly easier for the infantry still using BMPs. Fortunately the effective range difference between a full-length M16A4 and a short M4 is minimal, so there's little need for the larger rifle.
I'll join in with the West in buying HK's AG36 40mm grenade launcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_AG36). How many I'll need is tough to determine properly, but the US bought 71,600 of them for 650,000 personnel, or about one launcher per nine soldiers. Each American infantry squad gets two launchers per squad; I'm only using one launcher per squad with a smaller squad size, so I'll make that one launcher per fourteen soldiers. With 114,600 troops, that comes to 8,200 launchers for a total of $12.7 million on top of the above buying.
EDIT: A bit of demographics; the breakdown for the military is a total of 114,400 personnel. 110,000 are in the army, split evenly between active and reserve. The term of service is 3 years active duty for volunteers. A total of 5.1% of men and 2.9% of women volunteer for military service each year, combined with the careerists 6.2 out of 1,000 population are active duty volunteers. This brings me up to 30,700 personnel serving their first three-year term.
Conscription exists, and lasts for one year without time in the reserves; they form a mobilization pool in time of war to fill gaps in the line forces. The service is egalitarian, with an additional 20% of the age-18 male population and 17% of the female population pressed into military service. Women in uniform are hot, what can I say. That gives me a total of 15,700 conscripts each year to supplement the active duty forces. Conscription mostly works because of the DOSAAF style pre-service training and various activity clubs, so the time in boot camp and training is shortened.
Careerists make up a sizeable portion of the military as well, with 7,630 men and 5,340 women pursuing an active professional military service. That brings me to 12,970 careerists, and totals up 59,400 personnel on active duty for 8.4 out of 1,000.
As far as the reservists go, there's 55,000 personnel making up two SSLF brigades and their support elements. 30,300 men and 24,700 women make up the reserve corps, with a 3.5 year term of service to make up for the lack of conscripts in the reserves. The reserves make up 7.7 out of 1,000 population, with a grand total of 16.2 out of 1,000 people in the country doing military service. It's high, but similar to Kuwaiti numbers so I have a real-world parallel to work off of.
Granted, I'm not nearly as wealthy as Kuwait, which can afford Patriot missile batteries. But I think I'm actually satisfied with the army's purchasing, and their current program of buying up M2A2 Bradleys to replace the BMP-1s.
Pay scales are admittedly low, but it's the best I can do with a military this size. Volunteers average $1,200 a year, while conscripts are paid $800 for their year of service. Career-minded personnel draw an average of $2,400 a year, 60% higher than the average pay for the general population. Reservists bring in $1,000 a year, which is usually supplemented by a day job - the reservists serve on an American style one weekend a month and two weeks a year schedule. Retirees bring down a pension of $1,200 a year on average, depending on their rank at severance with the military.
So with the infantry platoons, I'm still debating and looking for guidance. With four six-man squads in the dismounted platoon, is it better to break them into two smaller equal fire teams of three or one larger squad of six? That doesn't include the platoon leader and a platoon sergeant, and would include three rifle squads and a weapons squad for heavier firepower. There's plenty of firepower to go around, the question is how to organize it. Or get weird, Singaporean style (https://www.battleorder.org/singapore-rifle-platoon-2019) and go with three teams of two per squad of seven, and make the PLt and PSgt their respective vehicle commanders.
-
It looks like the M320 (American version of the AG36) wasn't in service until 2009. Prior to that, the much cheaper M203 was used (just a bit over $1,000 each vice the $3,500 for the M320).
I'll leave the fire team issue to the folks with actual infantry experience.
-
That price differential is damn tempting to switch to the older M203, but there's only so many grenade launchers that I need I think I can get away with using something modern. I'll stick with the 320, since it's the new hotness for a number of nations, and instead save money on my anti-tank firepower by going with disposable $1,480 AT4s instead of a man-portable ATGM system costing 30-100 times that much. Seriously, for one $170,000 Javelin, I can buy 115 AT4s and bury my opponents in anti-tank shells. The penetration is still pretty solid at over 450mm of steel, so it's not a weak weapon system - it's just nice and inexpensive.
Here's hoping some infantry folks chime in on the ideas for mechanized infantry platoons.
-
If you're willing to wait until 2009 vice when you bought your M4s, that sounds workable... :)
-
If you're willing to wait until 2009 vice when you bought your M4s, that sounds workable... :)
The rifle purchase can always be around that same time, and buy the new grenade launchers as well. That's the nice part about spreading things over 20 years, there's plenty of room to decide when things are bought.
Looking at machine gun prices is a surprise, I was not aware the M249 LMG costs around $12,000 and the FN MAG GPMG $9,500. Meanwhile the Ultimax 100 from Singapore only costs around $4,500 and the German MG3 costs only $3,000...remembering that "price is king" it's pretty clear to see what to decide upon. The Ultimax 100 is something I'd picked out early on, and forgotten about; it's got a long recoil operation that cuts back on kick significantly compared to other machine guns. That makes it more accurate for its rate of fire. The MG3 has the advantage of quick-swap barrels, though its rate of fire means the barrels heat up fast and require that barrel change relatively quickly.
I suppose I'll elaborate some on my squad types and list out what I was thinking of.
Singapore Style (https://www.battleorder.org/singapore-rifle-platoon-2019): three Fire Teams
Assault Team:
Squad Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Fire Team 1:
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Grenadier (M4 + M320)
Fire Team 2:
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Grenadier (M4 + M320)
Note that this organization takes up all seven dismounts and would require the Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant to be their respective vehicle commanders. One or both of the antitank gunners are also trained as Combat Life Savers.
France Style (https://www.battleorder.org/french-platoon-1999): two Fire Teams
Team 1:
Squad Leader (M4 + M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Team 2:
Deputy Leader (M4 + M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
This organization has only a six-man fire team, allowing the Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant to join the dismounts while keeping vehicles fully crewed. In addition, a Combat Medic would be attached at the platoon level, making Combat Lifesavers redundant.
Sweden Style (https://www.battleorder.org/sweden-mech-platoon-2020): one single Squad
Squad Leader (M4 + M320)
Deputy Squad Leader (M4 + M320)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Assistant (M4)
Rifleman (M4)
This organization has only a six-man fire team, allowing the Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant to join the dismounts while keeping vehicles fully crewed. In addition, a Combat Medic would be attached at the platoon level, making Combat Lifesavers redundant.
-
Hmmm... those examples drive me to think a six-man squad is the way to go. When you break them down to fire teams, you lose some of the manpower necessary to perform basic infantry tasks. Are you really going to stack a machine gunner to clear a room with his side arm? ???
-
That's a good point on clearing rooms and doing infantry duties...and I suppose an MG3 is going to be particularly unwieldy for that job at four feet long and 25 pounds unloaded. The Ultimax 100 is eight inches shorter and less than half the weight. Even with a 100-round belt of ammo, the Ultimax is still 10 pounds lighter than an empty MG3, and that's something to consider. It's still 40 inches long and is going to be tough to handle in tight quarters, but it's a lot more maneuverable than the MG3.
The other question is whether to have a weapons squad (ostensibly with two MG3s) and three rifle squads, or four homogenous rifle squads with each squad acting in concert with their transport. BMP-1s or Bradleys, they both have ATGMs for a primary anti-tank firepower so my need for infantry to carry AT4s is lessened. They both have a 7.62mm coaxial MG, but the infantry threat to the transport would suggest I should invest in two MGs for the squad for suppressing threats to the vehicles and dismounts.
The four homogenous squads feel better to me because of the vehicle teams; giving each BMP or Bradley its own escorting general-purpose squad of infantry rather than three and an odd-man-out with a heavy weapons squad. The IFV protects the infantry from tanks and vehicles, while the infantry protect the IFV from other infantry.
I thought about having a squad marksman with an FR F2 rifle, but I decided I'd get more use out of a standard rifleman in the squad. The price of good sniper rifles is pretty damn steep at $9-12 thousand per, especially unwieldy if I'm putting one in each of four squads. Maybe if I replaced the Rifleman in 1st Squad with a Marksman, then I'd only need one per platoon and at $10,000 I could afford it. I'm saving enough money with AT4s instead of ATGMs, after all.
I can see the use of seven-man dismounted squads with the PLt and PSgt doubling as vehicle commanders. When dismounted, those commander-less vehicles pair off with vehicles that retain their commanders, with one pair forming a vehicle squad. I suppose that with the above thinking, my dismount squad would look like this:
Bradley/BMP 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Leader (M4, Glock 19)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
Assistant Squad Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (M4)
Marksman (FR F2)
Bradley/BMP 2
Vehicle Commander (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
Assistant Squad Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (M4)
Rifleman (M4)
Bradley/BMP 3
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
Assistant Squad Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (M4)
Rifleman (M4)
Bradley/BMP 4
Vehicle Commander (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
Assistant Squad Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antitank Gunner (M4, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (M4)
Rifleman (M4)
I'm still preferring the four equal squads for the reasons above, but just for the thought experiment this is what a Weapons Squad replacing 1st Squad would look like.
Bradley/BMP 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Leader (M4, Glock 19)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Assistant (M4)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Assistant (M4)
Marksman (FR F2)
Medic (Glock 19)
-
I think you're better off with four identical squads, but will defer to actual infantrymen.
-
I did some more financial research and I am way behind the eight ball on this one. Based on this article (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/ukraine-soldiers-wage-cuts-austerity-veterans/) the monthly basic pay for the soldier in Ukraine (prior to the invasion) is 13,000 hryvnias, or about $341. That's an average of about $4,100 a year, and is well over the $1,200 I had budgeted. An increase in the pay scale is clearly required, and it's going to play hob with what I had listed out previously.
I was also dramatically overcounting my personnel by 50%, with enough active and reserve personnel for six brigades instead of four. Even at that corrected level my military pay and services budget was far too high; I had to cut things back to one active and two reserve brigades to save on operations and pay.
I'm going with a conscription model with nine months of active service and twenty nine months in the reserve. A total of 36% of the men and 10.7% of the women are conscripted each year to maintain personnel levels. At one active and two reserve Armored Brigades plus their support elements, I have a total of 18,000 active personnel and 36,000 reserve in the SSLF and 4,500 active in the SSAF. The SSAF has no reserve element. Of the 22,500 active personnel, 7,500 are careerists - the pay is moderate, but the benefits and social obligation for service to the nation drives reenlistment. Total number of personnel is 58,500 counting everything together, 45,500 men and 13,000 women.
Looking at American pay scales, the reservists bring in around 1/5 of the pay of a active duty soldier. My conscripts get the $4,100 a year on average, matching the peacetime Ukrainians with reservists making that 1/5 at $820 a year. Careerists I settled on $7,500 a year, while retirees bring down the Ukrainian minimum wage of $2,100 a year in pensions. That comes to $222.9 million in pay and benefits, which is half of my national budget for the military.
Even though I'm only going with three brigades, and two of them reserve, I'm still taking a minor hit to my spending on procurement by about ten million dollars a year. My upgrade budget comes to $1,479.7 million spread over twenty years, which is 50% of my total procurement budget. Keeping the three brigades homogenous to prevent a need for retraining in the reserves, that's three armored brigades made up of the following:
Armored Brigade (active)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($44.2 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($182.6 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($182.6 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($182.6 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Other known expenses are 58,500 M4 rifles ($41.7 million), 24 Alpha Jets ($48 million), and 10 P.180 Avanti ($20 million) to modernize the Air Force. That means no An-2s; they've all been replaced with the Italian turboprop as a light passenger plane.
That comes to $1,564.3 million; I'll call the modernization finished in 2024, giving me one more year to pay for things. That leaves me $1,574.5 million over that 21-year timespan for buying other equipment, such as a multitude of trucks and engineering equipment, radios, ammunition, uniforms, body armor, and a host of other things that make armies work. I'll go ahead and call that finished, keeping things like the Shilkas and Nona-SVKs since they fulfill a useful niche.
Part of that niche is a change I made to the organization in the Cavalry Squadron. I replaced the EVA artillery pieces; I wanted something that was inexpensive and mobile to keep up with the rest of the wheeled forces in the Squadron. The K9 Thunder's a great artillery piece, but it's too big to transport easily and isn't wheeled. The artillery battery in the Cav Squadron is going to be filled with six Nona-SVKs, matching the pair of mortars in each Troop.
Still hoping for someone to chime in on the question of infantry platoons, but I think I've finished with everything else. I've got properly paid soldiers now, and budgets that managed to work out despite my best efforts. This is still an army that has a large engineering corps, buried in the 40,500 troops that make up the support elements for each brigade. There's no actual division level organization to make a 'brigade slice' since there's only the three combat brigades, but the support elements would be about nine additional brigades - likely a transport brigade, engineering brigade, and support brigade for both active and reserve combat brigades. My MPs and intelligence folks have to come from somewhere.
Either way, I don't see many more changes or things to consider. I'm sticking with conscription versus a volunteer army, with a short term of service followed by an extended stint in the reserves for the SSLF. That plus the DOSAAF-style premilitary training makes for a large pool of soldiers in wartime, though equipment for them is going to be limited. Maybe there's still a good supply of older Soviet equipment and munitions left over that weren't sold off, since I can afford my military buys on my budget. Then again, a lot of that stuff may have been donated to Ukraine after the invasion, at least the equipment that's still being maintained and running.
-
One possible savings is sticking with BMPs instead of Bradleys in your reserve formations. That might not be enough to add another Brigade back, though...
-
So cut back on the Western equipment and add a third reserve brigade...I'd have to extend the reservist term of service to 43 months, but increasing the reserves by 18,000 personnel only increased pay levels by $15 million. That cuts my procurement budget back to an average of $135.8 million a year, but cutting back on the upgrades actually saves quite a bit of money.
For four brigades, with the below equipment I'm only paying $1277.2 million. The reserves focused on upgrading their cavalry squadron and artillery battalion, while the active duty brigade is fully modernized. Granted, that requires buying a few more Centauros than the historical Jordanian order at 152 vehicles compared to 141, but it's close enough to be an acceptable divergence.
Armored Brigade (active)
87 PT-91 ($43.5 million)
38 B1 Centauro ($44.2 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 M2A2 Bradley ($182.6 million)
112 VAB ($44.8 million)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka ($12 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 T-72M1 (pre-owned)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
112 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka ($12 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 T-72M1 (pre-owned)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
112 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka ($12 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Armored Brigade (reserve)
87 T-72M1 (pre-owned)
38 B1 Centauro ($38 million)
29 KTO Rosomak ($72.5 million)
112 BMP-1P (pre-owned)
112 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
24 Fennek ($38.4 million)
12 K9 Thunder ($36 million)
6 K239 Chunmoo ($18 million)
12 Shilka ($12 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
24 2S23 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
413 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
Other expenses are 76,500 M4 rifles ($41.7 million), 24 Alpha Jets ($48 million), and 10 P.180 Avanti ($20 million) to modernize the Air Force.
Like the VAB Mephisto, I'm budgeting a million dollars to modernize the Shilkas with new radar and electronics; I'm probably overpaying for it but there's some nice benefits. The Polish article on their ZSU-23-4 upgrade (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4MP_Bia%C5%82a) goes into more detail, but the short form is new nightvision and thermal optics, digital systems, and a pack of four Grom SAMs as well as new ammunition to extend its firing range.
I'm conceding the organization of generally homogenous armored brigades instead of a mix of armored and mechanized due to avoiding a need for retraining when you go into the reserves. The terrain isn't as tank-friendly as Jordan, to call back to a previous comparison, but I inherited a lot of tanks from the Soviet days and I figure they should be put to good use. 348 tanks makes for a pretty solid armor corps, and I'm still operating 24 companies of mechanized infantry alongside them.
I like this idea better, it's more of a mix of Soviet and Western equipment instead of being a fully modernized military; even Poland still operates BMP-1s despite their recent buyup of military hardware. There's probably plenty of Soviet equipment left behind; I figured that there was a Tank Divsion and three Motor-Rifle Divisions in Serednya Slaviya prior to the breakup of the USSR.
EDIT: This video on Stryker BCTs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuEJGyHrSlM) was pretty informative in general, but it brought up something that caught my attention and makes me wonder. Partway through the video, the narrator mentions that Stinger teams are being attached to Stryker infantry platoons, and it was suggested earlier in the thread I do the same. I had originally intended for there to be an antiaircraft battalion in each brigade, with 24 MANPADS and 12 Shilkas.
If I break the AA BN into a company of Shilkas alone, and disperse the SAMs down to the infantry platoon, I end up with 27 missile launchers per brigade instead of 24. That would seem to imply the presence of a weapons squad and three rifle squads, which brings me back to the question of platoon organization for the infantry.
I'm thinking that I could get away with doing both - having SAM launchers at the platoon level along with the AA battalion distributing extra SAM teams to subunits as needed. That'd be a total of 204 missile launchers, and based on this article (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2016/12/21/poland-awards-220m-short-range-air-defense-deal/) 630 missiles for a total of $106.9 million. That'd just need me to decide on a platoon organization, which is still up in the air for previous concepts.
-
Wild hair in the butt time - do I really need tanks? Belgium's a country 50% larger in population than Serednya Slaviya, and has one mechanized infantry brigade and a special operations regiment. They don't operate tanks at all, after getting rid of their Leopard 1s in favor of Piranha 3-based wheeled 90mm guns. It'd turn the SSLF into an infantry and artillery force, with lighter wheeled vehicles being the norm rather than heavy tracked stuff.
It's probably a bad idea, but it seems like it'd make for an "interesting" army. I could fluff the excuse as Serednya Slaviya not having the technical industry to maintain heavy tracked vehicles. The heaviest industry in the five oblasts is the Lviv Bus Factory; all the military factories in Ukraine seem to be in the center or eastern side of the country. I'd have to pick new artillery as well as divest tanks, but the French CAESAR 155mm is only 10% more than the K9 Thunder. That or I could go with towed artillery instead.
Stupid idea that could be interesting to work out, or stupid idea that should be scrapped? Is there enough industry in Serednya Slaviya to support and maintain heavy armor, or is it beyond their technical capabilities?
-
Wild hair in the butt time - do I really need tanks? Belgium's a country 50% larger in population than Serednya Slaviya, and has one mechanized infantry brigade and a special operations regiment. They don't operate tanks at all, after getting rid of their Leopard 1s in favor of Piranha 3-based wheeled 90mm guns. It'd turn the SSLF into an infantry and artillery force, with lighter wheeled vehicles being the norm rather than heavy tracked stuff.
It's probably a bad idea, but it seems like it'd make for an "interesting" army. I could fluff the excuse as Serednya Slaviya not having the technical industry to maintain heavy tracked vehicles. The heaviest industry in the five oblasts is the Lviv Bus Factory; all the military factories in Ukraine seem to be in the center or eastern side of the country. I'd have to pick new artillery as well as divest tanks, but the French CAESAR 155mm is only 10% more than the K9 Thunder. That or I could go with towed artillery instead.
Stupid idea that could be interesting to work out, or stupid idea that should be scrapped? Is there enough industry in Serednya Slaviya to support and maintain heavy armor, or is it beyond their technical capabilities?
Canada almost went without tanks until Kandahar happened, and we might go that way again - there's been no talk of replacing the tanks donated to Ukraine or further upgrades to rationalize our fleet.
The question will always be how it fits into your country's requirements and the way they translate into doctrine.
-
Serednya Slaviya is also WAY bigger than Belgium, so I'd be inclined to keep the tanks on that basis alone. Aside from that, the "death" of the tank has been proposed many times before... it hasn't come to pass yet... ;)
-
Canada almost went without tanks until Kandahar happened, and we might go that way again - there's been no talk of replacing the tanks donated to Ukraine or further upgrades to rationalize our fleet.
The question will always be how it fits into your country's requirements and the way they translate into doctrine.
There's also been little maintenance or upkeep for the Leo 2s Canada uses, to the point that "By Maj. Johns’ 2018 estimation, only 15-20 per cent of Canada’s Leopard 2 tanks were typically usable (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-zivo-how-canada-sabotaged-its-own-fleet-of-tanks)" and apparently the Leopard 1s have been since scrapped and used for target practice.
That's...pretty bad, considering how few tanks the Canadians have in the first place. The maintenance requirements for a Leo 2 are 1,800 hours a year, which is a pretty steep investment - and as the article says, six times higher than the maintenance needs of a Leo 1. Canada can't keep its vehicles maintained, and would need ten years of improvements just to bring it to a sustainable level.
Tanks are big investments, especially modern ones. After reading that article on Canada, I'm strongly considering stripping armor from the SSLF, perhaps after running through a dwindling supply of T-72s and using up the spares left over from the Soviet era. I don't think that'd mean giving up Bradleys, since they're a lot lighter and less complex than a modern tank, and the same goes for Centauros and other military vehicles.
Serednya Slaviya is also WAY bigger than Belgium, so I'd be inclined to keep the tanks on that basis alone. Aside from that, the "death" of the tank has been proposed many times before... it hasn't come to pass yet... ;)
Yeah, SS is three times the size of Belgium, though only 60% of the population. And I grant that "the tank is dead" is a meme that's been disproven time and again, but I feel like it's as you would say: it's doing it hard-mode. I think it'd reinforce Serednya Slaviya's portrayal as a poor, less advanced nation.
One other point to consider is that there really isn't a large field to train in - I played around with Google Maps for a bit and you can't throw a cat without hitting at least two villages somewhere in Western Ukraine. The only really open area is the Carpathian mountains to the southwest, which would put a limit on training in large numbers.
Apparently the Belgians got rid of theirs "as part of a modernization effort to shift its focus towards more agile and versatile military capabilities." That's something you guys know has been in my head since I started this, with the focus on keeping as much of my cavalry forces upgraded as possible.
I dunno, it's just a thought. But it's one that's growing on me like a boil on the skin...
-
There's also been little maintenance or upkeep for the Leo 2s Canada uses, to the point that "By Maj. Johns’ 2018 estimation, only 15-20 per cent of Canada’s Leopard 2 tanks were typically usable (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-zivo-how-canada-sabotaged-its-own-fleet-of-tanks)" and apparently the Leopard 1s have been since scrapped and used for target practice.
That's...pretty bad, considering how few tanks the Canadians have in the first place. The maintenance requirements for a Leo 2 are 1,800 hours a year, which is a pretty steep investment - and as the article says, six times higher than the maintenance needs of a Leo 1. Canada can't keep its vehicles maintained, and would need ten years of improvements just to bring it to a sustainable level.
Tanks are big investments, especially modern ones. After reading that article on Canada, I'm strongly considering stripping armor from the SSLF, perhaps after running through a dwindling supply of T-72s and using up the spares left over from the Soviet era. I don't think that'd mean giving up Bradleys, since they're a lot lighter and less complex than a modern tank, and the same goes for Centauros and other military vehicles.
Yeah, SS is three times the size of Belgium, though only 60% of the population. And I grant that "the tank is dead" is a meme that's been disproven time and again, but I feel like it's as you would say: it's doing it hard-mode. I think it'd reinforce Serednya Slaviya's portrayal as a poor, less advanced nation.
One other point to consider is that there really isn't a large field to train in - I played around with Google Maps for a bit and you can't throw a cat without hitting at least two villages somewhere in Western Ukraine. The only really open area is the Carpathian mountains to the southwest, which would put a limit on training in large numbers.
Apparently the Belgians got rid of theirs "as part of a modernization effort to shift its focus towards more agile and versatile military capabilities." That's something you guys know has been in my head since I started this, with the focus on keeping as much of my cavalry forces upgraded as possible.
I dunno, it's just a thought. But it's one that's growing on me like a boil on the skin...
There's a reason tank donations to Ukraine were dribs and drabs from everywhere. While I'm sure generals wanted to hold on to some for domestic use, the likely story was that those donated penny packets were a substantial fraction of the tanks in drive-away ready-to-fight condition.
At least as a landlocked country, Serednya Slaviya saves costs on the navy, which is another capital-intensive arm. If you think warships are expensive to buy, just wait until you see what they cost to crew/operate.
Serednya Slaviya is also WAY bigger than Belgium, so I'd be inclined to keep the tanks on that basis alone. Aside from that, the "death" of the tank has been proposed many times before... it hasn't come to pass yet... ;)
The tank isn't dead, it's just unaffordable as a mass weapon. Expenses go up with capability. That brings me to the issue of IFVs. IFVs can be very expensive or very cheap depending on how many sensors and systems you fit on them. At one end, you can have MBT-level optics, sensors, and defensive systems, with prices to match. At the other end, you have something straight out of the 60s like an M113 or V150 Commando. Compare those to modern APCs or even the modern Commando descendants like TAPV or M1117.
Also note that Serednya Slaviya will need to move tanks around. Tracked vehicles don't self-deploy as well as wheeled, and that goes double for heavy and unwieldy tanks, so you need to give thought to how close tank transporters or rail cars can bring tanks to the front and how they can be used to retrieve knocked-out tanks for scrapping or repair.
That said, you can piece together interesting stuff by emphasizing bang-for-your-buck and taking advantage of comparatively cheap labour to customize or adapt equipment to local conditions like the IDF during its scrappiest years.
-
I'll double stamp the point about warships... those things are EXPENSIVE to operate... ;)
-
I'll double stamp the point about warships... those things are EXPENSIVE to operate... ;)
Even the LCS costs tens of millions per year to operate, and estimates put the Burkes at 70-140 million per year. Granted, that includes crew costs, but also like aircraft, they get more expensive per hour as they get older and more bits wear out.
I think it needs to be greatly emphasized that a well-run military is actually a very dynamically unstable state of being because all kinds of things enter negative-feedback loops extremely quickly, and positive-feedback loops are often both weakly bound and easily disrupted.
Overuse a platform? Then you're going to have a capability gap which can lead to a skills gap (troops with no equipment to practice with). You can paper over it with expensive 'temporary' purchases, but those displace spending and training time from other things and have further knock-on effects.
Keep using an old platform for too long? The maintenance costs will eat you alive like the unholy child of a yacht and an exotic antique sports car. Go without? Lose institutional knowledge in droves. Cover the gap by running the remaining equipment/units harder? Cascading readiness issues and spiraling maintenance costs as cheap scheduled repairs are deferred until they become expensive urgent repairs. That's not even getting into the resulting morale issues, especially if equipment failures start injuring and killing people (aircraft and submarines have notoriously deadly failure modes).
I would go so far as to say that for some capabilities, at some point, you might be better off writing off the equipment and putting the service into hibernation - simulations, doctrinal exercises, training with allies, and retaining only a small cadre of expert professionals (or allowing them to muster out and retaining them in reserves/hiring as consultants) until such a time that resources allow it to be staffed, equipped, and maintained at a sustainable level.
-
I can almost feel those cascading readiness issues... :/
-
On the topic of operating warships, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH2TTS1kCYg) focuses on the operating costs of an Armored BCT ($3.16 billion a year) but does bring up the annual cost of the elements of a CV Strike Group. It also shows the price of operating a Stryker BCT ($3.06 billion) and an Infantry BCT ($2.92 billion), and the prices are very similar. Reserve units are far less expensive to operate, about 30% of the price of an active duty brigade.
But that brings up a point that utterly torpedoes Serednya Slaviya's military...my total annual budget for the military at 2% of GDP is only $509.2 million. That's enough for half a reserve brigade, and only a sixth of what I'd need to operate a brigade actively. Even with the difference in economies, where the average soldier makes 1/6 of what an American private's starting salary is, that's a really, really limiting factor...and I'm not sure I can see a way around it.
Serednya Slaviya's just too poor to afford a military, it seems...unless I copy the Belgians with their single brigade and that's it - they don't have a typical "brigade slice" quadrupling their military's size. It's just one 7,500 man brigade, with only its organic support elements. With one brigade at 4750 personnel, my operations costs would likely drop an equal level to 26.4% of the American brigade. Factor in the 1/6 economic difference, and I end up with a cost to run a single small brigade at 4.4% of an American BCT. For a Stryker BCT, that'd be $134.6 million to operate on active duty, and $37.4 million for a reserve unit. I'm pulling the 1/6 figure out of my rear completely, but it's got some grounding based on the pay scales.
And that doesn't count the Air Force's operational budget either...a single aviation brigade in the army runs a price of $690 million a year, which would drop to $115 million at the 1/6 conversion. That's just too much on top of even my shrunken down brigades, so I don't think I'm going to operate much of an Air Force...
Okay, a dig around has my military expenses coming in on par with Zimbabwe or Guatemala. I'll have to study their militaries and get an idea of what's doable, and try to make it work for me...time to do some reading.
And chanman's right about the negative-feedback loop and how easy it is to fall into one. Things to consider. Right now I'm going to take a break and attack the operations costs, after said reading.
Sorry for dragging this sideways into strange directions, but I think I'm going to end up axing most of the military if I don't axe this whole thing.
I don't think I'm going to be able to get away from the brigade slice element either, if I want to actually operate said brigade. Guatemala and Zimbabwe, and look at Belgium's land army and see how their single small brigade is sized.
-
I, at least, am totally in for this sideways ride! :)
-
I, at least, am totally in for this sideways ride! :)
Serednya Slaviya's military evolves into its final form: Dirrrrrrrrrtbag militia! :grin:
-
The problem is that the brigade slice forces me into a 19,000-man sized unit, with logistics, sustainment, maintenance, engineers, MPs, intelligence, and other support troops. That $3.06 billion operating cost of a Stryker BCT and its support personnel just annihilates my spending.
I don't see a way out of this, either. Yet somehow Zimbabwe operates eight multi-battalion brigades with APCs and Cascavel recon vehicles...
...meanwhile Belgium only has 10,000 active duty folks in their army and spends $6.9 billion a year on it. That's 13.5 times more money than I can throw at the military...I'm rapidly starting to think that Serednya Slaviya isn't going to have a military. Not in any recognizeable form, anyway.
The Operations budget does include pay, which helps me out because I can take that out of the operations budget and put it into its own category. But I'm going to need to increase defense spending past 2% GDP as it is now to make it work...and I still don't have information on how much it costs to operate an Air Force. I can make it work if I give up an air force entirely...
Dirtbag Militia indeed!
-
...meanwhile Belgium only has 10,000 active duty folks in their army and spends $6.9 billion a year on it. That's 13.5 times more money than I can throw at the military...
I don’t know Belgium specifically, but I wouldn’t use small NATO countries as a yardstick for this exercise. They have NATO commitments and fulfill specialized roles based on their particular niches that drive their defense spending in outsized and unusual ways that you don’t see in larger or non-NATO countries. There’s an example or two in this video, which is probably of general interest to this thread:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqGEtPj0M0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqGEtPj0M0)
There may be other Perun videos worth watching that could help this thread:
https://m.youtube.com/@PerunAU/videos (https://m.youtube.com/@PerunAU/videos)
FWIW...
-
Ooh, that looks like a fine video to watch. Thanks NK! And I'm looking at small nations because Serednya Slaviya is itself a small nation; a total of 7,066,000 population and a GDP of only $25.46 billion. Not a lot to work with here, and I'm keeping the NATO niche of having a strong engineering corps in the military. That and a mean infantry force, it's looking like. At a glance I might be able to squeeze an active BCT and a reserve BCT out of this budget, but only if I match America's spending at 3.5% GDP. It's pretty high, but nowhere near the top spenders for other countries.
But for now, Perun time.
-
I can almost feel those cascading readiness issues... :/
Not surprising. From what I glean, the US military needs something like a couple decades of quiet, free from budget shenanigans and congressional meddling to recover from everything borked by the GWOT, sequestration, and a number of messed up procurement programs.
USAF airframe lifecycle management seems to be pretty dicey and they're trying to save money anywhere due to all the deferred recapitalization coming home now. The mess with F-35A program management and the KC-46 issues aren't helping either.
The Navy's got the same issue with their hulls with additional bottlenecks due to insufficient repair and overhaul facilities (I heard it's especially bad for the SSNs) and repeated long deployments causing massive retention issues, leading to longer deployments for those left, leading to future retention issues. They also badly need a Burke replacement that doesn't get cancelled or flop.
The V-22's also getting later into its career and accident rates (even the ones without injuries or fatalities) are not trending in the right direction. It might be time to call an end to the experiment, but the Marines seem fixated on the range/speed edge they get over choppers with the platform.
-
Ooh, that looks like a fine video to watch. Thanks NK! And I'm looking at small nations because Serednya Slaviya is itself a small nation; a total of 7,066,000 population and a GDP of only $25.46 billion. Not a lot to work with here, and I'm keeping the NATO niche of having a strong engineering corps in the military. That and a mean infantry force, it's looking like. At a glance I might be able to squeeze an active BCT and a reserve BCT out of this budget, but only if I match America's spending at 3.5% GDP. It's pretty high, but nowhere near the top spenders for other countries.
But for now, Perun time.
I think you're looking at Libya, Paraguay, El Salvador, or Nicaragua as comparables
-
Wild hair in the butt time - do I really need tanks? Belgium's a country 50% larger in population than Serednya Slaviya, and has one mechanized infantry brigade and a special operations regiment. They don't operate tanks at all, after getting rid of their Leopard 1s in favor of Piranha 3-based wheeled 90mm guns.
Belgium does not need to worry about it's defense, it's active commitment are only peacekeeping missions abroad. SS on the other hand does worry about certain neighbours. So yes, tanks are very much a go, even if it means sticking to Cold War era hardware (with maybe some upgrades) instead of purchasing newer Western stuff.
-
To attack the Perun video, peacekeeping missions are a major component, which is an infantry/engineer/medical mission. So is territorial defense, which comes down to deterrence and denial of terrain. I don't have an all-arms force, not by a long shot, so I've got to make the most out of what I do have. As stated, I'm going with the conscription/mass mobilization plan, along with joining NATO as far as military alliances and supporting forces go, specializing in infantry capabilities and relying on my alliance members for mutual support.
As an aside, I'm definitely investing in a strong engineering corps to boost that infantry and artillery force. Being able to design the battlefield and create obstacles and minefields as well as provide fortifications and terrain favoring my forces is a major multiplier. Granted, fortifications have their limits, but pre-sited defense lines and an organized border is a benefit all of its own. I'll need to create bases for NATO member nations to come visit, so my facilities budget is 3% of the budget compared to 1-2% of the Americans.
Okay, so going up to 3.5% GDP for military spending made things possible. I'm dropping $183.9 million on paying for 15,000 conscripts and 5,500 careerists as well as 15,000 reservists. That gives me one Mechanized Brigade Combat Team plus its support brigades, and an Lithuanian-sized Air Force. As far as its operational costs go, I'll budget it at $100 million and pull that number completely out of my butt. With only 1,500 personnel they're primarily going to be radar operators and traffic controllers, manning a few airfields and acting as coordinators for NATO aircraft visiting.
I'll have a few planes and helicopters, but not many by comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Air_Force#Current_aircraft). Swap out the two L-410 Turbolet for four P.180 Avantis, and I'll keep the rest as-is - the SAR helicopters will be useful.
I'll keep a single Soviet-style Air Defense Regiment as part of the SSAF as an Air Defense Battalion, with twenty Buk missile launchers in five batteries. That's 80 Buk missiles, plus an additional 15 MANPADS in the battalion. It's organized Soviet-style, with 504 personnel and a total of ten firing platoons of two Buk TELARs each.
That puts the Air Force to bed, and leaves me with one Mechanized brigade and its support elements, and a procurement budget of $139.4 million for 2023. I'm spending $541 million for operations, which covers the Air Force's budget along with the operating costs for one active and one reserve Mechanized brigade. I'm going with a short-term conscription model, with nine months of active service and twelve in the reserves, with the option of being mobilized until one is in their 40s. At 36% of the male population and 10.67% of the female population, I'm training a sizeable portion of that 7,066,000 people as soldiers.
The downside to things is the lack of technical ability in Serednya Slaviya. Heavy industry is limited, and we were likely getting a lot of help from Ukraine as well as Poland to bootstrap the technological infrastructure of SS, but it's still going to be moderate at best. I'll acknowledge the need for tanks, but I think I'll break the rule and give up that capability. The explanation is that Serednya Slaviya did use tanks, and used them up - see Chanman's comments about negative feedback loops. The T-72s were worn out quickly enough, and the SSLF decided to invite NATO to station a friendly tank brigade in-country. Maybe I can get the Americans to send a full division over to enjoy the food and festivals.
So that's settled, one mechanized active and reserve brigade, without the tanks. Now to pick through the breakdown of a Stryker BCT and organize what vehicles replace what. On a fast pass, I'm looking at one battalion of Bradleys and two battalions of Rosomaks for actual personnel carriers, with VABs in supporting roles. I'll work out the details in a bit.
-
What year are your population and GDP numbers for? I think you should pick a comparable (whether that's Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Baltics, ex-FRY successor states) to get a ballpark figure of what resources are available and when. Generally, population is going to fall, possibly by quite a lot, especially after you join the EU, although returnees may bolster that later.
-
Population and GDP was for 2022; I found an actual list of each oblast's GDP and got the total from there. The same goes for population. I'm sure it's gone down like Ukraine and Belarus and other countries in the bloc have. Prior to the war and its refugees, Ukraine itself was at 43,531,422 population at the end of 2021, down from a high of 51,785,154 in 1992. That's a 18.9% increase going backwards, so I'll say Serednya Slaviya's population in 1992 was at a peak of 8,405,700. That's 1,345,000 people that left...don't really blame them.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jDUVtUA7rg
Perun on Germany's procurement travails. More and more, I'm suspecting that the ways that a given country's military procurement is actually a manifestation or reflection of that country's national neuroses
-
2014-2023:
I'm going to reset the modernization to starting in 2014, because there's no reason to start a crash rearmament program until Russia gets frisky with their neighbor Ukraine. The Russo-Georgian war is mostly overlooked because it happened Way Over There, and wasn't a local problem like the 2014 incursion was. That's the year that Serednya Slaviya petitions to join both the EU and NATO, after spending 25 post-Soviet years focused inwardly on itself and just scraping by. The military tried to maintain what it could, but the technological resource base wasn't there, and much of the hardware fell into disrepair. They had been propped up by the Russians, and when they went home Serednya Slaviya was left holding the check with an empty wallet.
So Russia sends Little Green Men into Ukraine, starting the separatist movement and supporting it with troops, and the King hits the panic button on government and orders a major military overhaul. The Americans have just put together their BCT organization, and it's decided to copy that and acquire Western equipment. To bring its procurement budget up to try to meet the Americans, French, and German 25% average (based on Perun's video on Germany's procurement, at 24:56) it's required to inflate the military budget to 3.75% of GDP over the next five years to see what can be done for the military.
Over the next ten years, the total military spending remains at 3.75% GDP as a consistent target, as the Land Forces are reorganized on the SBCT model. Conscription is put in place, with the previously mentioned numbers for recruitment. The procurement budget averaged 173 million per year, which allowed for a relatively rapid series of orders for often surplus military hardware.
Mechanized Infantry Brigade (active)
41 Centauro ($47.2 million)
36 Bradley ($58.7 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
120 Rosomak APC ($150 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
93 VAB ($37.2 million)
36 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 BM-21 Grad (pre-owned)
410 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
34 4x4 trucks (pre-owned)
211 6x6 trucks (pre-owned)
150 MAZ-537 8x8 truck (pre-owned)
Total $360.9 million
Mechanized Infantry Brigade (reserve)
41 Centauro ($41 million)
36 M2A2 ODS Bradley ($58.7 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
120 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
94 VAB ($37.2 million)
36 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 BM-21 Grad (pre-owned)
410 UAZ-469 (pre-owned)
34 4x4 trucks (pre-owned)
211 6x6 trucks (pre-owned)
150 MAZ-537 8x8 truck (pre-owned)
Total $204.7 million
100,000 M4 rifles ($71.3 million)
100,000 Interceptor body armor ($158.2 million)
500 FR F2 ($2 million)
100 Piorun launchers and 600 missiles ($130 million)
1000 MG3s ($3 million)
500 M2HBs ($7 million)
500 Mk 19 ($10 million)
2000 M320s ($0.5 million)
2000 Ultimax 100s ($9 million)
2000 Mossberg 590s ($1.1 million)
10,000 AT4s ($14.8 million)
10,000 Glock 19s ($6.5 million)
Total $413.4 million
In the next two years I plan on replacing the BTR-80s with more Rosomak APCs, since those are likely the last working BTR-80s in the army's inventory.
The expenses come to a total of $979, coming in well under budget and doable, since I'm buying logistics vehicles as well as enough rifles for the reserves. That leaves me $750.6 million for ammunition, food, radios, and other equipment, with leftover Soviet hardware making up the rest. Much of my brigade slice logistics and engineer force is ex-Soviet vehicles, or trucks bought in the 1990s during the early peacetime years. I figure with a bus factory in Lviv, repairing and maintaining unarmed and unarmored trucks would be simple enough that SereSlav can do it; we've got to maintain our own agricultural equipment after all.
The 36 Bradleys in the brigade are for the cavalry squadron, each troop having two platoons of six Bradleys laid out American-style and four Fenneks in a third platoon. With 36 vehicle crew and dismounts combined, the Bradley platoons maintain signifiant flexibility. That covers the needs of the cavalry squadron, and gives it some firepower to fight for information and defeat enemy screening forces. Otherwise it's a standard Stryker BCT cavalry troop. There's also a Gun Troop of fourteen more Centauros replacing the Abrams tanks in the American 2016 cavalry model. See this video from Battle Order (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiIqONvHeQ) on the organization of the Cavalry Platoon and the Gun Troop.
GlobalSecurity (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pl-rosomak.htm) has the price of the basic APC version of the Rosomak at only 5 million zloty which comes to $1.25 million each. The Rosomak IFV armed with the 30mm cannon is 10 million zloty, or $2.5 million each, which is just too expensive for the SSLF. I'm going with twelve engineer vehicles in the brigade engineer battalion, and four APCs in each infantry platoon. Two APCs carry a .50 M2HB and the other two a Mk 19 40mm grenade launcher.
That changes the infantry platoon size, since it's being carried in a larger vehicle with more seats. Having eight dismounts plus a Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant let me jump up to four-man fire teams, almost matching the American model - in my case, the squad leader is also the first team leader. Since the Rosomak doesn't have an anti-tank capability on its own (though there's a platoon of three Centauros in the the infantry company) I'm doubling down on AT-4s in the platoon. I bought ten thousand of them with the idea that there's an antitank gun "behind every blade of grass."
Rosomak APC 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Leader (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Team Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Piorun Gunner (M4, Piorun)
Platoon Marksman (FR F2)
Rosomak APC 2
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Team Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rosomak APC 3
Vehicle Commander (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Team Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rosomak APC 4
Vehicle Commander (M4)
Vehicle Gunner (M4)
Vehicle Driver (M4)
Squad Leader (M4+M320)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Team Leader (M4, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
Rifleman (M4, AT4)
That's a total of 35 M4s, 4 M320s, 8 Ultimax 100s, 8 Glock 19s, 4 Mossberg 590s, 1 FR F2, 1 Piorun SAM, and 14 AT4s for the platoon's weapons. One Rifleman in each squad is trained as a Combat Life Saver. This gives me a mostly-homogenous set of fire teams with a strong anti-armor and anti-vehicle firepower, and has its own air defense capability against helicopters or low-flying aircraft. Use the .50 cals on drones, not the SAM.
-
Ummm... Moldova happened in 1993...
-
So in my mind, I would look at emulating the Baltics. Shove through reforms early on and take the hit then to start the transition from less Soviet and more Nordic. Join in on the GWOT and COTW in the early 2000s and use that to start updating infantry tactics, training, and gear while all that DOD money is sloshing around. If you enter NATO/EU at the same time as the Baltic states in 2004, that takes some of the heavy defensive lifting off your shoulders due to the scaling issue with heavy equipment costs.
You'll look like a genius when Georgia happens in 2008 and also gets some of the groundwork laid out when digesting the aftermath and repercussions of that fight and adapting lessons learned. For example, NATO air policing covers air defences, and a battlegroup the armour/front-line troops, but it's been long known that NATO in general relies on aircraft for air defence and support missions, and it's deficient in ground-based air defences and indirect fire.
Doctrinally, that might end up looking like an army with a lot of supporting fire and equipment for entrenching quickly and deeply with the goal of stalling out a Russian attack to buy time for reserves to be mobilized, and NATO assets to be brought bear. If a battlegroup is present, it would be responsible for the counterattack or flanking maneuver with dug-in Slaviyan troops being the anvil to the battlegroup's hammer.
Out of necessity, Serednya Slaviya is not going to be signing the Ottawa landmine ban treaty, and air/artillery deployed mines and cluster munitions are going to figure heavily into its defensive plans.
In terms of equipment, a focus on ability to self-deploy and strategic mobility. This probably means ditching the Brads. Organic SHORAD and engineering equipment for rapid trench construction. Pre-sited equipment/fuel/food/ammo/water caches, and investment in long-range ATGMs like a ground-launched Hellfire.
And bring back Cossacks as a light irregular scouting/raiding force on ATVs and off-road trucks like the SAS LRDG in WW2
-
I'll double stamp keeping your landmines... those things are REALLY effective.
-
Ruminating a bit on the anti-tank issue.
Helicopters of course are great, but BTGs are also not the 8th Guards army, so instead of dedicated (and expensive) attack choppers, something much cheaper can be used. There's a long tradition of light helicopters being turned into scouts and light AT units, like the BO105 (6 HOT or 8 TOW). Unlike an Apache Longbow, it's not going to single-handedly erase a combined-arms company from existence, but picking off a single platoon might be enough to render a BTG advance untenable.
Kiowa Warriors are converted Jetrangers, and there's also the option of Little Birds, or Eurocopter Panther/Dauphin 2. As long as you can deconflict with AA units to avoid friendly fire, you can save a lot on the typical avionics since the role is local anti-tank overwatch - you're probably looking for something like the FLIR/infrared camera of police helos, the same radios ground vehicles use, and a brace of Hellfire/TOW/Javelin/Spike/HOT missiles or unguided rockets with the pilots never crossing the FEBA.
South Korean MD500 Defender with a nose sensor ball, and I think 4x TOW
(https://imgur.com/R6yRyA6.jpg)
OH-58D showing Hellfire mount
(https://imgur.com/YgO1DeW.jpg)
Z-9 (license-produced AS365 Dauphin 2) with selection of local ATGMs, gun pods, and rockets
(https://imgur.com/3Or1gOO.jpg)
Bulgarian navy Dauphin 2
(https://imgur.com/MsaNNz8.jpg)
AS565 Panther variant of the Dauphin 2
(https://imgur.com/6hYcNEq.jpg)
2009 AS365 Dauphin 2 fitted for oil & gas work for sale, currently marked at 2 million Euros
(https://imgur.com/oJdubkn.jpg)
-
Wow... that's WAY more rockets than I ever expected to see on those kinds of airframes! ;D
-
Wow... that's WAY more rockets than I ever expected to see on those kinds of airframes! ;D
Small and cheap. An MD500 is 680 kilos empty, 1.1 tonnes MTOW. Kiowa is about 1.7t empty, 2.5t gross. Panther/Dauphin 2, 2.4t empty, 4.3t max.
The Panther/Dauphin 2 is about the weight of a Vietnam-era UH-1H so less than half the weight of a Blackhawk (5.6t empty, 10t max).
Is it a bit like technicals in helo form? A little. They won't take fire as well, datalink, infiltrate, sport armour, or all the other exotic stuff dedicated attack helos have/can do. But they get you elevated ATGMs, possibly with night/thermal optics, with robust parts availability and lots of people qualified to fly or work on them. Almost 10,000 Bell 206 Jet Ranger Long Ranger/Kiowas produced and operated worldwide with production from 1962-2017.
Probably close to 1500-2000 of the Panther/Dauphin 2 including license-builds in the US and China for coast guard/military use with Eurocopter production from 1975-2022 (possibly with military model and Harbin license production continuing). Over 6000 Little Birds, and still in production.
Boeing's been marketing a dedicated attack variant. Here's a Saudi one with a pair of Hellfires.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/17-_Saudi_Arabian_National_Guard_AH-6_Little_Bird_%28My_Trip_To_Al-Jenadriyah_32%29.jpg/1024px-17-_Saudi_Arabian_National_Guard_AH-6_Little_Bird_%28My_Trip_To_Al-Jenadriyah_32%29.jpg)
One with a bit-o-everything
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/SAS_2010_AH-6.JPG/1024px-SAS_2010_AH-6.JPG)
Another option in Europe is the French Aérospatiale Gazelle. Light, made into the 90s, saw some decent service and almost 1800 made. Even using Soviet AT-3 Saggers rigged to them, the Syrians managed to cost the IDF a fair number of tanks in the fighting in Syria back in the day.
(https://i.redd.it/eggqbto90cf71.jpg)
Killer eggs!
-
Love the Killer Eggs! ;D
-
Like chanman,
I suggest the MD 530F.
https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/md-530f/ (https://aerocorner.com/aircraft/md-530f/)
(https://aerocorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Afghan-Air-Force-MD-530F-1090x500.jpg)
TT
-
I had forgotten about the Transnistrian thing, that started in 1992 and the Russians still won't go home. I can see that being a concern for SereSlav but not a world-shattering event, especially as Russia kept promising to remove the troops (but never got around to it). That constinued refusal to carry through helped lean Serednya Slaviya towards joining the EU and NATO, especially with the realization that they can't maintain a large military force on their own and need support.
Alright, I can push back the joining of NATO to 2004 when the Vilnius Group joined in. It took Latvia ten years from the decision to join the EU to their accession, so I can see SS starting the process in the mid-1990s as well. Granted, that led to the eventual loss of a sizeable portion of the population as people left for the rest of Europe, see previous figures for that.
Equipment for entrenching deeply is covered by my engineering brigade in addition to the organic combat engineer battalion in the mechanized infantry brigades. Serednya Slaviya would definitely invite a permanent or rotating NATO air presence on its airfields; I don't see Serednya Slaviya operating more than the few transports and helicopters. The Air Force's primary mission is monitoring airspace and liasing with NATO aircraft for the actual air supremacy role. Organic SHORAD is taken care of by the previous platoon organization, putting a Piorun in each platoon along with fifteen more in the Air Defense Battalion.
The idea of cossacks as a raiding force...that's more of an central-eastern Ukraine cultural thing; the history of Serednya Slaviya brings it into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the history of the Winged Hussars. That's why I've improved the cavalry squadron in the brigade. I could see the formation of a Special Operations battalion of light infantry as a raiding force, operating out of UAZ-469s with heavy machine guns.
Going with a helicopter force would mean increasing the size of the Air Force, plus helis are typically expensive pieces of kit. Even the armed MD500 model comes to 5.9 million apiece (https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/news/mdhi-awarded-contract-armed-scout-helicopters-091117/) based on the 30 helicopters for 176.6 price. That's an investment...but a squadron of a dozen helicopters only comes to $72 million, which is something I could squeeze into the budget. I'd have to pay through the nose for service contracts, though, and some serious work to support them.
That'll mean increasing the size of the Air Force to 2,000 personnel, but that shouldn't be too difficult. The big problem is arming my attack helis, because ATGMs are expensive pieces of kit. TOWs run $80 thousand apiece, 500 of those for the helicopters comes to a $40 million acquisition. Combined with the helis, that's $112 million in addition.
As for giving up the Bradleys, I can swap them out for Rosomak IFVs. That'll increase the price a bit, but still give my Cavalry forces some firepower with the 30mm cannon. I'm loathe to lose the Bradleys, because of the overall loss of firepower with the TOWs, but they're the only tracked vehicles in the service and I'm pushing for a wheeled force that can self-deploy easily.
ATGMs are expensive as mentioned above; Javelins are priced pretty high for my budget at $200 thousand a missile (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/12/19/bang-for-your-buck-does-a-javelin-missile-really-cost-as-much-as-a-ferrari/?sh=3f43bcf23080) and $240 thousand for each launch unit. Just for laughs, the price of equipping 500 Javelins and 100 launchers comes to $124 million; that's more than my armed helicopter force comes to. Spike SR missiles are less than half that price at $75 thousand a missile and don't require a separate launch unit; for the same price as 500 Javelins I could buy 1,650 Spikes.
Still...maybe that's affordable, once I look at the new modernization budget. They'd supplement the AT4 That's why I bought so many AT4s; they're short ranged and limited in their effectiveness against tanks but can eat APCs and IFVs alive. Having a dedicated ATGM
I'll put together a new budget later, but I'm strongly considering the Spike ATGMs - that'd require rejiggering a platoon organization again and going with a weapons squad at platoon level. A squad leader, Two Spike teams, a Stinger team, and a platoon marksman would make up the weapons squad. That'd be 54 Javelins per brigade, hence the 108 count mentioned above.
-
Yeah, the ATGMs are expensive. As mentioned, they can easily be worth as much as the platform carrying them. On the helos, there's a reason I suggested the platforms that I did - commercial parts and supply, including the option to contract work out. There's a looooooooot of Jet Ranger qualified mechanics out there. Less so for an Apache or Hind...
I think those Afghan choppers come with support contracts, but even then, each one is only about as much as a new MBT. As I mentioned, if you're willing to take advantage of Slavic can-do attitude and going COTS, used commercial choppers can offer big savings, and further savings if you do more of the maintenance yourself.
It's probably worth skimping on the modernity of the ATGM systems and always be looking at best value - systems that are getting replaced but still have some life in them yet. MAPATS, older TOWs, MILAN, HOT.
Hell, before tensions start escalating, you might bridge part of that gap with Chinese or Russian weapons in the 90s and early 2000's, and replace them in turn with Turkish or Ukrainian weapons later (or Korean or Israeli). To make your budget work, procurements gonna need to Always Be Shopping. :cheesy:
-
After doing some more research I think I'm mis-pricing my operations budget. I think I understand this, but I'll leave it to an economics major to correct me. The purchasing power parity figure of 11.2 for Ukraine and 0.9 for Belarus match their exchange rate, which gives me a total currency exchange of 0.3 Serednya Slaviyan currency to the dollar in real purchasing power. Going back to the price for operating a mechanized infantry brigade...translating the $3.06 billion per year into the Serednya Slaviyan economy would cost $918 million per year. A reserve brigade would cost $207 million to run by those same figures.
For numbers, in 2021 the Belarusian government spending was 17% of its GDP, while Ukraine was 23%. Split the difference for Serednya Slaviya, and its total government spending is 20% of its GDP or $5.115 billion dollars - if I went with two brigades, one active and one reserve, that would be $1,125 million a year just for operations and pay. That forces me to 5.75% of GDP spent on the military for a sufficient purchasing budget, or 28.75% of total government spending. That puts me in fourth place worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures) with little to show for it. To compare, the Americans only spend 12% of the federal budget on the military.
More later.
-
Switch to an Alcohol Fuel, produce and sell more State-run Vodka Grain, increase the minimum enforcement servitude for minor criminals, Citizen Home Guard Brigade drives and allow Elderly Re-Enlistment Recruiting.
TT
-
I got my figures wrong, the price of operating a reserve mechanized brigade is $850 million, not $690 million. That brings my operations budget to $918 million for an active brigade and $255 million for a reserve brigade.
The only option I have is cutting away the brigade slice, losing 3/4 of my troops (and 3/4 the cost) down to a total of only 4,750 personnel each for the active and reserve forces. That would mean axing my engineering brigade and only using the organic combat engineer battalion in each brigade...
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong somewhere in the financial figures, because that's a military the size of Estonia's despite Serednya Slaviya being 5.3 times larger in population. Then again, Estonia despite its size has 1.5 times the GDP. Per capita, that's $27,943 for Estonia versus $3,603 for Serednya Slaviya. Well, I wanted a poor country, I certainly got it.
Home Guard brigades would still be expensive to operate, even a light infantry BCT costs $2,920 million USD to operate on active duty and $780 million for a reserve unit. Even with the 30% price adjustment that's still far too much money, and I lose a lot of capability for it.
The only option I can come up with is axing the "brigade slice" and losing my engineers and logistics and administrative folks, leaving me with just the BCT's organic forces.
Maybe I should just give up and unify with Ukraine.
-
No... make Ukraine unify with you!
That's the "Russian" way! Or I've been told by Gorky...
TT
-
Estonia spent $760 million in 2021 on its army, so that gives me a target to work towards. For that money they get one active and one reserve brigade (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Estonian_Division_-_Organization_2023.png), with the brigade about the same size as an American BCT without the brigade-slice elements. The only divisional assets are a Headquarters battalion, Military Police battalion, HIMARS battalion, and a Logistics battalion.
Going with just the mechanized infantry brigade saves me 3/4 the cost of operations, or $229.5 million for an active and $63.75 million for a reserve brigade. That assumes I'm doing the math right for purchasing power parity, but I believe I have that correct. I'm only going to operate one active and one reserve battalions; that'll ease the pressure on procurement significantly. That gives my troops nine months on active duty, much of which is training, followed by one year in the reserves.
One thing that strikes me is that the Estonian brigades only have two battalions of infantry instead of the three in the American BCT. I could drop one battalion, which frees up 699 personnel for administrative and support functions. I'm already 240 personnel over the 4509 in the SBCT, that's enough for my extra gun vehicle company (93 personnel) in the cavalry and a 157-strong military police company to supplement my brigade. That leaves the 699 personnel in what was 3rd BN and the 90 personnel for its FSC.
I can triple up the distribution, maintenance, and medical companies in the brigade support battalion to make them each battalions, to reflect the extra support personnel. That takes up 644 of 769 personnel, the remaining 145 would form the support battalions' HHCs to reflect the larger size force.
Mechanized Infantry Brigade
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Brigade Engineering Battalion
Cavalry Squadron
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Logistics Battalion
Maintenance Battalion
Medical Battalion
Antitank Company
Military Police Company
I'm also replacing the Nona-SVKs with Patria NEMOs; based on this article (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2350.html) I'm ballparking the price at $2.8 million per weapon. They're to be mounted on Canadian LAV IIs, so that price doesn't include plus another $1.25 million for a Rosomak to carry it. The Rosomak is a license-produced Patria AMV, so it's compatible with the weapon turret. The NEMO is a pretty damn cool mortar system, just watch this Matsimum video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpdIAcqaYtE) on the weapon and its capabilities. Fire support is a major thing for Serednya Slaviya, so it's going to boost its technology there as best as it can.
I'm going to break up the Air Defense Battalion in the Air Force by cutting its Buk batteries in half. There's a total of ten launch vehicles in the battalion, plus four Soviet-style Air Defense Missile & Artillery Batteries operating sixteen PASARS 16 Serbian antiaircraft vehicles.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/PASARS_16_-_VS_-_03.jpg/1024px-PASARS_16_-_VS_-_03.jpg)
It's practically the only wheeled anti-aircraft vehicle out there, besides the American LAV-AD. I'm pairing each platoon of four vehicles with a Giraffe-1X radar system, and estimating the price of the vehicle at $1.5 million. The radar costs about $2 million, so that's a total of $32 million for the four platoons.
EDIT: Forgot the Poprad SAM truck to supplement the PASARS 16.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/SPZR_Poprad_Bull_Run-12_%28cropped%29.jpg/640px-SPZR_Poprad_Bull_Run-12_%28cropped%29.jpg)
It's a lightly armored Polish Zubr 4x4 truck carrying four Piorun MANPADS launchers and a solid optics suite to use them, network-capable to radar systems for target selection. At $3.2 million apiece, they're not exactly cheap. There's sixteen of them in the Air Defense Battalion, in platoons of four alongside the PASARS 16s.
After doing the math with year-over-year GDP and an even 2.25% GDP spending, I end up with a total of $2,502.4 million for procurement. I have one active and one reserve brigade plus the Air Force to equip, with a total of 11,500 personnel.
Mechanized Infantry Brigade (active)
32 Centauro ($38.2 million)
36 Rosomak IFV ($90 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
84 Rosomak APC ($105 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
88 VAB ($35.2 million)
26 NEMO ($105.3 million)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
532 HMMWV ($5.3 million)
36 LMTV 4x4 truck ($1.8 million)
301 FMTV 6x6 truck ($22.6 million)
219 HEMTT 8x8 truck ($63.1 million)
Total $539 million
Mechanized Infantry Brigade (reserve)
32 Centauro ($38.2 million)
36 Rosomak IFV ($90 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
84 Rosomak APC ($105 million)
9 VAB Mephisto ($9 million)
88 VAB ($35.2 million)
26 NEMO ($105.3 million)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
532 HMMWV ($5.3 million)
36 LMTV 4x4 truck ($1.8 million)
301 FMTV 6x6 truck ($22.6 million)
219 HEMTT 8x8 truck ($63.1 million)
Total $532.8 million
Air Force
16 MD530F ($96 million)
4 P.180 Avanti ($8 million)
8 Alpha Jet ($16 million)
20 Buk TELAR (pre-owned)
16 PASARS 16 + Giraffe 1X ($32 million)
16 Poprad (50.4 million)
Total $202.4 million
Weapons
15,000 Grot B rifle ($35.4 million)
15,000 Interceptor body armor ($22.3 million)
15,000 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
100 FR F2 ($0.4 million)
300 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.5 million)
200 Mossberg 590 ($0.1 million)
500 Ultimax 100 ($2.3 million)
1,000 MG3 ($3 million)
1,000 M2HB ($14 million)
500 Mk 19 ($10 million)
4,000 AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sights ($30.6 million)
1,000 Glock 19 ($0.7 million)
10,000 AT4 ($14.8 million)
1,000 Spike SR missiles ($75 million)
100 Piorun launchers and 600 missiles ($130 million)
500 TOW missiles ($50 million)
240 Buk missiles ($48 million)
Total $437.1 million
The total for all that comes to $1,734.7 million, leaving me $767.7 million for everything else over that 20 years, or $38.4 million per year for radios, ammunition, and other equipment. Per soldier, that's $3,337.83 per year, for whatever that's worth.
The use of thermal weapon sights is limited to the machine guns, mk 19 AGLs and sniper rifles as well as one rifle per fire team, ostensibly the team leader's rifle. It comes to fourteen thermal sights per platoon, or just over 500 sights across 36 platoons of infantry.
That's a ridiculous amount of AT4s, but they're cheap and can be used on pretty much anything bigger than an infantryman. Trucks, APCs, IFVs; while a Russian BTG may not have many tanks and can be likely neutralized by losing a few of them to Spike ATGMs, it's still got a lot of troop transports and other vehicles to take out.
On that note, the revised platoon with its Spike ATGM teams in a weapons squad:
Rosomak APC 1
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Leader (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B+GP w/ thermal sight)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Team Leader (Grot B w/ thermal sight, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rosomak APC 2
Vehicle Commander/Platoon Sergeant (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B+GP w/ thermal sight)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Team Leader (Grot B w/ thermal sight, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rosomak APC 3
Vehicle Commander (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B+GP w/ thermal sight)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Team Leader (Grot B w/ thermal sight, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100 w/ thermal sight, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman (Grot B, AT4)
Rosomak APC 4
Vehicle Commander (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B+GP w/ thermal sight)
Spike Gunner (Grot B, Spike SR)
Spike Ammo Bearer (Grot B, Spike SR)
Spike Gunner (Grot B, Spike SR)
Spike Ammo Bearer (Grot B, Spike SR)
Piorun Gunner (Grot B, Piorun)
Piorun Ammo Bearer (Grot B)
Platoon Marksman (FR F2 w/ thermal sight)
In all that's 37 Grot Bs, 4 GP Grenade Launchers, 3 Mossberg 590s, 6 Ultimax 100s, 6 Glock 19s, 12 AT4s, 4 Spike SRs, 1 Piorun, 1 FR F2, and 14 thermal optics. I decided to go to the Grot B rifle instead of the M4 despite the higher price because I wanted bullpup rifles for the mechanized infantry and vehicle crews. At $2358 a rifle it's an investment, but they're new production and not surplus hardware. Plus they look badass, I think.
(https://milmag.pl/2021/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RAWAT_20.jpg)
With two brigades, each brigade having six companies, that's 36 total platoons of infantry. The total arsenal for the infantry comes to 1,332 Grot Bs, 108 GPs, 72 Mossberg 590s, 216 Ultimax 100s, 216 Glock 19s, 432 AT4s, 108 Spike SRs, 36 Pioruns, 36 FR F2s, and 504 thermal sights.
-
LOTS of changes in that update!
-
It's the finances that force the changes, really...I'm now staring at ammunition usage and costs and shuddering in terror.
Based on the 2024 budget (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3330612/emphasis-in-dod-2024-budget-includes-munitions/) one year's worth of ammunition costs $5.6 billion. With the SSLF being 1/50 the size of the US Army, my ammunition costs would be $112 million a year. If I cheat and build a factory to produce my own ammunition, I can take advantage of the Serednya Slaviyan economy and cut that price to $33.6 million per year. I'll also lean on the fact that the SSLF is in peacetime and has no active foreign deployments, and cut the average usage by half to $16.8 million per year, or $336 million. That covers my training needs and builds a stockpile of an unspecified amount, and takes my remaining procurement budget down to $431.7 million dollars.
Radios...my combat vehicles come with their own communications sets as part of the vehicle price. In the US Army, one soldier in fifteen is given a AN/PRC-148 JEM (https://defense-update.com/20060926_jtrs-jem.html) (truly truly truly outrageous) for around $4,500 per radio based on the contract in the link. I'll say one in ten SSLF and SSAF soldiers carries a radio, for a total price of only $5.2 million to link up on the radio. That leaves me $426.5 million left over.
This might just come together.
And I'm sorry for the constant changes, I'm trying to make this work in a realistic setting, and it's difficult. I keep having to cut something here or there, like the third infantry battalion in the brigade. I ended up spending more on vehicles, but that was something that was going to come into play at some point. I still don't have utility vehicles for the Air Force, because I've no idea how many I need. I can ballpark it compared to the active duty brigade, with 40% of the personnel needing 40% of the vehicles. That looks like this:
213 HMMWV ($2.1 million)
14 LMTV 4x4 truck ($0.7 million)
120 FMTV 6x6 truck ($9 million)
88 HEMTT 8x8 truck ($25.2 million)
That comes to a total of $37 million, which leaves me $389.5 million (or $19.5 million a year) left over. It's at best an approximation, and I'm pretty sure I don't need that many 8x8s but it's what was in the list.
I should add that I'm buying trucks from local suppliers like the MAZ or KrAZ factories and simply listing their American equivalent (and price). For example, instead of the HEMTT I'm probably driving Tatra T813 8x8 trucks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_813) as a heavy loader. It's the same model truck that the RM-70 rocket launcher is built on, so I might as well standardize my heavy truck. Considering it can haul up to 100 tons, that's a pretty damn impressive heavy truck.
As a note to myself, Perun just uploaded a new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3tE2VS_BIA) that gets into defense economics. I need to watch that, so here's my reminder.
As far as Youtube goes, Ian did a video on the Grot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9A54ODrzq0) and it's an interesting look at the prototype through to production models. Apparently the Poles didn't like the bullpup version, but I'll say they're being ordered as a standard rifle for the SS armed forces.
EDIT: Speaking of finances, I found this CBO report (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2021-05/57088-Summary.pdf) that goes into the actual costs of operating a brigade. With all its support elements, a Stryker BCT (which is what I've based my Mechanized Brigade on) costs $3,060 million a year to operate. However, the operations of just the brigade come to only $600 million, or just under 1/5 of that cost. That's actually a significant savings from what I'd projected originally. Instead of $229.5 million I'm only paying $180 million a year for an active brigade, and applying that same 1/5 price reduction my reserve brigade is only costing me $51 million per year instead of $63.8 million. Don't forget that's converted into Serednya Slaviyan currency at the 0.3:1 exchange rate.
That's a savings of $62.3 million a year, which falls back into procurement. That gives me an average procurement cost of $172.1 million per year, for a total of $3,442.1 million to spend - $939.7 million more than I had before. I could buy a second reserve brigade for that money, though I'd need to up my defense spending to 2.4% to afford the operations and pay costs for that second brigade. I'd still be spending less by GDP percentage than the Americans are (at 2.5%) and that's admittedly tempting me strongly. Yeah, I know, one more change to things, but I think this move is worth it. I'd keep my nine months of active duty but double up the time in the reserves to two years, for 4,750 active duty and 9,500 reserve personnel. That would fit with the social pressure for military service, allowing more people to be conscripted.
The other option is to save the money and drop spending to the nominal 2% of GDP, which would give me the same procurement budget but only an army the size of Estonia's. After all, Serednya Slaviya is supposed to be a poor country, with a small military. The US Army has 32 different brigades and their divisional support units as of 2021, so perhaps only two brigades for the poor little SSLF is sufficient.
I think I'll split the difference on the latter and go with 2.1% GDP spending. That gives me a boost to the budget while still operating a relatively small and inexpensive military. I end up with a total budget to spend over the 20 years of $2,891.6 million, a more acceptable figure.
Active Brigade: $539 million
Reserve Brigade: $532.8 million
Air Force: $239.4 million
Weapons: $437.1 million
Ammunition: #336 million
Radios: $5.2 million
That comes to a total of $2,089.5 million, leaving $802.1 million in the procurement budget or $40.1 million per year. Fuel is, according to this report (https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/f/fu/fuel-price-effects-on-readiness/p-5087.ashx), covered under Operations and Maintenance budgets at 4% of the total funds. I can ignore the fuel cost based on that document, since it's considered "covered" automatically.
Based on 1/50 of the figure quoted here (https://www.quora.com/How-much-food-and-other-resources-does-the-U-S-Army-use) of $10.5 billion in 2020, I'd have a food budget of $210 million a year; since I'm sourcing that locally I can take advantage of the exchange rate and only pay $63 million to feed my 11,500 personnel. That breaks down to $15 a day per person, active and reserve combined. Unfortunately that's 63 million per year for 20 years which comes to $1,260 million in food, leaving me $457.9 million dollars overbudget.
I'm going to have to up the military spending after all, and refigure all this stuff. Sigh.
Thanks for all the help and commentary, guys, it means a lot. This is fun to get into the weeds, and you can see my thought processes as I go along through this.
As an aside, besides the above list and the food spending, what else should I be accounting for? I'm going to add up all my required expenses and backfill it into a budget, so I need to work out everything I'm buying.
-
what else should I be accounting for? I'm going to add up all my required expenses and backfill it into a budget, so I need to work out everything I'm buying.
Palm greasing :cheesy:
-
I found this list of Belarusian priced groceries (https://www.numbeo.com/food-prices/country_result.jsp?country=Belarus) and it comes to a total of 15.38 BYN per day. I'm using Belarus because their most recent economic data is more stable than Ukraine. That comes to $4.61 at a straight exchange rate for a daily allotment. Across 11,500 personnel it's a total of $53,000 per day, or $19,345,000 per year. Twenty years of that spending comes to $386.9 million in total.
Active Brigade: $539 million
Reserve Brigade: $532.8 million
Air Force: $239.4 million
Weapons: $437.1 million
Ammunition: $336 million
Radios: $5.2 million
Food: $386.9 million
That brings me to a total of $2,476.4 million spent on procurement, out of a total budget of $2,891.6. I've got $415.2 million left, and at least some if not all of that is going to bureaucratic inefficiency and graft. Chanman's right, palm grease can be expensive stuff.
-
You could probably color another engineering company or so as graft as long as it keeps certain streets maintained... ;)
-
Well, I've got two full combat engineers battalions, I suppose I can call infrastructure construction "field exercises" and make their training worthwhile.
-
As long as their snowplows are responsive, I think they'll be funded just fine... ;D
-
TL;DR - prices for weapons, mobilization battalions for a civilian reserve, platoons for those battalions, equipment pricing, and a final list of costs with an adjusted budget for them.
12,000 Grot B rifle ($28.3 million)
12,000 Interceptor body armor ($17.8 million)
12,000 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
1,000 Glock 19 ($0.7 million)
100 FR F2 ($0.4 million)
300 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.5 million)
200 Mossberg 590 ($0.1 million)
500 Ultimax 100 ($2.3 million)
1,000 MG3 ($3 million)
1,000 M2HB ($14 million)
500 Mk 19 ($10 million)
4,000 AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sights ($30.6 million)
10,000 AT4 ($14.8 million)
1,000 Spike SR missiles ($75 million)
100 Piorun launchers and 600 missiles ($130 million)
500 TOW missiles ($50 million)
240 Buk missiles ($48 million)
Total $425.5 million
I'm left with the question of what to equip the mobilizable reserve that isn't part of the two brigades. Something like an aforementioned Home Guard that would have weapons and equipment sitting in storage in the event of a mass mobilization of the citizenry. I'm turning out 4,750 trained personnel a year, and I can turn those troops mustering out into independent light infantry battalions. At 780 personnel in each battalion (with an organic Forward Support Company) I can raise six light battalions per year. If I extend the age of mobilization to 35, and assume that the average reservists separates from the service at age 20, then that gives me fifteen years or ninety independent light battalions.
Ninety battalions is 70,200 personnel. The 780 personnel break down into an HHC with 230, three 130-man Rifle Companies, a Weapons Company with 80, and a Forward Support Company with 80. They're armed with surplus Beryls bought from the Poles, based on the following organization:
Platoon Command
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Rifle Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifle Squad 2
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifle Squad 3
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Weapons Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Total weapons for the platoon are 26 Beryls, 4 Pallads, 4 Mossberg 590s, 8 Ultimax 100s, and 8 Glock 19s. Total for the battalion's nine platoons is 234 Beryls, 36 Pallads, 36 Mossberg 590s, 72 Ultimax 100s, and 72 Glock 19s. With 90 battalions, it's 21,060 Beryls, 3,240 Pallads, 3,240 Mossberg 590s, 6,480 Ultimax 100s, and 6,480 Glock 19s.
The Weapons Company has an Antitank Platoon and two Machine Gun Platoons. The Antitank Platoon is below:
Platoon Command
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Amtitank Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Amtitank Squad 2
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Amtitank Squad 3
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
Rifleman (Beryl, AT4)
ATGM Squad
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
Spike Gunner (Beryl, Spike SR)
Spike Ammo Bearer (Beryl, Spike SR)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
Spike Gunner (Beryl, Spike SR)
Spike Ammo Bearer (Beryl, Spike SR)
Rifleman (Beryl)
Total weapons for the Antitank Platoon are 28 Beryls, 4 Pallads, 4 Mossberg 590s, 6 Ultimax 100s, 6 Glock 19s, 12 AT4s, and 4 Spike SRs. With 90 battalions, that's 2,520 Beryls, 360 Pallads, 360 Mossberg 590s, 540 Ultimax 100s, 540 Glock 19s, 1,080 AT4s, and 360 Spike SRs.
The Machine Gun Platoon is below:
Platoon Command
Platoon Leader (Beryl)
Platoon Sergeant (Beryl)
Machine Gun Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Machine Gun Squad 2
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Team Leader (Beryl, Mossberg 590)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
MMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Heavy Machine Gun Squad 1
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
HMG Gunner (M2HB, Glock 19)
HMG Assistant (Beryl)
HMG Assistant (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Heavy Machine Gun Squad 2
Squad Leader (Beryl+Pallad)
HMG Gunner (M2HB, Glock 19)
HMG Assistant (Beryl)
HMG Assistant (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
HMG Ammo Bearer (Beryl)
Total weapons for the Machine Gun Platoon are 28 Beryls, 4 Pallads, 2 Mossberg 590s, 4 MG3s, 2 M2HBs, and 6 Glock 19s. With 2 platoons per battalion and 90 battalions, that's 5,040 Beryls, 720 Pallads, 360 Mossberg 590s, 720 MG3s, 360 M2HBs, and 1,080 Glock 19s.
Since I have 70,200 personnel in the 90 battalions, that determines how many rifles I need - I'll need rifles for (almost) all of them, plus some extras (ostensibly for spare parts).
72,000 Beryl ($106.6 million)
72,000 Interceptor Body Armor ($113.8 million)
72,000 SSh-68 Helmet (pre-owned)
5,000 Pallad ($8.3 million)
4,500 Mossberg 590 ($2.3 million)
7,500 Ultimax 100 ($34.5 million)
8,500 Glock 19 ($4.3 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
400 Spike SR ($30 million)
800 MG3 ($2.4 million)
400 M2HB ($2.8 million)
4,800 AN/PRC-148 JEM ($21.6 million)
Ammunition ($102.5 million)
The total price for everything comes to $436.5 million to equip ninety battalions of light infantry.
Ammunition expenses are simply stockpiled ammo, it's not being expended in training so I can get away with one year's supply. My 70,200 mobilizable personnel is 6.1 times the size of my 11,500 active and reserve personnel, so I went with an equal ratio compared to the $16.8 million for an annual ammunition supply.
Vehicles for the light infantry battalion consist of 68 HMMWVs, 17 4x4 trucks, 10 6x6 trucks, and 7 8x8 trucks. Across 90 battalions, that comes to:
6,120 HMMWV ($61.2 million)
1,530 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($76.5 million)
900 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($67.5 million)
630 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($181.6 million)
That comes to $386.8 million to equip the light infantry battalions, in addition to the $436.5 million for their weapons and equipment.
Something else to consider is NVGs - the AN/PVS-14 is a good representative of a nightvision optic. At $2800 per, they're expensive, but I only need enough to equip my fighting platoons with them. For my active and reserve brigades as well as the mobilizable light battalions, that's 34 personnel per platoon that would get NVGs. Each battalion has nine platoons; there's 94 battalions in total - two active, two reserve, ninety mobilization battalions. That's a total of 28,764 NVGs; I'll round that off to 30,000 to account for the Air Force and price it out at $84 million.
I had left out the humble and ubiqutous bayonet; at a little over $24 per bayonet from contract prices 81,700 bayonets comes to $2 million. Can't forget that!
Food for the mobilization battalions had to be considered as well; stockpiles of MRE-equivalents in storage for 70,200 people came to $118.1 million. That's a year's worth of food supplies in addition to a year's worth of ammunition; it gives the mobilization battalions a good amount of supplies to survive on.
Fuel and other operations costs will come into play when they're activated; I'm estimating a battalion's annual operating cost at $30 million in Serednya Slaviya's economy - in the US, I'd estimate a single battalion operating at $100 million. In time of war, extra military spending on operations would allow the battalions to function. By comparison, Ukraine today is spending 34% of its GDP on the military, so a nation at war will dramatically increase spending to cover it.
And uniforms. According to the GAO (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-120) "The total value of military uniform items for a newly enlisted service member ranges from about $1,600 to $2,400" which has a nice average price of $2,000. Since uniforms and their accoutrements would be made locally, at local prices, I'm factoring in the economic difference and putting the price of uniforms at $600. With 81,700 personnel needing uniforms, my total budget comes to $49 million.
To add everything up...
I had to bump the military budget slightly to 2.3% of GDP. That gave me a total procurement budget of $3,652.5 million, at 40.4% of the total budget. Here's where it all goes:
Active Brigade Vehicles ($539 million)
Reserve Brigade Vehicles ($532.8 million)
Air Force Vehicles ($239.4 million)
Active/Reserve Weapons ($425.5 million)
Active/Reserve Ammunition ($336 million)
Active/Reserve Radios ($5.2 million)
Active/Resreve Food ($386.9 million)
MB Weapons ($312.4 million)
MB Radios ($21.6 million)
MB Ammunition ($102.5 million)
MB Vehicles ($386.8 million)
MB Food ($118.1 million)
Uniforms for all ($49 million)
Bayonets for all ($2 million)
NVGs for all ($84 million)
Total ($3541.2 million)
Remainder ($111.3 million)
By jove, I think we've got it!
-
Did I miss your medical costs for your troops?
Not just combat wounded but the usual day in-day out sprains, breaks, etc...?
-
I thought that was rolled up in the operating costs, but I could be wrong...
-
I would imagine medical expenses would be part of the Operations budget, yeah.
-
I would imagine medical expenses would be part of the Operations budget, yeah.
I've heard that before somewhere...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Miox6a9vI
-
Heh... ;D
-
Ukraine's defense spending (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-approves-increase-2023-defence-spending-2023-10-06/) rises to 26.6% of GDP for operations, salaries, and procurement. They're spending half of that on the defense sector in 2024, or about 13.3% of GDP assuming things don't change significantly.
Just for laughs, I plugged in the figures for a full call-up of my personnel. The active duty salaries for all those troops came to $372 million. 81,200 personnel at $4,100 a year, plus two brigades at $180 million each, plus the Air Force at $100 million, plus the $30 million operations cost per mobilization battalion for $2.7 billion. It came to a total defense spending in a full warfare scenario of 13.5% GDP, or a total spending of $3,437.1 million. That tells me I'm in the right ballpark economically, and that somehow I'm doing it right.
EDIT:
So I did a little more looking around at APCs, and found the Korean K808 Baekho "White Tiger" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K808_White_Tiger). It's an 8x8 APC that just finished its production run, with 500 produced for the South Korean army. There were also 100 6x6 variants produced, for a grand total of $735 million for the program. That breaks down to 1.225 million per vehicle.
(https://img3.yna.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2023/01/09/AEN20230109005400325_01_i_P4.jpg)
Compared to the Rosomak APC I'm currently looking at fielding, the price is almost the same. They're similarly armed with the choice of a .50 heavy machine gun or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Armor protection is similar as well, though the Rosomak can have applique armor kits attached. Both vehicles can be fitted with a 30mm cannon, though it's not known how this affects troop transport capabilities.
The benefits for going with the K808 are amphibious capability, which the Rosomak lacks. The K808 also carries more troops, with ten dismounts per vehicle compared to eight. It's also air-transportable by C-130J aircraft, making it more strategically mobile. In addition, the Baekho has a Chunho SPAAG variant (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtk72xDbrgY) with the turret from a K30 Biho and its twin 30mm autocannons plus the electro-optical and thermal targeting system. It doesn't have a radar system, however.
The Rosomak can be significantly better protected, though it gives up its amphibious capability to do so. It's also a heavier vehicle by 5,000 pounds compared to the K808. It doesn't have an anti-aircraft variant, but its parent vehicle the Patria AMV has the truly amazing NEMO mortar vehicle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpdIAcqaYtE&t=31s&pp=ygUfcGF0cmlhIG5lbW8gMTIwbW0gbW9ydGFyIHN5c3RlbQ%3D%3D).
I suppose the cheesy answer is "por que no los dos?" Buy the Baekho APC and its SPAAG variant for their dedicated roles, and the Rosomak IFV and the NEMO for cavalry and fire support. That'd complicate logistics somewhat with not having a single platform to do everything, but it also means having a top-tier mortar, a respectably armored and armed cavalry IFV, a flexible APC with a large troop component, and a SPAAG that's capable of deploying and keeping up with my troops.
Should I go with one or the other for a standardized vehicle fleet, or would I get better results from mixing them up?
-
That K808 is TALL... not sure I'd want those in the relatively flat terrain of SS... :/
-
Yeah, it's got a roof height eight inches taller than the Rosomak (wikipedia is wrong on its dimensions) so that's a consideration. That pushes it out of the C-130 cargo bay, too, so it loses that particular benefit as well.
I just wish the Rosomak/AMV carried more passengers. The VAB Mk 3 carries ten passengers as well as the K808, and it's four inches shorter than the Rosomak. The 25mm gun turret pushes it out of the C-130, though, but the base model is small and light enough to transport that way. It's in production, with 100 units for Lebanon back in 2018.
(https://www.militarytoday.com/apc/vab_mk3_l9.jpg)
Another option is the Pandur II, which carries a full squad of twelve in its APC version and six in its IFV variant. As far as height goes, it's the shortest, with 9 inches lower at the roofline than a Rosomak, and pretty cheap as well at $1.4 million per vehicle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Pandur_II%2C_Dny_NATO_2013_%285%29.JPG/1024px-Pandur_II%2C_Dny_NATO_2013_%285%29.JPG)
The Pandur is intriguing me, because I can really spread out my infantry in a 12-man platoon. The APC would outfit the standard infantry battalion, while the IFV would fit out the cavalry squads since there's only three dismounts in the cavalry. The IFV also carries a 30mm cannon, hm...the Pandur is getting tempting. It's not like I can't buy NEMO turrets to fit it, either...and maybe the Korean 30mm SPAAG turret can fit it too.
Instead of NEMO, it also has a mortar carrier version with a 120mm CARDOM from Israel, the same mortar that the Americans use.
(https://www.czdefence.cz/images/CLANKY/ACR/SAMOHYBNE_MINOMETY/120%20mm%20ShM%20Pandur%20II%208x8%20CZ.jpg)
So idle thought - a platoon of three eleven-man squads or four eleven-man squads? The idea would be a squad leader and two fire teams of five personnel, plus four extra dismounts to account for the platoon leader and platoon sergeant.
-
It's always a vehicle length issue. You basically have to lose the turret and turret basket to get enough room for a full squad of dismounts and their gear. Whether you go with a simple ring mount for the vehicle commander like the M113, or the weird 1-man MG turrets or an RWS, it mostly comes down to losing the turret intrusion into the hull
-
RWS are the way to go, if you can afford them...
-
RWS are the way to go, if you can afford them...
I would say go for the manual ring mount and retrofit the RWS as needed/budget allows. You know how the costs of electronics go over time and how their reliability goes with age.
Bling if necessary, but not necessarily bling!
-
There's unmanned turret options out there that don't penetrate the hull, things like the Teber 30/35 RCT (https://armyrecognition.com/idef_2017_online_show_daily_news/fnss_showcases_teber_30/35_remote_controlled_turret_at_idef_2017_21105172.html). It can accept a Bushmaster cannon up to 40mm in caliber, giving an IFV some serious teeth while staying completely outside the vehicle.
RWSs are nice indeed, although they typically stand very tall over the hull of the vehicle. Fortunately, there are low-profile options.
(https://www.zona-militar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pandur-II-RWS.jpg)
A nice thing about the Pandur II is that it comes with its own ATGM carrier, using TOW missiles.
(https://tecnodefesa.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2.6-VBC-missil-TOW-ILS.jpg)
So I'm leaning more and more to the Pandur II as an APC/IFV, because they're so bloody roomy and it allows me to really have a potent infantry squad.
Vehicle 1
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Platoon Leader (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B, Mossberg 590)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Vehicle 2
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Platoon Sergeant (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B, Mossberg 590)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Vehicle 3
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B, Mossberg 590)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
LMG Gunner (Ultimax 100, Glock 19)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Antiarmor Gunner (Grot B, AT4)
Rifleman/Combat Life Saver (Grot B)
Vehicle 4
Vehicle Driver (Grot B)
Vehicle Gunner (Grot B)
Squad Leader (Grot B, Mossberg 590)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo bearer (Grot B)
MMG Gunner (MG3, Glock 19)
MMG Ammo bearer (Grot B)
Team Leader (Grot B+GP)
ATGM Gunner (Grot B, Spike SR)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Grot B, Spike SR)
ATGM Gunner (Grot B, Spike SR)
ATGM Ammo Bearer (Grot B, Spike SR)
The enlarged squads really let me improve the Weapons Squad, while adding a Rifleman/Combat Life Saver to each fireteam. There's an empty seat in vehicles 3 and 4 to allow attached personnel to join the platoon, such as a combat medic or a fire support team. Total weapons count for the platoon are 46 Grot B rifles, 8 GP grenade launchers, 4 Mossberg 590 shotguns, 6 Ultimax 100 LMGs, 8 Glock 19 pistols, 12 AT4s, 4 Spike SR ATGMs, and 2 MG3 MMGs.
The Cavalry IFV version would be equipped with a Hitfist turret, with a 40mm Mk44 Bushmaster II autocannon along with a pair of TOW missiles, one on each side of the turret. It'd be the same turret on the Dardo IFV, just with a larger gun. With only three dismounts per vehicle, the space given to the other three seats in the vehicle would go to extra TOW missiles and other supplies for its dismounted scouts.
(https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/dardo3.jpg)
-
I missed something... why did you switch from the Beryl to the Grot again?
-
I wanted a bullpup for the compactness and maneuverability in tight confines like the inside of an APC or a building. I went with the Grot because of its modularity, and because it's being built next door - maybe we can get a license to produce them ourselves. That and I just really dig the look of the thing.
(https://milmag.pl/2021/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RAWAT_20.jpg)
(https://milmag.pl/2021/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RAWAT_00.jpg)
Though the point about modularity does mean that the same rifle can be easily converted from a bullpup to a standard config and back again with the parts available, so I suppose it'd be soldier's choice whether they get a bullpup or not.
I do have the Beryl rifle as a standard rifle for my mobilization battalions, however; the Grot's still in production and has only made 100,000 rifles as of November. Getting 11,000 of them won't be too hard, but getting enough Grots for my MBs isn't happening. I figured I can buy up surplus Beryls and have them factory refurbished in enough number to replace the AK-74 in the MBs.
-
In the true spirit of dirtbag miliz, I'd look into reverting to AKMs, especially if you already have local tooling or can score tooling for cheap since licensed and unlicensed makers are everywhere and a number are probably modernizing/offloading tooling in the 90s.
Rip off Norinco and Zastava and make it in 5.56 if you're doing a calibre conversion, or stick with 7.62 x 39 for a couple more decades (the Czechs did). If you need a compact version, Krink the AKM. You could do it like the Yugos and Hungarians and just shorten the barrel/folding stock (Zastava M92/PM md. 90) to maximize tooling/parts commonality. It'd be less work than the Type-56C's shortened and lightened receiver, at least.
For at least some units, you can probably have the US subsidize or donate M4/M16s via FMS contracts (probably the Mossbergs too).
I like the idea of going with the Glock 19. Given how secondary pistols are, I'm surprised there hasn't been a more general move towards compact models for duty use.
-
I suppose I can keep AKMs buried in cosmoline in warehouses across Seredyna Slaviya. 70,200 refurbished Beryls is $110.9 million, which is a pretty expensive purchase - if I can save some dosh, I will. The AKM came out in 1974, and became the standard arm. I don't have an ammunition plant, so my supply in the Soviet years would have been from Russia and I'd be upgrading to 5.45x39mm along with the Russian forces in SS. And an AK can handle tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through it before running into issues, as long as it's well-kept.
The arms industry in Serednya Slaviya...what's inherited from Ukraine is pretty damn small; there's the Rivne Automobile Repair Plant and the Lviv Armored Vehicle Plant. The former dabbles in engine swaps for army vehicles, while the latter is known for poor quality and canceled vehicles. They made the Dozor-B, which was canceled locally and instead produced in Poland as the Oncilla, for example. And the only small arms ammunition plant in all of Ukraine is in Luhansk, on the other side of the front lines. At least there's an aircraft repair facility that specializes in MiG fighters, and a turbojet repair plant as well, so I've at least got my aircraft covered as far as that goes.
I need an ammunition factory and a small arms factory, and I need to crack the whip on the LAVP to get their quality issues fixed. The LAVP has to maintain the Pandurs and VABs and trucks, and there's a lot of them to cover.
I also used to carry a Glock 19; it was the perfect size for a compact sidearm. I sold it off a long while back, but I currently own a Glock 41 that I bought when I turned .45 (ACP). I thought about going with a revolver for a service sidearm, but I wanted to keep NATO compatibility.
Also I wonder - with the mobilization battalions, do I really need a Reserve brigade with its share of equipment? I'd save about half a billion dollars in procurement costs, which can be partially used to upgrade the brigade to restore that third battalion of infantry while keeping its enlarged support elements and the rest used to cut the defense budget down to a more sustainable level. It'd also let me buy missiles for my Air Force, which is something I realized I'd neglected.
Just on a rough pass, I can cut defense spending down to 2% GDP and keep it meeting the minimum for NATO spending. Making just enough to meet the requirements sounds like something Serednya Slaviya would accomplish, with its limited resources.
So one nine-month term of active service, and then up to age 35 in the mobilization battalions. No reserve brigade saves me close to a billion at a second look; I'll break down spending and see just what I end up with. I end up with a total of 5,529 in the SSLF and 2,000 in the SSAF, after adding back the battalion to the SSLF.
I'll go through the rest and see how much that changes the budgets.
-
Cutting DOWN to 2% of GDP is more than most NATO countries can manage,,, ;D
-
I suppose I can keep AKMs buried in cosmoline in warehouses across Seredyna Slaviya. 70,200 refurbished Beryls is $110.9 million, which is a pretty expensive purchase - if I can save some dosh, I will. The AKM came out in 1974, and became the standard arm. I don't have an ammunition plant, so my supply in the Soviet years would have been from Russia and I'd be upgrading to 5.45x39mm along with the Russian forces in SS. And an AK can handle tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition through it before running into issues, as long as it's well-kept.
The arms industry in Serednya Slaviya...what's inherited from Ukraine is pretty damn small; there's the Rivne Automobile Repair Plant and the Lviv Armored Vehicle Plant. The former dabbles in engine swaps for army vehicles, while the latter is known for poor quality and canceled vehicles. They made the Dozor-B, which was canceled locally and instead produced in Poland as the Oncilla, for example. And the only small arms ammunition plant in all of Ukraine is in Luhansk, on the other side of the front lines. At least there's an aircraft repair facility that specializes in MiG fighters, and a turbojet repair plant as well, so I've at least got my aircraft covered as far as that goes.
I need an ammunition factory and a small arms factory, and I need to crack the whip on the LAVP to get their quality issues fixed. The LAVP has to maintain the Pandurs and VABs and trucks, and there's a lot of them to cover.
I also used to carry a Glock 19; it was the perfect size for a compact sidearm. I sold it off a long while back, but I currently own a Glock 41 that I bought when I turned .45 (ACP). I thought about going with a revolver for a service sidearm, but I wanted to keep NATO compatibility.
Also I wonder - with the mobilization battalions, do I really need a Reserve brigade with its share of equipment? I'd save about half a billion dollars in procurement costs, which can be partially used to upgrade the brigade to restore that third battalion of infantry while keeping its enlarged support elements and the rest used to cut the defense budget down to a more sustainable level. It'd also let me buy missiles for my Air Force, which is something I realized I'd neglected.
Just on a rough pass, I can cut defense spending down to 2% GDP and keep it meeting the minimum for NATO spending. Making just enough to meet the requirements sounds like something Serednya Slaviya would accomplish, with its limited resources.
So one nine-month term of active service, and then up to age 35 in the mobilization battalions. No reserve brigade saves me close to a billion at a second look; I'll break down spending and see just what I end up with. I end up with a total of 5,529 in the SSLF and 2,000 in the SSAF, after adding back the battalion to the SSLF.
I'll go through the rest and see how much that changes the budgets.
Service sidearms are generally small potatoes in terms of budgeting or necessity. That said, Alfa Proj out of the Czechia make some very budget revolvers (cheaper than a Glock) available in 9mm. Not sure what their long-term reliability is. I think they're also only 6-round cylinders, unlike some of the S&Ws with 7 or 8 round ones.
-
Shots between reloads definitely drove magazines over cylinders... ;)
-
Yeah, tell me about it. I pocket-EDC a Bulldog, five rounds of .44 Special ready to fly and a couple speedstrips of five rounds each. The Glock's a bit large for carry, so I have a light attached to it and keep it bedside. As far as the SSLF goes, they're happy with their compact Glocks; they're reliable and still hold a good amount of ammunition despite their smaller size.
tl;dr: dropped the reserve brigade, added a third infantry bn to the active brigade, recalculated expenditures, ammo usage was damned pricey, 20 years of aircraft missiles are expensive, good thing I only have 8 jet fighters
Based on my revised 54-man infantry platoon...okay, so I eliminated the Platoon Marksman position, which lets me get rid of some expensive FR F2 rifles. I've bought enough thermal optics to equip all the machine guns and combat platoon rifles and bought NVGs for my combat troops to go with.
8,000 Grot B rifle ($21.6 million)
8,000 Interceptor body armor ($12.6 million)
8,000 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
8,000 Bayonets ($0.2 million)
8,000 Uniform Sets ($16 million)
500 Glock 19 ($0.3 million)
200 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.3 million)
100 Mossberg 590 ($0.1 million)
200 Ultimax 100 ($0.9 million)
500 MG3 ($1.5 million)
250 M2HB ($3.5 million)
250 Mk 19 ($5 million)
1,700 AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sights ($16.4 million)
500 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($1.4 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
500 Spike SR missiles ($37.5 million)
1,000 TOW missiles ($100 million)
Total $224.7 million
I'm making up the prices some with the price of Piorun missiles; Poland bought 600 launchers and 3500 missiles for $735.8 million. Divided evenly that's $180,000 per piece of equipment; divided just among the missiles bought it's $210,000. I'm rounding off the price of missiles at $200,000 apiece, and the launcher for $60,000.
Equipment for the mobilization battalions is below:
72,000 AKM (pre-owned)
72,000 Interceptor Body Armor ($113.8 million)
72,000 SSh-68 Helmet (pre-owned)
72,000 Bayonets ($1.8 million)
72.000 Uniform Sets ($144 million)
5,000 Pallad ($8.3 million)
4,500 Mossberg 590 ($2.3 million)
7,500 Ultimax 100 ($34.5 million)
8,500 Glock 19 ($4.3 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
400 Spike SR ($30 million)
800 MG3 ($2.4 million)
400 M2HB ($2.8 million)
28,000 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($77.1 million)
4,800 AN/PRC-148 JEM ($21.6 million)
Total $450.3 million
The DOD spends 5.6 billion a year on ammunition in 2024's budget, for a combined military force of 1.4 million personnel. That comes to $4,000 per person, so with 7,529 active personnel my annual ammunition expense is $30.1 million. Over 20 years, that's $602.3 million expended. Ouch. My MBs also need ammunition, and the 70,200 personnel come to a total of $280.8 million for one year's supply. Ammunition is a big and painful expense.
Food expenses for my MBs comes to $118.1 million, but for the active duty force it's only $12.7 million per year. Over 20 years, that's an extra $253.3 million.
Just between food and training ammunition I'm spending $1,013.9 million. Adding in the costs of the weapons themselves, and that rises to $1,929.5 million. Yeah, I'm definitely having to axe the reserve brigade, I need that money for basic supplies.
Vehicles for the mobilization battalions don't change.
6,120 HMMWV ($61.2 million)
1,530 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($76.5 million)
900 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($67.5 million)
630 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($181.6 million)
Total: $386.8 million
The active duty vehicles change some; the Pandur II is a little more expensive than the Rosomak but it's got more capabilities. This is going "dirtbag" style with just Pandur APCs in both the infantry and cavalry transport roles, though I'm splurging on NEMO mortars since theey're only about $3 million apiece - twice the price of what a typical 120mm mortar carrier would cost, but the benefits are significant enough to make the money worth it.
41 Centauro ($47.2 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
156 Pandur II APC ($218.4 million)
9 Pandur II TOW ($13.5 million)
107 VAB ($42.8 million)
36 Patria AMV NEMO ($110 million)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
532 HMMWV ($5.3 million)
36 LMTV 4x4 truck ($1.8 million)
301 FMTV 6x6 truck ($22.6 million)
219 HEMTT 8x8 truck ($63.1 million)
Total $588.2 million
The Air Force doesn't change, but doesn't have any trucks either because I've got no way to figure out how many to buy. The price for AGM-65 Mavericks was averaged out at $63,500 per missile in 2007 dollars, adjusted for inflation in 2015 the price rises to about $75,000 per missile.
16 MD530F ($96 million)
4 P.180 Avanti ($8 million)
8 Alpha Jet ($16 million)
64 AIM-9X ($24.4 million)
320 AIM-9X Training Missiles ($67 million)
400 AGM-65 ($25.4 million)
20 Buk TELAR (pre-owned)
320 Buk missiles ($64 million)
16 PASARS 16 + Giraffe 1X ($32 million)
16 Poprad (50.4 million)
50 Piorun launchers and 500 missiles ($103 million)
Total $496.2 million
All told that comes to $3,513.7 million, which requires me to up defense spending to 2.2% of GDP. That leaves me $205.1 million left over for land vehicles for the Air Force as well as other equipment not listed above.
-
That's a decent amount of petty cash, but I suspect you'll run short anyway... ;D
-
I've been reading lately on some of the oldest combat equipment still being used by today's armed forces.
Like the Marine Saber, the lowly Canteen, where they preserved the Metal Cup for hot liquids, but kept the Flask part hard Plastic to ease weight restrictions.
What are, seeing in your mind, some of the oldest combat equipment being used by Serednya?
TT
-
And the only small arms ammunition plant in all of Ukraine is in Luhansk, on the other side of the front lines.
While not exactly the easiest thing, small arms and ammo manufacturing isn't rocket science either, Croatia built both from scratch, Slovenian private industry made also made some advances in this direction and less said about Montenegrians the better. If there is economic interest it can happen. Perhaps some enterprising SS oligarchs noticed one of the USA gun and ammo famines and decided that this is the market they want a piece of, securing some state support for their investment via defense contracts.
-
You can assume there's some level of sundry equipment that will be hashed out one way or another. And I'd drop the bayonets for multitools and/or entrenching tools, honestly. Way more useful.
-
Oldest equipment we're still using probably comes out to be either the AKM and bayonet or the helmet. That or some part of the soldier's kit...yeah. Definitely the entrenching tool (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPL-50) potentially dating back to the 19th century. I'll keep them around as useful tools, despite being ancient.
As far as a small arms and ammunition factory goes, I'll say one was built back in the 1970s under the Soviets. Ukraine can get by with one factory, but that's in the far east of the country; Serednya Slaviya deserves to have its own arms industry - as limited as that may be to infantry weapons and ammunition.
Having such a factory on SS soil also means I'm paying for ammo in the SS economy, so my ammunition expenses drop significantly. Annual expenses drop to $9 million, or $180.6 million for all twenty years of purchasing. The ammo for the MBs comes to $84.2 million. That's a savings of $618.2 million...that's damned significant, and I'm thankful for the suggestion.
The price for a Pandur II is all over the place. I'm going to go with this mass order (https://armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2020_global_security_army_industry/portuguese_army_deploys_pandur_ii_armored_vehicles_in_exercise_orion_2020.html) adjusting for 2015 prices. At that rate it's $472.1 million for 260 armored vehicles, or a per-unit price of $1.82 million in 2015 dollars. I'll roll with that as the price of the APC model, along with tech support and training costs. That still raises the price of my APCs to $240.2 million, up $21.8 million from previous estimate.
I originally was going to go with a buy-in of EBRC Jaguar vehicles, but it just doesn't feel right. Too high-tech and too expensive at $5.5 million apiece; they're meant for a networked information warfare system and I just don't have that. Instead I'll put six Pandur IFVs in each cavalry platoon, at $3.3 million per - that price should cover the turret, a 40mm gun, and two TOW missiles for the IFV's weapons. That would cut me down to six dismounts, but I'm only putting three in each vehicle to reach the optimum 6x36 cavalry platoon. The rest of the space is there for ammo and supplies.
With 9 cavalry platoons and 27 infantry platoons, I've got 36 RQ-11B Raven drones; based on the Netherlands buy of 72 (https://www.army-technology.com/projects/rq-11-raven/?cf-view) I'm spending $11.9 million for the planes and their ground stations. That puts a drone operator in each platoon, cav or infantry. There's also the drone platoon in the brigade and its four RQ-7B Shadow UAVs. Four planes, two ground stations, and all the assorted launch and recovery equipment make up one "system". According to Army Technology (https://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow-200-uav/?cf-view) there were a total of nine systems for $135 million, or $15 million per system. Combined, that's an additional $26.9 million spent on the UAVs.
I took a look at prices for backhoes, bulldozers, and the like. I'm averaging $500,000 apiece for new, good-sized ones to go to the engineers, which came to a total of $25.5 million.
41 Centauro ($47.2 million)
24 Pandur II IFV ($79.2 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
132 Pandur II APC ($240.2 million)
9 Pandur II TOW ($18 million)
107 VAB ($42.8 million)
36 Patria AMV NEMO ($110 million)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
36 RQ-11B Raven ($11.9 million)
4 RQ-7B Shadow ($15 million)
532 HMMWV ($5.3 million)
36 LMTV 4x4 truck ($1.8 million)
301 FMTV 6x6 truck ($22.6 million)
219 HEMTT 8x8 truck ($63.1 million)
51 mixed Engineering Vehicles ($25.5 million)
Total $746.1 million
EDIT:
I cut spending to 2% of GDP to be in-line with a poor nation getting by on the minimum required amount, and it leaves me with a total of $247.9 million to buy vehicles for the Air Force as well as a computer system for the military. The DoD wanted $45.2 billion (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106117) for its non-classified IT services in 2023...scaling that down to Serednya Slaviya's size comes to $243.1 million for 2023. Which makes me realize I have no IT staff, just that one enlarged brigade.
Shit. I'm back to needing my brigade slice, and that's just not doable.
Serednya Slaviya's army collapses under its own weight and crashes to the ground, a shambles of the post-Soviet order and a wreck of an organization. I can't make this work, guys, there's no way to stretch the budget to cover things without raising defense spending to 5% of GDP at a bare minimum. That puts me in fifth place compared to other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures). The only ones spending over 5% GDP are Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine.
Calling this one a bust.
-
No need to declare it a bust, just reign in the purchasing impulses and soldier on with more Soviet gear than originally planned. And remember that USA would be willing to sell to you equipment it was phasing out at any point between 2000 and 2022 at basically the price of transport and refit.
-
I know you're American, but it's important to realize how much of an outlier superpowers are. I would definitely look at the Baltics or Balkans as a reference point. The Baltics tend to be pretty heavy on the transparency too, so that should be more visible.
That, and don't take prices at face value. Nothing defence related is retail-like. Business-to-business deals are closer. You'd never buy 'just the guns', it's 'guns, training, spares, warranty, service center, magazines, and accessories' kind of thing.
-
@chanman
So your saying Ikea, but for guns, right? There's always either a piece missing or an extra one... somewhere.
TT
-
Like others, I say don't give up! Maybe start with the personnel, then add equipment?
-
tl;dr: analyzing Estonia's military spending, reorganizing the brigade, operations costs, and equipment purchases coming in on the budget.
It's less the purchasing expenses than it is the operations costs that are the killer. Even in Serednya Slaviya's economy, operating a brigade and its "brigade slice" administrative and support elements costs $918 million a year. That alone eats up 4% of my GDP by spending, and allows a pitiful amount for procurement.
Then again, Estonia is spending 3.2% of its GDP (https://news.err.ee/1609113089/estonia-s-defense-budget-to-reach-3-2-percent-of-gdp-in-2024) on its military, and 54% of that on procurement. The total comes to a defense budget of $1.46 billion. If I were to spend that much on the SS Armed Forces, I'd be dropping 5.74% GDP by omparison. Historically, Estonia's spending averages 2.16% GDP 2014-2023 and has only met the 2% minimum for NATO requirements after the Crimean invasion in 2014. Serednya Slaviya's budget would likely be similar, with the same average spending in dollars making for 3% of GDP.
I can reverse-engineer Estonia's budget somewhat. If they're spending 54% of that $1.46 billion ($788.4 million!) on procurement, and assuming they're paying 3% for facilities, that leaves 43% for operations and payroll expenses, or about $628 million for their military in 2024. That buys them a few battalions in a division of reserve forces. With their economy, that's an equivalent expense of $951 million a year, which is enough to operate that brigade plus at least some support elements.
I'll add an infantry battalion's-worth of personnel, or 780 troops to the unit. Of that extra 780 personnel, 644 go to expanding the logistics, maintenance, and medical companies to expand to full battalions of their own. The remaining 136 personnel go to the Brigade HQ as administrative personnel. That said, I'm still going to have to sack one battalion from the brigade; I need the 780 personnel to form a Combat Support Battalion with a Military Police Company, an Air Defense Company with a dozen Shilkas, and an IT/IW Company, along with a separate Gun Troop of 14 Centauros to the Cavalry Squadron.
I'm not convinced that a single logistics battalion is enough to move supplies, but it seems to work for the Estonians...though they also have a smaller country to move supplies around in. I'll add in another 399 personnel to add a second Distribution Battalion. That brings me to 5,688 SSLF personnel in total.
Converting $180 million for 4,509 personnel into an equivalent amount for 5,688 brings me to $227.1 million in annual operations and pay budgets. That plus $100 million for the SSAF operations budget, which is a number I'm pulling out of my rear, comes to $327.1 million a year. The reserves will be calculated below.
I end up with the following structure
Headquarters & Headquarters Company
Engineer Battalion
Cavalry Squadron
Infantry Battalion
Infantry Battalion
Combat Support Battalion
Artillery Battalion
Distribution Battalion
Distribution Battalion
Field Maintenance Battalion
Medical Battalion
That's got to handle maintenance up to depot levels, as well as medical support for everything up to severe wounds. The civilian hospital system likely takes over from there, handling critical cases privately. I'm still not convinced that's enough to handle the logistics needs of the brigade, but it'll have to do.
That gives me 4,063 nine-month conscripts and 1,625 careerists in the SSLF, and 1,429 nine-month conscripts and 572 careerists in the SSAF. That gives me 7,304 trained conscripts per year, or just enough for nine reserve battalions formed each year. I can cut back some on the transportation requirements by limiting the time in the reserves to five years. That brings me back to a total of 45 battalions, with 31,500 personnel in the reserves.
Operating those battalions is something else entirely. A light infantry reserve brigade plus its brigade slice costs 780 million per year. Cutting that to 20% to match the price reduction of only operating the brigade itself brings me down to 156 million. Dividing that by constituent personnel, one battalion of 780 out of a brigade of 4413, brings me to 27.6 million, and converting that to Serednya Slaviya's economy means my reserve battalions only cost $8.3 million to operate in the reserve at one weekend a month and two weeks a year. I need to either cut battalions or cut reserve operations; if I step reservist training periods to one weekend every three months and a five-day period of maintenance and training once a year, I can cut that price by two thirds. That brings me down to $2.74 million per battalion, or $123.3 million to keep my reservists in some moderate, probably insufficient, level of training.
Adding $327.1 million for active operations plus $123.3 million brings me to a total operational cost of $450.4 million, of which $93.6 million is salary for 5,492 conscripts, 2,197 careerists, and 35,100 reservists. That brings me to a minimum of 1.83% of GDP spending, and is a pretty consistent amount since the 2014 reorganization. If I start my modernization then as well, I can kick spending to 3% of GDP and hold it there for ten years. That puts me in 12th place worldwide by GDP expenses, between Columbia and Singapore. As a comparison, 3% of Serednya Slaviya's GDP is almost exactly 2% that of Estonia's, so my figures are meshing well. That 3% spending gives me $2,498 million to spend on hardware.
So for my reserve battalions, I need the following:
3,060 HMMWV ($30.6 million)
765 4x4 Truck ($38.3 million)
450 6x6 Truck ($33.8 million)
315 8x8 Truck ($90.8 million)
Total: $193.5 million
36,000 AKM (pre-owned)
36,000 Interceptor Body Armor ($56.9 million)
36,000 SSh-68 Helmet (pre-owned)
36,000 Bayonets ($0.9 million)
36.000 Uniform Sets ($72 million)
2,500 Pallad ($4.2 million)
2,250 Mossberg 590 ($1.2 million)
3,750 Ultimax 100 ($17.3 million)
4,000 Glock 19 ($2 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
200 Spike SR ($15 million)
400 MG3 ($1.2 million)
200 M2HB ($1.4 million)
14,000 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($38.5 million)
2,400 AN/PRC-148 JEM ($10.8 million)
Total $228.8 million
That eats up $422.3 million, leaving $2,075.7 million to spend on the active duty personnel. The SSAF's requirements are only partially available, and I'm making up the price of the Shilka's Biala upgrade and pricing the Igla missiles at $90,200 in 2015, but here's what I have going to them:
16 MD530F ($96 million)
4 P.180 Avanti ($8 million)
8 Alpha Jet ($16 million)
64 AIM-9X ($24.4 million)
240 AIM-9X Training Missiles ($50.3 million)
400 AGM-65 ($25.4 million)
16 ZSU-23-4 Biala ($16 million)
20 Buk TELAR (pre-owned)
320 Buk missiles ($64 million)
16 Igla launchers and 480 missiles ($43.5 million)
Total: $343.6 million
That leaves me $1,732.1 million to spend. Ammunition for the reserve brigades is stockpiled from the past, since I'm equipping them with old AKMs in 5.45x39mm. That I can write off as pre-owned, though the active duty brigade still needs its supply of 5.56x45mm as well as all the other weapons. At a price of $4,000 per person, and comes to $30.8 million per year. Since I'm manufacturing my own ammunition, my annual price drops to $9.2 million per year or $184.5 million for all twenty years of acquisitions.
Down to $1,547.6 million. A one year supply of food for one soldier costs the equivalent of $1,682. For the reserves it costs $59 million, while for the active forces it's $12.9 million a year. Twenty years of supplies comes to $258.6 million. That leaves me with $1,230 million to buy vehicles with.
32 Centauro ($38.2 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
36 Pandur II IFV ($118.8 million)
84 Pandur II APC ($151.2 million)
9 Pandur II TOW ($13.5 million)
104 VAB ($41.6 million)
36 Patria AMV NEMO ($110 million)
12 CAESAR ($39.6 million)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
12 ZSU-23-4 Biala ($12 million)
558 HMMWV ($5.6 million)
39 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($2 million)
314 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($23.6 million)
219 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($63.1 million)
51 Assorted Engineer Vehicle ($25.5 million)
Total $668.6 million
The Pandur II IFV is a price estimate of a $1.5 million turret on a $1.8 million hull. The turret would have a 40mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II cannon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk44_Bushmaster_II), and a pair of TOW missile launchers. Like the American 6x36 platoon, the vehicle only carries six personnel aboard, two crew and four dismounts each.
The remaining space left over is taken up with extra TOW missiles and cannon ammunition, as well as supplies for the dismounted scouts.
That leaves $561.4 million to equip my 7,688 active duty personnel.
8,000 Grot B rifle ($21.6 million)
8,000 Interceptor body armor ($12.6 million)
8,000 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
8,000 Bayonets ($0.2 million)
8,000 Uniform Sets ($16 million)
500 Glock 19 ($0.3 million)
200 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.3 million)
200 Mossberg 590 ($0.1 million)
200 Ultimax 100 ($0.9 million)
500 MG3 ($1.5 million)
250 M2HB ($3.5 million)
250 Mk 19 ($5 million)
1,700 AN/PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sights ($16.4 million)
500 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($1.4 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
500 Spike SR missiles ($37.5 million)
1,000 TOW missiles ($100 million)
Total $224.7 million
No changes here, so subtracting that from my funds leaves me $336.7 million. That should more than cover vehicles and supplementary equipment for the Air Force, while buying a second-rate computer system to keep track of everything. As far as the Air Force goes, I don't see their expenses passing $36 million, so that gives me a roughly $300 million computer system for the military. I've got that IT/IW company to handle the hardware, plus the enlarged HHC and its staff of computer techs.
Did I just finish this successfully?
-
Looks good to me! :)
-
I figure the modernization and reorganization started in 2014, despite being NATO members since 2004. Back then they were still poking around with a few Soviet regiments left over from the old days, and equipment was wearing thin. Cue the annexation of Crimea and sudden demand to modernize and bring up a military that's NATO-compatible and a ten year plan to do it in. They pulled it off, but at not insignificant cost.
Also I realized I was missing an entire battalion of transport vehicles from the list. I had doubled up the distribution battalion, but hadn't accounted for the second BN's trucks in the total list. Adjusted figures are below.
604 HMMWV ($6 million) (+$0.4 million)
39 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($2 million)
353 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($26.4 million) (+$2.8 million)
325 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($93.7 million) (+$30.6 million)
72 Assorted Engineer Vehicle ($36 million) (+$10.5 million)
That takes another $43.3 million off the table, eating into my IT budget and cutting it down to $256.7 million. I wonder how much an AS/400 costs...I mean, it's Serednya Slaviya, the computer system probably really does look like this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/IBM_AS-400_9404-B10.jpg/800px-IBM_AS-400_9404-B10.jpg)
Oh yeah - set aside $15 million for the RQ-7B Shadow UAV, its two ground stations, and four aircraft. That and 6 RQ-11B Raven systems, one for each infantry company, for $1.5 million. So $240.2 million for computers after that. Platoon level drones need to have a dedicated drone operator in the platoon, something I don't have but could attach.
-
With all those Ravens, do you really need the Shadow?
-
The Shadow's listed in the Stryker brigade in the engineer battalion as its own tactical UAS platoon with four planes. That's one system with two ground stations as well, so that is "canon" as it were. The Ravens are my own addition, with each $250,000 system having three planes - that's enough to push it down to platoon level, with 18 mechanized infantry platoons in the brigade.
-
Question, would you "cross-train" your Armed Forces with each other?
Like have an Army, Navy and an Air Force, but cross-train your Army and Navy personnel to be the Marine equivalent and how the old Army Air Corp became what is now considered the Air Force? How the Marines were originally Sailors trained in Army formations back in the wind.
Or go forward and cross-train the Army into the Marines, Navy and Air Force? As the Army is just a bunch of ground huggers, traditionally. You could just make it all Marines, still call it "Army", but at least they will be mobile enough.
Marines attached to every other unit to provide local security and general "Army" duties, Air Force to provide all things ground and air support and the Navy to support all things in need of aquatic.
TT
-
Nah, I don't see cross-training like that happening. The country's landlocked with just some rivers to patrol, and that can be done by civilian police organizations instead of the military. There's no Marines in the Serednya Slaviya Armed Forces. Besides, the term of service is only 9 months in the active duty forces, you're there to be trained to do your job, keep your gear maintained, and maybe go through a field exercise or two during that time. There isn't time to train army folks to do air force jobs, and that would muddy the waters between them anyway.
The Air Force is primarily an airspace-monitoring force, though they do have a handful of Alpha Jets for tank plinking with Mavericks and air patrol with Sidewinders. There's also the attack helicopter squadron of 12 MD-530Fs with TOW missiles, again for tank plinking. Beyond that there's just a few personnel transport planes and patrol helicopters.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%91%D0%9A0010_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE3.JPG)
Pictured: a BK 0010 personal computer, likely the state of government information technology in Serednya Slaviya. I love the retrofuture look to it.
-
It's even a Russian keyboard... hilarious! :D
-
Does it use ROL (Russian OnLine) to bootstrap your basic dial-up internet?
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.tKQU9vkQi6fdo7wu8uiIFQHaKr?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
As seen in the street corners of Serednya.
TT
-
Yup, the BK 0010 was pretty much the only mass-produced personal computer in Russia. Hell, Serednya Slaviya's probably still heavily dialup, with widespread broadband limited to Lviv.
I wonder what's on TV?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z4y5rGmaXq4/XOLJdbDUgYI/AAAAAAAAfOk/3Db6lozimLU9ecZisvm17pSLDsqPwHgxACLcBGAs/s1600/kvn-49-soviet-tv-2.jpg)
Yes, that's a plastic water-filled magnifying lens to make the screen look bigger. I imagine Serednya Slaviya is full of technological workarounds like that, while the military gets the big funding.
-
Yup, the BK 0010 was pretty much the only mass-produced personal computer in Russia. Hell, Serednya Slaviya's probably still heavily dialup, with widespread broadband limited to Lviv.
I wonder what's on TV?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z4y5rGmaXq4/XOLJdbDUgYI/AAAAAAAAfOk/3Db6lozimLU9ecZisvm17pSLDsqPwHgxACLcBGAs/s1600/kvn-49-soviet-tv-2.jpg)
Yes, that's a plastic water-filled magnifying lens to make the screen look bigger. I imagine Serednya Slaviya is full of technological workarounds like that, while the military gets the big funding.
Once globalization really kicks off in the 21st century, even Serednya Slaviya's going to get dem cheap consumer goods. And in this day and age, I think that wood case and brass fitting are probably the most expensive components :P
-
Yeah, I suppose cheap consumer goods will be a thing, but don't forget the economy. I'm copying Ukraine in that regard, where the average worker's pay is $4,100 a year. Imported goods are still luxuries, really, though I suppose I could handwave it somewhat with locally produced items. Talk Samsung into opening an electronics factory in Lviv, maybe, something to help stem the tide of people emigrating away from Serednya Slaviya in search of a better life.
I dunno, something just feels wrong somewhere. I think I'm making a mistake with my independent reservist battalions, and that they should be reservist brigades instead...with all the attachments and costs that entails. I think there's a rework coming there.
-
Yeah, I suppose cheap consumer goods will be a thing, but don't forget the economy. I'm copying Ukraine in that regard, where the average worker's pay is $4,100 a year. Imported goods are still luxuries, really, though I suppose I could handwave it somewhat with locally produced items. Talk Samsung into opening an electronics factory in Lviv, maybe, something to help stem the tide of people emigrating away from Serednya Slaviya in search of a better life.
I dunno, something just feels wrong somewhere. I think I'm making a mistake with my independent reservist battalions, and that they should be reservist brigades instead...with all the attachments and costs that entails. I think there's a rework coming there.
I think you might be overdoing conscript pay. I think the Russians pre-war had something like a $30/month stipend :P. They don't need to be paid a living wage because the state is paying for their living - which in terms of room and board, are rather cheap in poor countries.
Reservist units aren't anywhere near full strength either. You'll have to dig up the particulars but I think something like 30-50% of paper strength wouldn't be out of the question, and even regular forces might only be at 70% of paper strength.
-
Yeah, a flea smitten roach Motel here in America could be a Ritz Carleton in Serednya?
...
TT
-
Obviously, you'll need to muster savings and tap some... unconventional funding sources so that Serednya Slaviya can steal a march on the world and bootstrap their covert Mobile Suit program! :cheesy:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV841-0vxid6ShQOVWJ5zJJ7Btzs2RNEE66KuMlW-nLurR49atbCaAvc6We4ChTbF-9SHY8qDDAqSV2XTjZ9G_BAhis1WmHu5oLSiOQRVfTn8YEyfg3F7uWpoKKm_7MIU3n0gNGqDOWak26F7aCrDkheQjQ=w1641-h1241-s-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV86_NoA87960lBu32_isBwBtZb0tzTRxtsWxpsNTkn-R_44GfBFHe5QkbCTXme1_q3asdDK6rUvpbGweDkYkW_2fXh3wehdSorhuvIashksAxvd7JZPRUH97iS5fSa5M_Tabzhd1QrWlB5lmLEeQJGTkEw=w1572-h1191-s-no?authuser=0)
-
My average pay of $4,100/yr applies to the active duty folks; the reservists get 20% of that at $820 annually. It's more of a supplement than a living wage, though according to Google searches said living wage is only around $1,500 a year.
I figure with conscription going - and only to small levels; averaging out male and female conscription I'm calling up about 8% of my population turning 18. That lets me be pretty selective about who gets pushed into the army, and suggests I should hit target staffing levels easily.
I also had my SSAF troops switch to the SSLF after their active duty term was up, which didn't make sense to me. I redid things a bit so that the SSAF has its own reserve force, outside the SSLF's own troops. Though that is going to increase my operations spending...which starts a death spiral of funding again.
I'm also not happy with the 3% GDP spending; I don't think Serednya Slaviya can afford the increase of $254.6 million dollars over the NATO minimum. I've got to choke that down to 2%, and a total of $509.2 million in spending for 2023. That means heavy cuts to my operations budget, which is by far the king of my total expenses.
I'll start buying hardware in 2004. That's when Serednya Slaviya decided to push its military spending up to NATO's 2% minimum; prior to that it was lower with limited procurement and a Soviet-style army still. 2004-2013 would be a period of reorganization and the start of heavy procurement, with an urgency that became stronger in 2014. They couldn't increase funding, instead having to look for foreign military aid and cheap weapons.
That means buying American, at least in some ways. I can save $60 million just by replacing my cavalry vehicles with Bradleys, so I'm back to those. I can also save $150 million more by getting rid of the NEMO mortars and using Nona-SVKs, and replacing my VABs with BTR-80s. I'm going to miss the NEMO significantly, it's got some fantastic capabilities but I just can't afford them.
I'll take a closer look at cuts tomorrow; I'm clutching the Pandur IIs with all my might despite their cost because I want that large platoon size. I'm just not sure I can afford them...there's also the question of what to do with the reserve brigade and its equipment.
-
Piggy back off OIF spending. At the very least, that should cover some of the basics like body armour. Start with PASGT and switch to Interceptor, especially once the Marines start replacing theirs. That also means some of your units might be mechanized on well-used Humvees and MRAPs. Which would... actually look very Ukrainian these days.
-
Interceptor vests run $1585, so getting enough to outfit the active and reserve brigade only costs $25.4 million in total. That's affordable for a full set of body armor, and is one expense I'm definitely making. As far as other OIF stuff...I don't suppose the Army would sell off trucks cheap; the logistics requirements is eating significantly into my budget. They actually cost a little more than the Pandur II APCs do, all told.
I think I'll have to axe the Fenneks too, at 1.6 million per vehicle they're not just pricey but they're arguably extraneous to the cavalry. I could save another 14 million per brigade by axing the Cavalry Squadron's Centauros and relying solely on the Bradleys for their firepower, while keeping 36 of the vehicles around split between the active and reserve infantry companies.
So far I've reached this point:
32 Centauro ($32 million)
12 Fennek ($19.2 million)
36 M2A2 ODS Bradley ($58.7 million)
84 Pandur II APC ($151.2 million)
9 Pandur II TOW ($18 million)
104 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
36 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
12 Gvozdika (pre-owned)
6 RM-70 Grad ($4.7 million)
12 ZSU-23-4 Biala ($12 million)
604 HMMWV ($6 million)
39 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($2 million)
353 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($26.4 million)
325 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($93.7 million)
72 Assorted Engineer Vehicle ($36 million)
Total $422.7 million
-
Around 2001, several navies in South America were so broke, they furloughed everybody (without pay), so your funding struggles are totally par for the course.
Regarding Bradleys, there's a video floating around of a Bradley vs. T-90 battle. It's interesting to say the least!
-
I understand that was the case in the early 1990s in Russia as well. Units going a year without paying their troops, and living off a barter system after the end of the USSR.
Saw the video. Way to go Bradleys! Looks like the tank crew managed to bail out after what was a wild ride when the turret malfunctioned. Surprised not to see any TOW usage in the available footage, though.
-
Get Coporate money, like First Burger King, KFC and Domino's... or Greggs. (:angel:)
Make Corporates pay for your arms!
TT
-
They already are, where do you think the tax money comes from?
EDIT: As for that money.... Estonia is spending an average of 2.16% GDP on its military over the last ten years, with a big ramp up the last two years. Gee I wonder why.
Sure, I can afford to buy most of what I need and some of what I want - not all - on a 2% budget over 20 years. But I can't afford to expend it in training; I'm having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on missiles for aircraft and SAMs just to fire off one a year per vehicle. I need a general stockpile of ammunition as well as the stuff that gets expended in training every year as well, which increases things further.
These cuts run deep; I'm keeping my helicopters and adding a few Avantis for more personnel transport, but axing the Alpha Jets and their AAMs and AGMs. That saved me more than $50 million there, even after buying a lot more Buk missiles to allow for a small stockpile after training expenditures.
I have 30 years of training ammunition for a 20 year period, that should give me enough of a stockpile to last a little while in combat. The same goes for the reserves, with a 10 year supply there. That comes to $40,000 worth of munitions per soldier, which seems like a lot until you start adding in cannon and mortar rounds at a few thousand dollars apiece. I'm pretty sure it's insufficient for national needs, but I've got no way to figure out what is "sufficient" in the first place.
-
Once globalization really kicks off in the 21st century, even Serednya Slaviya's going to get dem cheap consumer goods. And in this day and age, I think that wood case and brass fitting are probably the most expensive components :P
Get the right marketing, and those wood cases + brass fittings can be resold as fancy smartphone holders for the steampunk culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk_fashion).
As to why Russian computers didn't do that well, here is a video about that:
Why the Soviet Computer Failed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8) (19 minutes)
-
They already are, where do you think the tax money comes from?
EDIT: As for that money.... Estonia is spending an average of 2.16% GDP on its military over the last ten years, with a big ramp up the last two years. Gee I wonder why.
Sure, I can afford to buy most of what I need and some of what I want - not all - on a 2% budget over 20 years. But I can't afford to expend it in training; I'm having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on missiles for aircraft and SAMs just to fire off one a year per vehicle. I need a general stockpile of ammunition as well as the stuff that gets expended in training every year as well, which increases things further.
These cuts run deep; I'm keeping my helicopters and adding a few Avantis for more personnel transport, but axing the Alpha Jets and their AAMs and AGMs. That saved me more than $50 million there, even after buying a lot more Buk missiles to allow for a small stockpile after training expenditures.
I have 30 years of training ammunition for a 20 year period, that should give me enough of a stockpile to last a little while in combat. The same goes for the reserves, with a 10 year supply there. That comes to $40,000 worth of munitions per soldier, which seems like a lot until you start adding in cannon and mortar rounds at a few thousand dollars apiece. I'm pretty sure it's insufficient for national needs, but I've got no way to figure out what is "sufficient" in the first place.
The GWOT is like a two-decade long live fire training exercise. :cheesy:
But seriously, no one trains as much as they'd like, and conscripts least of all for the reasons you're finding out. When Taiwan recently announced they'd extend mandatory military service again, one of the big questions was if they would also free up funding for useful training or if the conscripts would just be spending 9 extra months cutting grass and picking up litter. One account mentioned that during their mandatory service in the mid-2000s, they had enough of an ammunition budget for 17 rounds each.
Also also, for basic marksmanship training, you can use .22 training guns/conversions. They have a longgggg history. Once the basics are taught, they can move on to the real service weapon.
I know I've made the comment either here, in the previous thread, or in one of the AFV threads that dedicated OPFOR units like the 11th ACR or aggressor squadrons are so effective regardless of which doctrine they're mimicking because they themselves are units that effectively train full-time.
The PLA's equivalent to the 11th ACR is the 195th Mechanized Infantry Brigade - a dedicated BLUFOR unit that has similarly lopsided performances against line units, and for similar reasons. They undertake brigade-level training and wargames as a way of life in a way that line brigades rarely get to do. I'm sure if unlimited food, space and spare parts were available, every unit would benefit from more frequent training at scale, but y'know, limits.
-
Even though F16 hasn't posted in a while, I definitely hear things he'd have said here... :)
-
Interesting video on the Soviet computer situation. As it says, centralized planning along with short-term decision making pretty much doomed the industry.
Basic marksmanship training is handled by DOSAAF style pre-military-induction shooting clubs. I suppose firearms ownership is legal in Serednya Slaviya, though pretty heavily regulated and limited in scope of what can be owned. Shotguns and rimfires off the top of my head, with a general ban on handguns.
The pre-military training is likely voluntary, though there's social pressure to join the clubs. The teams compete against each other on a regional level, with national level events akin to the Olympics. Each region sends its best to the national competitions, and the winners get assembled into the Serednya Slaviyan Olympics team.
I guess it comes down to how much training I'm getting out of that $4,000 per person in munitions expenses. That's based on the DOD 2024 budget, which spends $5.6 billion on ammunition. There's another $17.3 billion spent each year on tactical missiles. That's an extra $12,357 per person, for a total of $16,357 in training. If I'm training my active duty folks at the same level of my reservists, with one weekend every three months for live fire training and a five-day field exercise, I'm spending $125.8 million annually on both the active and reserve duty troops for ammunition expenses.
That only comes to five billion dollars across 20 years...which forces me back into more than 3% GDP spending over 20 years to cover those costs.
This just doesn't work. More later, maybe
-
So Poland and Estonia both are both dropping 3-4% GDP spending on their military in 2023 and 2024, while Lithuania is spending 2.5% and Latvia 2.4%. That gives me some ideas to settle spending numbers, running Serednya Slaviya's GDP back from 2004. From 2004-2008 defense spending averaged 2%; after the Georgia invasion through to 2014 spending increased for an average of 2.25% of GDP. Then comes the Crimean annexation and the early Russian invasion of Ukraine, and spending from there to 2022 averages 2.5% of GDP, while 2023 sees a big jump to 3.5% of spending.
That requires a switch to the current organization in the early 2000s, with the single active and single reserve brigade and the Air Force's current size being consistent over those years.
The big thing is training and ammunition expenses. The DOD spends $16,357 per soldier on ammo and missiles; I'm going to cut that price in half because I'm only operating in a peacetime setting without combat expenditures. Of that $8,179, $2,000 is regular ammunition. With the establishment of a munitions plant in Serednya Slaviya, I can cut that expense down by $1,400 by producing bullets and shells in my economy. That brings my annual expense to $6,779 per soldier, or $52.1 million for the active and reserves each. Across 20 years, that's a total of $2,084 million dollars...and adding in two more years of procurement to cover a small stockpile on top of the annual expenditure, I come to $2,292.4 million for my ammunition.
That leaves $230.9 million for my air force vehicles, which probably won't exceed $30 million, and $10 million per year for a computer system to bring everything under one controlled roof. I suppose that counts as workable, though that's going to be a pretty behind the times computer system. Windows 11 it ain't.
-
If you're lucky, it's Windows NT... that was the most stable version I've ever used...
-
Yeah, NT and 2000 were both good at stability and reliability. They were also things that allowed user control, and not the kinds of BS I have to deal with on this Win10 machine...but that's just personal frustration. Admin rights aren't entirely admin rights...
Oh look, a BTR-80 armored recovery vehicle.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/BREM-K_-_TankBiathlon14part2-06.jpg/640px-BREM-K_-_TankBiathlon14part2-06.jpg)
EDIT: Man, Serednya Slaviya is poor. I found this list of oblasts by GRP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP) and adding up the five that make up Serednya Slaviya, my GDP isn't 25.46 billion...it's 17.6 billion. That's a 30% hit to my total money available, and puts me at less than half of Estonia or Latvia and practically 1/4 of Lithuania...let alone Poland or Belarus. Going back to 2004, the GDP of Serednya Slaviya was a whopping $6,484 million dollars, with a NATO-mandated spending of $129.68 million.
Okay, rough pass. At $180 million to operate just a Stryker BCT of 4,509 personnel in the Serednya Slaviyan economy, that's $39,920.16 per head per year. Early on I don't even have that much money in the entire budget, let alone anything for paying people or maintaining facilities. I'm not going to be making brigades, I'm making a few battalion tactical groups and damn the torpedoes; I can't come up with a more capable military force. Operations and pay budgets eat so much along with training that it's not funny. At least fuel is covered under the Operations budget.
-
Don't forget to recoup some costs from selling your BTR-80s on... ;)
-
So each soldier is worth $39,920 in the active duty role and $11,089 in the reserves annually.
Quoth Wikipedia
"These BTGs comprised a tank company, three mechanised infantry companies, two anti-tank companies, two or three artillery batteries, and two air-defence batteries."
Combat Battalion Group
Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Company - 107 personnel
Mobile Gun Company - 57 personnel
Mechanized Infantry Headquarters - 190 personnel
Mechanized Infantry Company - 196 personnel
Mechanized Infantry Company - 196 personnel
Mechanized Infantry Company - 196 personnel
Cavalry Troop - 105 personnel
Antitank Company - 53 personnel
Antitank Company - 53 personnel
Artillery Battery - 91 personnel
Artillery Battery - 91 personnel
Artillery Battery - 91 personnel
Target Acquisition Platoon - 32 personnel
Air Defense Battery - 57 personnel
Air Defense Battery - 57 personnel
Each Mech Inf. company is based around having 55-man platoons instead of the 44-man platoons of the Stryker company. All told that comes to 1,572 personnel, and lacks support elements. I'll start off with a Support Battalion Group instead, listed below.
Support Battalion Group
Battalion Headquarters & Headquarters Company - 107 personnel
Engineer Headquarters - 88 personnel
Engineer Company - 87 personnel
Engineer Company - 95 personnel
Military Intelligence Company - 100 personnel
Signals Company - 45 personnel
Support Headquarters - 86 personnel
Distribution Company - 133 personnel
Maintenance Company - 102 personnel
Medical Company - 87 personnel
Infantry Forward Support Company - 90 personnel
Artillery Forward Support Company - 93 personnel
Engineer Forward Support Company - 97 personnel
That comes to 1,210 personnel. For the first few years in NATO there was just 500 personnel in the SSAF and one Support Battalion group, there to provide support to NATO forces stationed in country. By 2023 I can see having two Support Battalion Groups and a single Combat Battalion Group. That comes to 3,992 SSLF troops and 1,500 in the SSAF, for a total of 5,492 personnel.
SSLF Vehicles
23 B1 Centauro (34.5 million)
12 M2A2 ODS Bradley ($26.4 million)
57 Pandur II APC ($188.1 million)
18 Pandur II TOW ($63 million)
64 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
8 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
12 Gvozdika (pre-owned)
6 BM-21 Grad (pre-owned)
24 ZSU-23-4 Biala ($24 million)
288 Igla missiles ($25.9 million)
475 HMMWV ($4.8 million)
39 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($2 million)
302 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($22.7 million)
226 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($65.2 million)
66 Assorted Engineer Vehicle ($33 million)
Total $489.6 million
SSLF + SSAF Infantry Weapons
5,500 Grot B rifle ($14.9 million)
5,500 Interceptor body armor ($8.7 million)
5,500 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
5,500 Bayonets ($0.1 million)
5,500 Uniform Sets ($11 million)
500 Glock 19 ($0.3 million)
200 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.3 million)
200 Mossberg 590 ($0.1 million)
200 Ultimax 100 ($0.9 million)
500 MG3 ($1.5 million)
250 M2HB ($3.5 million)
250 Mk 19 ($5 million)
550 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($1.6 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
300 Spike SR missiles ($22.5 million)
3 RQ-11B Raven System ($0.8 million)
9 RQ-28A System ($0.4 million)
Total $79 million
SSAF Vehicles and Weapons
16 MD530F ($96 million)
540 TOW missiles ($54 million)
8 P.180 Avanti ($16 million)
100 HMMWV ($1 million)
20 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($1 million)
32 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($2.4 million)
12 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($3.5 million)
Total: $173.9 million
Drone-wise I'm well stocked; the RQ-11B is a company level asset while each platoon gets a pair of RQ-28A quadcopters and a ground control unit handled by a Drone Operator in the platoon. They're not "underground Ukrainian drone factory" cheap but I can still afford enough of them for the tiny military Serednya Slaviya has.
There's no reserve force outside of "trained former soldiers" that can be called up in an emergency, just the three active battalion groups. The idea is to provide a logistical support structure for NATO allies stationing troops in-country, and has just enough of a combat force to be an annoying speedbump in an invasion. They're more of a stubborn national pride than a serious attempt at a combatant force, though there's probably enough AK-74s in cosmoline coccoons alongside all those AT4s that a civilian reserve can put up a fight.
I refigured the price of the Pandurs at $3.3 million apiece, with the extra cost going to service and tech support from SDP. The price of the Bradleys was also increased to $2.2 million apiece, to reflect tech support for them. Last was an increase in the price of the B1 Centauros to $1.5 million each, to reflect the price of refurbishing them as well as continued support. Serednya Slaviya needs that support, which is why things cost as much as they do.
All in all, the leftover budget for vehicles and weapons is $956.3 million, of which I've spent $742.5. That leaves me $213.8 million to come up with a computer system, which should be workable. It'll be behind the times, but maybe not so much as I was joking about - per person, I'm spending $38,929.35 on information infrastructure. That's more than enough for a laptop for everyone and network servers to connect everything. Dialup is still the most common form of internet for Serednya Slaviya, though with that much cash per person I suppose broadband is making inroads across the nation.
Plans for 2024 give me $136.53 million in procurement after annual expenses, while holding military spending at 2.5% GDP. That's enough to modernize my fire support elements with new Korean SPGs and MLRSs, as well as add in a handful of Patria AMVs with NEMO turrets to replace the Nona-SVKs. After that, I suppose replacing the rest of the BTR-80s with Pandur IIs is the priority. After that the plan is to raise a third support battalion group by 2030. That way I can support NATO partners, and maybe once that's finished I'll start on a second CBG.
Related because Bradleys, an interview with the Bradley crew (https://vxtwitter.com/wartranslated/status/1748480083990372669) that bagged a T-90.
-
Starlink will be HUGE for you!
-
I took another look at training expenses and there's no reason I'm spending $12,357 per year per trooper on shooting missiles I pretty much don't have. I cut the ammo budget to 30% of the $4,000 the US spends, to reflect the price of ammunition made in Serednya Slaviya, and cut the missile budget down to 1/3 to account for the limited number of missile systems to use. That freed up a lot of cash, so I looked into expanding the military somewhat.
I did cut back on a few Pandurs in second-line positions, such as CBRN scouts, ambulance, or recovery vehicles. That was left to surplus BTR-80s, which also serve in the Support Group.
Combat Group Vehicles
1572 Personel
23 B1 Centauro (34.5 million)
12 M2A2 ODS Bradley ($26.4 million)
36 Pandur II APC ($118.8 million)
18 Pandur II TOW ($63 million)
21 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
8 Nona-SVK (pre-owned)
12 Gvozdika (pre-owned)
6 BM-21 Grad (pre-owned)
24 ZSU-23-4 Biala ($24 million)
288 Igla missiles ($25.9 million)
89 HMMWV ($0.9 million)
1 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($0.1 million)
62 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($4.7 million)
Total $297.4 million
Support Group Vehicles
1210 Personnel
32 BTR-80 (pre-owned)
193 HMMWV ($1.9 million)
19 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($1 million)
120 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($9 million)
113 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($32.6 million)
33 Assorted Engineer Vehicle ($16.5 million)
Total $61 million
I decided to go with four Support Groups and two Battle Groups by 2023, with the last two groups added in the last two years as a response to Russian aggression. I suppose the two Combat Groups are more of a parade force, which is designed to look impressive even if its combat power is limited. A case of Serednya Slaviya's 'we can do it ' attitude, and something to help the typical citizen sleep at night knowing there's at least some small component of a military force to protect them. At the same time, four SGs give me the ability to support a division or two of NATO allies in-country, or parcel one or two out to foreign missions.
Four SGs price in at $244 million, plus the $594.8 million for the two Combat Groups. Adding in the $106.5 million for infantry weapons and $251.9 million for the Air Force procurement, and I end up with a total of $946.1 million spent. Shifting this around my spreadsheet leaves me with $348.9 million left over to spend on computers, so I'm keeping that number loosely consistent. That requires panic spending of 2.5% GDP in 2022 and 3% in 2023, but I can justify that I think.
Operations costs are the big roadblock to expansion, even with Serednya Slaviya's economic situation. Munitions expenses are also up there, with all the money I'm spending to have a stock of TOW missiles. It's enough for 10 missiles for each launcher, counting the 24 Bradleys twice and the 12 helicopters four times. There's also a batch of Igla missiles for the 24 advanced Shilkas, with a dozen SAMs apiece. That's a backup stock that I'm not dipping into for training, so I'm listing it as its own procurement entry.
SSLF + SSAF Infantry Weapons
9,500 Grot B rifle ($25.7 million)
9,500 Interceptor body armor ($15 million)
9,500 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
9,500 Bayonets ($0.2 million)
9,500 Uniform Sets ($19 million)
700 Glock 19 ($0.3 million)
350 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.5 million)
350 Mossberg 590 ($0.2 million)
250 Ultimax 100 ($1.1 million)
500 MG3 ($1.5 million)
250 M2HB ($3.5 million)
250 Mk 19 ($5 million)
750 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($2.2 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
300 Spike SR missiles ($22.5 million)
6 RQ-11B Raven System ($1.6 million)
18 RQ-28A System ($0.8 million)
Total $106.5 million
SSAF Vehicles and Weapons
16 MD530F ($96 million)
1320 TOW missiles ($132 million)
8 P.180 Avanti ($16 million)
100 HMMWV ($1 million)
20 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($1 million)
32 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($2.4 million)
12 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($3.5 million)
Total: $251.9 million
-
Real life facts: You can save money on blanks during combat exercises simply by having soldiers shout "BANG!" at each other!
You can also save wear and potential damage to rifles by using sticks. They're practically free!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/757788.stm
More seriously, it depends on the goal of the training activity. Blanks or Simunition make for more realistic force-on-force training, but if you're practicing drills and maneuver, yelling BANG! may well suffice. Obviously, you can't do that if the goal is marksmanship training. Weapons like ATGMs or recoilless rifles should have a bunch of training accoutrements for practicing drills and such, from dummy systems and simulators to subcalibre adapters firing ballistically matched small arms ammo, saving expending live rounds for putting everything together. Even then, there might be training rounds that skip the warhead and fuse.
-
Remote controlled Spring Loaded Mortars come to mind...
Slap a round down and the Instructor would press a button simulating the launch. AKA Giant Nerf Artillery...
TT
-
I wonder what kind of force-on-force training the SSLF is capable of doing; its two BGs combined are smaller than one brigade - maybe it can be the defender in a classic 3:1 engagement, but it's handcuffing its OPFOR for anything else. And with the American pivot back to divisions as the core combat element, it's going to be even more dissimilar in unit sizes.
At least I can afford enough blanks and simunitions to use in infantry and vehicle training, as well as live rounds at the target range. That's spending ammo at American rates, which includes combat expenditures, though limiting the amount of actual missiles being fired.
-
Speaking of small arms - below a certain size order, it's probably cheaper to just buy some examples and issue them to troops to test (say, seconded to OEF or OIF) to see what works/doesn't work.
In the case of most of those sub-million dollar purchases, it's cheaper to do it that one than just doing the paperwork of running full trials. Speaking of, here's a relic of one such "Buy it and try it". Surplus Armalite AR10T upper. COTS purchased for testing in Afghanistan. Probably had some influence on the adoption of 7.62mm ARs (C20 from Colt Canada).
(https://imgur.com/mZRx6Jj.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/KHCiA0m.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/Ydfn2hH.jpg)
-
I thought the M-14 was the OG 7.62 AR? ???
-
M14 was a modded Garand with a different gas system and a detachable magazine; the AR-10 is the original Armalite rifle in 7.62x51mm.
(https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/4n1knkaw/m14_lede.jpg)
-
Ah, thanks! :)
-
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/420016762_295385310198090_8104177224826956420_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=GafOdMn2fTMAX_f0tP4&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfCiMcaaqCmdtV5RXEIO2UFyEkh5XT5XcRPNClZ3zj-zbw&oe=65B41D75)
HAMYAK ATV...
TT
-
That's hilarious! How heavy is it?
-
That's hilarious! How heavy is it?
The all-terrain vehicle weighs 85 kg, and easily fits into the trunk of a car.
https://uazbuka.ru/models/vezdehod/Homiak/index.html (https://uazbuka.ru/models/vezdehod/Homiak/index.html)
It is in Russian...
TT
-
Must be great for moving around during winter and mud seasons.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax_SKNmhNA8
Shame it's incapable of turning. The handlebars are welded directly to that frame; the only way to steer it is to get off and reorient the machine yourself. Doesn't look too heavy though, considering it gets off the ground and over those tree branches with only a little help from the rider.
Speaking of small arms - below a certain size order, it's probably cheaper to just buy some examples and issue them to troops to test (say, seconded to OEF or OIF) to see what works/doesn't work.
Yeah, I figure I'm doing that with the shotguns and some of the other small arms I'm equipping; there's only a couple hundred units to consider for the entire force.
Speaking of the entire force, I worked out a spreadsheet for Serednya Slaviya's economy since its reformation in 1990. It's based on Belarus, Poland, and Estonia's GDP and the current GDP of the five oblasts that make up the country. It's kind of depressing, the earliest I can get a Battle Group together is 2005 - prior to that the active duty army is just a logistics force. The money just isn't there, even spending over 2% GDP in the early years just to break even. When Serednya Slaviya first saw the light of democracy in 1990, the GDP in total was just barely over two billion dollars, and didn't break ten billion until 2007...and even by 2024 still hasn't broken twenty billion.
I also failed at math, by 2023 my four support and two battle groups come to $1,197.2 million. With some squeezing and multi-year procurement budgets, I come to a total amount of money of $1,557.8 million which leaves me $360.6 million for a computer network and incidentals.
The spreadsheet below lists off the spending. Columns in order: Year, Belarus GDP, Poland GDP, Estonia GDP, Total GDP, Serednya Slaviya GDP, Annual Growth (last ten years), Annual Growth (total), Military Spending by GDP %, Serednya Slaviya's military spending in millions, Operations spending % of the budget, actual Operations spending in millions, dollar inflation prior to 2023, Actual Annual Pay per soldier, Total Personnel, Total Pay in millions, Budget for Facilities by %, Actual Budget for Facilities, Procurement by % of the budget, Actual Procurement in millions, Ammunition expenses, Food Expenses, and Remaining Procurement in millions.
-
Pimp my Ride has come to Serednya:
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1hbZuW.img?w=534&h=356&m=6) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/classic-cars/hellcat-powered-six-wheeled-humvee-hits-the-auction-block/ar-BB1hcdAg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3b52df7f136845448b3313e8531c2e55&ei=59)
Link is the picture...
TT
-
Now if only they'd do that with a UAZ-469...
-
(https://c.wallhere.com/photos/d9/bc/car_UAZ_469-239534.jpg!d)
Close enough?
TT
-
That looks like something Clarkson would come up with.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax_SKNmhNA8
Shame it's incapable of turning. The handlebars are welded directly to that frame; the only way to steer it is to get off and reorient the machine yourself. Doesn't look too heavy though, considering it gets off the ground and over those tree branches with only a little help from the rider.
Yeah, I figure I'm doing that with the shotguns and some of the other small arms I'm equipping; there's only a couple hundred units to consider for the entire force.
Speaking of the entire force, I worked out a spreadsheet for Serednya Slaviya's economy since its reformation in 1990. It's based on Belarus, Poland, and Estonia's GDP and the current GDP of the five oblasts that make up the country. It's kind of depressing, the earliest I can get a Battle Group together is 2005 - prior to that the active duty army is just a logistics force. The money just isn't there, even spending over 2% GDP in the early years just to break even. When Serednya Slaviya first saw the light of democracy in 1990, the GDP in total was just barely over two billion dollars, and didn't break ten billion until 2007...and even by 2024 still hasn't broken twenty billion.
I also failed at math, by 2023 my four support and two battle groups come to $1,197.2 million. With some squeezing and multi-year procurement budgets, I come to a total amount of money of $1,557.8 million which leaves me $360.6 million for a computer network and incidentals.
The spreadsheet below lists off the spending. Columns in order: Year, Belarus GDP, Poland GDP, Estonia GDP, Total GDP, Serednya Slaviya GDP, Annual Growth (last ten years), Annual Growth (total), Military Spending by GDP %, Serednya Slaviya's military spending in millions, Operations spending % of the budget, actual Operations spending in millions, dollar inflation prior to 2023, Actual Annual Pay per soldier, Total Personnel, Total Pay in millions, Budget for Facilities by %, Actual Budget for Facilities, Procurement by % of the budget, Actual Procurement in millions, Ammunition expenses, Food Expenses, and Remaining Procurement in millions.
Don't forget to account for Purchasing Power Parity. That'll apply to anything that's not an import, so your salaries and operational costs should all be adjusted accordingly.
-
Yeah, that's accounted for, though based off the 2023 figure - it's 11 hryvnia that has the purchasing power of the dollar, yet it's 37.64 hryvnia to the dollar right now, so I'm looking at an actual cost modifier of about 0.3 or so.
-
Something just occurred to me... did you get any kind of assistance for giving up your nukes?
-
That's a good question actually, one I hadn't considered. It looks like only Ukraine hosted Soviet nukes, other than Cuba, and Serednya Slaviya was never an SSR like Ukraine was. So I can get away with declaring that the Soviets never stationed nuclear weapons in-country, and there was nothing to give up.
-
Officially...
But could the Kremlin put in R-5Ms, (secretly?) ...
TT
-
Perhaps so, after a little research I found out that the R-5 was installed in East Germany and Crimea, and able to reach most of Western Europe. So there's definitely precedent for it, and the kinds of security guarantees that come with giving up nukes would have helped Serednya Slaviya in the early 1990s when they could barely afford to keep the lights on. Air launched missiles and gravity bombs, plus ICBMs, could be stationed there - there were 176 ICBMs in Ukraine, and a large number of ALCMs and gravity bombs as well.
That said, all that I'd get out of it is treaties, since there's no way that SS could maintain the weapons on its own - either by means of operating costs or the technology used in making them. The weapons would be given back to Russia, along with their delivery systems. No ICBMs, but the 260th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment of Tu-22Ms were stationed in Lviv historically. That puts them in Serednya Slaviya for sure, and means that for a short time SS was a nuclear power like Ukraine.
That also tells me I have a military airfield in Lviv, the Stryi Air Base. It's only a single runway, but I suppose it'd be a good place to base my attack helicopter squadron out of.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Stryi_Air_Base%2C_Ukraine.jpg)
Historically the air base fell into ruin, with some of the buildings scrapped. I would keep the airbase myself, refurbishing it and keeping it open. If it operated Backfires, it can take pretty much any general jet aircraft, and probably would be the main military airfield in Serednya Slaviya.
So what would giving up 20 Backfires and their nuclear ordanance get me? Well, I could see joining NATO earlier, with accession in 1999 along with Poland and Hungary. That agreement to join NATO early was probably part of the reason they gave up the weapons in 1992, though political delays and bureaucratic inertia extended things out until the late 1990s for their accession. I could see allowing Polish and Hungarian troops to rotate in-country since it's a short drive over the border, and the beginnings of an intramarium defense league - especially once Romania and the Baltics join in 2004.
Speaking of Hungary, I originally thought that Zakarpattia Oblast would be ceded to them, but I'm going to absorb it as part of Serednya Slaviya instead. That adds two billion euros to the GDP of the country, and converting that into dollars gave a decent sized boost to the economy and allowed me to adjust the appearance of Serednya Slaviya's military sooner. I still operate only a single Support Group and between 500-1,000 Air Force personnel until 2002, but add a second SG and increase the Air Force to 1,500 in 2008. A third SG appears in 2014, and emergency budget increases raise a BG and two SGs in 2022 as a response to the Russian invasion.
I have $2,255.5 million for procurement across the years since 1991. Three Battle Groups come to $892.2 million, and five Support Groups come to $305 million. There's no changes to their equipment lists. Enough weapons for the enlarged military come to $152.6 million, while the Air Force's weapons and TOW missiles come to $266.9 million. I'm operating with 12,266 personnel in total between the SSLF and SSAF, so the below is sufficient for them. All that comes to a total of $1,616.7 million, leaving me with $638.8 million left over for computer systems and data infrastructure as well as stockpiles of ammunition.
SSLF + SSAF Infantry Weapons
12,500 Grot B rifle ($33.8 million)
12,500 Interceptor body armor ($19.8 million)
12,500 SSh-68 helmet (pre-owned)
12,500 Bayonets ($0.3 million)
12,500 Uniform Sets ($25 million)
700 Glock 19 ($0.3 million)
500 GP Grenade Launchers ($0.8 million)
500 Mossberg 590 ($0.3 million)
500 Ultimax 100 ($1.6 million)
750 MG3 ($2.3 million)
500 M2HB ($7 million)
500 Mk 19 ($10 million)
1000 AN/PVS-14 Nightvision Optic ($2.9 million)
5,000 AT4 ($7.4 million)
500 Spike SR missiles ($37.5 million)
9 RQ-11B Raven System ($2.4 million)
27 RQ-28A System ($1.2 million)
Total $152.6 million
SSAF Vehicles and Weapons
16 MD530F ($96 million)
1470 TOW missiles ($147 million)
8 P.180 Avanti ($16 million)
100 HMMWV ($1 million)
20 LMTV 4x4 Truck ($1 million)
32 FMTV 6x6 Truck ($2.4 million)
12 HEMTT 8x8 Truck ($3.5 million)
Total: $266.9 million
-
Woo! It worked! :)
-
You think the SSAF could have bought some Chinese built Badgers? Some older Xi'an H-6's?
TT
-
You think the SSAF could have bought some Chinese built Badgers? Some older Xi'an H-6's?
TT
Not sure what role that would play? There's a reason most aircraft used by European countries are fairly short-ranged
-
What would I do with heavy bombers anyway?
-
Hangar Queens for one, but as a throwback, too old to continue use, too precious to throw away, so keep them. I mean, you cannibalized the only Squadron to keep a few frames in working order. Also, you might have a few Beriev A-50 (Mainstay).
TT
-
No, anything like that would have followed the Backfires back to the Russians. I have an Air Force of 1,500 personnel, I'm stretching things just to have a single attack helicopter squadron and some (comfy) utility planes. Remember how little money there is in the 1990s and early 2000s.
-
Topical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsdGJrpC5tA
Perun addresses Baltic militaries. They're both geographically close to Serednya Slaviya and of a similar size, although with the caveat that you won't have the same degree of financial resources unless you also went through a similar economic reform cycle.
-
I'll have to give that a watch.
That portion of Western Ukraine doesn't seem to have been heavily improved as far as economic reforms; certainly not to the level of the Baltic States. According to the GDP for the six oblasts that make up the country, Serednya Slaviya's only packing 19,600 million in GDP. Over a third of that is Lviv itself; the other oblasts are in the 2-3 billion range. It's just a poor country.
-
"The smaller and smaller your nation and budget gets, the harder and harder decisions you have to make when it comes to prioritization." Ain't that the truth, Perun. I'm thinking of axing a lot of modern hardware from the SSLF and going with the blueprint of the Baltics, namely that of a mechanized infantry force that has a bit of artillery to support it. What that force looks like is going to be pretty heavily Soviet, though I think I can equip one battalion of troops with Bradleys since they're coming so cheap. The rest get BTR-70s.
As far as the Air Force goes, I'm going to scrap the helicopter idea - a hundred million dollars goes back into infrastructure and 'brigade slice' funding much better than it does a group of choppers. I'll keep it at 1,500 personnel, which should be more than enough to operate a few cargo/passenger planes and monitor radar stations at airfields across the country.
I'm still mixed on conscription - I've got a bigger population than the Baltics combined, so I've got manpower I can use. I just don't have the budget for equipping all of them past basic gear, uniforms, and a rifle with at least some full magazines; as far as the size of the army I'm not seeing it as bigger than Estonia's as far as active duty goes. Maybe I've got a larger reserve component, with the larger population, but I don't see the active force being past the 7,000 personnel average of the Baltic armies.
Good video, though, and really explores what the trio mean to NATO and vice versa.
-
Just in case anyone is interested, I found a copy of the Russia strategic doctrine (ATP 7-100.1) in the US Army Publishing Directorate site:
Rough details: https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details_Printer.aspx?PUB_ID=1028292 (https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details_Printer.aspx?PUB_ID=1028292)
The actual PDF: https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/796D87F6-9E95-4D54-8ED9-DDA10E9C209E-1708699291986/ATP7_100x1.pdf (https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/796D87F6-9E95-4D54-8ED9-DDA10E9C209E-1708699291986/ATP7_100x1.pdf) (280 pages, so get comfy)
If anyone is interested in other documents, here is the main search link: https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/#/dashboard (https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/#/dashboard)
-
That's the current version... not as useful for a historical "what if", but could be interesting anyway! :)