Immediate thoughts: A notional map of the country, neighbours, and terrain would be very useful
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Yeah, I know, I really should. Or else pick a region of the world that roughly fits, but then you get into all the 'well they've got X for neighbors so why not just do what the originals did' problem. Unless I cram a few little countries together and chop an area out of another...
What are the objectives of the military, aka, what are the threats they are preparing to face and generally how will they face it? Militaries are typically equipped for one of three roles; anti-insurgency, anti-revolutionary, and peer combat. The latter may be further subdivided into national defence, and expeditionary warfare - you expect to be standing up a unit to deploy somewhere far away.
Peer warfare would be the major thing, though there's arguably a component of anti-revolutionary aspects, or at least a little looking over the shoulder. The occasional abdication via defenestration has happened, sometimes with and sometimes without the military's help. National defense is the primary focus, though I suppose in the question of foreign basing maybe there's a single 'expeditionary corps' or foreign legion that serves primarily overseas, recruiting from one part of the country like the rest or even in that country.
There's that one province that broke off some decades ago, perhaps part of their independence was a treaty allowing Le Republique (who are we kidding anymore) to hold an equivalent of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, or else they're simply stationed in some other country's borders as an ally protecting someone else.
Primarily, though, national defense is the major thing, especially after the last war. It's not quite the level of, say, the JSDF, but it's very much a military focused on its own home. The anti-revolutionary aspect might be part of that...here's a question, then - how does each military goal affect the organization? Anti-insurgency versus peer warfare is easy enough, look at the last 20 years to see the different needs in that, but what about anti-revolutionary efforts? That seems to be more of an intelligence/propaganda and police thing, at least from an American point of view.
You mention a colonial region - how far away and what is the threat? (BTW, at first glance it seems to me that you're basically describing the UK. Or France.)
About 4,000 miles, it's a bit of a ways off. And yes it's patterned off the French EEZ though it's a lot smaller and more populated, even if it's only so I can have a regiment of Colonial Marines. ::)
Peacetime military forces of reasonable size are around 1% of population, with maybe another 0.5% in semi-retired reservists. That gives you 400,000 bodies plus another 200,000. (Note: The UK peacetime strength in 1989 was ~300,000 out of 57 million population all arms. Just 0.5%.)
Okay, 1% makes a bit more sense, and while there's not a major threat like the Soviets there's still unpleasant neighbors plus the social mindset (and the benefits). As far as reserves, going back to previous comments, about 50/50 made sense to me - so perhaps, splitting your and kato's numbers a bit, 300,000 active and 250,000 reserves? And how would they break down into the different branches?
Setting the technology level at late 60s-70 is a good idea, you have a nice timeline of 20 years to run the thought exercise and see what you get by 1990.
It's a developmental time, yeah. Tanks start getting composite armor (the T-64 really is terrifying when it shows up, compared to the Patton/Leopard/AMX/Chieftain) and ERA, third-gen jets really mature, electronics and computer control start becoming a serious thing in that timeframe, but at the start of it all it's still relatively simple.
You may not want to consider money as limiting factors, at least initially. Let's start with an ideal and then introduce complicating factors should we wish to.
I am so not creating a fictional economy for this.
Rule of thumb: soldiers spend 1/3rd of the time training, 1/3rd active, and 1/3rd "resetting" or repairing damaged equipment, replacing lost manpower, and preparing for the next cycle. Thus you plan your military on the assumption you will have 1/3rd generally ready to go to war at a given time, the other units are in various degrees of unpreparedness.
That breaks down into the regiments nicely, if I break them into three battalions or companies then you can cycle each regiment that way - one active, one in training, one in refit. Each regiment thinks it's the bee's knees anyway, and is relatively independent from what I understand of the structure, so that could potentially work.
Also brings up a question - organization up to battalion is pretty standard. Platoons/troops to companies/squadrons to battalion. After that it gets squirrely, depending on your organizing; some countries have battalions to regiments to brigades to divisions as organization, some countries skip a level and have a regiment made of what is effectively a single battalion, or simply arrange their battalions under a brigade. When we're talking numbers, I suppose that should be clarified. My initial thought in this regard is that each regiment, historical and organizational, would be a multi-battalion force (three combat battalions and support elements) and brigades and divisions would come from there.
That does mean my regiments will be kind of big - for example, a tank battalion made of three 14-tank three-troop companies plus its command pair will be 58 tanks; that's 232 soldiers just in the tanks alone and over 900 in the full regiment...plus support, repair, administrative, and other elements of each battalion and the regiment itself. Any arguments for or against multi-battalion regiments, from you guys?
Organisation - one simple method is to follow NATO structure. The battalion is the basic manoeuvre unit; a brigade is a collection of battalions and support units formed to fight a combined-arms battle; two or three brigades are grouped to form a division, which is also the level most equipped and authorised to liaise with other forces such as air force, civilians etc.
I could see that being a future plan - Army'85 or something. It'd force a breakup of the regimental system pretty heavily, and would push a lot more mechanization as well as combined arms into the lower levels, which I'm fine with. As it is in the starting point, perhaps skipping the brigade level officially and letting divisions gather regiments together - and still relatively localized, since each reg is that same.
If you want to use the term regiment, you can go the British way and use them as purely ceremonial heritage groupings, or the French way and formally name a battalion a regiment. Or something else as you like, it's entirely your show.
Thinking of the above. I don't want to follow a single model too close, I don't mind amalgamating some, and I'm all for trying something different for fun. After all, it's an art, and sometimes art looks weird.
You mention mostly light infantry with some little mechanisation. That tells me you will want at least a mechanised division - following the 1/3rd rule above, so you have one brigade ready at any time - and a lot of light/motor infantry brigades. Given this structure, you will want light infantry to hold ground, with the mechanised units as either mobile defence or offensive forces. You do not seem to want to fight a very mobile war, so you don't have to have too many APCs or self-propelled artillery.
I get the feeling of a lot of institutional inertia and "history says" mindsets being a thing, almost to the point of s you say the infantry holding the ground while the artillery makes hamburger, and then the cavalry comes in and makes its charge, shattering the infantry and being the primary striking force. Hell, I'm still labeling mechanized infantry 'dragoons' in that regard, compared to rifle regiments. Ride to battle mounted, hop out and fight like the PBI. I'm still thinking defensively in overall strategy, as far as that goes, though "speed is the essence of war" is something not completely lost on things. It's just reserved for the tanks (again, see also the AMX-30, at the time one of the fastest machines on the field and light enough to go damn near anywhere) in the end, though again the idea is to eventually change that up.
You mention a small marine component; this means you plan limited amphibious operations and don't want to stage D-day 2.0. What about airborne, and to what extent?
Airborne I'm fine with, maybe they never had their Market Garden so there's probably still a decent component. Considering the heavy use of light infantry, I suppose there'd be quite a bit of airborne capability, since they'd be fine working without heavier assets. Air assault units probably don't yet exist except in nascent form, though I could see the Colonial Marines adopting it by need - getting around the islands they're on would be easiest by helicopter, and deploying as infantry with armed air support is their thing. Maybe they even have a dedicated 'experimental' combined-branch unit that's really trying the concept.
I'm a big fan of having a full range of support assets - engineers, logistics, medical, etc. One might field less infantry but one can do more with them. BTW, combat support in general are things that help you fight such as engineers; while combat service support are things that keep you fighting such as logistics and medical. Rule of thumb is that CSS ought never to see a bullet fly, while CS just might in the course of duties.
So noted. Appreciated; there's a lot of institutional knowledge that doesn't get written down much. Also I see a lot of those support assets being linked at the regimental level, because again (british style, at least slightly older british style) the regiment is home forever.
The size of your airspace dictates how much of an Air Force will you really need.
Basic needs are: fighter jets to provide peacetime quick reaction alert and wartime air superiority, transport aircraft. Airborne early warning would be nice to have, tankers depend on the airspace needs, and don't forget: prop and jet trainers
Army needs include: transport helicopters, ground attack aircraft and/or attack helicopters, recon helicopters or aircraft
Navy needs: antisubmarine aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, possibly maritime attack aircraft
Airspace comes back to size of the country and a map; "a little bigger than Poland" is one thing but so are control areas - and coastal ADIZs as well. I'm roughly ballparking a nation about 600km x 600km; a lot of fudge in either direction since that's an average to get the rough area. I really ought to map this somehow.
Suggestions on that? Or should I just pick a region on earth and draw new borders on it magically and ignore everything else?
As far as the air force goes, yeah, transport needs will be the biggest focus. I think that's less a statement on tactical roles and more just "everything that moves moves through us" and that takes a lot of birds, especially for an airborne regiment. Civilian rail can handle a lot of things, since the country's not THAT big - it won't take days just to travel (let alone load/unload) from one end to the other for a train, like it would in the US or Russia or Canada. But with the overseas needs, plus all the smaller scale stuff, transport will be numero uno.
That said, air superiority is their main role, however (unlike the US) the air support role is still pretty serious. The air force historically spun off of the cavalry, originally a force of hussars cavalry pre-WWI that adopted airplanes in the very early days because it made their scouting role much easier and gave them a lot more depth to work in. There'd be an institutional memory towards "we once wore spurs, don't forget your brothers on the ground" or something.
That air support mindset is also something that comes out of the no-nukes military; without a focus on delivery of special weapons they revert to more conventional means. I don't say this disparagingly, but boy howdy did the USAF focus its air power ever so much on the nuclear game (in this cold war), very much to the detriment of everything else including even air superiority roles. Without that single-minded focus, THIS air force can play a lot more conventionally and useful to the groundpounders.
As far as some info goes, I've been thinking of smaller, lighter tactical air units. F-5s make great aircraft, even if they lack a radar system early on late models fixed that. It's inexpensive, fast, and carries decent enough armament, and you can put a lot of them in the air. On the ground, I have a bizarre and unholy love for the G.91; it's basically a Sabre with better attack capabilities - and interestingly enough is directly tied to the F-5. The G.91Y model, in addition to its twin 30mm cannon (lovely) also runs the same pair of J85s that the F-5 uses, albeit without afterburner. This pleases my love of simplicity in some things. (I could be convinced to go with A-4s instead, but the G.91Y's just so unspeakably, gloriously ugly)
Tankers I can probably limit, since the only real need would be aircraft transiting to the colony region. Maybe they have their own local air units shipped in and reassembled on-site, and simply swap pilots out rather than fly whole planes back and forth.
Maritime units, patrol is a big thing certainly and oh boy do I love me some flying boats to do that job. There's at least some coastline, if not a huge amount of it, so there'd be some patrol - as well as aforementioned islands, but that'd need to be covered.
For helicopters, that's going to be another big point in the air force - yeah, they have the jets for air superiority, but since the army isn't operating helis then the air force is going to have to accomodate. I suppose this means there's going to be a lot of AF FACs operating with army units. That said, one thing I note is that we're not dealing with a Fulda Gap 'oh dear god all the tanks ever made by mankind are coming through that region' strategic situation, so I don't see quite the same focus as the early Apache's tank-murdering design. Helicopters providing local CAS alongside fastmoving jets, while the jets also have deeper strike and recon roles, would be the primary thing, while the F-5s focus purely on clearing the skies.
Based on your comment it would seem these three services are badged under the Air Force. You will have a lot of cross-tasking of troops; squadrons seconded to the Army's operational command, infantry regiments seconded to the Air Force's defence, etc.
What about anti-air and radar? are they under the Army or Air Force?
I'm actually okay with that - the cross-tasking does help inter-service mindsets at least a little bit. Various air force and navy bases would have infantry and some armor component protecting each base, while each army base tucks its air force people in tight and the navy folks make sure the army puts on its water wings when they play in the pool. More seriously, it's a bit of a modified Johnson-McConnell agreement; the Air Force handles the sky while the army does the ground, and nobody plays in each other's pool too much.
I fluff it in my head that perhaps during the 1940s and early 50s there was a lot more overlap and confusion over who handled what, and perhaps that led to some major screwups in the 1955-58 war (which I should name) that could have been avoided.
Radar control, at least on a large scale level, I picture somewhat in the Soviet PVO style - heavy top-down monitoring and control of the airspace, either by land-based AF-operated facilities or AEW aircraft. More local air-defense stuff like SAM and AA controllers would be in the Army's hands directly, hence things like the AMX Roland or DCA.
No carriers, got it. Sealift, convoys, EEZ patrol and protection of the same would seem to be your primary objective. I think you may need a helicopter cruiser of some kind. If not a full through-deck like the Invincible-class, a half-deck like Moskva or Vittorio Veneto perhaps.
You will need to plan here how you intend to do your amphibious op (heli or landing craft or what mix of both), anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and naval-based anti-air warfare, if any. This will inform whether you want submarines, missile attack boats, or what.
I could see an Invincible or two...probably three, all things considered, just to keep the capability around at any time. Refit/Recycle/Ready being what it is, think in threes at least structurally. Amphibious operations, I'd say, would be helicopter-based; it means you're not stuck literally on the beach when you deploy troops and you have a bit more selection in where you drop your beachheads. Maybe bad results happened with landing craft before in the previous war, so the plan shifted to what would notionally be air assault instead albeit with naval support.
As far as other sea duties go, convoy protection means surface ships doing ASW and ASuW and AAW, especially a larger number of smaller hulls to spread out among the various shipping lanes. And I do like me some submarines, in all honesty, so I'm almost willing to go with a sort of conceptual trident (which thematically fits the navy). There's an amphibious component based around the flattop like you said, primarily focused on reaching and breaching target and supporting its army light infantry. A convoy protection force that handles piracy and goes after threats to the cargo ships, spread all over the place and keeping the shipping lanes clear. And that leaves the "major ocean warfighting" duties to the submarine force, perhaps; they can be the real "peer force" threat while the frigates deal with smaller dangers.
Stupid? Probably; feel free to shred the idea. Also I guess it depends on what kind of subs and what they're carrying...hrm, when did cruise missiles really mature for subs...
Special forces? How many, and what do they do?
Short range ballistic missiles, you mentioned. We'll come to that one later.
Haven't really decided on that. Part of it comes from "do I assign it as a general duty, where each regiment has its own 'commando' squad/platoon, or should I run it more as its own regiment" questions - I can see the use in either, really.
Let's see, good god this is getting long. So sorry.
OK, I was more interested in this thread than I thought (and still have a LOT of forum to review).
First off, this country made the strategic mistake of forming an independent air force? Leave the pilots in the Army and Navy where they belong!
Aw, but I had a neat heritage/background idea for that! Nah, independent air force it is. Stuff's too complicated for regular army troops anyway, we all know that.
integrate all the way down to the company level. Two platoons of infantry embarked in one platoon of AFVs. Every "tank" can embark at least a squad of infantry, with one "APC" variant that embarks a platoon plus. That shouldn't be too hard even with 1970's technology.
That might be the model for the future army, certainly. That said it does put a lot of extra work on the lower officers and their logistical trains, having to support and supply not just a tank company but an infantry platoon's needs as well with the extra weapons, vehicles, radios, and such. Also I can see issues of communication, but perhaps my country makes really good radiotelephones and they can push the idea in the future. Even if it's not desantnik armor, having things operate in the small scale does have some sense.
Third, as Kato alluded to, a 40M base population may be a little low for what you want to create. Of course, that limitation may be something you actually want to work within. I'm interested in knowing which of those two it is... ^-^
Oh very much it's "working within this limitation" - I'm quite sure any country bigger than Monaco is capable of putting together a mechanized regiment, so I've at least got SOME tanks. I just want to keep things believable and interesting.
Whole.
France adopted a model similar to the US pentomic structure - called Javelot - between the mid 50s and mid 60s and kept it until the 80s. Javelot was used for deployment in large-scale overseas counterinsurgency warfare during this time and apparently did well in this setting.
What little I've read about the Pentomic was that it was supposedly a nightmare to put together and control. It was also supposedly an antinuclear plan, one that could survive dealing with large scale strikes and still be a functional military. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I'd be at least a little hesitant in that regard - though I fully admit to not knowing the benefits.
As far as the 200,000, that's a fair number as well, but see above - I think I'll stick with the 300,000 active, at least for now. It's a bit more than peacetime Britain percentagewise, but reflects some of the social side of things without being too high or going into conscription.
Javelot consisted of small divisions containing 4-6 regiments which would each contain 4-6 combat companies plus support companies. The maneuver companies of the regiments were homogenous, albeit supported within the regiment by a reconnaissance or armored car company and a motorized heavy weapons company (mortars and recoilless rifles at the time). The regimental command could field two tactical HQs to break this organization up into two battalions.
With the 200,000 number you can conceivably run two Corps in the Army, comprising 40 combat regiments and around 80 support regiments (40% at Corps and 60% at Division level). That's around 120,000 men in eight divisions of 8,000-11,000. Rest for Navy, Air Force, strategic-level assets.
If you want a break-up by type, those 40 combat regiments would have been in the actual French Army about 14 armor, 12 mechanized infantry and 14 light/motorized infantry. The 80 combat support regiments would be 30 artillery, 15 logistics, 10 engineer and NBC, 8 each "division support" and reconnaissance, 5 signals and 4 helicopter/aviation.
Lumping this one together and thinking. I like the Javelot system, though I'm wondering how many of those combat support regiments would be assigned under them. Would an 'armored division' be considered 3 tank regiments, one infantry regiment, and one artillery regiment operating together, with the various logistics and engineer regiments assigned to the corps level perhaps? Or would they form "support divisions" as it were, at least on a paper level?
It's some good solid numbers, though I'm curious just how the support side of things breaks down - logistics and administration and service stuff is going to really be the biggest side of any army. And it's a giant nebulous mess from my point of view, but that's why this thread exists.
Well, that, and I get easily curious.
Ugh this is a gigantic post already, so I apologize glitterboy but I'm gonna sum up - fully agreed with you on the air force's duty; it's just too different from the army or the navy to really keep together. As far as hardware goes, I definitely agree with you on that - and Skyraider is love. F-5s and A-4s I already commented on, and there's that Israeli Skyhawk with DEFAs...yummy.
Good point to consider on strike birds, though I think I'm still sticking lighter; the idea of FB-111s amuses me as I love those gigantic idiotic airplanes but they're also still a bit in the future for my timeframe. Certainly won't be adverse to a future airforce plan. Or maybe I'll just put everyone in early model F-18s...they're really just 'roid-raging F-5s anyway.
Helis definitely fit my thoughts above, and well, as far as air transport goes, I will never not love the C119 no matter how much of a giant POS it might be. It's big, fat, ugly, and amazing.
