Creating Serednya Slaviya's military, part the second

[Daryk]

Since you seem to enjoy playing on hard mode, I don't see why not... ;D

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.

[Daryk]

Sounds like a plan! :)

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.  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 and go with three teams of two per squad of seven, and make the PLt and PSgt their respective vehicle commanders. 

[Daryk]

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.

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.

[Daryk]

If you're willing to wait until 2009 vice when you bought your M4s, that sounds workable... :)

[ANS Kamas P81]

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: 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: 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: 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.

[Daryk]

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? ???

[ANS Kamas P81]

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)

[Daryk]

I think you're better off with four identical squads, but will defer to actual infantrymen.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I did some more financial research and I am way behind the eight ball on this one.  Based on this article 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.

[Daryk]

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...

[ANS Kamas P81]

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 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 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 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.

[ANS Kamas P81]

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?

[chanman]

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.

[Daryk]

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... ;)

[ANS Kamas P81]

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" 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...

[chanman]

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" 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.

[Daryk]

I'll double stamp the point about warships... those things are EXPENSIVE to operate... ;)

[chanman]

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.

[Daryk]

I can almost feel those cascading readiness issues... :/

[ANS Kamas P81]

On the topic of operating warships, this video 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.

[Daryk]

I, at least, am totally in for this sideways ride! :)

[chanman]

I, at least, am totally in for this sideways ride! :)

Serednya Slaviya's military evolves into its final form: Dirrrrrrrrrtbag militia! 

[ANS Kamas P81]

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!

[Natasha Kerensky]

...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

There may be other Perun videos worth watching that could help this thread:

https://m.youtube.com/@PerunAU/videos

FWIW...

[ANS Kamas P81]

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.

[chanman]

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.

[chanman]

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