Required military reading at Military academies

[BrianDavion]

Point of order: Changing the actual quote and leaving it in the quote block as if it's what was actually said is bad form.

I had to read it thrice to see what he changed too

[Sartris]

Ah cool we’ve decided to do the thing that will definitely get the thread locked

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Found a reference to a specific text in the Fourth Succession War Atlas.  "A Battlefield Guide to the Uninitiated" by Katrina Steiner became required reading for all AFFS and LCAF academies. Safe to assume it's a first-year thing.

[BrianDavion]

Found a reference to a specific text in the Fourth Succession War Atlas.  "A Battlefield Guide to the Uninitiated" by Katrina Steiner became required reading for all AFFS and LCAF academies. Safe to assume it's a first-year thing.

likely was intended to be a foundational text for the AFFC

[Lone-Wolf]

I would assume that certain books would be used in all of the Successor States.
Sun Tzu "The Art of War" is considered to be THE book about military strategy.

I even once read that there is an equation:

Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"  + von Clausewitz "On War"  = Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

Now I think that it doesnt matter who wrote the book, the only thing is: Is it helpful, does it give good insight?

So, I would say, that it doesnt matter if your House hates House Kurita, you would still read "The Art of War", "The Book of 5 Rings" and "The 36 Strategems".

And besides, you want to beat your enemy, so you have to understand how he thinks.
So, I wouldnt be surprised if cadets or at least Generals of House Kurita are required to read von Clausewitz.

I would also assume that when one reaches higher rank that he reads more and studies history, so the above mentioned books by German officers would be read. And it wouldnt surprise me if they would even read books more recent conflicts, e.g. General Scoffins of the Amaris Empire was trying to fight an honorable war, but was overruled according to the book "Historical Liberation of Terra II" page 21 "he also gave very strict instructions on how to deal with SLDF holdouts  and how to treat prisoners of war - all of which very much mirrored the same directions given by Kerensky.", so  - we dont know if he wrote a book - but if he did I suspect it would be read at Academies, even if only to tell officers what to look for if you suspect the other side to pull an Amaris on you.

Also the books you read would be influenced by your position.

A General in the logistics department would read more of Martin van Crevelds "Supplying War" or other books on logistics (maybe about the Berlin Airlift 1948), rather than books about tank tactics.

[Metallgewitter]

Good point. I would also suspect that officers who are destined to end in let's say scouting units are required to read books on light Mech operations. Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth. Or even make cadets familiarize with the different military structures around the IS. We have the claswsic 4-3-3 system then we have the 5-3-3 (I think) and when we add the Comstar or even the Marian formations you get a wider variety just in terms of organization levels.

[Alan Grant]

We're starting to draw the distinctions between:

1. What is learned at a military academy, when you might know the cadet's specialty but little else (i.e. you don't know where their career will take them)

2. What is learned after the academy, once they are assigned to a unit. Learning doesn't stop after the academy. Battletech is pretty well known for each of its units having their own flavor, their own favored strategies and tactics.  This is where for example, if a graduate is assigned to a light 'mech within a scout lance, then that mechwarrior now needs to really practice those scouting and scout-hunting skills. That's achieved through continuing training, field exercises and everything else a unit does build and/or maintain its readiness. Entire units get routed through regional combat training centers.

3. Continuing education through additional training programs. We know in the Fed Suns for example that it was common for soldiers and officers to go back and get additional training throughout their careers, sometimes that meant completing an entire training program in a different combat specialty. Sometimes that meant more advanced training needed for higher rank or position. In FM: FS, Simon Gallaghar, the Prince's Champion and Field Marshall, his career path gets detailed on page 34. As part of that there's a line that reads NAIS CMS: (Federation Command and Staff College).

FM: FS on page 36 also notes that many academies run additional training programs for existing officers and NCO's who wish to cross-train in a different specialty or advance their education.

On that note I did actually find a canon line aimed at the original question. FM: FS page 36.

Under Curriculum, it says that all academies must follow the same basic curriculum created by the Department of Military Education, completing such basics as first aid, navigation and wilderness survival. That's mandatory for all cadets, as is more academic subjects such as studying the military campaigns of Caesar, Patton and Kerensky.

So there you go, that's three from a canon book. But they say "such as" meaning these are a few cherry picked examples rather than a full list.

[Minemech]

A General in the logistics department would read more of Martin van Crevelds "Supplying War" or other books on logistics (maybe about the Berlin Airlift 1948), rather than books about tank tactics.

Within the time period of the Third, logistics would be the chief subject for all mechwarriors. They do not want to be dispossessed, and the fear of lostech or ending up in the hanger queen is real. While it is true that it is primarily the field of the adults, even normal mechwarriors need to understand it well then. It also helps raiders when discerning their actions. People who could get what they needed when they needed were strategic assets for their units.

[butchbird]

Two questions arise for me here.

1)

as is more academic subjects such as studying the military campaigns of Caesar, Patton and Kerensky.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, maybe the fact I don't use the english language much keeps me from understanding this right...

But I take it more as "academic subjects such as pre-spaceflight terra military campaings". Which makes me wonder what other "academic subjects" (interestingly, in my language, "academic" has a pejorative connotation, but I digress) might be sapping possible time away from purely military subjects. What is an "academic subject" liable to be taught in BTU military schools?

2) Don't think this was my other question when I wrote my first line but a question anyway.

Up to what point would pre-space flight terran litterature impose itslef in the curriculum. Sure, Sun Tzu's AoW can be the first book handed. Sure, clausewitz's "on war" should be amongst the next choices...

But past the point of the basics, those readings become...well..."historical" readings more then "military" ones. Still pertinent, but not what you want your officers reading at the point where they're figuring out how to best wage war in the 31st century.

I mean, take something "revolutionary" for its time (Yeah, I know, there's a controversy about it, on its real influence and all, but I read it and, in my limited neophyte grasp of these things, found it much ahead of its time) like Lidell Hart's writings on tank warfare in the inter-war period. At the time, any tank commander should have read. That's how you had to conduct combined arms operations. Nowdays, what would be the applicable relevance on the battlefield? Surely there's more advanced stuff on the subject.

And hence, surely much has been written on the subject once you reach the 31st century. So yeah, what proportion of pre-space-flight writings?

[BrianDavion]

I think this is more a real world writing issue, If I say "they studied Ceaser, Patton and Kerensky" everyone knows who that is, but if I say "They studied the campaigns of Kerensky, Charles Leighton, and Miles Kempec"

you'd have to dive pretty deep into battletech lore to know Leighton was a Lord of the Terran March prior to the davion civil war, and Kempec was a Lyran general of the armies. you'd have no idea what those campaigns where etc. it'd make more sense then some long dead terran general, but it'd be essentially meaningless to the reader.

That said this discussion is a prime subject for a Sharpnal article

[Alan Grant]

I think they are just making the point (to the reader) that an array of military leaders and campaigns from throughout human history is studied. Little more.

Brian's point is an excellent one. They went with a sampling of names the reader would recognize. Even if you aren't into military history at all, you've probably heard of those names.

As to how much time is to devoted to this subject, we actually know it varies. A great example is that the War College of Goshen, in FM: Fed Suns is noted for investing a lot more time and energy on the study of "military history and classic and contemporary military strategy."

It says the cadets spend more time dissecting great military strategists than they do on their specialty studies.

The point being Goshen is called out for for their specific curriculum. Which in turn calls out the fact that while all the academies rely on a common curriculum, one thing the Battletech universe actually does very well (that I give it credit for) is to add character and flavor to the different major military academies of each realm by making each a little different.

So if your inclination is to put "academic" in a pejorative connotation, then I guess Goshen isn't the school for you.  Perhaps you'd prefer the Warrior's Hall, which FM: FS says focuses on perfecting a cadet's military skills, "often to the exclusion of any but the most basic academics."

All of this circles to the point of saying, every academy is different, and that's actually pretty cool and interesting, especially from a character writing, roleplaying perspective, IMO.

But it also means there are limitations to a conversation like this, which has thus far been aimed at "all" academies.

[butchbird]

So if your inclination is to put "academic" in a pejorative connotation, then I guess Goshen isn't the school for you.  Perhaps you'd prefer the Warrior's Hall, which FM: FS says focuses on perfecting a cadet's military skills, "often to the exclusion of any but the most basic academics."

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an inclination, more of an appreciation on the word play it permits in certain cases.

This said, I'll reformulate that part of the question. Of course, I suppose I would have been better off asking it to the few individuals I've known to attend an "officer school" (too late for that I suppose), but I'd bet someone will have a general Idea here so... what other academic fields might be liable to take time away from purely military matters in the curriculum? I mean, I know that, for example, physics would surely be part of the curriculum for aspiring artillery officers, but that's with military applications in mind obviously.

So what could be, you know, "purely academic", as in, more about "developping the individual's general cognitive abilitys/knowledge" then his military skills? Is that even a thing in military schools? My view is of course tainted by my own experience with "higher education", but I'd assume they also have (oh yay, a memory blank) " complimentary credits not necessarly linked to one's field of study"?

Also, indeed this could be interesting in shrapnel...but then, one step further, I do think that section in "brush wars" on the ronin war with the classroom course is a fan favorite...this might even belong somewhere other then an mere article in shrapnel?

[Alan Grant]

It's honestly hard to gauge because military academies in Battletech work a bit differently than the military academies in the real world (or at least the U.S., where I live).

In the U.S. military academies the cadets are earning a bachelor's degree. Yes, the curriculum tilts in favor of military subjects and topics. Yes they lean into reading military-related works. If you do a google search of "what is required reading at West Point?" you'll find lists. But at its core, they are earning a bachelor's degree.

I just checked West Point's website and I see a pretty healthy range of majors. From chemistry to aeronautical engineering to economics, english, law and legal studies, grand strategy,, Mathematics, foreign languages, Foreign studies of a particular region, and so on. I'm noticing a tilt toward science and engineering majors, not as many Arts majors.

All graduates of a U.S. Military Academy receive the opportunity to become an officer in a branch of the U.S. Military. During their senior year at the academy they learn which branch they will serve in after graduation. After graduation and commissioning they start that training. So that can easily mean months or even years of additional training after earning that bachelor's degree and a commission.

By comparison, most of the Battletech military academies aren't even necessarily teaching officers. Officers are a separate officer training program entirely found within most BTU academies. Most of the academies also aren't offering an education degree but a few do and are called out for doing so. Again leaning to FM: FS for sources, NAIS offers outstanding cadets that opportunity, so does Kilbourne Academy (which hosts a civilian university on-site).

By the time Battletech academy cadets graduate, they've already completed a military specialty program, becoming a qualified mechwarrior, aerospace pilot, infantryman, tanker, engineer and so on. A slice of those cadets have also earned a commission as an officer. (a few academies do ONLY graduate officers, but that seems to be rare)

But that's the U.S. You start looking abroad and other countries do have other models. The real world Sandhurst is an officer program about 44 weeks long, and about 80 percent of the cadets already have degrees. So they spend about a year in an officer training program and then move on to military specialty training.

[Metallgewitter]

That goes for the House militaries. The SLDF cadets seemed to follow the US training course. Once a SLDF soldier had completed his training he wasn't only a soldier but also had a bachelor degree of some sort. Which according to the source books gave them a better skillset then most IS soldiers.

[Alan Grant]

That goes for the House militaries. The SLDF cadets seemed to follow the US training course. Once a SLDF soldier had completed his training he wasn't only a soldier but also had a bachelor degree of some sort. Which according to the source books gave them a better skillset then most IS soldiers.

At a glance at FM: SLDF, I feel like the big difference between the SLDF model and the Great House model is just that a LOT more SLDF personnel go through an academy. It reads like they all do (this part I'm not sure about, if 100% of SLDF recruits go through an academy or just some do). Whereas in the Great Houses, it's just a percentage slice of the pie that are accepted into an academy. The rest go through boot camp/basic training, then go to some kind of regional training center by whatever name. The SLDF operates more than 200 academies and it reads like almost all recruits spend time at one.

But you are correct in that basically every SLDF trooper is considered to have earned the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. Total time spent in training is somewhere between 4.5 and 8 years.

Within the Great Houses, such comprehensive training/education is reserved for the best of the best, or the well-connected. The SLDF broadens it to pretty much all.

[Metallgewitter]

This reminds me of the training situation in the Oriente Protectorate right after the Jihad. Thomas Halas orders the Princeton and Orloff schools to allow more common born cadets into their ranks but one of the commandants scoff at thei idea with the remark "the proles don't have the stomach for proper training" which apparently includes hazing of common born cadets by the blue bloods. Counter to that according the to FM Federated Suns at the NAIS and the Albion academy hazing is strictly forbidden as those schools are already competitive and with the closeness to the ruling goverment and high command has already put a lot of stress onto the cadets.

And I took a glance at the first book of liberation of Terra. There it states that all SLDF recruits go first through basic training in boot camps to give them the skills of a basic infantryman. Plus those that join under 18 are also given additional education. After that they are given the rank of E1 and then send to "trade training" at as you said over 200 academies that dot the Terran Hegemony (and those in the Commonwealth and Suns) And after that they are either send into the field (infantry and armor) or recieve more training for their respective branch (like accounting, medical, Zero-G etc). The most promising are also given the opportunity to enter officer training.

[Minemech]

This reminds me of the training situation in the Oriente Protectorate right after the Jihad. Thomas Halas orders the Princeton and Orloff school to allow more common born cadets into their ranks but one of the commandants scoff qat thei idea with the remark "the proles don't have the stomach for proper training" which apparently includes hazing of common born cadets by the blue bloods. Counter to that according the to FM Federated suns at the NAIS and the Albion academy hazing is strictly forbidden asa those school are already competitive and with the closeness to the ruling goverment and high command has already put a lot of stress onto the cadets.

Yeah, Princefield has a reputation. What I said about blood rights is highly connected to that, they want people who are read up and ready for a graduate education with graduate seminars, they do not want to provide undergraduate education.
 The Allison Mechwarrior Institution would be its foil. It is a top tier Inner Sphere mech academy where the students are personally selected by the Captain-General from all applicants. The AMI was historically a pathway into the most elite units of the League.
 Both are superb places to get enrolled in.

[paladin2019]

[clipped discussion of West Point/Sandhurst model of military academies]

This is a fundamental difference born of a fundamental difference in the expected place of officers in the larger society. The US originally expected the bulk of its army to be militia who only took up arms in time of need. to this end, very few officers matriculating from USMA were active in the regular army. The intent is that the rest would return to their communities to stand ready as trained individuals (and politically reliable ones, as consideration for enrollment required a congressional nomination) their militias would elect to office in their units. Thus, these inactive officers would need a professional trade to support themselves appropriately when they were not in active service and so USMA would be a university granting Bachelors of Science degrees; many doctors and lawyers and teachers at various levels.

Such a consideration wasn't important to a a professional army, like the British Army. It needed professional officers to lead a professional soldiery in a standing army, thus its officers didn't need another professional trade. Sandhurst requiring a graduate degree is a useful discriminator of candidates but is necessary for the institution's purpose.

Based on this, it is likely different military factions (to include different philosophies, perhaps regional or cultural, within a given state) throughout the IS will likely use one of these models or an amalgam of them. If driving a battlemech is akin to piloting an aircraft in complexity, it is likely entirely appropriate to call a school for training mechwarriors an academy, even if it is not strictly producing military officers. However, if we go all the way back to MW1e, Leadership is a skill included in academy training, thus we can infer that academy graduates are initially on a command track. However, Tactics is not such a skill, so the skill package is fungible enough to support different schools' and factions' intents about what their school focuses on; some schools will graduate skilled corporals and sergeants, some schools curricula will have more academic grounding meant to produce graduates with an appreciation of bigger pictures.

As another poster put it, fertile ground for Shrapnel articles.

[DOC_Agren]

Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth.

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

[Minemech]

 Princefield trains its officer students on how to be of noble pedigree including the arts of horsemanship and polo. This is strikingly practical in the Battletech universe. It is also a means into the nobility as well as to form connections with it.

[Minemech]

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

Hey, at least it has a big gun. That is somewhat Steinery.

[Minemech]

 To reframe it, Princefield has a stereotypical Ivy League mentality, whilst AMI has a UC mentality.

[Decoy]

Required Reading as of 3152 for the Federated Sun's best Training Facility, the 1st Conroe Training Battalion, is A is for Awesome

[Metallgewitter]

There was a Lyran piloting a Hussar??  Did they loose a bet??

Checked the lore the book was called '"The strategy of support" but it was written by a retired SLDF Major and became required reading at the Nagelring in 3059

[idea weenie]

Good point. I would also suspect that officers who are destined to end in let's say scouting units are required to read books on light Mech operations. Like that one book written by a Hussar pilot that became required reading much later in the Lyran Commonwealth. Or even make cadets familiarize with the different military structures around the IS. We have the claswsic 4-3-3 system then we have the 5-3-3 (I think) and when we add the Comstar or even the Marian formations you get a wider variety just in terms of organization levels.

This one?
"Piloting a Hussar in combat, aka how to use the 'squirrel factor' to be an absolute aggravation to your opponent"

[The Eagle]

I'm catching up after the holiday, so forgive for digging back through the thread for this:

Basically every bio they write of Victor mentions that he's some kind of military prodigy. For instance, here's the first line of his bio in M&M:

It calls him out as a good leader but leadership =/= tactical or strategic genius.  General MacClellan of the ACW's Union army was a good leader as far as building a trained, disciplined force, but the dude couldn't command troops in battle to save his life.  Victor was a genuinely good person with decent charisma, a good MechWarrior, and a Nagelring graduate -- all of which made him a good leader.  His men were loyal to him, he could fight, and he could maneuver troops.  He was capable of some out-of-the-box thinking like the Teniente raid to free Hohiro Kurita.  For every Twycross or Teniente, though, there's a Newtown Square where he gets his clock cleaned.

What is an "academic subject" liable to be taught in BTU military schools?

I took this line to delineate between theoretical classroom instruction and practical hands-on instruction.  You can sit and read all about Patton's breakout in France 1944 but how to accomplish that kind of speed-run in practice isn't something you can really learn from in a book.  You have to jump in your 'Mech and actually go try to flank someone in the field.

I'd also point out that discounting non-contemporary military tactics is a mistake.  There are many examples in our time of ancient battles being illustrative of modern tactics.  The big one I would cite is the double-envelopment, whose most outstanding classical exponent was Hannibal against the Romans at Cannae: you fix the enemy in place with an infantry assault, then send mobile elements around both flanks.  Now that the enemy is completely surrounded, you collapse the net and kill everyone.  Double envelopments of this sort were the early specialty of a particular European army in the 1930s and 40s until their opponents got just as good (if not better) than them at it.

[Metallgewitter]

I would bet that especially the 2nd Roman-Punic war is a topic that is basically required reading / study object as it contains for one the lesson of loosing a war by winning too much and also "Strike the enemy where he is the most vulnerable". In this case bring the war to his own doorstep while he is in the middle of invading you. Said example was mentioned in the novels right before Operation Bulldog and also during Operation Audacity in the FedCom Civil war period

[Lone-Wolf]

But past the point of the basics, those readings become...well..."historical" readings more then "military" ones. Still pertinent, but not what you want your officers reading at the point where they're figuring out how to best wage war in the 31st century.

I mean, take something "revolutionary" for its time (Yeah, I know, there's a controversy about it, on its real influence and all, but I read it and, in my limited neophyte grasp of these things, found it much ahead of its time) like Lidell Hart's writings on tank warfare in the inter-war period. At the time, any tank commander should have read. That's how you had to conduct combined arms operations. Nowdays, what would be the applicable relevance on the battlefield? Surely there's more advanced stuff on the subject.

And hence, surely much has been written on the subject once you reach the 31st century. So yeah, what proportion of pre-space-flight writings?

I agree with you that books written in the 20th century may be"obsolete" by the year 3025, because certain technologies, e.g. Mechs, did not exist back then.

But I offer two points against it:

1) Mechs are scarce. So you maybe have no Mechs in your force that you use to defend a planet, so the old knowledge about how to deploy a tank and infantry-only force may be helpful.

2) The old books will be helpful because certain technologies were lost.
We dont have an F-14 with AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles. Or Sidewinder or Sparrow missiles.

We only have "dumb" SRM, MRM or LRM that have a one-kill propability only in the smallest aerospacefighter. Contrary to that a Sidewinder / Sparrow / Phoenix has a high one-shot-kill propability. And dont forget the range advantage they have or how doggedly they pursue their target.
(If I may be so bold: In the RENEGADE LEGION there the missiles were given a more realistic approach - more time-consuming, but more realistic.)

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

We dont have an F-14 with AWG-9 radar and 6 Phoenix missiles. Or Sidewinder or Sparrow missiles.

We only have "dumb" SRM, MRM or LRM that have a one-kill propability only in the smallest aerospacefighter. Contrary to that a Sidewinder / Sparrow / Phoenix has a high one-shot-kill propability. And dont forget the range advantage they have or how doggedly they pursue their target.

The most important thing about Phoenix missiles is that, unlike SRMs, they can't do anything to even the smallest ASF.

[Lone-Wolf]

The most important thing about Phoenix missiles is that, unlike SRMs, they can't do anything to even the smallest ASF.

You may be right, because - as far as I know - it was never mentioned how armor of 1985 is different to armor of 3025.
If we go by the known rules, a rifle cannon of the heaviest type still makes damage, but what we dont know is: Do they use the same explosives or are they upgraded?

To describe it: 1985 explosive C-4 wouldnt damage Mech-type armor (because diamond and crystallization based), while the same amount of 3025 (call it) C-25 explosive is the same as ten 210mm  High Explosive artillery shells landing at the same time at the exact same spot.

So, I would say, that if you upgrade the Phoenix missile with 3025 explosives and materials then it would have a high one-shot kill propability.