Creating an army for a fictional nation brainpile thread

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, you have organic and then 'divarty' assets . . . your lower echelons are going to have lighter & single-purpose artillery, specifically set up to provide support to their parent formation.  FREX, pre-BDE re-organization afaik each brigade had some artillery assets- armored had mortar carriers & Paladins, infantry had towed mortars, 75mm, 105mm, & 155mm- while division had a whole brigade of artillery that was mixed heavy with specialist components like met, survey (extremely important in '70s compared to now), and Direction Finder Radar for counterbattery.  So Divarty had a whole other layer of assets that could be used for each brigade's efforts (Hey 202nd BDE artillery, radar says the battery of enemy 105s that is giving you trouble is here- fire away) if they were not engaged otherwise.  The actual artillery units can be handed over to a brigade if the situation warrants it- aka, lead brigade for a attack, you get DivArty's 155mm, any 203mm, and MLRS/Rocket assets.  Finally, you are going to have strategic artillery . . . this will be theater missile systems and cruise missiles (if you get any).  Strategic systems will be things like SCUDs and Perishing- we dropped the Perishing b/c of treaty (non in Europe or Turkey, what's the point?) . . . but brought the capability back with the MLRS's ATACM system.

Skip nukes, but I still think you can get some dual use out of a FAE equipped Perishing for counterattack weapon.

Finally, everyone keeps talking about the latest systems for the 70s which is why I was asking which block you were in line with . . . I think your territorial forces would be best equipped with outsized rocket formations- especially if you are going to use them as a 1st response on most of your borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher

It gives you a cheap, easy to maintain 1st counter punch that will stall any land invasion (or positioned properly can wreck a attempted beach head) IF you can identify marshall & transit chokepoints in use.  Takes a bit to reload, especially compared to 2010+ modern systems, but its cheap system cost and easy maintenance.  They even had a version that was mounted on tracks using a T-40 tank- Germans also had some mounted on tracks & half-tracks.  Heck, each border defense battalion could task out a platoon from each company that has the responsibility of setting up some sort of Katyusha clone & trailer it pulls out of a bunker. laying the truck & trailer at individual targets, and then handing them over to a artillery detachment before moving forward to take up 2nd line defensive positions.  Once they are fired, the artillery detachment hops in the trucks to drive off to a re-arm point abandoning the trailers to pick up new ones at the re-arm point.  Spread them over a large area and you give the invader a LOT of targets to try to hit- which do you go after, a lightly manned rocket battery of 4 trucks & 4 trailers or the assembly area for some infantry?

[kato]

I think your territorial forces would be best equipped with outsized rocket formations- especially if you are going to use them as a 1st response on most of your borders.

Well, there's always the option Germany designed in the second half of the 70s for "maximum volume of fire response to enemy troops crossing the borders".

Air defense belt with a few dozen batteries of Nike Hercules at exactly the distance to the border that their range is ... in their newly added surface-to-surface mode.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Well, there's always the option Germany designed in the second half of the 70s for "maximum volume of fire response to enemy troops crossing the borders".

Air defense belt with a few dozen batteries of Nike Hercules at exactly the distance to the border that their range is ... in their newly added surface-to-surface mode.

An amusing option for the Plutons with their chemical warheads, perhaps.

Finally, everyone keeps talking about the latest systems for the 70s which is why I was asking which block you were in line with . . . I think your territorial forces would be best equipped with outsized rocket formations- especially if you are going to use them as a 1st response on most of your borders.

"We started making Grads in 1963 to supplement our tube artillery.  Someone forgot to turn off the production line, and twelve years later..."

I don't see any mention of a trailer-based system; you'd think that'd be a fine thing to supplement those 122mm towed artillery MT-LB carriers.  Stick a GRAD rack and have two vehicles for reloading, and a fourth for the crews and radios.

More to come, enjoying the chinese restaurant at my local grocery store.

[Kidd]

LARS is the Bundeswehr equivalent of the Katyusha.

In the forest and marshland area, 120mm mortars may have mobility advantages that 155mm howitzers do not. They're lighter, smaller, easier to bring into action in poor terrain. But they're not man-portable mortars, they would have to be towed by truck or self-propelled by M113 carrier. And they're shorter ranged, making them battalion support weapons and not division artillery.

[kato]

I don't see any mention of a trailer-based system; you'd think that'd be a fine thing to supplement those 122mm towed artillery MT-LB carriers.

There was a towed version of the predecessor system (RPU-14 for the 140mm BM-14 from 1951). It ended up with airborne troops only, and was replaced by the BM-21V, a lighter 12-round 122mm Grad launcher on a light truck chassis that could be airdropped.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, I am not even talking about a set piece of equipment or one of the clones- merely that its a well proven concept out there . . . but yeah, Katyusha (generic name, like Kleenex, Coke or Q-Tip) are cheap and easy to produce.  You make a tractor rig in for your domestic automobile production?  Buy a lot of surplus WWII deuce & halfs from the allies for domestic transport purposes?  Plenty of places to get a lot of truck chassis that you can put a set of guide rails on . . . uniformity in production of course helps accuracy, but for Katyusha its all about wrecking the grid square- you want density of fires.  I would honestly take number of rockets over individual size as long as we are talking similar performance- IE 16 155m rockets vs 8 or 12 180mm rockets since their footprint will be wider.

[ANS Kamas P81]

You may want to look at this Wikipedia article on the 1975 reform of the Italian Army which formally abandoned regiments (previously traditionally triangular organized in homogenous fashion).

Oh GOODY.  And it even has links to the structure in 1974 and 1977 to compare with.  Not to mention 1975, ha ha, perfect timing.

Well, I was thinking of detailing the force structure changes.  Maybe Kato's list is how things start in 1974, and then I'll end up with a major modernization program beginning then, pick new programs that started initial development in 1975/76, and use that to create a 1990 version as things settle out.

The great "breaking of the regiments" as it were, that ought to be fun.  At an initial glance, stripping the regiments down - maybe keeping the name at least as a bone to the traditionalists - into their various companies would dramatically reduce transit time and make for a better fast-reaction capability, along with an emphasis on mechanization across the board perhaps.

Or maybe go backwards, strip the mechanization, and convert all to light infantry because why not be stupid at the same time you're smart.  (Kidding!  Maybe)

Hm...building combatant regiments off of four formats: armored cavalry, light cavalry, heavy infantry, and light infantry. 

Possible option could be a "general fire support battalion" with e.g. 4 batteries of 6 guns and a second that provides "specialized fire support" with e.g. 2 batteries with 16 light MLRS, 1 battery with 105mm (for the light infantry in the division) and 1 battery with something more specialized such as battlefield surveillance drones (examples: CL-89 since the 60s, MBLE Epervier in 1977).

With four batteries of six, I suppose one battery of heavy mortars, and three batteries of 155mm towed or SPG?  Or would mortar carriers be better slotted into the mechanized battalion directly? 

I suppose I should also detail what's available at divisional level, would that be another attached artillery rgt, this time with 203mm and/or heavy rockets?

The one thing that keeps sticking in my head on the Grad is less "40 122mm rockets per launcher" and more "three minutes to set up, one minute to fire, ten minutes to reload, two minutes to pack up and skedaddle" mobility.  I'm sorry but I REALLY like that, even more than its firepower capability; the fact it's been in production so long...I can see an inordinate amount of these things just sort of stuffed into every depot's nook and cranny and nobody understands why they keep appearing.

In fact there's not even a contract to produce them anymore, so they say...which means the Grads, in the dark corners of the lagers, are quietly breeding like tribbles...

On the topic of mortars, MT-LB 2S24 had an 82mm mortar onboard with 83(!) rounds of ammo, while the Bulgarians had a 120mm variant with 58 rounds onboard.  I could absolutely see using those in the same role as the suggested M113. 

Shame there's not a towed Grad launcher; I almost want to invent one but I'll settle with fluff saying weird licensing issues said it could only be built with the truck based system, and use the MTLBs to tow tube (or mount it, hello 2S1) instead.

Idle artillery question.  Mixed 105/155 or all intermediate 122?  Pros and cons of both?

[ANS Kamas P81]

This also poses an extra question, for an army on the rebuild with a defensive strategy in mind, just what IS the most useful majority?  Light infantry for holding terrain with a whole plethora of fixed weapons, mechanized infantry with their carriers for massed forces and mobility, cute tanks doing tank things, or artillery peeing explosives all over the place?

[AmBeth]

Shame there's not a towed Grad launcher; I almost want to invent one but I'll settle with fluff saying weird licensing issues said it could only be built with the truck based system, and use the MTLBs to tow tube (or mount it, hello 2S1) instead.

Well if you want historically produced towed systems you have the M21 4.5in (114mm) <US, 25 rockets, reportedly 80 second reload for a trained crew> or the Type 63 MLRS <Chinese, 12 107mm rockets>

[kato]

With four batteries of six, I suppose one battery of heavy mortars, and three batteries of 155mm towed or SPG?  Or would mortar carriers be better slotted into the mechanized battalion directly?

Mortars always go to direct support, unless they're actual heavy mortars (considerably larger than 120mm).

Always SPGs if you have the money. There's no other benefit to towed guns unless you're planning to airlift them (example: US) or are planning to fight in static defense anyway (example: Japan).

I suppose I should also detail what's available at divisional level, would that be another attached artillery rgt, this time with 203mm and/or heavy rockets?

Uh, that was the division level with its two artillery regiments.

The Corps level artillery division? Heavy rockets or missiles plus a reserve in gun batteries, pretty much. Something like FROGs, Sergeant, Honest John etc for rockets there.

Idle artillery question.  Mixed 105/155 or all intermediate 122?  Pros and cons of both?

Ammunition commonality is always a plus. Con of the 122mm is range, you basically need RAP to reach the same range as a 155mm L/39.

This also poses an extra question, for an army on the rebuild with a defensive strategy in mind, just what IS the most useful majority?  Light infantry for holding terrain with a whole plethora of fixed weapons, mechanized infantry with their carriers for massed forces and mobility, cute tanks doing tank things, or artillery peeing explosives all over the place?

Depends on what your enemy is bringing.

[truetanker]

Back to my proposed M65 artillery...

You all stated it was too slow and ungainly, correct?

Then what about the 2S7 Pion " Peony ", it's a 203mm Russian build.

TT

[ANS Kamas P81]

Well if you want historically produced towed systems you have the M21 4.5in (114mm) <US, 25 rockets, reportedly 80 second reload for a trained crew> or the Type 63 MLRS <Chinese, 12 107mm rockets>

Meh, I'll live with "more Grads" I suppose.  It was just an idea.  And it seems the MT-LB has its own SPG version anyway.  Hrmpf hrmpf hrmpf, so many choices.

Mortars always go to direct support, unless they're actual heavy mortars (considerably larger than 120mm).

Gotcha.  SP mortar platoon in the infantry units, then, weapons company?

Always SPGs if you have the money. There's no other benefit to towed guns unless you're planning to airlift them (example: US) or are planning to fight in static defense anyway (example: Japan).

Considering those air-assault regiments, I might just want to consider that...but we'll see.  I still feel iffy on the French organization despite how well it works and the numbers commonality.

Uh, that was the division level with its two artillery regiments.

Derp.  Right, that - Corps and Army level, then.

The Corps level artillery division? Heavy rockets or missiles plus a reserve in gun batteries, pretty much. Something like FROGs, Sergeant, Honest John etc for rockets there.

So would 203mm guns just be an optional choice instead of more 155mm at Corps level?  If so I think I'd rather take the 155mm SP tubes, and look for a longer-range rocket artillery system.  If it's best to put your heavy guns there then absolutely 203s - comparing, admittedly, easily located wikipedia data on the M109 and M110 the heavier gun outranges the latter by a good 3-10km for early models.  And at a glance, BM-21 splits the difference in max range, 14km-20km-25km...

Yeah, hrm, corps level artillery would get the 203s.  I wonder how many corps artillery batteries I can get away with...

Ammunition commonality is always a plus. Con of the 122mm is range, you basically need RAP to reach the same range as a 155mm L/39.

True, though that'd also be operating under the 20km Grad umbrella.  Outranging the light artillery, at least, plus an intermediate round, and then using that same system across the board...eh, maybe we just dropped 105mm artillery and switched to 122mm and 155mm; MT-LB carriers for the little guns (the 2S1, holy crap it's even amphibous!) and eventually AMX-30 AU F1 for the 155mm guns.  Probably using imported 155mm as it is.

Depends on what your enemy is bringing.

I am so not going to fluff an OPFOR.

Back to my proposed M65 artillery...

You all stated it was too slow and ungainly, correct?

Then what about the 2S7 Pion " Peony ", it's a 203mm Russian build.

TT

As a purely coastal gun I could see M65s in fixed positions, or even that 203mm 2A4 on the Pion fixed.  But the Pion weighs more than my MBT!  At least it's got decent mobility.

[truetanker]

The've put it on the T-80 frame even...

TT

[kato]

So would 203mm guns just be an optional choice instead of more 155mm at Corps level?  If so I think I'd rather take the 155mm SP tubes, and look for a longer-range rocket artillery system.

I'd actually propose 175mm SP, i.e. M107. Halfway between 155mm and 203mm in shell weight, but with far longer range. Possibly something already in the artillery for a while and replacing it with a long-range rocket artillery system in the next 5-10 years like the US did (they replaced their 175mm in mixed 175/203 battalions with MLRS).

[Kidd]

IMHO, budget constraints tend to relegate armies building from the ground up, to light infantry, at least for the start. "Meching up" afterward is for when there's a budget for things beyond basic APCs and infantry weapons... and also, there's enough institutional knowledge in the army of basic infantry doctrine that the officers can move on to manoeuvre and so on. But there are some countries which have had the budgets to just buy whole armoured corps from the start...

I don't think theres much point really to having so many calibres of artillery. Pick 155mm or 203mm for heavy artillery, 105mm or 120mm mortar for light artillery, done. You want a ratio of at least one battery of light artillery for each manouevre battalion/regiment, for close support, and two to three or more heavy artillery batteries at division level to add firepower to whichever regiment needs it.

Close support, or direct support, simply means that battery usually "belongs" to the battalion commander and not his boss, the division commander, and he decides when to use it. (This can change of course according to mission requirements.) In the case of howitzers, they are usually Artillery Corps units assigned to the infantry battalion. In the case of mortars, sometimes they are operated by the Artillery just like howitzers, sometimes they are organic to the infantry and operated by infantryman trained as mortarmen. In the latter case, it's rare for them to be reassigned to other units; they are understood to be the responsibility of the battalion commander.

You think this is fun, try fluffing up what these guys looked like during WW2 or that 1950 war....!

[Colt Ward]

Force equipment mix IMO based on everything I have ever heard comes down to a few things-

Purpose of unit assigned- If it becomes a budget/availability choice, its going to be what is the purpose of the unit you are assigning the equipment to at the time.  FREX, when the US converted from M60s to M1s, units that were slotted in Europe or to be 1st wave REFORGER got the M1s IIRC b/c idea of if you could only get limited reinforcements in the 1st wave (or limited by what was in W Germany) it should be the best units in the best equipment.  Note, this is going to apply to things outside basic systems- IE you will not have small arms of two different types & calibers without good reason- basically you are not fielding M-16s & AK-47 in your line infantry units without a really really good reason.

Standardization-  Mostly for calibers and parts, the more interchangeability in parts the easier it is to keep equipment combat effective even if you have to shift priorities in what gets parts.  FREX, go back to that artillery caliber discussion . . . 75mm, 105mm, 155mm, 203mm were all in use by the US Army at one point.  Improvements in materials & processes cut that down to the 105mm for light tube artillery and the 155mm for heavy tube artillery.  The M102 replaced the earlier version of the same caliber but was also light enough to replace the 75mm that went with airborne & mountain troops.  The 203mms were retired for 155mm- which also happened to be the caliber of the Paladins that were replacing the old 8in SP guns because of advances the lighter guns could achieve the same results- btw this will be going on in the late 70s in the US.  But the move also was part of standardizing NATO equipment- manuals & parts went to the Metric system, 5.56mm NATO standard for a common round, fuel & bomb connections were standardized across the NATO militaries (which the Warsaw Pact duplicated to exploit captured stocks) all because it cut down on the logistical needs for what was expected to be a desperate situation.  I am sure we can conjure examples in WWII where a unit was short on supplies but was unable to use a nearby unit's excess of supplies b/c they were incompatible.

Bang for the buck-  This is where it gets down to number of systems you can field to reach sufficient density of effects across expected zones.  With Pentagonese done, basically it means is it better to have spent the cash to have a lance of the latest cutting edge M1 Abrams straight from the factory and just off the design boards or do you get a two companies of M60 Pattons that have had several service upgrades?  Stalin was quite right when he said quantity has a quality all it's own.  Then you boil this down another level and ask yourself is the initial purchase of the M60 plus the purchase of the latest stabilized laser sights from the Abrams project refit on the M60 give you a vehicle that is good enough to make your forces effective against any more advanced designs at a cost per unit difference that allows you effective savings- either in buying more units or saving on budget to buy more/better/improvements on other systems?  If you are using 20 upgraded surplus WWII hulls, how much of a whole does it leave in your fleet rotation if a problem develops vs pouring that money into 5 brand new cutting edge warship designs?  Even worse, what happens if some of that cutting edge tech on the five ships is revealed to give them a exploitable vulnerability?

Corollary- Most Bangs for the buck Is the system you are buying versatile?  Does the system allow your troops plenty of practice?  If bullets are expensive how much of a training budget can you allocate for the troops to practice firing?  If bullets are cheap, how many different types of training can your troops perform to become more skilled?  If bullets are cheap, how often can the troops execute live fire training?

For artillery, my suggestion- because of period- would be to go to 3 artillery calibers, 75mm for mountain/swamp/airborne, 105mm for light artillery in divarty & infantry regiment roles, and 155mm for 'heavy' artillery.  My personal bit there would also be to have the guns on your surface warships refit to use one of those 3 calibers to help with standardization.  One size of rockets, find what you think is the best mix between range, bursting charge and payload for your ideal launch vehicle.  Mortars . . . IIRC, its 90mm that light infantry can carry with them, I think some 120mm models but I am not sure if they were capable at that time but they could be mounted or for mountain troops they can be put on a mule- same with the 75mm.  Mechanized infantry will have 120mm & 180mm, probably, in armored vehicles like the M113 or Stryker set up.

[Daryk]

Only tangentially related at this point (since you've foregone tac nukes), I got to watch a Davy Crockett test when supporting a class today.  The 1st Offset was glorious in its way... and absolutely terrifying otherwise... (they literally told the spectators to "turn around" or make sure they had their goggles on to avoid "retinal burn").

[ANS Kamas P81]

Only tangentially related at this point (since you've foregone tac nukes), I got to watch a Davy Crockett test when supporting a class today.  The 1st Offset was glorious in its way... and absolutely terrifying otherwise... (they literally told the spectators to "turn around" or make sure they had their goggles on to avoid "retinal burn").

Alchemy is a very touchy thing and lead does not like being turned into gold.  Neither do other elements and they have a habit of making their displeasure known across square miles...

Colt: Outside of the obvious logical reasons you mentioned, I'm a fan of standardizing things as well - it just makes my conceptual job so much easier.  It seems there was a general downsizing of artillery for the US, especially as the 155s became almost as good as the 203mm guns.  Which, amusingly, has the same parallel in the death of the heavy tanks; once the 105mm guns became a thing the old 120s in Conq and M103 were obsolete.  Same reason I like the AMX-30 as a tank - it's got a nice family of vehicles on a common frame, even if that frame has bubble-wrap for armor.  I suppose, at least for the artillery question, I'll settle on purging 203mm guns except in rare occasions (the coastal-defense artillery, but that's also fixed fortification and being slowly obsoleted as well) and let's see.

105mm: 2.2kg explosive, 11km range
122mm: 3.7kg explosive, 15km
155mm: 6.6kg explosive, 15-18km range
122mm rocket: 18.4kg explosive, 15-20km range

Tough call there; the 122 fits nice between the 105 and 155, but then there's only a few years between the SP 122mm 2S1 Gvozdika that I like...and settling back into the AMX-30's family that I also very like.  Add in a desire for those rockets just because of the explosives capability...I won't lie, I want to say "122mm for the light artillery and 155 for the heavy" with the Grads as the third option, on those various mounted rigs.  Not sure that really helps the light infantry, though, but they can always have more Grads instead of tube.  As far as mortars...120mm has half the rate of fire, but twice the kill radius, and a little better range; 81mm guns still run 91 pounds for carried weight so they're gonna be vehicle-borne when possible.  60mm is definitely in the man-portable category, though mortars aren't just about killing targets but all sorts of utility stuff.

Eh, I'll go either end, 120mm vehicle-mounted mortars with 60mm stuff for the light infantry I suppose.

But again that means most of my hardware is coming out of the 1965-1975 timeframe, which I guess makes sense for a major rearmament campaign started in 1960.  Just how much strategic threat do you need to be under for that effort?  Development goes pretty quick when you're scared...I mean, in ten years we went from M46 being the shiny new hotness to the M60, though it took 20 years for the followon Abrams.

[ANS Kamas P81]

On the topic of the great reorganization - I still need to read over the 1975 thing - just how often do you get a transformative "we need a new organization structure as well as new hardware across the board" kind of situation, versus relatively separate and independent acquisition and organization plans?

[Cannonshop]

On the topic of the great reorganization - I still need to read over the 1975 thing - just how often do you get a transformative "we need a new organization structure as well as new hardware across the board" kind of situation, versus relatively separate and independent acquisition and organization plans?

The most common way that happens, is losing a war.  Armies don't like to change doctrine when it's 'successful' or at least, hasn't failed outright.  Militaries tend to be very conservative about organizational structure even when they're keen to adopt whatever new technology has been dreamed up, and even then, "Doctrine influences technology" (hence why, after the demonstrated benefits of repeating rifles in combat in the 1850s and 1860s, so many armies in the late 19th century opted for singleshot rifles that looked like the muzzle-loaders they issued the prior generation, also why several early repeating arms were equipped with the magazine cut-offs from about 1889 to 1918 by "Military requirement".)

The other way, is seeing someone else, using your prior doctrine perfectly, losing a war, but that kind of introspection requires a fairly liberal-minded period and possibly a forced re-org from head of state downward (occurred under Peter the Great in Russia.)  It's remarkably difficult to get armies and generals to accept new ideas without seeing in 'practical' how their old ideas have failed.  Heck, in WW1, many armies took the field in brightly colored uniforms that provided zero camouflage bonus, because their doctrines still followed Napoleonic principles, and even with Germany in ww2, field uniforms were supplemented with overgarments instead of being created with camouflage until fairly late in the war. 

Organizational structure is actually MORE complex and sweeping a change, than adopting a camouflage or neutral colored field uniform, or changing from a single shot to bolt action, or from bolt action to semi-automatic.  (Many armies post WW2 didn't opt for select-fire weapons at all for their service rifle until the late 1970s.  Britain didn't until the L-85.)

[ANS Kamas P81]

So how does one properly lose a war then, without completely getting overrun.  I doubt a border skirmish would count, though something that grinds like the Iran-Iraq war, perhaps both sides thought they lost. 

[Daryk]

The capital falls due to a decapitation strike?  ???

[ANS Kamas P81]

Lose a war, chiefly a long one, but remain intact functionally.  I dunno, I've got ideas percolating for history things, and I probably should hang up the thread; it's pretty solid and good info but if I'm gonna start changing things nobody wants to go "let's do this again whee"

[Ursus Maior]

So how does one properly lose a war then, without completely getting overrun. 

Look at a recent example in the Caucasus: Your neighbour wants to create a buffer state out of two of your provinces. You refuse to let go said provinces, let yourself be tricked into war and said provinces plus a "security perimeter" get overrun. You also loose most of your fleet and your capital and some bigger cities get shelled. You call for help, but no-one answers and your larger rival stops shooting as soon as they consolidated power in your - now former - provinces.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I suppose various battlefield shifts would end up dragging things out in that regard, though that also means that the country was quite a bit bigger at the time.  Which I suppose, there is that missing province, it makes sense in a way.  Maybe it gets lost then, in the 1950s war.  1954-1959 timeframe, for the overall thing - perhaps even a short break in there and a second round, like the Finns and the Continuation War, or else just a pure slugging match like the Iran-Iraq war.  Add some border skirmishes since, like the Indians and Pakistanis.

That also relies on not having other neighbors get frisky supporting either side, or else equal support by neighbors.

Like I said, rethinking a lot.  IDLE STUPID THOUGHT that brings us back to page one: I imagine there'd be a large post-wartime-conscription reserves source, but by the time of modern day things would have backed down.  With the war still in quite recent memory, and the occasional border skirmish and one or two times it got a little more serious, with the same 37,125,000 population, would there be any difference in the roughly 0.5% in arms, active and reserve?

[Kidd]

You spend all your accumulated resources "winning" the war, and succeed in bringing down the enemy, but the huge debt incurred to fund the war forces you to spend the entire period to 1970 rebuilding the nation and paying it off, in recession conditions. Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on without you and by the time your debt is restored to manageable levels and the economy moves again, you find yourself no longer the superpower you once were, just a regular old regional power.

[Colt Ward]

Like I said, rethinking a lot.  IDLE STUPID THOUGHT that brings us back to page one: I imagine there'd be a large post-wartime-conscription reserves source, but by the time of modern day things would have backed down.  With the war still in quite recent memory, and the occasional border skirmish and one or two times it got a little more serious, with the same 37,125,000 population, would there be any difference in the roughly 0.5% in arms, active and reserve?

Depends . . .

Going to avoid Rule #4 as much as possible . . . current US Army, and I imagine all branches, have a basic contract for 8 years which has a break down of active & inactive.  Guy signs the line thinks he is going to do 3 or 4 years . . . right up until something happens.  Stop loss going into effect surprised quite a few people- to include some I knew in the Guard who thought they had only signed on for 6 years which was the standard 'term.'  My father got out of the Navy after 8 years (he can rattle off the specific amount of time) he actually got paid more for a delay.  His sub did not return to port on schedule b/c their cruise was extended in '85 . . . another sailor with 3 or 4 years in was also being discharged when they got back to port, but found out he had been activated for part of his contractual inactive reserve time which had him still at the same pay rate.

With that said, my father was on a list (still is I am sure) since he had a top secret clearance and was a nuke bubblehead.  I know I am on a list too b/c I had a secret clearance and my MOS was a fire control specialist (also on a list b/c I was taught demo to blow doors, but its a FBI list so different).  So if the late 80s ever got to the point the USN had to suddenly field a bunch of reserve subs or find bodies to replace crew . . . my father would have probably gotten a phone call or visit, since your never really all the way out.  If things went into the crapper some time in the last 8 years and we were fighting a really big conventional war, I would have gotten a phone call or someone knocking on my door.  While enlisted have that active/inactive reserve time . . . officers are never truly out.

So while you may only have X number of bodies on the active & reserve component rolls, your contingency planning group who should draw plans up to deal with anything (Aliens, how do we fight off aliens?) should have a list of people who can be immediately recalled without much fuss (hey, you still have 2/3/4 years on your contract!) but they will likely be lower ranking.  They will also have lists of people who went past that time (by MOS & Rank) that can be recalled in national emergencies where things are basically thrown out the window . . . how big either group is will depend on things like terms of enlistment and what sort of emergency.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Early years after the major war, I strongly suspect there'd be a very large reserve corps, but by the mid 1970s it'd have toned down quite a bit.  I could make things much more difficult, and shift my "local" timeframe to say, 1970 technologically (as far as systems development goes).  I'd still have my first production runs of AMX-30 reaching the army, because I think they're neat little zoomytanks.  They feel like the right kind of immediate response to a complete lack of ability to seriously exploit and reach terrain on the modern battlefield, as if the wartime mix was no real mechanization of forces, and a focus on slow heavy tanks like the Germans toward the end or the French in general pre-war.  (Looking at you, Matilda darling)

Going to avoid Rule #4 as much as possible

I think anecdotes to establish some kind of historical basis makes sense, and doesn't dip too much into the political side of things - 'this happened' is all, and everything I'm doing is entirely fictional.

Idly, it might be a little too long for most of the immediate six-eight year inactive contracts, and mostof the immediate postwar reserves have poofed...but your comments about recall, especially the officers; they'd be a lot older than most - but it strikes me, if there's a general mobilization and a full callup, the first place _I_ would put those 'not quite so retired' officers and NCOs would be in training positions for the various cadres.
 At a glance, at least.

Any interest in kicking around some variants of the initial assumptions, strategic position and focus, and the shift in history and timeframe?  Or do you guys think we're pretty much good as it is, and can wrap this one?

[Colt Ward]

In the US, the typical Navy & Army enlistment starts at 4 years . . . when I got in, they were so short they were offering select MOS at 2-3 year contracts.  I laughed later b/c those folks did not understand they were still on the hook for 8 years.  I THINK one guy I knew had a plan to spend 2 years active, another 2-4 years Guard as part of his plan to get through school.

While your reserve manpower might slump in a post-war draw down, you are still going to be cycling folks.  Your manpower will be a 'triangle' shape, the base is the lower enlisted and they will have the highest turn over . . . so say you have a basic 4 year contract, I would expect near 20% of that number to turn over every year.  Breaks down like this- 20% in their first year, 20% in the second year, 20% in their third year, 20% in their fourth year (about to get out) and 20% have decided to extend at some point the 4 years which removes them from the other pools.  So for US military forces, that means E1-E4 with the 20% extending making up your E5-E9 but that 20% having its own fall out rate that is not quite as drastic.

Which means you could have a inactive reserve (recall force) of . . . we will say 70%-80% of your lower enlisted numbers, both for Active & Reserve component- I do not have a feel for the numbers who would spend 4 years active and then sign on to be part of your Reserve components.  I DO think a third to half your NCOs & senior NCOs for your reserve component will come from the Active side-  FREX, I knew guys who got off Active and signed up for Reserves/Guard because they still got to play soldier (accured seniority), may have got a bump in rank, but they could do things like spend more time with their family (small children)or pursued goals (starting own business).  Sometimes they had a cushy job lined up . . . I knew some that were government workers/contractors or military contractor employee.

So your inactive reserve numbers are really going to be roughly the same year to year and IMO could double your lower enlisted if needed.  Problem is you do not have the same easy tools to get back specialists, NCOs or officers.

I think you pretty well summed up a 2nd tier situation though for the 70s I do not know if you gave enough political impact of the Cold War & the bi-polar power structure.

[kato]

Early years after the major war, I strongly suspect there'd be a very large reserve corps, but by the mid 1970s it'd have toned down quite a bit.

Reduce reserves from a particular year of last active service by 5-10% for every year that has passed depending on how long their service time was.

Reserves from a war 20-25 years ago would be close to zero proportionally, outside some generals you're reactivating; most WW1 veteran enlisted soldiers who fought in WW2 were either underage volunteers in the first war or activated as third-rank reserves like the Volkssturm.