|
I found a really interesting book on the Cold War Soviet Army,which can be read here: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html I've heard that the author is controversial for later writing books arguing that Stalin planned to invade Nazi Germany before World War II, but this book is really good. The author claims the reason behind all those crappy soviet vehicles was to build large amounts of less advanced models to equip second echelon forces. First echelon forces would be outfitted with gear the equal of NATO forces and smash through them. But even if they lost, the second echelon forces with their obsolete equipment and manned by reservist would be an entire army the size of the one that NATO had defeated, going up against an army that had had no time to make good their loses.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
Koesj posted:A lot of them were pretty transparent about it in epilogues and such though, Team B and the more egregious RAND poo poo always presented their stuff as-is. Hackett is also full of "WELL IN THE 70IES WE THOUGHT ABOUT CUTTING THE BUDGET BUT THANK GOD WE DIDN'T"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I found a really interesting book on the Cold War Soviet Army,which can be read here: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html I've heard that the author is controversial for later writing books arguing that Stalin planned to invade Nazi Germany before World War II, but this book is really good. A related quote from this book: quote:At 0700 hours a soldier, designated by me as the best in my company, has to wake me up. This is no easy task, but he manages it. I sit on my bed and gaze at the portrait of Lenin which hangs on the wall. What would our great Teacher and Leader say if he could see me in this state, my face puffy with drink and lack of sleep? My boots have been carefully cleaned, my trousers pressed. This is not part of the soldier's duties, but evidently the senior soldiers have given him orders of their own. They must like me, after all! I used to love this book in my communist teen-years, I think it was responsible for my macho pint-vodka drinking habits emulating Russian Officers. Oh how impressionable we are  I remember the soviet invasion plan map in the book had a paradrop icon casually placed on Copenhagen, as a half-dane, this naturally caused me great upset. The might of the Danish forces could surely repel such an assault!  maev fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
For military training time, how long does it take a nation state to train a military unit? like by taking a group of people how long would it take to make them into reasonably effective military units? Ships, planes, tanks, infantry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Good old Operation Unthinkable. I guess my next question is what did the Russians think about this/did they even worry about it at all as a possibility?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I found a really interesting book on the Cold War Soviet Army,which can be read here: http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html I've heard that the author is controversial for later writing books arguing that Stalin planned to invade Nazi Germany before World War II, but this book is really good. Suvorov is full of poo poo and is often seen arguing directly against primary documents presented to him. Don't consider his swill anything greater than mildly amusing historical fiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:For military training time, how long does it take a nation state to train a military unit? A military unit? If you start from scratch it takes decades to build a regiment or brigade worth their salt. On the other hand you could crash train someone to handle a rifle in a week if you really had to (or in an hour if you REALLY, REALLY HAD TO), so it depends on scale. What time frame are we talking about? Since you mention planes and tanks I presume we're not talking about English longbowmen or Mongol cavalry, but it still matters if you mean WW2 or today. Also if you mean standard training times (which varies by nation) or the absolute minimum required (which also varies, depending on what you expect/how desperate you are). There's just so many variables, you have to be more specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:A military unit? If you start from scratch it takes decades to build a regiment or brigade worth their salt. On the other hand you could crash train someone to handle a rifle in a week if you really had to (or in an hour if you REALLY, REALLY HAD TO), so it depends on scale. What time frame are we talking about? Since you mention planes and tanks I presume we're not talking about English longbowmen or Mongol cavalry, but it still matters if you mean WW2 or today. Also if you mean standard training times (which varies by nation) or the absolute minimum required (which also varies, depending on what you expect/how desperate you are). There's just so many variables, you have to be more specific. Okay let me be more specific since we had all this talk about cold war about the 1970's? I guess how long would it take to make a standard military unit, with no rush. I was thinking maybe how long to make a fighter wing, how long to make a tank battalion and how long to make an infantry battalion. And I'm not sure about nation since its a very broad topic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:A military unit? If you start from scratch it takes decades to build a regiment or brigade worth their salt. On the other hand you could crash train someone to handle a rifle in a week if you really had to (or in an hour if you REALLY, REALLY HAD TO), so it depends on scale. What time frame are we talking about? Since you mention planes and tanks I presume we're not talking about English longbowmen or Mongol cavalry, but it still matters if you mean WW2 or today. Also if you mean standard training times (which varies by nation) or the absolute minimum required (which also varies, depending on what you expect/how desperate you are). There's just so many variables, you have to be more specific. To add context: China has been working on building aircraft carriers since the 1970's. They've just finished refitting an old soviet hulk as a training ship and they're talking seriously about building another 3 medium sized carriers. And this is nascent superpower China taking this long to get into naval aviation from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:30
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Okay let me be more specific since we had all this talk about cold war about the 1970's? I guess how long would it take to make a standard military unit, with no rush. 20 years
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Okay let me be more specific since we had all this talk about cold war about the 1970's? I guess how long would it take to make a standard military unit, with no rush.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Are you using a cadre system whereby you're expanding a company to battalion, battalion to regiment etc by spreading out officers and NCOs and promoting from within to fill gaps or are you just taking a bunch of random dudes, telling them that they're a unit now and training them in isolation? The training in isolation I was just curious how long it takes a a country to make something from nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Cadre system. You take personnel from an already existing unit and have them as your core personnel, (Sergeants, Officers and specialists.) an fill out the rest of the personnel with recruits. That would give you something like 8-10 months for an infantry battalion, 10-12 for a tank battalion, to get your units into accectable fighting shape. You could probably crash it down to 2 months for an infantry battalion, and 3 for a tank battalion. No idea about fighter units or ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
You need to design their equipment - so that's going to take a few years, assuming you already have the basic pack poo poo and small arms done. The tankers may need a more compact weapon, but let's assume you're just issuing them sidearms and being finished with it. So you're looking at designing aircraft and tanks and other vehicles, that's going to take a decade, and you're probably going to turn out something like the F-35 project where your ambitions put you in uncharted territory. And most governments are pretty touchy about sharing even somewhat current military tech. So after that ten years is done you need to train your pilots, to stick with just one vehicle, to fly this new aircraft. Assuming they're all physically fit, smart people who know the basics of flying (stall recovery, kinetic energy, maneuvering, etc) you're going to need a year to get them trained and practiced. During this time you almost certainly identify issues with your planes and encounter setbacks along the way, so let's say you want to have them racking up flight hours/wheel hours, time in the classroom to learn about possible enemies, etc for a total of 2 years. Maybe after 1 year or so they can be a domestic air patrol but you're not going to be projecting force with these guys. After that you want to cycle through recruits for a few tours of duty to identify leadership material. So yeah, like 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
In this day and age you'd just order their equipment from the international arms market, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In this day and age you'd just order their equipment from the international arms market, though. Hahaha what? There is some videogame poo poo going on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? There is some videogame poo poo going on here. http://www.dsei.co.uk/ http://www.idexuae.ae/ Only 52 shopping weeks until arms import christmas! Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
For aviation units there is a huge difference between the technical knowledge required in say, WWII, and what's required today. In the '40s the USAAF was cranking out fully trained/qualified pilots in a little over 6 months, the current USAF pilot training pipeline is measured in years. And keep in mind that the 6 months in WWII was building off of an institution that had been around for several decades before that point, that's definitely not starting from scratch. Cadre doesn't really work for aviation as far as the basic technical skills are concerned, because the baseline level of knowledge that is required is so far beyond that of infantry that you can't just take a bunch of completely inexperienced personnel and toss them into a unit with a couple of experienced guys and have them be combat capable in a short-ish amount of time like you can with grunts. Of course, the cadre system does work in aviation as far as increasing combat capability, look at what the USAAF did during WWII as far as pulling their experienced personnel out of combat to train as opposed to what the Germans and Japanese did (leave the experienced personnel on the line until they became casualties.) And if we're talking about building up an aviation unit, more difficult than developing your flying personnel is developing the maintenance/logistics infrastructure to support all of your planes. Even if you take a shortcut by buying someone else's airplane off the shelf as opposed to designing your own, you're going to have to get personnel trained on how to maintain the planes and support equipment (almost as technical as the flying piece), you're going to have to buy spare parts, you're going to have to set up depots for heavy maintenance on the aircraft, and you're going to have to go through the growing pains of shaking out all the wacky intricacies of modern aircraft. Some of that logistics stuff can be short changed by paying contractors with the experience and know how insane amounts of money to do it for you (e.g., what the Gulf states typically do with most technical aspects of their logistics), but even then it's not going to be quick. If you bought airplanes off the shelf, had a ready pool of pilots with basic aeronautical skills/knowledge (like from a state owned airline), and had the money to completely contract our your logistics support back end, you could have an air arm capable of basic air policing in maybe 5 years, starting from scratch. But that's just for basic air policing, not a full up air arm...look at the struggles the Chinese are going through for the gap between having an air arm capable of flying airplanes in a circle and patrolling your own airspace and an air arm that is a true top tier force. e: Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? There is some videogame poo poo going on here. These days the only people making modern combat aircraft from scratch (as opposed to taking someone else's design and tweaking it, like the Israelis) are the U.S., Russians, Chinese, Europeans (British/Germans/Italians/Spanish), French, Swedes, and maybe the Indians and Pakistanis depending on how you define the programs they have up and running (I'd be more inclined to include the Indians and not the Pakistanis). So yeah, anyone starting an air force from scratch today is going to buy from someone else, not start from scratch. Even countries with relatively powerful, established air arms like Australia and Japan buy aircraft from one of those major countries. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:The training in isolation I was just curious how long it takes a a country to make something from nothing. Typically a country that literally has nothing to rely on would turn to one of the regional powers closest to them politically and make a deal. Not that a new state would necessarily be without a cadre but it varies - as in let's say Scotland became independent today, they'd inherit plenty of cadres and great naval bases and airfields. Still, in their case they'd want to join NATO and that might take some effort for a fresh state, though not as much as for Romania et al.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? There is some videogame poo poo going on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
The international arms market is pretty huge and there's pretty vicious competition because winning or losing a contract can make or break even major firms. And then stuff happens like the US ignoring a vastly superior German system and redrawing the competition terms so the home proposal wins and you get the Bradley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess you could just form some treaty agreement with a regional/world power, which is probably the best option. Going all JUCHE IDEA AIRFORCE just gets the neighbors wondering what you're up to, but subscribing to a yearly shipment of planes/tanks/guns/etc and cooperative training events offers a little peace of mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Re. Operation Unthinkable, I remember reading an analysis from somewhere that broke down Soviet manpower both across the force and available in reserve (ie, both guys not on the line and guys not yet conscripted) and it seems like that analysis indicated fairly strongly that the Soviets were starting to seriously scrape the bottom of the barrel when it came to sheer number of bodies by 1945. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
The British weren't exactly having vast amounts of men, either. They were combining divisions on a regular basis since 1944.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Re. Operation Unthinkable, I remember reading an analysis from somewhere that broke down Soviet manpower both across the force and available in reserve (ie, both guys not on the line and guys not yet conscripted) and it seems like that analysis indicated fairly strongly that the Soviets were starting to seriously scrape the bottom of the barrel when it came to sheer number of bodies by 1945. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Not specifically, but Anthony Beevor does mention this in the Berlin book. The Soviets were not just out of manpower, but their industrial base was shot to poo poo and the workforce wasn't doing that great either. I think post-Bagration, the Soviets started breaking up existing units to redistribute the manpower into other units, because there wasn't enough fresh recruits coming in. The industrial base thing was a result of the entire war industry running full tilt boogie for almost four years around the clock, with little thought put into long-term maintenance because making guns for the immediate survival of the Soviet Union was sort of more important in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Hell, weren't they completely dependent on American and Canadian wheat and other foodstuffs at that point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Hell, weren't they completely dependent on American and Canadian wheat and other foodstuffs at that point? I remember reading that during the entire war the Soviets produced like 6 locomotives. The US supplied them with over 2,000.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I think you underestimate the soviets' ability to scrape through the bottom of the barrel, through the ground, and keep scraping - if the cause warranted it. I just don't think there was a realistic reason they would be so motivated, though.quote:Hell, weren't they completely dependent on American and Canadian wheat and other foodstuffs at that point? I don't think so. There was about 5 million tons of food deliveries through the entire war. 1925 USSR annual grain production was over 70 million tons. Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not specifically, but Anthony Beevor does mention this in the Berlin book. The Soviets were not just out of manpower, but their industrial base was shot to poo poo and the workforce wasn't doing that great either. I think post-Bagration, the Soviets started breaking up existing units to redistribute the manpower into other units, because there wasn't enough fresh recruits coming in. The industrial base thing was a result of the entire war industry running full tilt boogie for almost four years around the clock, with little thought put into long-term maintenance because making guns for the immediate survival of the Soviet Union was sort of more important in the short term. All good points, but can you imagine better propaganda than the western allies re-arming Wehrmacht units and advancing east? The KGB couldn't invent such a galvanizing enemy if Stalin asked them to. On the other side, basically any war with the USSR would have probably gone very one-sided in early to mid-August, as a continuing war in Europe would probably have encouraged the use of nuclear weapons there, instead of in Japan. The whole thing is pretty much Gay Black Stalin territory, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Re. Operation Unthinkable, I remember reading an analysis from somewhere that broke down Soviet manpower both across the force and available in reserve (ie, both guys not on the line and guys not yet conscripted) and it seems like that analysis indicated fairly strongly that the Soviets were starting to seriously scrape the bottom of the barrel when it came to sheer number of bodies by 1945. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Almost every country hit a manpower crisis by or in 1944. The Soviets responded to theirs by taking rifle strength out of low-intensity areas and making the rifle divisions into machine gun-artillery units. This is probably also why Stalin allowed the Romanian army to avoid demobilization with the armistice, since they could provide valuable manpower to the campaign in the balkans and Hungary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:All good points, but can you imagine better propaganda than the western allies re-arming Wehrmacht units and advancing east? The KGB couldn't invent such a galvanizing enemy if Stalin asked them to. That would suck for any German soldiers. Hey you know that war you've been fighting for like 6 years? Guess what? Keep fighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:That would suck for any German soldiers. Hey you know that war you've been fighting for like 6 years? Guess what? Keep fighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
There was also the punitive rape thing, a rare case where Nazi propaganda was true somehow. How stupid was Stavka anyway for not intervening with their usual force? "Surrender and we'll rape your women" is not the most effective message when you hope for your enemy to put down their arms!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There was also the punitive rape thing, a rare case where Nazi propaganda was true somehow. How stupid was Stavka anyway for not intervening with their usual force? "Surrender and we'll rape your women" is not the most effective message when you hope for your enemy to put down their arms!  things in The End is Goebbels repeatedly making up some atrocity to spur on the troops only for the Soviets to top it within weeks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There was also the punitive rape thing, a rare case where Nazi propaganda was true somehow. How stupid was Stavka anyway for not intervening with their usual force? "Surrender and we'll rape your women" is not the most effective message when you hope for your enemy to put down their arms! Stavka did intervene. The penalty for committing rape was execution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There was also the punitive rape thing, a rare case where Nazi propaganda was true somehow. How stupid was Stavka anyway for not intervening with their usual force? "Surrender and we'll rape your women" is not the most effective message when you hope for your enemy to put down their arms! Its kinda hard to do that when for the past three and a half years your propaganda has been painting Germans as 'the fascist beasts' including this: quote:In order to show the outside world the magnitude of the victory, some 50,000 German prisoners, taken from the encirclement east of Minsk, were paraded through Moscow: even marching quickly and twenty abreast, they took 90 minutes to pass. In a symbolic gesture the streets were washed down afterward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
This came up in the D&D GOP thread for some reason and I didn't think it was really the proper venue for my question: do VTOL aircraft have any advantages aside from obviously not requiring a landing strip? I know that that's a huge plus, but I'm wondering whether there's any advantage once it's in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:This came up in the D&D GOP thread for some reason and I didn't think it was really the proper venue for my question: do VTOL aircraft have any advantages aside from obviously not requiring a landing strip? I know that that's a huge plus, but I'm wondering whether there's any advantage once it's in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:This came up in the D&D GOP thread for some reason and I didn't think it was really the proper venue for my question: do VTOL aircraft have any advantages aside from obviously not requiring a landing strip? I know that that's a huge plus, but I'm wondering whether there's any advantage once it's in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:This came up in the D&D GOP thread for some reason and I didn't think it was really the proper venue for my question: do VTOL aircraft have any advantages aside from obviously not requiring a landing strip? I know that that's a huge plus, but I'm wondering whether there's any advantage once it's in the air. There is VIFFing, but that's more a niche thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 02:17
|
|