Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

Q for Military Historians

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by Henry Brown   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:38 am

Henry Brown
Commodore

Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville NC

n7axw wrote:Hi Henry,

I think getting the tactics right is going to be more difficult than you think. The problem is going to be that if they are going to have sufficient numbers of rifles, they will have to continue to manufacture muzzle loaders because they can only produce about 1 breech loader for every 3 muzzle loaders.

So a majority of their troops will still be armed with muzzle loading weapons which will limit their ability to adapt their tactics.

Don


I think three time the man hours to produce a breech loader instead of a muzzle loader was the initial estimate. But later they reduced that estimate to 2 times the man hours. Regardless, I think they will be forced to switch more of their armories to making breech loaders in the next book.

The reason is, the conversation between Maigwair and Fultyn about the St. Kylmahn takes place fairly early
in LAMA. By this point in the story, the AoG has still only had limited experience fighting against Charisan breechloaders. They seem to realize that a breech loader offers advantages over muzzle loaders so they put their breech loader into limited production.

However I get the sense that at the time this decision is made they don't yet fully appreciate the magnitude of difference between a breech loader and a muzzle loader. But by the end of LAMA, there has been a significant amount of additional combat. I would be surprised if the results of the fighting in LAMA do not cause the CoG and their allied kingdoms to revise their rifle production much more heavily in favor of breech loaders.
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by n7axw   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:10 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Henry Brown wrote:
n7axw wrote:Hi Henry,

I think getting the tactics right is going to be more difficult than you think. The problem is going to be that if they are going to have sufficient numbers of rifles, they will have to continue to manufacture muzzle loaders because they can only produce about 1 breech loader for every 3 muzzle loaders.

So a majority of their troops will still be armed with muzzle loading weapons which will limit their ability to adapt their tactics.

Don


I think three time the man hours to produce a breech loader instead of a muzzle loader was the initial estimate. But later they reduced that estimate to 2 times the man hours. Regardless, I think they will be forced to switch more of their armories to making breech loaders in the next book.

The reason is, the conversation between Maigwair and Fultyn about the St. Kylmahn takes place fairly early
in LAMA. By this point in the story, the AoG has still only had limited experience fighting against Charisan breechloaders. They seem to realize that a breech loader offers advantages over muzzle loaders so they put their breech loader into limited production.

However I get the sense that at the time this decision is made they don't yet fully appreciate the magnitude of difference between a breech loader and a muzzle loader. But by the end of LAMA, there has been a significant amount of additional combat. I would be surprised if the results of the fighting in LAMA do not cause the CoG and their allied kingdoms to revise their rifle production much more heavily in favor of breech loaders.


I agree with you here that the COGA forces need the breech loaders. My point is they can't produce enough of them at a time when Housmyn is about to turn on the spicket on the M96es. To go exclusively to the breach loaders would cut church production in half at the very time Charis is ramping up. You are right about the field conversions, though. That should help a lot. I'd forgotten about that.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by Randomiser   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:21 am

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

n7axw wrote:Hi Henry,

I think getting the tactics right is going to be more difficult than you think. The problem is going to be that if they are going to have sufficient numbers of rifles, they will have to continue to manufacture muzzle loaders because they can only produce about 1 breech loader for every 3 muzzle loaders.

So a majority of their troops will still be armed with muzzle loading weapons which will limit their ability to adapt their tactics.

Don


I think you are right about the tactics, because they require a profound organisational and psychological change as well as the right weapons. As I understand it the Charisians have a lot more NCOs and junior officers than the AoG because they need them to lead smaller groups of soldiers with initiative to make the tactics work. At this stage in the war the AoG leadership is not going to be willing to give that number of people that degree of freedom to think for themselves, even if they could find suitable men in the numbers required.
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by Darman   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:07 pm

Darman
Commander

Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island

If someone working for the AoG realizes that you can only produce 1 breech-loader for every 2 muzzle-loaders, then couldn't they take some excess manpower from the armies that they won't be able to equip with the breechloaders and send them to the workshops to be trained to produce breechloaders? When someone realizes that, the whole dynamic changes.
_______________________________________________________
My battleship sim of choice: Navalism

Image
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by Silverwall   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:18 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:53 am

Yes combat has happened as indicated by Henry Brown but most of it has been either rifles vs cavalry/smoothbores or dominated by the Charisan artillery so I question if the AoG forces have the knowledge we have about the correct way to counter the problem.

Currently we are seeing the same reaction that real life armies tried during the period 1864-1917. Dig in trenches so the massed troups are protected by earthworks and suck up the artillery damage.

The problem is that on the defensive this doesn't work well unless you can do a western front solid line and the scales are just way to vast for that to work here we are more like the WW1 eastern front. The difference is that only one side is at the tech and organisational level to use the tactics of the Brusilov offensive or Stormtrooper assaults. Remember that even in the real world with the examples of the siege of Port Arthur (Classic bloody trench warfare) between Japan and Russia the generals of the day had no real idea of how to organise thier men to fight effectivly in the new environment. There is a reason that the germans called the sweep through Belgium against the brits the slaughter of the innocents.
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by n7axw   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:19 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Darman wrote:If someone working for the AoG realizes that you can only produce 1 breech-loader for every 2 muzzle-loaders, then couldn't they take some excess manpower from the armies that they won't be able to equip with the breechloaders and send them to the workshops to be trained to produce breechloaders? When someone realizes that, the whole dynamic changes.


Oh, Maigwair realizes the problem, alright. While your idea is theoretically possible, the issue with it is that it would take time to implement, time they really don't have. The field conversion kits will take up some of the slack, but not enough.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by Thucydides   » Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:26 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

Several people have already hit on the true issue here, which is tactics, training and leadership.

The ICA and her allies use "open" formations to cover large areas of ground with fire and prevent themselves form being decimated by enemy rifle or artillery fire. Their officers and NCOs are familiar with these tactics and "lead from the front", providing a huge advantage in the field over the CoGA forces, regardless of how large they are. IF the CoGA has fielded a force which is too big to attack directly, the smaller and more mobile ICA units will simply bypass and attack the lines of communications and cut the logistical links. The CoGA forces will starve before they can inflict any really punishing damage.

Compounding the problem for the CoGA is not only the limited numbers of leaders, butr also the cultural conditioning of the manpower pool. Eliminate the leadership through artillery or well placed scout-snipers and there will be very few men able or willing to step forward to take charge. The CoGA formation will become a leaderless mob, prone to panic and running away.

You don't even need advanced weaponry to do this; ancient Greek armies were culturally conditioned to seek out and elevate competent men to become leaders, and had lots of them in the ranks. The Persians were far more limited in the quality and quantity of leaders, and suffered heavily as a result. The best possible illustration is the "Anibasis", where Xenophon, a glorified staff writer at the time, steps forward and takes charge of the "Ten Thousand" after the initial leadership cadre was betrayed and killed. Even earlier in the book, the Persian pretender who hired the "Ten Thousand" manages to get himself killed, so even though the Ten Thousand have won the field, they discover their Persian allies have surrendered or fled.

Xenophon forms a council of trusted military commanders to provide advice, accepts suggestions from the ranks (gathering the Rhodian slingers into a special unit and taking 50 baggage horses to make a Cavalry force come to mind) and marches the force away from the pursuing Persians, through modern day Kurdistan and hostile tribes in the dead of winter to reach the Black Sea and safety.

The Persians also had a "Ten Thousand" in the form of the "Immortals", who were slaughtered by the Spartan "300" at Thermopylae, again at Plataea and a generation later by Alexander III during his rampage through the Persian Empire. They lacked the leadership, training and adaptability to face the Greeks (their armour and tactics did not change, despite the rather clear evidence the Greek formations were pretty much impossible to defeat in a head on clash. A generation later, Alexander III led a much different force against them, while these "Immortals" would have been instantly recognizable to any member of the Persian army which invaded Greece).
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:35 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Thucydides,

Brilliant as always. ;)

RFC has yet to echo or praise Xenophon, with the possible exception of EoH, ie escaping Hades etc; which is curious, given how worthy it is. :D

Tactics certainly can trump technology as we've seen many times when small higher tech forces get too ambitious for their numbers, etc.

While the 2 for 1 breech-loader ratio is a problem, the advantages will continue to push the latter, despite the figures of both sent to the TMHoGatA being cut by the arrival of the ICN at Claw Island, assuming there were shipments still to send, so instead of 640,000 total rifles for 1.2 million infantry, with around 20% being St Kylman's, it might be closer to 80% of that.

Of course if our heroes capture most of the TMHoGatA ie IHA's rifles, it'll permit rearming most of the rest of the RSA before adding all the Mahndrayns in the next year that the M96 production is replacing, so the allies could have over a million rifles of various types by fall or winter, far better than the first.

Which ought to thoroughly tick Clyntahn off. 8-)

The MHoGatA noncoms may be ten times better than they were before the AoG wounded etc were seconded to them, but a handful at the company level does not make them equal to someone roughly 150 or 200 years more advanced tactically and organizationally with weapons about 100 years more advanced.

There might be some effort to have the St Kylman's used by 'light infantry' skirmishers, but we have no textev for it, and trying to apply or train in that new specialty over the winter won't help much in the spring and summer.

Between the scout snipers and ICA artillery, taking out the smartest C^3I nodes does seem possible, leaving the hulk blundering about until it realizes its really helpless.

I've previously suggested that ironclads may be critically employed on the Daivyn, and probably at Lake Isyk in destroying two of the 4 quarters of the IHA, but RFC doesn't like to repeat himself so we may yet see such an army bested in the field by a far smaller but better led one etc, probably composing 2 of the present armies who easily cope with being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1, if they haven't already cut its logistics. :lol:

By summer if not by fall we may find the Go4, sans all but a quarter or so of the TMHoGatA to now face the alliance armies that now considerably outnumber it, the Border States disarmed and open to the alliance, while and new force raised in the KotTL will be too little trained to cope with all the potential threats, and some have observed that Duchairn apparently prefers the winter to spring his trap on Clyntahn... 8-)

Interesting times indeed. :D


Thanks again for the excellent post. ;)

L


Thucydides wrote:Several people have already hit on the true issue here, which is tactics, training and leadership.

The ICA and her allies use "open" formations to cover large areas of ground with fire and prevent themselves form being decimated by enemy rifle or artillery fire. Their officers and NCOs are familiar with these tactics and "lead from the front", providing a huge advantage in the field over the CoGA forces, regardless of how large they are. IF the CoGA has fielded a force which is too big to attack directly, the smaller and more mobile ICA units will simply bypass and attack the lines of communications and cut the logistical links. The CoGA forces will starve before they can inflict any really punishing damage.

Compounding the problem for the CoGA is not only the limited numbers of leaders, butr also the cultural conditioning of the manpower pool. Eliminate the leadership through artillery or well placed scout-snipers and there will be very few men able or willing to step forward to take charge. The CoGA formation will become a leaderless mob, prone to panic and running away.

You don't even need advanced weaponry to do this; ancient Greek armies were culturally conditioned to seek out and elevate competent men to become leaders, and had lots of them in the ranks. The Persians were far more limited in the quality and quantity of leaders, and suffered heavily as a result. The best possible illustration is the "Anibasis", where Xenophon, a glorified staff writer at the time, steps forward and takes charge of the "Ten Thousand" after the initial leadership cadre was betrayed and killed. Even earlier in the book, the Persian pretender who hired the "Ten Thousand" manages to get himself killed, so even though the Ten Thousand have won the field, they discover their Persian allies have surrendered or fled.

Xenophon forms a council of trusted military commanders to provide advice, accepts suggestions from the ranks (gathering the Rhodian slingers into a special unit and taking 50 baggage horses to make a Cavalry force come to mind) and marches the force away from the pursuing Persians, through modern day Kurdistan and hostile tribes in the dead of winter to reach the Black Sea and safety.

The Persians also had a "Ten Thousand" in the form of the "Immortals", who were slaughtered by the Spartan "300" at Thermopylae, again at Plataea and a generation later by Alexander III during his rampage through the Persian Empire. They lacked the leadership, training and adaptability to face the Greeks (their armour and tactics did not change, despite the rather clear evidence the Greek formations were pretty much impossible to defeat in a head on clash. A generation later, Alexander III led a much different force against them, while these "Immortals" would have been instantly recognizable to any member of the Persian army which invaded Greece).
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:23 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Silverwall,

You might contrast the speed at which Japan took Tsingtao in 1914, 8 days after starting the siege, having learned a lot from Port Arthur etc, and more importantly put it into practice including night attacks with rather low casualties despite the alert German garrison.

Which the observing Brits typically ignored, having sent a token force only to keep the [white] Germans from surrendering to a [colored] race, even if they were an ally and the dominant Asian power.

The Germans demonstrated what they thought of this racism by turning their backs on the British troops after respectfully watching the Japanese parade into Tsingtao.

L


Silverwall wrote:Yes combat has happened as indicated by Henry Brown but most of it has been either rifles vs cavalry/smoothbores or dominated by the Charisan artillery so I question if the AoG forces have the knowledge we have about the correct way to counter the problem.

Currently we are seeing the same reaction that real life armies tried during the period 1864-1917. Dig in trenches so the massed troups are protected by earthworks and suck up the artillery damage.

The problem is that on the defensive this doesn't work well unless you can do a western front solid line and the scales are just way to vast for that to work here we are more like the WW1 eastern front. The difference is that only one side is at the tech and organisational level to use the tactics of the Brusilov offensive or Stormtrooper assaults. Remember that even in the real world with the examples of the siege of Port Arthur (Classic bloody trench warfare) between Japan and Russia the generals of the day had no real idea of how to organise thier men to fight effectivly in the new environment. There is a reason that the germans called the sweep through Belgium against the brits the slaughter of the innocents.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Q for Military Historians
Post by runsforcelery   » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:07 pm

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

lyonheart wrote:Hi Thucydides,

Brilliant as always. ;)

RFC has yet to echo or praise Xenophon, with the possible exception of EoH, ie escaping Hades etc; which is curious, given how worthy it is. :D




So I should take it you don't like Prince Roger and the Bronze Barbarians? :roll:


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top

Return to Safehold