Official Safehold Speculation Thread

Maximus99 wrote:

*quote="n7axw"*I'm wondering a bit about the timetable. Could it be that what needs to be done is get groups of noncoms and junior officers to Chisholm for the so called 90 day wonder experience at the same time the rest of the troops were knocking off the rust?

Then bring them back along with some seasoned people to train their units. Then too, how much of this could be done after the Corisadians arrive in Siddarmark? It's not as though the rear areas are under threat any more. They could pick up additional training by exercising with the Protector's troops.

Then, as Lyonheart points out, it probably won't be needed. The war could well be over be the time the Corisandians could be brought into action. And, it's not as though manpower is the allies problem. The issue so far has been getting suitable weapons into the hands of the men they already have.

Don

*quote*
I've been thinking along these lines for quite a while. But not so much to get Corisande into the war. I believe the attack on Irys and Hector effectively insured Corisande's participation. But not for some time. However, I think perhaps Garvai will escort a small cadre to be trained in Chisolm. He will be on the ground when a coup is attempted and will play a major role in preventing it. Additionally at some point he will be informed of the truth and will be brought into the inner circle.

Maximus99

I

Louis R wrote:Many people will notice that bit about individual training being complete and immediately go 'but...'

First, basic infantry training is at the short end of that 12-52 weeks - the long end is for complex technical skills that simply don't exist in the ICA, although Artillery Technician is coming up fast. [even including Morse Code and cryptographic systems, I could train a signaller in some 15 weeks, possibly less, from scratch, to 1980's-level technology]

Second, people who haven't done it would be surprised just how much of the first weeks is actually spent training them to be 18th-century infantry. That's partly just nostalgia, of course, but there are reasons for it beyond "You're in the Army now!" - the disciplines of close-order drill do make a good foundation for modern extended-order maneuvers. In fact, the beginning drills of individual and section tactics training look so much like parade-square drill that they can be, and are, conducted very handily on a parade square [it looks odd, believe me]. So Garvai's 18th-century infantrymen really only have one thing to unlearn [the tighter the formation the better] as they set to work learning the new skills. This means you can easily chop 3-6 weeks off their individual training. Experienced Corisandian units, or, more correctly, Corisandian units made up of experienced troops, could be ready for deployment in as little as 26 5-days. For raw recruits, add those 30 days back in. For mounted infantry, although a cavalryman does have more to unlearn, my guess is that the above would only be increased by the time needed to instruct recruits in the care, feeding and operation of horses as well as themselves. How long that is, you'll need to find a cavalryman to ask

One final thing: I'd like to underline something that USMA74 said in passing, that I don't think was picked up on. That is that there is only so much that can be accomplished by training, and past that point more training adds nothing to skills or readiness [maintaining readiness is a completely different animal]. You have to stop training at that point and start doing. And, in war, doing involves real people creating real holes in you when you cock up. Or, even more importantly, in your boss and your buddies. That's why peacetime armies so often perform so embarrassingly coming under fire for the first time - they're overtrained and underpracticed.

USMA74 wrote:I think many Safehold fans are over estimating the amount of time it takes to train 18th Century Soldiers for early 20th Century warfare. For their benefit the following is an extract from the 1985 FM 25-5, Training for Mobilization and War.

Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) unit production times are essential for time-phasing the use of currently available facilities. These production times assume that training will be conducted at a minimum of six days per week, ten hours per day.
Training timelines are based on basic and advanced individual training being conducted prior to unit activation. These individual training programs can range from 12 to 52 weeks depending on the military occupational speciality being trained. These timelines also depend on:
• An installation being available to support the training.
• External training support being available.
• Unit TOE equipment available on unit activation.
• Commander, staff, and cadre available.
• External combined arms slice support (such as artillery, engineers, and sustainment support for infantry units) available.
• External evaluators available to confirm unit readiness (Final unit readiness evaluation exercise can be combined with other unit training exercises.)
• No retraining required.
Two weeks is the most frequent time projected for activation and organization with an additional week for preparation for overseas movement (POM) of battalion-size combat and combat support type units. See the following chart for projected unit production times in weeks of training for different types of units. Unit training has been subdivided into training drills and unit proficiency training. The training drills consist of team, section, squad, and platoon training. The unit proficiency training consists of company, battalion and combined arms training, and field training exercises.

Infantry Battalion (Bn) 14 weeks
Tank Bn 16 weeks
Artillery Bn 14 weeks
Division/Brigade Headquarters 10 weeks
Engineer Bn 16 weeks
Signal Units 14 weeks
Medical Units 10 weeks
Military Police Company (Co) 6 weeks
Ordnance Co (Ammunition) 14 weeks
Adjutant General Co (Personnel Services) 5 weeks
Combat Service Support Units 12 weeks

Note that there is no listing for horse cavalry units. The U.S. Army hasn't had horse cavalry as TOE units (vice table of distribution allowances organizations like the 1st Cavalry Division's horse cavalry platoon) since 1947.

JeffEngel wrote:

Charybdis wrote:*quote="USMA74"* . . .
Note that there is no listing for horse cavalry units. The U.S. Army hasn't had horse cavalry as TOE units (vice table of distribution allowances organizations like the 1st Cavalry Division's horse cavalry platoon) since 1947.*quote*
... extract from the 1985 FM 25-5, Training for Mobilization and War. Raiding your bookcase?

So ... whose ghost should be invoked from OWL's memory banks? In terms of horse cavalry, it would be hard to choose from any but the American Civil War as it was the last large, strategic conflict with full use of cavalry, although one might summon 'Black Jack' Pershing for his early years in the American Southwest and Mexico. Still, from the ACW, would one choose Stuart, Hampton, Grierson, Forrest or Sheridan?

The Red Army made more than a little use of cavalry in the Russian Civil War; I assume the Whites made at least as much. And the Red Army organized and used some genuine horse cavalry units (though I'm not at all sure they didn't fight as mounted infantry) in between the loss of so many armored vehicles in 1941 and the recovery of them in '42, '43.

Mind you, certainly the latter case won't count for your "full use".

But still, on Safehold now, it's hard for me at least to see a good use of cavalry in a theater against modern opposition that doesn't amount to mounted infantry. The best case I can think of - and it's not clear that 'cavalry' remains a good word for it - is frequently mounted scouts and rifle-armed, dismounted-fighting raiders. And that's marginal vs. purely dismounted scout/raiders.

JeffEngel wrote:

Louis R wrote:For mounted infantry, although a cavalryman does have more to unlearn, my guess is that the above would only be increased by the time needed to instruct recruits in the care, feeding and operation of horses as well as themselves. How long that is, you'll need to find a cavalryman to ask

The care and feeding part of horses is something most people with a farming background in Corisande will already know, and that's still going to be most people, especially most recruits, in Corisande. Riding may be a bit more to expect out of some of them, but still probably not too much. They won't have to worry about fighting while riding, or controlling spirited warhorses as mounted infantry.

This does assume that dragons of various sorts haven't displaced horses too much in agriculture in Corisande. I'm happy enough with that assumption but it's not totally certain.

isaac_newton wrote:Something that really bugs me [or perhaps I just dont understand, not being military] in real life, why has the army training in Iraq and Afganistan seemed to have been such a failure, given they have had quite a few years to carry out that task?

[This is not ment to be a snide comment, but a honest question!!] and given that experience, are those quoted figures perhaps rather optimistic?


*quote="Louis R"*Many people will notice that bit about individual training being complete and immediately go 'but...'

First, basic infantry training is at the short end of that 12-52 weeks - the long end is for complex technical skills that simply don't exist in the ICA, although Artillery Technician is coming up fast. [even including Morse Code and cryptographic systems, I could train a signaller in some 15 weeks, possibly less, from scratch, to 1980's-level technology]

Second, people who haven't done it would be surprised just how much of the first weeks is actually spent training them to be 18th-century infantry. That's partly just nostalgia, of course, but there are reasons for it beyond "You're in the Army now!" - the disciplines of close-order drill do make a good foundation for modern extended-order maneuvers. In fact, the beginning drills of individual and section tactics training look so much like parade-square drill that they can be, and are, conducted very handily on a parade square [it looks odd, believe me]. So Garvai's 18th-century infantrymen really only have one thing to unlearn [the tighter the formation the better] as they set to work learning the new skills. This means you can easily chop 3-6 weeks off their individual training. Experienced Corisandian units, or, more correctly, Corisandian units made up of experienced troops, could be ready for deployment in as little as 26 5-days. For raw recruits, add those 30 days back in. For mounted infantry, although a cavalryman does have more to unlearn, my guess is that the above would only be increased by the time needed to instruct recruits in the care, feeding and operation of horses as well as themselves. How long that is, you'll need to find a cavalryman to ask

One final thing: I'd like to underline something that USMA74 said in passing, that I don't think was picked up on. That is that there is only so much that can be accomplished by training, and past that point more training adds nothing to skills or readiness [maintaining readiness is a completely different animal]. You have to stop training at that point and start doing. And, in war, doing involves real people creating real holes in you when you cock up. Or, even more importantly, in your boss and your buddies. That's why peacetime armies so often perform so embarrassingly coming under fire for the first time - they're overtrained and underpracticed.

USMA74 wrote:I think many Safehold fans are over estimating the amount of time it takes to train 18th Century Soldiers for early 20th Century warfare. For their benefit the following is an extract from the 1985 FM 25-5, Training for Mobilization and War.

Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) unit production times are essential for time-phasing the use of currently available facilities. These production times assume that training will be conducted at a minimum of six days per week, ten hours per day.
Training timelines are based on basic and advanced individual training being conducted prior to unit activation. These individual training programs can range from 12 to 52 weeks depending on the military occupational speciality being trained. These timelines also depend on:
• An installation being available to support the training.
• External training support being available.
• Unit TOE equipment available on unit activation.
• Commander, staff, and cadre available.
• External combined arms slice support (such as artillery, engineers, and sustainment support for infantry units) available.
• External evaluators available to confirm unit readiness (Final unit readiness evaluation exercise can be combined with other unit training exercises.)
• No retraining required.
Two weeks is the most frequent time projected for activation and organization with an additional week for preparation for overseas movement (POM) of battalion-size combat and combat support type units. See the following chart for projected unit production times in weeks of training for different types of units. Unit training has been subdivided into training drills and unit proficiency training. The training drills consist of team, section, squad, and platoon training. The unit proficiency training consists of company, battalion and combined arms training, and field training exercises.

Infantry Battalion (Bn) 14 weeks
Tank Bn 16 weeks
Artillery Bn 14 weeks
Division/Brigade Headquarters 10 weeks
Engineer Bn 16 weeks
Signal Units 14 weeks
Medical Units 10 weeks
Military Police Company (Co) 6 weeks
Ordnance Co (Ammunition) 14 weeks
Adjutant General Co (Personnel Services) 5 weeks
Combat Service Support Units 12 weeks

Note that there is no listing for horse cavalry units. The U.S. Army hasn't had horse cavalry as TOE units (vice table of distribution allowances organizations like the 1st Cavalry Division's horse cavalry platoon) since 1947.

Keith_w wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The Red Army made more than a little use of cavalry in the Russian Civil War; I assume the Whites made at least as much. And the Red Army organized and used some genuine horse cavalry units (though I'm not at all sure they didn't fight as mounted infantry) in between the loss of so many armored vehicles in 1941 and the recovery of them in '42, '43.

Mind you, certainly the latter case won't count for your "full use".

But still, on Safehold now, it's hard for me at least to see a good use of cavalry in a theater against modern opposition that doesn't amount to mounted infantry. The best case I can think of - and it's not clear that 'cavalry' remains a good word for it - is frequently mounted scouts and rifle-armed, dismounted-fighting raiders. And that's marginal vs. purely dismounted scout/raiders.

I would like to remind you that the Polish army also used cavalry against the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions, and we all know how well that turned out.

n7axw wrote:I have wondered about training times myself. Many of the Corisandians had some training with flintlock muskets. Back then Charisians were forming square with close order formations. The tactics of unit dispersal really didn't come until the Mandrayans arrived in Siddarmark with Hanth and BGV.

Along with becoming accustomed to the range of their rifles, learning the tactics appropriate for the Mandrayans would be what's actually new to them. What that means training wise, I am not sure. My impression is that DE's and BGV's people learned pretty much in the field since they first got the Mandrayans when they arrived in Siddar City. Up to that point the were using the same muzzle loading rifles they took to Corisande.

Don

DDHvi wrote:Speculation:

Iris, having learned gunnery to protect, takes it further. Being impressed with the possibilities of unarmed combat, she organizes training in it - for the women.

Too many times, it is the women who are hurt the worst in war. This might not make a major change in this, but couldn't hurt.

Kakai wrote:

Keith_w wrote:I would like to remind you that the Polish army also used cavalry against the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions, and we all know how well that turned out.

Ykhm. Sorry, but you've just hit my personal berserk button.

As you can read here for example, the story of Poles charging tanks is a myth. Some Italian journalist saw corpses of Polish cavalrymen and German tanks and concluded that this was what happened. The fact that one Polish director immortalised the scene of lances vs panzers in his movie did not help matters. As a matter of fact, the Poles charged an infantry battalion and succeeded in their missions's goal, which was to slow down the Germans. So not only were tanks absent during the entire thing, the charge was actually a success.

Sorry for this bit of off-topic, but any time I see this, I just need to clarify this. So sorry if you meant your statement as a joke, too.

DDHvi wrote:Speculation:

Iris, having learned gunnery to protect, takes it further. Being impressed with the possibilities of unarmed combat, she organizes training in it - for the women.

Too many times, it is the women who are hurt the worst in war. This might not make a major change in this, but couldn't hurt.

I like this. Not only because it could help the women in question, but also because it would start preparing Safehold for introduction of women in military, guard and naval forces. Anyone saying that ladies are too weak and fragile to keep up with the "real" soldiers and guards would get a quick and decisive lesson on the error of his ways from Princess Irys' Girls.

DDHvi wrote:

OsageOrange wrote:*quote="DDHvi"*Speculation:

Iris, having learned gunnery to protect, takes it further. Being impressed with the possibilities of unarmed combat, she organizes training in it - for the women.

Too many times, it is the women who are hurt the worst in war. This might not make a major change in this, but couldn't hurt.*quote*

This would be something nice to have happen. I doubt RFC would have women in the EoC military in worthwhile numbers anytime soon, but I recall that the Rakurai that attacked Irys and Hektor's wedding in Manchyr was female. And the fact that Sharley helped the Guard detail that defended her from the Temple Loyalist attack on St. Agtha's Convent. So, we might just see some sort of debate amongst the Allied leadership as to whether or not to have women serve in the military, and how soon.

I'm not thinking about putting them into the military. It can make sense for civilians to know how to defend also. There have been cases in the US of a licensed concealed carry gun stopping an attack on them or others. And it has been shown that even Marines are vulnerable if they are in a gun-free zone. Altho some of them used themselves to draw the attackers away from other vulnerable people. In another case, an attack in a gun free zone was stopped because a man illegally had a concealed carry weapon.

Let's be blunt: some of the most vicious attacks on women require the attacker to come close. While not totally effective (what is?) civilian women trained in unarmed combat would have an ace in the hole in such a situation.

I do recall some ladies have been in combat roles. However, if a culture is going to take defense seriously, this possibility should be considered, even if just as a backup.

For that matter, if a culture pushed in particular for UAC training for females, the males just might learn to be a little bit more polite

BTW, IIRC in the last few years, in real life, the percentage of ladies applying for, training for, and getting concealed carry licenses has gone up quite a bit.

In any case, anyone wanting to provide defense by any means should get solid training, which both Sharleyan and Iris did re guns.