Western OPFOR in Durango Valley

[loktarr]

I have some balance problems now, because US troop are so expensive. Against one mixed M1A1/ M2A2 coy, EU can deploy one Leo 2A4 co, one AMX 30Brennus Co and one Italian light tank co. It's a bit to much for our poor US tankers.

[PlasmaKrab]

IMHO you should think more in terms of force size. The OPFOR in this scenario gets one tank platoon, one mech platoon and complete infantry support units first thing, then a reduced tank co (9 tanks) with 2 mech plts as reinforcements.
In the various avatars of this scenario I have patched up in the past (good materials test range even if the morale is buggy) I tried to give the initial defense troops lower-end tanks and keep the top-notch versions for the reinforcements. E.g. you could use Leo2A4s and Leo1A5s (or AMX30B2s), facing only M1A1s which shouldn't be any more expensive than the Leo2s.

[loktarr]

The price problem is mainly due to hight cost of M2AXs, but now, I think I have something correct...

[loktarr]

Here it is. Maybe too easy, maybe not. I achieved major victory first time I played it.

But however this is difficult to get rid of the leopards 2A4 that are present. Infantery is now a key of the scen and not only armored forces.

[RecruitMonty]

Maybe these days conscript forces are inferior but quite frankly that was not always the case. The German army in WWII and WWI was a conscript force and it was good.
The Soviet forces were also conscripts and the flagship formations were good too. Same goes for the East Germans. The reason why conscript forces don't work these days is because they either belong to third world countries or they belong to pacifist or purely defensive countries who are trying to phase their conscription out.

[pdoktar]

Well, the Finns did also quite well in WW2 with conscript forces. I think we were the only warring country, that wasn´t occupied in Europe besides Great Britain (Russia not included). And the problem with professional armies is that in small countries they are too expensive to maintain in large enough numbers to make any difference in a serious large-scale conventional war. Conscript armies in small countries has numbers to make a difference.

[loktarr]

pdoktar said:
And the problem with professional armies is that in small countries they are too expensive to maintain in large enough numbers to make any difference in a serious large-scale conventional war. Conscript armies in small countries has numbers to make a difference.

Not sure I understand you correctly. Do you mean that it's more expensive to have a professional army? Just try to imagine germany having a 3 to 5 million people army like back in the 40': I think that giving all those brave men the modern equipement will be very hard even for the so good germanic economy.
For small countrys too, I would see that this way: modern equipement is so expensive that they have to maintain bigger armies, because they cannot aford a small one with last f-22, M1A2 and so on... Better to have 30 f-16 with semi-pro pilot than one f-22 with a crack...

[Suhiir]

Old, old discussion - Conscript VS Professional.

It depends on a number of factors.

How "technically literate" is the population?

During WWII the average American conscript could drive and maintain a motor vehicle. A good many of them were country boys that already knew how to shoot. America tends to encourage individual initiative, even in our armed forces, so when our soldiers ran into situations not covered by their training or orders they tended to improvise, not wait for new orders.

How complex is the military hardware they have to use?

It really doesn't take more then a few days to teach anyone how to fire a rifle, machinegun, mortar. Heck, even drive and fire a WWII tank. These days an M1 Abrams has more insturments and other gizmo's then a WWII bomber.
Artillery has always been a technical branch, but up until WWI most artillery was line-of-sight. These days you have to deal with many types of rounds (HE, cluster, laser guided, WP, illum, smoke, snti-armor, mines, etc) and fuses (surface burst, delayed, airburst) that just plain didn't exist previously. Much less computers that measure and allow you to correct for individual gun characteristics, take into account wind, air pressure, humidity, air density, heck even magnetic deviation. Then there's GPS and laser range finders for the FO - nice, VERY nice, but if you don't know how to use then they're very expensive trash.

How competent is your cadre?

As examples (and these are generalizations - NOT intended to be taken as "truth")
The Brit system tends to produce "professional" senior enlisted men, who train not only the troops but the officers.
The American system is to have "professional" officers who train the enlisted men.
The Soviet system tended to have "professional" officers and only required the enlisted men to do what they were told and ONLY what they were told.
The Germans had a cadre of "professional" officers and senior enlisted men so the officers trained new officers and the enlisted new enlisted.
Most 3rd World Countries have a officer class of folks with the "right connections" who look down on their enlisted men as scum.

Who are you fighting?

Germany VS Poland 1939?
Germany VS USSR 1941?
Germany VS USSR 1945?
Korean War 1950?
Korean War 1952?
France VS Vietnam?
USA VS Vietnam?
Gulf War I?
Your opponent is as important, probably more important then your own forces in a good many ways.

Do your conscripts "want" to be there?

During WWII the US Army was mostly conscripts, they "wanted" to be there,
During Vietnam the US Army was mostly conscripts, they "didn't want" to be there.

Is a professional army "better" then a conscript one?
Sure.

Can most nations afford the manpower, training costs, to pay, a large enough professional army to matter?
Nope.

Like many things, what you want or "should" have VS what you can afford is a major factor in the size and "professionaliam" of your army.

[RecruitMonty]

All you really need conscripts for, surely is to fire rifles, machineguns and lighter artillery, with a professional Cadre of officers and NCOs and professionals to use the heavier and more technical equipment in support of the Conscript infantry.

I am sure that the army has its way of teaching its soldiers how to use the more technically demanding equipment. In fact I am sure that the more modern Western nations can do just fine doing that.

If the military industrial complex in the west were not so keen on pumping out to toys for the politicians to gawp at and to keep the "safety conscious" media and civilians happy, then perhaps money would not be wasted so much as it is these days in procuring equipment for the military.

As far as I can see a lot of the so called advances in infantry weaponry seem to be little more than additional bells and whistles. Look at the G 36 for instance, a lot of money would have been saved if the G3 had been upgraded. Some troops seem to be complaining about it actually. Its derivatives are quite adequate but then a similar effect could have been achieved with the G3.

Russia, for instance, has been quite bright in this respect. They rely on the AK47/74 as their primary infantry weapon and I don't think that they regret it. They are easy to produce, even the older ones are still viable and they have a more stopping power than what we have in the West these days. I don't see the benefits in this policy of decreasing the size of our ammunition, beyond cutting costs where frankly it doesn't pay to do so.

If the Cold War was still going, then of course things would be different. If a weapons procurement system like the Soviet or German (both wars) one was in place then I am sure these problems would not persist.

Motivation is of course always a problem. Effective propaganda, shutting the liberal media up, setting the army up like they do in South America or staffing it with hardcore patriots would solve this problem. A few more things besides I suppose.

[pdoktar]

Loktarr wrote:

For small countrys too, I would see that this way: modern equipement is so expensive that they have to maintain bigger armies, because they cannot aford a small one with last f-22, M1A2 and so on... Better to have 30 f-16 with semi-pro pilot than one f-22 with a crack...

My point exactly. We couldn´t afford large enough standing army without conscription, as these conscripts are trained and then released back to productive tasks in the society and can be called back in time of crisis to fill the need for normal infantry, artillery tank and naval tasks. Fighter pilots are professionals, as are most of the first-line unit officers.

I´ve done it again, gone totally off-topic. Watch out in the cold war pack 2020-thread.