Remove ads

East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Reader mode
Acc. No. 1409 said:
The idea has potential but the issue I have with it is that the niche it has is occupied by cavalry and the fact that we may have to build a supply line to build a supply line for the bicycles, which we may not have the resources to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While true, I do believe that there is a merit to having at least one or two bike divisions.
While yes, the same niche is occupied by cavalry and cavalry would be faster, bikes overall would be cheaper and work better in terrain that horses couldn't be used or it would be difficult to use them in. The biggest example is the Japanese invasion of Malaya/Singapore, they were able to quickly and quietly advance in such a way that it caught the British defenders off guard with seized bikes from the local population.
I would also like to point out that maintaining a bicycle is much easier and costs far less than keeping horses.
Overall, bikes shouldn't be all that expensive when you compare them to guns, artillery or trucks and while the first few hundred or so would be purely for the army, we could then sell to the general public which could help out with the budget or at the very least recoup our investment.
 
C_Z said:
I agree that training is very important. I'm not suggesting we delay it forever, just possibly for three months until January (especially given how we might want to do other things first anyways). After that, keeping a point constantly focusing on armed forces training/doctrine/education seems like a good idea.

I really don't like the idea of pulling an investment point from the Ordnance Office. Procuring arms seems to have a lead time of around three years based on how the rifles, which we started working on during the very first turn, haven't finished their deliveries yet. If we take that as our assumption, then any weapons we start procuring now will only finish arriving in time for a war in 1936, and every additional thing we want to procure (seeing as it takes 6-18 months, depending on how we do it) pushes the "readiness date" back another year. If we stop it, then we might as well keep it stopped; later procurement probably won't show up in time to be useful unless we're getting Arsenal of Democracy'd by the US.

How badly do we need mortars or anti-tank weapons? Do we want to try and produce a gun which we can sell overseas for a profit?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We need some new weapons, some of which we can (and have to since the industry is saturated) buy off the shelf for quicker arrival, I just think we might need other things more - but regardless, I realized that we can't reasonably pull that funding point anyway as we are still in the process of licensing the LMG. Evidently I need to read more carefully.

How about this: it leaves the Kutulo and training aside, which we'll need to deal with fast, but does prepare to make the next long-term plan as well as possible. It tries to include the most war-relevant industries, but I don't know that much about how these things are structured in Reewin and in particular whether it might be worth including shipbuilding.

[X] Plan: Preparation for the new plan
-[X] Information Review: Government
-[X] Write-in: New Council Liasons: Create permanent non-voting liasons for the armed services and industry. Two will go to the armed services (one for each service, currently the Army and Carabineri), and three will be industrial representatives: one for each of the arms industry, the rail industry, the recognized unions in these industries.
 
Last edited:
Dessard said:
We need some new weapons, some of which we can (and have to since the industry is saturated) buy off the shelf for quicker arrival, I just think we might need other things more - but regardless, I realized that we can't reasonably pull that funding point anyway as we are still in the process of licensing the LMG. Evidently I need to read more carefully.

How about this: it leaves the Kutulo and training aside, which we'll need to deal with fast, but does prepare to make the next long-term plan as well as possible. It tries to include the most war-relevant industries, but I don't know that much about how these things are structured in Reewin and in particular whether it might be worth including shipbuilding.

[ ] Plan: Preparation for the new plan
-[ ] Information Review: Government
-[ ] Write-in: New Council Liasons: Create permanent non-voting liasons for the armed services and industry. Two will go to the armed services (one for each service, currently the Army and Carabineri), and three will be industrial representatives: one for each of the arms industry, the rail industry, the recognized unions in these industries.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Purchases would be done by the Ordnance Board as well, and even then it's a 6-month process. By the time we work through everything, we might be on track to get our fifth slot back.
I'm not convinced the Kutulo is high priority, even if it pisses off the government. I get that they wants it, but there are so many more pressing things like training and the Chaco war. Training, however, should be a priority of the next long-term plan, and'll hopefully help with the issue of bored soldiers causing mischief.
That plan looks good if the QMs are okay with the write-in. I wouldn't worry about shipbuilding yet; we can always expand things later if needed.

[X] Plan: Preparation for the new plan
 
I decided to make a different version of "Plan: Preparation for the new plan", because I think that most of the influence the armed services would get from having two voting seats comes from the liaisons being able to participate in meetings and discussions, rather than the actual ability to vote, since they most likely will be a minority on the Defense Council depended on winning over other members on their point of view.

Therefore, it would be best to grant them a seat with a vote, since I think that it will help with the tension that might be with the armed services without granting them, that much more influence.

[X] Plan: The Granting of voting rights
-[X] Information Review: Government
-[X] Write-in: New Council Liaisons: Create permanent seats with the right to vote on Defense Council decisions for the liaisons from the armed services and permanent non-voting seats for liaisons from the industry. Two will go to the armed services (one for each service, currently the Army and Carabineri), and three will be industrial representatives: one for each of the arms industry, the rail industry, the recognized unions in these industries.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Preparation for the new plan

So with the whole steel capacity problem and the need for a anti tank weapon. Why don't we develop our own satchel charge, from what i have been able to find it does not use a large amount of metal. So as long as we don't make them too light and train the troops with them it could be a decent counter against armor. We might also be able to cut the cost per charge if we were to use leather (for the bag) and potassium nitrate (as a chemical precursor for the explosive) both of wich we can get from our animals.
 
Last edited:
Jprice said:
[X] Plan: Preparation for the new plan

So with the whole steel capacity problem and the need for a anti tank weapon. Why don't we develop our own satchel charge, from what i have been able to find it does not use a large amount of metal. So as long as we don't make them too light and train the troops with them it could be a decent counter against armor. We might also be able to cut the cost per charge if we were to use leather (for the bag) and potassium nitrate (as a chemical precursor for the explosive) both of wich we can get from our animals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While satchel charges themselves are a bit risky (requiring infantry to get right up against the tank to place), something similar might work pretty well? In 1934, the Czechs introduce the OÚG vz.34 grenade, which is notable for having an omnidirectional impact fuze. A sack of explosives with a OÚG vz.34 in the middle could, in effect, act as a "throwable" satchel charge? Based on a quick reread of the relevant section of the 1945 Terminal Ballistic Data: Volume 3 from the US Ordnance Corps, we'd want to keep the soft outer covering to increase the proximity of the charge at the time of detonation. Armour penetration in inches is approximately the cube root of TNTe charge weight in pounds; if we assume the mass of the satchel is around 200 g, combined with the 140 g weight of the OÚG vz.34 less explosive filler, an 800 g weapon could optimistically go through an inch of armour.

That said, I still think we should have some regiment-level anti-tank guns. If whoever we're facing is smart, they'll screen the tanks with infantry and we'll never get close enough to throw what amounts to a large grenade on the tank.
 
Last edited:
Agreed on grenades and AT guns - besides improved communications equipment, which would probably require a dedicated study, those are probably some of the highest priority for equipment (unless the uniforms prove horrible once the troops are used to them).

For now, WW1 surplus 3-inch field guns could be a good option for both regimental artillery and heavy 'anti-tank' guns - they're harder to move and harder to aim with than real AT guns but they were supposedly effective even against fairly mature tanks on a hit, and are probably a quite cheap and well-documented way to fill both those roles for now.
 
Last edited:
Would it be viable to try to get a license for the Canon de 75 modèle 1897? It'd serve as decent regimental artillery gun and it was also used by the Americans in the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman, it'd be a bit heavy for an early war at gun but I think it'd make up for it when we start seeing medium tanks of the 40s.

Though the big downside for that is that I highly doubt we have the steel capacity to make said gun right now.
 
Vote ends in 7 hours gang. If you wanna switch votes, convince people or just post to your hearts content, now's the time.
 
Speaking of posting to my heart's content, after doing a bit of reading, we'll probably want something a bit more modern than the French 75 even if they're in the same weight class due to improvements in gun construciton (especially with regards to reliability and resistance to adverse conditions).

That said, I also think we should take a look at what happens in the Chaco War before deciding too much - there's a LOT of parallels to what fighting in Reewiin might be like.
 
Last edited:
I will say, that I do think giving the armed services the right to vote on the Defense Council will help making them feel heard and respected, which will help avoid any potential problem with a disgruntled military without giving them much more influence.
 
C_Z said:
Speaking of posting to my heart's content, after doing a bit of reading, we'll probably want something a bit more modern than the French 75 even if they're in the same weight class due to improvements in gun construciton (especially with regards to reliability and resistance to adverse conditions).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That makes sense, but there's something to be said for getting something cheap and ubiquitous since it'll probably be transitional anyway. At some point we'll want to diversify to real AT guns (once there are some good ones out there), mortars at a lower level and medium artillery at a higher level so not investing too much now would be good.

The Krupp guns we do have are probably also appropriate, but I'd like to see what the military thinks of them first and it seems less likely we can just buy them off the shelf with like 10% as many built according to Wikipedia. The Japanese ones are probably a lot better as artillery but worse for AT work and less available still, so we might not want to try to go with them as standard - maybe for the cavalry.

Mortenkam said:
I will say, that I do think giving the armed services the right to vote on the Defense Council will help making them feel heard and respected, which will help avoid any potential problem with a disgruntled military without giving them much more influence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That could be true, but conceding that they have a right to authority on the council and then overriding it if we vote against them could be worse than simply taking their perspective into consideration - I don't know if there's a decisive case either way.
 
Dessard said:
That could be true, but conceding that they have a right to authority on the council and then overriding it if we vote against them could be worse than simply taking their perspective into consideration - I don't know if there's a decisive case either way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, if they truly disagree with a decision, then they would be unhappy without a vote too, and if it is only a minor disagreement, then I doubt that they will make a big fuss about it. Also, how often are we likely to have any serious disagreements with the army?
 
Remove ads
Vote closed
  • Voting
    • Scheduled vote count started by 4WheelSword on Mar 24, 2023 at 10:14 AM, finished with 27 posts and 12 votes.
    • [X] Plan: Preparation for the new plan
      -[X] Information Review: Government
      -[X] Write-in: New Council Liasons: Create permanent non-voting liasons for the armed services and industry. Two will go to the armed services (one for each service, currently the Army and Carabineri), and three will be industrial representatives: one for each of the arms industry, the rail industry, the recognized unions in these industries.
      [X] Plan: The Granting of voting rights
      -[X] Information Review: Government
      -[X] Write-in: New Council Liaisons: Create permanent seats with the right to vote on Defense Council decisions for the liaisons from the armed services and permanent non-voting seats for liaisons from the industry. Two will go to the armed services (one for each service, currently the Army and Carabineri), and three will be industrial representatives: one for each of the arms industry, the rail industry, the recognized unions in these industries.
    Click to expand...
     
  • Voting
    • Mortenkam said:
    Well, if they truly disagree with a decision, then they would be unhappy without a vote too, and if it is only a minor disagreement, then I doubt that they will make a big fuss about it. Also, how often are we likely to have any serious disagreements with the army?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    A fair bit considering our army is heavily influenced by the IJA and IJN, giving them a vote may entice them to just veto anything that isn't their proposal.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top