Remove ads

East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Reader mode
Dessard said:
As far as war industry goes, while we should keep developing it I think planning for domestic cannon production is too much for now - for one thing that's a long lead-time item that we'd need to start early and may not have the capacity to start in time, for another thing it's hard. Acquiring foreign weapons and focusing domestic arms expansions on shells (the most important), anything we can sell abroad (if it seems like there are opportunities), or infantry mortars (easy and useful) seems like a better focus.

Just as an estimate that might be helpful, we're currently bringing in point-turns per year, so that's 48 point-turns in the next three years plus likely some more as the economy improves/tension rises - based on the last three year's experience we should be able to crudely budget out the point-turns between goals to see what's viable.

@4WheelSword or other QM, can we get estimates on the point/turn commitment it'd take to expand existing infantry forces by say one, three and six battalions? Even a vague estimate could be helpful.

If we can't, which would also make sense given that the army probably hasn't expanded in years, then it may be wisest for us plan on getting a second battalion for the 1st Regiment regardless of if we pick the army expansion goal, and use that to calibrate our expectations on expansion costs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I definitely agree on cannon proper, but I think we could manage a medium AA gun. Unlike, say, a 105 mm field gun, a 37 mm AA gun's barrel is constructed similarly to a rifle's, just scaled up a lot, and the breech mechanism is a scaled up Hotchkiss HMG. I also strongly agree on domestic shell and mortar production, as well as anything we can sell abroad for a profit. It won't just be Reewiin's tax dollars circulating, but actual money from other countries if we can break into the international market.

Long lead times is something I do think we need to consider. It'll take 2-3 years at the low end for any weapon we start work on now to enter service, and we're already in 1933. Likewise, officer training will take a while.

dreameater said:
We gotta ask ourselves if a naval arm will actually see use over a airforce honestly, also the battleships stuff is something we don't want to get pulled into.
Cooperation wise since it seem mustache man is not coming to power it may be worthwhile co-operating with the Germans to get a leg up via their military doctrine which should be in development right now. In the early days of ww2 the Germans where very much ahead of the curve(tactically at least strategically the Germans where to be frank insane and things deteriorated as the war went on and they developed less then practical ideas) as seen in France.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hitler refused the chancellorship in 1932 IRL. Things are still on track in Germany.
While I'm not a huge fan of keeping a Chikuma-class cruiser around, a naval branch of the Carabinieri probably isn't a huge money sink and will be helpful in other areas.
Anyways, here's a plan:
[] Plan: Preparing for Future Growth v.0
-[] Establish a formal training academy for new infantry and artillery officers
-[] Resolve the question of the Kutulo by continuing Carabinieri reforms
-[] Develop domestic weapons to meet the army's needs for AA and AT
-[] Send Attaches to observe the Chaco War

And estimated time costs of that:
  • I have no idea how long establishing a military academy will take, but my gut feel is it'll probably eat up most of the three years on its own. Any time not spent on that, though, could be spent on training the enlisted soldiers (so stuff like rifle training, or getting them to go build roads so that they're used to digging holes outside the cities)
  • The Kutulo should be quick. It'll likely take several steps, though:
    • "[ ] Form a Naval Service: Carabinieri Maritime Policing Unit - The Kutulo could most easily be subsumed into the Carabinieri, since they already have a boat section for policing Lake Turkana. (3-Month Investment.)" was an option in the last vote. The naval service on its own, therefore, is quite quick.
    • We'll need to get the Kutulo in running order. It was apparently in good enough shape to make the transit from Japan, our performance needs are low, and apparently we have a domestic shipbuilding industry, so hopefully that should take under a year
    • There may be additional costs as well, but I don't expect this to go for more than two years. That means we can spend the rest of the time on other Carabinieri reforms, since this is all under the Carabinieri's aegis.
  • Domestic weapons development will take a while.
    • Reverse engineering the Type 3 finishes in March, so everything is delayed by at least 3 months.
    • Reverse engineering the Type 3 took 6 months, but production licensing of a new gun took 12. To err on the side of caution, let's say it takes 18 months to design a Type 3 scaled up to [whatever our DP calibre of choice is] and build the first toolroom prototypes for evaluation. I hope it'd be quicker, but we can't know yet. The hardest part of this is probably a recoiling high-angle carriage, tbh, but we have the 8 cm/40 Type 3 AA guns on Kutulo to take a look at so it's another area where we aren't venturing into the unknown.
    • If this works, then let's say it's another 12 months to get it into production (based on the production licensing). Deliveries will take a while, but hopefully "we're making the new guns and three months' worth of production has been delivered to the army" will be enough to count as a success.
    • If we find out that the prototypes flopped, we then have to go to the fallback plan, which is probably a combination of:
      • Spend 6 months purchasing more Hotchkiss 13.2 mm AA guns from the French to fill the need for an AA gun, and throw an AA sight on the Type 3 MG clones to satisfy the "domestic" requirement.
      • Spend 6/12 months purchasing or licensing, respectively, the Czech impact-fuzed grenades, and make an ersatz AT grenade by putting one of them in a small throwable satchel along with some bricks of phlegmatized blasting gelatin.
  • Sending attaches will, likewise, take a while. We'll want to have people there for at least most of the war, and that might take several years. Having attaches to observe the conflict is VERY IMPORTANT, especially given how much Reewiin has to learn. This should either be one of our objectives, or we should only pick three objectives right now.
 
My ideal plan, which I'm sure will get watered down a bit by seeking more consensus, would be:

1. Resolve the question of the Kutolo by establishing a special unit of the Carabinieri.
2. Reform the Army with a focus on expansion.
3. Reform the Army with a focus on artillery and supporting arms.
4. Establish a formal training academy for new officers.

I think that, while they're overstating the case a bit, the foreign policy clique is not entirely wrong. I think we're still at risk of over-optimizing for quality and for absolute long-term efficiency at the expense of important short-term gains for surprise wars, scale, deterrence, etc. And I wanted to work on the army anyway, so why not just go all in: build the new secondary arms they and we both want, build up the training pipeline, and grow the force.

We don't need battleships, yeah, but a naval force can be useful without being a direct rival to a full British fleet in open battle; we want to be able to control our local waters, make it difficult for enemy naval powers to operate without accruing costs and risks, and reap the benefits of sea maneuver and protected shipping.


Some notes on other stuff:

A. I think it's important to remember the scope of this plan. We're not planning one round of projects: we're planning themes for several rounds of projects. It's not "employ the Kutolo," it's "what big line of effort is the Kutolo leading into." It's not "send attaches to this conflict," it's "a goal for our intelligence and analysis for the next three-four years." If we want to do one about intelligence, it needs to be broader, like "observe foreign conflicts and doctrine and bring innovations home."

B. In that vein, I am pretty sure working on AA/AT stuff is part of "artillery and supporting arms."
 
Last edited:
Potato Anarchy said:
Some notes on other stuff:

A. I think it's important to remember the scope of this plan. We're not planning one round of projects: we're planning themes for several rounds of projects. It's not "employ the Kutolo," it's "what big line of effort is the Kutolo leading into." It's not "send attaches to this conflict," it's "a goal for our intelligence and analysis for the next three-four years." If we want to do one about intelligence, it needs to be broader, like "observe foreign conflicts and doctrine and bring innovations home."

B. In that vein, I am pretty sure working on AA/AT stuff is part of "artillery and supporting arms."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The scope is three years of planning. If sending attaches to the conflict (which, historically, lasted until June 1935) is a constant investment and we don't recall them early, then we'll be spending 90% of this plan's duration with one point devoted to that and only that. That's not one round of projects, that's a very significant investment that should be considered at this level.

I'm also intentionally picking achievable write-in goals because I don't want to say "observe foreign conflicts and doctrine and bring innovations home" then we get bit with "why didn't you do anything beyond sending attaches?" The QMs aren't out to get us, but I also think they'll let us make mistakes if we pick an overly ambitious write-in that we can't finish.

The "Resolve the question of the Kutulo by continuing Carabinieri reforms" is taken almost verbatim from:
"[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [ ] By establishing a Navy
- [ ] By forming a special unit of an existing service
- [ ] By other means"

I expect that it'll probably take two or three rounds of projects, but I'm hoping that's something we can wrap up quick since there's clearly a lot of stuff that people want to do.
 
Last edited:
It just seems like a category error to me. Anything that is a single spend is not at the same scale as an objective in a three-year plan. Like the Kutolo+navy unit option, it seems to me like "do the main thing and then do Any Useful Followup" is what the plan is describing. "Observe foreign conflicts and doctrine and bring innovations home" basically just means send attaches, and if the opportunity ends quickly like Manchuria did then find other options, and then do something, anything with what we learn there.

Dessard said:
Thus, here's the plan I'd propose:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Leaving aside that I categorically oppose any plan that scraps the Kutolo, we should figure out which assumption is correct here - I thought we couldn't use subfocuses to go past four things, so "expansion" and "artillery" are different picks, and your take is that it's only four top level picks and we can add as many subfocuses as we want.
 
With everything we need to do, I've come back around to the original idea of scrapping the Kutulo. While it's a wasted opportunity, I think that cramming a naval service a plan is a cost we can't really pay for a nice-to-have. I don't buy that we could do so adequately with only a few actions; to make it more than a less-embarrasing form of cruiser storage, we'd need to spend a good bit on it.

Edit: although, that "less-embarrasing form of cruiser storage" option could be cheap enough, if we simply discarded the idea that it'd be a useful organization for the next few years. That would slot into this plan OK if we could trim maybe one or two points off something else.

If the government vetoes it then we may have to reassess, but at least the situation is less of a political liability for them once it's over with and I'm sure they can see the need for continuing infrastructure development - the thing I hope to fit into a plan by not doing the Kutulo.

Thus, here's the plan I'd propose:
[ ] Reform The Army (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms
- [ ] With a focus on expansion
[ ] Improve Logistics and Communications networks across Reewiin (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] Improve the Rails
- [ ] Establish telegraph and radio offices
[ ] Establish a formal training academy (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] For new Officers
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [ ] By removing the arms from the Kutulo and scrapping it when possible

If we say that we have at least 48 point-turns in the plan, here is a breakdown of how we might allocate points. It's pretty Army-centric, but that makes sense given our terrible state of readiness:
  • Reform the Army: 34+
    • Training and Leadership: 14+
      • 3 Army Training Corps Actions (more if the budget improves): 6+
      • Enlarge the Officer Corps: 4
      • A mission to the Chaco war for at least a year: 4+
    • Ordinance: 12
      • AT/AA Guns (just buy Oerlikons to achieve basic capability): 2-4
      • Other stuff: I expect us to just keep this office rolling on the highest-priority items at 1 point/turn all plan, so 8-10
    • Expansion: 8+
      • I expect this to be 3-4 points per battalion, so we can probably do at least 2 battalions
  • Logistics and Communications: 8-12
    • Rails: 4
    • Telegraphs and Radios: 4-8
  • Officer Training Academy: 4
  • Kutulo: 2
Potato Anarchy said:
I thought we couldn't use subfocuses to go past four things, so "expansion" and "artillery" are different picks, and your take is that it's only four top level picks and we can add as many subfocuses as we want.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good point, that does affect things.
 
Last edited:
Potato Anarchy said:
It just seems like a category error to me. Anything that is a single spend is not at the same scale as an objective in a three-year plan. Like the Kutolo+navy unit option, it seems to me like "do the main thing and then do Any Useful Followup" is what the plan is describing. "Observe foreign conflicts and doctrine and bring innovations home" basically just means send attaches, and if the opportunity ends quickly like Manchuria did then find other options, and then do something, anything with what we learn there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have four slots. Unless you think we can achieve two objectives using only one slot, then we need to consider the attaches at this point in planning. When setting goals, they should be as specific as possible, and vague-wording our way around isn't great. This would be by far the biggest single spend in the game up to this point, on par with Long Term Plan: Horse.
Potato Anarchy said:
Leaving aside that I categorically oppose any plan that scraps the Kutolo, we should figure out which assumption is correct here - I thought we couldn't use subfocuses to go past four things, so "expansion" and "artillery" are different picks, and your take is that it's only four top level picks and we can add as many subfocuses as we want.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can, see "(Select as many of the following as needed)". The downside is that it's more things we've committed to, and not achieving commitments isn't good.
Dessard said:
With everything we need to do, I've come back around to the original idea of scrapping the Kutulo. While it's a wasted opportunity, I think that cramming a naval service a plan is a cost we can't really pay for a nice-to-have. I don't buy that we could do so adequately with only a few actions; to make it more than a less-embarrasing form of cruiser storage, we'd need to spend a good bit on it.

If the government vetoes it then we may have to reassess, but at least the situation is less of a political liability for them once it's over with and I'm sure they can see the need for continuing infrastructure development - the thing I hope to fit into a plan by not doing the Kutulo.

Thus, here's the plan I'd propose:
[ ] Reform The Army (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms
- [ ] With a focus on expansion
[ ] Improve Logistics and Communications networks across Reewiin (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] Improve the Rails
- [ ] Establish telegraph and radio offices
[ ] Establish a formal training academy (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] For new Officers
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [ ] By removing the arms from the Kutulo and scrapping it when possible

If we say that we have at least 48 point-turns in the plan, here is a breakdown of how we might allocate points. It's pretty Army-centric, but that makes sense given our terrible state of readiness:
  • Reform the Army: 34+
    • Training and Leadership: 14+
      • 3 Army Training Corps Actions (more if the budget improves): 6+
      • Enlarge the Officer Corps: 4
      • A mission to the Chaco war for at least a year: 4+
    • Ordinance: 12
      • AT/AA Guns (just buy Oerlikons to achieve basic capability): 4
      • Other stuff: I expect us to just keep this office rolling on the highest-priority items at 1 point/turn all plan, so 8
    • Expansion: 8+
      • I expect this to be 3-4 points per battalion, so we can probably do at least 2 battalions
  • Logistics and Communications: 8-12
    • Rails: 4
    • Telegraphs and Radios: 4-8
  • Officer Training Academy: 4
  • Kutulo: 2
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm okay with this, but it leaves no room for sending attaches to the Chaco War, and I think that's really, really, really important despite the high cost of up to 11 point-turns. I can't stress that enough.
 
C_Z said:
I'm okay with this, but it leaves no room for sending attaches to the Chaco War, and I think that's really, really, really important despite the high cost of up to 11 point-turns. I can't stress that enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My numbers are based on sending them for a year, plus maybe more if the budget improves - I think a year would be long enough to get a lot of value. More would be better but it's really expensive and there's a lot we need.
 
Last edited:
C_Z said:
We have four slots. Unless you think we can achieve two objectives using only one slot, then we need to consider the attaches at this point in planning. When setting goals, they should be as specific as possible, and vague-wording our way around isn't great. This would be by far the biggest single spend in the game up to this point, on par with Long Term Plan: Horse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think this follows from how the first plan went.
 
I oppose any attempt to scrap the cruiser and will consequently vote against such a plan.

I also agree with @Potato Anarchy that any foreign observation is likey to be a subset of something else we do rather than it's own category. I don't think we need an entire category in this vote for "foreign observation".

[ ] Reform The Army (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry
- [ ] With a focus on expansion
[ ] Improve Logistics and Communications networks across Reewiin (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] Improve the Rails
- [ ] Establish telegraph and radio offices
- [ ] Improve the Roads
[ ] Establish a formal training academy (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] For new Officers
- [ ] For infantry Officers
- [ ] For artillery Officers
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [ ] By forming a special unit of an existing service (Carabinieri)
 
Last edited:
It feels like naval expansion would just be a drain on the budget what can we actually DO with a navy in practical terms over say devoting that budget to an airforce?
 
C_Z said:
When setting goals, they should be as specific as possible, and vague-wording our way around isn't great. This would be by far the biggest single spend in the game up to this point, on par with Long Term Plan: Horse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What is more vague about this then "continuing reforms of the Carabinieri?" I really don't understand what the problem is here.

As for scope, in the first plan, we picked five goals, and all but one of them involved several projects:

- Develop a nationalized arms industry (6 projects): Establishing the Ordnance Office. Weapons testing. Production licensing: Rifle. Production licensing: ammunition. Reverse engineering machine guns. Production licensing: machine guns.
- Establish a Remount Service (3+ projects): Establish the Veterinary Office. Requisition horses locally. Acquiring donkeys & mules.
- Find a way to improve logistics through horses (3+ projects: The oxen thing. Field testing write-in. I'm not recounting all the stuff from Remount Service, but most of them cross-counted here.)
- Reform the Carabinieri (7 projects): Establishing the Carabinieri Oversight Office. Regional Headquarters. Commissioning Officers. Information Review: Carabinieri. Doctrinal Reform: Army Drill. Organizational Reform: Police Force. Organizational Reform: Wilderness Rangers.
- Establish a Council-controlled Information and Analysis Office (1 project): Establish the Analytical Research Team.

And this fifth goal, the one we technically accomplished with 1 project and then barely used, is the one we were just called out for basically getting lucky no one's called us on neglecting it. This does not seem to me like a system where we should be framing goals around single picks.
 
Last edited:
Potato Anarchy said:
I don't think this follows from how the first plan went.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we want to spend a quarter of the three-year budget on one item like C_Z, I do think it should be in the plan, but I don't think other plan-makers want to do that for the Chaco War so most plans don't need it. But to consolidate my plan just in case, in line with the rather broad points we followed in the first plan, something like this would be good:

- Improve army training and expertise
- Improve army fire support call this "combat power" or something to include expansion
- Improve infrastructure
- Resolve the Kutulo (scrap and/or create a very minimal naval service)

Rat King said:
I oppose any attempt to scrap the cruiser and will consequently vote against such a plan.

I also agree with @Potato Anarchy that any foreign observation is likey to be a subset of something else we do rather than it's own category. I don't think we need an entire category in this vote for "foreign observation".

[ ] Reform The Army (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry
- [ ] With a focus on expansion
[ ] Improve Logistics and Communications networks across Reewiin (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] Improve the Rails
- [ ] Establish telegraph and radio offices
- [ ] Improve the Roads
[ ] Establish a formal training academy (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [ ] For new Officers
- [ ] For infantry Officers
- [ ] For artillery Officers
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [ ] By forming a special unit of an existing service (Carabinieri)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like the thrust of this plan, but I think it's more than we could afford. We could probably work a minimal naval service to mainly just keep the Kutulo running into the plan I posted before, though, if scrapping it is too far for most people.
 
Last edited:
So, here is my attempt to synthesize some of this discussion and feedback and so on into a plan. Barring GM comment I think CZ's interpretation of how subfocuses work sounds correct.

[ ] Plan: Growing Spikes
-[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutolo by forming a special unit of the Carabinieri.
--[ ] With a focus on training and small boats.
-[ ] Reform the Army.
--[ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry.
--[ ] With a focus on expansion.
-[ ] Observe the Chaco War (or other foreign conflicts if necessary) and implement one or more resulting reforms.
--[ ] With a focus on learning how to be effective against larger enemies.
-[ ] Establish a formal training academy.
--[ ] For new and artillery officers.

For the Carabinieri Naval Unit, I think this is probably 2-3 projects to make it viable and successful - one about the Kutolo, one about training and doctrine, and one about the other ships for the unit.

The Army goal is probably the biggest spread of projects in this plan, and this is the part I think a lot of us are most interested in. I want to set high level goals that address our critics and the concerns of the Army without overcommitting; we can work out what seems most important and viable as we go.

The training academy is a smaller and more specific goal that I think will also naturally dovetail with training goals that go into the other goals we're setting, and is part of the long term infrastructure we want to lay down. I threw in the artillery officers along with the new officers because it seemed like a useful synergy with the , and artillery training is a place where we can both benefit from Japanese advisors and begin reducing our need for them.

I have tried to turn the foreign intelligence goal into something more specific without underpromising.

This leaves out domestic economic/infrastructure improvements. I think we want to do a couple of those too if we can, but narrowly decided on the training academy idea instead because I think no one currently doubts that we'll address domestic growth; we have a track record there. I think this plan is as much a political exercise as it is a logistical one.
 
Last edited:
Better drilling/training would be very nice.

In terms of anti-tank equipment that fits halfway well into our existing force structure, we might want to look into shaped charge rifle grenades. They're bleeding edge experimental stuff right now (the metal-lined ones anyway), but they're super portable, cheap to make when you've got them right, and have the potential to be effective even against the side armor of WW2 medium tanks, never mind the sort of stuff we're actually likely to see in numbers. And the very first experiments with shaped charges (even the metal lined ones, though the importance of this wasn't understood at the time) date all the way back to Munroe in the late 19th century.

Even without shaped charges, rifle grenades are just neat, and something flashy but useful to show off clear progress. Something that's also well within scale for what we're working with
 
Last edited:
Potato Anarchy said:
What is more vague about this then "continuing reforms of the Carabinieri?" I really don't understand what the problem is here.

As for scope, in the first plan, we picked five goals, and all but one of them involved several projects:

- Develop a nationalized arms industry (6 projects): Establishing the Ordnance Office. Weapons testing. Production licensing: Rifle. Production licensing: ammunition. Reverse engineering machine guns. Production licensing: machine guns.
- Establish a Remount Service (3+ projects): Establish the Veterinary Office. Requisition horses locally. Acquiring donkeys & mules.
- Find a way to improve logistics through horses (3+ projects: The oxen thing. Field testing write-in). I'm not recounting all the stuff from Remount Service, but most of them cross-counted here.
- Reform the Carabinieri (7 projects): Establishing the Carabinieri Oversight Office. Regional Headquarters. Commissioning Officers. Information Review: Carabinieri. Doctrinal Reform: Army Drill. Organizational Reform: Police Force. Organizational Reform: Wilderness Rangers.
- Establish a Council-controlled Information and Analysis Office (1 project): Establish the Analytical Research Team.

And this fifth goal, the one we technically accomplished with 1 project and then barely used, is the one we were just called out for basically getting lucky no one's called us on neglecting it. This does not seem to me like a system where we should be framing goals around single picks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's exactly what I'm worried about, we technically accomplished it by our interpretation but not the government's. We should make sure we understand what the goals are asking for. This is also why I'm worried about saying we'll expand the army without any qualifiers, since while I'm very much in favour of small expansions and laying the groundwork for future growth by getting more equipment and officers, I don't think we can (for example) double the size of the army by 1936.

Good point on "continuing reforms of the Carabinieri?". It was very rough wording, and I agree it's not something to carry forwards.

I also don't want to over-promise and under-deliver, thus why I picked just one thing there. I don't know how the Chaco War will go in this timeline yet, nor what kind of intel we'll receive. It might come out that it's December 1933 and we're getting such good feedback from our attaches that we really don't want to recall them, in which case it'll take more than a year. Personally, I'd send the attaches for somewhere between a year and a year and a half, starting halfway through 1933, but that's with hindsight and without knowing what the QMs are thinking.

Dessard said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Potato Anarchy said:
[snip]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(see my comment above about personal desires and spending 1/4 of the budget)

To start digging into the details of these plans, I'll lump them together into what I think can be discussed at once:
  • - Resolve the Kutulo (scrap and/or create a very minimal naval service)
    -[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutolo by forming a special unit of the Carabinieri.--[ ] With a focus on training and small boats.
    • I think at least the three of us are agreed on a low-cost Carabinieri Naval Service operating the Kutulo as at least an option. This seems good.
    • We could have two similar plans with the difference being the scrapping or keeping of the ship, to let people vote on it?
  • Improve infrastructure
    • This is only in Dessard's plan, and I want to look into it a bit. First, Reewiin is a very long and skinny country, and we've already set up a railway along that length. While further railways could be nice, IMO they're low priority. If we're going to promise improvements to transport infrastructure, I think it should be to promise improved roads in the interior. This dovetails nicely with improved training because we can send the Army out to do it! That way, the officers in charge get to practice dealing with the logistics headache of "how to send a platoon from Kismayo to Garbaharey and back without anyone dying en route", while the enlisted soldiers learn "this is how to use your new E-tool to dig a drainage ditch/foxhole, field operations can mean being out of the barracks for several days, suck it up, and no, you're not too good for digging field fortifications"
  • - Improve army training and expertise
    -[ ] Establish a formal training academy.--[ ] For new and artillery officers.
    • One's explicit about being for officers, and the other's more broad; I think either works for our purposes.
    • Why artillery officers and not infantry officers as well?
  • - Improve army fire support call this "combat power" or something to include expansion
    -[ ] Reform the Army.
    --[ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry.
    --[ ] With a focus on expansion.
    -[ ] Observe the Chaco War (or other foreign conflicts if necessary) and implement one or more resulting reforms.
    --[ ] With a focus on learning how to be effective against larger enemies.
    • This is where things get messy for me. To start with, I'd prefer that we include the qualifier "future" expansion if we have that point, to make it clear to the Foreign Faction that we're not doubling the army by 1935, but instead laying the groundwork for it.
    • If we're concerned about the Chaco War being too much for a separate thing, we could lump it into the Army improvements, as the point of that is seeing how we should improve the army (e.g., to use a little bit of hindsight, the Paraguayans loved the 81 mm mortar due to its effectiveness and portability, and we would do well to copy it). However, this needs to consider that point expenditure, so we can't try and use the combination to squeeze in another high-cost goal.
    • As part of a general policy of not over-committing at this stage, perhaps we should cut the AT & AA weaponry bit? While it's important to me, if something unexpected happens we may need to free up points.
 
To be perfectly clear, you are voting on four lines of effort total, not four top level options and then a la carte. A possible example of a valid plan vote would be:

[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo (Select one of the following)
- [1] By establishing a Navy
- [2] By other means
[ ] Buy aircraft in order to form (Select as many of the following as needed)
- [3] A Carabinieri Air Patrol
- [4] An Independant Air Force
 
C_Z said:
(see my comment above about personal desires and spending 1/4 of the budget)

To start digging into the details of these plans, I'll lump them together into what I think can be discussed at once:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good point on the rural roads vs. railroads - railroads (especially inland to Ethiopia) would be nice but we may as well not commit to it in the plan. However, communications infrastructure is also really important, as besides any concrete benefits, a domestic expertise base there is the first step to bringing radios to the military.

I definitely think we have to expand the army at least a little so that we can gain some experience and expectations on doing so - both IC and OOC - and ramp up over time rather than crashing into it from a standing start. Given the more limited number of plan options and limited level of expansion though, it probably doesn't make the cut either.

Potato Anarchy said:
This leaves out domestic economic/infrastructure improvements. I think we want to do a couple of those too if we can, but narrowly decided on the training academy idea instead because I think no one currently doubts that we'll address domestic growth; we have a track record there. I think this plan is as much a political exercise as it is a logistical one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given the clarification on the plan format, I agree with this approach. However, I think basic army training is something we can't leave out, as it's currently probably our biggest shortcoming.


What do people think of this? I think it covers everything we really want to hit as well as addressing the biggest concerns of all the blocs.

We can fulfill the first goal through the training we really need as well as military observers in Paraguay and officer education, the second through the commitment to the Ordinance Office which we're unlikely to withdraw (though we probably could meet our most pressing needs while still 'hibernating' it for up to a year to spend more elsewhere), the third through officer schools, infrastructure and modest expansion, and the fourth is fairly self-explanatory.

Write-ins are italicized. As an alternative to the noncommittal fourth option, we could vote between two versions of this plan.

[ ] Reform The Army
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including AA/AT weapons
- [ ] Laying the groundwork for, and beginning, army expansion
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo
-[ ] Either through scrapping or through establishing a small Carabineri naval service - kick the can down the road until the next vote so we can choose explicitly rather than having it tied up with the rest of the plan.

Regardless of the need to make a more limited, big-points-only plan, I still think we need to make a general three-year budget to ensure we don't do another DCIRRO and spend resources on opening possibilities we can't afford to pursue.
 
Last edited:
Dessard said:
Good point on the rural roads vs. railroads - railroads (especially inland to Ethiopia) would be nice but we may as well not commit to it in the plan. However, communications infrastructure is also really important, as besides any concrete benefits, a domestic expertise base there is the first step to bringing radios to the military.

I definitely think we have to expand the army at least a little so that we can gain some experience and expectations on doing so - both IC and OOC - and ramp up over time rather than crashing into it from a standing start. Given the more limited number of plan options and limited level of expansion though, it probably doesn't make the cut either.


Given the clarification on the plan format, I agree with this approach. However, I think basic army training is something we can't leave out, as it's currently probably our biggest shortcoming.


What do people think of this? I think it covers everything we really want to hit as well as addressing the biggest concerns of all the blocs.

We can fulfill the first goal through the training we really need as well as military observers in Paraguay and officer education, the second through the commitment to the Ordinance Office which we're unlikely to withdraw (though we probably could meet our most pressing needs while still 'hibernating' it for up to a year to spend more elsewhere), the third through officer schools, infrastructure and modest expansion, and the fourth is fairly self-explanatory.

Write-ins are italicized. As an alternative to the noncommittal fourth option, we could vote between two versions of this plan.

[ ] Reform The Army
- [ ] With a focus on training and leadership
- [ ] With a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including AA/AT weapons
- [ ] Laying the groundwork for, and beginning, army expansion
[ ] Resolve the question of the Kutulo
-[ ] Either through scrapping or through establishing a small Carabineri naval service - kick the can down the road until the next vote so we can choose explicitly rather than having it tied up with the rest of the plan.

Regardless of the need to make a more limited, big-points-only plan, I still think we need to make a general three-year budget to ensure we don't do another DCIRRO and spend resources on opening possibilities we can't afford to pursue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not against limited expansion (e.g., a battalion or so while laying the groundwork for significant future growth), I'm just worried that if we promise it, expansion alone will be a major focus in the way that, for example, the Carabinieri was during the past three years.

I like radios as well! I just don't think it's an extreme priority, nor something we should make into a three-year long program.

Overall I'm fine with your proposed plan.

edit: also mea maxima culpa for the whole 'pick as many as we want' thing.
 
Last edited:
Altom said:
Could we refit Kutulo into something like a coastal battleship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on your definition of ''Coastal Battleship'', though not really viable. I highly doubt we'd be able to stick bigger guns on the hull without having to do some major fuckery, it wasn't really built with having anything bigger than single 6 inch guns as the deck guns and I'd imagine there isn't even any space or weight for trying to fit a turret with three or even two six inch guns.

Not to mention, a light cruiser (even if from the 1910s) is much more than what is really needed for our navy. I'd say having a destroyer squadron would be more than enough for our coastal waters though as C_Z has mentioned in the past, it'd be more worthwhile and a better investment to make river patrol boats/ river monitors.
 
I will also note, that when it comes to designing a doctrine, it might also be worth to consider, whom we might end up fighting between Britain, Ethiopia, and Italy, and picking the option on making a long-term analysis of the optimal army to defend Reewiin.
 
I have a slight feeling that unless something drastic happens, we will be at war with the British by 1941. Presently we are a Japanese protectorate and I do not see this changing even when the Japanese decide to invade China in 1937, I am sure the Japanese would be more than willing to dispatch a squadron of ships and men to ''convince'' the Reewiin government of it's error and totally not cause of the steel and other resources they need.

The earliest conflict we might have to face is probably trying to snatch some land from Ethiopia during the Second Italo-Abyssinian war, though it's up in the air on how the Italians will take that.

The next one could be during the East African Campaign, though I'd imagine the British wouldn't really try anything as it'd mean a much earlier war with Japan. Though when Japan does attack the US and the Allies in the pacific, I don't think the British will really care that we are a protectorate and will liberate us regardless of our opinion. At best, we could immediately surrender and hope the British allow our current government to run the show, worst case we fight a guerilla war like how the Italians did.
 
I've been assuming the biggest threat in the 30s is Italy - while there isn't the bad history that exists between them and Ethiopia, Italy could have a good chance at taking Reewin from Japan via a land attack/better naval lines, and is interested in the area. We're also much smaller and open up a third angle on Ethiopia, and have an interest in supporting Ethiopia so that we're not pinned directly between two colonial empires.

For that risk I think ties with Ethiopia, Japanese backing and an adequate, relatively large force would be the key. Italy could bring a lot of firepower to bear so we'd definitely need AA/AT and chemical defense preparations.

There's also a risk of a conflict with Japan a colonial power attacking primarily by sea - let's say France - and in that case we can likely expect pressure via blockade/bombardment or quick operations to seize a port as the main threats. It would be quite hard to project a big force in the area without a land foothold. Coastal defences, inland links and a reliable, quick-to-mobilize force are probably most important in that case.

What happens once World War 2 kicks off is probably too much to plan for at this time - the strategic situation really depends on what's going on in North Africa/Ethiopia and whether Japan writes Reewin off as an indefensible liability or sends forces to it.
 
Last edited:
DegenWeeb said:
Depends on your definition of ''Coastal Battleship'', though not really viable. I highly doubt we'd be able to stick bigger guns on the hull without having to do some major fuckery, it wasn't really built with having anything bigger than single 6 inch guns as the deck guns and I'd imagine there isn't even any space or weight for trying to fit a turret with three or even two six inch guns.

Not to mention, a light cruiser (even if from the 1910s) is much more than what is really needed for our navy. I'd say having a destroyer squadron would be more than enough for our coastal waters though as C_Z has mentioned in the past, it'd be more worthwhile and a better investment to make river patrol boats/ river monitors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Importantly, we'd not be able to armour the Kutulo, nor do we have enough spare metacentric height to put a good fire control system high up on the ship. Even if we did stick large guns on it, we'd have created a glass cannon that'll just shotgun rounds wildly, and it'd still be weaker than your average Washington cruiser while costing almost a lot. I deeply love cursed rebuilds of old ships to fill a new role, but it's not a great option here.

River patrol boats, yes, but torpedo boats are another very capable option. It was brought up on discord that the Somali coast where we are is very, very conducive to ambush tactics with light vessels. However, this should be considered against the threats we'll face - it'd be enough to oppose the Italian forces in the Indian Ocean, but might struggle against someone like Japan (only being useful because it'd raise the costs of an invasion that far from their supply lines) and would be useless against the Royal Navy. In a war with Britain, any navy we have would be swept away and our two major cities/industrial centres bombarded ceaselessly from the sea, and it's unlikely we'd be able to stop it unless Japan drastically changes priorities.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top