East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Excited to see this again!

I definitely think we should do something soon about the Type 3, either increase funding or cancel it. I've always been skeptical of the project - except for coming with a tripod, it is going to have basically the same capabilities as our LMG but heavier - but it could still be useful as a way to artificially push forward our arms industry. So as an alternative I think a one-quarter write-in action to wrap up the project, document the issues/lessons learned and ensure the workers can be found new positions would also be something to consider next turn. I don't really want to argue for either option though.

Edit: actually, either way I don't think we should use this action on the Type 3. Instead we can use the Ordnance Office action that's about to open up, because if the goal is to get it done faster we may as well use the point that'll finish in 6 months rather than 12.

If we don't expand the Type 3 project, I'd definitely recommend marksmanship training. Even if it's slowed down, nothing is strictly gated behind it and we can then start the officer school or maneuver training sooner.

I don't agree with spending the point on a DCIRRO option - we're already spending a lot on learning things that Reewin has no capacity yet to implement, and the Army is probably less combat-effective than the Carabineri despite all the Ordnance Office stuff we've thrown at them.

Dessard said:

Excited to see this again!

I definitely think we should do something soon about the Type 3, either increase funding or cancel it. I've always been skeptical of the project - except for coming with a tripod, it is going to have basically the same capabilities as our LMG but heavier - but it could still be useful as a way to artificially push forward our arms industry. So as an alternative I think a one-quarter write-in action to wrap up the project, document the issues/lessons learned and ensure the workers can be found new positions would also be something to consider next turn. I don't really want to argue for either option though.

Edit: actually, either way I don't think we should use this action on the Type 3. Instead we can use the Ordnance Office action that's about to open up, because if the goal is to get it done faster we may as well use the point that'll finish in 6 months rather than 12.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That was my thinking as well unless we wanted to dip into something else like buying more 13.2 mm machine guns for regiment/battalion level AA. However, I can definitely see the appeal of doing Type 3 for 2 turns, then 13.2 mm purchasing, then starting to look at what supporting arms were effective in the Chaco War and getting some of those for ourselves.

My logic behind the Type 3 was that it's a way to increase the experience of our arms industry with designing weapons while "copying off someone else's homework". It's not going to see super widespread service, but it can be given to the companies for use as a very light AA gun and will help modernize the Carabinieri's border fortifications (which currently either lack machine guns or have a nightmarish mix of British, Italian, and Japanese MMGs, iirc). If we can fix it soon enough, then it also opens the option of scaling it up to 13.2 and larger for use as a domestic "medium" AA gun instead of paying the French for theirs.

Dessard said:

If we don't expand the Type 3 project, I'd definitely recommend marksmanship training. Even if it's slowed down, nothing is strictly gated behind it and we can then start the officer school or maneuver training sooner.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is what I'm leaning towards as well. For one, it was the second place option in the last vote, so in interest of "fairness", I think it's a good choice. It's also not something that we need to complete with high priority unless we anticipate war this year, but getting it started sooner is better. It also lets us push that slot's schedule a bit forwards, moving the Officer School up to Q3:

Dessard said:

I don't agree with spending the point on a DCIRRO option - we're already spending a lot on learning things that Reewin has no capacity yet to implement, and the Army is probably less combat-effective than the Carabineri despite all the Ordnance Office stuff we've thrown at them.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It'd also have the DCIRRO doing 3 different things in Q3 - Foreign ideas, sending attaches to the Chaco, and trying to figure out what the best army to beat Britain is. I'm worried about over-stretching the office beyond what they're capable of.

As a general reminder (mostly to myself), our objectives:

• Reform the Army with a focus on training and leadership.
• Reform the Army with a focus on artillery and supporting arms, including AA/AT weapons.
• Laying the groundwork for, and making a modest beginning to, army expansion.
• Resolve the question of the Kutulo by establishing a small Carabineri naval service.

The government seems to like it when we complete objectives quickly.

To make sure we don't finish the 3-year plan without completing anything critical, it came up on the Discord that we should figure out what the core set of actions we need is, so that we can prioritize between 'secondary' actions without compromising on commitments. I figure if we can come to agreement on a core list, we can fit them into the calendar ahead of time and then decide on other actions/deal with changes to the situation as they come up.

Does this seem like a reasonable 'minimum viable' set of actions, and also reasonable assumptions on costs? That's not to say these are the only training, ordnance or navy options we should take, but the hopefully they'd be what it takes to get us to an OK place and meet the plan goals. This is just a start so definitely open to any changes.

• Army Reform (15)
  • 1 point - the second half of Foreign Ideas
  • 4 points - Officer Academy
  • 2 points - Marksmanship Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Maneuver Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Artillery Training (Japanese Help)
  • 4 points - Chaco War observers
• Ordnance (8-12)
  • 2-4 points - more 13.2mm MGs (we probably want to investigate other mountings, could take extra time)
  • 2 points - evaluate AT options
  • 2 points - infantry AT weapon (rifles or grenades)
  • 2-4 points - battalion artillery (field guns or mortars)
• Expansion (7-8)
  • 4 points - Enlarge the Officers Corps
  • 3-4 points? - expand the 1st Regiment from 1 to 2 infantry battalions
• Navy (2-3)
  • 2-3 points? - Get the Kutulo up and running

Total: 32-38 out of 45 points, assuming no budget changes

That's largely sound looking to me, though I imagine there are some other naval spend options that will become available in the near future and I would like to take at least one more so that we do something with the Carabinavy besides just giving them the Kutolo and founding them.

Edit: I see there's actually 1-2 marked in there ambiguously despite it being a one point project, so this is already sort of there!

Dessard said:

To make sure we don't finish the 3-year plan without completing anything critical, it came up on the Discord that we should figure out what the core set of actions we need is, so that we can prioritize between 'secondary' actions without compromising on commitments. I figure if we can come to agreement on a core list, we can fit them into the calendar ahead of time and then decide on other actions/deal with changes to the situation as they come up.

Does this seem like a reasonable 'minimum viable' set of actions, and also reasonable assumptions on costs? That's not to say these are the only training, ordnance or navy options we should take, but the hopefully they'd be what it takes to get us to an OK place and meet the plan goals. This is just a start so definitely open to any changes.

• Army Reform (15)
  • 1 point - the second half of Foreign Ideas
  • 4 points - Officer Academy
  • 2 points - Marksmanship Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Maneuver Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Artillery Training (Japanese Help)
  • 4 points - Chaco War observers
• Ordnance (8-12)
  • 2-4 points - more 13.2mm MGs (we probably want to investigate other mountings, could take extra time)
  • 2 points - evaluate AT options
  • 2 points - infantry AT weapon (rifles or grenades)
  • 2-4 points - battalion artillery (field guns or mortars)
• Expansion (7-8)
  • 4 points - Enlarge the Officers Corps
  • 3-4 points? - expand the 1st Regiment from 1 to 2 infantry battalions
• Navy (2-3)
  • 2-3 points? - Get the Kutulo up and running

Total: 32-38 out of 45 points, assuming no budget changes

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't think we need maneuver training that badly. It'd help, sure, but if we need to cut it down I think we could get by without it. We'll be doing a lot of things for army reform already; I think it should be enough to make the government happy.

Likewise, I think we can hold off on evaluating AT options if we can come up with a good grenade; there aren't a lot of options available until so late that I don't think it's worth it (we're basically only looking at the Bofors and Solothurn offerings until 1935-1936). The combination of 13.2 and a large HE grenade will suffice until the late 1930s if we develop an AP round for it* - there's not a lot with enough armour to justify more than 15 mm of penetration just yet and the 13.2 can still be useful later as an AA gun and HMG.

We'll hopefully get our fifth point back in 1935 (the trade concessions with Japan last until then). When are you identifying as the endpoint for counting point availability?

*AIUI this isn't that difficult for a HMG calibre since it's mostly swapping out the mild steel/lead core for hardened steel. It might be a QC challenge to consistently make strong steel, but we'll see once we get there.

Dessard said:

Does this seem like a reasonable 'minimum viable' set of actions, and also reasonable assumptions on costs? That's not to say these are the only training, ordnance or navy options we should take, but the hopefully they'd be what it takes to get us to an OK place and meet the plan goals. This is just a start so definitely open to any changes.

• Army Reform (15)
  • 1 point - the second half of Foreign Ideas
  • 4 points - Officer Academy
  • 2 points - Marksmanship Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Maneuver Training (Japanese help)
  • 2 points - Artillery Training (Japanese Help)
  • 4 points - Chaco War observers

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I do feel that establishing an infantry school are more important, than certain types of training, since the infantry school will be better at ensuring quality training in the long term.

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge.

Potato Anarchy said:

That's largely sound looking to me, though I imagine there are some other naval spend options that will become available in the near future and I would like to take at least one more so that we do something with the Carabinavy besides just giving them the Kutolo and founding them.

Edit: I see there's actually 1-2 marked in there ambiguously despite it being a one point project, so this is already sort of there!

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Do we have confirmation that we only need to spend one point on the Kutulo itself? I was assuming more but missed it if it was mentioned. I do definitely think it'd be good to take another action past the minimum since we have some wiggle room.

C_Z said:

We'll hopefully get our fifth point back in 1935 (the trade concessions with Japan last until then). When are you identifying as the endpoint for counting point availability?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I was just counting until the end of 1935, so we may get a point or two that way. Though, now that you mention it, I don't know if the GMs have ever said that each long term plan is three years, I just assumed it was because that's how long the first one is. That said, I think spending 70-85% of the budget on the most fundamental plan needs and the rest on further/other improvements seems reasonable even if the plan length isn't set.

C_Z said:

I don't think we need maneuver training that badly. It'd help, sure, but if we need to cut it down I think we could get by without it. We'll be doing a lot of things for army reform already; I think it should be enough to make the government happy.

Likewise, I think we can hold off on evaluating AT options if we can come up with a good grenade; there aren't a lot of options available until so late that I don't think it's worth it (we're basically only looking at the Bofors and Solothurn offerings until 1935-1936). The combination of 13.2 and a large HE grenade will suffice until the late 1930s if we develop an AP round for it* - there's not a lot with enough armour to justify more than 15 mm of penetration just yet and the 13.2 can still be useful later as an AA gun and HMG.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Mortenkam said:

I do feel that establishing an infantry school are more important, than certain types of training, since the infantry school will be better at ensuring quality training in the long term.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Fair points here, and I'll make the next iteration of the list less specific - to say "2-4 more points of training/education reform" rather than Maneuver and Artillery training, if that's agreeable to everyone? And also make the ordnance options less specific at this point. I do think we should come back to ordnance and determine an order of operations in the next few turns though, since there I think we could railroad ourselves into or out of certain paths.

Dessard said:

Do we have confirmation that we only need to spend one point on the Kutulo itself? I was assuming more but missed it if it was mentioned. I do definitely think it'd be good to take another action past the minimum since we have some wiggle room.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To be very precise, what we know is that the establish the naval service via the Carabinieri option was a 3-month/one point option (which we are about to finish). I assumed that the Kutolo itself would be dealt with by that spend but it's possible that there's another project about it specifically as well as stuff about the naval service broadly.

Dessard said:

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge.


Do we have confirmation that we only need to spend one point on the Kutulo itself? I was assuming more but missed it if it was mentioned. I do definitely think it'd be good to take another action past the minimum since we have some wiggle room.

I was just counting until the end of 1935, so we may get a point or two that way. Though, now that you mention it, I don't know if the GMs have ever said that each long term plan is three years, I just assumed it was because that's how long the first one is. That said, I think spending 70-85% of the budget on the most fundamental plan needs and the rest on further/other improvements seems reasonable even if the plan length isn't set.

Fair points here, and I'll make the next iteration of the list less specific - to say "2-4 more points of training/education reform" rather than Maneuver and Artillery training, if that's agreeable to everyone? And also make the ordnance options less specific at this point. I do think we should come back to ordnance and determine an order of operations in the next few turns though, since there I think we could railroad ourselves into or out of certain paths.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge.

I agree that we should budget in one or two more points for the navy. It will probably make the government happy if we do so and there's not a huge amount of competition in the Carabinieri slot.
I'd be down for helping come up with an order of operations for the ordnance board.

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge

• Army Reform (11)
  • 1 point - the second half of Foreign Ideas
  • 4 points - Officer Academy
  • 0 points - Marksmanship Training
  • 2 points - Artillery Training (Japanese Help)
  • 4 points - Chaco War observers
• Ordnance (8-12)
  • 2-4 points - AA, likely more 13.2mm MGs.
  • 4 points - AT of some sort
  • 2-4 points - Light Artillery of some sort
• Expansion (7-8)
  • 4 points - Enlarge the Officers Corps
  • 3-4 points? - 1st Regiment reform/expansion
• Navy (0-3)
  • 0-3 points? - Get the Kutulo up and running

26-34 points

OK, here's an updated, slightly vaguer 'minimum viable' long term plan budget. It takes into account that navy costs are unknown, that this vote is covering the marksmanship training and that C_Z is likely right that more training/education is likely not strictly necessary for the plan itself.

There is certainly more I want and I'm sure others do too but if people agree with this lineup as a minimum, we can see how it fits into the calendar.

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge

Dessard said:

• • 3-4 points? - expand the 1st Regiment from 1 to 2 infantry battalions

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To dig a bit more into this, I wonder if we can jump to a standard force org modelled after the 2nd Regiment? Right now there's no battalion-level org in the 1st Regiment (it's just 3 infantry companies without the artillery or support company) and the 3rd Regiment only has two battalions to the 3rd's three. It'd be a significant increase in the size of the army on paper, and the units would be under-strength for quite a few years until recruitment and training catch up, but a standard org structure would simplify deployment and the addition of new equipment (e.g., how may mortars do we need to license).

Edit: this'd also tie into the focus on artillery and supporting arms since, at the moment, the 1st Regiment doesn't have any guns heavier than our MMGs. If we're doing something like giving each battalion a half-dozen 81 mm mortars (for example), then we'd need to create an appropriate number of artillery companies for the 1st Regiment.

C_Z said:

To dig a bit more into this, I wonder if we can jump to a standard force org modelled after the 2nd Regiment? Right now there's no battalion-level org in the 1st Regiment (it's just 3 infantry companies without the artillery or support company) and the 3rd Regiment only has two battalions to the 3rd's three. It'd be a significant increase in the size of the army on paper, and the units would be under-strength for quite a few years until recruitment and training catch up, but a standard org structure would simplify deployment and the addition of new equipment (e.g., how may mortars do we need to license).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think that could be a good option, but it gets into broader questions of the army and mobilization scheme we want. The idea of just one extra battalion and regularizing the 1st was to basically prime the pump on army expansion and let us make the next long-term plan with some IC and OOC experience. It's not that likely to cause unexpected problems (except maybe from the "1st Regiment should be a special Royal Guard" position which we may as well resolve early), and pretty much any broader program would involve doing it anyway.

That said, expansion is definitely something to do at the end of the plan when we are getting more officers, so if we want to meet the "modest expansion" target another way, there's plenty of time to figure out how/prepare for it. I'm skeptical of jumping right into a 50% expansion though.

Edit: It'd definitely be good to make that line vaguer in the minimum program though, since it hasn't been really discussed.

Dessard said:

I think that could be a good option, but it gets into broader questions of the army and mobilization scheme we want. The idea of just one extra battalion and regularizing the 1st was to basically prime the pump on army expansion and let us make the next long-term plan with some IC and OOC experience. It's not that likely to cause unexpected problems (except maybe from the "1st Regiment should be a special Royal Guard" position which we may as well resolve early), and pretty much any broader program would involve doing it anyway.

That said, expansion is definitely something to do at the end of the plan when we are getting more officers, so if we want to meet the "modest expansion" target another way, there's plenty of time to figure out how/prepare for it. I'm skeptical of jumping right into a 50% expansion though.

Edit: It'd definitely be good to make that line vaguer in the minimum program though, since it hasn't been really discussed.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, a big expansion isn't great, but it's worth noting that the 1st Regiment doesn't have a battalion-level organization at all according to this. If we want to bring it into line, we should define a standard battalion structure and apply it to the entire army. I think that this 3-year plan should cover procurement of at least most of the weapons we'd be needing for the battalion level (81 mm mortars or equivalent, 13.2 mm AA/AT, etc.), so now's also a good time to do a reorganization/expansion. We could have one regiment with a single battalion, one with three, and one with two for now.

Quick question, would it be a good idea to take a page of out of the Reichswehr's play book if we are planning to expand our army soonish?

The Reichswehr and in turn, the Wehrmacht were quickly able to expand in the 30s due to the fact that a good chunk of the 100,000 men allowed by the Versailles were trained as NCO's and NCO's and officers were both given training for two ranks above them.
Though for us, it'd require to retrain large chunks of our existing army but on the bright side, we'd have plenty of already trained officers when making new divisions.

Though I guess this would only be helpful if we are planning on massively expanding the army, like maybe tripling it's current size if not more?

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.

Not really wanting to much japanese influence, so this is a vote for normal marksmanship training.

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.

That's unfortunately not an option, as this vote is only for a 6-month option and training will take 12 without them.

DegenWeeb said:

Quick question, would it be a good idea to take a page of out of the Reichswehr's play book if we are planning to expand our army soonish?

The Reichswehr and in turn, the Wehrmacht were quickly able to expand in the 30s due to the fact that a good chunk of the 100,000 men allowed by the Versailles were trained as NCO's and NCO's and officers were both given training for two ranks above them.
Though for us, it'd require to retrain large chunks of our existing army but on the bright side, we'd have plenty of already trained officers when making new divisions.

Though I guess this would only be helpful if we are planning on massively expanding the army, like maybe tripling it's current size if not more?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Something like that could be an interesting option if we intend to use our current army as a nucleus for mass mobilization in times of war. I'm not sure if we're limited by manpower or materiel/training, though, so if we're able to have a larger peacetime army (in terms of manpower) than we can arm or train, then it's a moot point; we can't expand rapidly anyways.

Dessard said:

• Army Reform (11)
  • 1 point - the second half of Foreign Ideas
  • 4 points - Officer Academy
  • 0 points - Marksmanship Training
  • 2 points - Artillery Training (Japanese Help)
  • 4 points - Chaco War observers
• Ordnance (8-12)
  • 2-4 points - AA, likely more 13.2mm MGs.
  • 4 points - AT of some sort
  • 2-4 points - Light Artillery of some sort
• Expansion (7-8)
  • 4 points - Enlarge the Officers Corps
  • 3-4 points? - expand the 1st Regiment from 1 to 2 infantry battalions
• Navy (0-3)
  • 0-3 points? - Get the Kutulo up and running

26-34 points

OK, here's an updated, slightly vaguer 'minimum viable' long term plan budget. It takes into account that navy costs are unknown, that this vote is covering the marksmanship training and that C_Z is likely right that more training/education is likely not strictly necessary for the plan itself.

There is certainly more I want and I'm sure others do too but if people agree with this lineup as a minimum, we can see how it fits into the calendar.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I've taken a look at the calendar given this minimum program, and we have a good amount of flexibility. The pacing item is really the Officer Academy -Enlarge the Officers Corps - Expansion track: the time we can complete the plan in depends on how much we're willing to let those overlap. There is some appeal to trying to complete the long-term plan in less than three years, because it'd probably make the government happy and let each of our plans be more focused, but it'd also mean overlaps which could make some actions run less smoothly (probably better to have the Academy as ready as possible before expanding the officer corps, etc)

Here's a possible timeline which assumes a one-turn overlap on each of those actions. It leaves 11 points not earmarked and would most likely complete the plan in three years or maybe 2 years 9 months. Something like it seems best to me as it doesn't take too long and leaves us plenty of flexibility for deeper or broader investment or to deal with any issues as they come up.

One-turn overlap plan said:

1933	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance
	Rangers	Navy	Navy	Navy?
	Navy	Chaco	Chaco	Chaco
	Foreign Ideas	Foreign Ideas	Officer Academy	Officer Academy
1934	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance
	???	???	???	???
	Chaco	Officer Training	Officer Training	Officer Training
	Officer Academy	Officer Academy	???	???
1935	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance
	???	???	???	???
	Officer Training	Artillery Training	Artillery Training	???
	Expansion	Expansion	Expansion	Expansion?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Here's another possible timeline showing that we could likely complete the plan goals in two and a half years, maybe less - certainly less if we were willing to flex on the schedule for Chaco War observation. I don't necessarily recommend it because we'd be making sacrifices to ensure a tight timeline which might be thrown off by any issues. Having less to debate as we go might also be less fun. But speeding up the long-term plan tempo and making each plan more focused wouldn't be a bad thing if it worked out.

Two-turn overlap plan said:

6-month overlap
1933	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance
	Rangers	Navy	Navy	Navy?
	Navy	Chaco	Chaco	Chaco
	Foreign Ideas	Foreign Ideas	Officer Academy	Officer Academy
1934	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance	Ordnance
	Officer Training	Officer Training	Officer Training	Officer Training
	Chaco	Artillery Training	Artillery Training	???
	Officer Academy	Officer Academy	Expansion	Expansion
1935	Q1	Q2
	Ordnance	Ordnance
	Ordnance	Ordnance
	???	???
	Expansion	Expansion?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

[X] Marksmanship Training - With an average of twenty rounds per man per year, marksmanship is of very poor quality. Regular range training will begin to improve this, not only for the infantry but for the cavalry and artillery too.
-[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJN institutional knowledge