East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Alt. History
Should we do a write in to go over the soldiers uniforms and find out what parts of their complaints have merits and what's just griping? Having any flaws in our uniforms fixed before we start expanding is going to save money in the long run.
- Location
- Somewhere in the stacks
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Maybe, but every army has soldiers bitching and moaning about their gear for its perceived and real deficiencies and chasing after fixing all of them will, at this point, be a waste of time and money. Especially since we just introduced a standardized uniform.
EDIT: though it might be worthwhile to look at allowing use of reinforced sandals or lighter canvas and rubber boots instead of leather.
Last edited:
Question: would the first conscription cadre be recruited at the start of this project, or at the end of it?
- Location
- Yes
At the end
I don't think we need to worry too much about Japan from only two training actions (our current rifle training and probably a future naval training), but I do think there are some things we do need to be wary of in general:
- Japanese training was not exceptionally effective, both in it being needlessly and extremely brutal and in that the end result wasn't always superior to other options when assessed on things other than the ability to unquestioningly follow orders exactly to the letter
- Japan could use cooperation in some areas as a toehold for more imperialism (in the same way that other colonial powers would - a British naval base, for example, would probably see attempts at undermining Reewiin's sovereignity through economic pressure just like the Japanese would do with riots, and both are really bad for us)
- Patterning our military culture too much off of Japan's could lead to elements of fascist/ultranationalist/whatever Japan's current deal is culture bleeding through, and we should be aware of that eventually happening if we rely too much on them
Are the gripes serious issues, or just griping? If they're not wearing it anyways because of serious concerns like heatstroke (iirc the pants being too warm was an issue), then it may be worth making changes so that we're not producing wasted equipment. @FrangibleCover, what does the army advisor think? Are they serious problems that actually prevent use, or just repeats of the pigskin thing?
I can't believe that so many of fellow thread participants seem to think that getting the Japanese involved in our infantry and officer schools are such a bad idea. The Japanese clearly know what they are doing, they have secured yet another victory against the Chinese recently and would have perfect insight on the next war. Not to mention the Japanese have yet to lose since they've unified as a country.
They have won even against an European great power (Russia) and as such considering that our opponents are going to be either Italy or the UK, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we do not get the Japanese to help us shape our future army.
The possibility of our army inheriting the qualities of the IJN is a good thing, our people shall fight on till the bitter end then.
Our army potentially coupling us? No way, Japan is a democratic country and each time that a coup attempt has occured, it has been defeated by loyal elements of it's army.
In conclusion, we should get Japanese support when establishing our officers and infantry schools, I see nothing wrong that could happen as a result of this action.
Though joking aside, could we potentially get a great power like the UK to help us out? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have some influence (even if weak) in our nation?
They have won even against an European great power (Russia) and as such considering that our opponents are going to be either Italy or the UK, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we do not get the Japanese to help us shape our future army.
The possibility of our army inheriting the qualities of the IJN is a good thing, our people shall fight on till the bitter end then.
Our army potentially coupling us? No way, Japan is a democratic country and each time that a coup attempt has occured, it has been defeated by loyal elements of it's army.
In conclusion, we should get Japanese support when establishing our officers and infantry schools, I see nothing wrong that could happen as a result of this action.
Though joking aside, could we potentially get a great power like the UK to help us out? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they have some influence (even if weak) in our nation?
I can see them helping us if we switch sides to them if/when Japan declares war on the British Empire because of the whole "Southern Resource Area" thing that requires them to go through British Malaya. Although a concern would be the optics of such a move and the fact that I am sure the people in the state has a more favorable opinion of Japan than any of the neighboring states.
Hmm. We should start conscription before the Officer Academy and Infantry School is finished then, preferably when they got 6 months left so that the first conscripts arrive as theyre finished. And also so we can come closer to achieving the government demands.
Going to get involved in WW2 one way or the other, since both sides will be looking at us and seeing a functional military of some kind that will either be a help or a active hindrance.
- Location
- Buskerud, Norway
The main issue with going for a japanese influenced officer corps is that interwar japanese officers are renowned for their political terrorism and murder of politicians opposing their interests
Agreed, just more saying that for multiple reasons for both sides they're going to push to get involved in their side, like Britain is sure is after the Europe expedition gets destroyed not having anything to deal with Japan taking there stuff in Asia, for Japan they need all the resources they can get us being one of those few places were they don't have to actively Garrison and terrorize to get them.
I mean taking to the rural area's like the Taliban did to the American seems not too bad, point is to make warfare too costly to consider. Regardless officer corps are king, and Italy and Britian are our n1 priority foreign policywise their actions will dictate what conflicts spring up in the region(though we should perhaps try and soothe relations with the Ethiopian). We don't want Japan to have too much leverage we may have to throw them under the bus during WW2 to save us from getting hosed by the British.
Did the Swiss keep neutrality during WWII or not?
Short answer: Yes. The Swiss were neutral and generally speaking maintained that position, meaning that they did not declare war or offer military...
old.reddit.com
- Pronouns
- They/Them
The problem with going to the British for help with officer training is that they see us as a puppet of a rival power and so helping us will just bolster Japan and on the other hand the Japanese aren't going to like any sort of British influence on our army. However it is possible that the Foreign adventurers mentioned in the last update might be able to help us with our training schools since it was said many of them had a military background.
[ ] Establish an Infantry School - Our riflemen are currently trained in an ad-hoc fashion. The establishment of a proper School would allow us to drill our soldiers in more advanced tactics and provide a single baseline for all of our forces, so that officers can more easily assume command of troops they have not trained with. (12-Month Investment.)
[ ] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJA institutional knowledge. (Reduces to 6-Month Investment.)
[ ] Ask to de-emphasise aggression, discipline and bayonet training somewhat, as our troops are not ready for such rigors.
Would this be an acceptable write in? I notice that ir doesnt explicitly have a write in option but figured that it was because we can't choose anyone except the japanese rather than we can't make some reasonable requests.
[ ] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJA institutional knowledge. (Reduces to 6-Month Investment.)
[ ] Ask to de-emphasise aggression, discipline and bayonet training somewhat, as our troops are not ready for such rigors.
Would this be an acceptable write in? I notice that ir doesnt explicitly have a write in option but figured that it was because we can't choose anyone except the japanese rather than we can't make some reasonable requests.
- Location
- The Netherlands
If we want to comply with the foreign policy faction (and not make our job harder than it needs to be) we need:
-[ ] Institute conscription
-[ ] Increase recruitment and split up current formations as cadres for the new recruits
We could do these right now however, that might result in the new training regime/actions needing more time to sink in the army.
We could also do:
[ ] Establish an Officer Academy
[ ] Manoeuvre Training
Manoeuvre training and Marksmanship Training should be done at the same time (two turns from now).
At that point we could take conscription and recruitment. This makes sure basic training for the army is in and we complete the officer academy before the army enlargement is done.
It might not be optimal but i would rather not get some penalty from the government.
Also should
Not be 9-Month remain at this point in stead of 12
-[ ] Institute conscription
-[ ] Increase recruitment and split up current formations as cadres for the new recruits
We could do these right now however, that might result in the new training regime/actions needing more time to sink in the army.
We could also do:
[ ] Establish an Officer Academy
[ ] Manoeuvre Training
Manoeuvre training and Marksmanship Training should be done at the same time (two turns from now).
At that point we could take conscription and recruitment. This makes sure basic training for the army is in and we complete the officer academy before the army enlargement is done.
It might not be optimal but i would rather not get some penalty from the government.
Also should
[X] Construct a naval base - Currently the RMCF is based out of the commercial port facilities at Kismayo, but this state of affairs is not acceptable in the long run. We have little secure storage for arms and ammunition, we don't have proper facilities for the effective routine maintenance of our ships, and the port fees are shocking. If we established a proper naval base, all of these problems would go away, although drydock facilities would still be provided by the private sector. (12-Month Investment.) ☑◻◻◻
Last edited:
Anyhow, I'll make my case for why we should do Officer Academy, 12 month and Infantry School, 6 month with the help of our friends in the IJA.
Firstly, while there's certainly aspects of Japanese infantry training thats gonna age quite poorly, there's plenty of other parts that work very well. Aggression is good for infantry, actually, and their focus on camouflage and infiltration is gonna serve us very well. In addition they are, quite frankly, leagues above us when it comes to institutional experience in training infantry, in which weve barely been dipping our toes into.
Second, most, if not all of the fault for immense casualties as a result overaggressive attacks will fall on the officer ordering said attack, not the infantryman carrying it out. Mass bayonet charges don't spontaneously happen as a rule. If we take unnecessarily large losses it is very unlikely it will be the fault of our infantry training being 'too aggressive'.
Third, I would not be overly afraid of the more extreme aspects of Japanese training, because chances are they simply wont be implemented or will be watered down significantly. The Japanese advisors are unlikely to think our troops have the same level of zeal as they expect of their own, and if they for some reason do we'll find out that it doesnt work really quickly anyways. This is a joint project, we get to have a say in things and ultimately if they insist on implementing something we think is bad we can simply change it after the project is finished.
Now that we've gotten the reasons for why Japanese help here would actually be quite helpful and not introduce too many negatives, lets go over why we might need to do it. Simply put, if we take both options at 12 months our first batch of conscripts will be recruited 18 months from now, which is pretty much straight before the deadline for when the government wanted their expanded army.
Now, this does not seem too bad but consider that we wont recruit our full conscript force in one go. Rather, we should instead recruit them in 6-month intervals as to lessen the strain on our training infrastructure. Assuming 2 year service terms (which I strongly prefer over 1 year or even 18 months) we'd only have recruited 1/4th of the conscripts needed for our new model army. In short, theres even more spoolup involved. In addition I think its genuinely very poor form to start recruitment that late up to the deadline.
Starting conscription 6 months earlier would allow us to fet another recruitment cycle in while also giving us time to sort out the kinks in our conscription system before the government reviews the progress weve made on the army expansion demand. While a 2 year service would likely still see us fall under the demand, it would be by significantly less and have a closer timeline for when we'll actually fill out our OoB and in general likely be a lot less irritating for the government.
Firstly, while there's certainly aspects of Japanese infantry training thats gonna age quite poorly, there's plenty of other parts that work very well. Aggression is good for infantry, actually, and their focus on camouflage and infiltration is gonna serve us very well. In addition they are, quite frankly, leagues above us when it comes to institutional experience in training infantry, in which weve barely been dipping our toes into.
Second, most, if not all of the fault for immense casualties as a result overaggressive attacks will fall on the officer ordering said attack, not the infantryman carrying it out. Mass bayonet charges don't spontaneously happen as a rule. If we take unnecessarily large losses it is very unlikely it will be the fault of our infantry training being 'too aggressive'.
Third, I would not be overly afraid of the more extreme aspects of Japanese training, because chances are they simply wont be implemented or will be watered down significantly. The Japanese advisors are unlikely to think our troops have the same level of zeal as they expect of their own, and if they for some reason do we'll find out that it doesnt work really quickly anyways. This is a joint project, we get to have a say in things and ultimately if they insist on implementing something we think is bad we can simply change it after the project is finished.
Now that we've gotten the reasons for why Japanese help here would actually be quite helpful and not introduce too many negatives, lets go over why we might need to do it. Simply put, if we take both options at 12 months our first batch of conscripts will be recruited 18 months from now, which is pretty much straight before the deadline for when the government wanted their expanded army.
Now, this does not seem too bad but consider that we wont recruit our full conscript force in one go. Rather, we should instead recruit them in 6-month intervals as to lessen the strain on our training infrastructure. Assuming 2 year service terms (which I strongly prefer over 1 year or even 18 months) we'd only have recruited 1/4th of the conscripts needed for our new model army. In short, theres even more spoolup involved. In addition I think its genuinely very poor form to start recruitment that late up to the deadline.
Starting conscription 6 months earlier would allow us to fet another recruitment cycle in while also giving us time to sort out the kinks in our conscription system before the government reviews the progress weve made on the army expansion demand. While a 2 year service would likely still see us fall under the demand, it would be by significantly less and have a closer timeline for when we'll actually fill out our OoB and in general likely be a lot less irritating for the government.
Last edited:
So, as a hypothetical for those learnt in infantry tactics, what are the pros/cons of Japanese infantry training? If we were to ask for Japanese help with infantry training (I am STRONGLY against them helping set up an officer school, in comparison), what would the end result look like? What would we want to try and change?
From some reading of US WWII manuals, this is what I gleaned, but I know very little about infantry tactics and may be way off (what do you mean wars aren't just "who has the best system of production"?):
From some reading of US WWII manuals, this is what I gleaned, but I know very little about infantry tactics and may be way off (what do you mean wars aren't just "who has the best system of production"?):
- Japanese training involves lots of beating of the recruits (which is bad)
- Japanese training emphasized physical fitness, producing soldiers capable of standing up to intense exertion
- Efforts were made to make field exercises realistic compared to other countries'
- All infantry were taught sniping and scouting, but in general were apparently poor marksmen (??)
- Japanese training placed emphasis on, and produced soldiers good at, night actions
- There's a big emphasis on teamwork within units
- Japanese infantry were good at camouflage
- Japanese infantry were expected to take significant losses while following orders to the letter
- Japanese attacks often behaved rigidly and lacked low-level initiative and inventiveness
- Tactics for the most part revolved around maneuvering to rapidly close with the enemy so that the superior fighting spirit and bayonet charges would do the work; attacks were to be continued until the enemy was annihilated.
- Attack was considered far superior to defending, to the point of rashness; defence was just a temporary pause before a counterattack
- They liked performing envelopments whenever possible, resorting to frontal attacks if the opposition might be digging in
- Attacks were often made with questionable levels of numerical superiority
- When attacking a fixed position, the Japanese attempt to flank, often by travelling through assumed impassable terrain
- Reconnaissance is thorough
- Japanese mortar fire is supposedly good, but overall Japanese artillery is poor
- Japanese defensive tactics were conventional; they were skilled at preparing defensive positions
- In jungle terrain, they used infiltration tactics
Last edited:
I cant speak with authority for how correct it is but its probably mostly correct and is presumably based on real experience facing them. I would make some notes though:
The US generally over-estimated the effectiveness of long range rifle fire in this period; under combat conditions accuracy always drops like a brick. It seems likely they're being overly harsh on the japanese troops fighting against US fire superiority.
Low level initiative is generally something that falls under small team leaders, mainly squad leaders and platoon commanders, not the rifleman.
Poorly thought out attacks are not the fault of the infantryman, or even junior officers, but usually higher level officers that order them and mid-level officers directing the attacks.
The US generally over-estimated the effectiveness of long range rifle fire in this period; under combat conditions accuracy always drops like a brick. It seems likely they're being overly harsh on the japanese troops fighting against US fire superiority.
Low level initiative is generally something that falls under small team leaders, mainly squad leaders and platoon commanders, not the rifleman.
Poorly thought out attacks are not the fault of the infantryman, or even junior officers, but usually higher level officers that order them and mid-level officers directing the attacks.
Last edited:
This was specifically in the context of snipers ("Japanese snipers don't shoot moving targets or open fire outside of 50 m" or something), but that may just be bad data from a period publication.
While low level initative is something that falls under team leaders for the most part, a rigid culture of conformity and following orders for our enlisted soldiers will stick with them, and I think recruiting from our conscripts is probably the best way to get NCOs and the like?
It's less "poorly thought out" and more "the Japanese believe they can win against terrible odds through superior discipline/martial spirit/elan". Admittedly I mostly added it there for completeness, I don't think it affects the tactics taught to the infantry.
- Location
- Yes
@Artificial Girl is right, as she often is: Despite significant initial resistance, the uniform is now recognised as fairly practical, smart and hard-wearing. People just don't like change, and soldiers being issued new uniforms are awful for it.
That would be acceptable, you can always ask. The Japanese instructors are likely to be used to their methods of instruction though, you're not going to make them entirely different in their teaching.
[ ] Prepare to refit the Kutulo - A temporary committee will be formed to investigate options for the refit of RRCS Kutulo, which could be a deep refit to modernise her into an acceptable cruiser for the 30s and 40s, or could be a shallow refit to rapidly improve her reliability and suitability for purpose. (3-Month Investment.)
Honestly even with a deep refit its doubtful that the Kutulo would ever be an "acceptable cruiser" just refit it into a troop transport and be done with it.
Honestly even with a deep refit its doubtful that the Kutulo would ever be an "acceptable cruiser" just refit it into a troop transport and be done with it.
Okay, that's good to hear. I was worried we'd somehow messed it up badly based on the initial reports.
That said, even ignoring the griping aspect, it might be a good idea to keep an ear out for possible uniform improvements (or just ways to make our uniform visibly more unique and reflective of Reewiin's culture), and lump them into a revised uniform that replaces the older version as it gets worn out when we can spare a point to do so in a few years. Good to know it's not incredibly urgent, and thanks for the rapid reply.
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Training Infrastructure
-[X] Establish an Officer Academy - Our officers are currently trained in an ad-hoc fashion. The establishment of a proper Academy would allow us to educate more officers, and provide a centre for spreading doctrinal advances across the military by running a series of advanced courses and bringing able officers back as instructors. (12-Month Investment.)
-[X] Establish an Infantry School - Our riflemen are currently trained in an ad-hoc fashion. The establishment of a proper School would allow us to drill our soldiers in more advanced tactics and provide a single baseline for all of our forces, so that officers can more easily assume command of troops they have not trained with. (12-Month Investment.)
--[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJA institutional knowledge. (Reduces to 6-Month Investment.)
--[X] Ask to de-emphasise aggression, discipline and bayonet training somewhat, as our troops are not ready for such rigors.
We should probably get to voting sooner rather than later.
-[X] Establish an Officer Academy - Our officers are currently trained in an ad-hoc fashion. The establishment of a proper Academy would allow us to educate more officers, and provide a centre for spreading doctrinal advances across the military by running a series of advanced courses and bringing able officers back as instructors. (12-Month Investment.)
-[X] Establish an Infantry School - Our riflemen are currently trained in an ad-hoc fashion. The establishment of a proper School would allow us to drill our soldiers in more advanced tactics and provide a single baseline for all of our forces, so that officers can more easily assume command of troops they have not trained with. (12-Month Investment.)
--[X] Optional: Request Japanese support for this program, improving impacts and benefiting from IJA institutional knowledge. (Reduces to 6-Month Investment.)
--[X] Ask to de-emphasise aggression, discipline and bayonet training somewhat, as our troops are not ready for such rigors.
We should probably get to voting sooner rather than later.
LuxemburgLover69
There are more things between Heaven and Earth...
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Plan: Training Infrastructure
This looks good
This looks good