Remove ads

East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Reader mode
Given the good point that we can't just expect to buy more Arisakas, the rifle supply is definitely something to be concerned about. I don't know how much we can expect to expand production without hitting the limits of the arms industry (Type 3, LMG, Type 38) but we can probably at least double it. But even if we tripled production by the end of 1933, to ~3000 pieces per year, we'd still have "assorted firearms" in active service for a few years and first-line reserve units with that or nothing for longer.

Current 6.5mm Arisaka rifles (both Type 30 and 38): ~18,000
Production assumption: ramping up to 3000 rifles/year by the end of 1933
Force assumption: That we ramp up from ~15,000 rifle users to ~28,000 over the course of two years, from mid 1934 to mid 1936 (due to conscript training times. Note, this is still a lot slower than the government wants). ~6,500 rifle users per year

End of 1934: 21,000 rifles, ~18,250 riflemen
End of 1935: 24,000 rifles, ~24,750 riflemen
Mid-1936: 25,500 rifles, ~28,000 riflemen

Then, critically, assuming two-year conscription and that most of the riflemen are conscripts, and that we want at least the first two classes of conscripts fully ready mobilizable, we'll need another couple tens of thousands of rifles for them in the two years following.

Mid-1937: 31,500 rifles, ~56,000 riflemen
And those are based on optimistic estimates that we don't expand the force faster or larger or want rifles on hand for more than two years of reservists, although production could likely be ramped up further after the current planning period. We should probably plan on buying at least 20,000 rifles off the shelf sometime in the next few years.

Given the previous report on rifles, it looks like the Enfield P17 or the SMLE would probably be the best options, and between them we may be more likely to get the American P17. While it would add the 30.06 round to the logistics burden, it's a round used in various MMGs/HMGs and the Carabineri and potentially marksmen have a use case for bigger guns.

Turn 3 Update said:
Reports on Rifle Tests 1930
The rifle group acquired eighteen models of rifle considered potentially suitable as military weapons:
  • FN mle. 24, 7 mm
  • FN mle. 24, 7.65 mm
  • ZB vz.24, 7.92 mm
  • Mannlicher M.95, 6.5 mm
  • Mannlicher-Schönauer, 6.5 mm
  • Arisaka Type 38, 6.5 mm
  • ZH-29, 7.92 mm
  • Vickers-Armstrong-Pedersen, 7 mm
  • Bang M1927, 6.5 mm
  • Bang M1927, 7.92 mm
  • FN Browning fusil automatique, 7.65 mm
  • Thompson Military Model, 11.43 mm
  • Carcano mod.1891, 6.5 mm
  • Enfield P17
  • Ross Mk.III, 7.7 mm
  • Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield Mk.III, 7.7 mm
  • Lebel Mle.1886 M93, 8 mm
  • Mannlicher M.95/30, 8 mm
For comparison, the following rifle already in service with the Army was included in the tests:
  • Arisaka Type 30, 6.5 mm
The rifles were tested for accuracy, hardiness, and general suitability. The panel was formed from members of the Rifle Group and marksmen seconded to the group by the Army. Testing included both precision and close-range shooting, as well as dirt and wear assessments. As such, the Rifle Group has reached a consensus and is able to recommend the following weapons as acceptable:
  • FN mle.24
  • ZB vz.24
  • Arisaka Type 38 (with 1907 Type 38 Arisaka spitzer cartridge)
  • Enfield P17
These rifles are all distinguished by high quality, acceptable rates of fire at short range, and the ability to engage enemy forces accurately at long ranges. They all offer a 20-25% increase in point-blank range against man-sized targets over the current Type 30 rifle, and are also proven and affordable.

After significant deliberation, the Rifle Group has decided to recommend the Defence Council place orders for the Arisaka Type 38 and stocks of the improved Type 38 Arisaka spitzer round. While it does not offer the greatest possible increase in engagement ranges, it is the lightest of them, the most robust against dust, and requires no to minimal training for troops already familiar with the Type 30.

A dissenting minority wishes to instead recommend the Enfield P17 on the basis that it may be possible to acquire it for a significantly lower cost than new Type 38 rifles.

The Rifle Group tested a number of self-loading rifles as part of the review. None were considered acceptable for Reewiin's needs, but it is worth mentioning two nonetheless:
  • FN Browning fusil automatique: This was the only self-loading weapon to meet the standards of accuracy and long-range fire set by the Rifle Group. It achieved similar results to the FN mle.24, with which it shares ammunition. However, it is technically complicated and excessively heavy at 7.2kg unloaded. It is also significantly more expensive to acquire than an equivalent factory-fresh bolt-action rifle. It is capable of sustained fire like a machine gun with acceptable accuracy at long ranges.
  • ZH-29: This weapon was unable to match the accuracy of the Type 30 Arisaka. It is mechanically complicated, and while lighter than the FN Browning, it is still heavy at 5.3kg. While less expensive than the Browning, it is still significantly more costly than non-self-loading rifles.
The following summarises the Rifle Group's principal objections to those rifles not already mentioned:
Mannlicher M.95: No notable increase in capability compared to the Type 30.
Mannlicher-Schönauer: No notable increase in capability compared to the Type 30.
Vickers-Armstrong-Pedersen: This was the lightest self-loader but suffered numerous mechanical failures, especially when exposed to dust.
Bang M1927: Mechanically unreliable and inaccurate. Scorch marks were found inside the 7.92 mm calibre variant after firing. The 6.5 mm calibre variant offered no advantages in range compared to the Type 30.
Thompson Military Model: Heavy, expensive, somewhat unreliable, and severely lacking in range.
Carcano mod.1891: No notable increase in capability compared to the Type 30.
Ross Mk.III: Accurate but mechanically unreliable.
Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield Mk.III: Cheap, and its 7.7 mm calibre is manufactured by our Japanese allies. Dropped from consideration as the Mauser-type rifles had better accuracy.
Lebel Mle.1886 M93: Met accuracy and range standards, but it was dropped from consideration as it could not be rapidly loaded with any kind of clip or detachable magazine.
Mannlicher M.95/30: Generally favourable comments, but it was dropped from consideration as the Mauser-type rifles had better accuracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Although, having written this based on assumptions, I once again remember that we have advisors for this: How much do the arms industry advisors think Type 38 production could be scaled up in the short term? @FrangibleCover
 
Last edited:
FrangibleCover said:
Adhoc vote count started by Lonosic on Feb 22, 2024 at 2:23 AM, finished with 140 posts and 18 votes.
  • [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.
Click to expand...


Pretty decisive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you sure? I feel like that vote could have gone either way.
 
Dessard said:
Given the good point that we can't just expect to buy more Arisakas, the rifle supply is definitely something to be concerned about. I don't know how much we can expect to expand production without hitting the limits of the arms industry (Type 3, LMG, Type 38) but we can probably at least double it. But even if we tripled production by the end of 1933, to ~3000 pieces per year, we'd still have "assorted firearms" in active service for a few years and first-line reserve units with that or nothing for longer.

Current 6.5mm Arisaka rifles (both Type 30 and 38): ~18,000
Production assumption: ramping up to 3000 rifles/year by the end of 1933
Force assumption: That we ramp up from ~15,000 rifle users to ~28,000 over the course of two years, from mid 1934 to mid 1936 (due to conscript training times. Note, this is still a lot slower than the government wants). ~6,500 rifle users per year

End of 1934: 21,000 rifles, ~18,250 riflemen
End of 1935: 24,000 rifles, ~24,750 riflemen
Mid-1935: 25,500 rifles, ~28,000 riflemen

Then, critically, assuming two-year conscription and that most of the riflemen are conscripts, and that we want at least the first two classes of conscripts fully ready mobilizable, we'll need another couple tens of thousands of rifles for them in the two years following.

Mid-1937: 31,500 rifles, ~56,000 riflemen
And those are based on optimistic estimates that we don't expand the force faster or larger or want rifles on hand for more than two years of reservists, although production could likely be ramped up further after the current planning period. We should probably plan on buying at least 20,000 rifles off the shelf sometime in the next few years.

Given the previous report on rifles, it looks like the Enfield P17 or the SMLE would probably be the best options, and between them we may be more likely to get the American P17. While it would add the 30.06 round to the logistics burden, it's a round used in various MMGs/HMGs and the Carabineri and potentially marksmen have a use case for bigger guns.




Although, having written this based on assumptions, I once again remember that we have advisors for this: How much do the arms industry advisors think Type 38 production could be scaled up in the short term? @FrangibleCover
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My gut feel is adopting a new rifle would be more of a headache than it's worth.
There is an action we can take to increase funding towards rifle production, which could go some ways towards improving things. As well, we could try and simplify production of the Type 38 a bit. We could take a look at the production process and figure out which steps are taking a lot of time but don't add much to the effectiveness of the gun - for example, if we're turning down barrels, does it really matter if the outside of the barrel is smoothed down so that it doesn't have tool marks as long as it works the exact same? Is there a complex milling operation being done where a simpler one could do the same job? I think now's the time to make changes if we want to do that, because we've gotten enough experience to know what can be changed but haven't yet built the tooling for expanded production.
 
For heavier weapons I would propose a group of four-six heavy/medium mortars and a pair of infantry guns for direct fire support at the regimental level (or battalion level, depending) with each brigade getting a battery of pack howitzers.

I think organization wise we should aim at:

3x Rifle Brigades, broken down as:

Rifle Brigade
-HQ Units/Supporting Arms (logistics, support, comms, etc.)
-Brigade artillery battalion (3x4 Batteries of howitzers / artillery)
-3x Rifle Regiments
--Regimental HQ
--Regimental Trains/Logistics/Communications
--Regimental Artillery (4xPack Howitzers)
--3xRifle Battalions
---Battalion HQ
---Battalion Comms/Signals/Medical
---Gun Company (2x70mm guns, 4-6x81mm mortars)
---AT/AA Company (4x13.2mm Hotchkiss)
---3xRifle Companies
----Company HQ
----Heavy Weapons Platoon (2xHMG, 2xATR?)
----3xRifle Platoons
-----Platoon HQ
-----3xRifle Squad (w/ LMG)
-----1xGrenadier Squad (3xGrenade Dischargers)

And as we get more diversified AT and AA weapons we can probably push the AA up to regimental and leave a dedicated AT company down at battalion, depending. Each "brigade" sort of ends up being a small division with about 10k men, for a total of around 30k active that can be organized under Army HQ.

We may also want to establish at army level a cavalry regiment (or piece out a cavalry battalion to each of the brigades).

Could also throw in some heavy mortars at regimental.
 
Last edited:
Dessard said:
Although, having written this based on assumptions, I once again remember that we have advisors for this: How much do the arms industry advisors think Type 38 production could be scaled up in the short term? @FrangibleCover
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's quite a violent disagreement between the union man and the industrialist over this point. Without slowing work on the vz.30s or the Type 3, the possible increase is somewhere between absolutely nothing and another half a rifle per day. Slowing work on the vz.30 would produce another rifle per day for a half vz.30 per day loss. Cancelling the Type 3 would probably permit another two or three rifles per day given that some of our best machinists are on that project. It's simply a matter of trained manpower, Reewiin has very few men capable of doing this sort of work and the rapid and ambitious expansion of the arms industry has bottlenecked you.
 
Am I strange for considering the Type 92 as just a "good enough" gun for now? Sure if we put an action into it we could almost certainly find someone willing to sell us a lighter mortar that can at least put a least a light 81mm bomb out to similar ranges, but we've already got a lot of other stuff we want to look at acquiring. The Type 92 can hurl a ~4.5kg shell out a few km, but still isn't long range enough we'd have to worry about overlapping roles with a 75mm field gun and buying two guns for the same job, is something our new Japanese trainers are likely to be more familiar with using, there's probably some neat things we can do with the direct fire, and we already have some in stock.

If we do put the investment points into getting some 81mm mortars though, I'm not sure whether the benefits of keeping just two Type 92s around is worth it. It would be doubling the types of company level artillery our logistics has to keep track of and supply, and we might not get the full benefits of the much lighter and more portable mortars since the company still has to drag around a couple of the 200kg mini howitzers.
 
FrangibleCover said:
There's quite a violent disagreement between the union man and the industrialist over this point. Without slowing work on the vz.30s or the Type 3, the possible increase is somewhere between absolutely nothing and another half a rifle per day. Slowing work on the vz.30 would produce another rifle per day for a half vz.30 per day loss. Cancelling the Type 3 would probably permit another two or three rifles per day given that some of our best machinists are on that project. It's simply a matter of trained manpower, Reewiin has very few men capable of doing this sort of work and the rapid and ambitious expansion of the arms industry has bottlenecked you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What's the stance of the industrialist, and what's the stance of the union man?
How long does it take to train up new machinists? In 2024, I know it's 2-4 years depending on the complexity of work they're doing, but what about in Reewiin? I know we started domestic production of armaments in October 1931; are we expecting to see new skilled workers within the next couple of years or is this going to be a long term issue?

As an aside, and a general question not directed at the union man/industrialist/QMs, could we add night classes for soldiers on being a machinist after they're done their training period and mostly spending their time lounging in the barracks?
7th Hex said:
Am I strange for considering the Type 92 as just a "good enough" gun for now? Sure if we put an action into it we could almost certainly find someone willing to sell us a lighter mortar that can at least put a least a light 81mm bomb out to similar ranges, but we've already got a lot of other stuff we want to look at acquiring. The Type 92 can hurl a ~4.5kg shell out a few km, but still isn't long range enough we'd have to worry about overlapping roles with a 75mm field gun and buying two guns for the same job, is something our new Japanese trainers are likely to be more familiar with using, there's probably some neat things we can do with the direct fire, and we already have some in stock.

If we do put the investment points into getting some 81mm mortars though, I'm not sure whether the benefits of keeping just two Type 92s around is worth it. It would be doubling the types of company level artillery our logistics has to keep track of and supply, and we might not get the full benefits of the much lighter and more portable mortars since the company still has to drag around a couple of the 200kg mini howitzers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd agree that it's a "good enough" gun at present, but if we assume each battalion gets four guns or mortars, and we'd like to expand to around 9 battalions, then we'd need to go from our current 10 guns to almost quadruple that number; even at the current two guns, we're buying another 8 guns plus whatever number of weapons are needed for the infantry school. It's not something we'll need to address just yet (and is only being discussed because, well, no urgent decisions when the current plan wins with THAT much of a margin), but eventually we should decide what weapon we'll be purchasing.

As an aside I did have the absolutely horrific idea of trying to see if a quasi-recoilless rifle firing 81 mm mortar bombs was possible, but I haven't actually gotten around to it. I think it might be - you'd need to weld a breech onto a mortar tube (brb asking the Americans if they have any 3.2" guns left over), but that's not the weirdest thing to ever have been done, and because a mortar behaves as a high-low system when not using additional charges, it should be stable with the extremely low barrel pressures that result from using some of the gases to reduce the recoil. I haven't done the detailed math yet though, so it may not work out.
 
C_Z said:
What's the stance of the industrialist, and what's the stance of the union man?
How long does it take to train up new machinists? In 2024, I know it's 2-4 years depending on the complexity of work they're doing, but what about in Reewiin? I know we started domestic production of armaments in October 1931; are we expecting to see new skilled workers within the next couple of years or is this going to be a long term issue?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Astonishingly, the industrialist thinks that the factory can produce more than it's currently doing and the union man thinks that his members do not need to be working harder for the same pay. Hence the estimates being relatively wooly.

Training new machinists in Reewiin is a bigger deal than in the 2024 Anglosphere - Literacy is low and formal education is next to nothing, so all training is going to have to be done by means of direct instruction and apprenticing. More workers are being trained and you're starting to see the results of that in that you can keep the three projects going at the same time, but it'll be a couple of years more before you can start to add work without making sacrifices. Long term, of course, this is all really good, you're establishing a training system in a very useful skill and you're keeping a lot of government spending in Reewiin, going to citizens.
 
Given the production limitations, it looks like we'll definitely need to buy more rifles. It could be worth moving the Type 3 workers to the Type 38 just to eventually move towards standardizing on one model, but certainly not spending an action on production without doing so. I don't think we want to cut back the LMG staff though, because it'll probably be years until we have enough for the active troops as is.

Although buying surplus rifles will likely get them to us much faster than the ones we got from the Japanese, we should probably plan on buying the ones we do before we need them just in case - possibly in nine months after we complete the action to order our AA/AT MG of choice.

DegenWeeb said:
Couldn't we ask the Americans to rechamber the guns? Itd be more expensive but I'm sure they'd take the offer when they are still getting fucked over by the great depression.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am skeptical of that, given that our bullets are a lot smaller than the originals - they would need new bolts, loading mechanisms and barrels, and possibly sights, plus design work so at that point we wouldn't be saving much time or money over new production.

7th Hex said:
Am I strange for considering the Type 92 as just a "good enough" gun for now? Sure if we put an action into it we could almost certainly find someone willing to sell us a lighter mortar that can at least put a least a light 81mm bomb out to similar ranges, but we've already got a lot of other stuff we want to look at acquiring. The Type 92 can hurl a ~4.5kg shell out a few km, but still isn't long range enough we'd have to worry about overlapping roles with a 75mm field gun and buying two guns for the same job, is something our new Japanese trainers are likely to be more familiar with using, there's probably some neat things we can do with the direct fire, and we already have some in stock.

If we do put the investment points into getting some 81mm mortars though, I'm not sure whether the benefits of keeping just two Type 92s around is worth it. It would be doubling the types of company level artillery our logistics has to keep track of and supply, and we might not get the full benefits of the much lighter and more portable mortars since the company still has to drag around a couple of the 200kg mini howitzers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that makes sense, if we can get the Type 92 at a decent price, but given that Japan seems to have a major demand for guns I'm not sure. We might want to include it in trials along with mortars when we do those trials.
 
Last edited:
I know we're planning on conscription, and there are actions we could take to directly fund further weapons production by just increasing funding, but @FrangibleCover, could we encourage foreign specialist/worker immigration/visas? Something like a large amount of money/paying for family education/moving expenses in exchange for X years of work/training local machinists for X months?
 
DegenWeeb said:
This is a bit of an reach but would it be possible for us to add in mandatory reading and writing classes for our conscripts/regular soldiers? I have a feeling that in an actual war this will greatly hinder us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We should at least make sure it's mandatory for officers and NCOs to become literate if they aren't already. If we can't make it mandatory to teach the rank and file then we should at least try to get some sort of voluntary classes going. Offer some extra leave or a bonus to those who complete it and we'll get somebody to sign up.
 
So we're in a tough spot... I'm disinclined to outright cancel the Type 3 program because there's so much we can learn from it, and having domestic heavy machine gun production is good, but it's definitely the least valuable of the three ongoing programs. I'm sad to see it go, but I'd rather be light on MMGs and have sufficient rifles and LMGs than the alternative. I wonder if putting it on hiatus, with the intent to resume it in a few years, is possible?
WallFly said:
I know we're planning on conscription, and there are actions we could take to directly fund further weapons production by just increasing funding, but @FrangibleCover, could we encourage foreign specialist/worker immigration/visas? Something like a large amount of money/paying for family education/moving expenses in exchange for X years of work/training local machinists for X months?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a good idea if it can work. I know a fair number of US workers went to the Soviet Union during the Great Depression because they had industrial jobs there; I wonder if there are other places where skilled labour would be emigrating from right now and we could grab up?
wabbitking said:
We should at least make sure it's mandatory for officers and NCOs to become literate if they aren't already. If we can't make it mandatory to teach the rank and file then we should at least try to get some sort of voluntary classes going. Offer some extra leave or a bonus to those who complete it and we'll get somebody to sign up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, this would be a good idea. We have a problem with idle soldiers currently, classes could help eat into their time.
 
sxeron10 said:
Hi, new to this thread.

Quick question: Is Reewiin Somalia?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's part of it. Specifically it's the southern part of modern day Somalia. I think a bit of Kenya might be thrown in too.
C_Z said:
This is a good idea if it can work. I know a fair number of US workers went to the Soviet Union during the Great Depression because they had industrial jobs there; I wonder if there are other places where skilled labour would be emigrating from right now and we could grab up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well the Nazis are taking power in Germany right now so we might be able to capitalize on that in the near future. Most of the people leaving Germany would probably prefer to go to a more modern country but beggars can't be choosers. If we put out some sort of eased immigration restrictions for those with the right skills and offer guaranteed paying work we might be able to get someone. We'll probably have to have someone going around Europe actually talking to people though. Most people aren't going to be paying attention to the immigration standards and job opportunities of some random ass African country.
 
Last edited:
sxeron10 said:
Hi, new to this thread.

Quick question: Is Reewiin Somalia?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The map appears to be broken, but in short it's Somali Jubaland plus a big wedge of Kenya out to Lake Turkana. It's not a real country but it's a fairly plausible Somali state, which would have been one among many in the 1800s. Now we have deftly avoided outright colonisation and are left alongside Ethiopia as the only African powers on the continent. And we hate Ethiopia.

To directly answer your question: No. Modern day Somalia is split between British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and now Reewiin.
 
C_Z said:
So we're in a tough spot... I'm disinclined to outright cancel the Type 3 program because there's so much we can learn from it, and having domestic heavy machine gun production is good, but it's definitely the least valuable of the three ongoing programs. I'm sad to see it go, but I'd rather be light on MMGs and have sufficient rifles and LMGs than the alternative. I wonder if putting it on hiatus, with the intent to resume it in a few years, is possible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ignoring the development aspect, the ZB vz. 26 had a tripod available to it so the same should be the case for the vz. 30s we're manufacturing. With an assistant gunner or two plus some people to carry and reload extra magazines it could quite handily serve as a decent MMG. While I get there's the desire to use the type-3 as a tool to develop bigger, better things it does seem like it'll be several years before that becomes a real possibility to pursue without crippling our current manufacturing capabilities, so rationalising our small arms to just 2 main platforms would allow us to manufacture the bulk of our own weapon needs.
 
I think recent discussion is overlooking something.

Shotguns.

Always going to be a specialist weapon, but buckshot and slugs fuck hard in the close quarters our own terrain presents.

Also, do not forget. We got informed not long ago that existing commitments were running up against the edges of domestic steel production. We need to expand the mills or start importing if we want to increase production.
 
Last edited:
Rat King said:
For heavier weapons I would propose a group of four-six heavy/medium mortars and a pair of infantry guns for direct fire support at the regimental level (or battalion level, depending) with each brigade getting a battery of pack howitzers.

I think organization wise we should aim at:

3x Rifle Brigades, broken down as:

Rifle Brigade
-HQ Units/Supporting Arms (logistics, support, comms, etc.)
-Brigade artillery battalion (3x4 Batteries of howitzers / artillery)
-3x Rifle Regiments
--Regimental HQ
--Regimental Trains/Logistics/Communications
--Regimental Artillery (4xPack Howitzers)
--3xRifle Battalions
---Battalion HQ
---Battalion Comms/Signals/Medical
---Gun Company (2x70mm guns, 4-6x81mm mortars)
---AT/AA Company (4x13.2mm Hotchkiss)
---3xRifle Companies
----Company HQ
----Heavy Weapons Platoon (2xHMG, 2xATR?)
----3xRifle Platoons
-----Platoon HQ
-----3xRifle Squad (w/ LMG)
-----1xGrenadier Squad (3xGrenade Dischargers)

And as we get more diversified AT and AA weapons we can probably push the AA up to regimental and leave a dedicated AT company down at battalion, depending. Each "brigade" sort of ends up being a small division with about 10k men, for a total of around 30k active that can be organized under Army HQ.

We may also want to establish at army level a cavalry regiment (or piece out a cavalry battalion to each of the brigades).

Could also throw in some heavy mortars at regimental.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Looking at this, I think the problem is that this is too complex. If im reading it right it goes for 18 70mm guns, 12 pack howitzers and 12 howitzers per brigade, ignoring the mortars. Not only is this gonna be challenging to procure 3 different systems and the shells for them, but I think this spreads our extremely limited artillery expertise much too thinly, and overburdens our future battalion and regimental staff. Simply put, our expanded army is gonna be led quite poorly for a while. Yes, we will get the officer academy done as conscription is happening, however that has a lead time of several decades before new officers have been educated and then goes through the ranks. In the meantime our massively expanded army will be led by overpromoted officers with very mixed and dubious education. In addition we dont have a proper gunnery school or something like that planned in the immediate future.

I think a better plan would be to remove all the guns at the battalion and regimental level, procuring a single field gun (the french 1897 would be a good option) and then concentrating them in an artillery 'regiment' of 3 batteries with 12 guns each under brigade HQ. That way we concentrate the most important and limited firepower we have available and can reduce the amount of expertise needed to wield said firepower effectively.
 
sxeron10 said:
Hi, new to this thread.

Quick question: Is Reewiin Somalia?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think this was more or less accurate map? North-Western part (to the east of long lake) is IRL part Kenya, the South-Eastern part is IRL part of Somalia.






upd:
Adronio said:
I think a better plan would be to remove all the guns at the battalion and regimental level, procuring a single field gun (the french 1897 would be a good option) and then concentrating them in an artillery 'regiment' of 3 batteries with 12 guns each under brigade HQ. That way we concentrate the most important and limited firepower we have available and can reduce the amount of expertise needed to wield said firepower effectively.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Stokes-Brandt Model 1931 mortars should be enough for the batallion level (or maybe regimental, if batallion is too much)
 
Last edited:
Adronio said:
Looking at this, I think the problem is that this is too complex. If im reading it right it goes for 18 70mm guns, 12 pack howitzers and 12 howitzers per brigade, ignoring the mortars. Not only is this gonna be challenging to procure 3 different systems and the shells for them, but I think this spreads our extremely limited artillery expertise much too thinly, and overburdens our future battalion and regimental staff. Simply put, our expanded army is gonna be led quite poorly for a while. Yes, we will get the officer academy done as conscription is happening, however that has a lead time of several decades before new officers have been educated and then goes through the ranks. In the meantime our massively expanded army will be led by overpromoted officers with very mixed and dubious education. In addition we dont have a proper gunnery school or something like that planned in the immediate future.

I think a better plan would be to remove all the guns at the battalion and regimental level, procuring a single field gun (the french 1897 would be a good option) and then concentrating them in an artillery 'regiment' of 3 batteries with 12 guns each under brigade HQ. That way we concentrate the most important and limited firepower we have available and can reduce the amount of expertise needed to wield said firepower effectively.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Concentrating all our artillery up high means we need an effective command structure to make use of it and requires concentrating our forces. I could definitely understand cutting the pack howitzers, but not having low-level artillery of some sort seems like a mistake to me, especially given that I think we'll need to have battalions or regiments doing stuff where they can't quickly call the brigade artillery company over the radio and ask for fire support.

For comparison, in the Chaco War, the Bolivians had a twelve-tube mortar platoon at the regimental level (which was often split into two-tube sections and assigned to the battalions); the Paraguayans didn't have enough to do proper platoons, but still assigned their mortars at the regimental level and divided them up so each regiment at least had some (with ersatz platoons eventually being formed out of captured kit).

On a different note, it came up on discord that since we're selling/gifting most of our rifles to Japan until April 1935, our actual production rate might be closer to 15 rifles/day.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top