East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

So, it's been bothering me to ask. In building rail and road into all the empty/ lightly settled interior, is there a chance to find undiscovered/ unexploited resources?
The Resource Curse would be a terrible thing to have, gaining attention from hungry empires and biasing our economy towards extraction...

the Economics Council is two doors down.
Good to know! We should team up with them for any buys of fine Czech tractors and trucks.

That makes sense. With it totaled that way though, comparing the animal numbers to the 1932 report, that may be a disproportionate amount of them at the company level. So maybe we should skip or reduce the service section after all, because keeping more at higher levels might make it easier to coordinate limited transport capacity.
We could tweak it a bit. I was basing things off of the German Type 1944 division's structure, and my transport unit was sized by taking their company-level unit, as well as all the platoon-level units, and lumping them together. I'm not sure if we have the same transport needs, but I also have no idea how to assess that; how much cargo actually needs to be carried?

We also don't need to use just horses for this. These units will move as fast as a person can march, and that means that things like oxcarts are an option. Human porters are also a rather inefficient option.

My suggestion: 4 stretcher-bearers is only enough capacity to move 2 injured at once. Is that sufficient? Perhaps we could rob the current Service section and their mule carts for more stretcher-bearers, if that's too many animals at the company-level?

Certainly I'm supportive of concentrating more of the mule transport capacity at the battalion level where we have our AT/AA HMGs to transport, future 81mm mortars, and ammo for all of the above.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I guess? You're not fully exploiting the iron, zinc and rare earths you have though, Reewiin doesn't have the tech or the population to do it yet.

The thing is, this isn't your problem. You're the Defence Council, the Economics Council is two doors down. The purpose of the Defence Council in building the railway isn't economic (although I admit you did get an investment point out of it, that was more about a rising tide lifting all boats), it's military. You can now deploy a battalion of guys from one end of the country to the other in two or three days instead of having to force march them up there over the course of weeks, then supply them by rail instead of by ox.
That's fair. Just my little greedy goblin heart trying to see if people can somehow make an army make money instead of spend it. Thanks for answering.
 
That's fair. Just my little greedy goblin heart trying to see if people can somehow make an army make money instead of spend it. Thanks for answering.
I'm greedy too, which is part of why I want the same.

As mentioned, Reewiin's not bottlenecked by deposits. However, despite our limited heavy industry, we seem mostly to have been stuck in colonial-style economic relationships where we sell the raw materials to Europe et al, then Europe sells finished goods back to us. Weapons manufacture is an area where we can break that pattern - there's a reasonable strategic justification for domestic manufacture (we will likely be blockaded by anyone we fight if it's not Ethiopia), and we've already successfully taken a chunk of the Japanese rifle market. Export success drives further growth as well, and eventually we could hopefully have enough production capacity that we can supply liberation movements postwar.
 
Animal Logistics
So, decided to go down a rabbit hole on logistics, and specifically, what kind of transport we need. This, in turn, depends a lot on three key factors:
  1. How long is a company expected to maneuver/fight without getting resupplied? At one end, they could be fighting on top of a railhead, and on the other end, we could be asking companies to fight weeks at a time in between getting resupplied.
  2. How does the company transport supplies not carried by the soldiers? Worst case scenario, they're using human porters, which will eat through the food they can carry very quickly. Pack mules are a bit better; wagons and oxcarts better than that. Motor vehicles are, of course, the best, but a luxury we do not currently possess.
  3. Can the army forage? If we're unable to let our animals graze, their food demands skyrocket, and by extension, the amount of useful cargo they can carry not dedicated to feeding themselves drops. This is even worse if there isn't plentiful water; I'm not even going to bother calculating logistics for if we need to carry our water with us and don't have motor vehicles.
To start with, let's say each person in our unit eats 1.6 kg/day of food. That's somewhere between WWII US and Japanese rations in weight, which I think is reasonable for a country not as prosperous as the US but also not believing its soldiers can eat grass if they have a strong enough fighting spirit. I'd like to insist that this not be forage, at least under peacetime circumstances, because it tends to result in animosity - my grandmother bore a grudge against the Germans her entire life, in no small part due to remembering trying to hide the family's chickens from soldiers during the war. There are also arguments to be had about how taking food from civilians with the threat of violence can result in a fucked up army culture.

As for draught animals (and people), we can start with pack mules; those can carry about 130 kg; in turn, they require 4.5 kg/day of hay or straw to graze on and an additional 2.25 kg/day of barley. Porters can carry about 50 kg and require the same food as any other person. As for horses, small ponies can live off of grass, but larger horses require about half their diet to be special feed; a horse will eat 2% its bodyweight in food each day, and can pull a wagon weighing up to 1.5 times its bodyweight. Using Japanese WWII carts as a basis of cargo/total weight, this results in a horse being able to pull about 350 kg of cargo atop a wagon and eating 4.5 kg/day of foraged hay and 4.5 kg/day of barley or other high quality feed. Oxen can get by with proportionately more grazing (Boran cattle, which are what the Oromo raise, are apparently notable for their tolerance for low quality feed and ability to graze on the trot), but still need a similar 2%. Oxen can also pull about 2.5-3x their bodyweight; this results in a Boran ox being able to pull about 850 kg of cargo atop a wagon and eating 13 kg of foraged grass or hay a day. A truck, obviously, requires no forage, and only around a few gallons of gas per day for several tons of cargo if moving at the sedate pace of walking infantry.

Aside from food, there are other necessary supplies. The US in the Pacific had this as:
3.11 pounds (1.41 kg) of clothing, replacement vehicles, and other general supplies (Class II), 10.67 pounds (4.84 kg) of fuel and lubricants (Class III), 15.46 pounds (7.0 kg) of medical, motor maintenance, quartermaster, construction, and other miscellaneous supplies (Class IV), and 9.58 pounds (4.35 kg) of ammunition (Class V).
The British were much less, at 8 kg per soldier being delivered at the corps level. At the company level, I think we can say most of that isn't going to be actively consumed; instead, I'd just add 1.4 kg to our previous 1.6 kg for 3 kg/day per person, plus ammunition.

As for ammunition, thankfully, there's info on how many rounds of ammunition the Japanese expected a fighting unit to consume over an average four-month period per weapon, with 2/3rds of that time being spent in active combat (Kaisenbun). Each rifle was expected to need 300 rounds, and each light machine gun, 8000 rounds. For contrast, the US unit of fire (roughly 1 heavy day's fighting) was around 100-150 rounds for a rifle, 1,500-2,000 rounds for a LMG, 3,000 rounds for a MMG, 1 grenade per enlisted man, and 100 60 mm mortar bombs. The ratio of rifle:LMG ammo seems to suggest that the US expects the rifleman to be shooting a fair bit more often than the Japanese do; I'm going to split the difference by giving each rifle 450 rounds. If we divide this by the 80 days of combat that Japanse Kaisenbun represents, this gives us something like:
  • 5.625 rounds/rifle/day
  • 100 rounds/LMG/day
  • 200 rounds/MMG/day
  • 0.025 grenades/rifleman/day
  • 2.5 mortar bombs/mortar/day
Per a person on discord who has some 6.5 Carcano clips and a scale (which are presumably not too different from 6.5 Arisaka clips in overall mass), they're negligibly heavy; we're probably looking at about 23 g per round. An ammunition box for rifle rounds seems to add around 15% to the weight. Machine gun strips and the ammo box, meanwhile, seems to add about 80%. I'm going to assume grenades are about 0.6 kg; mortar bombs for the Type 89 were about 1 kg. For a company with 207 rifles, 9 LMGs, and 2 MMGs, this is 33.9 kg of rifle ammo (and grenades) per day, 37.3 kg of LMG ammo per day, and 16.6 kg of MMG ammo per day; overall, this is around 90 kg per day of consumables. Ofc, we're only fighting 2/3ds of the time, so let's say it's 60 kg.

I am NOT going to get into water usage. I am assuming we have water supplies, because if we don't, then it is infeasible to use anything but motor transport and I will leave it at that.

Anyways, add this 60 kg to the 200*3 kg we have from the non-transportpersonnel, and we need 660 kg/day of consumables to keep a company in the field ignoring the logistics burden of the logistics apparatus itself. Assuming a 1:1 ratio of animals to handlers (which seems to roughly be the historical practice, give or take a few), we can then calculate the food requirements for the animals and their handlers, add that to the transport requirements of the rest of the company, and solve for how many we need (i.e., 0=[# of days autonomy]*660 kg/day+[# of animals]*[# of days]*[animal+handler supply consumption in kg/day]-[# of animals]*[carrying capacity of animals in kg]).

The results are presented in the graph below.
So, what does this look like?

This plots how many "units" of each transport option we'd need for a given period of autonomy on top of what our soldiers carry with them. Interestingly, there isn't a big difference between the dry season (i.e., no foraging) and rainy season values at the levels of autonomy we're looking at. Ox+handler is clearly the best per animal, with horse+handler being about half as effective; pack mules are not very good in terms of carrying capacity, and human porters would limit us to day trips only (it's 14 porters to just take a day trip, and 30 for a weekend).

I'm telling you guys. 🐂

Edit: Hosted graph more permanently, since this is now threadmarked.

As a conclusion, in my opinion this suggests we should save the horses for cavalry/recon units since they're limited in number, and go with a mix of mules and oxen for our companies. A Japanese soldier's base kit was enough for around 10-15 days autonomy, so if we add another 10 days onto that for 3 weeks total before needing extensive resupply, we'd be looking at around 8 oxen and 3 mules, which is appealing to me, since it'd be one mule per platoon.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't horsecarts be faster than oxen, in terms of miles per day crossed? Admittedly I couldn't find anything about that by brief googling (there is a lot of talk about the speed of stage coaches, but these are very different things and not applicable).

Pack animals' major shtick is that they do not necessarily need roads, which means they are probably a better option for rangers/recce/whatnot

Also we absolutely want to build supply depots at major train stops and/or road junctions in future.

upd. Now that I think about it, horses* are probably much better transportable by railways, than oxen. How much would we need to say, move the army including the draft animals by train into the middle or even far west of the country?

*Eight horses per a railway carriage, if I remember my literature correctly.

upd 2.
ideally we don't want to move draft animals by train, we would want the animals and carts available at the train stop's supply depot/remount station.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't horsecarts be faster than oxen, in terms of miles per day crossed? Admittedly I couldn't find anything about that by brief googling (there is a lot of talk about the speed of stage coaches, but these are very different things and not applicable).

Pack animals' major shtick is that they do not necessarily need roads, which means they are probably a better option for rangers/recce/whatnot

Also we absolutely want to build supply depots at major train stops and/or road junctions in future.

upd. Now that I think about it, horses* are probably much better transportable by railways, than oxen. How much would we need to say, move the army including the draft animals by train into the middle or even far west of the country?

*Eight horses per a railway carriage, if I remember my literature correctly.

upd 2.
ideally we don't want to move draft animals by train, we would want the animals and carts available at the train stop's supply depot/remount station.
Horsecarts are indeed faster. The downside to oxen is that they move at about 25 km per day, versus 32 km/day for horses from what I saw. However, I don't think this is an issue; FM 21-18 gives a similar 25-32 km range as how far a unit can march on foot under favourable conditions, and Reewiin definitely isn't favourable. If we need to really move fast, then I'd suggest we give each soldier another 10 kg of food and ammunition and send the fighting platoons ahead of the wagons.

Pack animals are indeed able to operate without roads and stuff, and I think we should definitely keep some. This isn't as much a "we should only use oxen" as "if we use this approach, this is how many units of transport we need in our company". However, I think their lower efficiency kills us in other ways, and it'd be better to just send out army units during peacetime to build some dirt roads as part of their routine exercises (it'd be good practice for field logistics and coordinating an entrenching effort!) in most cases than to only use pack mules.

Since cattle also have cloven hooves, they're apparently able to cross rough terrain fairly easily, so we're probably more limited by what can be crossed with a loaded wagon. If we have to cross broken ground that cattle can't (slowly) pull a wagon through, then I'd suggest we unload the cargo for mules and soldiers to shuttle it past the obstacle, break down the carts, and then do one trip with the oxen mostly unloaded past the obstacle.

Agreed on the supply depot. This is assuming we're operating away from the rail line, though, because otherwise the answer is "use railcars, it's so much better".

I don't know how many oxen can fit into a cattle car, but cattle can indeed go inside a cattle car :V I suspect fitting the wagons onto the train to be more of an issue than the animals.
 
Speaking of building roads, a dedicated engineering corps could come in handy when we have the time.

And building new roads into the underdeveloped backcountry can only help our wider economy, connecting isolated villages to the wider markets.
 
I think we're paying too much attention to our equipment and external threats, and not enough attention to internal problems. It's only a matter of time before some charismatic Bantu chief starts a British-funded insurgency because some Somali politician did a Japanese-assisted autocoup and our country starts to eat itself alive.

We need to turn the Army and Carabineri into stable, efficient, multi-ethnic pillars of Reewin society. And if we can accomplish this, we will be far more capable of waging a sustained war than if we have fifty more HMGs.

Questions I have:
  • Who are we? We the Combined Defence Committee? Are we a bunch of appointed-for-life Somali pals of the the ruling elite? An abstract building into which paperwork goes into and out of?
  • What powers do we have? Can we influence officer promotions? If we say no orders from above, what happens? Can we expand the scope of the Defence Committee to tackle a broader set of problems (e.g. slowly taking complete control of the Army)?

I think we should:
  • Make sure the officer corps is tribally/regionally balanced. We need to start bringing Bantu into the Army officer corps and use the Army as a tool to build bridges between Bantu and Somali/Ormo society.
  • Figure out how much graft and corruption is going on in the Army and Carabineri.
    • Are troops getting paid on time?
    • How many of our Carabineri are actually real soldiers and not just names on paper?
    • Are powerful landowners and tribal chiefs using their local Carbineri as their private army to enrich themselves and cement their own power?
    • How much are our troops abusing their power and extorting the local population?
    • etc

Caveat: all of this might be out-of-scope from the quest, and I might be mistakenly transposing my understanding of post-independence African politics to the 1930's.
 
Last edited:
I think we're paying too much attention to our equipment and external threats, and not enough attention to internal problems.
We're the army though. It's a quest making the ORBAT for the military of this fictional nation. I don't even think its in the scope of the quest and the ministry we are.

From reading this quest from start to present, its been focused on getting the military up to speck since that is the focus.
 
I think we're paying too much attention to our equipment and external threats, and not enough attention to internal problems.
I agree with you that these are important things, but I think you're missing some of the stuff we've been doing.
It's only a matter of time before some charismatic Bantu chief starts a British-funded insurgency because some Somali politician did a Japanese-assisted autocoup and our country starts to eat itself alive.
This is definitely a concern, and it's been something that we've weighed throughout our decision-making process. Things like "should we take Japanese help" has included concerns about Japan doing funny business for as long as Japanese help has been available.
We need to turn the Army and Carabineri into stable, efficient, multi-ethnic pillars of Reewin society. And if we can accomplish this, we will be far more capable of waging a sustained war than if we have fifty more HMGs.

Questions I have:
  • Who are we? We the Combined Defence Committee? Are we a bunch of appointed-for-life Somali pals of the the ruling elite? An abstract building into which paperwork goes into and out of?
  • What powers do we have? Can we influence officer promotions? If we say no orders from above, what happens? Can we expand the scope of the Defence Committee to tackle a broader set of problems (e.g. slowly taking complete control of the Army)?
Our powers are, seemingly, whatever we can get away with before we step on someone's toes. That's part of why a lot of the efforts we've made to improve Reewiin's internal situation haven't been too overt, although I do think it's obvious what we're trying to do.
I think we should:
  • Make sure the officer corps is tribally/regionally balanced. We need to start bringing Bantu into the Army officer corps and use the Army as a tool to build bridges between Bantu and Somali/Ormo society.
It's not explicitly regionally balanced, but when we hired more officers, we specifically mentioned looking for eligible candidates that were passed up on ethnic grounds. When it comes time to start feeding people into our officer school, we might have an opportunity to double down on that as well.

The army being a common ground is something we've had as a common influence on our decisions. Things like adopting mass conscription with a relatively short service term were done in the hopes that they could provide a widespread unifying experience (this is, for example, the reason that I am strongly against regional units in favour of putting our recruitment pool into a blender). When we get the chance, we'll try to do more, and write-in ideas for this are good.
  • Figure out how much graft and corruption is going on in the Army and Carabineri.
    • Are troops getting paid on time?
    • How many of our Carabineri are actually real soldiers and not just names on paper?
    • Are powerful landowners and tribal chiefs using their local Carbineri as their private army to enrich themselves and cement their own power?
    • How much are our troops abusing their power and extorting the local population?
    • etc
1. Lots, lmao.
2. Most of the time IIRC, although it's apparently a problem in the Carabinieri at times.
3. The Carabinieri aren't real soldiers, they're an effectively civilian militia who play with guns on the weekend. We've been told that they'll often fuck off if there's work to be done in the fields, for example. Ti'm not sure how much of an issue fake Carabinieri is, though, given how little we presumably pay them.
4. We've been explicitly told that Carabinieri units are often hired as private security by landowners, and IIRC we did try and take small steps to curb this. However, we were told that the government wanted a very large army within 2 years earlier this year, so we dropped our focus of Carabinieri reform so that we could rush through the army expansion, and will likely return to the Carabinieri in the next few years.
5. We don't know.
Caveat: all of this might be out-of-scope from the quest, and I might be mistakenly transposing my understanding of post-independence African politics to the 1930's.
It's in scope, but it's not something that I think we can just push a button to solve, both because these are complex issues and the current system doesn't want to change.
 
Cogent points.

Who are we? We the Combined Defence Committee? Are we a bunch of appointed-for-life Somali pals of the the ruling elite? An abstract building into which paperwork goes into and out of?
There's a building and a staff and someone who knows how to operate the typewriter, but voters and posters are members of the Defence Council, a mix of civil servants and non political appointees serving on a career basis (not exactly for life). If this body existed in real life it probably wouldn't have more than five people on the actual council but I guess Reewiin is a modern, progressive nation interested in all points of view so we have had over 140 councillors at various points of the last four years of game time. Presumably you also have a really damn big table.

What powers do we have? Can we influence officer promotions? If we say no orders from above, what happens? Can we expand the scope of the Defence Committee to tackle a broader set of problems (e.g. slowly taking complete control of the Army)?
Your powers are pretty wide ranging, as I think we've seen so far. Reewiin has a Defence Ministry and Minister and you're basically a steering group for their actions. You can interfere with promotions, but it will be seen as doing that, you can disobey the Minister and the Prime Minister but that will come with consequences and your scope is already about as broad as it's going to get. You certainly aren't going to take control of the day to day operations of the army, especially in wartime.

Caveat: all of this might be out-of-scope from the quest, and I might be mistakenly transposing my understanding of post-independence African politics to the 1930's.
To make things easy for QMs and fun for voters, Reewiin is in an unreasonably good position for an independent African state. The country is fairly democratic (obviously not for women or Bantu), less tribal than it should be, has actual industries providing actual money and has a government that is here to govern rather than just being on the take. There are still problems but they should all be surmountable, or at least you'll get a long way towards them across the course of the quest.
 
Cogent points.


There's a building and a staff and someone who knows how to operate the typewriter, but voters and posters are members of the Defence Council, a mix of civil servants and non political appointees serving on a career basis (not exactly for life). If this body existed in real life it probably wouldn't have more than five people on the actual council but I guess Reewiin is a modern, progressive nation interested in all points of view so we have had over 140 councillors at various points of the last four years of game time. Presumably you also have a really damn big table.


Your powers are pretty wide ranging, as I think we've seen so far. Reewiin has a Defence Ministry and Minister and you're basically a steering group for their actions. You can interfere with promotions, but it will be seen as doing that, you can disobey the Minister and the Prime Minister but that will come with consequences and your scope is already about as broad as it's going to get. You certainly aren't going to take control of the day to day operations of the army, especially in wartime.


To make things easy for QMs and fun for voters, Reewiin is in an unreasonably good position for an independent African state. The country is fairly democratic (obviously not for women or Bantu), less tribal than it should be, has actual industries providing actual money and has a government that is here to govern rather than just being on the take. There are still problems but they should all be surmountable, or at least you'll get a long way towards them across the course of the quest.
To be fair a stable democracy is a stabilizing factor on elite conflict its honestly the main pro of it, and being a independant African state isn't that ASB, or Ethiopian neighbors manages it they got to build a empire in the 19th century and kept it(look at the before after of Ethiopian they made out like bandits).
So, camels have come up in Discord discussion, one local beastie we didn't take into account.

Apparently the US Army experimented very successfully with camels in peacetime, but the Civil War screwed the project up.

Perhaps we may want to consider reopening the animal husbandry branch and adding camels to our herds.
Even elephants are valid for army logistics not kidding there's stuff on it, motorization is ideal but we aren't made of money so until we reach that just use what the farmhands are breeding already horses are fastest if I recall, so maybe use those nobody besides the USA had full mechanization in WW2. To be honest though the biggest problem we have is that our main economic center are quasi indefensible, British, Japanese even the Italians will smoke us and we likely don't have the time to prep our navy for it either. We should put priority on a fallback production and political center, it worked well for the soviets and there's good reason the Turks moved their capital from Istanbull despite its economic power and population. Additionally, a air force should be established yesterday its much more important then a do nothing navy that is target practice.
 
Last edited:
Additionally a air should be established its much more important then a do nothing navy that is target practice.
This is false information, ships look cool ergo deserve more budget and everyone knows that the more cool the thing is, the better it works. It's why the imperial Japanese navy demolished the Russian imperial navy, it simply was cooler.

The air force has nothing that makes it cool, it's just an engine and wood in the sky, big deal; hot air balloons have been around for ages.
 
This is false information, ships look cool ergo deserve more budget and everyone knows that the more cool the thing is, the better it works. It's why the imperial Japanese navy demolished the Russian imperial navy, it simply was cooler.

The air force has nothing that makes it cool, it's just an engine and wood in the sky, big deal; hot air balloons have been around for ages.

While I agree that a dedicated air force would be a boondoggle, it cannot be denied that our Japanese friends and allies have established their own aerial forces utilising cutting-edge aeroplanes! But given that the Reewin Navy does not have any carrier units and just received a cutting-edge Kaibōkan from Japan, the aerial forces should be subordinated to the Army instead.

Perhaps it'll be possible to purchase a squadron of Ki-27's, or some A5Ms? Perhaps bombers would be better than fighters though, the enemy will likely be Ethiopia rather than any of the other colonial powers, and Ethiopia has no fighters or AA weaponry at all. Maybe we can purchase some B5Ms? Mitsubishi Ki-21's?

EDIT:
For some reason I presumed it was 1936 or later. Please disregard.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that a dedicated air force would be a boondoggle, it cannot be denied that our Japanese friends and allies have established their own aerial forces utilising cutting-edge aeroplanes! But given that the Reewin Navy does not have any carrier units and just received a cutting-edge Kaibōkan from Japan, the aerial forces should be subordinated to the Army instead.

Perhaps it'll be possible to purchase a squadron of Ki-27's, or some A5Ms? Perhaps bombers would be better than fighters though, the enemy will likely be Ethiopia rather than any of the other colonial powers, and Ethiopia has no fighters or AA weaponry at all. Maybe we can purchase some B5Ms? Mitsubishi Ki-21's?

EDIT:
For some reason I presumed it was 1936 or later. Please disregard.
Joking aside, I think that an extremely small air force could be useful to us. To start with, some army cooperation aircraft could help perform reconnaissance, keep our units moving where we need them, airlift critical supplies to troops (similar to how the Paraguayans were resupplied at Second Nanawa), and do occasional night harassment bombing raids a la Po-2s in WWII/Korea. Those aircraft are also relatively insensitive to going out of date if we buy something top-of-the-line right now, since they're ideally not getting engaged by fighters at all. They also are useful in peacetime for things like surveying.

Once we expand beyond that, I'd argue for a couple flights of whatever the best schnellbomber we can get is. Being able to, for example, threaten to blow up an invader's fuel dumps means they'll have to commit fighter aircraft to the theatre, increasing the cost of invading Reewiin (and that's, IMO, the eventual goal - make Reewiin prickly enough that it's not worth interfering with); the same applies even moreso to someone attempting to attack us by sea because now you need to send in a carrier. Fighter aircraft would be third after that, because they're the most likely to rapidly go out of date.

That said, none of this replaces a navy, either green-water or brown-water. They're supporting arms; and removing one in favour of the other is going to reduce effectiveness.
 
Who can read the heroic dispatches from Paraguay and doubt the value of a strong brown water navy?

Listen, a river is just a free railroad we can drown people in and one of our borders is a great lake. The boats matter. You can't get out of that.
 
Additionally a air should be established its much more important then a do nothing navy that is target practice.
I realize you're being funny; and air power is good at what it does, but our navy isn't do-nothing... at minimum, I expect it to be able to arrest illegal foreign fishing trawlers. Also, the Gran Chaco war shows that naval vessels are able to defend themselves against air attack, if properly armed.
 
Unless whoever is are Ally in the war gives us some think it's best to stick to small versatile planes that can recon or move some messages or a another guy to some place, like the major players of WW2 each had a plane like that or asked for one from there senior partner.
 
at minimum, I expect it to be able to arrest illegal foreign fishing trawlers.
I suppose this is a good enough reason to post it, but I've been messing about with a Kutulo refit idea that would make it less combat capable, if that doesn't scare off everyone immediately?

Where I'm coming from is that even if we can pull off a deep enough refit to make a 1907 protected cruiser stand up well enough against late 30s vessels, the most likely scenario IMO is just that it makes whoever is sending a fleet against us toss in another cruiser or two to make sure it won't cause a problem. OTOH for the things the Kutulo is going to be very helpful for it feels somewhat overarmed? Do we really need 8 6-inch guns to scare away foreign trawlers from fishing in our waters, or flag down merchants to inspect them if we think they may be smuggling? We could probably get away with just 3-4.

So what I've been trying to figure out is if we strip off a bunch of the guns to clear up deck space, as well as clearing out their shell and powder storage spaces, how much other stuff could we fit in there? Could we cram in some extra bunk space to make room for a dedicated Carabinieri marines group trained to pull off boarding and inspection of other ships in addition to all the other nessecary crew? Could we fit a better infirmary to better handle medical emergencies or people getting pulled out of the cold water after they fell overboard or their ship went under? If the freed up deck space allows it we could see if we could fit a single float plane on board for eyes in the sky during any S&R operation, though that would probably be very complicated and we'd have to purchase the plane from abroad.

Basically refit the Kutulo into some kind of kitbash coast guard cutter instead of trying to update it as a warship. All of this is open water stuff off our coast obviously, we still are going to want good armed river boats in the interior.
 
Last edited:
Joking aside, I think that an extremely small air force could be useful to us. To start with, some army cooperation aircraft could help perform reconnaissance, keep our units moving where we need them, airlift critical supplies to troops (similar to how the Paraguayans were resupplied at Second Nanawa), and do occasional night harassment bombing raids a la Po-2s in WWII/Korea. Those aircraft are also relatively insensitive to going out of date if we buy something top-of-the-line right now, since they're ideally not getting engaged by fighters at all. They also are useful in peacetime for things like surveying.

Once we expand beyond that, I'd argue for a couple flights of whatever the best schnellbomber we can get is. Being able to, for example, threaten to blow up an invader's fuel dumps means they'll have to commit fighter aircraft to the theatre, increasing the cost of invading Reewiin (and that's, IMO, the eventual goal - make Reewiin prickly enough that it's not worth interfering with); the same applies even moreso to someone attempting to attack us by sea because now you need to send in a carrier. Fighter aircraft would be third after that, because they're the most likely to rapidly go out of date.

That said, none of this replaces a navy, either green-water or brown-water. They're supporting arms; and removing one in favour of the other is going to reduce effectiveness.
The main problem is who we would theoretically be contending with the British, Japanese and Italians all can take on the cost with concern on cost(Japan maybe not but when has Imperial Japan ever done the cautious and not reckless option). We can't even use optimal naval doctrine without airpower, the meta is aircraft carriers(err will be when people stop fetishizing battleships). Fighters are to be honest also pretty useful in their deterrence to other countries airpower.
 
Back
Top