Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A successful military force will be trained and organised like modern special forces.

Not in an after-the-end style scenario, which implies limited resources. Modern special forces can spend tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition training a single soldier, and that's far from the only expenses. You can't afford that. Nevermind that your small population means you'll probably be lucky to find anyone that can meet those requirements. Even the US, which has been trying to up its special operations force, has only managed to get about 0.02% of its population into special ops (And that's including non-combat roles).

Of course, you can drop standards. You can accept less-capable people. You can do much less live-fire training and spend less ammo. You can cut training times. But then you're starting to look a whole lot like moderately-trained regular soldiers...

You can switch to melee weapons, too. That cuts down training costs even more, and cost as well. But it also cuts down on fighting capability, and means you've got some serious tactical disadvantages against an opponent with ranged weapons. A squad of special-ops soldiers with spears versus a company-sized element of moderately-trained conscripts with bolt-action rifles? That's going to be messy, and I wouldn't be betting on the spears.

And training to "adapt on the fly" to new weapons and equipment means even more training. Specifically, you need to train with every kind of weapon and equipment you're planning on using, so you're straight-up multiplying the ammo spent (If applicable) and the portion of training time spent on weapons (That, or you're training to much lower levels of competency with that equipment, which is seriously bad if you're expecting to be fighting against superior numbers). Nevermind that you need the experience and equipment to conduct that training with, which you very likely won't have until you've either got some combat veterans or have spent a huge amount of time on realistic combat simulation (Which is probably not very viable in a setting with such scarcity).

This gets even worse when you consider the disparity in numbers. If you're relying on such highly trained small forces, you have fewer and smaller units. You start getting spread thin. You have fewer eyes to look for enemies, fewer soldiers to cover terrain and fill gaps. You end up with significant disadvantages against a larger force. You have serious strategic disadvantages in having so few soldiers. You might be strong when conducting raids and other short, aggressive offensive actions, but you'll be poor at holding territory, unless all you're holding is the walls of your own settlement (And emphasis on the singular). That's especially true if you're picturing urban combat, where you need more soldiers to watch all possible approaches. If you don't, a larger force will very likely find the places you're not watching (Even if it's just flanking very wide), and if you don't fall back, they will very likely be able to surround you, at which point you are in serious trouble.

Tactics, strategy, logistics, morale, and even numbers are factors in the capability of a fighting force, but so is equipment. They're all important. Neglect one, and you leave yourself vulnerable to someone who pays attention to all of them. You can find countless examples throughout history where equipment has made a difference. There is a reason special ops soldiers are given the best equipment available.

Ideally, a warlord in this scenario would want a decent-sized force of competently trained individuals with the best weapons that is economically viable and logistically feasible (The OP even put the focus on cost and reliability), with a smaller force comprised of the most capable individuals, which is given extra training and the best feasible equipment to best leverage their ability. The regular force gives you the numbers you need to hold territory, give security, and pin down enemy forces, while the more experienced force gives you a concentrated strength and skill to exploit any advantages.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

..snip...

Great Post!

Cheers

TD

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Look TBH we can keep going round on this if you like, but have you got evidence that cavalry charges were a common place and effective tactic in WW2 (or WW1). Because your points seem to based around possible situations and noteworthy exceptions, rather than what generally speaking actually happened.

I don't claim they were commonplace and effective. I'm saying that they were very effective against WWI and WWII infantry that wasn't either backed up by machine guns or hanging close together. This situation didn't happen terribly often, because either you were in early WWI and troops stayed close together in masses*, or because it was WWII and machine guns were common place. In the situations where neither of these was true, cavalry commanders would get this weird moment where they realized the factor negating cavalry was gone, and ordered a charge. I've never heard of any charges going awry without massed fire or machine guns.

I suppose my question is do you know of any WWI/WWII cases where infantry without machine guns or massed fire held off a cavalry charge? From what I understand it was this weird thing the cavalry could still do, but didn't often, unless their foes made an weird anachronistic mistake.

I hold cavalry charges as being good for AtE because I think machine guns will be hard to come by. Unless you've got a healthy supply of bullets for semi-autos. By which I mean buckets of them.

*usually not exposed masses, but WWI infantry was usually kept in large groups rather than spread out, or stuck in fortifications.

The fact that infantry operated differently tending to go in for more cover based fire and manoeuvre tactics is actually another reason why cavalry charges were less effective. Infantry tended not to stand around in open terrain as inviting targets as much as they used to (again to do so is to be a tempting target for other things that can kill them quickly).

As I understand it, the spread out "cover and move" tactics are precisely the thing that would make cavalry commanders order the charge. A bunch of infantry spread out is a tempting target. Now, usually infantry would be carrying a machine gun with them, but if they didn't, they had to rely on the aim and speed of their comrades. And marksmanship is harder than a lot of people like to assume.

during the zulu wars, the british liked to keep infantry units close together. Not so that they could run at the enemy in a line, but so that the enemy could only attack so many at a time, and so you could get enough fire coming from the infantry to get a machine gun like effect, which would repel charges.

So without machine guns (or perhaps semi-automatic guns in the hands of infantry) WWII tactics are vulnerable to cavalry.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Not exactly, I am also taking into account that every cavalryman also has a gun at that point which increasingly makes dismount more effective and dismount was already a less riskier tactic than charges.

[/quote] Napoleonic cavalry charges were extremely effective against infantry in rout, but against infantry in good order were often disastrous. Sure maybe they can hit skirmishers with enough shock to rout them, but if they don't they have ridden into a kill zone. That isn't worth the risk, especially since skirmishers are dispersed, so you won't inflict high casualties even if they are routed, not without losing your order yourself. That is a high risk, low payoff tactic. [Quote]

I will point out the vast majority of military commanders of the time believed that the battle was decided by charges. They differed as to if they thought cavalry or the bayonet was the deciding arm, but you're going against the majority of the military wisdom of the time. And those who thought otherwise generally though artillery was the new deciding arm.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I will point out the vast majority of military commanders of the time believed that the battle was decided by charges.

The vast majority of early 19th century military commanders were unable to adapt quickly enough to the changes in the battlefield which is a large part of why these wars had such high costs. Yes, charges inflicted massive casualties, when deployed against broken formations, where they were decisive. They however failed repeatedly and famously against formations in good order. Just ask Ney or Pickett. A decisive action is so called because it decides the battle, it doesn't mean "guaranteed victory". Charges were decisive, but but so was charging at the wrong time.

They differed as to if they thought cavalry or the bayonet was the deciding arm, but you're going against the majority of the military wisdom of the time.

Well, yes, but that is benefit of hindsight. You didn't ask to pretend to be Ney and answer the question.

I will note, too that the charge as a general concept hasn't gone anywhere. The mission of the rifle squad includes "destroy the enemy by fire and manuever" and "repel the enemies assail by fire and close combat", fire and manuever in particular is primarily about what some people call "bounding", but I learned as "rushing" and is intended to close distance with the enemy quickly. Armor (and especially armor cavalry) must close distance very quickly and essentially uses cavalry charges to do so. Horse cavalry charges are however mostly obsolete and presumably that was what you were asking about.

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A successful AtE army will be trained and organised like modern special forces. There will be independent squads of highly skilled and disciplined men who know how to work with whatever supplies and equipment you can scrounge up for them. Equipment is irrelevant - they will develop tactics on the fly based on whatever equipment is available to them at the time. If they don't have firearms then they will improvise and make do. Invest all of your resources into each and every man and give him the best logistical support. Don't waste money on guns.

If you can cream off the top 1% of willing candidates from a well-fed and well-educated population and then train them for a couple of years using a wide variety of experts and equipment, yeah maybe the post-apocalypse SAS/Renaissance Man teams would make the best possible option.

But a cheap mass-producible firearm and as many warm bodies as you can train to shoot straight and not run away at the sight of the enemy, is a much more practical and achievable goal.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I will point out the vast majority of military commanders of the time believed that the battle was decided by charges. They differed as to if they thought cavalry or the bayonet was the deciding arm, but you're going against the majority of the military wisdom of the time. And those who thought otherwise generally though artillery was the new deciding arm.

Charges are pretty good finishers against enemies that have broken. Since a broken enemy formation that doesn't get finished might reform again without a lot of lost effectiveness (the vast majority of casualties occur after breaking, not before), finishers are pretty important, but that doesn't make them battle winners, they're the way you make the most of a victory achieved in another way.

Originally Posted by mr beer

But a cheap mass-producible firearm and as many warm bodies as you can train to shoot straight and not run away at the sight of the enemy, is a much more practical and achievable goal.

There's not a lot of difference between a typical AtE scenario and a modern failed state. We already know how those work, and no, it's not by special ops.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's not a lot of difference between a typical AtE scenario and a modern failed state. We already know how those work, and no, it's not by special ops.

There's one really big difference - you can't usually import weapons and ammunition in AtE. That changes some basic economic and logistical realities.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

There's one really big difference - you can't usually import weapons and ammunition in AtE. That changes some basic economic and logistical realities.

You can however salvage them, which is almost the same thing. If you are looting an ammo dump intended to supply an infantry battalion, with the kinds of deep supply that most contemporary ammo supplies are stored in, in order to supply a tribal militia of a few hundred fighters at the most, and you are careful to not waste ammo, and use a little as possible in training, you are likely to run out of people to shoot before you run out of bullets. A battalion ammo supply in the US is about 400-800 rounds per weapon system annually for training, which is stockpiled for years in advance, and then some multiple of that for war stocks stockpiled for estimated use in years of sustained combat. So you are talking hundreds of thousands of rounds.

[Railstar]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Invest all of your resources into each and every man and give him the best logistical support. Don't waste money on guns.

"The more you know, the less you need." If they have the right skills, they don't need fancy guns.

I suppose it's more feasible for a special forces guy to sneak up on a conscript and take his gear (thus having both skills and equipment) than it is for the guy with equipment but poor skills to take someone else's skills.

However, I'm curious, what would logistical support be in this context? Because I see logistical support as being largely about getting materiel/supplies (most of which counts as equipment) to where it is needed.

Another thought about not wasting money on guns if the resources are not measured in money - it might not be possible to convert resources that can provide better equipment into providing superior training.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You can however salvage them, which is almost the same thing. If you are looting an ammo dump intended to supply an infantry battalion, with the kinds of deep supply that most contemporary ammo supplies are stored in, in order to supply a tribal militia of a few hundred fighters at the most, and you are careful to not waste ammo, and use a little as possible in training, you are likely to run out of people to shoot before you run out of bullets. A battalion ammo supply in the US is about 400-800 rounds per weapon system annually for training, which is stockpiled for years in advance, and then some multiple of that for war stocks stockpiled for estimated use in years of sustained combat. So you are talking hundreds of thousands of rounds.

I'd say it's a very different thing. To import weapons you need money or trade goods. To salvage weapons you need access to pre-End stockpiles. Those might come out to similar ultimate levels of availability but call for quite different economic activities.