Weasel | 30 Sep 2014 9:11 a.m. PST |
It seems land warfare has reached the point that the naval race reached a bit over a hundred years ago: Spiralling costs of high-tech equipment means that most smaller nations simply can't compete. Fielding a moderately up to date airforce is expensive. Fielding even a single division of combat troops with all their gadgets, supplies and widgets while abroad is staggeringly expensive. Increasingly, it seems most countries just stick with what they have (some cold war era tanks, some guys with rifles and a few F16/Mig for good measure) since they figure they're unlikely to get in a fight and couldn't afford building a modern army in any event. We talk a lot about high -tech gadgets and the impact of drones and hacking and electronic warfare and how it'll all impact gaming, but it seems outside of the big spenders, future warfare will be 17 of my guys with AK's and a T55 versus 14 of your guys with M16's and an M60 tank. The good news for gamers is that you can get a lot of mileage out of any cold-war models you have :) |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 9:41 a.m. PST |
"No Bucks … No Buck Rogers" … |
grommet37 | 30 Sep 2014 10:27 a.m. PST |
Weasel: My near-future/SF scenario envisions an era where there will be a lot of these items still around, with fewer state-like entities, a largely de-weaponized remaining Terran population, and the few large (and economically-capable) players utilizing all the bells and whistles you mention. Any future defenders of liberty may find themselves facing roboid walkers, enhanced troopers and autonomous area denial systems, while armed with Old Cold War castoffs (retro-engineered and stolen from war museums or private collections) and "civilian hunting weapons". |
Weasel | 30 Sep 2014 10:34 a.m. PST |
T55 versus Space marines. I approve :) |
mckrok | 30 Sep 2014 2:38 p.m. PST |
A lead/steel/depleted uranium mass propelled at a high velocity will be lethal for a very long time. If the robot didn't blow to pieces when the militia set off the RCIED, then add more explosives next time. pjm |
Calico Bill | 30 Sep 2014 2:59 p.m. PST |
Get rid of the zombies and "Warfare in the age of Madness" rules would seem to be ideal for what you describe. Anyone actually played these? |
Mako11 | 30 Sep 2014 3:05 p.m. PST |
No worries, we'll just print more money to pay for them. |
Martin Rapier | 01 Oct 2014 3:25 a.m. PST |
Could it be remotely possible that hi-tech stuff 'costs' a lot of money because there is a lot of money to spend on it? All good for the economy of course, although price gouging isn't very good value for money for the taxpayer. Conscripts are also considerably cheaper to employ than long service regulars too. |
Weasel | 01 Oct 2014 8:31 a.m. PST |
Martin – I'm sure that's part of it. It's hard to believe that some of these projects would cost so much if there weren't effectively unlimited money to spend on them. I tend to consider that most of our military expenditures is just economic stimulus and employment programs when you get down to it. But "Teh socialismz" is evil, so we'll just call it "economic incentives in the market economy" instead ;) |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 9:16 a.m. PST |
Yes, Martin, that is what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex". And conscripts in a free society are not really a good idea, IMO. Unless you are in a situation like Israel with your back already to the wall. And conscripts, as a commander, I'd rather have volunteers than someone who is "forced" to be there. Also I could tell you of all the shortages we in the Infantry had to deal with in the '80s. Much of the $$$ was going else where … But we adapted, overcame, improvised, etc. as needed … |
hagenthedwarf | 01 Oct 2014 2:03 p.m. PST |
Conscripts are also considerably cheaper to employ than long service regulars too. A common misconception. Conscript armies require a very large training establishment because your soldiers have to spend a lot of time training and many are poorly motivated. Long service regulars spend a much smaller proportion of their time training and can spend time honing their skills and extending them into additional technical areas; this also justifies expensive high-tech equipment that they can become familiar with and provide additional synergies. Motivation will be high as they are volunteers. |
Legion 4 | 01 Oct 2014 3:46 p.m. PST |
|
tuscaloosa | 01 Oct 2014 5:47 p.m. PST |
Completely agree with OP about the high cost of high-performance, high-tech armies. But what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan is that low-tech organisations can tie up the high-tech armies for a long, long time. Like a friend of mine in Afghanistan said, the Flintstones are beating the Jetsons. |
myxemail | 01 Oct 2014 6:43 p.m. PST |
and the Ewoks beat the Imperial stormtroopers |
Weasel | 01 Oct 2014 8:08 p.m. PST |
Tuscaloosa – It's not about who wins. It's about who doesn't lose. |
Legion 4 | 03 Oct 2014 9:36 a.m. PST |
Some interesting intel I picked up on CNN. The US General in A'stan, stated the ANA/ANP suffered 7000-9000 KIA/WIA in this year so far in fighting the Taliban et al. Also stated, they have been fighting well and taking back some areas. If the ANA/ANP are taking those kind of losses, what about the Talis, etc. ? It's pretty much low tech vs. low tech generally without US/NATO support … |
Lion in the Stars | 03 Oct 2014 8:00 p.m. PST |
Could it be remotely possible that hi-tech stuff 'costs' a lot of money because there is a lot of money to spend on it? To some extent. The infamous $25,000 USD toilet set was actually the entire toilet assembly cover in the B52H. So it's not a small piece to begin with, and it required a custom tool that cost about a million dollars to make so that they could do the injection-mold. And then the USAF only bought ~50 of the things, which split that million dollars of machining to $20 USDk per, plus the flight-tested plastic and all the design work to make the thing fit in the first place. Conscripts are also considerably cheaper to employ than long service regulars too. Not cheaper, as Hagen points out, and conscripts are far less effective than long service regulars, too. Compare British Army under Wellington (regulars) versus French Army under Napoleon (largely conscripts). |
hagenthedwarf | 07 Oct 2014 2:47 p.m. PST |
Compare British Army under Wellington (regulars) versus French Army under Napoleon (largely conscripts). But the again in the FPW the German conscripts beat the regular French; it is ONE factor among many. |