It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Creating a Hypothetical National Military

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:57 PM
I have been working on a long-term excersize that helps me develop my understanding of how militaries work. I'm working on creating my own Hypothetical Military. While this sound simple, when you try it for real, it is actually a very challenging thing to do. If anyone wishes to try for an understanding of how building a modern military works, I seriouly recommend trying this for yourself!

Here's how to do it:

1. Get a computer disk you can save your ideas on.

2. Make folders/directories for key elements of you military: Command System, Intelligence and Security, weapons, and Doctrine

3. Slowly create files with ideas on how to address these issues.

It seems simple, but it's not. Try to work out the details of each of these areas. Ask yourself the tough questions:

Why did you choose a paticular weapon or system? What are it's stringths? What are it's weaknesses? How will that fit with your idea about how to fight and win a war? Can you improve it? How does each element fit with all of the others? Is you system flexable enought to deal with the unexpected?

My personal attempt at this experiment is called Project Cirlantia (random silly name)! So far, it has proven to be quite an amazing challenge! I have been combining differet weapon from diffrerent countries, along with some of my own designs. The Key to making it fun is to constantyUse info from ATS to improve your own ideas. Simulate war games against real-world militaries using the most current information you have on current weapons. How would your military fair? Could you win against a real-world military.

It's time consuming, but it allows you to see how well you understand the art and science of modern warfare. Turst me it really works if yousitck toa realistic force with stringths and weaknesses! I'll tell you, it has given me an apprieciation for the work that goes on in the Pentagon every day!


posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:13 PM
Nice one Ghost.

It all comes down to what you hope to achieve with your armed forces.

Do you want them to be 'defensive' or are you after a purely 'offensive' armed force?

(Don't forget - just to confuse you even more, a 'defensive' armed force, will always have 'offensive' arms - and vise versa!)

So my friend - do you want to protect your tiny but (technologically) superior planet, or do you envisage projecting your newly harnessed power all round the world?

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:18 AM
I posted this idea so others could try it if they wanted to! I though it would be an intresting idea for others to try. I used a system that divides the forces up by their mission first and then by service! I used a modified version of the US C3IS (Command, Control, and Communications, Intellegince and Security) Network!

I have three Self-Contained Unified Commands:

Strategic Command (Bombers, Strategic Missiles (ICBM's, Cruise Missiles), and Misslie Subs, Airborn Command Centers, and Space assets): unlike the US system My STRATCOM has perment control of it's assets. While it works with the three brances of the military, it can function indepndently.

Air Defense Command: Like NORAD, but with it's own Air Force

Special Operations Command: Handles all Special Forces

I also centralised the intelligence and security:

NSA- Counterintelligence and Security mission with the FBI for support

CIA- Intelligence only


My biggest change is that I split the role of Commander in Chief up, instead of being up to one person, I now have a small team that does the job of the US President.

While it isn't perfect, I was looking for a system that is both more efficent and more peace-oriented! I say try to keep the peace at all costs, but don't be afraid to fight if you have to!

I also focused on very long-range weapons, like bombers and strategic missiles, instead of fighters like the US does. The system still has flaws, but I'm working on those.


posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:05 AM
How do you plan on supporting this military? I see that you’ve taken the time to consider some of its offensive units but do not forget to also consider the equally important roles of its many supporting units. Any strong military has far more supporting units working to supply the offensive units.

A simple rule of thumb is this, look at a typical system of government like a city or county and duplicate most of the roles that are used to make those governments run well for your military.

One last thought. Take some aspirin before you start this project it’s a massive undertaking that goes far beyond simply picking out weapon systems and cool names for a small handful of the departments involved.

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:43 AM
Hey thanks! I'm working on those details right now! I just though I'd share what I'm working on with everyone. It's a "Work in Progress", and won't be finished for a while! the Support network is the "Moster". It's a learning process.


posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:54 AM
This is a very interesting idea. I think i'll throw a little something together and post what I come up with.

You'll probably hear from me soon. I love this stuff and I move pretty quick on it.

Edit to remove unrealistic idea.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

Second edit to add ideas so far. I've pretty much gone old-school with this force, relying heavily on modifcations of the M-113 with the vision of a highly cost-effective force. When I think military I rarely have the US in mind simply because I consider that cheating- we're doing half of the world's defense spending. I was thinking more along the lines of regional powers in North Africa and the Middle East who might want to be able to project a highly lethal, highly cost effective force to keep their neck of the woods nice and quiet.

I'm by no means finished, but what I invision is a small, agile military focused primarily on fighting under a strictly manuever based doctrine. Breaching enemy lines by surprise and mobility to destroy their support structure, and being able to surprise, close with, and destroy tanks at close range is what I had in mind.

The backbone of this force is going to be a corps of mechanized infantry units most of the batallions in which will be organized as follows:
2 Infantry Companies consisting of 16 modified M-113 Ultras (Ultra being singapore's modernized version armed with a 25mm Bushmaster Chaingun).
1 Support Company consisting of 4 M-1064 Mortar Carriers, 2 M981 Fire Support Vehicles, 2 M163 Vulcan Air Defense Systems, and 3 M548 Load Carriers (for carrying ammo and fuel to sustain operations during breakthrough operations), and 1 M577 Command Vehicle

Two key modifications would be made to the M-113 Ultra. 1. A diesel-electric hybrid engine. 2. It's height would be reduced from 2.5m to 2m. This would be made possible by modifying the infantry compartment so that the floor lowered to ground level when the hatch was opened, restoring the compartment to roughly standard height so that the infantry could exit quickly. This is designed both to cut down on target area and weight, thus adding fuel range.

The infantry in these vehicles are organized into 6 man fire teams capable of independent operation or cooperation with a partnered fireteam as a squad. They carry the M16A2 (M249 SAW for base of fire). I was tempted to go with the Rk-62 (a very accurate AK clone made in Fiinland), but 7.62x39 isn't really a great round anyway and ammo capacity and interchangability is too important.

So there we have the first element of what I am designing.
A considerable amount remains just to complete this corps. Obviously division and regiment artillery is still lacking, as is close air support and logistical infrastructure. I'm also planning to give this corps an armored division.
Beyond that you can expect the rest of the force to be more mainstream, probably former soviet hardware more than anything else. (You've got to remember that I'm thinking cost effective here- years of playing Super Power has taught me that if you can't build them and build them relatively quick, your enemies will have made them obsolete before your force is even built. It's also taught me that you don't have to be top of the line in every department when you're in the 3rd world.)

I will share one more thing with you quickly. The tank I have in mind tries out an idea that has intrigued me quite a bit. I'm thinking along the lines of a modified T-72, again for cost and aquirability reasons inherent to the type of nation I am designing for.

It is designed to work behind a thermal screen which would blind enemy thermal viewers. The screen would likely be deployed in the form of a white phosphorus or napalm artillery round or missile which could be used to create fires on the battlefield, especially on a heavily vegitated one. The tank however would have its own UAV, probably helicopter-like in design, which could feed targeting information to the tank despite the thermal screen between the tanks on the ground (this could also keep the tank competitive as laser technology for defeating thermal imaging becomes feasible for first-word militaries.
As an additional compliment to the UAV, the tank would have a high verticle barrel angle, allowing it to fire a laser guided round from cover.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:15 AM
Very cool idea

As Machine already said, the logistical support of your forces is perhaps even more important then the forces themselves. Soldiers march on their stumaches, planes fly on oil, and guns shoot bullets.

In other words, all of the armed forces will be useless without food, gas, ammo and equipment.

Some other thoughts...

I think if you are going for a realistic situation you should pick allies and enemies. Your (potential) enemies would dictate what you need. Consider also that your allies will most likely dictate the equipment and technology available. For instance, if you want the M16 as your main assult rifle, you need to be pals with the US. However doing this would probably prohibit you from buying a lot of Russian stuff.

A good, cost effective choice IMO would be the JSF as a do it all aircraft. It is supposed to be reasonably priced (between 45 and 55 mil depending on the type you get), it would have F-117 type of stealth ability, and has extreme versatility - you can get both naval and non naval versions as well as STOVL ability. It also should keep up the tradition of the F-16 as a good A2A fighter. IT will have greater stealth ability (and thus a great advantage in BVR then anything but the Raptor and soon to be T-50.

new topics

top topics


log in