On ratings:
1: IC - I'd call them 3rd rate or maybe even 4th. I don't picture
them as an armed force to write home and brag about.
2: IF rated as 3rd rate: I didn't say they weren't a force to be feared, but I
suspect they still lack flexibility in responses, deeper doctrinal capability
that only comes with being a superpower with a long institutional military
history and a large budget, and I
suspect they also have problems with tribal/regional prejudices and
class prejudices. That's IMU.
3: AE Imperial Forces as 2nd rate - they rate first rate in the
subset of things they are good for, but the fact they are such a subset means
that they score lower overall. They don't have the huge military
infrastructure that the NAC has nor the institutional history nor do they
regularly engage in large clashes. They're good
(perhaps even great) in airless-body and shipboard combat. But on-
world (where required) or in larger scale conflicts, they drop out of their
depth.
4: NAC as 1st rate: I cite long military tradition of successful campaigns,
strong culture of fixing mistakes, emphasis on flexibility at lower and
intermediate levels, highest tech training aides, largest military budget,
etc. All in all, this contributes to the highest overall rating. There are
also hidden advantages that add up to being the military arm of a free and
educated society.
5: Swedes as second rate: Same reason as downgrading the AE Imperial Forces.
Swedes are good in their environment. But they don't do large scale ops often,
nor do they have quite the training budgets or toys of the NAC. Nor quite the
same institutional memory. 2nd rate is not shabby! It's a rating as "skilled
and competent". It just isn't quite the highest possible rating.
6: OUDF as second rate: Same problem as some of the other powers -
well trained indivdually, but limited larger-unit training for troops
and commanders. Limited training budgets. Good use of $$$, but not enough $$$.
Again, second rate is not lousy by any stretch.
7: Some PAU and some IF might well be 4th rate.
8: IAS 4th rate: I waffled about making them 3rd rate. I think they're 4th
rate but mostly due to limited operational experience (in that they mostly
don't have to fight), limited budget, limited force sizes (as this impacts
training of command staff and leaders), and limited military tradition and
culture and institutional memory. They do, I agree, stand a likelihood of
fielding some state of the art kit (or perhaps bleeding edge tech). But
they're a culture of scientists and researchers.... not warfighters. (IMU).
They're a 4th rate power with some plusses.
9: Rating Aliens. I rate SV as 3rd rate in terms of quality as I
don't think engineered bioconstructs have the same man-for-man
capabilities as most humans. OTOH, they make up for this lack of individual
quality by having certain physical capabilities that geneering gives them,
technology that is odd and terrifying, and a hard to predict psychology.
However, I didn't factor these into this rating. I think they rank high in the
"how powerful are they" rating, but lower in the "how good are they,
individually".
> TomB wrote:
> 1: IC - I'd call them 3rd rate or maybe even 4th. I don't picture
Maybe not in 2183, but back in the 2050s they must've been pretty damn hot to
conquer the Thais and Vietnamese... and being able to impose any kind of
control on the various Burmese fractions isn't a small feat either :-/
> 9: Rating Aliens. I rate SV as 3rd rate in terms of quality as I
Er... not in social situations, certainly. In combat situations however,
I'd phrase it the other way around - heck, an engineered bio-construct
may
even have similar tank-for-tank capabilities as most human vehicles...
and they certainly don't lack resources for training, since that's all they
are
able to do when they don't eat, breed or fight :-/
Later,
Tom said:
> 2: IF rated as 3rd rate: I didn't say they weren't a force to be
Yeah, like the guys had going into WWI...<g>
> and a large budget, and I suspect they also have problems with
I think their social structure is not as cohesive as, say, the US, therefore
units tend to be more fragile (you can't count on the other guy
to look out for you). And they use FSE hand-me-down equipment in a lot
of
cases--let someone else pay for bleeding edge research, IFed doesn't
need it for their usual opponents (which is, after all, usually *other* IFed,
or sometimes PAU).
> 3: AE Imperial Forces as 2nd rate -- They don't have the huge
But you said you were leavng out size, in this rating. Certainly it limits
them--having no divisions means you have no knack for maneuvering
them--but
I'd think that would apply at least as much to the Gurkhas, who you put as
1st rate. Same thing with skills subset--the Gurkhas probably *don't*
kick butt at, say, panzer maneuvers or zero gee.
> 4: NAC as 1st rate: I cite long military tradition of successful
Doesn't necessarily do it. The US army that started off in Korea was pretty
poor, as I understand it. Fortunately they learned, but only thru
on-the-job training. Certainly *some* NAC deserve first rate, but I'd
say the bulk do not.
> 7: Some PAU and some IF might well be 4th rate.
IFed militia probably have (unfulfilled) hopes of being 4th rate. The best IF
Guards units are probably 2nd rate, with a good CO.
> 9: Rating Aliens. I rate SV as 3rd rate in terms of quality as I
Uh....I agree. They have a lot *better* capabilities. After all, that's what
they're built for. (ok, it may be a swarm of wolverines instead of a few
trolls...still, not healthy)
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
The operative word in Islamic Commonwealth is ISLAMIC, one of the imperatives
of the religion
is 'convert or die'. Those who survive the
conquest have accepted the religions control of their life.
Bye for now,
> >1: IC - I'd call them 3rd rate or maybe even 4th. I
> The operative word in Islamic Commonwealth is ISLAMIC
Actually, the key word in IC is "Indonesian"....the Islamic Federation is the
IF or IFed
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> I'd think that would apply at least as much to the
-------
For all pracitical purposes, the Gurkas are a dedicated 1st rate mercenary
force.
> >4: NAC as 1st rate: I cite long mili tary tradition
> >The operative word in Islamic Commonwealth is
> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >4: NAC as 1st rate: I cite long mili tary
> > Doesn't necessarily do it. The US army that
The US Army has had some bad days in the past. Almost invariably when using
draftees. The Regular Army has been historically damn solid, but damn tiny.
The only time we get our heads handed to us on a silver platter are when
politicians put us in unwinnable situations. HOWEVER, this applies to every
Army in history (Remember, all you Anglophiles, that the British Army spent 2
years getting kicked around by the Germans. We lost one skirmish, and had an
unbroken winning record after.)
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Tom said:
Actually, the Brits and Germans had first-rate forces
going into WWI. Even German Ersatz divisions fought extremely well. The fact
that the doctrine didn't catch up to reality has nothing to do with the
military tradition involved. The major Islamic power in WWI lost their entire
empire to a tiny percentage of the British military.
I'm REALLY not impressed.
> Doesn't necessarily do it. The US army that started
Yeah, take a unit trained and equipped for
constabulary duties, at 2/3 of MTOE strength (2
batteries per artillery batallion, 2 infantry batallions per regiment, and
those were not fully
manned), and with absolutely no anti-armor weapons,
and put them in front of T-34s, and I don't care if
they are God Almighty, they loose.
> >7: Some PAU and some IF might well be 4th rate.
Again, personal preference--you're making really
cheerful assumptions about the IFed.
But the last time any Islamic power was even 3nd rate, matchlocks were cutting
edge technology.
And then, they got clobbered by a Polish feudal levy.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
No, they just have to be hotter than the Thais and Vietnamese.
> > being a superpower
John said:
> Actually, the Brits and Germans had first-rate forces
Yeah, and they had a long institutional military history, and they lost lots
and lots of guys because doctrine didn't match reality.
> > >7: Some PAU and some IF might well be 4th rate.
> Again, personal preference--you're making really
Not really. I'm saying that the very best trained, best led and best
equipped IF units might make it up to the level of the nothing-special
NAC unit.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
1)Shit happens. Neither your theology nor mine allows for humans achieving
perfection on this Earth, and if a single person can't do it, what are the
odds that an entire people ever will?
2)They adapted to the situation, with the German infiltration attacks and the
British armored attacks both being very effective solutions. The Ottomans,
Russians, and Italians simply collapsed like a house of cards. The French Army
mutinied and much of it was not considered reliable enough to engage in
offensive action. Us 'Mericans just charged ahead with enough
bullheaded enthusiasm to overrun burnt-out Germans who
all of a sudden weren't interested in fighting yet another couple million
troops of a fresh power that wasn't down to conscripting invalids and boys.
Sorry to stir up an old thread:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>1: IC - I'd call them 3rd rate or maybe even 4th. I don't picture
<chuckle> In other words, you're agreeing that the IC must've been hotter
than France, PRC and the US - after all, none of them were hot enough to
conquer Vietnam ;-)
As for Thailand, they're (currently and AFAIK traditionally as well) the
most competent military force in SE Asia... and AFAIK the only SE Asian
nation which was not conquered/colonized by any European nation :-/
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> <chuckle> In other words, you're agreeing that the
The US and France could conquer it.
We just weren't willing to pay the price to hold it.
I suspect, that after 27 years of Communism and counting, resistance would be
somewhat less intense.
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> As for Thailand, they're (currently and AFAIK traditionally as well)
the
> most competent military force in SE Asia... and AFAIK the only SE
In 1941 they beat the stuffing out of the French on land - but got wiped
very comprehensively at sea.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> <chuckle> In other words, you're agreeing that the
The comparison is invalid, the US objective was not
to conquer/colonize as the French and PRC intended,
Bye for now,