Military experience of the civilian population

[Jmland]

One thing that occurred to me as I was staring at the forums late this evening (or is it early this morning), is that one thing that hasn't been addressed is the relative experience of the population as a whole.

Take for example the Germans- After WW1, they were limited to a 100,000 man army. But....they cheated. They cycled a good portion of their military aged/eligible population thru military training (and had paramilitary "sports clubs" all over the place). That gave the average German citizen some "experience" that would translate into....I don't know...something.

At the opposite end of the spectrum would be the US, with a peace time army that I think was even smaller than Germany's, and nobody in their right mind wanted to join (except as an option to stay out of prison for some incident with the Senators daughters).

What I'm thinking is this. The general military experience level of the population could be adjusted by national laws. For example, a 1 year draft would cycle a lot of people thru the military and get them trained to a certain level. Comparing a 2 year draft to this, a 2 year draft would get you more manpower in the military, but would contribute a lesser level of military experience to the population, Same with 3 yr draft, etc etc.

Now, what does this get you. Well...if your recruits are already trained to a certain degree, then either training time is less when you create the unit...OR, training the unit would get the unit to a higher level of proficiency.

If you are taking from the population at random, you would not drain or lower the "military experience" of the population, although it would decline over time naturally if nobody is exiting the military and entering civilian life.

If however, you are selective in your recruitment, and pick only the people who have previous military experience for this new unit, then the military experience level of the population would decrease. But.....the experience level of this unit would be "high" at start (or at least more than zero). Examples would be Grossdeutchland Division, British Guards Division etc.

The point is this. Elite units (such as Rangers, Royal Marines, SS (if you chose to include them in this discussion even if only the first 1/3 of those units could really be included in this), Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces, French....Legion estrangre???? whatever. Creating these units takes a lot of your skilled manpower. Pretty soon all you will have left is uneducated West Virginia farmboys (apologies to those from Mineral county and environs) and New York lawyers (no apology here-all lawyers should die), and this would mean that training time and costs would increase dramatically.

But the real idea behind this is that the current "military experience level of the population affects the starting experience of units when they appear on the map, AND this is a resource that can be depleted if you waste it.
What I'm suggesting is that the game could track a level of military experience inherent in the population at it is being depleted (or added to) throughout the game. This would affect the starting experience level of newly created units, in addition to training.

For example- Italy starts the game at war with Ethiopia (and mobilized). Lets say for example that the war lasts until April of 36, Italy wins and demobilizes. The draftees return to the civilian population increasing the "military experience" of the population.
Then in 1938, Italy decides to build it's first Armor Division (130 Centauro or something like that). Italy also chooses to make it an elite division, choosing only recruits with previous military experience, thus depleting the pool of military experience in the population (an example, don't read anything into it)

Additionally, the military experience level of a population would factor into "replacements" If the experience level of the population is close to that of the standing military, the experience would not decrease (much) with replacements. If however it is greatly different (below), then the experience level of the unit/division would decrease.

Pls forgive me for rambling in this, lots of coffee and late at night.

 

[EnvyDemon]

I think the manpower pool is an accurate representation. Once Italy would stop mobilizing, all units they've demobilized return to civilian life and go into the manpower pool, until they need to fill a division. (Please forgive me if I am wrong, I haven't played too much HOI, but I think that's how it works).

Basically, Germany having a large manpower pool would represent populace with military experience.

 

[Jmland]

True but the US has a larger manpower pool with very little military experience.

 

[Opanashc]

Take for example the Germans- After WW1, they were limited to a 100,000 man army. But....they cheated. They cycled a good portion of their military aged/eligible population thru military training (and had paramilitary "sports clubs" all over the place). That gave the average German citizen some "experience" that would translate into....I don't know...something.

False. 100,000 men army was an army of long-serving professionals. Germany "cheated" by creating SA, a "civilian" army, with "real" army training its soldiers to become officers and NCO's in case of expansion. 40,000 NCOs out of 100,000 - that's WAY more than needed.
Overall, idea has merit, BUT I think different implementation would be required. Splitting of manpower into 2 categories - trained and untrained. Trained manpower has some experience (but not that of standing units) and reduces the time to fully train a unit, while untrained manpower does not.
HoI3 had an issue with it - train a reserve unit at minimal training and volunteer army laws, then switch to specialist training and mobilize it - and you get a division with hefty amount of EXP faster, then if you build a full division at specialist training.

 

[Klausewitz]

What about the part of the US population living in the backwoods and regularly shooting their own dinner?
Wouldn't that provide quite a bit of experience?
If you have to choose a 'worst' that would probably be Britain:
No military tradition to speak of (at least not for the Army), no history of hunting for the whole populace (provided Germany and the USA with Marksman), no history or concept really of conscriotione, etc.

 

[Klausewitz]

...
Take for example the Germans- After WW1, they were limited to a 100,000 man army. But....they cheated. They cycled a good portion of their military aged/eligible population thru military training (and had paramilitary "sports clubs" all over the place). That gave the average German citizen some "experience" that would translate into....I don't know...something.
...

They did not.
What you are writing about is Prussia circumventing French limitations before the wars of Liberation in the early 18th century.
The Reichswehr cycled nobody through and remained pretty constant as far as menpower was concerned (ten years to make an NCO or an office).
What did help however was widespread unrest that provided military experience as late as 1923 (Silesian Uprisings, Civil War in Germany, etc.), the Freikorps structure and the various armed paramilitary organizations (SA, Stahlhelm, Roter Frontkämpferbund, etc.)
Also paramilitary lessons in the HJ which encompassed most German youth by 1935.

 

[Wulf145]

What about the part of the US population living in the backwoods and regularly shooting their own dinner?
Wouldn't that provide quite a bit of experience?
If you have to choose a 'worst' that would probably be Britain:
No military tradition to speak of (at least not for the Army), no history of hunting for the whole populace (provided Germany and the USA with Marksman), no history or concept really of conscriotione, etc.

No matter how good a Marksman one is or how often you shoot your own Dinner, it will not compensate for lack of knowledge about working & fighting as a Unit. Even in WW2 Infantry training encompassed more than just teaching Soldiers how to shoot straight. It will mean that you have a higher percentage of recruits who know the basics of shooting, but no more.

 

[Jmland]

..., BUT I think different implementation would be required. Splitting of manpower into 2 categories - trained and untrained. Trained manpower has some experience (but not that of standing units) and reduces the time to fully train a unit, while untrained manpower does not.
.

Any way of tracking it would be acceptable AFAIC. But Klausewitz does have a point (and yes I did make a mistake and confuse Napoleonic era Prussia with Weimar Germany) about the other paramilitary and "political security" organizations.
In any event, lets take a look at some countries that were NOT involved in WW2 directly.

Switzerland for example. High draft rate (IIRC-near universal male draft for a short period of time), with a proportion of each year-class taking advanced (and longer term) training. While I don't know the details (someone who is actually FROM Switzerland should probably comment here), I assume that they each have a yearly training event to attend. (In the US, members of the National Guard must attend training events that are scheduled for 1 weekend each month (for 11 months) and a 2 week event for the 12th month for a total of 36 days a year). I would expect that Switzerland would have a relatively high level of "military experience" in the civilian population.

Spain is another example-(assuming we are talking about Spain in 1939) Spain just got finished with a 3 year long civil war. Lots of military experience to go around. Should reflect a high level of experience.

Sweden- While the Viking tradition should in theory provide a certain level of "militaristic ferocity" , I don't believe that it had a standing draft or anything like this, and hasn't fought a serious military conflict since Napoleon (pls forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, not fully educated on Sweden). So unless I'm far off, Sweden would have a lower level of military experience.


In any event, it would be another aspect of the game.

 

[Klausewitz]

I think one factor, that is easily tracable, would be conscription.
Another would be paramilitary training for children and youth (funny enough, the first two to come to mind are, for me, again, the USA and Germany, 'NRA youth' and the Eagle Scouts for one, the HJ for the other).
All other are highly subjective, hard to quantify or liable to stem from strange perceptions about 'warmindedness' or 'aggressiveness' of certain people because of ...blood? Genes?
Anyways, unquantifiable.


@sweden:
Sweden had universal conscription for much of its history, so i would say they are a poor example for a country with a bad pool of menpower.
I would again suggest England:
No conscription, hardly any shooting clubs, hardly any hunting expect for nboles, who make a mess of it, no tradition of enlistment, etc.

No matter how good a Marksman one is or how often you shoot your own Dinner, it will not compensate for lack of knowledge about working & fighting as a Unit. Even in WW2 Infantry training encompassed more than just teaching Soldiers how to shoot straight. It will mean that you have a higher percentage of recruits who know the basics of shooting, but no more.

It also makes recruiting of scout and sharpshooters easier (Germany for example had a huge lead in sniping in WW1 over Britain because of an indiginious culture of shooting clubs and hunting while Britain sported nothing of the sort... interestingly enough the arrival of the Lovat Scout was an important step for the British catch-up).
There is also a big overlap between skills needed for hunting (self-sufficiency, accurate shooting, initiative, self-reliance, outdoor skills, patience, etc.) and military life.
One could even argue that the American Basic Training with its penchant for 'breaking' recruits reduced their combat worthiness instead of incresing them.
But that would lead us to a discussion whether or not philosophies and doctrines of recruit training should be included (with the German school of thought probably again providing the yardstick to measure the others against).

 

[imperium3]

I quite like this idea, although in order to work it would probably need to be kept very simple. E.g. have a single number in addition to the manpower pool that represents the military experience of the population. Countries like Germany start off with a high value, countries like the USA with a low one. The effect of this number would be on the starting experience of your units - a relatively small advantage but one that might add up across your entire army.

The experience pool could be increased by certain laws or disbanding units (but only a little bit so as not to be exploitable), and decreased slightly whenever you spend manpower. This could simulate the fact that while, e.g. Germany would start off bringing in recruits with plenty of experience through prior training, by the end of the war they were down to young boys and old men.

The gameplay effect of this would, broadly, be to give units trained prewar, or early in the war, a slight advantage over those pulled together later on (depending on the manpower losses of the country).

 

[LordOfWar16]

Well, you have to keep in mind that the game first of all should be somewhat balanced. With that i dont mean that germany should have the same chance defeating the US in an 1 on 1 like them defeating germany of course, but balancing is an key part of HoI, on which they actually put alot of attention.

 

[Klausewitz]

Well, you have to keep in mind that the game first of all should be somewhat balanced. With that i dont mean that germany should have the same chance defeating the US in an 1 on 1 like them defeating germany of course, but balancing is an key part of HoI, on which they actually put alot of attention.

Sure, but what do you mean by that?

 

[Wulf145]

I

It also makes recruiting of scout and sharpshooters easier (Germany for example had a huge lead in sniping in WW1 over Britain because of an indiginious culture of shooting clubs and hunting while Britain sported nothing of the sort... interestingly enough the arrival of the Lovat Scout was an important step for the British catch-up).
There is also a big overlap between skills needed for hunting (self-sufficiency, accurate shooting, initiative, self-reliance, outdoor skills, patience, etc.) and military life.
One could even argue that the American Basic Training with its penchant for 'breaking' recruits reduced their combat worthiness instead of incresing them.
But that would lead us to a discussion whether or not philosophies and doctrines of recruit training should be included (with the German school of thought probably again providing the yardstick to measure the others against).

I agree with you that there are overlaps, but things like squad based fire & manoeuvre Tactics are still things which have to be taught. Would a bunch of Hunter/Poachers/outdoors-men make a better Militia than a bunch of clerks, yes but pit the Militia against a well trained Infantry Unit I would put my money on the Infantry unit.

I too would have liked Training Philosophy & Methods to be included in HOI4 (HOI3 had the Training 'Laws' which was a step in the right direction), I am sure that it would have made for some very interesting discussions in the Forum over the value of Auftragstaktik and the merits of the different Replacement systems (US, GB, German & Soviet, etc.) with all their merits and disadvantages.

 

[trionwolf]

I suggest you read some of the interwar US armies, the Army had more manpower then Germany at 150,000 standing. and the National guard was larger then the standing army. And if you wanna look at the different training techniques remember the US mobilized 11 million personal from 1940-1945. Now these were not all elite personal but they weren't what id call slouches or conscripts either. and the only way to truly gather experience is to be in combat.

The western powers ended up adopting a lot of German principles. The American GI was able to act on his own, NCO's took initive in the field and the junior officers were given freedom of maneuver. The tommies from Britain were excellent soldiers as well. I dont think you can really say soldier X is better then Soldier Y because his country did this. And if conscription means anything look at the performance of the red army in the beginning of the war. Just because they were conscripted and there population had had conscription for along time it doesn't mean those soldiers were more experienced, or that history with conscripting soldiers provided a pool of really excellent fighters from the get go.

Again in war the best teacher is combat with out actually being in it you truly dont know what your doing.

 

[wisecat]

IMO more important would be to put in some flag for WWI experience or absence thereof. A cadre of officers and NCOs with real combat experience makes a huge difference, even if they are no longer fit for front-line duty and only do basic training/officer teaching.

 

[Opanashc]

IMO more important would be to put in some flag for WWI experience or absence thereof. A cadre of officers and NCOs with real combat experience makes a huge difference, even if they are no longer fit for front-line duty and only do basic training/officer teaching.

Only if their experience is relevant. Veterans of Napoleonic wars would be useless in WW1. Aviation, tanks, radios - changed war quite dramatically between 1918 and 1939.

 

[scroggin]

What about the part of the US population living in the backwoods and regularly shooting their own dinner?
Wouldn't that provide quite a bit of experience?
If you have to choose a 'worst' that would probably be Britain:
No military tradition to speak of (at least not for the Army), no history of hunting for the whole populace (provided Germany and the USA with Marksman), no history or concept really of conscriotione, etc.

Britain had the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve and the RAFVR this gave them the skilled manpower they needed to defend britain from an unexpected threat. The British army had a small professional force for immediate deployment but they planned on taking a year or two to get a large army trained and equiped. This meant having half trained civilians wasnt a huge advantage like for a country that had land borders with a threatening nation. Britain also had men in their late thirtys and fourtys with a huge amount of experience from WWI. Who could train new recruits and return to service as officers.

Im not sure what level of training the other commonwealth nations had. New Zealand had army cadet training through high school then once war started we had conscription at 18 and overseas deployment at 21 this gave very well trained troops

 

[Secret Master]

No one wants to hear my answer to these questions. But I'll chime in anyway.

What we are really talking about here is institutional knowledge. It's not a question of manpower. It's a question of how much institutional knowledge you have and how quickly you can disseminate it to new units.

I don't really care how many WWI veterans you have as NCOs and commissioned officers in your current military. If their institutional knowledge is crap, it doesn't matter. If it's good, then the only question is how quickly it can be imparted to new recruits. Every major combatant in the war (and most minors that I can think of) added so many troops to their armed forces that it dwarfed the initial armies of all combatants (except France).

I've read that Germany ended up conscripting adding 18 million men throughout what is part of the game's time frame (totaling all recruits from 1933 to 1945 and including SS and rear echelon components). If you start with a cadre of 100,000, that still ends up being less than 1% of the total army strength.

The number of men conscripted after game start in HOI terms renders manpower discussions of this kind moot. If Germany has 300,000 men in uniform with experience from WWI, she doesn't get a massive improvement in her ability to train or conscript new recruits, because while going from 100,000 to 300,000 seems like a lot, it ends up being a drop of water in the bathtub that is her conscription effort.

(You also have to consider that not every NCO and officer is a good teacher or trainer. Adding another 100,000 NCOs with war fighting experience is not the same as adding 100,000 teachers and trainers that can be used to get new recruits into fighting shape. Military training looks like it is just a bunch of yelling and general buffoonery, but it's a kind of pedagogy just like any other teaching environment, with the added problem that those who do not learn the lessons may get themselves and others killed. Oh, and as others have pointed out, military knowledge gets outdated, too.)

From what I've seen about HOI4, it looks like it is just measuring institutional knowledge, and that is the right answer for 90% of WWII combatants.

 

[Pugmak]

There are some institutions that benefited greatly from pre-WW2 experienced personnel.

The USMC, for example.

When the US started mobilizing, the USMC called up all those who'd served in the small wars during the 30s and even some senior NCOs from the latter end of the 20s. This gave the organization a solid body of mid level leadership that was very experienced in jungle warfare in Central America as well as some senior and mid level leadership heavily experienced with the issues of unsupported actions and low level leadership initiative needs from the China AO, (Old China Hands). The Old China Hands had also had plenty opportunity to see Japanese forces in action in the China AO.

An even more extreme example, although slightly out of the time frame of the game, was the USMC call up for the Korean War.
By the time of the initial invasion of South Korea, the USMC had been reduced from 6 divisions and however many air wings to 2 understrength battalions on each coast of the US with one understrength squadron supporting each coast.

Those 4 battalions were merged to make 2 full strength battalions at Pendleton. Veteran call ups made up another full battalion, support units and bulked out an air group. That became the Fire Brigade that was sent to Pusan Perimeter. The remainder of the division and air wing were also comprised of veteran call ups, as well as "Summer Reserves" (the USMC wasn't allowed an actual reserve, so they kept a list of persons interested in serving in the Corps, which persons would meet once a month at a local armory to state their continued interest). The Summer Reserves only received 1 day's training at the rifle range, then joined their units. Only further training given to those personnel was whatever lectures and practices could be conducted while aboard ship to Inchon.

Approx 12% of the division and wing in the Corps were untrained summer reserve personnel. But, the low level leadership (NCOs and senior Non-Rates) from the veteran call ups was strong enough to mold them into effective fighters.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Sure, but what do you mean by that?

That you cant simply give one nation an massive advantage by basicly giving them trained manpower. That destroys the whole purpose of training and removes the equipment attrition you would suffer before the war due to training. That would mean that it stresses the german industry less and that they can build more stuff in the same time with the same amount of factories, since they dont need to replace those losses, but rather stockpile straight away.

Besides that i highly doubt that without regular training over quiet some years that you are anywhere near skilled than someone comming fresh out of training.