NCR Military training

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Alesia, Jul 28, 2013.

  1. Languorous_Maiar

    Languorous_Maiar A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 25, 2011
    I was asking for source that BoS was part of NCR, not about some armors... why you're trying to change the subject?

    You said this
    + some more posts about NCR/BoS

    I really want those refs:
    "plenty of Fallout 2 and NV references for that."
    Really, PLENTY of them. If there is so many of them, why it is so hard for you to post them?
    But you from nowhere started talking about armors, when there was no contradiction at all. In my first post in this thread I even showed produced by NCR armor...
  2. KillerBee256

    KillerBee256 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 31, 2008
  3. Languorous_Maiar

    Languorous_Maiar A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 25, 2011
    Yes, it is.
    But I was saying about that one
    which is manufactured in NCR.

    BigBoss, i'm still waiting for those references that BoS was part of NCR, and remember, you said they're plenty of them, so don't avoid this question please.
  4. Alesia

    Alesia It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 3, 2013
    Good point (and you made alot of them) all of which I copied and pasted into my notes.

    I really need to go back and do a runthrough of the first two again, since the point is true, NV is hardly representative of the NCR military's full scope/potential/technology. IIRC weren't some of the higher ranks complaining that the Mojave soldiers were under trained/hastily trained and having disobedience issues, etc..?

    And of course there was at least one set of deserters we know of.

    Anyway, I make that point because I'd lean toward easygoing militiaman judging from the behavior of the NV troops, but that may not be true based on the above info. That and most of the troops you see are just hanging around OP's, guarding doors, other boring jobs, that make one wish for a nuclear winter repeatedly.
  5. Languorous_Maiar

    Languorous_Maiar A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 25, 2011
    Yep, they were having like 1/2 weeks of training before being send to Mojave and someone is saying it in FNV.

    Before conflict with Legion NCR Army was much smaller imho. (Before war with BoS/Legion they had to fight only with raiders and mutants, so nothing impressive)
    Also, FNV in reliable way show NCR army in 2281.
  6. Alesia

    Alesia It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Mar 3, 2013
    True, and my story is in 2270 and in CA, so things would be VASTLY different than they are seen in the Mojave.
  7. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Which is completely baseless. You can't arbitrarily remove integral elements of warfare and then declare two completely different powers equal once you have removed everything that doesn't stick. It's dishonest.

    The NCR isn't on a Cold War technological level for reasons outlined already. Just because the individual grunt has automatic weapons (or rather, semi-automatics) doesn't mean there is any remote similarity. You might as well compare Somalia and the United States and declare them on a similar technological level because you don't factor in transportation, industrial capacity, and dozens of other factors that are the crux of warfare.

    Dude, are you serious? "Single shot rifles"? In World War I? The primary weapon of World War I were bolt action rifles utilizing a full-size rifle cartridge with very high range and plenty of stopping power. These were supplemented by high numbers of heavy machine guns (which, again, utilized a full size rifle cartridge) and, in the latter stages, sub-machine guns for trench warfare. In all periods of the war, artillery played a prominent role in war. The real problem was the development and deployment of advanced military technologies (bolt action rifles, sub-machine guns, artillery, tanks, airplanes) in accordance with strategic doctrines of the 19th century.

    The NCR has no advantage. Whatever they can field is easily countered by World War I technology, because the NCR overall has a similar technological level in terms of individual weapons and much lower in terms of mechanization and industrial capacity. And even then, the NCR would have to first survive artillery strikes that turn cities and fields into moonscapes, with no counter of their ownl.

    That's a lot of words that aren't actually saying anything, BB. The economic doctrine of a state is irrelevant in war, what matters is the industrial capacity and efficiency of production. These are not based in ideological factors, but production technologies, streamlining of the manufacturing process, supply lines, quality and availability of raw resources, the education of the cadre and personnel...

    There is no difference between how a capitalist tank and a communist tank is assembled.

    Woah boy. You shouldn't have said that.

    You're joking, right? The T-34 outclassed nearly all German tanks at the beginning of Fall Barbarossa with its 76mm cannon, manoeuvrability, sloped armour, and its raw thickness, from 15mm in the rear to 45mm in the front and as much as 60mm in the turret. The only comparable German tank of the time, the Panzer III, had a 50mm cannon and similar armour on paper (except it wasn't sloped, reducing it effectiveness).

    Uh-huh. So I guess the Panther copying Soviet technologies used in the T-34 was just a mishap? You're operating on some fictionalized portrayal of the Third Reich as the technological superman of Europe. While they did have certain advantages, these weren't overwhelming. The Reich started the war several years too soon and entered it with light tanks and medium tanks that had certain advantages, but couldn't quite compete with the best tanks of the period. Furthermore, the army of the Reich wasn't nearly as mechanized as you want it to be: the overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht and auxiliary formations moved on foot or utilized horses for transporting supplies and ordnance.

    I mean, seriously. Panzer I is better than contemporary tanks?

    Uh, no. They had certain technological advantages and were more powerful in certain aspects, but they were hardly the best tanks of the time. The best tank was the T-34, owing to its reliability, simple design, ease of manufacturing, repair, and upkeep, as well as a good balance of firepower and protection. Sure, the Tiger and the Panther were more advanced on paper, but in practice they were over-engineered, expensive to maintain, and vulnerable to the elements.

    Oh, and they were too few. The T-34s were mass produced and were deployed in hunting packs. Nec Hercules contra plures. If the German tanks were clearly technologically superior on the order of several magnitudes, that would compensate for the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies. The fact that it did not should tell you something.

    You're joking, right? The USA ousted the UK as the global hegemon and effectively dismantled the British Empire. The post-war era was a golden age for the United States, as it was the uncontested controller of the western hemisphere. If I have to look at things in a certain way, that means you're asking me to twist facts to fit a particular theory. That's the reverse of the scientific method.

    The UK, like much of Europe, was devastated by the Second World War, which is where the economic hardships came from. The United States, by comparison, was unscathed. The Japanese never invaded the U.S. mainland, leaving its industrial and economic base intact, allowing it to pump vast amounts of money into Europe to help the destroyed continent rebuild (look up the Marshall Plan).

    This established the U.S. as the de facto hegemon of Western Europe and counterweight to the Soviet Union occupying the Eastern portions of the continent. And then came the arms race that kept the military and industrial sectors of the market afloat in the west.

    I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with the post-World War II golden age. The United States and practically the entire West experienced one of the largest economic booms in the twentieth century, instead of another Great Depression as you claim.


    A wiki is not an acceptable citation. It's not a primary or even a secondary source. It's a tertiary source, an amalgam of information that has no value of its own, unless it clearly shows the original source of the information claimed. Without proper citations and references, it's just baseless speculation.

    If you wanted to provide a source, you'd cite a character or a holodisc from the game, or even a developer. But linking to a page with no references? That's worthless.

    To illustrate my point:

    This is a good article. Information is accurately sourced and referenced, with no speculation. You can clearly identify where it comes from and confirm facts for yourself.

    This earlier version of the same article is horrible. There's no citations, no references, and overall, it lacks credibility. Anyone can insert their own little fan fiction and make it stick, precisely because no one scrutinized the article in an academic fashion.

    Get the point?
  8. Arden

    Arden Still Mildly Glowing

    Feb 26, 2010
    Given the resources and manpower (and perhaps even the moral background) it does seem less likely that the ncr breaks down and rebuilds characters or brainwashes them sufficiently to form an army. 1-2 weeks are not enough to do this. And if they did not use that kind of training at the time of NV, then surely they didn't earlier.
    If you go for militiaman solution, think about the motivations the troops have to join. Perhaps it's the pay, or some privileges after serving time (like roman legionaries) or simply that the ncr would provide food and shelter to a family if a member joined. That depends a bit on how things are back in CA. Somehow I feel that duty and patriotism as a motivator is a bit far fetched in a recently rebuilt post apocalyptic society, though there might be some idealists that see the ncr as a force of order and prosperity and want to do their bit.

    The whole Tank discussion is the same as the one about rifles BB. It's no use comparing two technical spec sheets, deciding which one is better and then declare technological superiority for a side. This is only relevant in a one on one duel where the conditions are just right to exploit tiny advantages.

    The thing that matters in the war is production speed, training needed and ease of maintenance. Those factors determine how many working tanks an army can field. It does not matter if the Tiger has a bigger engine or slightly more range if you only have 100 of them to stop a 1000 t-34's.

    There is a threshold where tech superiority alone can win you a war, but that's only a theoretical limit. If the germans had leopards 2's in ww2, wrecking t-34's from 11 km away at 12 shots a minute, it could have worked. But the gap is often small and can be countered by either more numbers or different tactics.

    The only scenarios that show off tech superiority as the ultimate solution are science fiction stories when the aliens come to pay a visit. That's where we could really be fucked because the gap could be too big to be bridged by other means in the time we have. Unless Microsoft develops a windows virus that switches off all alien shields or if the takedown of a single control ship defeats the whole air force of the aliens :wink: See? Tech superiority gets balanced by stupidity and the war is won! :D
  9. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Technical specifications are important as well. You can't entirely ignore them either. They determine the usability of a vehicle in a given theatre of war. The thickness of armour determines how close the enemy has to come to penetrate it, directly affecting their survivability and performance on the field. The consumption of fuel and spare parts determines the reach of the army.

    Plus, you need to have good working tanks on the field on top of the industrial output. Pumping out chaff that falls apart after taking a direct hit is bad warfare.
  10. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 13, 2004
    reading this, I would put the NCR on the level of say, 1965's Rhodesia (With nukes). There is a decent standard of weapons, uniform, and so on. It does have some advanced technology (Air power, armor, mobility) but in actual use a lot of the forces walk from location to location, and a lot of the units fight at platoon or squad level due to the fact that the population itself is not great. It has skilled units (Rangers for NCR/Rhodesian Light Infantry for Rhodesia) but a lot of the manpower is drafted and of mixed quality. A lot of the fighting is skirmishes unless fighting over a important area. Both armys understand logistics and communication, but are hampered by small population (300k white population in Rhodesia, 600k NCR) and limited resources (Rhodesia had sanctions, NCR is still rebuilding from Nuclear war)