Expeditionary:
Examples
France
United States
United Kingdom
Role: An expeditionary force is focused heavily, even almost entirely, on deploying large formations to distant locations. It defends the interests of the nation abroad more so than it protects the borders or provides internal security. Such armies represent true world powers in that they are actually capable of deploying to most countries in the world, and supporting extended operations therein. And all of this with no real assistance from other parties.
Ground Forces: Emphasis is on strategic and tactical mobility, and maximum flexibility. The primary unit of organization and maneuver is the reinforced brigade. Most units are fully mechanized and equipped with modern high-end equipment. Those that aren’t are either airborne forces or trained for operations in restrictive terrain like jungles or mountains. Troops are well trained, and utilize their training, mobility, and technological advantage to overpower numerically superior opponents.
Air Forces: Extremely modern, and very large. There’s usually a disproportionate emphasis on airlift and refueling assets, with combat aircraft being mostly modern multirole fighters. There is also significant electronic warfare capability, including jamming and AEW aircraft. As with the army, training and technology are used to overcome numerical inferiority.
Command & Control: Field commanders are given excellent latitude and flexibility at all levels of command, but are still ultimately answerable to the central government. Regulation mostly occurs in the forms of mission parameters, though there is the potential threat of excessive government interference in some instances.
Advantages: Man for man, expeditionary forces are among the most capable in the world, especially on the offense. With support from bases across the globe, these armies can deploy overwhelming combat power almost anywhere in the world whether welcome or not. They can also defeat most countries’ militaries on their home ground, as well as support major peacekeeping operations, even without international support.
Disadvantages: In addition to being extremely expensive to maintain just from an equipment standpoint, military deployments abroad also consume significant resources. These militaries also suffer from the societies that spawn them, which expect quick, easy victories and often refuse to accept casualties in
any numbers. They also suffer from restrictions placed by the government, often in ignorance of military realities, and are over-criticized in both politics and the media. Finally, due to expenses, there’s a common trend of downsizing and canceling needed projects for budgetary reasons, even if this could severely hinder operations in the field.
---
Projection:
Examples
Germany
Italy
Spain
Role: A projection-oriented force is offensive in nature, and intended to deploy troops abroad. In the most simple terms, this is much like an expeditionary force, but without the logistical support needed to allow for an autonomous operation outside the region. These are regional powerhouses, but pose little threat of invading distant nations.
Ground Forces: As with expeditionary, these are highly trained, mostly mechanized, and equipped with high-end modern equipment (or at least far superior to that of any neighbors). The primary unit is usually a reinforced brigade, and units that aren’t mechanized are usually light airborne forces or trained for operations in restrictive terrain. The high quality of troops and equipment, as well as mobility and tactical flexibility, grant advantages over less modern militaries, despite numerical inferiority. However, they usually don’t have quite the emphasis on logistics that expeditionary forces do.
Air Forces: Very large and well equipped with top-of-the-line combat aircraft, but usually lacking in strategic airlift and aerial refueling assets necessary for true interregional force projection. Also, may be somewhat lacking in electronic warfare assets compared to expeditionary militaries.
Command & Control: As with expeditionary, there is officially a centralized control, but field commanders, at all levels, are given a great deal of latitude to act, except that they are often restrained by mission parameters that are usually set up by a civilian government.
Advantages: These militaries are highly mobile, well trained, well equipped, and fully capable of defeating much larger opponents. They also have the ability to support large-scale operations relatively close to home, and small scale ones almost anywhere in the world.
Disadvantages: Like expeditionary forces, they tend to be hampered by civilian interference in operational doctrine, as they ultimately answer to civilians that often know little of the realities of warfare. And as with expeditionary, they also tend to have an excessive trend toward cost-cutting and downsizing that could jeopardize their effectiveness in future conflicts. They also, as mentioned, do not have the ability to support major operations abroad, especially if deploying to hostile nations.
---
Total Defense:
Examples
Israel
Singapore
South Korea
Role: This is an army that has so little ground to defend that it must adopt an all-or-nothing attitude toward defense. It may be surrounded by hostile foes or it may just have one numerically superior opponent or potential foe. Whatever the case, it’s either extremely small or just with a critical piece of real estate that’s way too close to the border for comfort, and it has to pull out all the stops in defending itself.
Ground Forces: Primary ground forces are well mechanized, well trained, and well equipped. These are among the best militaries man-for-man. They have to be. But what’s most remarkable is the reserves, which have several times the manpower of frontline forces, and usually possess a system for rapid call-up in the case of an emergency. Proportional to the population, these are among the largest armies on earth, and usually have 7-10% of their population under arms when reserves are included.
Air Forces: Relatively large, extremely well equipped and trained, and based almost exclusively on combat aircraft. They make up for lack of numbers with quality. However, these nations tend to have little need for transport beyond helicopters for air-mobile troops.
Command & Control: Maximum flexibility is given to field commanders. Military realities take front seat to politics in these nations, and unit commanders must be able to seize the initiative even when cut off from higher command. As said before, this is all about defending no matter what it takes.
Advantages: These militaries are usually regional powerhouses, even if that’s not what they intend to be. They’re usually much better equipped and more capable than their opponents, and often fully capable of launching limited invasions beyond their borders by simple virtue of their highly mechanized nature. In defense, the small territory being defended and the focus of all military assets within provides obscene tactical flexibility. Even when they have to cover every border, the proximity of their forces to each other is still better than most focused militaries, so they can reinforce anywhere along the front with ease.
Disadvantages: These are phenomenally expensive. Almost all of the nations supporting such armies spend over 5% of their GDP on them, and are thus among the world’s heaviest military spenders. They may even require foreign assistance just to help control costs, including aid and hosting foreign soldiers. Most are also incapable of launching operations that far beyond their own borders because all the focus is on combat forces. Most importantly, when defending, a single breakthrough anywhere along their line can be a catastrophic event leading to the downfall of the entire nation.
---
Focused
Examples
Egypt
North Korea
Pakistan
Yugoslavia
Warsaw Pact nations
Role: A focused military is one that has a single major adversary, be it genuine or perceived. This opponent, usually more powerful in some way or another, is the central emphasis of all military planning and deployment, to the point that the majority of the military’s power (usually 60-80%) is focused there. Almost all planning and deployments are based around an armed conflict with that one enemy.
Ground Forces: These are very large armies (representing 2 of the top 10 in total personnel), and if not truly modern, at least mostly mechanized. There may be a two-tiered system with all of the best-equipped units arrayed against the main threat, but forces elsewhere equipped with much older equipment. There are often relatively large airborne and/or airmobile forces to provide tactical advantage. Except for smaller/less populous nations, these militaries still deploy and operate at the division level.
Air Forces: Large, if not necessarily modern. The focus is primarily on combat, with very little in the way of strategic transport, and almost all airlift is related to battlefield roles of delivering special forces and airborne or airmobile troops. Depending on the nation, they may or may not be well trained or well equipped, but they are at least capable, usually as a regional influence if nothing else.
Command & Control: Most operations are based on carefully rehearsed plans developed in response to potential outbreaks of war. There’s usually a degree of centralization in control, but units in the field may have some latitude.
Advantages: Against their perceived enemy, these militaries have large forces and excellent infrastructure in place to support a major campaign on short notice. Militaries are professional and generally well equipped. When given foreign support, they are also well equipped for peacekeeping.
Disadvantages: Equipment is often outdated due to the difficulty in supporting such disproportionately large forces. Military forces may lack flexibility, and are particularly weak against any threats that may appear outside of their “main” enemy. There is very little infrastructure to support major forces or operations beyond the predicted battlefield.
---
Dispersed:
Examples
Soviet Union
China
Role: A dispersed army is an attempt to deal with multiple current or potential conflicts simultaneously. It always appears in geographically large or sparsely populated nations that have current or potential conflicts on multiple borders. These nations lack the resources to provide a centralized force with enough mobility to deal with all threats or are far too large in territory, so the solution is to create semi-independent regional commands.
Ground Forces: These forces are usually still dominated by light or truck-mounted infantry formations, but may be fully mechanized depending on their opponents and resources. As with garrison forces, there is a centralized mobile reserve to reinforce local formations if a conflict erupts. Equipment is usually relatively modern to completely obsolete, depending on the specific situation, and training averages at mediocre.
Air Forces: Typically very large, with an emphasis on combat. However, there is usually at least a degree of strategic airlift and refueling assets, even if primarily for internal use. However, despite their size, these forces are still relatively dispersed
Command & Control: Most regional commands operate pretty much independently of each other, though with oversight of the central government. As with garrison forces, they often respond to the needs of local governments more often than the central one. Mobile reserves are tightly controlled, but may become subordinate to local regional commands once deployed to the field.
Advantages: The one greatest advantage of this type is that it is truly capable of supporting wars on multiple fronts, something few militaries can do, since each regional command is almost its own separate army in most respects. Given time, they may also be able to mass overwhelming power against any single neighbor. Dispersed armies are also quite capable of fighting most insurgencies due to their forces being spread out.
Disadvantages: Logistics is a problem, or this type wouldn’t be adopted at all. If the local forces and strategic reserve aren’t enough to deal with a threat, it may be in trouble, since this type of military has only limited capability to concentrate its power. Furthermore, such militaries are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, and thus difficult to keep well equipped.
---
Garrison
Examples
Vietnam
Philippines
Role: A garrison army is designed to maintain control over a large territory. Usually this is in response to a large-scale insurgency, but may also simply reflect logistical issues of policing and defending, such as in the case of island nations, or those with significant jungle or mountainous territory.
Ground Forces: The main force is comprised of large number of relatively independent units of battalion size or smaller. These are almost always light infantry forces, with little heavy equipment, and are backed up by a centralized mobile reserve which represents the only force trained and equipped for frontline combat.
Garrison armies tend to be very large relative to the size of the nation.
Air Forces: Usually relatively small and made up of older aircraft, with a focus on ground attack, patrol/surveillance, and local transportation. Small numbers of modern, capable fighters may be present to support mobile reserves, and discourage foreign intervention.
Command & Control: The garrison forces are primarily subservient to the local governments on whose territory they operate, and are usually given great autonomy and flexibility in performing their missions. By contrast, the mobile reserves are tightly controlled and regulated by the high command.
Advantages: Garrison forces are highly responsive to local security needs and excellent at dealing with small and mid-scale insurgencies. Garrison troops also build a rapport with local civilians and government, know the lay of the land, have excellent autonomy, and are often experienced in counter-insurgency tactics. As a result, these can become extremely effective insurgents if invaded.
Disadvantages: With the exception of the central reserve, troops are usually under-trained and poorly equipped for heavy combat. Garrison units also tend to be inexperienced in operating as part of a larger force. Poor logistics and limited mobile forces make responding to a major crisis difficult. Garrison armies are rarely able to deploy much beyond their own borders, with no more than 15-20% of total forces available for any external operation, even in a best-case scenario. Thus, these nations have minimal offensive capabilities.
---
Informal
Examples
Zaire
The PLO
Somalia
Role: Predominant in Africa, these represent armies that the government simply can’t afford, but still needs. Found in impoverished nations, there is usually only a small core of truly trained and properly equipped soldiers, while most of the military’s power comes from untrained militia fighters. This also refers to nations in a state of civil war or anarchy where there is no clear-cut government to begin with. These armies usually have extensive insurgency problems to deal with, and often threats from neighboring nations on multiple borders.
Ground Forces: May have significant numbers, but made up almost entirely of “Joe from hut B, plus rifle” types. That’s it, just villagers with guns in loosely formed forces. Even calling them light infantry may be a stretch. Armored and mechanized forces are almost unheard of. Training is negligible to completely nonexistent, with soldiers who live long enough relying almost entirely on “on-the-job training.” As with garrison forces troops are dispersed throughout the territory and operate within regional commands.
Air Forces: If they’re very lucky, they’ve seen a plane in more than just pictures. Air forces are extremely small, a few dozen total aircraft at most, and even many of those may not be serviceable. Aircraft are mostly for surveillance and transport, though a handful of combat units may exist. When they do, that provides a decisive advantage.
Command & Control: For regulars, they are usually directly under the central government. For militia, there is often minimal command and no control. They may receive directions from superiors, often more in local governments than from the central one, but usually act in their own interests. Naturally, the extensive use of militia is a major reason for rampant war crimes.
Advantages: Its amazingly cheap. For a rifle, a few bullets, and a little bit of food each day, you get a soldier that will happily fight for you. The nature of the forces, and their lack of inhibitions in due to self-interest taking precedence, make them much more capable of operating far from regular supply bases for extended periods. Also, with no logistical tail, they can easily be transferred from one end of the country to another, even in large numbers. There’s also no shortage of willing soldiers.
Disadvantages: Militia are virtually impossible to control and prone to violence.These militaries are also afraid to send those few troops with proper training and equipment at the front, for simple fear of losing their investment. Extremely poor equipment also leads to these forces being easily overrun by any military with any degree of mechanization and fire support. Furthermore, what vehicles exist are often unserviceable and useless in combat. Also, as with any impoverished area, there is extensive corruption within the ranks of most of these militaries, at all levels of command.
---
Token Forces:
Examples
Cambodia
San Marino
Role: Some nations are very, very small. They may lack the manpower, the financial resources, or maybe just a reason to build up a significant army. Some expect a larger power to come to their aid, others are so far isolated that no one would bother with them. Still others just don’t have the resources to draw enough troops to fully defend themselves, even if they want to. Whatever the case, their militaries are barely adequate for maintaining internal security and/or territorial integrity, if even that.
Ground Forces: Really, really small. A total military of under 20,000 personnel doesn’t leave much. Equipment and training varies, but is always about equal to neighboring countries. Naturally, European and Central Asian ones tend to be heavily mechanized and operate similarly to a mobile defense army, while African, Latin American, and Asian ones tend to be more along garrison lines.
Air Forces: Typically nonexistent. Maybe a handful of aircraft and a few people to fly them. However, fully mechanized armies may have a few squadrons worth of combat aircraft to back them up.
Command & Control: Usually quite centralized for the simple fact that there isn’t very much to command. Forces are usually tightly controlled, but in larger (geographically) nations, they may be much like garrison forces in that they mostly serve the local government.
Advantages: Really not much besides that they’re obviously cheap and not manpower-intensive. Mechanized ones may have some offensive capability, assuming the neighbor also has a minor force.
Disadvantages: The most obvious problem is that little army does not hold up well against big brother. Many of these nations, if not on some isolated island, have one or more neighbors that can easily field a force large enough to completely overrun them. Naturally, that forces some degree of kissing up. Of course, these nations also lack the ability to impose their will on neighbors, since their forces are far too insignificant to provide for a real offensive operation. Finally, they are easily overwhelmed by not just opponents with numerical superiority, but also by multiple conflicts. As such, any that already have one conflict will go out of their way to avoid another. That, or most likely collapse under the pressure
.jpg "President05-large_1_(cropped).jpg")
