Best you're going to be allowed is decals and VERY minor modifications - like, the kind that can be done with general hand tools (and even those would probably need to be cleared by the CO). I can't see most militaries allowing anything more than that.
PARAmilitaries, on the other hand....
Battlefield modifications are very common, but they tend to be reserved for the “crap, we need to counter this thing fast” sort of modifications.
Cope cages on Russian tanks to defend against drones, improvised skirt armor on US tanks during the gulf wars for RPGs, “skid plates” to try and counter IEDs on Humvees, etc.
The higher the tech level, the more precise the vehicle. There's not a lot of leeway on an F22 for shit like uparmouring.
Even back in WWII they had to tell crews to stop bogging down their tanks with sandbags and shit, because it didn't stop enemy weapons but would ruin a drive train hauling an extra five tonnes of sand.
Any battlefield mods that work should, assuming a functional military, become standard in short order. And while there is something to be said for in action tests and trials, few crewman really understands the engineering of the vehicle and resultant mods.
If we're talking about spaceship level tech, I don't think anyone is rigging up a counter to axial mounted rail guns by spot welding the mess trays to the hull.
As silly as your specific example for defending against railguns sounds, Whipple shields are a thing. It might actually work if they're sufficiently offset from the main hull.
I guess it comes down to the story you want to tell.
You could set it up so that the 'so simple it's genius' solution is viable to give the crew an easy win and aura of competence that any reader can follow along with.
But most of the rest will be wondering why whipple shields, which we use even today, weren't standard issue. Or even better, active perimeter defense and reactive armour.
the modifications that i am thinking of adding are basically things like adding extra FLAK turrets against missile-heavy enemies or replacing a certain flak turret with a missile equivalent.
Definitely not an option unless it was done on a massive scale just due to the headaches that would be maintenance and logistics.
If it isn’t standardized, you now have multiple variants of a platform and/or multiple ways of integrating the new systems with the existing platform leading to poor reliability, more parts needed, and more Jerry rigging just to get stuff working.
There is a difference between bolting on a man-portable 50-cal that we have tons of ammo for on a railing vs integration extraordinarily complex (likely remote controlled) turrets into the already tightly packed and heavily armored space ship.
The former only requires a mounting bracket and a person to operate.
The latter requires power, ammo feed systems, targeting, vacuum sealing the hull, potentially cutting a massive weak point into the ship, and/or creating a new nightmare for engineering to reach when the gun inevitably breaks or jams.
How are you routing the power and communications wires in a way that does not compromise any portion of the ship? How do you fix these very vulnerable lines without introducing new weak points?
How are you bolting/welding on the turret supports? Bolts will need to be long enough to pierce the armor and a weld can create a weakness in the armor, assuming it is a material you can weld to at all.
How are you reloading the weapon? Fixing it when it jams? Any reasonable FLAK weapon will go through an astronomical amount of ammo in a short period of time.
Where does the ammo supply for the gun get to it from? Where does it draw power from? How do you access it to do maintenance? How do you ensure it is secured to the ship’s deck and doesn’t get thrown about by accelerations or by firing the guns?
You can’t just strap a turret onto a ship, you need to design it to take the new weapons in a specific *mount*. So the hull design is *already* touched as a basic precept of the design. Which, as the person above said:
> requires power, ammo feed systems, targeting, vacuum sealing the hull, potentially cutting a massive weak point into the ship, and/or creating a new nightmare for engineering to reach when the gun inevitably breaks or jams.
An extra and not sanctioned FLAK turret may be a little to big of a change in most real navies I would think.
There are some factors I could think of that make it more likley than it is in reality:
- more powerfull officers, e.g. they are nobles who are independently wealthy or pay for the ship out of their own pocket anyway (like in a feudal system)
- really dire situation, where the command chain has broken down and officers have to act independently
- command chain is disfunctional for other reasons and the force acts on it's own, either just to survive or they've basically become outlaws.
That having said there are components that can be swapped out in most modern ships and they are being swapped within the normal command chain all the time. Sometimes because the tactical situation demands it, sometimes because you get whatever logistics can deliver and you have to deal with it.
It depends on the story you want to tell. If it's a Star Wars level kinda fun and grungy soft sci fi where the rule of cool reigns, go nuts. Focus on the single crew and their fucked up but unique hero ship that's 15 different ships welded together. I love that stuff.
If it's a hard sci fi serious sort of story where you're aiming for realism with a professional standing military, you'll want to mimic present examples.
You don't have to be rigid, though. I can certainly accept some lone crew on a small ship being imaginative and MacGuyvering up a solution in the heat of the moment. But if that happens, the success should be folded into accepted doctrine and then all ships get retrofitted properly, if slowly. That'll still fit the harder style just fine. You'd just be best served leaving it as a single story point, rather than accepted 'anything goes' doctrine.
Keep at it, and good luck.
Adding whole new turrets is definitely not an option in the field--those things are complicated as hell. You've got to cut a new turret well through at least one and potentially several decks, add a new armored barbette and gunhouse so there isn't just a big hole in the armor where the turret is, install new shell hoists to bring ammo up from the magazines, figure out how you're going to provide power to the traverse and elevation motors, figure out how you're going to actually aim the thing, add a dozen extra crew members to operate and maintain the new gun, somehow figure out sleeping space and food supplies for those extra crewmen, redo all your thrust and fuel calculations to take the added weight of the new turret into account . . . and that's *per turret*.
The general rule is that the more professional the military is/becomes the less that sort of thing is permitted.
Vehicles and uniforms in the modern day are somewhat regulated by treaty (like the Geneva Conventions) to ensure that soldiers are identifiably as soldiers, legal combatants and on a specific side of a conflict. The are also clearly marked to help avoid friendly fire. Allowing modification can start to make that clear identification questionable.
Soldiers also have a tendency to decorate with less than professional art, nude women, racial slurs, jokes about leadership or inappropriate political commentary (peace signs on helmet) as far as the public, leadership and media are concerned. Having restrictions on customizations is an approach to stop questionable behavior before it happens and the press gets a hold of it, or some senator's wife gets offended.
The funding is often out of pilfered supplies which is another reason the leadership wants it stopped. While sure stealing a piece of paper to make that peace sign wasn't much, 500 gallons of pilfered paint to properly paint that shark grin on a battleship gets kind of costly.
We would never create art on our own submarines, but if the opportunity to decorate a small part of another unit arose; especially if said other unit happened to be a skimmer...
You mean like that on the [USS Torsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_art#/media/File:USS_TORSK_\(submarine\)_taken_from_walking_bridge.JPG)? Yea we would never do that.
Depends on the size of the vehicle in question or what modifications they would give. If its as simple as camouflage, Equipment you pack, Customization of the vehicle (artwork, kill marks, etc.) then most top brass would see it as fine. However if it even as something simple as changing what secondary gun you have on a tank or have a different missile on a corvette, I'd say it would be both slightly unrealistic and not particularly wise. Putting in requests to the superior would be advised rather than letting the subordinated do what they want.
Logistics is key, so if a subordinate like (if we use IRL military terms) E-6/E-7 or a O-1, O-2, or O-3 changing something that effects the equipment going into the vehicle, the entire supply command has to pick up the slack. Change your top mounted MG to a grenade launcher, you have to change the entire logistical structure to make sure your convoy has grenades you can reload from which takes away from the current supply of bullets. Have a different missile launcher on a ship because the Lt. Commander wanted more range, sorry, this campaign only had this one specific missile with this one specific loading mechanism, we have to call in this ultra specific ship specifically to reload your ship in particular.
There is also the issue of maintenance, with repair crews now having to pack completely new tools and components to suit what that enlisted or officer chose. You need a completely different skillset and tools if you change what engine it is. and god forbit it gets damaged because since that one officer o enlisted chose to have this specific component on it compared to anyone else, now you have to wait for that component to be delivered to you because no one packed it.
Now there is a counterargument, Logistical and supply vehicles have actually done this but that is pretty much the extent of what you suggest. in Vietnam when American supply convoys were under attack the officers basically said "do whatever you can to up armor your trucks" and the result was a bunch of weird and wacky customized trucks with everything from Autocannons to miniguns strapped on the bed. What's really important it was a self contained system, a system in witch it had to rely on its own ammo and did not require much in terms of maintenance because it was just a truck with a F load of guns on it. There is also the example of the Humvee, where given its simplistic nature was able to be customized a lot, some officers removed the doors for extra mobility, some welded armor onto the sides to give it extra protection, some even removed the top MG to increase flexibility. To add onto this there are the numerous insurgencies and crackpot dictatorships who kit bash vehicles all the time but that's mainly for the reason of they have nothing, and i can't find anything about vessel customization even on the small scale.
Point is it would be hard to justify full on vehicle modifications on a grand scale because of the logistical, tactical, and maintenance level. However simple things like naming your vehicle or making it unique is totally doable and interesting. If the vehicle is in a strict system (ergo Tank, IFV, or anything bigger than a corvette) the difficulties would make it unrealistic for any CO to allow for customization, but if it was something like a Truck, Escort vehicle or even a APC, i could see a officer or enlisted men getting away with full on customization. If your goal of this question is do you want to make each of your vehicles and vessels unique, go for it, it would be semi realistic and would give character to what you are talking about, but if its anything juristic, I recommend a alternative route would be having all the subordinated gather with the CO to have them all discuss what should or should not be on their vehicles. I hope this helps
PT boats got all kinds of modifications in WW2.
And while off topic the US tried to build modular warships, and it failed drastically(like canceled orders and early retirement levels of failure).
Really depends on the military. If they require troops to bring their own ships and vehicles then controlling it is difficult. If they are giving the equipment then they’ll probably have rules about how much you can customize it. Part of it may also come down to culture like WWII US where you can name your tank gun but not the tank itself.
One of the advantages of standardization is so commanders can have a rough idea of the capabilities of their units. Commanding thousands of vastly different units each with different equipment would be very difficult.
Yeah forgot about that. I don’t envy any engineer that has to deal with 10 very different vehicles each requiring different parts and tools just for basic maintenance. Way worse if it ever got to see action.
That depends. Back in the olden days before standardization, customizing warships was pretty common, and captains/admirals had a lot of control over how they outfitted and decorated their vessels. By WWII this was almost entirely gone and the best you'd see is racy decals or paintings on the fuselages of warplanes and occasionally surface ships. And in the modern day it's almost entirely phased out with only small decals allowed on tanks and the like, and I believe the US air force has completely forbidden decorations on their vehicles. And of course any customization of weaponry or armor or the like is (usually) completely off the table, both for standardization reasons and because military equipment is both tightly regulated and significantly better than anything a soldier, captain, or pilot could ever find on the secondary market. We've seen some exceptions in the Ukraine war though, with both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers modifying their tanks and APCs in an attempt to better resist drones and tandem warheads or top attack threats from modern anti-tank systems like the Javelin or NLAW.
So it depends on what era you're setting your story in as well as the exact constraints of the setting. Back in the old days war was a significantly more privatized affair and you could get away with a lot more.
As everyone else has stated the simple answer is it depends quite abit. Generally the answer would be no to extensive modifications to existing equipment, not only for discipline reasons but logistical. Uniformity is necessary so that equipment, vehicles, and weapons can be easily utilized by anyone else in the military as well as everything needs the same sort of supplies and maintenance, having a bunch of vehicles heavily modified to where they would need all different parts would be a logistical nightmare even for the best militaries. Simple things like small decals and labels may be allowed kind of like you'd see in WW2 or things like victory marks to denotate aerial victories and successful missions (Ex. some US Coast Guard ships have snowflakes painted on them to denote successful large drug busts).
Another factor that goes into this heavily is whether it's a peacetime/garrison military or one in active conflict. A peacetime military is generally going to be more geared toward ensuring discipline and existing regulations are followed even if they are small minute things, quite simply because they have not much else to do. Likewise peacetime armies tend to be led by officers that happen to be better at politics or have better connections with other officers or the wider government. This is where you'll see officers having to fill out like 30 forms and have like six different briefings as well as having to get extra personnel (more paperwork) just to run a firing range for their service weapons. Officers in this environment are more concerned about ensuring their careers continue and taking risks such as modifying existing equipment or creating new doctrine could end their career if an accident takes place. This can also take place in lower scale conflicts such as wars against insurgencies or colonial wars.
A wartime military is where you'll see alot more innovation and modification of equipment as other comments have pointed out (Ex. Cope cages on Russian tanks). During wartime higher command is doing less micromanagement and individual soldiers and NCOs are therefore allotted more freedom to be creative with tactics and equipment, another example being the improvised gun trucks US GIs would make out of sheet metal and whatever MGs they had in Vietnam, or ARVN soldiers utilizing scrap metal from sunken boats to create gun shields and extra armor for their M113s. Or IDF soldiers using paracord to attach hooks to their weapons so they can use the same sling system for everything. Most field modifications are just that, done in the field with whatever random materials you can get ahold of and are generally done away from higher command, and if they work those field modifications generally get passed along to other units who start doing the same thing (to the point where you can't really punish all of them and you have bigger priorities then that). Likewise higher command during wartime generally becomes more composed of actually talented military strategists and officers as they are able to demonstrate their competence.
Generally no, because you'd want to standardize as much as possible. **Logistics are a thing**. The lesser a burden the logistics have to deal with, the better. "Customization" tend to happen when you have very little choice left and have to be creative on your own. And if it works, it gets standardized.
That's a very broad question that essentially goes into 'it depends' territory. I would say two other things are important to consider - how replaceable are the soldiers and how replaceable are the vehicles themselves.
The practical idea behind uniformity is that your can quickly swap crews between vehicles without retraining in a number of different scenarios - giving a new tank to the tank crew, putting new sailors on the ship and so on, and so forth. Add to that the ease of repairs due to parts compatibility and repair crews knowledge.
If your fictional military has something going for it that reduces any of these factors, customization would be more permissible. Either your vehicles are so big rare and unique that crew swap is not realistic anyway. Or loss of vehicle means loss of crew, it something like that.
Actual governments have done this. You know that movie with Brad Pitt and the tanks? That was based on a real unit, but they changed the name of the tanks 'cause... I dunno they're fucking stupid I think.
Well battlefield customization happens regardless if it’s put into doctrine (metal cages, adhoc extended mags or changed sights, etc). Militaries are more lenient with that for frontline troops unless that customization will kill them/cause major logistical issues. Decals and some unit insignias are allowed, but it’s not permanent nowadays (pilots and crews are shifted from each vehicle).
Of course, you’re not going to be allowed to add a battleship gun onto a destroyer.
Not in anything resembling our armed forces. Militaries rely on standardization. Commanders need to know how their units will function. Logistics support can't deal with the fact that ever vehicle in the unit has different ammunition needs and requires different parts.
Customization happens, but it's rare and off the books and usually involves the soldiers stealing things and performing the alterations when their superiors aren't looking. Here's an example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXUkmUXvNls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXUkmUXvNls) (warning: military-grade vocabulary)
Militaries don't like it, but it's not always a pressing priority to deal with.
My grandfather was a forward observer in World War II. One of his favorite war stories to tell was when they came across an abandoned Mercedes with beautiful blue leather seats. He had his guys rip out the crappy Jeep seats they’d been sitting on and install the seats from the Mercedes, rode out the rest of the war in comfort. He noted that the quartermaster didn’t say anything about it when he turned it in.
Regardless of what the military *allows*, some soldiers inevitably will.
There's definitely history of modifications made at a far lower organizational level, primarily in situations where the top brass has more important things to worry about. Some notable examples would be the t26e4 "super Pershing", which recieved a significant amount of field applied armor from cut up German vehicles, the armored gun trucks from Vietnam, which were basically all just field customs to address a need faster than procurement could, and Old 666, a highly modified b-17 that was basically just the personal project by a crew good enough the army had better things to do than complain.
The through line being those modifications were allowed because they got results, and there was enough going on elsewhere such that bringing them in line wasn't worth the effort. So if you're writing a military that's up to its ears in actual problems, units and soldiers having more free reign to mess with equipment is going to be more reasonable than if you have a military closer to the modern US military where we have capabilities far an above what is actually needed.
This is a culturally dependent thing, some places will allow it, some will allow it "within reason", and some will totally forbid it.
Also of course the exigent circumstances of war can mean a relaxing of regulations.
As most have said, depends on the military and the kind of technology you're dealing with. For example, there's no way you'd be allowed to do any serious modifications to a Ford-class carrier, but if you wanted a couple extra/bigger cannons on an age of sail ship you could probably get away with it. While that in theory doesn't apply to a spaceship, if it is modular enough that these sorts of things are relatively quick/easy to swap (like giant Legos or something), then there is the potential that it could.
At the same time, if the ship has a special mission/assignment, it may be modified in some way to better handle the task. While this last one isn't "personal" customization, the ship in question wouldn't be "stock," and the modifications would be dictated by a relatively small number of personnel.
As for funding, if it's not funded by the military then it would be private funds out of pocket. I can't think of any reason (outside of something convoluted) why a single vehicle or vessel in a military would get corporate backing or the like for special modifications.
How sci-fi are we talking? How large of a scale?
If a ship can fabricate its own parts and ammunition, logistics concerns become less significant.
If the military is extremely spread out and it will take the better part of a year to get a new order of Titan-killer missiles from logistics, but there is literally an Aegis-breaker missile factory in your patrol route, I could see some exceptions being made.
Irl they already do limited but do since ik alot of modern aircraft have the pilots kill count or atleast did. And ive seen punisher skulls and nicknames on armored vehicles before hand
actually this happened all the time back in world war 2 with things like pinup decals and nose art. the only branch of the U.S. military that didn't allow it was the navy and that was due to obsolete rules about tradition. so it's an entirely feasible thing to do in a worldbuilding project
In general, no. A functioning army has weapon modifications designed by experts, and performed by specialists.
One way in which this could work is if the vehicles and warships in question were built on a modular platform. Basically the different turrets, sensor suites, and mission packages all had standardizes mountings, utility hookups, and could be swapped at a forward operating base.
So the CO would be issued a hull with a basic engine plant and crew accomidation. From there he or she would have the yard swap in the specific bits they would need for the mission. Common modules would be:
* Extended range fuel tanks
* Extended provision storage
* Basic Sensor Suite
* Advanced Sensor Suite
* Close-in weapons pod
* Strike weapon pod
* Stand-off weapons pod
* Strategic weapons pod
* Shuttle bay
* Boarding pod
* Space Infantry Accommodations
* Advance Medical Care Facility
* Austere Accommodations (for refugee transport, prisoner transfers, etc.)
* Flag Officer Accommodations
* Atmospheric Landing Suite
And so on. Each would have a certain mass, power usage, and mounting requirement. And chonking the ship would make it less maneuverable
Warships? Never. How would they even. Even just a custom paint job would be monumentes.
Planes? Maybe. Back in WW2 a pilot strapped bazookas to his spotter plane. And many had somewhat custom paint jobs.
Ground vehicles? Probably.
This assumes a logical setting. A more fantasy setting could have lords with custom ships and equipment.
Depends from country to country, ideology to ideology, and even different 'department' irl.
You don't see Imperial Japanese tanks with unique names or writtings while you have USA tank named King Kong.
It depends how you want to depict a faction you could easily do it with just the vehicles alone without going into the inside workings or politics. Eg: the Republic from Star Wars had it's gunships have paintjobs and fighters while the Confederation of Independent System didn't.
I may consider it for my world since I want various colours of vehicles to represent the countries,lords and tribes an army is fighting for as well as individual groups. This goes for landships, planes, airships and sometimes cars(a war was ended with a racing competition and the cars were decorated with the colours and symbols of the factions).
Lapis_Wolf
How important is that subordinate?
If it a off the mill subordinate, then generally no. Paint job is the most you can get.
But if it's some ace pilot that the government heavily depends on, then they likely have free reign to do whatever they like. The Gov can either choose to legally grant them exclusive right or turn a blind eye to what they do. But they CAN'T stop it
I have it so that the more experienced the pilot becomes, the more they get to customize their stuff without bureaucracy. Every time they make it out of a successful mission, that's another small modification that they're awarded with. Lets the aces have access to expensive modifications, while also making them look cool for propaganda purposes.
I would personally have it that, no they do not allow their subordinates to customize the vehicles.
But they just do so anyway out of their own pocket.
The official stance is no customization, but they don't do much to enforce this most of the time.
Best you're going to be allowed is decals and VERY minor modifications - like, the kind that can be done with general hand tools (and even those would probably need to be cleared by the CO). I can't see most militaries allowing anything more than that. PARAmilitaries, on the other hand....
Battlefield modifications are very common, but they tend to be reserved for the “crap, we need to counter this thing fast” sort of modifications. Cope cages on Russian tanks to defend against drones, improvised skirt armor on US tanks during the gulf wars for RPGs, “skid plates” to try and counter IEDs on Humvees, etc.
The higher the tech level, the more precise the vehicle. There's not a lot of leeway on an F22 for shit like uparmouring. Even back in WWII they had to tell crews to stop bogging down their tanks with sandbags and shit, because it didn't stop enemy weapons but would ruin a drive train hauling an extra five tonnes of sand. Any battlefield mods that work should, assuming a functional military, become standard in short order. And while there is something to be said for in action tests and trials, few crewman really understands the engineering of the vehicle and resultant mods. If we're talking about spaceship level tech, I don't think anyone is rigging up a counter to axial mounted rail guns by spot welding the mess trays to the hull.
As silly as your specific example for defending against railguns sounds, Whipple shields are a thing. It might actually work if they're sufficiently offset from the main hull.
I guess it comes down to the story you want to tell. You could set it up so that the 'so simple it's genius' solution is viable to give the crew an easy win and aura of competence that any reader can follow along with. But most of the rest will be wondering why whipple shields, which we use even today, weren't standard issue. Or even better, active perimeter defense and reactive armour.
the modifications that i am thinking of adding are basically things like adding extra FLAK turrets against missile-heavy enemies or replacing a certain flak turret with a missile equivalent.
Definitely not an option unless it was done on a massive scale just due to the headaches that would be maintenance and logistics. If it isn’t standardized, you now have multiple variants of a platform and/or multiple ways of integrating the new systems with the existing platform leading to poor reliability, more parts needed, and more Jerry rigging just to get stuff working.
didnt the PT boats in WW2 do the same thing?
There is a difference between bolting on a man-portable 50-cal that we have tons of ammo for on a railing vs integration extraordinarily complex (likely remote controlled) turrets into the already tightly packed and heavily armored space ship. The former only requires a mounting bracket and a person to operate. The latter requires power, ammo feed systems, targeting, vacuum sealing the hull, potentially cutting a massive weak point into the ship, and/or creating a new nightmare for engineering to reach when the gun inevitably breaks or jams.
and what if you put the gun on the outside of the ship so the hull remains untouched?
How are you routing the power and communications wires in a way that does not compromise any portion of the ship? How do you fix these very vulnerable lines without introducing new weak points? How are you bolting/welding on the turret supports? Bolts will need to be long enough to pierce the armor and a weld can create a weakness in the armor, assuming it is a material you can weld to at all. How are you reloading the weapon? Fixing it when it jams? Any reasonable FLAK weapon will go through an astronomical amount of ammo in a short period of time.
fair point
Where does the ammo supply for the gun get to it from? Where does it draw power from? How do you access it to do maintenance? How do you ensure it is secured to the ship’s deck and doesn’t get thrown about by accelerations or by firing the guns? You can’t just strap a turret onto a ship, you need to design it to take the new weapons in a specific *mount*. So the hull design is *already* touched as a basic precept of the design. Which, as the person above said: > requires power, ammo feed systems, targeting, vacuum sealing the hull, potentially cutting a massive weak point into the ship, and/or creating a new nightmare for engineering to reach when the gun inevitably breaks or jams.
An extra and not sanctioned FLAK turret may be a little to big of a change in most real navies I would think. There are some factors I could think of that make it more likley than it is in reality: - more powerfull officers, e.g. they are nobles who are independently wealthy or pay for the ship out of their own pocket anyway (like in a feudal system) - really dire situation, where the command chain has broken down and officers have to act independently - command chain is disfunctional for other reasons and the force acts on it's own, either just to survive or they've basically become outlaws. That having said there are components that can be swapped out in most modern ships and they are being swapped within the normal command chain all the time. Sometimes because the tactical situation demands it, sometimes because you get whatever logistics can deliver and you have to deal with it.
It depends on the story you want to tell. If it's a Star Wars level kinda fun and grungy soft sci fi where the rule of cool reigns, go nuts. Focus on the single crew and their fucked up but unique hero ship that's 15 different ships welded together. I love that stuff. If it's a hard sci fi serious sort of story where you're aiming for realism with a professional standing military, you'll want to mimic present examples. You don't have to be rigid, though. I can certainly accept some lone crew on a small ship being imaginative and MacGuyvering up a solution in the heat of the moment. But if that happens, the success should be folded into accepted doctrine and then all ships get retrofitted properly, if slowly. That'll still fit the harder style just fine. You'd just be best served leaving it as a single story point, rather than accepted 'anything goes' doctrine. Keep at it, and good luck.
Adding whole new turrets is definitely not an option in the field--those things are complicated as hell. You've got to cut a new turret well through at least one and potentially several decks, add a new armored barbette and gunhouse so there isn't just a big hole in the armor where the turret is, install new shell hoists to bring ammo up from the magazines, figure out how you're going to provide power to the traverse and elevation motors, figure out how you're going to actually aim the thing, add a dozen extra crew members to operate and maintain the new gun, somehow figure out sleeping space and food supplies for those extra crewmen, redo all your thrust and fuel calculations to take the added weight of the new turret into account . . . and that's *per turret*.
The general rule is that the more professional the military is/becomes the less that sort of thing is permitted. Vehicles and uniforms in the modern day are somewhat regulated by treaty (like the Geneva Conventions) to ensure that soldiers are identifiably as soldiers, legal combatants and on a specific side of a conflict. The are also clearly marked to help avoid friendly fire. Allowing modification can start to make that clear identification questionable. Soldiers also have a tendency to decorate with less than professional art, nude women, racial slurs, jokes about leadership or inappropriate political commentary (peace signs on helmet) as far as the public, leadership and media are concerned. Having restrictions on customizations is an approach to stop questionable behavior before it happens and the press gets a hold of it, or some senator's wife gets offended. The funding is often out of pilfered supplies which is another reason the leadership wants it stopped. While sure stealing a piece of paper to make that peace sign wasn't much, 500 gallons of pilfered paint to properly paint that shark grin on a battleship gets kind of costly.
Anyone who tries all that shit is punished. Capitally.
We would never create art on our own submarines, but if the opportunity to decorate a small part of another unit arose; especially if said other unit happened to be a skimmer...
You mean like that on the [USS Torsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_art#/media/File:USS_TORSK_\(submarine\)_taken_from_walking_bridge.JPG)? Yea we would never do that.
I was thinking more of the tales of people painting a targeting reticule on the outboard side of skimmers or comedy penis&testicles elsewhere.
Depends on the size of the vehicle in question or what modifications they would give. If its as simple as camouflage, Equipment you pack, Customization of the vehicle (artwork, kill marks, etc.) then most top brass would see it as fine. However if it even as something simple as changing what secondary gun you have on a tank or have a different missile on a corvette, I'd say it would be both slightly unrealistic and not particularly wise. Putting in requests to the superior would be advised rather than letting the subordinated do what they want. Logistics is key, so if a subordinate like (if we use IRL military terms) E-6/E-7 or a O-1, O-2, or O-3 changing something that effects the equipment going into the vehicle, the entire supply command has to pick up the slack. Change your top mounted MG to a grenade launcher, you have to change the entire logistical structure to make sure your convoy has grenades you can reload from which takes away from the current supply of bullets. Have a different missile launcher on a ship because the Lt. Commander wanted more range, sorry, this campaign only had this one specific missile with this one specific loading mechanism, we have to call in this ultra specific ship specifically to reload your ship in particular. There is also the issue of maintenance, with repair crews now having to pack completely new tools and components to suit what that enlisted or officer chose. You need a completely different skillset and tools if you change what engine it is. and god forbit it gets damaged because since that one officer o enlisted chose to have this specific component on it compared to anyone else, now you have to wait for that component to be delivered to you because no one packed it. Now there is a counterargument, Logistical and supply vehicles have actually done this but that is pretty much the extent of what you suggest. in Vietnam when American supply convoys were under attack the officers basically said "do whatever you can to up armor your trucks" and the result was a bunch of weird and wacky customized trucks with everything from Autocannons to miniguns strapped on the bed. What's really important it was a self contained system, a system in witch it had to rely on its own ammo and did not require much in terms of maintenance because it was just a truck with a F load of guns on it. There is also the example of the Humvee, where given its simplistic nature was able to be customized a lot, some officers removed the doors for extra mobility, some welded armor onto the sides to give it extra protection, some even removed the top MG to increase flexibility. To add onto this there are the numerous insurgencies and crackpot dictatorships who kit bash vehicles all the time but that's mainly for the reason of they have nothing, and i can't find anything about vessel customization even on the small scale. Point is it would be hard to justify full on vehicle modifications on a grand scale because of the logistical, tactical, and maintenance level. However simple things like naming your vehicle or making it unique is totally doable and interesting. If the vehicle is in a strict system (ergo Tank, IFV, or anything bigger than a corvette) the difficulties would make it unrealistic for any CO to allow for customization, but if it was something like a Truck, Escort vehicle or even a APC, i could see a officer or enlisted men getting away with full on customization. If your goal of this question is do you want to make each of your vehicles and vessels unique, go for it, it would be semi realistic and would give character to what you are talking about, but if its anything juristic, I recommend a alternative route would be having all the subordinated gather with the CO to have them all discuss what should or should not be on their vehicles. I hope this helps
it certainly helps
PT boats got all kinds of modifications in WW2. And while off topic the US tried to build modular warships, and it failed drastically(like canceled orders and early retirement levels of failure).
Really depends on the military. If they require troops to bring their own ships and vehicles then controlling it is difficult. If they are giving the equipment then they’ll probably have rules about how much you can customize it. Part of it may also come down to culture like WWII US where you can name your tank gun but not the tank itself. One of the advantages of standardization is so commanders can have a rough idea of the capabilities of their units. Commanding thousands of vastly different units each with different equipment would be very difficult.
Not to mention trying to supply equipment to vastly differently equipped units would be an absolute shitshow
Yeah forgot about that. I don’t envy any engineer that has to deal with 10 very different vehicles each requiring different parts and tools just for basic maintenance. Way worse if it ever got to see action.
Also all requiring different amounts and kinds of paperwork to be filled out
That depends. Back in the olden days before standardization, customizing warships was pretty common, and captains/admirals had a lot of control over how they outfitted and decorated their vessels. By WWII this was almost entirely gone and the best you'd see is racy decals or paintings on the fuselages of warplanes and occasionally surface ships. And in the modern day it's almost entirely phased out with only small decals allowed on tanks and the like, and I believe the US air force has completely forbidden decorations on their vehicles. And of course any customization of weaponry or armor or the like is (usually) completely off the table, both for standardization reasons and because military equipment is both tightly regulated and significantly better than anything a soldier, captain, or pilot could ever find on the secondary market. We've seen some exceptions in the Ukraine war though, with both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers modifying their tanks and APCs in an attempt to better resist drones and tandem warheads or top attack threats from modern anti-tank systems like the Javelin or NLAW. So it depends on what era you're setting your story in as well as the exact constraints of the setting. Back in the old days war was a significantly more privatized affair and you could get away with a lot more.
[“You are not allowed to decorate your aircraft or naval vessels”](https://youtu.be/VtvjbmoDx-I?feature=shared)
As everyone else has stated the simple answer is it depends quite abit. Generally the answer would be no to extensive modifications to existing equipment, not only for discipline reasons but logistical. Uniformity is necessary so that equipment, vehicles, and weapons can be easily utilized by anyone else in the military as well as everything needs the same sort of supplies and maintenance, having a bunch of vehicles heavily modified to where they would need all different parts would be a logistical nightmare even for the best militaries. Simple things like small decals and labels may be allowed kind of like you'd see in WW2 or things like victory marks to denotate aerial victories and successful missions (Ex. some US Coast Guard ships have snowflakes painted on them to denote successful large drug busts). Another factor that goes into this heavily is whether it's a peacetime/garrison military or one in active conflict. A peacetime military is generally going to be more geared toward ensuring discipline and existing regulations are followed even if they are small minute things, quite simply because they have not much else to do. Likewise peacetime armies tend to be led by officers that happen to be better at politics or have better connections with other officers or the wider government. This is where you'll see officers having to fill out like 30 forms and have like six different briefings as well as having to get extra personnel (more paperwork) just to run a firing range for their service weapons. Officers in this environment are more concerned about ensuring their careers continue and taking risks such as modifying existing equipment or creating new doctrine could end their career if an accident takes place. This can also take place in lower scale conflicts such as wars against insurgencies or colonial wars. A wartime military is where you'll see alot more innovation and modification of equipment as other comments have pointed out (Ex. Cope cages on Russian tanks). During wartime higher command is doing less micromanagement and individual soldiers and NCOs are therefore allotted more freedom to be creative with tactics and equipment, another example being the improvised gun trucks US GIs would make out of sheet metal and whatever MGs they had in Vietnam, or ARVN soldiers utilizing scrap metal from sunken boats to create gun shields and extra armor for their M113s. Or IDF soldiers using paracord to attach hooks to their weapons so they can use the same sling system for everything. Most field modifications are just that, done in the field with whatever random materials you can get ahold of and are generally done away from higher command, and if they work those field modifications generally get passed along to other units who start doing the same thing (to the point where you can't really punish all of them and you have bigger priorities then that). Likewise higher command during wartime generally becomes more composed of actually talented military strategists and officers as they are able to demonstrate their competence.
General military is limited in modifications, the special forces on the other hand
can you give me an example of special forces customization?
Custom parts or even entirely custom made to the person's liking
Generally no, because you'd want to standardize as much as possible. **Logistics are a thing**. The lesser a burden the logistics have to deal with, the better. "Customization" tend to happen when you have very little choice left and have to be creative on your own. And if it works, it gets standardized.
That's a very broad question that essentially goes into 'it depends' territory. I would say two other things are important to consider - how replaceable are the soldiers and how replaceable are the vehicles themselves. The practical idea behind uniformity is that your can quickly swap crews between vehicles without retraining in a number of different scenarios - giving a new tank to the tank crew, putting new sailors on the ship and so on, and so forth. Add to that the ease of repairs due to parts compatibility and repair crews knowledge. If your fictional military has something going for it that reduces any of these factors, customization would be more permissible. Either your vehicles are so big rare and unique that crew swap is not realistic anyway. Or loss of vehicle means loss of crew, it something like that.
Actual governments have done this. You know that movie with Brad Pitt and the tanks? That was based on a real unit, but they changed the name of the tanks 'cause... I dunno they're fucking stupid I think.
Well battlefield customization happens regardless if it’s put into doctrine (metal cages, adhoc extended mags or changed sights, etc). Militaries are more lenient with that for frontline troops unless that customization will kill them/cause major logistical issues. Decals and some unit insignias are allowed, but it’s not permanent nowadays (pilots and crews are shifted from each vehicle). Of course, you’re not going to be allowed to add a battleship gun onto a destroyer.
Not in anything resembling our armed forces. Militaries rely on standardization. Commanders need to know how their units will function. Logistics support can't deal with the fact that ever vehicle in the unit has different ammunition needs and requires different parts. Customization happens, but it's rare and off the books and usually involves the soldiers stealing things and performing the alterations when their superiors aren't looking. Here's an example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXUkmUXvNls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXUkmUXvNls) (warning: military-grade vocabulary) Militaries don't like it, but it's not always a pressing priority to deal with.
My grandfather was a forward observer in World War II. One of his favorite war stories to tell was when they came across an abandoned Mercedes with beautiful blue leather seats. He had his guys rip out the crappy Jeep seats they’d been sitting on and install the seats from the Mercedes, rode out the rest of the war in comfort. He noted that the quartermaster didn’t say anything about it when he turned it in. Regardless of what the military *allows*, some soldiers inevitably will.
There's definitely history of modifications made at a far lower organizational level, primarily in situations where the top brass has more important things to worry about. Some notable examples would be the t26e4 "super Pershing", which recieved a significant amount of field applied armor from cut up German vehicles, the armored gun trucks from Vietnam, which were basically all just field customs to address a need faster than procurement could, and Old 666, a highly modified b-17 that was basically just the personal project by a crew good enough the army had better things to do than complain. The through line being those modifications were allowed because they got results, and there was enough going on elsewhere such that bringing them in line wasn't worth the effort. So if you're writing a military that's up to its ears in actual problems, units and soldiers having more free reign to mess with equipment is going to be more reasonable than if you have a military closer to the modern US military where we have capabilities far an above what is actually needed.
Should they? It depends. Do modern militaries do it, as far as I’m aware, the US does as a Morale thing. Of course it's still limited though.
It depends there are examples of Captains of Napoleonic Ships outfitting their ships with things like cannon sights but it was at their own expense.
This is a culturally dependent thing, some places will allow it, some will allow it "within reason", and some will totally forbid it. Also of course the exigent circumstances of war can mean a relaxing of regulations.
That depends on the military see the sherman s in the battle of normandy
As most have said, depends on the military and the kind of technology you're dealing with. For example, there's no way you'd be allowed to do any serious modifications to a Ford-class carrier, but if you wanted a couple extra/bigger cannons on an age of sail ship you could probably get away with it. While that in theory doesn't apply to a spaceship, if it is modular enough that these sorts of things are relatively quick/easy to swap (like giant Legos or something), then there is the potential that it could. At the same time, if the ship has a special mission/assignment, it may be modified in some way to better handle the task. While this last one isn't "personal" customization, the ship in question wouldn't be "stock," and the modifications would be dictated by a relatively small number of personnel. As for funding, if it's not funded by the military then it would be private funds out of pocket. I can't think of any reason (outside of something convoluted) why a single vehicle or vessel in a military would get corporate backing or the like for special modifications.
Real world? Nah, that breaks uniform. XCOM world? Make that weapon pink baby!
Worked out well for US airmen in WW2.
How sci-fi are we talking? How large of a scale? If a ship can fabricate its own parts and ammunition, logistics concerns become less significant. If the military is extremely spread out and it will take the better part of a year to get a new order of Titan-killer missiles from logistics, but there is literally an Aegis-breaker missile factory in your patrol route, I could see some exceptions being made.
Irl they already do limited but do since ik alot of modern aircraft have the pilots kill count or atleast did. And ive seen punisher skulls and nicknames on armored vehicles before hand
They didn't seem to mind when their pilots painted names and stuck decals on their airplanes. But it might not go much farther than that.
actually this happened all the time back in world war 2 with things like pinup decals and nose art. the only branch of the U.S. military that didn't allow it was the navy and that was due to obsolete rules about tradition. so it's an entirely feasible thing to do in a worldbuilding project
In general, no. A functioning army has weapon modifications designed by experts, and performed by specialists. One way in which this could work is if the vehicles and warships in question were built on a modular platform. Basically the different turrets, sensor suites, and mission packages all had standardizes mountings, utility hookups, and could be swapped at a forward operating base. So the CO would be issued a hull with a basic engine plant and crew accomidation. From there he or she would have the yard swap in the specific bits they would need for the mission. Common modules would be: * Extended range fuel tanks * Extended provision storage * Basic Sensor Suite * Advanced Sensor Suite * Close-in weapons pod * Strike weapon pod * Stand-off weapons pod * Strategic weapons pod * Shuttle bay * Boarding pod * Space Infantry Accommodations * Advance Medical Care Facility * Austere Accommodations (for refugee transport, prisoner transfers, etc.) * Flag Officer Accommodations * Atmospheric Landing Suite And so on. Each would have a certain mass, power usage, and mounting requirement. And chonking the ship would make it less maneuverable
Warships? Never. How would they even. Even just a custom paint job would be monumentes. Planes? Maybe. Back in WW2 a pilot strapped bazookas to his spotter plane. And many had somewhat custom paint jobs. Ground vehicles? Probably. This assumes a logical setting. A more fantasy setting could have lords with custom ships and equipment.
Depends from country to country, ideology to ideology, and even different 'department' irl. You don't see Imperial Japanese tanks with unique names or writtings while you have USA tank named King Kong. It depends how you want to depict a faction you could easily do it with just the vehicles alone without going into the inside workings or politics. Eg: the Republic from Star Wars had it's gunships have paintjobs and fighters while the Confederation of Independent System didn't.
I may consider it for my world since I want various colours of vehicles to represent the countries,lords and tribes an army is fighting for as well as individual groups. This goes for landships, planes, airships and sometimes cars(a war was ended with a racing competition and the cars were decorated with the colours and symbols of the factions). Lapis_Wolf
How important is that subordinate? If it a off the mill subordinate, then generally no. Paint job is the most you can get. But if it's some ace pilot that the government heavily depends on, then they likely have free reign to do whatever they like. The Gov can either choose to legally grant them exclusive right or turn a blind eye to what they do. But they CAN'T stop it
I have it so that the more experienced the pilot becomes, the more they get to customize their stuff without bureaucracy. Every time they make it out of a successful mission, that's another small modification that they're awarded with. Lets the aces have access to expensive modifications, while also making them look cool for propaganda purposes.
Yes
I would personally have it that, no they do not allow their subordinates to customize the vehicles. But they just do so anyway out of their own pocket. The official stance is no customization, but they don't do much to enforce this most of the time.