|
Cessna posted:Yeah, USMC infantry - and even non-infantry - trains constantly for "humps" (marches).  as in they train for n+ day marches into combat? Marching in peace time or short distances absolutely, but, not for multiple days in a combat zone surely?
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:If that tank skimps on armour for the main gun and drive train, wouldn't every marginal hit now be effectively devastating? Few things are as big a multiplier in combat as diminishing enemy fires, like. A soldier without a weapon can't fight I think the idea is that by making a smaller crewless turret you can put just as much effective armor around it, but since you aren't armoring a large crew compartment the equivalent level of protection will weigh a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:
Yes. Seriously, why wouldn't they do this? It's good training and physical conditioning. I mean, what do you think the infantry does? Sure, they might get helo/amtrack/truck rides, but they also might not, so they train constantly for long marches. No, they don't train like they're Stonewall Jackson's army in the Valley and march every day for a year, but they absolutely do long, daily marches for extended periods of time. Cessna fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yes. Seriously, why wouldn't they do this? It's good training and physical conditioning. *your mileage may wary depending on the instructor Seriously, foot marches on initial training consist of Way too big of an amount of severe back and leg injuries due to incompetent leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
The turret of the T-14 is weirdly yuge, it doesn't look that much smaller than the turret on a Leo or Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/01/15/huge-new-chinese-ships-are-made-for-ramming/?sh=5b137b631c19 Time, cyclical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:*your mileage may wary depending on the instructor This is absolutely true, yes. If anything, my experience tells me that we were marched too much, to the point where it went from "good physical conditioning" to "who wants bad knees for the rest of their life." And I was an armor crewman, the infantry had it even worse. The idea that the military doesn't do long marches is genuinely perplexing to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
piL posted:https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/01/15/huge-new-chinese-ships-are-made-for-ramming/?sh=5b137b631c19 Clearly inspired by the performance of the USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wait did the ramming ships not get mentioned yer, like the HMS Polyphemus. Some insane brit decides to go back to Ancient warfare and arm modern ships with rams, pure lunacy. Most famously depicted owning some martians at the end of War of the Worlds. Although only one of those was due to detonation of its own armament underwater at close range. The first two times were just due to submarines being hard, particularly in the middle of the 19th Century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
SubG posted:That's nothing. The Confederacy produced a submarine armed with nothing but a torpedo spar, the Hunley. It sank four vessels, including itself...three times. It killed 5 union soldiers and 21 confederates, truly an asset to the north.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yes. Seriously, why wouldn't they do this? It's good training and physical conditioning. Yeah, for physical training. I have done that too. Still never thought we'd be expected to march longer than a couple dozen miles if it mattered? Everyone has a fuckload of support equipment including infantry, which I have been, and I've never seen anyone march with loving diesel generator on their back. Without -any- transportation a unit can't do alot or for very long. E. Ok, I'm talking about "will this formation be expected to operate to normal standards if you take away all their transportation" not "will you have to walk if you join the army". If I'm being an rear end in a top hat as well as wrong then I apologise. I learnt something new. ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Tulip posted:It killed 5 union soldiers and 21 confederates, truly an asset to the north.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Yeah, for physical training. I have done that too. Still never thought we'd be expected to march longer than a couple dozen miles if it mattered? Everyone has a fuckload of support equipment including infantry, which I have been, and I've never seen anyone march with loving diesel generator on their back. Without -any- transportation a unit can't do alot or for very long. Well, sure, there's no doubt that some stuff gets left behind when you're on foot. The Bn S4 isn't going to carry his desk and computer either. But long marches with weapons, ammo, and basic supplies? All the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
SubG posted:Has anyone done a similar tabulation for the other Confederate non-submarine torpedo boats armed only with a spar torpedo (CSS David, CSS Scorpion, and so on)? the turtle: 0 patriots, 0 RN
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Yeah, for physical training. I have done that too. Still never thought we'd be expected to march longer than a couple dozen miles if it mattered? Everyone has a fuckload of support equipment including infantry, which I have been, and I've never seen anyone march with loving diesel generator on their back. Without -any- transportation a unit can't do alot or for very long. Also, only to point this out, the loss of all motorized transportation would lead to the immediate collapse of the global food distribution network and a nasty global famine. If there is still a war going, the soldiers in question will supply themselves by looting and killing the civilians with the bad luck of living in their path
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Plundering the population does not end well.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Plundering the population does not end well. Human history, condensed down into a single sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If there is still a war going, the soldiers in question will supply themselves by looting and killing the civilians with the bad luck of living in their path Or learn the local language and settle down, maybe start a brick factory, make some homestyled plum wine and join the local anarchist commune. I hope there's good surfing
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:E. Ok, I'm talking about "will this formation be expected to operate to normal standards if you take away all their transportation" not "will you have to walk if you join the army". If I'm being an rear end in a top hat as well as wrong then I apologise. I learnt something new. You're not being an rear end in a top hat at all. There's no doubt that a unit without transportation won't be as effective; modern military units need a LOT of supplies. But at the same time if it came down to it I don't think they'd just sit in place and wait for a ride if they had to walk and fight. Edit: ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Or learn the local language and settle down, maybe start a brick factory, make some homestyled plum wine and join the local anarchist commune. I hope there's good surfing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Cessna posted:But at the same time if it came down to it I don't think they'd just sit in place and wait for a ride if they had to walk and fight. I see you have more faith in the children than I do. Oh god I'm about to start lusting for a gran torino and talking to chairs aren't I 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Or learn the local language and settle down, maybe start a brick factory, make some homestyled plum wine and join the local anarchist commune. I hope there's good surfing Good Ending Unlocked
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Or learn the local language and settle down, maybe start a brick factory, make some homestyled plum wine and join the local anarchist commune. I hope there's good surfing exactly like the normans in england
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:exactly like the normans in england Might need some giant scare quotes around "learn the local language" there, bub.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Tulip posted:It killed 5 union soldiers and 21 confederates, truly an asset to the north. And the spar torpedo killed everyone on the sub when used in its one combat action. It's like a lovely precursor to those nazi suicide jets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
The original question is kind of insightfull when you start thinking about it. Pryor is evidently smarter than they think. The Falklands is the last time I can remember this scenario playing out in war time, has it happened since? By that I mean scale offensive action by a combatant suddenly on foot. Havent seen anything about unmotorised actions in either Ukraine or Nagorno beyond retreats, but then again, that wouldn't prove that other pdb's won't still be pig headed enough to do it. it will be both the Brits and the Corps won't it
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:The original question is kind of insightfull when you start thinking about it. Pryor is evidently smarter than they think. I mean the planning process is fundamentally the same no matter what, Operational planning is very much a textbook exercise when it comes to these things. The numbers just drastically change what you can bring to a fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean the planning process is fundamentally the same no matter what, Operational planning is very much a textbook exercise when it comes to these things. The numbers just drastically change what you can bring to a fight. Yes but has it been done? You can decide to not push forwards if you unexpectedly loose significant mobility enablers you know. Hell maybe you're right and infantry should feel safe to do week long marches to objective carrying only a pistol, boots and spare batteries for a hopefully working radio, but: have they? Does no one else here think that's an uncommonly brave decision for 21st century war?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Yes but has it been done? You can decide to not push forwards if you unexpectedly loose significant mobility enablers you know. Hell maybe you're right and infantry should feel safe to do week long marches to objective carrying only a pistol, boots and spare batteries for a hopefully working radio, but: have they? No because you can't train soldiers not to need to drink water or eat food. e: like on your list the thing that will stop working in a 21st century war is the radio. That's what militaries train to fight without. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is an interesting question, well to me at least: how did y'all get into military history? I built fighter jet models when I was That Age. Also I was terrified of nuclear war and whenever I was scared of something as a kid I'd research it exhaustively in order to discover the One Weird Trick that would protect me from it. My one grandfather who fought in WW2 never talked about it and I kinda wanted to find more about it. Also, cheap model planes and later trying to understand what had happened and why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Ataxerxes posted:My one grandfather who fought in WW2 never talked about it and I kinda wanted to find more about it.  The only time he ever spoke about it even briefly was at grandma's funeral, and it was about how he developed a slight, irrational dislike of priests back in 1944, since he had to make a lot of snap decisions to decide whether any arriving casualty should be brought to him, a surgeon, or to the priest. That memory seemed to haunt him to the very end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No because you can't train soldiers not to need to drink water or eat food. Ok. Can I ask a bit more on your thoughts here? 1. How big a unit are you envisioning would be doing this? 2. What is the mission they are trying to achieve? 3. What opposition are you envisioning they expect to face? 4. What is the level of opposition they could be expected to defeat? 5. Expected casualties? Amount of acceptable casualties? 6. How many days can they be expected to march? What does the final stretch and prep before moving on the objective area look like? More or less, any resting? I'm starting to think I must be envisioning some very different things under different circumstances and that's why I'm unconvinced this mechanised infantry battalion? company? turned light infantry battalion, without any support at all, should expect any level of success. Oh, thats a very important question as well 7. What does significant success look like for this unit? If you go to the effort of answering this bit-longer-than-i-thought list you'll have my thanks. Can't ask for more. ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Ok. Can I ask a bit more on your thoughts here? It seems like you're taking a very...linear view of warfare. Like, everything is perpetually an offensive or something. Look at an IBCT. They have a lot of trucks, but not enough to haul everyone simultaneously. There are some major tradeoffs here: they're easier to deploy strategically and lighter to sustain, but obviously do not have the tactical mobility of an SBCT or an HBCT. How then would you use an IBCT? In defensive roles, in areas where static position isn't as problematic, in areas where sustainment is challenging, etc etc. Not every military action is a long offensive maneuver. (caveat: the army wants to motorize the IBCTs.) Anyway, I did a lot of ruck marching. Our patrols in OIF/OEF were oftentimes dismounted or partially mounted. Walking places, sometimes carrying a ton of gear, is still a critical aspect of tactical mobility. Having a truck or a helicopter to give you a ride was always preferable, but not always possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It seems like you're taking a very...linear view of warfare. Like, everything is perpetually an offensive or something. Aaaah. That's what you all have been thinking about, that clears it all up. Yeah I have no disagreement with that, foot patrol for days ain't special for anybody. I'm really not intending any offense here, but I didn't include foot patrol while on deployment under the headings "warfare" or "fight". That's... no, what I'd call it is actually unimportant. What I was thinking about was conventional war between peer nations. ie China, Russia et al vs US. Uhm, sorry?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Aaaah. That's what you all have been thinking about, that clears it all up. Yeah I have no disagreement with that, foot patrol for days ain't special for anybody. I'm really not intending any offense here, but I didn't include foot patrol while on deployment under the headings "warfare" or "fight". That's... no, what I'd call it is actually unimportant. If motorization on a global level stops being a thing, those nations will break up and cease to exist, so the question is meaningless as there will be no war between non-existent nations. I mean, maybe they or some successor states will one day form up again after a massive population crash or after the motor is re-invented or whatever, but in your question as written, all those nations will be incapable of doing anything besides maybe surviving if they can get their poo poo enough together, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
cav is back babey
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:This may be a really dumb question but does modern infantry even have the capability to march anymore? If there was some EMP disaster or whatever and all the trucks stopped working would the 1st infantry even be able to march from Kansas to Minnesota to prevent the Canadian invasion or is there just no plan for that? Even with pack animals, you can't carry enough food to feed an army+animals for long distances. A couple horses pulling a wagon of grain eat all the food in that wagon a lot faster than a tanker truck full of diesel burns all its diesel. One horse going from Kansas to Minnesota over ~40 days needs about 400lbs of grain (more if there's no pasture grass along the way). You can only do effective bulk transport by water because wind can move cargo but doesn't eat. Pre-modern armies dealt with this by pillaging food from the surrounding population they marched by instead of carrying the entire journey's food and just couldn't go anywhere without sufficient population density to steal from. Or for highly organized things like Rome inside the empire, have forts along the way collect and stockpile taxed grain from the local area to feed passing armies. e: extra zero. 10lbs/horse/day Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
An interesting analysis of premodern military operations comes from Yan Yu in 14 CE, who was analysing Han invasions of the Xiongnu. The upper limits of what they could pull off was about 100 days, since that's when the oxen used for pulling supplies would pretty much all die off and you'd be carrying everything yourself (which if you're not already near the border, you need to book it). Of course, the Xiongnu themselves lived in this region 365 days a year, so clearly there was another way to do logistics it was just incompatible with the rest of the way the Han did things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If motorization on a global level stops being a thing, those nations will break up and cease to exist, so the question is meaningless as there will be no war between non-existent nations. I mean, maybe they or some successor states will one day form up again after a massive population crash or after the motor is re-invented or whatever, but in your question as written, all those nations will be incapable of doing anything besides maybe surviving if they can get their poo poo enough together, but I doubt it. (I need to loving stop posting before this gets to tank destroyers). No, Libluini, that wasn't the question. I altered the question. Pray I don't alter it further. Question turned into, "could a (US army/marine) (fully) motorised/mechanised (company size and up) unit, if they lost the use of everything but personal gear and individual weapons and handheld support weapons with a diminished ammo load, walk for multiple days and still Do WarfareTM (not defensive, not holding territory - offensive, defeat or force enemy to abandon a defined battlespace) against an (regular, not altered or diminished, aka still fully fueled and mechanised if mechanised) (Russian army element) opponent successfully?" Aka "is there any planning for if a magical emp killed all of X. brigade's trucks and they'd have to walk to Canada to stop the Soviet tank army coming over the border?" Thats the Q I saw, and after Cessna's answer made me think of the Falklands as "Huh. Guess it's not entirely impossible sorta kinda if you squint even a little bit? Maybe someone wouldn't sit still if they had to win a war with their feet because no helicopters. Bloody English." Some of the fault for this questionable discussion is mine, I'll own that. Half. Half of it is my fault. Possibly. Maybe less. But I maintain thus, nevarr was there a position made in the original OP of anyone suffering thusly from motorised abandonment, beyond the infantry formation that was thusly to walk. And since every third post on this page is mine I'm stopping because it's embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Question turned into, "could a (US army/marine) (fully) motorised/mechanised (company size and up) unit, if they lost the use of everything but personal gear and individual weapons and handheld support weapons with a diminished ammo load, walk for multiple days and still Do WarfareTM (not defensive, not holding territory - offensive, defeat or force enemy to abandon a defined battlespace) against an (regular, not altered or diminished, aka still fully fueled and mechanised if mechanised) (Russian army element) opponent successfully?" Aka "is there any planning for if a magical emp killed all of X. brigade's trucks and they'd have to walk to Canada to stop the Soviet tank army coming over the border?" It is an interesting question. What era are we talking about? Post WWII? Present day?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Also the size of the two forces matters a great deal and probably should be specified as well. A company trying to attack an entrenched battalion is stupid and likely not going to be easy even under normal conditions, while a battalion going against a company that's supported by armor and mechanized elements becomes much more interesting, particularly depending on era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:04
|
|
