|
Ataxerxes posted:My one grandfather who fought in WW2 never talked about it and I kinda wanted to find more about it. Mine* said “I drove a general around in a Jeep.” He did not say “through Dachau and other concentration camps.” *I should probably add that my grandfather was American at this point.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
No, a de-motorized force will barring a miracle always lose to a motorized force because the motorized force cannot be compelled into contact except on its own terms. WW2 pretty conclusively proved this point. (before anyone starts, we're talking about conventional forces squaring off in a conventional war, yes an irregular force willing at accept enormous casualties can in the long run force a motorised occupier to withdraw). e: ^^ that is an important clarification
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Keep in mind that if you removed all motorization from a force it would effectively be unable to field any kind of artillery, not even 81mm mortars unless they had an NLF-style unit seeding the combat area with caches full of weapons and supplies beforehand. If you're wondering how units fighting modern style conflicts with no motorization and big units worked.. Even then, the people making the caches had motorized transport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
fartknocker posted: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. What's the rule-of-thumb again? You want something like 3:1 numerical superiority before attacking an entrenched enemy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What's the rule-of-thumb again? You want something like 3:1 numerical superiority before attacking an entrenched enemy? 3:1 force ratio. All other things being equal that means numbers, but every nation's military secrets includes an awful lot of analysis on what they think is a force multiplier and how much it shifts the ratio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Keep in mind that if you removed all motorization from a force it would effectively be unable to field any kind of artillery, not even 81mm mortars unless they had an NLF-style unit seeding the combat area with caches full of weapons and supplies beforehand. If you're wondering how units fighting modern style conflicts with no motorization and big units worked.. Even then, the people making the caches had motorized transport. I think an 81mm mortar is deployable by leg infantry. The heaviest component is 35 lbs. That's very unpleasant but certainly possible. Rounds are 10lb a piece. Spread the weight out over a company-sized force and you can definitely get a mortar in to action. Under current TOE it would be hard to deploy a large volume of integral fire support, but pre-motorized forces deployed all kinds of heavy artillery. You just need a poo poo load of draft animals, access to water, and a lot of forage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
fartknocker posted: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. Yeah, I mean I think a modern highly trained and motivated light infantry battalion could probably march 25 miles over the course of a couple days or whatever and attack and defeat an unsupported low morale mechanized infantry company. But that's a specific light infantry formation trained to fight in a specific way, which I don't think is what the question really asks. I think the question is kind of silly because the whole point of motorized/mechanized infantry is that it's got a TOE and training and doctrine that involves the use of motorized and mechanized equipment to kill things. Similarly if you stick the light leg infantry in AFVs they're not going to perform well because that's just not what they're set up to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
I thought about addressing KE with those posts but ultimately didn’t; you’re certainly not wrong, but I think the next major leap for APS is the improvement in reaction times and projectile response so that KE is a part of equation. Stopping a long rod is certainly a lot more difficult but not impossible; some systems have already done it, just not in a truly practical format. The Russians say they can already do this with the system on the T-14 while and while I highly doubt that, it doesn't seem at all out of our reach in the next decade or 2. Mazz fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Might need some giant scare quotes around "learn the local language" there, bub. smdh e: like, do you think that's the only thing the normans didn't do out of that list
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
Ataxerxes posted: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. I was always into cool rear end jets and stuff for as long as I can remember. My dad used to take me to air shows as our thing and growing up in san antonio there were a lot of them and high quality. My moms dad was a gunner on b17s and spent a year or so in a camp after getting shot down. He died unexpectedly when I was in 6th grade and just getting old enough to wrap my head around war and things of a higher level than ‘dude shooting a rifle at another dude’ and I wanted to find out more about the mighty 8th and what they did and it kind of spiraled out from there. I’ve always been into tech too as a ‘wow that’s cool’ level enthusiast and the most cutting edge stuff is either spacecraft or military hardware. Understanding how that hardware is used is kind of a secondary motivation but it all snowballs as we all know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
A grunt unit could move an 81mm mortar by hand over a long distance but it would suck. Everyone is already maxed on weight so spread loading ammo means you’re leaving behind other types of ammo or batteries instead. For distances, a few years ago the marines updated the readiness standards so that grunt units have to do 20mi in a single hike and non grunt units 10 or 12 I think. I believe this is an annual requirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Keep in mind that the 1st infantry division is an infantry division in name only. By this time, the difference between a US infantry division and armored division is somewhat notional. The true blue infantry divisions in the US army were the various 'light' infantry brigades. Oh thanks I didn't know that. Makes more sense to me then! Do you know why they might start with Bradley's in front rather than the Abrams?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:cav is back babey Britain just can't catch a break 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 07:51
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Keep in mind that if you removed all motorization from a force it would effectively be unable to field any kind of artillery, not even 81mm mortars unless they had an NLF-style unit seeding the combat area with caches full of weapons and supplies beforehand. If you're wondering how units fighting modern style conflicts with no motorization and big units worked.. Even then, the people making the caches had motorized transport. "We are safe here, mon ami. There’s just no way the Vietnamese can bring artillery through that terrain!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
Draft animals make it dooable, or lots and lots of porters, but those have been neccesary for armies to move for millenia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 10:56
|
|
|
The Vietnamese managed to do some logistics with bicycles, didn't they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:16
|
|
|
Bicycles are underrated for their military utility. They're similar to skis in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:29
|
|
|
In my highly limited experience, bicycles are a great mobility multiplier of an individual combatant and their personal gear, but limits the ability to haul squad/platoon/company level assets below even of what is possible on foot. You can have two walking dudes pick up a generator to carry between them, but can't do the same on bicycles. At the same time, having even a single working truck with a ton of bicycles would probably boost an infantry company's mobility by a huge factor over a foot-mobile unit equipped with a single truck. Obligatory image:  Interestingly, this might be scenario where winter and snow actively improve mobility: troops on skis, equipped with pulks, are probably gonna be able to haul more stuff than a similar sized unit on foot or on bicycles. The speed doesn't hold up to what's possible on bike, but the offroad capabilities are significantly better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
Throw that generator on the back of the bike, tie it down, and start pedaling. It's not that hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
My understanding is that in Vietnam, the bicycles weren't so much ridden as they were pushed along, to allow individuals to carry large loads across longer distances. See e.g. https://www.vietnamheritage.com.vn/pushing-to-victory/ quote:A pack bicycle could carry 200-300 kg, five times more than a man. It could operate on many kinds of terrain inaccessible to motorised vehicles. Bikes didn’t consume fuel and were easier to fix and to camouflage. The groups could be small or big, and they could move in any weather. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Throw that generator on the back of the bike, tie it down, and start pedaling. It's not that hard. A 50kg hunk of metal 50cm x 50cm x 75cm is not something you just "throw on the back of the bike", especially in scenarios where you also need to carry a rucksack of personal equipment. At the same time, some sort of a bicycle attached cart thingymabob might be useful in the same way a pulk is useful, but I don't think those are quite as standard equipment as pulks are for ski-mobile infantry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 12:44
|
|
|
Loezi posted:A 50kg hunk of metal 50cm x 50cm x 75cm is not something you just "throw on the back of the bike", especially in scenarios where you also need to carry a rucksack of personal equipment. At the same time, some sort of a bicycle attached cart thingymabob might be useful in the same way a pulk is useful, but I don't think those are quite as standard equipment as pulks are for ski-mobile infantry. Put dynamos on bikes and link a platoon or a company pedaling together, there's your generator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
What was the comfiest tank ever to see service? Most legroom, calmest turret monster, wet bar, whatever makes you say "that is the tank I want to serve in."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:06
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What was the comfiest tank ever to see service? Most legroom, calmest turret monster, wet bar, whatever makes you say "that is the tank I want to serve in." a one that's being used for training statesides
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What was the comfiest tank ever to see service? Most legroom, calmest turret monster, wet bar, whatever makes you say "that is the tank I want to serve in." Inb4 boiling vessel vehicle
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
I'm currently reading through a history of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment in Operation Market-Garden, and specifically their involvement in seizing the bridges over the Waal River at Nijmejen, and the difficult task (to put it mildly) of launching a river crossing, in canvas boats, in broad daylight, against active opposition on the other bank. Does anyone have a larger perspective on this area that could comment on why they didn't drop a force on the northern bank of the Waal? All of the maps that came with the book were very zoomed-in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm currently reading through a history of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment in Operation Market-Garden, and specifically their involvement in seizing the bridges over the Waal River at Nijmejen, and the difficult task (to put it mildly) of launching a river crossing, in canvas boats, in broad daylight, against active opposition on the other bank. The 82nd airborne was also tasked with securing the Grave bridge, and since they needed to keep a line of communications open with the drop zone to stay supplied, particularly with artillery ammunition, a location between the Nijmeghen bridge and grave bridge makes sense. Having the same DZ for both legs of the operation reduced the amount of troops needed for maintaining the DZ and allowed more men for the actual taking of objectives. There's a tendency to second-guess the drop zone choices in the op but the only one that I think was truly badly planned was the 1 AB's. The others largely make sense given the tasking of the divisions involved. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The 82nd airborne was also tasked with securing the Grave bridge, and since they needed to keep a line of communications open with the drop zone to stay supplied, particularly with artillery ammunition, a location between the Nijmeghen bridge and grave bridge makes sense. Having the same DZ for both legs of the operation reduced the amount of troops needed for maintaining the DZ and allowed more men for the actual taking of objectives. oh okay, yeah the first third of the book did cover the taking of the Grave bridge, so that makes sense I wasn't really trying to second-guess the DZ's so much as thinking "okay, I know I'm missing something", which is why I asked
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What was the comfiest tank ever to see service? Most legroom, calmest turret monster, wet bar, whatever makes you say "that is the tank I want to serve in." The T-70 was pretty comfortable, surprisingly enough. It was one of the most reliable Soviet tanks of its time, plenty of leg room since Astrov himself was pretty tall, no turret basket, so no turret monster. You're going to have some issues in combat though, especially the poor saps who had to crew them in 1943.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Bicycle troops are dragoons. Also you can certainly bring that generator on the bike. Don't even need straps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkTwJ347Vk
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Oh thanks I didn't know that. Makes more sense to me then! Do you know why they might start with Bradley's in front rather than the Abrams? I never worked with Bradleys specifically, but sometimes we'd put AAVs in front of tanks. AAVs go up and do something, tanks sit back and provide fire support. 1. AAVs have more eyes. Open the back hatches and you get a couple dozen grunts who can help you look for enemy infantry, which is really helpful. 2. AAVs with MCLCs (Mile Clearance Line Charges) were in front of tanks when breeching the minefields in the Gulf War, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My understanding is that in Vietnam, the bicycles weren't so much ridden as they were pushed along, to allow individuals to carry large loads across longer distances. See e.g.  Brb, starting defense company selling military pack bikes. 300kgs transported by one man over long distances
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Loezi posted:A 50kg hunk of metal 50cm x 50cm x 75cm is not something you just "throw on the back of the bike", especially in scenarios where you also need to carry a rucksack of personal equipment. You're not Dutch, so I don't blame you for not knowing, but this isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 17:24
|
|
Nenonen posted:Britain just can't catch a break Vaguely related, I watched Waterloo as I usually do every one or two years and it still cracks me up the movie barely shows you why the Union Brigade is attacking. Just a brief shot of a battery being briefly sabered without mentioning the whole scattering a divisional level amount of men before they run out of steam and are lanced.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
I'm reading today that Soviet troops were provided with 2,4-Dinitrophenol tablets in WWII in order to "keep warm." This is a substance that, in addition to being a militarily useful high explosive, was sold as a diet pill in the 1920s. And it actually does make people lose weight, but it does so in a horrifically unsafe fashion: by uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation and inhibiting the function of your cellular mitochrondria. Basically your metabolism becomes less efficient, and you need to burn more calories to, well, live. So your body temperature goes up, and you feel warmer. Trouble is that sometimes your body temperature goes up too much and you die. It also caused cataracts, organ failure, all sorts of bad things. And ultimately, side effects aside, this seems like a dumb thing to give soldiers because while they might feel warmer now you also need to feed them more. And while I say that I'm reading this today, I'm reading it in a source that's really untrustworthy in general: https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/drug-russians-took-beat-nazis/ And I see some references to the practice in medical literature, but they only describe it anecdotally. Is there any real evidence that this was a Soviet Army practice or is this just mil-UL bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah the references seem to all point to this 1986 article that you probably refer to and that I can't seem to find a full text of rn: https://europepmc.org/article/med/3788046
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Vaguely related, I watched Waterloo as I usually do every one or two years and it still cracks me up the movie barely shows you why the Union Brigade is attacking. Just a brief shot of a battery being briefly sabered without mentioning the whole scattering a divisional level amount of men before they run out of steam and are lanced. Bad cav island can't even catch a break on film
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:You're not Dutch, so I don't blame you for not knowing, but this isn't a problem. I'm not, but I did use bicycles a bunch during my military service -- including attempting to transport e.g. engineering materiel with them, as shown in the image above -- but I suppose I'm just bad at bicycles, then 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Bike trailers work great, but once you're towing over like 200lbs any small hill is a pretty brutal workout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What was the comfiest tank ever to see service? Most legroom, calmest turret monster, wet bar, whatever makes you say "that is the tank I want to serve in." Leopard ½ has the best ventilation around. Just make sure you keep the enemy to the front and right. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:24
|
|