|
Tojai posted:I've heard the the Confederate States of America had expansionist plans to create a slave empire encompassing Cuba and parts of the Caribbean as well as Central America. Is there anywhere I can read more about this? Google has been vague on primary sources, but if there's a CSA version of Generalplan Ost that would be fascinating. Battle Cry of Freedom, my favorite history of the Civil War, mentions political efforts to annex Cuba prior to the Civil War. Some of the arguments were the same as those that launched the Spanish-American War ("The USA controls the Americas!" "We will liberate the Cubans from Spanish tyranny"). But the country was well aware that Cuba was a slave colony, and they wanted to admit Cuba as a slave state. ---------------------------- And then there's my personal favorite story: William Walker! Aside from a being a horrible racist and imperialist (in the truest sense of the word), his life was an amazing adventure story. I have a soft spot for him just because I've lived in the places he conquered. Walker was born in Tennessee but spent most of his short life raising hell in Latin America. He marched from San Francisco, CA to La Paz, at the southern tip of Baja California and declared himself governor of the newest US state. When the Mexicans kicked him out, he surrendered to US authorities, who brought him back to the States and set him free. A few years later he realized that Central America was a total clusterfuck politically. Upon gaining independence from Spain, Central America seceded from Mexico, then broke into five countries just a few decades later. The five nations barely maintained relations, and civil wars were common. That made the region ripe for exploitation. One country in particular got Walker's attention: Nicaragua. This was 50 years before the Panama Canal, and the quickest route over Central America went through Nicaragua. Coming from the East, the Rio San Juan, at the border of Nicargua and Costa Rica, leads up to Lake Nicaragua, which has its western shore just a short hop from the Pacific Ocean. Well-heeled East Coasters would take clippers down to Rio San Juan, cross the Lake, then take a train to the west coast. From there, they took another clipper to California. Whoever controlled that country and that route stood to make a lot of money. So Walker gathered up a small army of Southerners and offered his support to one side in a Nicaraguan civil war. When that side won, Walker took over the government and declared himself president. He held onto power for 2 years. But apparently the only thing that could unite all of Central America was a goddamn gringo taking over one of their countries. Legalizing slavery and making the English the official language probably didn't help. In 1856, Costa Rican and Honduran armies marched into Nicaragua and ousted Walker. As he left, he burned the city of Granada to the ground. Walker escaped back to the US. Southerners cheered for him. He was a national hero. President Pierce actually recognized Walker as the president of Nicaragua. Within a few years he was at it again. US authorities tried to prevent him from returning to Central America, but he managed to slip past them. He landed at Trujillo, on the north coast of Honduras (and, btw, is the place where Columbus first set foot on the mainland of America). The British controlled the islands off the coast and a good chunk of the north coast. They captured him and turned him over to the Honduran Army, who promptly executed him by firing squad. He's still buried in Trujillo. A reconstruction of his presidential home in Granada is now a luxury hotel. ------------ None of the actions above were taken by the CSA, of course. But they should indicate that there was strong support for pro-slavery expansion into Latin America. Had the CSA survived the Civil War, I have no doubt they would have attacked Mexico, Cuba, and other countries. Whether they would have won any of those wars is up for debate.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Can the crew adjust the amount of propellant on the fly in a rocket and not use so much on a nearer target? This isn't a capability in US munitions but I don't see any reason why not. Right now the M30inc2's unclass min range is about 7km, which actually is a pretty big hindrance. Another solution being looked at is slapping pop-out "wings" and a new warhead/guidance on old M26 rockets and basically turning them into rocket-boosted precision glide bombs. This would reduce the effective min range to the blast radius of the warhead. quote:I would think that a fin stabilized rocket would be easier to turn into a PGM than an artillery shell. It is, but not as much as you'd think. I forgot to mention above the PGM "kits" that are in development right now that are just screw-in nose kits for conventional 155 shells. As of right now they don't have a true precision capability but they do have a "near-precision" capability that is a huge upgrade over unguided rounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The cost issue with modern PGMs is a much more complicated calculus than simple expense per round. That being said, in straight cost per shot, an M30 (inc2/3) costs about $90k per round, while an Excalibur (inc2) costs around $55k not including propellant. So, the individual shot cost difference is not as significant as you might think. Second, when viewing the rounds from a capability perspective, the general rule of thumb is that a unitary M30 warhead provides roughly the same destructive power as three 155mm rounds when employed in a PGM role; in example, a typical PGM fire mission with an M30 will use only one rocket, whereas the 155s will usually employ two shots from each of two tubes (though this is heavily dependent on mission, of course). Finally, the much longer legs of the rockets can help them seriously offset the costs associated with employing FAR more expensive long range fires (air to ground, naval gunfire, or ATACMS), provided of course that they can reach the target. This is something that 155s just can't do. Fair points. quote:This is very true; however, I will offer that the next generation rocket system is specified to tactical-lift capable. Also, HIMARS is significantly faster and more mobile over rough terrain than is the towed 777, so the tactical access question isn't entirely in favor of the guns. We can talk about the next generation when it exists. quote:As for ingress angles, GMLRS rockets can adjust their trajectory to whatever is required immediately after launch. That's good to know, but as you point out in your next post their minimum range is still 7km which, again, gives the howitzer's high angle of fire an advantage. quote:The basis for this is the total amount of HE on a target over an extended period, assuming a local magazine with an equivalent logistical footprint. Six HIMARS launchers can sustain a rate of fire of around 4 rounds per minute, a 777 battery can do about 12. HIMARS in this role can put about 800 lbs of HE down/min, compared to around 160 for a 777 battery. Also consider, if the HIMARS battery reduces its output to 200 lbs/min, its logistical tail is actually about 15% smaller (by weight, it is still larger by volume) than the 777 battery. It is only when you start getting into strategic lift requirements (and running out of rocket frames) that the 155s really start saving you money. I'd be cautious to call it obsolete so quickly. As we've seen with the Gulf War, and most recently Libya, it is perfectly possible to straight up run out of guided munitions, especially when engaged in multiple theatres. I'd be interested to know how long the HIMARS could maintain this rate of fire. Essentially my question is would it be cheaper to do another Siege of Manila more cheaply with 777s or HIMARs? Not that it's at all likely to happen, I am just curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
This is something I heard on these very forums (though where exactly I can't remember anymore) about how the loadout for the GAU-8 on A-10s got switched around at some point after the month and change curbstomp of Iraqi armored targets ended and the insurgency began to pick up in violent earnest, that the ratio to armor piercing:HE shells kinda got switched around. Or maybe that was an Afghanistan thing. Anyway, the impression I got was when you're fighting mostly ill equipped light infantry guerrillas bereft of modern armor, both personal and the rolling around in type, anti-tank munitions don't seem to have the efficacy of rending fragile human bodies into unrecognizable pulp and pieces. Any truth to this, or just one of those military rumors that should be taken with a healthy grain of salt? Also, if anyone has any clue about any of this, I would like to know that I'm not in fact losing my goddamned mind. Even something vaguely applicable you know? : Frostwerks posted:I know this isn't PYF but I do have a request for a quote that I cannot find any more no matter how hard I try to phrase what words I barely remember on google. I believe it was either Goering's psychiatrist (not Gilbert I believe, but I may be wrong) or physician that basically described his bravery as being derived from a position of strength; basically being brave when you hold all the cards is easy but it's much ballsier to stand tall when you're beleaguered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:This is something I heard on these very forums (though where exactly I can't remember anymore) about how the loadout for the GAU-8 on A-10s got switched around at some point after the month and change curbstomp of Iraqi armored targets ended and the insurgency began to pick up in violent earnest, that the ratio to armor piercing:HE shells kinda got switched around. Or maybe that was an Afghanistan thing. Anyway, the impression I got was when you're fighting mostly ill equipped light infantry guerrillas bereft of modern armor, both personal and the rolling around in type, anti-tank munitions don't seem to have the efficacy of rending fragile human bodies into unrecognizable pulp and pieces. Any truth to this, or just one of those military rumors that should be taken with a healthy grain of salt? It makes sense to me as a planner to do that, but I never heard about it either way when I was in (including a stint at the CAOC). I run into an A-10 pilot from time to time though, if nobody posts an answer by the next time I do, I'll ask him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Question about weapons of war, specifically the battleship, and is kind of US centric. I read some debate on this, and wanted to hear from the experts. First, as we know, WWII ended the era of the guns-and-armour battleship. Carriers and missiles decide naval battles now. G&A battleships were also so expensive that they hardly ever engaged each other, with exactly one planned engagement, Jutland in which battleships all lined up neatly to shoot at each other while battlecruisers tried to flank. Fanboys who insist that they are still needed fr shore bombardment (ignoring the fact that the most modern battleships as built weren't designed for that, with long hulls, high superstructures, deep drafts, pointy bows and huge fuel consumption). The question I have is: Would the US ever need to build some sort of massive guided missile battleship? Russia has the Kirov-class ships, which are over 800 feet long and packed with carrier-killer supersonic cruise missiles. They also serve as a psychological weapon, causing Reagan to flip out and insist on re-activating the Iowa class battleships and have a 600-ship navy. Until recently, nobody other than the US had carriers (the Soviet "aviation cruisers" were too small to be effective), and the US didn't build big supersonic missiles as there was no need for them- no targets. After the Soviet Union fell, the US even withdrew the anti-shipping Tomahawk, their then-largest anti-ship missile As China and India start to build carriers, would the US see the need to build massive supersonic cruise missiles and giant ships intended for surface combat to protect carriers and maintain naval supremacy, or would existing ship classes handle things?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
There's no need for battleships anymore. Everything they could do, modern ships can do better (aside from being protected, modern armor is almost non-existent on ships because it's fairly pointless). Surface to surface missiles are more accurate, more powerful, and can have longer range than big guns. The future exception is the railgun system the Navy has been test-firing recently. The longevity of the barrel is the biggest problem now, they don't last nearly long enough due to arc damage. But the system works as intended and will outclass most surface to surface missiles, and any gun, and will be able to be fitted to any ship with the electrical power to charge the capacitors. Granted, a lot of the current fleet doesn't have that yet, but the safety factor alone, from no more massive magazines to explode (ala Arizona or Maine), suggests the Navy will look into ways to increase power generation at least for a few ships, so the capability could be disseminated throughout battle groups and task forces. It's going to be quite a while before Chinese or Indian carriers are a threat to anything outside of the mainland's range anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
I think he's talking about something like the "arsenal ship". To which the answer is, why build one big ship when you can build a few smaller ones with the same missile capacity and be less vulnerable to "oops" incidents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I think he's talking about something like the "arsenal ship". To which the answer is, why build one big ship when you can build a few smaller ones with the same missile capacity and be less vulnerable to "oops" incidents. Yes, exactly this. Modern weapons systems minaturise quite well. A destroyer can probably put out the firepower of a WWII battleship, at least before it runs out of ammo. Offensive power has also far outstripped armour capabilities. So the single large ship concept doesn't really work any more, and certainly isn't required. Carriers only need to be large to accommodate the flight deck and extensive infrastructure related to this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Sunshine89 posted:G&A battleships were also so expensive that they hardly ever engaged each other, with exactly one planned engagement, Jutland in which battleships all lined up neatly to shoot at each other while battlecruisers tried to flank. Jutland wasn't a "planned engagement" as it happened, per se, there's a few other battleship engagements than Jutland, and is that what the battlecruisers were doing? All the world wondered. Sunshine89 posted:The question I have is: Would the US ever need to build some sort of massive guided missile battleship? "Ever" is a long time, but no. Sunshine89 posted:Until recently, nobody other than the US had carriers (the Soviet "aviation cruisers" were too small to be effective), and the US didn't build big supersonic missiles as there was no need for them- no targets. Quite a few countries would be somewhat surprised to hear that their carriers did not count, but perhaps you mean non-US allies? Sunshine89 posted:As China and India start to build carriers, would the US see the need to build massive supersonic cruise missiles and giant ships intended for surface combat to protect carriers and maintain naval supremacy, or would existing ship classes handle things? There's a project currently underway, as it happens, but the relative weakness of USN anti-shipping capability is not news, look no further than the slightly embarrassing Praying Mantis engagements with Iran. LRASM will be compatible with VLS, so there's no need for additional classes of warship. As you can see, the big, sexy, supersonic option was explored, but not pursued. Hell, it's been hard enough keeping JASSM working and funded. Whether this is all very relevant, given submarines and other technologies, is another discussion entirely, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Sunshine89 posted:Fanboys who insist that they are still needed for shore bombardment Well excuse me for wanting the Navy to become less boring 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Well excuse me for wanting the Navy to become less boring  
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, exactly this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System This little baby is on our new Destroyers. Current range is over 100nm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
The Furious already proved this is a terrible idea. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System We're buying three Zumwalts, with two 155mm AGS systems per hull. So, we'll be generous and say that if you had all three ships in one place (you won't), you could have the same firepower of perhaps a single land-based artillery battalion (they won't,) plus whatever missiles the Zumwalts have on board, most of which will probably be SM-2s, and/or SM-6s, with any Tomahawks having to compete for limited VLS space with the ships primary air-defence and anti-submarine weapons. The AGS is an impressive system, but those three hulls can still only be in three separate places at once, and one of those three places is likely to be a drydock. Ok, now lets also keep in mind that the Zumwalts are over fourteen THOUSAND tons. They are not destroyers in the classic, or even newer sense of the word. They are destroyers only in name, in order to sell them to congress. The Zumwalts in general, and AGS in particular are a nod to the wackos in congress that mandated the Iowas be kept, DECADES past the end of their useful lifespans, and think the USMC is going to be storming south pacific islands in opposed landings at some point in the future. F-35B is another example of this; They're fighting the last war, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
They're actually fighting somewhere between four and six wars ago, depending on how you want to slice it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Oh I agree, they're completely worthless and at the cost of them is unbelievable. I just like them for the cool factor. 100nm range out of a 155mm gun. That's pretty drat impressive. Of course we are currently fighting a war in a landlocked country but hey at least they get to look good on port calls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The Zumwalts in general, and AGS in particular are a nod to the wackos in congress that mandated the Iowas be kept, DECADES past the end of their useful lifespans, and think the USMC is going to be storming south pacific islands in opposed landings at some point in the future. F-35B is another example of this; They're fighting the last war, essentially. The Zumwalts were actually designed very specifically to meet requirements laid out by the Navy (not "whackos in Congress") for a low-observable fire support platform that can operate effectively in highly contested waters, be it in support of littoral operations or otherwise. The Air-Sea Battle concept, for example, was written with the Zumwalts' capabilities clearly in mind as a gap mitigator. You might disagree with the concept in a general sense I suppose, but I really don't see how you can think that the Zumwalts were designed to fight "the last war", particularly if you count OIF/OEF as the "last war". bewbies fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Jutland wasn't a "planned engagement" as it happened, per se, there's a few other battleship engagements than Jutland, and is that what the battlecruisers were doing? All the world wondered. Thanks for the informative reply and sorry my post was so sloppy; I was on my phone on the bus. I should have clarified that I was writing from a US-centric viewpoint (hence no nations that they would expect to fight in the near future have a significant carrier fleet),and that Jutland was the closest thing to how a battleship engagement was planned to go down by admirals at the time (Fisher's Follies were also too busy having magazine explosions to break off from the battle line to pull flanking maneuvers). Also, yeah, looking at it closely, it doesn't make sense to have one big tub full of missiles when you could have 3 ships that could do the same job together, or do other things by themselves. The psychological factor doesn't really do much if you can't see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:31
|
|
Sunshine89 posted:Also, yeah, looking at it closely, it doesn't make sense to have one big tub full of missiles when you could have 3 ships that could do the same job together, or do other things by themselves. The psychological factor doesn't really do much if you can't see it. From certain perspectives, it makes perfect sense. One big ship requires less of almost everything(ex. men, engines, steel, radar, comm gear, steering gear, etc) than 3 smaller ships.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
There was an actual point to having big battleships though, in that they have huge guns and it's hard to fit huge guns and their ammo and the engines needed to move them on a small ship. Once you've gone to missiles, and/or planes with missiles you've solved that problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think the psychological aspect of having a big intimidating thing played into it at all. You had huge battleships because you needed big ships to fit your weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Also, passive defenses just don't cut it anymore. No armor made could stand up to a heavy ASM, and if we made thicker armor, they'd just make bigger missiles. It makes more sense to spread the weapons and defenses out. Also, the Navy generally assumes that a warship spends 1/3 of its time at sea, 1/3 working up, and 1/3 in overhaul. Build one big ship, there's a 2/3 chance it's not there when you need it. Build 3 smaller ships, odds are there's some capability on station when needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:None of the actions above were taken by the CSA, of course. But they should indicate that there was strong support for pro-slavery expansion into Latin America. Had the CSA survived the Civil War, I have no doubt they would have attacked Mexico, Cuba, and other countries. Whether they would have won any of those wars is up for debate. http://books.google.com/books?id=DS...ovement&f=false I think McPherson goes into this in This Mighty Scourge, but there's an argument that Southern chattel slavery depended on expansionism in order to survive, so it was inevitable it'd set its sights on Mexico and Central America. The reason, from a cold-blooded slaver point of view, is that unlike a piece of industrial machinery, you can't invent a new slave or make him smaller or more efficient beyond a certain point. There's only so much arable land in an area, and the land is capable of supporting only so many slaves per acre. Too many slaves and it starts getting really inefficient. So eventually your economy stops growing. By the time of the Civil War, the older slave states had already reach a maximum point, and were being converted into (basically) giant slave breeding facilities for export to new markets in the West. Once this was blocked, and considering the importance of slavery to the South's social system - a white supremacist aristocracy - then it makes sense that they would break away and go to war. Slavery would have died out had it been left alone (the neo-Confederates are half-right on this point), and the South's leaders were absolutely unwilling to let it happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:By the time of the Civil War, the older slave states had already reach a maximum point, and were being converted into (basically) giant slave breeding facilities for export to new markets in the West. Once this was blocked, and considering the importance of slavery to the South's social system - a white supremacist aristocracy - then it makes sense that they would break away and go to war. Slavery would have died out had it been left alone (the neo-Confederates are half-right on this point), and the South's leaders were absolutely unwilling to let it happen. Keep in mind that the process would have been very slow though. I remember hearing that there probably would still have been slaves in the 20th century had slavery been allowed to 'naturally' die out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Keep in mind that the process would have been very slow though. I remember hearing that there probably would still have been slaves in the 20th century had slavery been allowed to 'naturally' die out. Almost certainly, yeah. It took another 90 years to overcome legally enforced segregation. While industrialization would still have rendered slavery economically counterproductive in time, as a legal concept in a USA that compromised sufficiently to avoid a civil war it could easily have persisted into the early 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah I don't think the psychological aspect of having a big intimidating thing played into it at all. You had huge battleships because you needed big ships to fit your weaponry. As much as this, it has to do with the USN's hardon for all things Mahan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah I don't think the psychological aspect of having a big intimidating thing played into it at all. You had huge battleships because you needed big ships to fit your weaponry. Again, should have clarified that that was one of the arguments I saw from proponents of a BBG/Arsenal Ship. Speed was also a factor in the fast battleships' size- you needed a long length to fit all the turbines, reduction gears, boilers, etc; you also needed extra length for a decent length-to-beam ratio. There's also the fact that a modern destroyer is far different than a Dreadnought-era Torpedo Boat Destroyer. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer is almost as large in dimensions as a WWI era slow battleship, and has the capability to fight most things in or under the water, and in the air.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:As much as this, it has to do with the USN's hardon for all things Mahan. Why did the USN buy in so much to Mahanian theory in the first place? Didn't he have any competition?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
It probably helped that he was USN
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Keep in mind that the process would have been very slow though. I remember hearing that there probably would still have been slaves in the 20th century had slavery been allowed to 'naturally' die out. There are still slaves in the 21st century, so yeah, it would have taken forever. As in, never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Would a German-Italian invasion of Malta have been successful? Based on what I've been reading about the invasion of Crete, it seems like a Malta invasion attempt would have been a similarly bloody affair, though the Axis would probably have lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
German Kampfgruppe. I've heard here and there about this peculiar thing, but I would like to know more. What was it, exactly? Was it unique to the german? Was it effective in practice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah I don't think the psychological aspect of having a big intimidating thing played into it at all. You had huge battleships because you needed big ships to fit your weaponry. This reminds me of a naval wargaming tournament I heard about once, where each player was given a rulebook and a trillion-dollar budget to design their navy. The winning navy consisted of millions of rubber dinghies with whatever weapons they could carry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Azran posted:German Kampfgruppe. I've heard here and there about this peculiar thing, but I would like to know more. What was it, exactly? Was it unique to the german? Was it effective in practice? The Wiki article lays out the basic gist of it pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe . The word pretty much just means "Task force" so it was a fairly modern concept. The article doesn't note that quite frequently, Kampfgruppes were put together as a desperate measure due to losses, in order to put usable assets under one unit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Would a German-Italian invasion of Malta have been successful? Success wasn't unlikely, if you launch it after Second Sirte and Calendar, and assume the Regia Marina can cover the landings. The broader question is, I suppose, "why bother," since it's summer '42 and you're just not going to be able to deliver enough supplies to the relevant bits of Africa even once Malta is captured. Rommel's about to lose First Alamein, and Malta is not in any condition to do much interfering with SLOCs by then anyway. Tripoli is too far from the front, the smaller Libyan ports can't take in the cargo fast enough, and the Commonwealth have a rail line to Alamein, so it's not a logistical battle you're likely to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The Wiki article lays out the basic gist of it pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgruppe . The word pretty much just means "Task force" so it was a fairly modern concept. Yeah, often in a crisis the Germans would draw a circle over a sector of the front and say 'everything in here is now in Kampfgruppe X' (X usually being the name of the commander). What the Germans realised during WW2 is that whether you are on the initiating or receiving end of mobile warfare, the traditional division>corps>army structure and separation of service arms just isn't good enough for coordination. When every hour matters what you need is a guy at the front who can issue orders to everyone in his area of operations without fussing over the proper chain of command. Today I think that pretty much everyone in NATO has a doctrine based around some kind of 'battlegroup' concept whereby it's assumed that formations will be picked out individually to form a task force with whatever balance of assets it's predicted the mission will require.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Chamale posted:This reminds me of a naval wargaming tournament I heard about once, where each player was given a rulebook and a trillion-dollar budget to design their navy. The winning navy consisted of millions of rubber dinghies with whatever weapons they could carry. I remember this story too, they changed the rules after the guy won the tournament a couple of times in a row. I think it may have appeared in this thread but googling isn't helping me right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
The guy was launching Tomahawks from fishing boats and a whole bunch of other impossible poo poo. But all everybody remembers is "hurf durf America can't handle defeat".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 08:52
|
|
