Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

We have documentary and pictorial evidence showing that high-angle shots were done with crossbows, so this theory doesn't hold water. Furthermore, if they were deflected off of pikes, they could still strike people in the face and put eyes out, pierce noses, and otherwise make one's day decidedly unpleasant. I could see it providing some protection but fairly little. These missiles still carry a lot of momentum even on a deflection.

I also seem to recall that claim about the phalanx coming from only one classical source, but my googling doesn't seem to be turning up any primary sources.

Wouldn't classical era bows be significantly less powerful anyway? Look at the physics. I don't know the specific numbers, but for composite bows, crossbows and so on to have such power the 'muzzle velocity' would have to be pretty decent. If you fire a projectile in an arc, the speed that it hits the ground is basically the same as the initial velocity (minus air resistance I'll admit).

Seems like a crossbow barrage would be absolutely devastating purely in the physical sense, compared to the relatively primitive bows macedonian phalanges would've been facing. The deflection thing seems plausible to me if the bows doing the shooting aren't very powerful, which I don't think they were? This is all just retarded conjecture though so feel free to show me I'm wrong

# ? Dec 8, 2013 08:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 20:27

Englishman alone: Nov 28, 2013

Raenir Salazar posted:

How true is the claim(s) that the IDF was actually incredibly incompetent during the various A-I wars and only won because the Arabs were worse?

(Off the top of my head they apparently lost track of one of their boomer's)

Well its rather tricky apart from the massive amount of propaganda on both sides to see what is competence or luck or a combination of factors out of the IDF's hands . I for a start in 1948 the IDF was formed from the Haganah, LEHI, IRGUN all which were milita/terrorist groups against Arab armies which meant that politics limited its effectiveness along with a dreadful supply and gear shortages. Their is a wonderful irony that they defended the nation with Nazi air-planes, and small arms as that was the best that could be smuggled out of Europe the Czechoslovakia did a big armies deal with the blessing of Stalin.
The Arab armies were extremely incompetent apart from the Jordanians which meant that the IDF didn't have to do anything inspired it just had to hold itself against Arab forces, this was true up and till 68 when the IDF became much more aggressive.
The major weakness in the IDF was the naval forces as that was riven by factionalism and run by people who had never been at sea shunning and neglecting former officers and sailors who had RN or USN experience it wasn't really in 73 when it became professional in the sense that the Army and the Air force was in '48.(I hadn't heard the story of missing Boomer).
Its much argued in academia exactly how competent the IDF was due to incredibly bad Arab armies as in both 48 and 67 the Egyptian army attacked effectively with NO LOGISTICS at all so suffered massively from attritional losses even before they came in contact with the IDF land forces. The regional standard is so low you can't compare say the IDF with a decent NATO or Warsaw pact army as it designed to so specifically for Israeli needs.

As the other poster said all wars are who is least incompetent rather than the other way around.

apologies for the slightly rambling reply the question is far wider than I am used to.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 12:52

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

What's 'a missing boomer'?

# ? Dec 8, 2013 13:17

Englishman alone: Nov 28, 2013

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Getting your degree from a school art project, even a king's, is not very impressive.

Joking aside, do you know Tim Bird?

I arrived super late on the course so I didn't really have much a chance to meet and greet at the start of term so sadly not.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 13:28

Englishman alone: Nov 28, 2013

Koesj posted:

What's 'a missing boomer'?

I believe its referencing the loss of one of their submarines. It normally in regards to nuke capable(a fun topic in itself in regards to Israel)

# ? Dec 8, 2013 13:29

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

gradenko_2000 posted:

How bad was Britain's finances in the wake of WWI?

EDIT: Or other countries too, although I'm curious about the UK in particular because it was top-dog before the war.

Almost all of the countries that participated came out of WWI with massive war debts and had dumped the gold standard rules in order to keep their economy functioning. Britain, overall, was an intermediary. Most of the Entente countries had debts to the British, who themselves had considerable debts to the US. This had a considerable effect on the reparations negotiations after the war.

These debts really didn't give anyone in particular a whole lot of power, and the French, for example, were able to negotiate a really good deal on the debt and only ended up paying 30 cents on the dollar, while the US was very tight-fisted and didn't give the British much reprieve.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 14:48

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

Englishman alone posted:

I believe its referencing the loss of one of their submarines. It normally in regards to nuke capable(a fun topic in itself in regards to Israel)

Okay I guess I could have made the connection to INS Dakar but that's in no way a 'missing boomer', which led me to believe you guys were talking about something else entirely.

Please grant me some pedantry and severe elaboration:

Any submarine (like a diesel powered 'SS' - Ship, Submersible) with a standard size torpedo tube (533mm) is 'nuke capable' if you load up a nuclear torpedo.
A nuclear submarine (an SSN for example - Ship, Submersible, Nuclear) is one that uses nuclear propulsion.
'Boomer' is a slang term which originated from the US Navy, and means you're talking about a submarine carrying ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (SSB(N) - Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, (Nuclear)).
Since after the Soviets decommissioned their diesel powered rust buckets during the late-Cold War drawdown, there have only been nuclear powered 'boomers' in service with 5 navies (USN, ВМФ РФ, RN, MN, PLAN).
There's also a type of subs called SSG(N)s (blah blah, Guided Missile), which are specifically designed to carry cruise missiles in dedicated launchers. The Project 949 for example, of which the ignominious Kursk was an upgraded version, carries 24 huge-rear end Granit anti-ship missiles which can also carry a large nuclear warhead. The Russians pioneered these kinds of boats but later versions of the USN's Los Angeles Class SSNs have dedicated Tomahawk launchers as well (IIRC you can launch those out of tubes anyway), and the oldest four Ohio class SSBNs have been refitted into veritable arsenal subs, loaded with 154 Tomahawks.
Nowadays you've also got diesel powered subs with extended electrical systems, allowing them to stay underwater longer, called SSPs - i.e. fitted with an Air-Independent Propulsion system.

The current Israeli subs allegedly able to carry nuclear tipped cruise missiles (Dolphin class) fall into the last category. They are neither nuclear powered, nor do they carry ballistic missiles (the kind that shoot way way up like a space rocket). Furthermore, they aren't designed to poo poo out a large load of cruise missiles within a very short time in order to attack a carrier group (like the Soviets might have wanted), or kick in the door somewhere like the Americans do (Florida shot off 93 Tomahawks against Libya in 2011). Sure, the Dolphins are advanced boats, the Germans still build quality subs, and they're fitted with extra large 650mm tubes (nominally a Soviet 'carrier killer' wake-homing torpedo size) which they've fitted their home-built cruise missiles to.

But they're in no way boomers.

And the INS Dakar was an ex-Royal Navy clanker, commissioned in 1945, which sank in 1968. Before its delivery to the Israeli Navy, before it would realistically have been mated with a nuclear weapon by its end user, before even the Soviets had an undersea launched cruise missile (and the Dakar sure as hell didn't have the provisions to do a surface launch of... wait there were no such missiles in the West), and before the Israelis had come to reach both the miniaturisation and serviceability needed for a weapon that wasn't one of the <10 crude aircraft delivered nukes they had - probably sitting in climate controlled facilities constantly being prodded by people in white suits.

Or maybe they had the Americans develop a tube-launched SLBMs exclusively, which were handed to them with American warheads attached, half a year before the landmark F-4 sale with which the US partially hoped to spur the Israelis into signing the Non Proliferation Treaty.[ If you ask the Arab on the streets that's probably what happened!

Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 15:07

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

I've heard a lot of people (both laymen and some experts) talk about the supposed obsolescence of surface naval platforms in a hot war. Namely, the fact that the development and deployment of large numbers of long range anti-ship missiles (both air, surface, and subsurface launched) means that anything that you can see can be destroyed easily from stand-off distances, even after accounting for point defense guns like a CIWS or other anti-missile systems. I suppose this would be of special concern to the US Navy, given how much of our conventional power projection relies on massive, high value targets like carriers.
I posted upthread about the mathematical models used (one called the Salvo Model in the US) to determine how much damage opposing surface battlegroups can inflict on one another using missiles, but that in a vacuum does not say much without any real world examples, and this model does not take into account stand-off ability, whether it is from aircraft outside of the air defenses of the opposing surface fleet, nor from subsurface launched missiles in which retaliatory strikes would be hard to carry out.

edit: Plus good old fashioned submarines sneaking past battlegroup defenses and treating themselves to a turkey shoot with torpedoes.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 15:41

Koesj: Aug 3, 2003

That's a really contentious issue, which has been debated about for decades now, and will probably never be resolved without a major conflict no-one in the world wants to see happening (to say nothing of revisiting the ahistorical matchups of the past). I went over the model when you first posted it and it looked really simplistic to me and my wargaming-induced thousand yard stare.

I think you were asking for more elaborate simulations in your earlier post? Command: Modern Air Naval Operations came out a couple of months ago, but 'unfortunately' for you Baloogan isn't around for another 13 days to implore you to immediately throw your money at it.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 15:55

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

Koesj posted:

That's a really contentious issue, which has been debated about for decades now, and will probably never be resolved without a major conflict no-one in the world wants to see happening (to say nothing of revisiting the ahistorical matchups of the past). I went over the model when you first posted it and it looked really simplistic to me and my wargaming-induced thousand yard stare.

I think you were asking for more elaborate simulations in your earlier post? Command: Modern Air Naval Operations came out a couple of months ago, but 'unfortunately' for you Baloogan isn't around for another 13 days to implore you to immediately throw your money at it.

Yeah, I mentioned the model was very simplistic, but I couldn't find much else just googling around, much to my annoyance.
I've been really wanting to pick up C:MANO but 90 dollars is a bit excessive. Maybe a Christmas sale would help. :v:

# ? Dec 8, 2013 15:58

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Maybe a Christmas sale would help.

Ha ha he he someone call 911 I'm dying here! :roflolmao:

(

)

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:00

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

Nenonen posted:

Ha ha he he someone call 911 I'm dying here!

()

It's the price we pay for being giant grognards. :smith:

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:05

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

It's the price we pay for being giant grognards.

It could be worse--you could be making my financial decisions.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:09

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

a travelling HEGEL posted:

It could be worse--you could be making my financial decisions.

I saw that edit.

Actually, I was wondering, for all the milhist students/graduates in here (and risking a small derail): what is the job market like?

As for surface platforms being obsolescent in a hot war with a major power, I forgot to take into account the use of nuclear weapons against CVBGs/SAGs. Not really worth worrying too much about a horde of ASMs destroying your ships when any nation with that many modern ASMs and the platforms to use them effectively most likely has nuclear weapons.
edit: outside of coastal ASM batteries, I suppose.

Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:30

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Actually, I was wondering, for all the milhist students/graduates in here (and risking a small derail): what is the job market like?

Better than in other areas of history since military academies or the armed forces will also hire you, and history is better than many other fields since there are large areas of non-academic work you can do, such as working in archives or for museums.

Academia is poo poo right now due to right-wing economic decisions made at the top--so they'll raise tuition to pay for snazzy new sports complexes or to raise administrators' salaries, while replacing tenure-track positions with adjunct/part time positions. And this is how adjuncts are treated.

(This isn't only about employee pay but an attitude that extends throughout the universities--so, at the college where I go/work, they've been building a very high profile stadium while students have to sit in the aisles of their lecture halls because there isn't enough room.)

Any time someone says they plan to run whatever it is they're doing "like a business," run the other way as fast as you can.

Then people who don't know anything about what's going on turn around and say "Something that isn't STEM? Underwater basketweaving and SJWs! Good luck with your job at McDonald's :smug:

" as if this were a natural occurrence rather than a concerted campaign to gut and privatize higher education that's been going on since the Reagan administration--paired with a campaign to demonize it that's been going on since the 50s.

Edit: I think my first choice will be looking for jobs outside the US entirely.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:42

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

a travelling HEGEL posted:

Then people who don't know anything about what's going on turn around and say "Something that isn't STEM? Good luck with your job at McDonald's " as if this were a natural occurrence rather than a concerted campaign to gut and privatize higher education that's been going on since the Reagan administration.

Yes, this attitude is immensely frustrating (even as a STEM student). It boggles my mind that some of my classmates, many of whom are on track to become engineers, physicists, and biologists think like this. :psyduck:

It's nice to hear that the job situation isn't quite as dire as it is for other history or liberal arts students.

Booktalk: Once I return this current batch of books, I'm picking up 'Some Principles of Maritime Strategy' from the library and will read it concurrently with my old copy of 'On War'. I need to brush up on my fundamentals. Hegel (you, the poster), I've heard that On War is best read after establishing a firm understanding of Hegelian dialectics. Any recommendations for that? (either a primary or secondary book.)

# ? Dec 8, 2013 16:59

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Yes, this attitude is immensely frustrating (even as a STEM student). It boggles my mind that some of my classmates, many of whom are on track to become engineers, physicists, and biologists think like this.

It's because most of them aren't educated outside their field and often literally do not know anything about their country.

quote:

Hegel (you, the poster), I've heard that On War is best read after establishing a firm understanding of Hegelian dialectics. Any recommendations for that? (either a primary or secondary book.)

Unfortunately, this is going to be hard as gently caress. Not only is Hegel pretty difficult, there are a number of wildly varying interpretations of his work out there--a process that began soon after his death, when a bunch of idiots edited his lectures, skewing the view of him we would have for the next 150/60 years.

The epitome of Hegel's thought is still Phenomenology of Spirit, for which I apologize in advance. The pink edition of Phenomenology has a good introduction and good notes, which I remember being helpful.

The Shorter Logic is a pretty accessible intro to the dialectic. I think it's published in English as "The Logic of Hegel," but I can't find it on Amazon.

As far as secondary sources are concerned, The Restlessness of the Negative is quite good, but I'm not sure whether or not I should recommend it to a beginner. John McCumber's work is also good, but his interpretation of Hegel is, of course, different from that of many others. (I think he thinks it's all about how language works.)

Don't look anything up about Hegel on Wikipedia, the English-language articles there on him are all trash. Don't buy anything unless you're sure you want to own it; I don't want you wasting money on some random German. Unless it's a huge name like Nancy or something, don't read critical theory interpretations of Hegel--most critical theory/pomo people are real dumb, and convinced they're not. Derrida isn't dumb though, he owns.

Don't hesitate to ask me any specific questions you have.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 17:07

Frostwerks: Sep 24, 2007; by Lowtax

a travelling HEGEL posted:

Better than in other areas of history since military academies or the armed forces will also hire you, and history is better than many other fields since there are large areas of non-academic work you can do, such as working in archives or for museums.

Academia is poo poo right now due to right-wing economic decisions made at the top--so they'll raise tuition to pay for snazzy new sports complexes or to raise administrators' salaries, while replacing tenure-track positions with adjunct/part time positions. And this is how adjuncts are treated.

(This isn't only about employee pay but an attitude that extends throughout the universities--so, at the college where I go/work, they've been building a very high profile stadium while students have to sit in the aisles of their lecture halls because there isn't enough room.)

Any time someone says they plan to run whatever it is they're doing "like a business," run the other way as fast as you can.

Then people who don't know anything about what's going on turn around and say "Something that isn't STEM? Underwater basketweaving and SJWs! Good luck with your job at McDonald's " as if this were a natural occurrence rather than a concerted campaign to gut and privatize higher education that's been going on since the Reagan administration--paired with a campaign to demonize it that's been going on since the 50s.

Edit: I think my first choice will be looking for jobs outside the US entirely.

So Is this an intro post to the history of class warfare?

a travelling HEGEL posted:

It's because most of them aren't educated outside their field and often literally do not know anything about their country.

Someone said it on these forums before and I think it was even in this thread's previous incarnation, but STEM people who think that humanities disciplines post-undergraduate are somehow easy probably couldn't hack it professionally and likely haven't even had a post-101 level class.

Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 17:39

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

Thank you very much, I'll check out The Shorter Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit and pick up the suggested secondaries if (haha, 'if') I'm having some issues understanding everything. Good thing Ohio has an amazing inter-library loan system. I'm not too worried about the difficulty; after reading Heidegger, difficulty has no meaning anymore. :negative:

# ? Dec 8, 2013 17:42

Davincie: Jul 7, 2008

I take a class on Criminal History with some students from an acting academy, and honestly they've been some of the better and more proactive classmates I've had. Meanwhile every single engineer or whatever who took one of the 'horizon broadening' classes we get a pick from were awful. Also for job opportunities, besides the standard military stuff, Intelligence organisations are also not shy about hiring us.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 18:33

Pump it up! Do it!: Oct 3, 2012

Englishman alone posted:

Well its rather tricky apart from the massive amount of propaganda on both sides to see what is competence or luck or a combination of factors out of the IDF's hands . I for a start in 1948 the IDF was formed from the Haganah, LEHI, IRGUN all which were milita/terrorist groups against Arab armies which meant that politics limited its effectiveness along with a dreadful supply and gear shortages. Their is a wonderful irony that they defended the nation with Nazi air-planes, and small arms as that was the best that could be smuggled out of Europe the Czechoslovakia did a big armies deal with the blessing of Stalin.
The Arab armies were extremely incompetent apart from the Jordanians which meant that the IDF didn't have to do anything inspired it just had to hold itself against Arab forces, this was true up and till 68 when the IDF became much more aggressive.
The major weakness in the IDF was the naval forces as that was riven by factionalism and run by people who had never been at sea shunning and neglecting former officers and sailors who had RN or USN experience it wasn't really in 73 when it became professional in the sense that the Army and the Air force was in '48.(I hadn't heard the story of missing Boomer).
Its much argued in academia exactly how competent the IDF was due to incredibly bad Arab armies as in both 48 and 67 the Egyptian army attacked effectively with NO LOGISTICS at all so suffered massively from attritional losses even before they came in contact with the IDF land forces. The regional standard is so low you can't compare say the IDF with a decent NATO or Warsaw pact army as it designed to so specifically for Israeli needs.

As the other poster said all wars are who is least incompetent rather than the other way around.

apologies for the slightly rambling reply the question is far wider than I am used to.

Interesting, since when I read this book http://www.amazon.com/Arabs-War-Military-Effectiveness-1948-1991/dp/0803287836 he stated that one of the few things that the Arab armies usually excelled at was logistics since the officers who went into logistics were the ones who were truly intrested in it and not in the army just to make a career.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 18:54

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Frostwerks posted:

So Is this an intro post to the history of class warfare?

All posts are, when you think about it.

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Thank you very much, I'll check out The Shorter Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit and pick up the suggested secondaries if (haha, 'if') I'm having some issues understanding everything. Good thing Ohio has an amazing inter-library loan system. I'm not too worried about the difficulty; after reading Heidegger, difficulty has no meaning anymore.

Heidegger. I love his writing (with the exception, of course, of everything from the Rectory Address until the Lectures on Nietzsche, which is--in my opinion--when he started to pull his head out of his rear end), but oh my God. It looks like you know what you're getting into. Have fun!

Davincie posted:

Also for job opportunities, besides the standard military stuff, Intelligence organisations are also not shy about hiring us.

Sweet, I'll keep that in mind.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 19:05

Cacotopic Stain: Jun 25, 2013

Do you guys mind if I ask a few questions or is weapon talk off topic?

For the kanabo,was it a weapon that was actually used in the battlefield and could someone wield it effectively? I looked for answers on Google but couldn't find much about the weapon sadly?

Why are scythes impracticable weapons to use unless their either kamas or war scythes?

Where can I find more information on weapons in general, non- European weapons, or rare weapons like the aruval? I don't know where to start its all so daunting.

Sorry if any of these questions are dumb or have been asked before.

Cacotopic Stain fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Dec 9, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:14

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

Is there any particular single military tradition Arab armies draw from, eg the Ottomans? What explains their incredibly hosed up command structure? I've read that in many Arab armies it's common practice have a relatively low ranking officer leading far more troops than their Western equivalent.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:27

Mycroft Holmes: Mar 26, 2010; by Azathoth

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Is there any particular single military tradition Arab armies draw from, eg the Ottomans? What explains their incredibly hosed up command structure? I've read that in many Arab armies it's common practice have a relatively low ranking officer leading far more troops than their Western equivalent.

They are all based on colonial troops, so they are only competent enough to put down internal rebellion. If they were more competent they would have overthrown the colonial regimes.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:49

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

Mycroft Holmes posted:

They are all based on colonial troops, so they are only competent enough to put down internal rebellion. If they were more competent they would have overthrown the colonial regimes.

Do you know if Arab nations ever received any kind of widescale doctrinal instruction from the Soviets during the Cold War, or were the Soviets just more interested in sending them weapons and the occasional instructor?

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:53

Englishman alone: Nov 28, 2013

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

Is there any particular single military tradition Arab armies draw from, eg the Ottomans? What explains their incredibly hosed up command structure? I've read that in many Arab armies it's common practice have a relatively low ranking officer leading far more troops than their Western equivalent.

Now that's a fun topic. Why Arabs Lose War's is good place to start because it a combination of factors. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020909.asp this isn't a great link but its a good starting point.
It doesn't really have an Ottoman link as Turks and Ottomans have always had good reputation from the siege of Vienna to Korean War. Arab armies have a huge amount of corruption both in regards to the advancement and plain theft. Their is also a strongly anti-intellectualism which reinforces the misuses of equipment especially in the modern warfare. These all combine in rather ineffective armies which are supported by outside forces run as business for the elites for corrupt practices with Officers in charge who should be no where near command of any description who treat the soldiers like crap or like slaves and ignore basic training and team building their is also a significant amount of sectarianism and drug use which makes matters even worse. So when there up against a competent enemy they unsurprisingly fold. One last major factor is that their many role is internal rather than external as their job is much more internal suppression rather than expeditionary or even boarder control
You here of many a horror story of Arab officers in Western advanced training programs who under any other system would never advance to such seniority.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:54

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Mycroft Holmes posted:

They are all based on colonial troops, so they are only competent enough to put down internal rebellion. If they were more competent they would have overthrown the colonial regimes.

That's over-generalizing it, many of them were/are based on Soviet training and doctrine while some others have since been trained by western powers.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 20:58

Cumshot in the Dark: Oct 20, 2005; This is how we roll

I can't help but picture the Soviets sending Arab nations crappy 'export models' of their own doctrine.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:00

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Englishman alone posted:

It doesn't really have an Ottoman link as Turks and Ottomans have always had good reputation from the siege of Vienna to Korean War.

Earlier too, of course.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:06

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Most countries that bought Soviet hardware also followed the basics of Soviet doctrine...or they at least knew about it and ignored it. Token efforts at training were common, but there wasn't much enforcement of doctrinal training by the Soviets in most cases. But you usually see something similar, simply because that's how the equipment was designed to be used. For example, if it's the 60s or 70s and you just bought a bunch of Soviet radars and fighter jets, you're going to be heavily GCI-dependent. Not necessarily because you want to copy Soviet employment, but because your fighter radars are poo poo and your ground radars are reasonably effective. It's also a lot cheaper to train good controllers than pilots.

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

I can't help but picture the Soviets sending Arab nations crappy 'export models' of their own doctrine.

That's far more effort than they put into it.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:07

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Englishman alone posted:

You here of many a horror story of Arab officers in Western advanced training programs who under any other system would never advance to such seniority.

Please get a spellchecker plugin or check it yourself. For your own good.

Also separate paragraphs.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:17

Englishman alone: Nov 28, 2013

Godholio posted:

Most countries that bought Soviet hardware also followed the basics of Soviet doctrine...or they at least knew about it and ignored it. Token efforts at training were common, but there wasn't much enforcement of doctrinal training by the Soviets in most cases. But you usually see something similar, simply because that's how the equipment was designed to be used. For example, if it's the 60s or 70s and you just bought a bunch of Soviet radars and fighter jets, you're going to be heavily GCI-dependent. Not necessarily because you want to copy Soviet employment, but because your fighter radars are poo poo and your ground radars are reasonably effective. It's also a lot cheaper to train good controllers than pilots.

That's far more effort than they put into it.

I have seen quotes to the effect. I think it was Gaddis who said propping up the Arabs caused eventually collapse of Communism because it was so expensive and so much effort was put in for very little. (I'll see if I can dig up the quote)

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:19

vains: May 26, 2004; A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

"Armies of Snow and Sand" can be found on JSTOR. It describes the Syrian Army in '73 and the difficulty integrating Soviet tactics/doctrine with the Syrian Army.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:54

the JJ: Mar 31, 2011

Also competent Arab military leaders have a tendency to start coups and then hollow out the officer corps as a preventative against more coups so...

There are cases of Arabic forces doing well, like Omar Muhktar, or the various pseudo-militias currently tearing up Syria. Hizbullah is also coming off as fairly competent in that conflict, though if that sectarian split spills back to Lebanon they may regret bleeding in Syria.

e: It can also be a bit of a 'jury duty' phenomenon with conscripted national militaries. The ones actually competent enough to fill those jobs are also the ones competent enough to find something better to do with their lives.

Englishman alone posted:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020909.asp

Oooof. There maaaaaay be a little hint of orientalism in this analysis...

the JJ fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 21:55

Alekanderu: Aug 27, 2003; Med plutonium tvingar vi dansken p� kn�.

For some more Cold War era tank stuff, here's a neat Swedish Army training video from the 70's, featuring a bunch of S-Tanks being subjected to various live fire trials during testing, showing typical effects on the tank and probable outcome for the crew. Don't worry, it's subtitled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 22:00

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

MassivelyBuckNegro posted:

"Armies of Snow and Sand" can be found on JSTOR. It describes the Syrian Army in '73 and the difficulty integrating Soviet tactics/doctrine with the Syrian Army.

Soveits: "...well in that scenario you just use your overwhelming numbers and enormous airforce to saturate their defences. Simple!"

Syrian army: "...uuuuh..."

edit: isn't the s-tank basically a modern Stug? The intended use is basically the same AFAIK.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 22:04

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

the JJ posted:

Oooof. There maaaaaay be a little hint of orientalism in this analysis...

Yeah, this is racist and nobody should take it seriously. Almost every single sentence in that bullet point list deserves to be quoted here and mocked openly.

Edit: But I'll pick some.

quote:

At lot has been written lately about why Arab armies so consistently lose wars with non-Arabs. These reasons also explain why Arab nations, and many other Third World nations as well, also have trouble establishing democratic governments or prosperous economies. A lot of it has to do with culture, especially culture influenced by Islam.

Ottomans are also Muslim, as are the winners of almost all the Crusades; the writer gives no attention to the part where foreign powers have been screwing around with the Middle East for a hundred years.

quote:

Islamic schools favor rote memorization, especially of scripture. Most Islamic scholars are hostile to the concept of interpreting the Koran (considered the word of God as given to His prophet Mohammed). This has resulted in looking down on Western troops that will look something up that they don't know. Arabs prefer to fake it, and pretend it's all in their head. Improvisation and innovation is generally discouraged. Arab armies go by the book, Western armies rewrite the book and thus usually win.

Half of this is racist, the other half ignores other highly religious--and highly successful--armies (Cromwell and G.A. also liked rote memorization of scripture--I hate them both, but they won fights. You know who also loves religious texts and rote memorization thereof? Conservative Americans, many of which can be found in our armed forces).

quote:

Arab tyrants insist that their military units have little contact with each other, thus insuring that no general can became powerful enough to overthrow them.

That's because they're tyrants, not because they're Arab, but discussions of the Arabs as a people and discussions of Arab countries bleed into one another here. Are we talking about dysfunctional nations or an ethnic group? The reader is left unclear.

quote:

While American officers and NCOs are only too happy to impart their wisdom and skill to others (teaching is the ultimate expression of prestige), Arab officers try to keep any technical information and manuals secret. To Arabs, the value and prestige of an individual is based not on what he can teach, but on what he knows that no one else knows.

Again, are we talking about a different group of countries or a different race? The last set of points, especially the one about the inheritance of Soviet ideas, would seem to suggest the former, but phrases like "Arabs do this," "Arabs do that" suggest the latter. And where is the proof for any of these assertions?

Edit 2: I wonder what else I'd find if I clicked around that site? Unfortunately, I know nothing about the period it's discussing so I can't critique most of what it's saying.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 22:06

Pump it up! Do it!: Oct 3, 2012

The biggest problem with the various Arab troops facing Israel was that they weren't trained to show initiative at all like when their tanks attacked Israeli tanks they just rolled up to a position sitting there immobile shooting away while the Israelis constantly maneuvered to get better firing positions, or like at the battle of Abu-Ageila where the Egyptian armour didn't do anything until the Israelis hit them in the rear.

I really recommend this book http://www.amazon.com/Arabs-War-Mil...1/dp/0803287836 , it goes through Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Saudi-Arabia and Syria between 1948 and 1991. There's no orientalism about how it's culture or Islam that causes it and it's pretty drat good even though the author also wrote a book about how the US should totally invade Iraq.

Pump it up! Do it! fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Dec 8, 2013

# ? Dec 8, 2013 22:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 20:27

Alekanderu: Aug 27, 2003; Med plutonium tvingar vi dansken p� kn�.

Slavvy posted:

edit: isn't the s-tank basically a modern Stug? The intended use is basically the same AFAIK.

I don't know if a tank made in the 60's could be called "modern" - more modern than the StuG, I guess. It was designed and intended as a main battle tank, though, not as an assault gun/tank destroyer, even if it looks like one. When it was designed, not having a turret wasn't that big a deal; the biggest problem with it is (obviously) that you can't really hit anything while moving, but back then stabilizers were bad enough that tanks couldn't reliably fire and hit on the move anyway, so it wasn't seen as a major drawback at the time.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 22:13

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›1137 »