|
I think that the fact that the IFV / BMP concept was adopted and developed by both superpowers, as well as their allies, sort of confirms at least the theoretical validity of the thought behind the concept.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Of course there's Hunter boxes on a HEMTT, I should have expected that. Fangz posted:Which is wrong because it's not something commanders can choose. I think that's a more interesting thing to discuss than the more pedantic argument of whether armoured vehicles carrying infantry should have armament >= 20mm or not. I didn't follow your point, thank you for stating it more clearly. I don't disagree that you must expect any vehicle to come under fire, but as far as I can tell, the article's author responds by saying: quote:If this is about tactics, then it would be possible to employ an IFV as an APC, but that would result in an expensive and complex vehicle where a cheaper and simpler one would suffice. Now, no one in the field is going to say "Stop! This is just too much available fire support! An embarrassment of riches!" but there are legitimate logistical and budgetary concerns, I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
The BMP was originally made with the idea of allowing infantry to fight across a nuclear-devastated battlefield. The BMP-1's armament was deliberately made almost exclusively for fighting enemy armor(the main gun on a BMP-1 is more like a recoilless rifle and has poor HE performance), because dismounted infantry was assumed to not really be a factor in a nuclear wasteland. I mean, the gun ports were there so infantry could stay inside. I think what happened when others adopted it is that they tried to find tactical niches for them, and even the Soviets started thinking of IFVs more as infantry support vehicles providing overwatch for dismounted infantry than NBT-protected fighting transports. When the BMP-2 came out, the armament was changed to an autocannon, much more useful against infantry than the recoilless rifle on the previous vehicle. With the BMP-3, the armament was further optimized, with an autocannon and a gun-mortar, both powerful weapons to support infantry. I think when countries adopted the IFV en masse, they did find a needed role, but not the one they imagined. The IFV is a fairly imperfect solution to the need for infantry support vehicles, a problem as old as tanks themselves. Most modern battle tanks have armaments mostly optimized to killing other tanks, to the point that the M1 Abrams doesn't even have a true HE-Frag round! Not only that, these tanks are too expensive to dole out to infantry companies, anyway, so the support is not often available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Now, no one in the field is going to say "Stop! This is just too much available fire support! An embarrassment of riches!" but there are legitimate logistical and budgetary concerns, I suppose? That said, if you want to make cutbacks, personally I think that in view of the wars the West generally fights these days, the first cuts made should be to *MBTs*, instead of replacing IFVs with APCs. Because MBTs don't offer a huge advantage over IFVs with most of the opponents the army fights these days, and pose tremendous logistical and mobility hurdles. The development of MBTs seems caught in an arms race to develop more and more powerful counters to other modern MBTs, when there's no reason to think the likelihood of a modern MBT vs modern MBT war is all that high. Fangz fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think that the fact that the IFV / BMP concept was adopted and developed by both superpowers, as well as their allies, sort of confirms at least the theoretical validity of the thought behind the concept. True, but you must also consider the tactical scenario you are preparing for. Fulda 1984 is not Grozny 1994 is not Fallujah 2004 is not Crimea 2014. IFVs were first designed for large scale mechanized combat. They may be useful for other purposes, but there's nothing to say that other designs wouldn't serve those purposes at a lower overall cost. And yet those other designs might not work equally well for the original purpose, so major armies are hesitant to change. Conditions can change. For example Netherlands already sold their Leopards away because "tanks are useless" but now are building a new tank force (starting with Panzers leased from Germany) because of recent events in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Whats crazy is David Weber's series going from triremes to ironclads in 10 years. To be fair, they also have a cyborg, and later a separate AI feeding them information on how to do most of it and they already had almost everything in place for galleons. They just didn't have sophisticated enough cannon to warrant using galleons at the beginning. Then again, the Safehold series is one where a cyborg in a supersonic atmosphere-capable spacecraft conducts guerilla raids ahead of ironclads and armies with pikes and matchlocks are blown to bits by claymore mines and bouncing betties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Having armoured vehicles hang around infantry is very useful. For one, infantry commanders become aware of the capabilities of armour, and don't send it into suicide missions. Infantry also becomes accustomed to it and doesn't poo poo their pants when their armour retreats for an hour or two to refuel/resupply or whatever at night. Also not having to wait for a tank unit to be assigned to you when you have a relatively easy objective to take is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, the Kerls would have looked like this, on a good day: Am I wrong or is poo poo about to Go Down in that picture?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Am I wrong or is poo poo about to Go Down in that picture? My favorite is the old pikeman in the red shirt who's just incredibly fed up with this bullshit. Edit: This website thinks that the dispute is between the pikeman and the guy in the buff coat (?) and the card players just haven't noticed yet. So it could be that there's no cheating or anything, the sick looking dude just has that facial expression because he lost or something. http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/art/online/?action=show_item&item=1192 Either way, turns out when you have a bunch of guys who go armed every waking moment of their adult lives, regard most interactions with their peers (even friendly ones) as competitions, and, like I said, drink wine by the quart, after some point you're going to have problems. And the artist is French, so these aren't Kerls, they're mecs. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, the Kerls would have looked like this, on a good day: Hey its Alan Davies! HEY GAL posted:Edit: This website thinks that the dispute is between the pikeman and the guy in the buff coat (?) and the card players just haven't noticed yet. I think that's too thin to be a buff coat. Speaking of them, when did they become a thing? Early 17th C?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
But why is the slasher looking at the young Jimmy Page and not at the old red guy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:But why is the slasher looking at the young Jimmy Page and not at the old red guy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Re. light armor, I just finished a future wargame that featured it pretty heavily. Obviously the detailed requirements are classified, but broadly speaking this was what we looked at was an "airmobile" (meaning C-130 capable, or under 40k lbs), able to reliably defeat all known IFVs/APCs and all threat MBTs roughly through the "second generation" and able to compete on at least equal footing with "third generation" MBTs, with significantly smaller logistical tails (meaning much smaller engine, etc). So, for the exercise it was assigned to an airborne IBCT so this was the symbology:  I realize this is full scale military nerdism but I was giggling at it all week. edit - This was the genesis for the thing. bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
The article posted:But moving so quickly with such limited numbers meant those units were often quickly surrounded by larger enemy forces. Hahaha goes to show it wouldn't be Korean War 2 but the Korean War all over again. Hey, it's only a cease-fire anyways, so we might as well just resume it like we never learned anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Admit it, you are finally switching the US Army to a M113 Gavin based force, as you should have done years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
If IFVs didn't have to carry troops they would be significantly better in a role as light armor to support infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:02
|
|
Panzeh posted:Not only that, these tanks are too expensive to dole out to infantry companies, anyway, so the support is not often available. Except, that's how they are sometimes used. The division tank battalion detaches sections and platoons to support rifle companies.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Except, that's how they are sometimes used. The division tank battalion detaches sections and platoons to support rifle companies. Sometimes, but even if modern MBTs were great in this role, being doled out like this is not the same as being a part of the rifle company, because there's no training together. This was a problem encountered with the divisional tank battalions in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
The Soviets figured out long ago that attaching infantry to tanks works better than attaching tanks to infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
That's because infantry have terrible load capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
I thought desant tactics were used only at direst need, though, like if you didn't have enough trucks/jeeps/hmmvs/ifvs/whatevers to carry your dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I thought desant tactics were used only at direst need, though, like if you didn't have enough trucks/jeeps/hmmvs/ifvs/whatevers to carry your dudes. Didn't that work out pretty terribly in Korea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If IFVs didn't have to carry troops they would be significantly better in a role as light armor to support infantry. On the other hand being carried by an IFV sure beats walking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 04:49
|
|
Panzeh posted:Sometimes, but even if modern MBTs were great in this role, The US military's experience in Fallujah/Phantom Fury seems to indicate otherwise. quote:being doled out like this is not the same as being a part of the rifle company, because there's no training together. This was a problem encountered with the divisional tank battalions in WW2. I don't think I said that tanks are part of the rifle company. You said "They are too expensive to dole out to the infantry" and I said "But that is often how they are used". For every Battle of 79 Easting there is a Phantom Fury.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
sullat posted:Didn't that work out pretty terribly in Korea? Did it? I know jack poo poo about the Korean War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I thought desant tactics were used only at direst need, though, like if you didn't have enough trucks/jeeps/hmmvs/ifvs/whatevers to carry your dudes. It can be disastrous if the enemy is close enough to start shooting at the tanks, but behind the front lines it's a break from walking. There was a great story posted in GiP about a unit that was given sheep to give Iraqi farmers to build goodwill, but they didn't have any trucks to transport the sheep. They wound up strapping the sheep to a tank and driving them over to the village.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
How fast was the collapse of South Vietnam after the NVA attacked it? Was it pretty much game over once the war restarted? Was there an actual pause after the Paris peace accords, or the North and what reminded of the VC after Tet keep on going without much of one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Comstar posted:How fast was the collapse of South Vietnam after the NVA attacked it? Was it pretty much game over once the war restarted? Was there an actual pause after the Paris peace accords, or the North and what reminded of the VC after Tet keep on going without much of one? If I try to remember what I've learned in school, the NVA pretty much started moving right after the peace accords were signed. Also, since the NVA was almost at the outskirts of the southern capital already, the war was over fast. South Vietnam just collapsed like a house of cards, which let the USA look even stupider in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Did it? I know jack poo poo about the Korean War. AATREK CURES KIDS posted:It can be disastrous if the enemy is close enough to start shooting at the tanks, but behind the front lines it's a break from walking. This comes directly from Halberstam's book on Korea, and he did seem inclined to point out major fuckups during the war, so it may be exaggerated. But apparently a column of tanks was sent to reinforce a remote outpost, with infantry reinforcements riding them. When they were ambushed, due to either miscommunication, or perhaps the tank commander not caring, the column just kept on trucking, allowing the ambushers to keep shooting at the unprotected infantry with ease. So by the time the got to the "safety" of the outpost, the infantry had taken appalling casualties without being able to fight back, and were both mutinous and shell-shocked, not really able to properly reinforce the base at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
During the Paris Peace Talks in 1972, the North Vietnamese launched a major conventional offensive, which in the US is called the Easter Offensive. By this time American ground forces had already been withdrawn and the USA's contribution to the South Vietnamese defense was mostly confined to air power and strategic/tactical advisors. However, US air power over Vietnam was still tremendous and with that backstopping the ARVN they were able to hold the North Vietnamese to limited territorial gains and secure a ceasefire which led into the Paris Peace Accords. There actually was a kind of pause in operations from 1973-1975, partly because the North Vietnamese military had taken a serious beating in the Easter Offensive, with the two Vietnams mainly engaged in low-level border skirmishing. In the meantime the US Congress was reacting legislatively to popular anger and general loss of faith in government resulting from Vietnam War opposition and the Nixon scandals. Among other things the president was specifically not allowed to intervene in Vietnam again, meaning there would be no air support for the ARVN this time. With that in mind, the North Vietnamese built their forces back up in preparation for another general offensive in the spring of 1975, and this time the ARVN and the Republic of Vietnam just fell apart. The ARVN pretty much wouldn't fight and their units tended to just disintegrate on contact with the North Vietnamese, and the civilian and military leadership of South Vietnam had no idea what to do, so the end came quickly and at little cost to the Communists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
On the topic of "just how much did the Western Allies/the US contribute to WWII/would WWII have been winnable by the Soviets without US intervention", David Glantz's When Titans Clashed has a short chapter on Allied contributions to the Russo-Soviet War. If I may rattle off some bullet points: * At the time of Barbarossa, 75% of all German land and air units were committed to fighting in the Eastern front * The first significant shift of troops away from the Eastern front to the Western one happened after the Dieppe Raid in Aug 1942, such as the transfer of the 22nd Infantry Division out Crimea and into Crete to protect against a possible Allied landing there * Nov 1942 was another significant drain on East Front-bound reinforcements, as the Second Battle of Alamein and the Torch Landings got Hitler to send more units (notably Fallschirmjager formations) and prioritize reinforcements to Tunisia. This reprioritization prevented Army Group South from making good the losses incurred during the heavy Aug-Sep 1942 fighting and from assembling strategic reserves * 400 Luftwaffe aircraft were redeployed from the Eastern Front to the Mediterranean between Nov-Dec 1942 * Losses taken by the Luftwaffe in the Med sector between Nov 1942 to May 1943 amounted to 2400 aircraft, or 40 of the Luftwaffe's total strength. Notably, 177 Ju-52 and 6 Me-323 transports were lost in airlift "surges" going to Tunisia during the campaign to keep that front resupplied, and those irreplaceable losses would later prevent any further airlift operations anywhere else * The Anglo-American bomber offensive was yet another significant drain on the Luftwaffe's strength - starting May 1943, more German fighters were lost fending off bomber raids than were lost fighting the Red Air Force. Specifically, 335 Luftwaffe fighters were lost fighting the RAF and the 8th AF compared to 201 fighters lost over Russia in Jul 1943, during Operation Citadel in Kursk * Lend-Lease from the US and the UK amounted to something on the order of 34 million uniforms, 14.5 million pairs of boots, 4.2 million tons of food, 11 800 railroad locomotives and cars, as well as raw materials in the form of aluminium, manganese, coal and other resources * At one point, the Soviet Purchasing Committee requested 8 tons of uranium oxide from the US for the Soviet nuclear program. This was denied * Specifically called-out with regards to Lend-Lease was 409 000 cargo trucks and 47 000 jeeps. 2 out of 3 Red Army trucks were foreign-built by the end of the war and were ubiquitous enough for "studabaker" and "villy" to enter colloquial Russian. These trucks are frequently called out as very significant Western contributions to the Soviet war effort as being critical to the Red Army's logistical needs. Had they not been around, Soviet offensive penetrations would have been shallower and logistical tethers would have been much shorter, something that the Red Army already had problems with even with these Lend-Lease trucks already being there. Alternatively, they may have forced Soviet industry to shift away from tanks, guns, aircraft and other direct military equipment and build trucks instead, which would have had its own rippling effect as well. * Direct military equipment given through Lend-Lease was not quite as well received. Matilda and Valentine tanks had such small cannon that they were practically useless against the German tanks that the Soviets were facing by 1942 onwards. * M4 Shermans were considered inferior to the T-34 in some circles because the narrower treads weren't as good when driving through mud and the Shermans consumed more fuel (personal note: I recall a post in the old Mil-Hist thread about a personal account of a Soviet tanker and he seemed to really enjoy the Sherman over the Soviet tanks for its creature comforts, so the Sherman being worse in this text may be from a more higher-up perspective * The Red Air Force really liked the transport aircraft coming from the West, but did not like the combat planes very much. They wanted CAS, ground attack and low-altitude fighter aircraft, but most Western designs were high-altitude long-range fighters and heavy bombers. The A-20 bomber performed well enough, but the Hurricanes, P-39 Airacobra and P-40 Warhawks were either unsuited for what the Red Air Force really needed, were already obsolete, or both. About the best thing that can be said was that the P-39 Airacobra performed somewhat better in the Eastern theater than anywhere else since the lower altitudes made it less vulnerable to its particular handling idiosyncrasies
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* M4 Shermans were considered inferior to the T-34 in some circles because the narrower treads weren't as good when driving through mud and the Shermans consumed more fuel (personal note: I recall a post in the old Mil-Hist thread about a personal account of a Soviet tanker and he seemed to really enjoy the Sherman over the Soviet tanks for its creature comforts, so the Sherman being worse in this text may be from a more higher-up perspective From what i've read, the Sherman was considered much much more fondly by Soviet tankers than the T-34 for various reasons. In almost every respect the Sherman was better than the T-34, with improved reliability, better optics, and a more spacious turret. The only real problem was, as you said, the narrower tracks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:From what i've read, the Sherman was considered much much more fondly by Soviet tankers than the T-34 for various reasons. In almost every respect the Sherman was better than the T-34, with improved reliability, better optics, and a more spacious turret. The only real problem was, as you said, the narrower tracks. Dimitri Loza (http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html, his book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208) seemed to like the Sherman tank. From what I remember, he says at the end of the war they were ordered to bury their Shermans for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
The reasons weren't political, but financial. Any equipment that was lost in battle, the USSR didn't have to pay for. The surviving equipment had to be refurbished at the Soviets' cost and sent back, or paid for if it could be used for a peaceful cause. I read a veteran's recollection that they repainted their Studebaker to make it nice and new looking, drove it over to hand it over to the Americans, and saw it crushed into a cube and unceremoniously dumped on the ship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Most of what I've read on the P-39 was that it was pretty well-received by the Russians, though they were kind of cast-offs from the Western Allies since it was the exact opposite of the typical high alt/long range fighter the Americans and British favored. Lend-lease of that particular plane to the Russians accounted for half of all its production, it saw service with several Guards units, and Bell designed a much upgraded version, the P-63 King Cobra, essentially for Soviet use since 2/3 of its production went to the Soviets. Supposedly pilots liked it for much the same reasons tankers might like the Sherman over the T-34 - every plane had a radio, they had much more consistent and higher quality of manufacture, and Soviet-made cockpits often used a material that would often turn yellow and cloud up over time, whereas American planes had cockpit glass that would actually stay clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The reasons weren't political, but financial. Any equipment that was lost in battle, the USSR didn't have to pay for. The surviving equipment had to be refurbished at the Soviets' cost and sent back, or paid for if it could be used for a peaceful cause. I read a veteran's recollection that they repainted their Studebaker to make it nice and new looking, drove it over to hand it over to the Americans, and saw it crushed into a cube and unceremoniously dumped on the ship. Well of course they crushed it. That Studebaker might have been corrupted by Communist Ideas and spread red propaganda to other cars upon returning to the states!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
The soviet cobras were given only HE ammo for their cannon and never used the less effective AP ammo in the low-velocity M4 cannon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Most of what I've read on the P-39 was that it was pretty well-received by the Russians, though they were kind of cast-offs from the Western Allies since it was the exact opposite of the typical high alt/long range fighter the Americans and British favored. Lend-lease of that particular plane to the Russians accounted for half of all its production, it saw service with several Guards units, and Bell designed a much upgraded version, the P-63 King Cobra, essentially for Soviet use since 2/3 of its production went to the Soviets. Supposedly pilots liked it for much the same reasons tankers might like the Sherman over the T-34 - every plane had a radio, they had much more consistent and higher quality of manufacture, and Soviet-made cockpits often used a material that would often turn yellow and cloud up over time, whereas American planes had cockpit glass that would actually stay clear. The P-39 was also a really hot ship at low altitude, so it was quite competitive at the sort of jobs the USSR wanted it to do. IIRC it was generally faster than contemporary marks of 109 and it gained speed in a dive about as well as anything the US made because it was so clean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
When did borders that are actually fenced and possibly actively policed come about? Like, when nations started to identify as shapes on a (mostly accurate) map, how and when were the first physical borders implemented?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Thousands and thousands of years ago. I mean, the Egyptians definitely had borders like you're thinking about, and so did the Greeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 10:08
|
|
