|
MikeCrotch posted:I think the last time paratroopers were used in that sense was the invasion of Kabul in 1979. I guess having them means your opponent has to stay honest to the fact that a bunch of armed dudes might appear in your rear areas at any moment. The 173rd BCT jumped in to Northern Iraq as part of OIF.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Kafouille posted:Paratroops in general are something that seems incredibly attractive to military planners as a concept but is remarkably terrible when actually used. Does anyone even still seriously expect to use paratroopers in the nominal 'jump out of a perfectly good airplane into enemy territory' instead of as elite light infantry ? They worked pretty well in Normandy, in spite of the utter clusterfuck that was the drops themselves-US paratroopers captured vital bridges, prevented the Germans from flooding the causeways behind Utah Beach, drew German forces back from the beaches themselves, and even managed to kill a German general-basically doing all the things that paratroopers are supposed to do. Allegedly they also worked pretty well during Operation Dragoon, but like literally everyone else I don't know enough about those landings to comment on them. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Other dumb allied poo poo: DD tanks. DD tanks worked just fine on every beach that wasn't Omaha, and that was because they launched the loving things three miles out into the channel instead of a thousand or so yards from the beaches like they were supposed to. bewbies posted:I'll always say "all the heavy bombers". The F6F, P-38, and B-25 were pretty uninspiring too, relative to their historical statuses. I'd say the Spitfire too but I'll immediately retract for fear of a jolly old chap hitting me with a pint glass. Alright, you're really going to have to justify this poo poo because those choices are mystifying. None of those aircraft were bad by any stretch of the imagination and the Hellcat in particular was pretty loving successful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'd love to hear you defend those three choices. To be clear, I'm saying that their historical reputation extends far past their actual capabilities, not that they were necessarily bad systems. Anyway... Compared to its contemporaries (Spitfire IX, Bf-109G6, Fw-190A7, P-51B, La-5FN, etc) the Hellcat was a very poor performer. It was very fortunate that it had only one major task for most of the war, and that was to fight a wholly obsolete design (Zero) flown in large part by poorly trained pilots. As it happens, it was marginally better than the Zero in most performance characteristics, and so it got the job done. Considering the quality of its powerplant and pilots the navy could have gotten a whole lot more out of those resources (ie, F4U). The P-38 was an absolute trainwreck aerodynamically and was pretty ill suited to anything that wasn't flying in a straight line for a long time...it could actually enter compression in level flight. The RAF wanted nothing to do with it and for good reason; the USAAF used it fairly ineffectually in Europe and replaced it as a fighter as soon as they were able. It did better in the Pacific: less difficult competition, longer distances, etc, but it took until well into 1944 for it to finally become a mature system. Couple that long development timeline with the fact its dollar-cost was twice that of its single-engined counterparts, and its manpower/maintenance costs were even higher. I think its reputation today is based largely off of the fact that it looks cool and is easy to identify and has been featured in video games. The B-25, while it was versatile, etc, is actually probably the worst medium bomber (from a performance perspective) of all of major combatants' post-1940 designs, and it even lagged behind some pre-war designs (Ju-88, for example). Everybody had a hot-rod twin engined bomber: Mosquito, A-26, Tu-2/Pe-2, Ki-49, Ju-88, etc...and the B-25 lags behind all of them in practically every respect. I think its outsized reputation today comes largely from the Doolittle raid and from the fact that so many are airworthy that they're very well known. Cyrano4747 posted:Equipment can give some nice local advantages in the right situations, but on a strategic scale what matters way more is getting as many good enough weapons in the hands of as many decent enough soldiers commanded by as many OK-ish generals as possible. I agree in part, but there are a lot of examples of capability shortfalls that had massive strategic and sometimes even geopolitical effects. To keep it in the WWII discussion: the combat radius of the Bf-109E and the early Mk14 torpedo had some major second and third order effects. A bigger example is the poor performance of Allied air forces in southeast Asia: on paper their planes weren't that much worse, and they were present, and they worked, and they had competent pilots and leaders...but they were sufficiently outclassed by the IJN and IJA that they were rendered practically irrelevant. Japan never takes Burma or Indochina without the air superiority they enjoyed, let alone Singapore. Kafouille posted:Paratroops in general are something that seems incredibly attractive to military planners as a concept but is remarkably terrible when actually used. Does anyone even still seriously expect to use paratroopers in the nominal 'jump out of a perfectly good airplane into enemy territory' instead of as elite light infantry ? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I don't think that anyone is under the impression that a bunch of C-17s are going to cruise into territory covered by a modern IADS and drop a couple divisions worth ala Normandy. Modern airborne operations are thought of mainly as complimentary to supporting land operations, more useful due to the strategic mobility of the unit rather than the actual jumping out of the plane. bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The P-38 was an absolute trainwreck aerodynamically and was pretty ill suited to anything that wasn't flying in a straight line for a long time...it could actually enter compression in level flight. The RAF wanted nothing to do with it and for good reason; the USAAF used it fairly ineffectually in Europe and replaced it as a fighter as soon as they were able. It did better in the Pacific: less difficult competition, longer distances, etc, but it took until well into 1944 for it to finally become a mature system. Couple that long development timeline with the fact its dollar-cost was twice that of its single-engined counterparts, and its manpower/maintenance costs were even higher. I think its reputation today is based largely off of the fact that it looks cool and is easy to identify and has been featured in video games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The 173rd BCT jumped in to Northern Iraq as part of OIF. Always struck me as more of a "Yeah sure, why not"-maneuver. Or maybe the commanding general really really wanted "Combat jump" on his CV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
WW2 Data The IJN is back with more projectiles today! What round used cardboard (and a metal container) to separate its high-explosive and W.P. contents? What round was used to clear the bore? Which projectile used a Hotchkiss patented fuze? Check inside to find out!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Always struck me as more of a "Yeah sure, why not"-maneuver. Or maybe the commanding general really really wanted "Combat jump" on his CV. Oh almost definitely. bewbies posted:Compared to its contemporaries (Spitfire IX, Bf-109G6, Fw-190A7, P-51B, La-5FN, etc) the Hellcat was a very poor performer. I agree with you regarding the Hellcat's relative performance, but exactly zero of those contemporaries are folding-wing carrier fighters. There are additional design compromises - for instance, the Seafire was relatively high performing but had horrible range, which is a pretty important consideration for a carrier fighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Oh almost definitely. If you want to really compare it in an apples to apples way the more unkind comparison would be to look at the performance of the F4U. That said, the F4U had all sorts of other issues that made it tricky at best for carrier ops, and in the end probably a worse design for the kind of war that we were fighting. One on one there is an argument to be made about whether an F4U is a better fighter. When it comes to deploying a couple of carrier wings worth of them, you want to go with the Hellcat. The Hellcat is kind of the epitome of US design. It was easy to use, easy to maintain, reliable, and could be manufactured in insane numbers. The handling characteristics in particular become a big issue when you consider that it was taking off and landing on boats. Combine that with the massive advantage conferred by all the extra training USN pilots were getting by the time it entered service and you have something that is a decent airplane piloted by over-all good pilots and is present in large numbers. It's what we've been talking about for the past few pages: a poo poo load of OK equipment with decent operators is the winning combination in a total, industrial war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I agree with you regarding the Hellcat's relative performance, but exactly zero of those contemporaries are folding-wing carrier fighters. There are additional design compromises - for instance, the Seafire was relatively high performing but had horrible range, which is a pretty important consideration for a carrier fighter. Well, none of those contemporaries had access to that magnificent engine either. The Corsair is the obvious example of what that powerplant could do when mated with a well designed airframe; it was at least an even match for any fighter around at the time in addition to being a long-legged carrier fighter and a very capable ground attack platform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Well, none of those contemporaries had access to that magnificent engine either. The Corsair is the obvious example of what that powerplant could do when mated with a well designed airframe; it was at least an even match for any fighter around at the time in addition to being a long-legged carrier fighter and a very capable ground attack platform. The Corsair also couldn't be fielded on carriers until 1944 and had a tendency of killing its pilots on landing so I think your comparison is a little one-sided here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Going back a bit to our earlier discussion on why German poo poo (and Japanese to a lesser extent) is given this aura of superiority, it's important to remember that all the countries that won the war got their asses kicked in the early stages. For a politician in 1946 it is a lot more palatable to say that Germany/Japan ca. 1939 were unstoppable juggernauts because of their evil, militaristic traditions and technical expertise than to admit that you or your predecessors made some big loving mistakes that got a ton of people killed. "We overcame adversity and long odds to defeat these evil geniuses" is a much better narrative to sell your public than "we hosed the pooch."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Corsair also couldn't be fielded on carriers until 1944 and had a tendency of killing its pilots on landing so I think your comparison is a little one-sided here. I find the Corsair's landing issues to be...rather overstated in popular history. The British figured out the very simple modifications (raise the seat, firm the landing gear, turn on final approach) to make the Corsair perfectly functional as a carrier fighter. The USN just didn't really have any need to make the change having already fielded the F6F....until they really, really, really did all of a sudden late in the game. In any case the Corsair's loss rates to accidents during carrier ops was actually lower than the Hellcat's, although there were some differences in pilot quality and in the capabilities of the carriers themselves (as the F4U didn't start full time ops until somewhat later) that you can't really control for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Going back a bit to our earlier discussion on why German poo poo (and Japanese to a lesser extent) is given this aura of superiority, it's important to remember that all the countries that won the war got their asses kicked in the early stages. For a politician in 1946 it is a lot more palatable to say that Germany/Japan ca. 1939 were unstoppable juggernauts because of their evil, militaristic traditions and technical expertise than to admit that you or your predecessors made some big loving mistakes that got a ton of people killed. "We overcame adversity and long odds to defeat these evil geniuses" is a much better narrative to sell your public than "we hosed the pooch."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:not only are they not unstoppable superpeople, i would also say that there's something about fascism that makes people who would otherwise have been intelligent make some really terrible decisions Having power makes you make really terrible decisions: Vietnam for everyone except the Vietnamese, Afghanistan: The Soviet Days, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I don't think that anyone is under the impression that a bunch of C-17s are going to cruise into territory covered by a modern IADS and drop a couple divisions worth ala Normandy. Modern airborne operations are thought of mainly as complimentary to supporting land operations, more useful due to the strategic mobility of the unit rather than the actual jumping out of the plane. I'm confused here, is the main role still expected to be jumping out of airplanes under a parachute ? That's what i meant initially, but you say yes, then no. (This is not meant to be passive aggressive or anything i'm genuinely interested)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I'm confused here, is the main role still expected to be jumping out of airplanes under a parachute ? That's what i meant initially, but you say yes, then no. (This is not meant to be passive aggressive or anything i'm genuinely interested) The idea is that these days it's less "Okay boys, we are going to jump into France to give Uncle Adolf the business, drop height is 300 meters, expect to be under fire as you descend and in combat within seconds of landing" and more "Alright guys and gals, we are going to jump into this pretty much empty area in the middle of goddamn nowhere and build up a forward operating base on this abandoned airfield deep in the enemy rear. By doing so we will pull of enemy forces from the main line of defense and allow the rest of the Army to do it's job." It's also really useful to have a combat unit where everything is designed to be dropped from an airplane or slung under a helicopter, if you want to put some soldiers in a place as soon as possible. Not only is that unit faster than a regular unit that has to move by road or ship, they don't even need to have an airport because they can just jump out of their planes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I was a paid re-enactor of a British soldier in a generic regiment circa 1867 for the whole Summer. This consisted mostly of marching up and down a parade square and showing off battle tactics for visitors, stuff like file-firing, volleys, bayonet drill, square, etc. (I also did artillery on our fort's 24pdr. SBML cannons as well as 6pdr. Armstrong's, but that's a bit beside the point.) What astounds me is that we were using breech-loading rifles in the form of our Snider-Enfields, our drill manual is contemporary with the American Civil War as well as a few Prussian conflicts, and it still prescribes that the entire battalion should fight in a line. I appreciate that the British didn't fight any symmetrical wars in this period since Crimea, but you'd think somebody could look at, say, Fredericksburg and realize what a bad idea that was. I mean I get that it's nothing new to always be fighting the last war, but why ignore real-world examples of the effects of modern technology?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Where can I find a good book on the 30 years war? I try looking in libraries and bookstores, but all I ever see on Germany is Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Bismark, Hitler, and more Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I sat in a bofors in an open air museum, turns like a charm, so those guys must have been really thick. The KV-2 was a perfectly good tank for the purpose it was created for, namely sticking a 152 mm gun on a KV chassis as fast as humanly possible. Sadly that wasn't fast enough and the point of the KV-2 passed before it hit the battlefield. The KV-1 was an okay step in the right direction in terms of heavy tank building, if you're looking for ridiculous designs, look no further than KVs 3 through 5. Polikarpov posted:Specifically the average lifespan of a T-34 on the eastern front was less than 6 months, and once in combat less than 14 hours. Recall that the Soviet standard for a loss was what you'd call a mission kill: the tank is unable to continue fighting. Even tanks stuck in mud count as losses if they cannot be freed quickly enough. It's not like a T-34 will explode into smithereens within 14 hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Where can I find a good book on the 30 years war? I try looking in libraries and bookstores, but all I ever see on Germany is Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Bismark, Hitler, and more Hitler. wilson's Europe's Tragedy is exhaustive and based on the latest research, but one beginner has called it dry and somewhat offputting. wedgewood's The Thirty Years' War is the opposite of dry, but old as balls and a lot of the stuff is published sources from the 19th century, so she might be passing on misinformation geoffrey parker (ed) The Thirty Years' War is a collection of essays that bored me but are probably useful? idk do you know german
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
What was so drat bad about the KV-3 (I had my best ever World of Tanks round in one  ) and could it have actually become a decent tank if development had continued? Something about the suspension and the transmission, wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I'm confused here, is the main role still expected to be jumping out of airplanes under a parachute ? That's what i meant initially, but you say yes, then no. (This is not meant to be passive aggressive or anything i'm genuinely interested) Not really. Paradropping still exists as a capability, but it is really more of an "esprit de corps" anachronism than a serious capability (plus, in the US Army at least like a third of the active duty force is airborne qualified). In my opinion, at least. The important role for the airborne nowadays is the GRF (global response force), which basically means putting a fully equipped BCT on the ground within 72 hours. This is what I meant by "strategic mobility". It is very much preferable that this be done by walking off of planes rather than jumping out of them as you lose a lot of capability when you have to float down. Paradropping really isn't a viable strategy against a modern competitor in a forced-entry scenario, though we still give lip service to the idea of a battalion or something seizing an airfield. Any future forced entry is going to rely very heavily on seabasing and amphibious operations with any airborne stuff being very limited in scope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
They never got to the point of making a transmission. The gearbox was better, but the whole thing could be described as "KV-1 but bigger", which was not really a thing that the Red Army needed, especially since the German superheavy tanks that would need high power 107 mm guns to fight never materialized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
on the subject of Iraq:TheFluff posted:This. While it can be interesting and entertaining (to a huge fuckin' nerd like me) to discuss the ups and downs of certain tank designs (for example), it is important to recognize that having a tank that's 10% or even 25% better than the opposition's tank in some arbitrary metric doesn't win any wars. A lot of internet discussions tend to revolve around which tank/fighter jet/whatever was or is the "best" as if it actually mattered. The most important metric for any kind of expensive equipment like that is availability (which you get by good reliability and good numbers), followed by not being completely obsolete. There are so many other factors involved in winning wars that which side has the best equipment is essentially a non-issue. Yeah, though it shouldn't be underestimated how much of an advantage it is to have several modern militaries gang up on a sub-par one in general. That said, I read a book making the case that the war would have been much costler for the coalition if Iraq had used their soviet-made jamming equipment to fudge up coalition C3. Is there any truth to this claim, and if so, why didn't they use it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Molentik posted:Regarding German gliders, they were used to resupply encircled troops in the Demyansk pocket, Kholm pocket, Stalingrad and Budapest in 1945. I could think of few things shittier than having to be the guy who has to pilot a glider into stalingrad. At least the smallest, shittiest, most finicky plane has the possibility to fly the gently caress away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I find the Corsair's landing issues to be...rather overstated in popular history. The British figured out the very simple modifications (raise the seat, firm the landing gear, turn on final approach) to make the Corsair perfectly functional as a carrier fighter. The USN just didn't really have any need to make the change having already fielded the F6F....until they really, really, really did all of a sudden late in the game. In any case the Corsair's loss rates to accidents during carrier ops was actually lower than the Hellcat's, although there were some differences in pilot quality and in the capabilities of the carriers themselves (as the F4U didn't start full time ops until somewhat later) that you can't really control for. On this note, the Graf Zepplin wiki page says Germans were planning to use BF 109s as their carrier fighters, and that sounds a little dangerous to me. Does anybody have an idea of how that would go down?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:On this note, the Graf Zepplin wiki page says Germans were planning to use BF 109s as their carrier fighters, and that sounds a little dangerous to me. Does anybody have an idea of how that would go down? They were planning on using the Bf-109T, the wings did not fold. Why does the Bf-109 sound like a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:They were planning on using the Bf-109T, the wings did not fold. Why does the Bf-109 sound like a bad thing? It had problems landing in general, and a weak tail. Putting a tailhook on it and expecting airframe to handle the stress of cable-assisted landing sounds like too much to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:They never got to the point of making a transmission. The gearbox was better, but the whole thing could be described as "KV-1 but bigger", which was not really a thing that the Red Army needed, especially since the German superheavy tanks that would need high power 107 mm guns to fight never materialized. Seems like it would've been a great Tiger hunter. Jobbo_Fett posted:They were planning on using the Bf-109T, the wings did not fold. Why does the Bf-109 sound like a bad thing? Narrow landing gear is bad for carrier operations. Or possibly it's the other way around. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It had problems landing in general, and a weak tail. Putting a tailhook on it and expecting airframe to handle the stress of cable-assisted landing sounds like too much to me. That's why you reinforce the tail? I don't recall hearing the Bf-109 having issues landing, just complaints about engine torque on take-off which would've been a non-issue since the GZ would've used catapults. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Narrow landing gear is bad for carrier operations. "Worked" for the Spitfire Edit: Wow the seafire was pretty bad at carrier landings. Welp! There's always the wunderwaffe carrier Fw-190! Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Worked for the Spitfire The only reason the Seafire ever happened was the British were too stupid to realize that carriers should operate single seat fighters instead of hideous abortions like the Fulmar and the Roc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:file-firing
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I could think of few things shittier than having to be the guy who has to pilot a glider into stalingrad. At least the smallest, shittiest, most finicky plane has the possibility to fly the gently caress away. Gliding into a city under siege would be pretty lovely as well, as these guys found out in Budapest   re 109's; they had a tendency to flip over in less than perfect ground to land on because of the narrow landing gear, it was something a lot of rookie pilots were killed by. The 109T had a longer wingspan, maybe that would have helped landing the thing on a carrier? Molentik fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Landing a plane prone to flip over on a moving deck sounds like all kinds of fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Captain Eric Brown posted:But the Bf 109s deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most. So thats almost 10% losses on takeoff/landings, a great feature for a carrier plane! Molentik fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do you know german Nope. I had the same problem the last time I was trying to learn about Germany.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:At least the smallest, shittiest, most finicky plane has the possibility to fly the gently caress away. It's really not so bad if you keep an eye on your variometer and relax. Admittedly I have only ever flown a glider on days with beautiful weather and a distinct lack of AA, but not having an engine only makes gliders more pleasant to fly. bewbies posted:Any future forced entry is going to rely very heavily on seabasing and amphibious operations with any airborne stuff being very limited in scope. Airmobile infantry, however are such a powerful combination. The resilience of infantry and the speed and vision of helicopters seems to me unmatched. I don't see why, in 2015, it wouldn't be feasible to package airmobile infantry as part of a response force. For operations as short as 72 hours, I think the fuel and resupply logistics could be managed reasonably well with adequate planning and training. What hope could a force of motorized/mechanized infantry with obsolete armor and poor/no MANPADS possibly have against air cav? If the UN committed the money and blood for it, they could wipe out M23 in a week. Even two or three brigades would be enough. The reason I say gliders were underused in WWII is that using them, for example to transport more troops on existing aircraft, is a tremendously big deal. Even if it only means transport between controlled airstrips, it's a tremendous improvement in mobility over rail or road. For a stressed point to be able to be reinforced within 12-18 hours instead of 3 days can make all the difference. Even light infantry without armor support coming from the air is absolutely a game changer. To insert your soldiers into the high grounds near the enemy's positions and have eyes on them, to bring light anti-armor and anti-air to exactly where they are needed, at night and while your enemy's commanders are distracted putting out other fires, it's really an unbeatable deal. A not inconsiderable amount of firepower, exactly where and when you need it, and inexpensive in human lives. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I was a paid re-enactor of a British soldier in a generic regiment circa 1867 for the whole Summer. This consisted mostly of marching up and down a parade square and showing off battle tactics for visitors, stuff like file-firing, volleys, bayonet drill, square, etc. (I also did artillery on our fort's 24pdr. SBML cannons as well as 6pdr. Armstrong's, but that's a bit beside the point.) None of the participants in the conflicts you describe plus Crimea really figured out not to fight in a line. They still hadn't fully figured it out 35 years after your reenactment date with magazine-fed rifles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Keldoclock, why the gently caress would you use gliders to transport men when you could use a transport aircraft to do the same?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Keldoclock posted:It's really not so bad if you keep an eye on your variometer and relax. Admittedly I have only ever flown a glider on days with beautiful weather and a distinct lack of AA, but not having an engine only makes gliders more pleasant to fly. Raid on Karbala you stupid mother fucker
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:23
|
|