|
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.  Who the hell puts outs Mechanized infantry without MANPADs, or dedicated anti air support vehicles?
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Keldoclock, why the gently caress would you use gliders to transport men when you could use a transport aircraft to do the same? In 2015? You wouldn't, because these days there are not so many soldiers needed and both enough money and aircraft available, and usually the assurance of air superiority for high-ish altitude craft. In 1941? You have X aircraft and they can carry N troops. Tow a glider with each aircraft and you can carry N+L troops. Keep running the aircraft back and forth and overnight battalions can manifest from 1200-800 miles away. That's power. Klaus88 posted:
M23, FARC and other "rebels"/bandits-in-camouflage. When I say mechanized infantry I mean like BTRs and Type 59s. The forces aren't really standardized, I only hesitate to call them motorized infantry because there is often ad-hoc use of APCs and whatever armor they can capture from the military forces they split from or combat. I think that basically these large groups of thousands of armed thugs cannot be permitted to occupy the territory of even a failed state and the correct response is to wipe them out, not with airstrikes but by putting boots on the ground and hunting them down like the dogs they are. Or at least putting the money and people together to make it a credible and immediate threat if they don't make peace, allow their leaders to be arrested by legitimate authority and disband. Jobbo_Fett posted:logistics I'm still reading Supplying War. Haven't got to WWII yet, still in the late 18th century currently. You don't land the aircraft towing the glider, you disengage the glider, the glider lands, the transport aircraft loops around in the air until the glider is landed, then lands, the glider once landed can be towed out of the way to process disembarking/unloading/mx separately. A competent ATC should be fully capable of managing continuous flow like this. Of course air operations will be expensive logistically. But even having the ability to "buy" this level of performance is a great tool to have in the toolkit, something commanders 20 years earlier would have given their arms and legs for if they understood the implications.  I could be overestimating capabilities of WWII aircraft. So far the only real WWII aircraft I have seen at my local airport is a BT-13. The pilot reported that it was "a rattling deathtrap and the best drat aircraft I've ever flown". I have reviewed some historical evidence and see now that in the European theater it was more like 400-500 miles. That's still maybe 12 hours driving compared to ~3 hours flying, if you have functional roads, bridges, you aren't trying to attack Sicily from north Africa, etc. You're right with regards to concern of enemy aircraft- I think I have a modern attitude where I expect that the invading party will have local air superiority, either over the area immediately over and slightly beyond the front or slightly behind it due to overwhelming effectiveness of SAMs, etc. I hadn't considered the possibility of some sort of infiltrating group of fighters, because I assumed the skies over controlled territory would be safe. Got any historical anecdotes of daring deep penetration air raids? Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:In 1941? You have X aircraft and they can carry N troops. Tow a glider with each aircraft and you can carry N+L troops. Keep running the aircraft back and forth and overnight battalions can manifest from 1200-800 miles away. That's power. Something, I don't know what exactly it is, makes me think you haven't quite considered the logistics of flying transport aircraft towing gliders landing on an airfield, disembarking all the men, materiel and supplies, then refueling, towing the glider (and maybe transport aircraft), then taking off again and so on. If we're talking about the Germans, than you're not really going to get 800 miles out of your Ju-52 anyways, not to mention it'll be heavier AND have to tow along a glider, further reducing its available flight time. And even still, your airlanding forces are going to be in one of two places: 1. Far in the rear, still requiring land transport. 2. Near the frontline and subject to being shot down by enemy aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Keldoclock, why the gently caress would you use gliders to transport men when you could use a transport aircraft to do the same? Well, ignoring his response, gliders are a hell of a lot cheaper than transport aircraft and don't require an engine. If you've got a shortage of fuel or engines especially than using gliders to supplement transport aircraft starts making a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
The US Army. .... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Soooo, would you say they showed a lack of proper concern about their duties? A little late, but I'll note that the very reason why cavalier has that definition is because that was the stereotype of the Royalists at the time. As for why cavaliers were called cavaliers, they tended (not entirely or overwhelmingly but enough to be noticed) to be drawn from aristocrats, i.e. people with the money to raise and regularly ride horses. In combat they WERE excellent cavalry and could put the hurt on anything they charged. The problem was that being a bunch of independent-minded aristocrats they also tended to chase whatever they broke, with the result that they'd smash what they were thrown against, run them off the field, and then whoop, suddenly the Royalist army has no more cavalry. Keldoclock posted: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. So what you're saying is that if you happen to massively outclass the enemy, air drops work great. Along with everything else that works when you massively outclass the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Well, ignoring his response, gliders are a hell of a lot cheaper than transport aircraft and don't require an engine. If you've got a shortage of fuel or engines especially than using gliders to supplement transport aircraft starts making a lot more sense. If you have a shortage of fuel or engines you've got bigger issues than flying several hundred men for a few hours at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So what you're saying is that if you happen to massively outclass the enemy, air drops work great. You have not read my post carefully. I am referring to air assault, not parachute infantry. Yes, it works incredibly good. Your casualties will be low, your enemy will be destroyed quickly, morale will be high and your commanders will look competent. This is far superior to the typical UN "peacekeeping" strategy of not sending enough men, not committing enough money, and being reluctant to get knee-deep in blood before negotiating a peace (because of lack of overwhelming superiority). The reason air cav is to be used against uniformed groups with poor armor and little air defenses is to keep loss rates minimal and so that you don't have to bring your biggest tankfucker munitions and can use both the space on the helicopters/CAS aircraft and your money towards more useful things, like fuel and rebuilding to create a lasting, successful peace. I hesitate to think of any scenario where invading with parachute armor or infantry is a good idea, even for a group which massively outclasses its enemy. I think parachute deployment is probably best reserved for inserting special forces when you can't come up with a better plan, or providing supplies to partisans in rural areas. Jobbo_Fett posted:If you have a shortage of fuel or engines you've got bigger issues than flying several hundred men for a few hours at a time. Depends on what you mean by shortage. Everything is always in limited supply- here is a way to stretch those limits further, and do more with less. Don't forget that the largest cargo aircraft in WWII (the Me 323 Gigant) was a glider fitted with six engines. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Tomn posted:In combat they WERE excellent cavalry and could put the hurt on anything they charged. The problem was that being a bunch of independent-minded aristocrats they also tended to chase whatever they broke, with the result that they'd smash what they were thrown against, run them off the field, and then whoop, suddenly the Royalist army has no more cavalry. apparently after getting cannonaded for a few hours he had just had it. he didn't break baner though, his cav charged baner's cav/musketeers seven times and then baner chased him all the way to halle. that was why the swedish cavalry was interspersed with musketeers, it lets you withstand getting charged by much better cav than yourself
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Well, ignoring his response, gliders are a hell of a lot cheaper than transport aircraft and don't require an engine. If you've got a shortage of fuel or engines especially than using gliders to supplement transport aircraft starts making a lot more sense. I thought the main reason was that none of the premier transport planes used at the time had the rear loading ramp that allowed them to airdrop equipment bigger than their loading door. If you want light vehicles and AT guns with your landing force (spoiler alert: You'll want light vehicles and AT guns with your landing force), you pretty much have to do gliders. For men it has the advantage that they land as a cohesive unit rather than spread out across the drop zone. Keldoclock posted:Yes, it works incredibly good. Your casualties will be low, your enemy will be destroyed quickly, morale will be high and your commanders will look competent. I'm convinced, you should absolutely be in charge of military operations. You have the kind of aggressive, forward-thinking can-do attitude we need. Most other leaders are worried about things like unexpected contingencies, political context or missing intelligence. Keldoclock, on the other hand, takes his strategic advice straight from the playbooks of MacArthur and Patton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:swedish cavalry was interspersed with musketeers I've had people tell me the Swedes invented this and I'm sitting here with references to Irish cavalry interspersed with arquebusiers defeating pikemen in the 1590's
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I've had people tell me the Swedes invented this and I'm sitting here with references to Irish cavalry interspersed with arquebusiers defeating pikemen in the 1590's
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Tomn posted:So what you're saying is that if you happen to massively outclass the enemy, air drops work great. Keldoclock posted:You have not read my post carefully. Tomn, it's time! Unleash the bicycle cataphracts, and let the world tremble! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
The big problem with using gliders as routine transport is that there is no other option than to ride in once you're committed to your approach. Consider how many landing approaches get waved off for whatever reason in a high-tempo situation like you're going to have moving entire infantry units. Now every one of those ones that would have just circled around and tried again is a really rough landing at best and at worst a disastrous wreck. Gliders might be fine for putzing around in as entertainment and they certainly have a niche for airborne assault in the pre-helicopter era, but they're nothing like safe enough to use as round trip cargo ships on a routine basis. You'll notice that most of the historical examples of them being used for cargo involve some real 'oh gently caress' situations like Stalingrad. edit: and before you suggest that they land while towed to get that go-around capability, that would be even more dangerous. The last thing a pilot wants is another pilot a couple hundred yards behind him landing an unpowered aircraft that he has limited control over once it's down near stall speed for landing. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:You have not read my post carefully. I am referring to air assault, not parachute infantry. We have a fine example of a time when the US army did use airmobile troops to try to hunt down irregulars with no armor and weak air defense. While the NLF troops were pretty good at using the AA they had, the problem airmobile operations tended to have is that the NLF forces could disengage at will and they were a lot better at running away than US troops were at finding them. Other forces with airmobile troops had similar experiences trying to seek and destroy irregulars. One would think we're past trying age old seek and destroy tactics to deal with irregular forces, but here's Keldoclock to the rescue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:If you want light vehicles and AT guns with your landing force (spoiler alert: You'll want light vehicles and AT guns with your landing force), you pretty much have to do gliders. Let's not forget artillery. Artillery that flies. Napoleon would have a raging erection. ArchangeI posted:For men it has the advantage that they land as a cohesive unit rather than spread out across the drop zone. Yes. Fast mustering is a tremendous advantage for using the troops in an assault while you have the element of surprise and can dictate the pace of the combat. Even if your enemy has intelligence and knows you are coming, he won't be able to do as much in 6 hours as he can in 2 days. There will be communications fuckups, pockets of the enemy left stranded where they can be easily encircled, he will make the best defense he has but when you have added 50% to the size of your force overnight ultimately the only choices he will have are surrender, retreat or death. Panzeh posted:NLF Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
my dad posted:Tomn, it's time! Unleash the bicycle cataphracts, and let the world tremble! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it's me, i'm the biplane praiser In the aeronautical insanity thread, there is lots of love for the oddball (but incredibly successful) An-2. Designed after World War 2 as an agricultural/bush plane, it's biplane wings are a big asset in those roles. It also gives the An-2 some interesting flying characteristics. If the engine goes dead on you at night, the manual says to yank back on the control yoke and hold it. Then the An-2 descends to the ground at roughly the same speed as a parachutist. 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 I think this is absolutely true. Part of it, I think is the idea that your people are innately superior. In any sort of military context, that makes you underestimate your foes. It also puts a heavy thumb on the scale when considering strategic issues, since one German/Japanese soldier is worth, like, 50 enemy soldiers. Maybe if you think one German Ubermenchen is worth literally 1000 Slavic untermenchen, invading the Soviet Union makes sense. It also has a weird view of the will as somehow magically causal, which makes planners fill gaps in the real world with sheer determination of national socialist ardor. It also encourages military action, as fascism often scapegoats everybody not of the Volk, who are usually weaker and more degenerate than the fascist nation itself. Weaker AND guilty of great injustice against the people? You can't loose!* *You can definitely loose
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
it's also worth noting that when the Germans started getting really desperate for airlift capabilities they started putting engines on the Go242, creating the Go244. This is the end result of people trying to use gliders as cargo planes: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:pappenheim had an annoying (to tilly) habit of disobeying orders to raise hell on the field, which may have contributed to the imperialist loss at breitenfeld I get the impression that a lack of cavalry discipline was a general problem for pretty much everybody in the period. Hell, I seem to recall the British still had problems with cavalry discipline right up to the Napoleonic Wars. Keldoclock posted:Yes, it works incredibly good. Your casualties will be low, your enemy will be destroyed quickly, morale will be high and your commanders will look competent. This is far superior to the typical UN "peacekeeping" strategy of not sending enough men, not committing enough money, and being reluctant to get knee-deep in blood before negotiating a peace (because of lack of overwhelming superiority). I have never seen a more appropriate use of the term "armchair general." my dad posted:Tomn, it's time! Unleash the bicycle cataphracts, and let the world tremble!  FOR GLORY!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I have never seen a more appropriate use of the term "armchair general." Yes, my many hours of Wargame: Air Land Battle have given me the experience and confidence I need to control real tactical operators in dynamic scenarios. How can anyone possibly resist my strategic genius ability to deploy hundreds of T-34Ms in the hopes that five or six of them manage to destroy the enemy headquarters? Seriously though, I just am disgusted with current "management" and peace-brokering attempts with the militarized thugs that crop up in these developing nations and take an already corrupt, half-functional system and just completely run it to the ground and ruin any chance of salvaging some sort of sustainable living for the people there. When I look at how much they have ruined with such minimal equipment, discipline and unanswered brutality, I cannot help but to think of solutions. The attempts to manage these people are equally underfunded, corrupt and lack ethics. Instead of sending the professional military of developed countries to handle the peacekeeping, they send Pakistani conscripts to Africa and think it will improve things? It is the apathy of the international community, and nothing else, that allows these deplorable abuses of human rights to persist. I wish I knew how much it cost to field two air assault regiments in dollars for a month, but I haven't found any figures. Edit:Acebuckeye13, I mentioned the Me 323 earlier on this page! It was a pretty good aircraft for its intended purpose. If there is anything that can never be hosed up by making it bigger, it's a cargo transport. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:it's also worth noting that when the Germans started getting really desperate for airlift capabilities they started putting engines on the Go242, creating the Go244. Oh, you think that was the end result.  Nazi Germany: There's Always More and it's Always
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Tomn posted:A little late, but I'll note that the very reason why cavalier has that definition is because that was the stereotype of the Royalists at the time. Isn't that exactly what happened at the Battle of Edgehill? Royalist cav beat Parliamentary cav, and instead turning round and attacking the Parliamentary Parliamentary just kept chasing the cav, therefore allowing the Parliamentary infantry to win?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Isn't that exactly what happened at the Battle of Edgehill? Royalist cav beat Parliamentary cav, and instead turning round and attacking the Parliamentary Parliamentary just kept chasing the cav, therefore allowing the Parliamentary infantry to win? Also Naseby, where the parliamentarian cavalry were rather more disciplined when they broke through on the other flank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Isn't that exactly what happened at the Battle of Edgehill? Royalist cav beat Parliamentary cav, and instead turning round and attacking the Parliamentary Parliamentary just kept chasing the cav, therefore allowing the Parliamentary infantry to win? Pretty much, though in fairness to the Royalists from what I understand the Parliamentary cavalry were also initially kinda bad about chasing routed enemies instead of regrouping - it's just that they didn't get as many chances to demonstrate their lack of discipline since the cavaliers tended to beat them. Cromwell's initial rise to fame was built on his reputation as a cavalry commander whose troops could beat Royalist cavalry AND reform after their victory to gently caress up Royalist infantry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Oh, you think that was the end result. Turns out flying these things across the Mediterranean to resupply Rommel isn't a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:I wish I knew how much it cost to field two air assault regiments in dollars for a month, but I haven't found any figures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:ok, when you say that, what specifically do you do? I've seen people call it 'ripple fire' but we always called it file firing. It's just when we start firing at one end of the line and work our way to the end, alternating front ranks and rear ranks. This isn't my year, but there's a good example of it here: https://youtu.be/fqGiSoY-zr0?t=7m12s Also here at the 7:12 mark because I don't think time-stamps work with embedded videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqGiSoY-zr0
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I've seen people call it 'ripple fire' but we always called it file firing. It's just when we start firing at one end of the line and work our way to the end, alternating front ranks and rear ranks. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Turns out flying these things across the Mediterranean to resupply Rommel isn't a good idea. Flying them across the Mediterranean wasn't the bad idea, the bad idea was not having air superiority and/or early warning systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I've seen people call it 'ripple fire' but we always called it file firing. It's just when we start firing at one end of the line and work our way to the end, alternating front ranks and rear ranks. What in the name of gently caress is that cannon drill at 7:35? It looks like something out of a Bugs Bunny skit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
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; To be fair to the P-38, the Brits ordered them without counter rotating props and no turbochargers, turning a high altitude speed machine into something that handled poorly and gasps for air at anything approaching 20,000ft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Who gave cannons to vaudeville bellhops
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:wilson's Europe's Tragedy is exhaustive and based on the latest research, but one beginner has called it dry and somewhat offputting. I thought Wilson was great, and I've never done anything formal in German history before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
like, on the one hand it is old as gently caress, but on the other hand, any time a beginner reads anything else about the thirty years' war they end up staring at holy_roman_empire.svg all noooooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Isn't that exactly what happened at the Battle of Edgehill? Royalist cav beat Parliamentary cav, and instead turning round and attacking the Parliamentary Parliamentary just kept chasing the cav, therefore allowing the Parliamentary infantry to win? Yes, although in fairness at Edgehill neither side were anything resembling a professional army of the period. Interestingly, there were quite a few units of cuirassiers on the parliamentarian side, but they were pretty useless, setting the pattern for heavily armoured horsemen over the rest of the war. Fangz posted:Also Naseby, where the parliamentarian cavalry were rather more disciplined when they broke through on the other flank. Naseby was just a general win for parliamentarian cavalry. Rupert scattered the flank he was facing, but he did so by committing very heavily very early, while Cromwell timed his charge much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:ah, so the files aren't walking forward, gotcha. The name made me think it was something like the stuff I'm familiar with. We do have drill for fire and advance, which sounds more like that. The front rank and rear rank spread out so that there's a soldier sized gap between everyone, the front rank fires, the rear rank advances 8 paces at the charge then fires while the front rank reloads, and then the front rank advances 16 paces and does the same. The paces probably don't have to be specific, either. I couldn't find a good video of it, unfortunately, it's not something we usually do because it's easy for rookies to gently caress up. Tomn posted:What in the name of gently caress is that cannon drill at 7:35? It looks like something out of a Bugs Bunny skit. Rodrigo Diaz posted:Who gave cannons to vaudeville bellhops That's a result of the combined powers of Victorian drill which is already a bit silly in places (our salutes are comical) and 21st century government occupational health and safety regulations. Because we're all students and working with black powder, we have to do poo poo like leaning our heads all the way back at any point when we're directly working with the powder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Retarded Pimp posted:To be fair to the P-38, the Brits ordered them without counter rotating props and no turbochargers, turning a high altitude speed machine into something that handled poorly and gasps for air at anything approaching 20,000ft. Was it that they ordered them without, or was it that the U.S. wouldn't send them with? I recall something about the turbocharger design being too valuable and classified, but I might be mis-remembering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:like, on the one hand it is old as gently caress, but on the other hand, any time a beginner reads anything else about the thirty years' war they end up staring at holy_roman_empire.svg all noooooo Yeah, I did Wedgwood and then Wilson and feel like that worked out pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:like, on the one hand it is old as gently caress, but on the other hand, any time a beginner reads anything else about the thirty years' war they end up staring at holy_roman_empire.svg all noooooo Wilson's the old one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:21
|
|