|
bewbies posted:For perspective's sake this was a military that 80 years before literally had general officers murdering one another. That's the gooniest looking Major General I've ever seen. Give that man a fedora and body pillow and he'd fit right in today. Slavvy posted:Yes, I realise this. That's why I'm asking: how are they supposed to work? ATGM's are a shitload cheaper and easier to get than any LAV. How do they actually function IRL when literally everyone, down to the poorest peasants, has some sort of anti tank capability that light vehicles are unable to resist? An armored personnel carrier needs things other than raw armor. They need to be fast and maneuverable to actually get where they're going, and armor slows it down. You could add a bigger engine, but then you lose out on passenger capacity unless you make the vehicle bigger. Bigger vehicles are easier targets. Besides, if the enemy has weapons that can blow up your main battle tanks it's not going to do much good to try and armor your APCs to the same degree. You compensate in ways other than armor. You make it smaller, faster, and with a lower infrared signature (like exhaust) so it's harder to see and hit and can more easily hide behind things. You send them out with tons of support to make sure that the ATGMs don't get fired at it in the first place. And Strykers currently aren't facing Kornets and TOWs as much as they're facing roadside bombs, which they have a history of surviving. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Oct 20, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The naval airship fleet of Germany was filled with chill skyship sailin' bros, but that's a bit low level compared to the petty bullshit of top officers. Wasn't there some national army in the conflict that had just ridiculous rear end candy cane looking uniforms? I thought it was the belgians but I looked it up a while ago and I don't think that was the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:They wore knee length breeches, tailcoated jackets and gaiters and bicornered hats? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Ahh, looks like they're ready to defend Denmark against the Prussians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Was this before or after you played episode 5 of Life is Strange? Like immediately after. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
The French uniforms at the start of the war were more or less looking like what they wore under Napoleon III.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Ahh, looks like they're ready to defend Denmark against the Prussians. Or fight a gang war in Victorian London.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Not quite. Aside from the gun, I can imagine one of these dudes walking around modern day Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
i refuse to diss the dog guns
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That's the gooniest looking Major General I've ever seen. Give that man a fedora and body pillow and he'd fit right in today. Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. If they're vulnerable to basically everything except small arms fire, what's the point of sticking a big autocannon on top when you can't really engage the enemy directly anyway? I understand what APC's are for, I don't understand why you'd want to waste money and weight arming one when you can just give the soldiers inside MANPADS and ATGM's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. Soldiers are vulnerable to everything including small arms fire. An APC can carry more ammo, shoot more accurately (its a nice stable platform), carry a heavy gun, and move very quickly. Sure, it'll get taken out by anti tank weapons, but a machine gunner will get taken out by a rifle. You can't only field completely invulnerable assets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I guess in a conventional war situation infantry needs to be able to keep up with armoured units, and its better they do that in a small arms resistant autocannon armed IFV than a truck?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Yes, I realise this. That's why I'm asking: how are they supposed to work? ATGM's are a shitload cheaper and easier to get than any LAV. How do they actually function IRL when literally everyone, down to the poorest peasants, has some sort of anti tank capability that light vehicles are unable to resist? It simply isn't true that everyone has access to some sort of anti-tank capability. Especially high tier ATGMs together with the training to use them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. Autocannons are really effective and relatively inexpensive weapons versus pretty much anything but a tank (even then, some tanks). They provide a lot of mobile, stable fire support that usually comes along with a high quality sensor suite and immunity to most infantry weapons. It sort of seems like a lot of people think that "has ATGM" = "dead armor"; it really isn't like that and I'm not sure where that notion comes from. ATGMs are relatively rare, expensive, pretty hard to use, and very easily suppressed if you know the location of the shooter. They're extremely useful and lethal weapons but they certainly don't portend the useful end of armored vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. If they're vulnerable to basically everything except small arms fire, what's the point of sticking a big autocannon on top when you can't really engage the enemy directly anyway? I understand what APC's are for, I don't understand why you'd want to waste money and weight arming one when you can just give the soldiers inside MANPADS and ATGM's. Well first it's important to recognize that not everyone has advanced ATGMs, they're actually fairly rare on the battlefield. A rocket-propelled grenade is not enough to defeat modern armor, so you need an actual purpose-built device and an operator that knows how to use them. If literally every terrorist had an ATGM, then yes it'd be impossible to use any ground vehicles at all. But there's a reason that IEDs have been the main casualty source in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not hunter-killer teams. Beyond that, there's a variety of ways to operate in an ATGM environment and minimize your vulnerability to them. But overall, the on-board guns and pintles of IFVs are intended to support the infantry platoon in non-ATGM combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I just read the bit in Shattered Sword where one of the Imperial Japanese admirals got Yamamoto in a headlock because he wouldn't let Hiryu and Soryu go on a mission Imperial Japan was loving incredible. IJN officers regularly drew down on each other with swords and sidearms. That's not even close to what they would do to IJA officers and vice versa. Plus, people got assassinated ALL THE TIME by mid-ranking officers for not being zealous enough, a tradition that went way back in post-Meiji Japanese politics. It's like if a bunch of captains and commanders decided that Frank Knox being an interventionist was Betraying America and just fuckin walked in to his office in DC and shot him. Then repeat this a bunch of times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What exactly is ok about F-35? The F-35A at its core is going to be a very good strike fighter, and a great replacement for the F-16 in that role. This is what it was designed to do. Given time to work out the flaws (like literally every loving airplane needs) there's really no way it doesn't come out as a better combat aircraft the the F-16 in every role that isn't turn-and-burn 2 Sidewinder light air fighter, as that role is dumb as hell and the F-35 never set out to do that. The F-35 has greater range, a MASSIVELY better radar/EW suite then every PESA F-16 on earth, better payload externally (and internally), a better radar signature (which can matter a lot when you aren't bombing The problems the F-35 has almost entirely stem from horrid program management and planning. The 3 separate plane program (mainly the F-35B) drove the overall costs up to the price we were paying for F-22s, which is ludicrous given how much more capable the F-22 is from a sheer performance standpoint. Additionally, someone (DoD or LockMart, probably both) decided that CAD has given us the development maturity to build the production airframes concurrently to the normal airframe testing process, which is/was a terrible idea and bit them on the rear end more then a few times already. Basically, if you could cut away all the political and finanical bullshit, the F-35 will be significantly better at air interdiction and CAS then the F-16 is by the nature of it's design, and even the A-10 if you factor out low and slow gun runs, which is something the A-10 will not be doing against people with reasonable, post-1980s SHORAD available. It would be a great strike fighter at the 75 million or whatever it was originally supposed to cost; it's a pile of poo poo at >$140m, especially in comparison to just buying more F-22s, which gets talked about more and more when we discuss this stuff in the air power thread. ----- I've leave the Stryker thing alone since you guys covered it well, but will cover one point: Slavvy posted:Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. The original Stryker ICV only had the RWS .50 or 40mm grenade launcher on top. The army has specifically requested a 30mm since it gives you significantly more reach then the .50, is a whole different level of scary to the recipients, and can fight other light armor. The simple fact with IFVs and such is you need to protect your infantry from small arms fire and artillery shrapnel as best you can. It's the reason that trucks went away so quickly. Losing vehicles to ATGM fire is certainly a problem, but they are a lot more a specific threat then artillery/mortar/LMG fire tearing apart all your unprotected infantry. Mazz fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Imperial Japan was loving incredible. IJN officers regularly drew down on each other with swords and sidearms. That's not even close to what they would do to IJA officers and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
The Office: IJN edition would be pretty rad. edit: i feel like those guys would have gotten along with your guys on a lot of levels
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Everyone seems to be taking my post as an argument that APC's should have more armour and I'm not really sure where that came from, but that isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm asking how you're supposed to use them. Many APCs do have firing ports, but they're only suitable for rifles and machine guns to be fired from them; you obviously can't launch an RPG from inside a small vehicle (even if the port was big enough to fit the rocket). Soldiers with missiles would need to dismount to use them. Arming the vehicle with its own cannon and missiles gives it self-defense capability, but also allows it to support infantry. APCs of the past like the M113 The Soviets got that part figured out a little before the US did. They developed the BMP in the 1960s and their standard tactic for a theoretical land war in Europe was thus: 1. Drop tons of artillery and air strikes (including smoke) on an enemy position. 2. Send in infantry carriers like BMPs and BTRs to drop off soldiers nearby, with tank and further aerial and artillery support. 3. Soldiers fight no more than a few hundred meters from their vehicles (which is why Soviet soldiers only carried 2 or 3 spare magazines and some loose ammo in clips most of the time). 4. Soldiers return to their vehicles when their guns run dry and/or they need to move on. This came back to haunt them in Afghanistan, when they discovered that the mountains weren't nearly as suited for their bombings and armored advances as the rolling hills and flat fields of Europe. The soldiers ended up fighting as skirmishers, far from support and very self-reliant. They captured Chinese chest rigs from the Mujahideen or made their own copies from spare pouches and their sewing kits, before the Soviets began making the Lifchik chest rig in factories. The VDV modified their unusual RD-54 combined backpkac/load-bearing harness setup to hold more pouches or just cannibalized them for homemade chest rig pieces. They started buying new boots and shoes, like clones of Adidas sneakers, to make up for their jackboots that were awful at traversing mountains. The Soviets developed new mountain rations to improve dietary deficiencies. The BMPs themselves got modified into the BMP-1D variant, with new armor and side skirts to protect against gunfire and mines and new firing ports for the soldiers inside. You can see some of the original tactics in use with the separatists in Ukraine, though. They slowly march across fields with BTRs and BMPs covering them and artillery strikes pouring down on Ukrainian National Guard positions. This tends to go poorly when they come up to serious fire....like a tank. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxsxkmVeSr8
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:09
|
|
HEY GAL posted:why is this not a movie, or better yet a The Office style tv show Honestly I'd watch the poo poo out it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Not quite. All these living things in this picture are dead now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Many APCs do have firing ports, but they're only suitable for rifles and machine guns to be fired from them; you obviously can't launch an RPG from inside a small vehicle (even if the port was big enough to fit the rocket). Soldiers with missiles would need to dismount to use them. Arming the vehicle with its own cannon and missiles gives it self-defense capability, but also allows it to support infantry. APCs of the past like the M113 Thanks for a very informative post! Re: ukrainian video, WWII taught me that hiding near AFV's was a scrub move because they attract bullets like magnets. Why do they advance slowly on foot like that if they know where the enemy is? Doesn't it make more sense to rush up and spew the soldiers out the back really quickly? It isn't like they'd be more exposed than half a dozen dudes crouching behind the APC while it creeps along at walking pace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But Montgomery wasn't a US general, and then you have to remember how tolerant Eisenhower was of his antiques... Obviously, but if your point of view is 'US generals were all pretty chill and didn't squabble with others' that kind of has to include the people they were intimately working with too 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:All these living things in this picture are dead now. Not necessarily the trees!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Obviously, but if your point of view is 'US generals were all pretty chill and didn't squabble with others' that kind of has to include the people they were intimately working with too Patton never assaulted or drew on Montgomery or specifically relished his defeats so that is pretty fuckin chill in my book
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Office: IJN edition would be pretty rad. on the other hand, whom did either half of the japanese armed forces hate more, the other arm of their own military or us HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:An armored personnel carrier needs things other than raw armor. Yes, like ERA and APS.   BMP-3M, superior to M2 Bradley in most respects.Slavvy posted:what's the point of sticking a big autocannon on top when you can't really engage the enemy directly anyway? I understand what APC's are for, I don't understand why you'd want to waste money and weight arming one when you can just give the soldiers inside MANPADS and ATGM's. 1. autocannon has superior range, ROF and can do more damage to light-skinned vehicles such as other APCs, SPGs, entrenched infantry, recon vehicles, tracked AA, low-flying aircraft than infantry with ATGM. 2. superior speed and EW capabilities The autocannon is secondary to the missiles the APC would be carrying, also. It's excellent fire support for the dismounted infantry and can sometimes punch well above their weight for armor/armor scenarios. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The French uniforms at the start of the war were more or less looking like what they wore under Napoleon III.  Just lookit. Tell me these guys look out of place for 1812. No really, effortpost about Napoleonic uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:whom did either half of the japanese armed forces hate more, the other arm of their own military or us Last I checked the US wasn't merrily drafting away trained naval architects. On the scale of screwing other arms over, that's enough times the F-35B project you could fill a carrier facsimile with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Last I checked the US wasn't merrily drafting away trained naval architects. On the scale of screwing other arms over, that's enough times the F-35B project you could fill a carrier facsimile with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:fired at least one .38 caliber handgun Reminds me of these neat drawings:  And less so:  "An air duel begins with an air insult!" The writing on the Soviet plane reads "Germans are assholes"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It sort of seems like a lot of people think that "has ATGM" = "dead armor"; it really isn't like that and I'm not sure where that notion comes from. ATGMs are relatively rare, expensive, pretty hard to use, and very easily suppressed if you know the location of the shooter. They're extremely useful and lethal weapons but they certainly don't portend the useful end of armored vehicles. I think "has ATGM" = "dead armor" mostly comes from watching too many videos of the Syrian civil war. The problem is the Syrian Arab Army has a terrible habit of sending out a few AFVs to attack without support, letting the AFVs stand still within range of known rebel positions, and repeatedly charging up roads where they had been ambushed last month like nothing happened. Combine that with a lot of Saudi supplied Konkurs/Milans/HJ-8s/TOW-2s, and the result is dozens of playlists full of burning T-55s and BMP-1s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I think "has ATGM" = "dead armor" mostly comes from watching too many videos of the Syrian civil war. The problem is the Syrian Arab Army has a terrible habit of sending out a few AFVs to attack without support, letting the AFVs stand still within range of known rebel positions, and repeatedly charging up roads where they had been ambushed last month like nothing happened. Combine that with a lot of Saudi supplied Konkurs/Milans/HJ-8s/TOW-2s, and the result is dozens of playlists full of burning T-55s and BMP-1s. This definitely colours my judgements because there seems to be nowhere to park your AFV's without some sneaky rebels creeping up and destroying one with a missile from a good km away. Obviously it doesn't quite work that way in less open terrain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:they're not allowed to join the enemy, which would have saddened my dudes. what's the point of storming off in a big old huff if you can't spend the next engagement really sticking it to that fucker by fighting for someone else It's kind of a two way tie between the other branch and either the high command (for line officers) or the line officers (for the high command).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
ATGM-equipped forces also don't seem to be the kind of enemy the US is fighting nowadays nor is it likely to fight in the near future, thus the emphasis on MRAP vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
One of the big issues is ATGMs are pretty big and expensive. If you miss you are completely hosed. Hell, even if you have a dozen missiles, if you have one ATGM crew vs two armoured vehicles, getting off a second missile is going to be pretty tricky now that the armoured vehicle you didn't blow up has probably worked out where you are. This assumes you're not at the maximum range of your missile in completely open terrain of course, where you safely outrange pretty much any weapon they're likely to have. If I'm wrong on this and keldoclock posting please shout me down. I'm working off intuition and videogames.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Lookit dese French: Please tell me there was this unit of really aristocratic heavy horse with lances that was just hanging around, waiting to charge something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Please tell me there was this unit of really aristocratic heavy horse with lances that was just hanging around, waiting to charge something. Not necessarily aristocrats but that's a legitimate Cuirassier regiment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Splode posted:One of the big issues is ATGMs are pretty big and expensive. If you miss you are completely hosed. Hell, even if you have a dozen missiles, if you have one ATGM crew vs two armoured vehicles, getting off a second missile is going to be pretty tricky now that the armoured vehicle you didn't blow up has probably worked out where you are. This assumes you're not at the maximum range of your missile in completely open terrain of course, where you safely outrange pretty much any weapon they're likely to have. You're right about most of this, except for the idea that ATGMs are particularly long-ranged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:43
|
|