|
zoux posted:I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of how a battle happens all the way up to WWI. Like, I get what the disposition of forces would look like, how the armies would maneuver and engage, basically how a pitched battle happens. (massed lines of dudes shooting/stabbing each other) I gather WWI is typified by its lack of maneuver, so that's not to hard to understand, but say in WW2, how would two armies engage one another? Is it just assault of fortified positions? It's even more muddy in the modern era, like I have no idea how a battle between two US-peer armies would fight it out on the field. Is a pitched battle even possible anymore? Is it just a long line of small unit vs. small unit engagements? "it varied" For the mammoth armies in Europe, most fighting was pretty similar: recon tries to identify weak points, armor and mechanized formations slam into the perceived weak points, the opposition counterattacks said advance (usually), rinse, repeat. In WWII at least the things that tended to decide these kinds of battles were how quickly the attacker could move his armored forces (which was primarily limited by his ability to sustain said forces while they were moving rapidly, not the speed of the tank or armor of the tank or how many mms of penetration the tank guns had), and alternatively how quickly and effectively a counterattack could be mounted. A lot of the latter depended on how effective air power and artillery fire was on rear areas. No one really knows for sure how the next war will go (obviously) but my suspicion is that it will be essentially a long range artillery duel for a while, then everyone will run out of ammo, and then it'll be who can move his stuff the furtherst the fastest.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
bewbies posted:No one really knows for sure how the next war will go (obviously) but my suspicion is that it will be essentially a long range artillery duel for a while, then everyone will run out of ammo, and then it'll be who can move his stuff the furtherst the fastest. Or, y'know, mushroom clouds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Or, y'know, mushroom clouds. By stuff one can mean nuclear delivery systems
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Maybe there won't be a next war
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Maybe there won't be a next war Have you ever met humans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Maybe there won't be a next war Says the person at the end of a line of craters stretching back to the beginning of recorded history "Look I don't see what makes you think there's going to be another one  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:Korean Super Turtle Ships complement nicely the Korean Super Admiral. Admiral: Roaring Currents ftmfw
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Also 3 days in and it's really kinda weird how Madrid has a lot of monuments for the May 2nd and the Peninsular War but none about the Republicans during the SCW... (should I be glad there are none for the Nationalists either?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Also 3 days in and it's really kinda weird how Madrid has a lot of monuments for the May 2nd and the Peninsular War but none about the Republicans during the SCW... (should I be glad there are none for the Nationalists either?) Not that weird. It's still a live issue to this day, and of course the Republicans lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
I guess it's mainly weird coming at it from an American standpoint. Over here, plenty of people make confederate memorials with barely an argument (there's been more controversy lately though). I've heard of people who will argue that the American Civil War was not a true civil war, and it's mostly poo poo, but it definitely wasn't resolved how I read most civil wars are resolved. Reconstruction wasn't anywhere near the sort of reprisals that followed other civil wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I guess it's mainly weird coming at it from an American standpoint. Over here, plenty of people make confederate memorials with barely an argument (there's been more controversy lately though). Yeah, but the American Civil War happened 150 years ago, and after Reconstruction the South pretty much went back to being a place where everyone (white, anyway) thought the Confederacy was in the right. The Spanish one is in living memory, and don't forget Spain only stopped being a literal dictatorship like 40 years ago. Everyone's gonna have a granddad or similar family member who was executed or did the executing, got shot or did the shooting, everyone's gonna have some oldie living in their family who thinks morals were better and youngsters were more respectful and the trains ran on time when the Caudillo was still around in the 70s, and the descendants of both sides are all living together, and I guess for a lot of people the best way to keep living together is to never bring that poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
"History is written by the victors" only applies in undemocratic societies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Rats? I'm pretty sure they were captured and eaten by the starving inhabitants of the city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:03
|
|
Fangz posted:"History is written by the victors" only applies in undemocratic societies. When I hear this phrase I pause and think of Napoleon rapidly writing his version of events at St Helena, kind of proving it sort of wrong.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:"it varied" Do you think the huge increase in the lethality of modern artillery is going to make battles more fluid? Back in my day in the infantry I spent, uh, a lot of time digging holes in the ground, but it wouldn't have done me much good against fuel air explosives and drone spotters. I feel like the only way for infantry to survive on the modern battlefield is to keep moving in smaller formations. I think I see a lot of this kind of thing in Syria right now, once the battle starts taking off in a sector, things move quite quickly, because the infantry holding positions just can't hold them for long with all the modern firepower being arrayed against them, so all they can do is withdraw and counter attack. EDIT: Also, can you put a HEAT warhead in an active radar guided AShM? Would the radar get in the way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I think anti ship missiles generally go for being absurdly fast and powerful rather than fancy warheads, slower ones are easier to intercept with CIWS. I think generally they have armored heads to punch through the hull/deck and resist interception, and a lot of explosives in them to wreck whatever they hit. As you need it to go very fast anyway, it makes sense to make it heavy and rely on kinetic impact to penetrate, rather than the major benefit of HEAT warheads which is that they work whatever speed they're going at, which is why they are popular for RPGs.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Modern ships also don't really have a lot of armor to get through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Modern ships also don't really have a lot of armor to get through. Now, if Trump gets his way and we start cranking out new/reactivating old battleships on the other hand... E: I wonder how well an Iowa would do against a modern AShM. My first instinct says "snapped in half like a twig" but they DID have a lot of armor. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Now, if Trump gets his way and we start cranking out new/reactivating old battleships on the other hand... We have gotten orders of magnitude better at chemical explosives since the battleship era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Depends if they still make modern AShMs with nuclear warheads on them. For when you want to wipe out an entire carrier group with one shot. Like there's not much defence against a nuclear missile, or a missile with 1 tonne of high explosives dropping 25km at mach 4 straight onto your ship. Anti ship missiles got serious in the cold war. In the event of a major war, basically everything's hosed. Hope the other guy gets hosed first. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends if they still make modern AShMs with nuclear warheads on them. For when you want to wipe out an entire carrier group with one shot. *googles "who is USA president"* nuts
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Just got a pile of 8 Panzertract books and holy poo poo these things are in-depth... Expensive, but really good reads... if you like very dry/technical stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do you think the huge increase in the lethality of modern artillery is going to make battles more fluid? Back in my day in the infantry I spent, uh, a lot of time digging holes in the ground, but it wouldn't have done me much good against fuel air explosives and drone spotters. I feel like the only way for infantry to survive on the modern battlefield is to keep moving in smaller formations. I think I see a lot of this kind of thing in Syria right now, once the battle starts taking off in a sector, things move quite quickly, because the infantry holding positions just can't hold them for long with all the modern firepower being arrayed against them, so all they can do is withdraw and counter attack. Digging holes is still a pretty effective way to avoid both boom and being seen, but the problem is that holes can't be moved very quickly cross country. The general trends we've been seeing so far are much, much more dispersed formations, more movement, more focus on counter-recon/ISR, and a whole lot more emphasis on counterfire. I'm not sure if "fluid" is the right word as all of this stuff actually tends to make things run a lot less smoothly, but certainly it is a good bet that more movement over greater distances will be a pretty consistent feature. Crazycryodude posted:E: I wonder how well an Iowa would do against a modern AShM. My first instinct says "snapped in half like a twig" but they DID have a lot of armor. Most contemporary ASCMs have significantly less destructive power than even a late WWI era battleship gun, so with what is in current inventories you'd have a very difficult time defeating the armor of an Iowa. You could blow up all the unarmored stuff and start a bunch of fires though. Note: this does not apply to a handful of monster ASCMs like the Kh-22 or the P-500, though they still probably wouldn't break an Iowa in half at least on the first hit. Also: anti ship missiles do have shaped charges; they aren't quite like HEAT warheads but they do operate on the same principle (that is: focus the boom in one specific direction), in this case to penetrate as much of the ship's internals as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
I guarantee the moment we bring the Iowas back in service, within 6 months there'll be a missile that can one hit kill them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Digging holes is still a pretty effective way to avoid both boom and being seen, but the problem is that holes can't be moved very quickly cross country. The general trends we've been seeing so far are much, much more dispersed formations, more movement, more focus on counter-recon/ISR, and a whole lot more emphasis on counterfire. I'm not sure if "fluid" is the right word as all of this stuff actually tends to make things run a lot less smoothly, but certainly it is a good bet that more movement over greater distances will be a pretty consistent feature. It's really only a cosmetic similarity, but I'm amused that the first thing this reminded me of was actually WWI. Maybe I've been watching the Great Goon War a little too closely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Wouldn't a sea-skimming nuclear armed ASCM basically be immune to most shipboard defenses? It can just initiate beyond the range of the CIWS and basically guarantee a mission kill at the very least right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Wouldn't a sea-skimming nuclear armed ASCM basically be immune to most shipboard defenses? It can just initiate beyond the range of the CIWS and basically guarantee a mission kill at the very least right? Using Nukes is considered cheating in war by most of the world, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Wouldn't a sea-skimming nuclear armed ASCM basically be immune to most shipboard defenses? It can just initiate beyond the range of the CIWS and basically guarantee a mission kill at the very least right? Yes but detonating a nuke underwater is some Samson poo poo because all the water that comes up will be stupidly radioactive and so will a significant amount of any wreckage. Nukes are good at destroying poo poo but real good at making vast swathes of terrain highly hazardous to traverse unless you're airbursting high enough to avoid significant fallout. Which y'ain't doing with a nuke that explodes underwater, presumably near or beneath a ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Digging holes is still a pretty effective way to avoid both boom and being seen, but the problem is that holes can't be moved very quickly cross country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Has anyone posted about the Gunboat War between Denmark and Britain during the Napoleonic Wars?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Does anyone still practice sapping these days? Mole manning under the battlefield to avoid detection and destruction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
is syria recent enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Fh8Afn0fw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH2QDOMhCRw
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yeah, but the American Civil War happened 150 years ago, and after Reconstruction the South pretty much went back to being a place where everyone (white, anyway) thought the Confederacy was in the right. The Spanish one is in living memory, and don't forget Spain only stopped being a literal dictatorship like 40 years ago. Everyone's gonna have a granddad or similar family member who was executed or did the executing, got shot or did the shooting, everyone's gonna have some oldie living in their family who thinks morals were better and youngsters were more respectful and the trains ran on time when the Caudillo was still around in the 70s, and the descendants of both sides are all living together, and I guess for a lot of people the best way to keep living together is to never bring that poo poo up. Going to Barcelona for organizing stuff, my friend met a really old anarchist pensioner, who carried a gold-plated circle-A around her neck like she was Flava Flav or something  Rockopolis posted:Does anyone still practice sapping these days? Mole manning under the battlefield to avoid detection and destruction? HEY GAIL posted:is vietnam recent enough My dudes, they're doing it in SYRIA. TW: People dying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Fh8Afn0fw E: f,b Tias fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Do we actually have any realistic estimates on how a carrier group would fare in a nuclear conflict or at least a conventional war with a peerish nation? Operation Crossroads is an encouraging sign but that was a hot second ago. Suppose the USN won't let us know for two hot seconds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Do we actually have any realistic estimates on how a carrier group would fare in a nuclear conflict or at least a conventional war with a peerish nation? Operation Crossroads is an encouraging sign but that was a hot second ago. The carrier group would die horribly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Not necessarily. They disperse a lot even in normal ops and boats are a lot more resilient wrt: nukes than cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Huh, in retrospect Vietnam was obvious. Didn't know about Syria, through. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Does anyone still practice sapping these days? Mole manning under the battlefield to avoid detection and destruction? FUNNY YOU ASK, my very last meeting at my job this week was talking about "subterranean warfare", which some expert on subterranean warfare predicts will become the new blitzkrieg. ...that is obviously an overstatement but underground stuff does seem to be expanding pretty rapidly. The biggest reason is combat moving into cities - cities have a whole lot of underground passages and that provides a very useful potential avenue for maneuver. It isn't really combat engineering in the traditional sense and no one in the US at least has any idea what to do in that kind of environment so it will likely become a big capability development area in the next few years. There are also about a zillion tunnels and things on the Korean peninsula so people have been predicting giant underground battles there for years. Also I thought that the nuke tests on ships didn't do nearly as much damage as they thought it would but I could be misremembering that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:FUNNY YOU ASK, my very last meeting at my job this week was talking about "subterranean warfare", which some expert on subterranean warfare predicts will become the new blitzkrieg. I think I posted about the siege of Candia in the last thread, subterranean warfare was pretty big there. To quote: quote:
I cannot imagine how nasty a subterranean war would get nowadays. Or it's just robots duking it out instead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
nuke tests didn't tend to sink ships because they mostly did damage above the waterline, but there's quite a lot of ground between 'sunk' and 'capable of continuing to operate'
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:26
|
|
