|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely. Is a population of. 5.7 million going to have enough volunteers to fill out a military? Small countries can have bad problems with that. Larger nations need proportionally much less of their population in uniform to have a credible force.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely. The SAF was heavily influenced by the IDF during its adolescence, so a lot of that structure/strategy can be directly traced back to trying to mirror how the IDF did things. Basically, if you're a nation of that size and you want to build a military that is a credible deterrent against a big kid, you have to either spend a TON of money or rely on national service. Or both. That being said, the SAF is just starting on a huge modernization program so there's always a chance they drop the service by requirement model and pursue a smaller but more cost-per-man model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely. They do, if they live near potentially hostile larger countries. Most European countries stopped conscripting after the Cold War, but some have started it again after the modern Crimean War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
The weevils seem like they would improve the nutritional content of hardtack by converting some of the carbs to brotein e: probably you're getting plenty salt pork tho so it's unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The weevils seem like they would improve the nutritional content of hardtack by converting some of the carbs to protein Forget the salt pork unless you have a requirement for authenticity, this keeps fine: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B008TSVXWE/
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I feel like this is a constant of naval firepower outpacing land firepower. I feel like I read somewhere that even as an artillery specialist who massed cannon firepower Napoleon's Grand Army at like Austerlitz had a lower weight of fire or at least was comparable to like the Victory. More guns, but they were smaller pieces. Victory had more guns than the Grand Army, but land firepower could be greater still in fortresses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely. I mean I imagine that even in a poo poo goes sideways moment most wouldn't go into combat arms. There's a whole lot of poo poo they could do to help out. Firefighting, repairing communications crap, paramedics, repairing damaged infrastructure type of poo poo. Hell just keeping enough police presence so people don't resort to looting any food they can find
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Given the number of countries whose long term defence plans consist of "hold out until the US arrives", I've always wondered looking at it from the other side, how many of those countries the US has ever planned to actually defend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Yea, I get why Singapore has a army in general. What I don't get is why they have a mass conscript force in the 21st century, with a full 2 years of training, yearly call up periods for reservist training, etc. That's not really a capability any nation needs for 21st century warfare, surely. When every buildings can be a fortress having a bunch of partially trained light infantry equivalents might not be so bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Given the number of countries whose long term defence plans consist of "hold out until the US arrives", I've always wondered looking at it from the other side, how many of those countries the US has ever planned to actually defend. Singpore might actually be one
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Arrinien posted:Given the number of countries whose long term defence plans consist of "hold out until the US arrives", I've always wondered looking at it from the other side, how many of those countries the US has ever planned to actually defend. I mean if they'll protect South Vietnam, there's hope for everyone!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Arrinien posted:Given the number of countries whose long term defence plans consist of "hold out until the US arrives", I've always wondered looking at it from the other side, how many of those countries the US has ever planned to actually defend. We always called this the "Moldova Conundrum" or the "Albania Problem" or something similar. Like, the US has no particular strategic interest in either Moldova or Albania, and it really isn't a proportional response to start WWIII if either country is violated in some way. Yet, they're full NATO members, and if they invoke Art V, that means all hands have to go to the mat. If you ignore Art V, then NATO basically doesn't exist, but it is almost certainly not in anyone's best interest to go whole hog to protect the independence of Moldova, at least in the short term (note: this probably includes Moldovans). So the follow up question then, is ...does Russia or whomever know this? Are they willing to test it? And if they are, does that not invalidate whole purpose of NATO as a deterrent? Anyway I don't have any actual thoughts on this matter, I just enjoy that thought experiment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
if the US has no compelling strategic interests in Moldova defense why is it in a defensive alliance with Moldova? I feel like this is a strategic conundrum that could have been avoided. . .
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Is a population of. 5.7 million going to have enough volunteers to fill out a military? This and not being in NATO is the reason why Finland is sticking with conscription at least. That and the long east border - a small standing army with no reserves to call is not going to cover all of this area if poo poo hits the Finn. Now, Singapore is a bit different in this regard because of how small the area is, but I think conscription also serves another purpose: it creates in population uniformity that might not otherwise exist and allows an opportunity to patriotic indoctrination in young men. And at a time of civil trouble you can call up the reserves to keep a closer eye on them. This might be handy in a country like Singapore with potential for ethnic or religious conflicts. If you're bold/crazy you could even stretch conscription for more than that. In May 1950 Finnish railroad engine drivers went to strike over pensions. Prime Minister Kekkonen decided to use the conscription law to bust the strike by calling the engine drivers to military rehearsals in which they would be under an army officer's command and drive their engines in army uniform. Many drivers never showed up as ordered. The ones that did refused to work. Strikers were called for police interrogations but they didn't show up. A week after the strike had started the government and the union had settled the conflict and no strikers were prosecuted for breaking the conscription law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:- a small standing army with no reserves to call is not going to cover all of this area if poo poo hits the Finn. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:One of the less well known aspects of Normandy was the 21st Panzer getting ripped apart by naval gunfire trying to attack the landing beaches- Rommel's idea of swift counterattacks on beachheads really wasn't the impressive countermeasure to a well-planned amphibious op that it tends to get portrayed as. How was the gunfire getting called in? Was it planes or were the men on the ground directing fire for the guns? I guess I'm curious how much that tactic relied on having aerial dominance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:if the US has no compelling strategic interests in Moldova defense why is it in a defensive alliance with Moldova? I feel like this is a strategic conundrum that could have been avoided. . . Back when warsaw pact was a thing joining NATO was ”Yes I would like to be your airbase against communism” check-in-the-box. The other tricky part are countries that you dont want on your alliance, but you sure as hell dont want helping your opponent either and they know it: looking at you, Erdogan&Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
Carillon posted:How was the gunfire getting called in? Was it planes or were the men on the ground directing fire for the guns? I guess I'm curious how much that tactic relied on having aerial dominance. I dimly remember reading about this tactic being used in the Pacific theater, and as I recall it was men on the ground signalling the ships. I don't know if they used radios or flags or what, and apparently it took a bit of practice to get the process down, but was quite effective once they did. I think the antitank fire at Normandy was more on the naval officers' initiative, like, "we have all these guns, and there's those tanks over there...why don't we shoot the tanks with our guns?" But again, dim memories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Destroyers probably did the lion's share of support work on D-Day, at least all the poo poo that actually worked. Maybe a few cruisers as well. There was a designated fire plan to support the invasion (eg your ship takes station here and fires in to box X aiming at these key points). There were also a lot of USN signal parties ashore, communicating with the ships by radio. When DDs lost contact with shore parties, they just kinda blasted stuff within their firing zone that looked enticing. Several ships used tanks and mortars ashore to identify targets, and then shot at whatever the tank/mortar was shooting at. The mechanics aren't dependent on air superiority other than the fact that without local aerial supremacy you don't park a poo poo ton of ships next to the beach. In fact, I highly doubt that any of the larger allied ships launched spotter aircraft. The air over the beaches was too busy and the radio nets were too saturated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:One has to understand that the scale of thinking in 1930s/1940s old Europe is just completely different from US and USSR. For old European powers the british empire and french tank building on 1930s of few hundreds built on few very cottage-workshop style plants is the example of industrial-scale war output. 1920-1939 US has stayed in isolationism policy, so there has been zero indication on what the US capabilities in reality are. I thought your post was very good and interesting, so let me demonstrate this by raising a contrarian pinky at the one bit I disagree with. Actually I should say you might be right about Brit/French tank production, I just want to bring up that mass production was not a total unknown in Europe. In fact, much like in the late 90s outsourcing was seen as something close to literal magic, Fordist style mass production was seen in Europe in the 1920s and '30s as economic magic - something that if mastered could square the circle of economic and material difficulties. Of course, you're right in saying that the actual adoption of all these practices was the key - the Soviets learned them while Germany by in large didn't. Still, Nazi Germany (and other Euro nations) thought mass production extremely important - and actually had many plans and ideas to seek greater efficiencies. One bright idea floated by Goering the weekend before the war started was reducing combat types to just four: the Bf 109, the Ju 88, the Me 210, and the He 177. [Huh, there is that management problem again.] A hilarious extreme was the [late war, never implemented] plan to solve all German armor supply problems by producing a new E series of tanks/armor that used completely standardized parts, so the parts of a 15 ton tankette would work on a 100 ton supertank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:Whatever happens, it'd probably be even harder for the invaders to bring their tanks. Like said repeatedly above, and I misquote: "any tank is better than no tank". I'm watching that netflix series on the Waco branch dividian siege and I now understand why the ATF/FBI brought in tanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i'm imagining more italian city-states surviving to the present than did in real life and doing something similar, everyone timesharing their tanks in like, north dakota or something Honestly, this is Canada. Typically we have more foreign soldiers training in our vast open spaces than we have soldiers ourselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Destroyers probably did the lion's share of support work on D-Day, at least all the poo poo that actually worked. Maybe a few cruisers as well. There was a designated fire plan to support the invasion (eg your ship takes station here and fires in to box X aiming at these key points). There were also a lot of USN signal parties ashore, communicating with the ships by radio. When DDs lost contact with shore parties, they just kinda blasted stuff within their firing zone that looked enticing. Several ships used tanks and mortars ashore to identify targets, and then shot at whatever the tank/mortar was shooting at. I don't know specifically about the naval artillery loving up armored units but the BBs were firing on the beaches for quite a while. One of them (Texas I think?) went so far as to flood some fuel bladders on her seeward side to give the ship a few degrees of list, elevate the guns that extra little bit, and get an little bit of range so she could support the advancing troops for an extra day or so. Another thing to remember about the armored units is that you don't need to drop a 16" shell on top of a tank to take it out of action. Just landing ordinance of that size anywhere near it is going to do a number to tracks, radios, exterior equipment, etc. and even if the tank itself is fine if you chop up the supporting infantry you can break up the attack and force it to go back home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Destroyers probably did the lion's share of support work on D-Day, at least all the poo poo that actually worked. Maybe a few cruisers as well. There was a designated fire plan to support the invasion (eg your ship takes station here and fires in to box X aiming at these key points). There were also a lot of USN signal parties ashore, communicating with the ships by radio. Um probably not just USN.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
I remember very distinctly from the Omaha Beach map in Battlefield 1942 that the U.S had a Fletcher-class destroyer (until someone inevitably drove it off the map edge).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:This and not being in NATO is the reason why Finland is sticking with conscription at least. That and the long east border - a small standing army with no reserves to call is not going to cover all of this area if poo poo hits the Finn. I had a Singaporean coworker who did his conscription in the police. He said that almost the entire police force got suited up in riot gear in preparation for some G20 summit. But there wasn't any actual danger, so they just stood for hours in the tropical heat protecting it from nothing. Afterwards, he said that he and his buddies went across the Malaysian border to go to a strip club. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Destroyers probably did the lion's share of support work on D-Day, at least all the poo poo that actually worked. Maybe a few cruisers as well. There was a designated fire plan to support the invasion (eg your ship takes station here and fires in to box X aiming at these key points). There were also a lot of USN signal parties ashore, communicating with the ships by radio. When DDs lost contact with shore parties, they just kinda blasted stuff within their firing zone that looked enticing. Several ships used tanks and mortars ashore to identify targets, and then shot at whatever the tank/mortar was shooting at. There were big guns, but they were dedicated to suppressing coastal artillery bunkers, while 5-inch guns were dedicated for the beaches. Like you said, the navy would send signals guys in the landing waves to observe and direct fire. At Omaha, this got all hosed up just like everything else so they had to improvise. On the British beaches, the naval artillery observers were quite helpful, with some of the day 1 beach breakouts succeeding or failing on the account of the observer team staying alive and making their way inland. Kylaer posted:I remember very distinctly from the Omaha Beach map in Battlefield 1942 that the U.S had a Fletcher-class destroyer (until someone inevitably drove it off the map edge). On of the improvisations was yeah, a full destroyer swinging up to the beach and just blasting away everything at close range. A 5-inch gun is a 127mm, which is a decently sized artillery piece that isn't pleasant to experience
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:At Omaha, this got all hosed up. And the close range fire was aided by the few amphibious* tanks on the beach. They had a radio to communicate when that worked and otherwise the destroyer could see which targets they were shooting. Again why, it's good to have a tank. At least it's a radio you can't machine gun. *Some would argue the correct term is submersible based on how many didn't make it to land
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Horatius Bonar posted:And the close range fire was aided by the few amphibious* tanks on the beach. They had a radio to communicate when that worked and otherwise the destroyer could see which targets they were shooting. Again why, it's good to have a tank. At least it's a radio you can't machine gun. So what you're saying is the US tank-destroyer doctrine worked?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:This wasn't just a Nazi thing, Yamamoto's entire plan hinged on being able to bring the entire IJN to bear in one great decisive battle to smash the US Navy before the US could properly mobilize, severely underestimating the American will to fight. And this wasn't some spur of the moment misjudgement, he spent nearly 2 years before Pearl Harbor essentially making sure the IJN would be able to deliver that knockout blow. I mean, it wasn't just Yamamoto though he was certainly a big part of it. It's the lesson Japan the IJN learned from the Battle of Tsushima. Also, everyone tends to underestimate the enemy's will to fight/resist/etc. With Japan, it just feels like a falsehood you have to cling to if you want the empire to survive and prosper. Anything else would be tantamount to admitting that this whole empire thing isn't going to work out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Carillon posted:How was the gunfire getting called in? Was it planes or were the men on the ground directing fire for the guns? I guess I'm curious how much that tactic relied on having aerial dominance. A large part of the gunnery spotting was done by aircraft. Each of the major warships involved in a landing had a spotting aircraft associated with it, in addition to the shore fire control parties. This allowed the ships to fire on targets further inland than the troops had reached. The Royal Navy used two main methods of air spotting. The first, 'ship control', saw the spotter giving information on the fall of shot relative to the target. The gunners on the ship could then walk the shells onto the target. The other, 'air control', had the spotter instruct the gunners onto the target, telling them to aim up, down, left or right, and by how far. Initially, the ships used their own floatplanes for spotting, but experience in the Mediterranean showed that these slow aircraft were far too vulnerable to flak and fighters. For Normandy, the spotters flew fighter aircraft - Fleet Air Arm Seafires and RAF Spitfires and Mustangs. The USN's pilots flew British aircraft too, using Seafires and Spitfires. The FAA pilots were issued with the Franks Flying Suit, an early G-suit, which used water-filled bladders to counteract up to 7.5 gs. Mike Crosley's memoir They Gave Me a Seafire includes a section describing his experiences as one of these pilots. He flew three missions over the beachhead on D-Day, spotting for Warspite, firing on a number of gun batteries and positions inland. The weather on the day was bad, forcing the spotters to low level and making them easy targets for AA. Four FAA aircraft were lost. A bigger threat, though, was friendly fire, either from ships or other Allied aircraft. The air spotters continued operating after D-Day, spotting in support of the attacks on Cherbourg and Caen. By the end of June, they had lost 31 aircraft, in course of flying 2,400 sorties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:On of the improvisations was yeah, a full destroyer swinging up to the beach and just blasting away everything at close range. A 5-inch gun is a 127mm, which is a decently sized artillery piece that isn't pleasant to experience Several US destroyers acknowledged in their own logs coming as close as 1,000 yds of shore, and most observers placed them closer in than even that. Related: On D-day, each fire support ship (of destroyer size and up, at least) had its own dedicated fire-control shore party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I had a Singaporean coworker who did his conscription in the police. He said that almost the entire police force got suited up in riot gear in preparation for some G20 summit. But there wasn't any actual danger, so they just stood for hours in the tropical heat protecting it from nothing. Afterwards, he said that he and his buddies went across the Malaysian border to go to a strip club. Singapore doesn't have strip clubs? Huh
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Horatius Bonar posted:And the close range fire was aided by the few amphibious* tanks on the beach. They had a radio to communicate when that worked and otherwise the destroyer could see which targets they were shooting. Again why, it's good to have a tank. At least it's a radio you can't machine gun. Most of them did make it, it's just that the ones at Omaha beach didn't. Just another example of something going wrong at Omaha. It seems to me that the 741st Tank Battalion just launched its DD tanks way too far from the beach, and so the deep swells hosed up the tanks. The unit got a Presidential Unit Citation for this, which is iffy
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:So what you're saying is the US tank-destroyer doctrine worked?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Most of them did make it, it's just that the ones at Omaha beach didn't. Just another example of something going wrong at Omaha. Yes I was quick and dirty - most of them made it, especially on other beaches, one unit launched too far out and got swamped at Omaha. Nenonen posted:So what you're saying is the US tank-destroyer doctrine worked?! Hahah. poo poo. This should have a presidential unit citation goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Most of them did make it, it's just that the ones at Omaha beach didn't. Just another example of something going wrong at Omaha. Still not as iffy as Admiral Kidd's Pearl Harbor MOH, which was basically a participation trophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Singapore doesn't have strip clubs? Huh Stripping in Singapore? Oh you better believe that's a paddlin' Unrelated to anything else, and probably of no interest to anyone but me, The UN recently released an article about the kaleidoscope of militias jockeying for power in modern Somalia. You can read the summary at brookings, which includes a link to the full 40 some page piece. I haven't finished it yet but I'm sure I will sometime this week if not this evening. tl;dr, dear god stop giving the psychotic mafioso and ethnic gangs guns and money
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Still not as iffy as Admiral Kidd's Pearl Harbor MOH, which was basically a participation trophy. Well, if we start talking of iffy medal of honor citations the twenty MOH’s awarded from wounded knee massacre - mostly just for ”bravery” or ”directing fire” - win the cake..
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
On the subject of Nazi "efficiency", my new Bond thread just dealt with an author who actually seems to have bought into the myth about the Nazis being well-equipped, fanatical, efficient, and just barely beaten thanks to Allied economic power and tenacity. The mission he chose to display the might of the Nazi war machine? A Werwolf unit armed with Tiger IIs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:54
|
|
