|
Z the IVth posted:But think of the TBI for the poor guardsmen! Guardsmen don’t last long enough for that to be an issue.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 17:38 |
|
The TBI makes them warp sensitive though
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:41 |
|
https://twitter.com/Jamie04381095/status/1765700627936444887 My "we don't need a bridge for the river crossing" t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:45 |
|
it seems like it would be easier to destroy/sabotage a ferry than to do the same to a bridge
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:47 |
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:it seems like it would be easier to destroy/sabotage a ferry than to do the same to a bridge the bigger problem is using ferries takes like fifty times as long, ferries are powered vehicles that break down constantly, and because you're moving the ferries back and forth all the time, you have a chance every time to wipe out, ground, hit an obstacle, etc.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:49 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:the bigger problem is using ferries takes like fifty times as long, ferries are powered vehicles that break down constantly, and because you're moving the ferries back and forth all the time, you have a chance every time to wipe out, ground, hit an obstacle, etc. that seems like it would introduce even more opportunities for destruction/sabotage
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:50 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:the bigger problem is using ferries takes like fifty times as long, ferries are powered vehicles that break down constantly, and because you're moving the ferries back and forth all the time, you have a chance every time to wipe out, ground, hit an obstacle, etc. Ferries are the trade of tremendous pain in rear end to use vs like 100 times harder to know precisely where one is and strike it with a munition than bridges, which famously don't move much and are anchored into the ground. If Poland is making a separate argument that tactical, deployable temporary bridging assets are obsolete, well, that's not an idea that I would take seriously....
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 21:55 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Ferries are the trade of tremendous pain in rear end to use vs like 100 times harder to know precisely where one is and strike it with a munition than bridges, which famously don't move much and are anchored into the ground. just make everything amphibious. no bridges or ferries needed!
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:04 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Ferries are the trade of tremendous pain in rear end to use vs like 100 times harder to know precisely where one is and strike it with a munition than bridges, which famously don't move much and are anchored into the ground. ok but the reason why you'd hit a bridge with a missile is primarily because bridges are loving great for moving huge quantities of stuff and non-bridge alternatives both eat and suck rear end the reason why you'd use ferries is never "well they'd hit a bridge with a missile" it's always because you simply aren't able to use a bridge there for one reason or another (eg your bridge was just hit by a missile and indeed maybe all of your bridging units have been hit by missiles since you only had like ten to start with) one more example of western dogbrain seeing a key asset getting attrited and applying magical thinking that it wasnt a good asset to begin with or itd never be attrited in the first place rather than just building more of them
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:05 |
the plot of jules verne's 20000 leagues under the sea, but instead features a t90 that got lost trying deep water fording to cross a river
|
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:08 |
|
bedpan posted:just make everything amphibious. no bridges or ferries needed! this is the ultimate expression of the neoliberal dogbrain: we don't need cheap, proven capabilities that any factory could build (bridging unit), we need invincible amphibious gundams that only general dynamics and lockheed martin can build
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:12 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:ok but the reason why you'd hit a bridge with a missile is primarily because bridges are loving great for moving huge quantities of stuff and non-bridge alternatives both eat and suck rear end I don't install airbags in a car or fire alarms in a building becuase I desire to crash or have the building catch fire. I do those things so that I am prepared if they do. If you think the only reason anyone (including the Russian Army) would practice at moving across waterways is because they dislike the idea of bridges, the dumbass take is yours. You need to practice these things. You don't sit there like some dipshit and when your bridge blows up go "oh, geez... I wish I'd thought of that beforehand." You practice for contingencies. Similarly, you don't practice what it might be like to lose communications because you think easy communications are a bad thing to have...
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:12 |
|
i'm like 90% sure the actual problem is that combat engineers take a lot of time to train for troops and require a lot of elan invested in a role that isn't being an 'operator' and their military and society (like ) isn't up to the task any more so there's no way they could build and maintain bridges under fire hard to simultaneously insult russia as backwards barbarian fools for using shovels and then put together an elite formation that specifically fights with shovels
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:13 |
|
mlmp08 posted:they dislike the idea of bridges, the dumbass take is yours
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:14 |
|
It is possible that this guy is advocating abandoning all bridges and only using ferries. It is also possible that you're taking a line out of context and assuming that practicing for contingency operations is stupid. I think it's the latter. This is a very dumb argument on your part. You don't put ejection seats in an airplane because you think landing on a runway is for dummies. You don't have medical aid for your troops because you like to get injured. You have capabilities in case bad things happen to you. Losing bridges is a bad thing to happen to you!
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
atelier morgan posted:i'm like 90% sure the actual problem is that combat engineers take a lot of time to train for troops and require a lot of elan invested in a role that isn't being an 'operator' and their military and society (like ) isn't up to the task any more so there's no way they could build and maintain bridges under fire you can see this all over the place in western proxy wars that when a key capability gets attrited (either by the enemy, op-tempo, or simple lack of replacement parts or people) the noise machine is spun up to claim that not only is that not a problem it's actually good because the (shittier, more expensive, less capable, pick any or all) fall-back is actually Better in some way
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:17 |
|
mlmp08 posted:I think it's the latter. the professional benefit of the doubt giver has entered the server
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:24 |
|
By reading an article instead of looking at a twitter clip, this is one unit with combined bridge and ferry capability and is not indicative of abandoning bridges. They even highlight that they're a unique unit for wide gap crossings, as opposed to the more standard bridging unit which can only bridge but cannot both bridge and also ferry. I think we can safely say that in this NATO exercise, they didn't decide to say "bridges are no good, I hate them." In fact, these specific vehicles being used for this training can choose to either link up into a bridge, or if the river is too wide, they can be used as ferries instead. But maybe you're right. Maybe the dog brain has forgotten how roads and bridges work and has opted to return to rowboats or something. good example of going in misinformed then using that to confirm your bias based on a twitter clip out of context though.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:26 |
|
mlmp08 posted:By reading an article instead of looking at a twitter clip, this is one unit with combined bridge and ferry capability and is not indicative of abandoning bridges. They even highlight that they're a unique unit for wide gap crossings, as opposed to the more standard bridging unit which can only bridge but cannot both bridge and also ferry. what's the lesson from ukraine lol
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:30 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:this is the ultimate expression of the neoliberal dogbrain: we don't need cheap, proven capabilities that any factory could build (bridging unit), we need invincible amphibious gundams that only general dynamics and lockheed martin can build Actually its sovietbrain lol. Play wargame u will see, the soviets made like everything amphibious. You can get pretty much everything but the tanks amphibious, and they have snorkels
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:32 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:what's the lesson from ukraine lol That you need to practice and organize to be successful for wet gap crossings. Which is less a lesson from Ukraine, and more a constant of warfare since forever, though tactics and tech change.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:34 |
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/Jamie04381095/status/1765700627936444887 It wouldn't actually be training unless they simulated dozens of flying mowers or lancets around the crossing
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 22:39 |
|
mlmp08 posted:That you need to practice and organize to be successful for wet gap crossings. Which is less a lesson from Ukraine, and more a constant of warfare since forever, though tactics and tech change. Let me know when that's the quote and not what the guy actually said
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:23 |
|
Every ferry crossing exercise I've been involved in was a poo poo show, and I can't imagine things have gotten better. By comparison, I've crossed Bailey Bridges laid down in WW2 without incident, and there are tonnes of bridges built by military engineers all over the training area and country - you may drive on some of them regularly.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:31 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Every ferry crossing exercise I've been involved in was a poo poo show, and I can't imagine things have gotten better. Adding "ferries: not even once" to "paratroopers: not even once"
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:32 |
|
Like someone said, the Pontonier tradition has pretty much been extinguished from western militaries in favour of the Assault Engineer, and that's a problem when you need to recruit people into a trade filled with monotonous and backbreaking labour alternating with operations that historically can have up to 90% casualties among some bridge and ferry detachments. At least horizontal or vertical construction you can get a real job when you leave the military. Even then, due to garbage retention, western militaries - Canada led the charge - have deliberately hosed with training so you don't get your red seal and journeyman's ticket as part of the training because too many people were leaving as soon as their first hitch was done (shortly after that) to work in the tar sands or condo boom. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 23:37 on Mar 8, 2024 |
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:35 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:Let me know when that's the quote and not what the guy actually said It is very funny that you think when Russia practices amphibious crossings or tactical bridging, it's wise, but when someone from another country does the exact same training with bridging and amphibious assets, they're obviously just total dumbasses who forgot that roads and bridges exist. I guess in the terrain discussion, this is your hill to die on. Here is the comment from the leadership of the units doing this training instead of an unsourced pull quote from twitter: quote:M3 Rigs are unique; they are four-wheeled vehicles, with all-wheel drive and can be used as single or longer ferries or joined together to form a bridge.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:36 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Like someone said, the Pontonier tradition has pretty much been extinguished from western militaries in favour of the Assault Engineer, and that's a problem when you need to recruit people into a trade filled with monotonous and backbreaking labour alternating with operations that historically can have up to 90% casualties among some bridge and ferry detachments. Anyone got that picture of the ww2 soviet guys with the floaty donut bib and paddle
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:37 |
|
I love the defensive alliance carefully counting the 12 major north south rivers from Western Europe to the Urals, defensively, as you do.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:38 |
|
mlmp08 posted:It is very funny that you think when Russia practices amphibious crossings or tactical bridging drat I must post in my sleep
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:39 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I love the defensive alliance carefully counting the 12 major north south rivers from Western Europe to the Urals, defensively, as you do. military: assault and attack are aggressive and cool, everything is for assault and attack now political: purely defensive capabilities uwu
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:40 |
|
The Oldest Man posted:Adding "ferries: not even once" to "paratroopers: not even once" Military planners are fascinated by the idea of solving logistics by just stranding troops behind enemy lines.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:41 |
|
Bar Crow posted:Military planners are fascinated by the idea of solving logistics by just stranding troops behind enemy lines. Chucklenuts thinks I love Russia but I've started no fewer than three derails in this very thread by making GBS threads on the vdv
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:41 |
|
Pictured: an army conducting training with some ferries as well as a vehicle that can both work as a ferry or a pontoon bridge. I presume this army did this on purpose, and didn't just forget about roads and bridges. https://x.com/RALee85/status/1145011903640539136?s=20 Neat photos though https://x.com/RALee85/status/1145031521742544897?s=20 DJJIB-DJDCT posted:I love the defensive alliance carefully counting the 12 major north south rivers from Western Europe to the Urals, defensively, as you do. They are very careful to say that they would need to cross rivers to restore captured territory, not capture other nations' territory. quote:It is a complex and dangerous operation that is necessary to be able to perform under fire, in order to be able to restore territory and be able to counter-attack adversary forces. my judgment of ability to perform this "under fire" is "doubt" mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 23:48 on Mar 8, 2024 |
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:42 |
|
How much do you want to talk about Soviet bridging and amphibious capabilities? Because you and I both know from the hydrology discussion in the Ukraine thread in the spring of 2022, that the Soviets made sure combat units of battalion size were amphibious but logistics had to follow on by bridge, without exception. Crossing a combat unit and sustaining them are two different things. Add to that the vast majority of NATO vehicles aren't amphibious, even ones that were originally designed to be: DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 23:54 on Mar 8, 2024 |
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:51 |
|
When the scouts look up this hashtag, their comms get scrambled by insidious cyberwarfare
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:52 |
|
Ponies play bridge with horses, to show that they could play other card games with hooved mammals if they wanted to.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:57 |
|
I would love to know how much of this equipment was even maintained after 2001 and is compatible with all of the armour kits and sensors that were tacked on during the GWOT Our LAVs are no longer amphibious, for example, " It all so needs to be water tight (big thing there) it also needs a bilge pump and drainage system, it would need a trim vain, and a boat like hull. It would also need to be designed so that it was evenly balanced when it was buoyant (floating) It would need a steering system for when it was swimming. So to make it amphibious you would need to design it from the ground up to have that capability, which isn't worth the cost compared to the return." "The Canadian LAV III is not amphibious. However, the OEM has done the engineering and prototyping work to build an amphibious variant. " "Our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellers and rudders. Future generations of the AVGP/LAV family did away with the Marine Drives as it was costly to maintain and seldom used. I believe the LAV III design is still capable of floating, if the armour kit and LAV UP, LAV 6.0 was stripped out by REMEs and all openings welded shut, but it has no way to propel itself in the water."
|
# ? Mar 8, 2024 23:59 |
|
Maybe we could figure out a way to airdrop bridges out of C-130s?
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 17:38 |
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:Maybe we could figure out a way to airdrop bridges out of C-130s? Bridge components can be airdropped, I saw some reference to the procedure in a manual somewhere. I don't know how the engineers are supposed to haul them overland by hand, but... you know... Unless the bridges are airborne but the engineers aren't in which case, I suppose you could drop bridges on their position, just like you could sling them by Chinook.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 00:01 |