|
All I can see is Trump's hairpiece photoshopped onto a pony.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I remember reading that 2nd World War veterans being utterly shaken by the destruction and death that they witnessed in the Korean war. That is just a scary thought the more you think about it. Yeah, reading about it now, the toll of it is pretty shocking considering how little we think of it in popular memory (compared to the two wars that sandwich it). And I hadn’t even got to the part about civilian casualties yet, that’s astounding
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know, but considering many urban centres( including Pyongyang!) lost between 50 and 90% of their buildings, it would assume - without knowing - that larger dams would have eaten a bomb or nine. Seoul was almost totally destroyed. There are very few buildings there that date from before 1950. Berlin looks like a well maintained UNESCO site in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Seoul was almost totally destroyed. There are very few buildings there that date from before 1950. Berlin looks like a well maintained UNESCO site in comparison. berlin's bullet holes own
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:berlin's bullet holes own They're finally getting around to removing and patching most of them. I was really bummed when I saw that the buildings around the Pergamon were getting "fixed." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Bullshit stories are sadly very common. My favorite story is the one were French soldiers during the 7 Years War terrorize a German village, and get their comeuppance after they find a wine cellar. They just excitedly open all the barrels and drink and drink and drink Was listening to Chapo today and Matt Crispin explained that US war against Iran would be a suicide because Millenium Challenge, and made it sound like the military declared shenanigans because they didn't like the results. If anyone has the rebuttal/explanation links handy, I'd appreciate those so I could post those angrily on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Was listening to Chapo today and Matt Crispin explained that US war against Iran would be a suicide because Millenium Challenge, and made it sound like the military declared shenanigans because they didn't like the results. If anyone has the rebuttal/explanation links handy, I'd appreciate those so I could post those angrily on twitter. Counterpoint One: motorcycle couriers dont travel at light speed and dont always reach their destination
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Was listening to Chapo today and Matt Crispin explained that US war against Iran would be a suicide because Millenium Challenge, and made it sound like the military declared shenanigans because they didn't like the results. If anyone has the rebuttal/explanation links handy, I'd appreciate those so I could post those angrily on twitter. Counter point 2: A Fleet of small fishing boats packing enough anti ship missiles to overcome CIWS are not magically invisible to radar and probably couldn't mount them either. Chillyrabbit fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Something I'm curious about: How do these large scale real-life exercises work? Do you have blanks/dummy rounds you can use to indicate that you've successfully milan'd a red team tank, or something? Or do you just have one guy go "I reckon I shot that guy" and the ref sends him a call to say "Hey, you got shot, yer out"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
And as far as the wine-cellar anecdote goes...knowing soldiers, it makes sense to assume that that scenario would show up in urban legends from multiple wars, whether as self-congratulatory ("our enemies drink and plunder, unlike Our Boys") or as rueful ("our boys sure do drink and plunder, don't they?")
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:They're finally getting around to removing and patching most of them. I was really bummed when I saw that the buildings around the Pergamon were getting "fixed." There's a train car on display in Sevastopol that is more bullet holes than metal. All the buildings around it were renovated, but the car stands where it was left in 1942.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
How did Jade Helm go anyways? Did all the conspiracy theories around it render it useless?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Something I'm curious about : How do these large scale real-life exercises work? Do you have blanks/dummy rounds you can use to indicate that you've successfully milan'd a red team tank, or something? Or do you just have one guy go "I reckon I shot that guy" and the ref sends him a call to say "Hey, you got shot, yer out"? I would assume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integrated_laser_engagement_system (Basically laser tag on steroids)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I would assume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integrated_laser_engagement_system Huh, that's been around far longer than I expected. How'd it go prior to laser-tag? I'm aware there were US exercises around the start of WW2 "proving" tank destroyer doctrine, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:All I can see is Trump's hairpiece photoshopped onto a pony. Oddly fond of skinheads, for he is such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Something I'm curious about : How do these large scale real-life exercises work? Do you have blanks/dummy rounds you can use to indicate that you've successfully milan'd a red team tank, or something? Or do you just have one guy go "I reckon I shot that guy" and the ref sends him a call to say "Hey, you got shot, yer out"? It depends on the exercise. On the lower tactical level at places like NTC, it's basically adult laser tag. Tanks and dudes run around shooting each other with fake bullets, occasionally there's air support, and judges drive around telling people they're dead.* For larger scale exercises, there's a bit more abstraction depending on what the force is trying to achieve. Before World War II, for instance, the US Navy ran annual Fleet Problem exercises that were instrumental in developing the carrier tactics that the US would ultimately use against Japan. In those exercises, the carriers would launch strikes, they'd try to find the 'enemy' fleet, and judges would determine the effects of the strike, and which ships would count as sunk. The thing to remember, however, is that large scale exercises are about more than just sailing two flyers at each other, rolling some dice, and deciding who 'wins'-because you can do that much more easily and cheaply on a folding table at the Naval War College. The greater purpose of these kinds of exercise are to train units and commanders on large-scale operations and coordination, as well as evaluating your own force for deficiencies in your logistics and planning arms. Let's say, for instance, you're planning a wargame to do a mock opposed naval landing. Amphibious operations are and have always been amongst the most complex military manuvers, since they require intense cooperation and are very easy to gently caress up. Now in this hypothetical operation, let's suppose that you've got a series of airstrikes planned to knock out enemy shore defenses. Except, whoops-the commander playing the enemy was clever, hid a bunch of anti-ship missles in map areas that weren't detected and hit by the mock strikes, and the judges have ruled all your amphibious assault ships are now burning hulks just a couple miles offshore. So what do you do? You note the result, refloat the ships, and continue the operation. Sure, you got a bad result, and that's part of the reason why you do these operations-to discover deficiencies in your operational planning and strategy. But if you adhere to those results and cancel the rest of the exercise, you're wasting not only time and money, but the opportunity to evaluate the rest of your forces, as well as valuable practice and training in large-scale operations. And hey, maybe something else will go horribly wrong-but it's better for something to go wrong in practice rather than during an actual combat operation. *Edit: a fun example I posted from earlier in the thread: Acebuckeye13 posted:So my friend is an Abrams gunner and apparently he had quite the exercise last night: Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
A horse with a shaved head would freak me right the gently caress out, thinking about it now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Was listening to Chapo today and Matt Crispin explained that US war against Iran would be a suicide because Millenium Challenge, and made it sound like the military declared shenanigans because they didn't like the results. If anyone has the rebuttal/explanation links handy, I'd appreciate those so I could post those angrily on twitter. I'm not really sure why that particular exercise has had such long legs. Shrug. The first thing you have to understand with modern wargaming and experimentation is that the point is neither to "win", nor is it to validate the extraordinary martial awesomeness of American combined arms. The point is to get at specific training or capability development objectives. As a result, the military calls "shenanigans" in just about every exercise that happens, ever. Prior to the exercise, you establish certain training or experimentation objectives. If the exercise or experiment doesn't proceed in such a way that these objectives can be met, directors will stop things, reset everything or set it up differently, and then proceed with the exercise. Example: you're doing an exercise in the Baltics. One of the objectives is testing NATO artillery vs Russian artillery. During the first run of the experiment, all the NATO artillery gets blown up by SS-26s and BM-30s while still in the staging area. This makes testing artillery impossible, so...let's take note of what happened, ensure that we record it as a serious capability gap, reset, redeploy, and get at that artillery learning objective. If this gets publically reported though, it often comes out as "shenanigans", like the army is trying to cheat in order to win, or something along those lines. The millennium challenge thing was exactly this kind of deal... except the threat commander did a bunch of very unrealistic gamey things that kind of derailed the whole exercise. It has since become an iconic example of how NOT to be a threat commander: you want to be challenging and adaptive and creative, but you don't want to be unrealistic. spectralent posted:Something I'm curious about : How do these large scale real-life exercises work? Do you have blanks/dummy rounds you can use to indicate that you've successfully milan'd a red team tank, or something? Or do you just have one guy go "I reckon I shot that guy" and the ref sends him a call to say "Hey, you got shot, yer out"? It depends on the size of the exercise or experiment. Actual maneuver training with guys on the ground happens at places like the CTCs. The biggest live training facility is the NTC, and it can fit two brigades fighting one another. They use MILES and other stuff to score "kinetic" kills, and it is actually really realistic considering the limitations of the gear and the terrain. Anyt training or experiment involving a headquarters larger than a brigade is done digitally, using a variety of incredibly sophisticated and non-user-friendly programs that are usually not very interoperable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:A horse with a shaved head would freak me right the gently caress out, thinking about it now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
An Iranian invasion would definitely be a disaster to the US but not because of the millenium challenge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 26th Nov 1917 posted:VIERSTRAAT. The battalion was relieved in the line by the 4th. Bn. Middlesex Regiment at dusk. Relief complete by 6-40 p.m. and the Battalion withdrew into Support Area at Ridgewood Camp. Nissen hut, for anyone who hasn't heard of them before. A famous example of one is The Italian Chapel in the Orkneys from WWII. Ridge Wood is SW of Ypres, about 2/3 of the way to Kemmel, and about 5 miles due West of where the front line positions were. No matter how bad the facilities were it's got to be better than sitting in a shell hole outpost. The battalion was in the front line for around 8 days, which seems to about be the typical duration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Has there ever actually been a legitimate 'upset' in military exercises like Millennium Challenge supposedly was?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:why did you do this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm not really sure why that particular exercise has had such long legs. Shrug. The red force commander also abused the modeling software for the engagement to basically glitch his fast boats to point blank range on the CVBG. I did a small post on it either here or in the Cold War thread a week or so ago with a few links if anyone feels like digging that up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Has there ever actually been a legitimate 'upset' in military exercises like Millennium Challenge supposedly was? If by "upset" you mean, US/NATO/allies lose: I've participated/planned probably 50 exercises and experiments and I can think of maybe three where blue "won" without some sort of reset or other such intervention. If you think about it, the military is really incentivized to NOT win this sorts of things, as losing better illustrates capability gaps, which in turn feeds the furnace of needing "more stuff".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The millennium challenge thing was exactly this kind of deal... except the threat commander did a bunch of very unrealistic gamey things that kind of derailed the whole exercise. It has since become an iconic example of how NOT to be a threat commander: you want to be challenging and adaptive and creative, but you don't want to be unrealistic. Basically the long term takeaway is that Millennium Challenge is a textbook example of how not to run a red teamed exercise all around, and that there's pretty limited operational information to be gleaned from it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:If by "upset" you mean, US/NATO/allies lose: I've participated/planned probably 50 exercises and experiments and I can think of maybe three where blue "won" without some sort of reset or other such intervention. If you think about it, the military is really incentivized to NOT win this sorts of things, as losing better illustrates capability gaps, which in turn feeds the furnace of needing "more stuff". How many of the failures were due to over reliance on network connectivity? The modern Army relies so heavily on Internet access that I don't believe it could actually function without it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:How many of the failures were due to over reliance on network connectivity? The modern Army relies so heavily on Internet access that I don't believe it could actually function without it. This can rapidly get classified so I'll be really broad, but, the main reasons blue tends to lose these things are 1) runs out of ammo, 2) electronic warfare, and 3) important fragile things get blown up. Network stuff is actually usually very reliable and difficult to interdict; it is a very mature technology that can be hardwired, so there are a lot of softer things to go after.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
what in the poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Genetic abnormality called Naked Foal Syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Nah it's what you get when you inject hairless cat genes into a horse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:berlin's bullet holes own The best part about Pearl Harbor is a lot of the buildings still have bullet holes from the attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Genetic abnormality called Naked Foal Syndrome. Unfortunate. quote:Naked Foal Syndrome (NFS) is a recessive hereditary disorder, so far only known in the Akhal-Teke horse breed. Affected foals are born hairless, or with only very few remaining hairs. These foals suffer from diverse weaknesses, and usually die within weeks or months. Some rare cases have survived up to two and a half years of age due to intensive care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This can rapidly get classified so I'll be really broad, but, the main reasons blue tends to lose these things are 1) runs out of ammo, 2) electronic warfare, and 3) important fragile things get blown up. Network stuff is actually usually very reliable and difficult to interdict; it is a very mature technology that can be hardwired, so there are a lot of softer things to go after. Interesting. I suppose if you are training something closer to day 1 of OIF 1 versus the day 163 of OIF 08 it will make a difference on how things are connected. As it sits right now, things are mature, but fighting ISIL, or AQI, or the Taliban isn't preparing us for something like fighting North Korea or Iran. Like, I'm thinking the guys who invaded Iraq in 03 didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether a particular powerpoint slide had the correct font, or matched the rest of the slide show's template. Thinking through it, we do run our wars the way we run our training exercises. I'm just not sure our training is preparing us for the fights to come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Like, I'm thinking the guys who invaded Iraq in 03 didn't spend a lot of time worrying about whether a particular powerpoint slide had the correct font, or matched the rest of the slide show's template. From what I read in Fiasco EVERYTHING involving the invasion was done on Powerpoint. The people at the top were obsessed with Powerpoint and basically required everything to be delivered and briefed in Powerpoint. This ranged everywhere from in-depth and detailed invasion plans to reconstruction being an 8-page Powerpoint presentation that was very broad and had no details. Obviously the military guys on the ground didn't give a gently caress about Powerpoint but what they did and how they were going to do it was explained to Rumsfeld and Brenner in Powerpoint. As much as I'm really loving this book it is absolutely INFURIATING how ad-hoc so much of this was. I haven't read a lot of military histories but I'm assuming any book that makes you set it down and push it away in disgust is a good military history book. SimonCat posted:Thinking through it, we do run our wars the way we run our training exercises. I'm just not sure our training is preparing us for the fights to come. As far as I'm aware this is very true and a big concern in the military. COIN operations do not mesh well with large scale conventional wars and vice versa. Its why so many mistakes were made in both Iraq and Afghanistan when it came to fighting an insurgency. The military was so ashamed of what happened in Vietnam and did not want to go back to it that they threw away all the knowledge about COIN they learned and had to learn it all over again. limp_cheese fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
How was (was?) the first Gulf War different? I was pretty young at the time so I don't remember much of it, but it seemed like we left relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How was (was?) the first Gulf War different? I was pretty young at the time so I don't remember much of it, but it seemed like we left relatively quickly. That was mostly because we were driving back an attacking force whilst never actually toppling any governments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
limp_cheese posted:As much as I'm really loving this book it is absolutely INFURIATING how ad-hoc so much of this was. I haven't read a lot of military histories but I'm assuming any book that makes you set it down and push it away in disgust is a good military history book. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How was (was?) the first Gulf War different? I was pretty young at the time so I don't remember much of it, but it seemed like we left relatively quickly. GW1 began and ended with protecting Saudi Arabia and ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. I think a lot of the higher-ups in the US wanted to push on to take Baghdad and remove Saddam, but there was effectively no support for that in the UN or especially our (non-Israeli) regional allies. Since it was ultimately a UN operation and we were relying on those regional allies for a ton of support and logistics, we probably couldn't have gone it alone very effectively if we tried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
That didn't deter the US from encouraging an uprising with the promise of support, then withholding it. Just another gently caress up.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:54
|
|
