|
Anyone mind throwing up an effort post or some reading material on the evolution of small unit tactics? Earliest to now.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
So how does NATO actually work as far as chain of command? Lets say for some reason Russia invades Germany during the cold war. How do the NATO countries coordinate? Is it pretty much the nations sign off on a general to head strategic planning?Some sort of council/parliment?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
I saw earlier someone wanted an effort post about freshwater navy stuff. This has also peaked my curiosity as I really don't know much of this stuff. As far as I am aware what you have now is small attack boats right nothing like Iron Clads during the ACW which where heavily armored heavily gunned is this correct? Do countries even have a fresh water navy any more it seems you'd do better with close by airbases and attack helos?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Can someone please explain the history of Military Attack Helo doctrine?In the beginning I assume it was pretty much close air support that could loiter but It seems that with the preponderance of MANPADS.  that Helicopters would be kinda useless and dangerous? And what's stopping some dummy with a SAW or something from just shooting them down in even the best conditions? and if I'm not wrong about their survivability why arent there 1000 variants of the ac130 to provide loitered CAS?
Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
So I've never really wrapped my head around how the cold war numbers end up being really lop sided towards the USSR? Is it because they entertained required conscription? Nato forces too spread out? NATO economic footing was more towards civilian use vs military use? The population of the USSR was just that much bigger and so just as a percentage numbers are higher?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Koesj posted:What numbers? When? And compared to whom? You'll have to be a bit more specific because there are way more narratives here than 'hurr commie hordes'. Armaments ministries and industries run amok, atrophying the civilian economy to keep up with real and perceived threats, and party political considerations about military strength were important factors, but most Western countries ran conscription, high military budgets, and vigilant states of readiness as well. Just pure man power, infantry, tanks, air power. At both the beginning of cold war tensions (about '46) and at the height of tensions between the two sides. The narrative I keep seeing is, "The red horde is gonna pile through the fulda and gently caress errthing up and we gotta nuke em oohrah"  and I was just wondering how the USSR would amass that much in man power to just stomp through Nato defenses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I'd say you've been seeing bottom of the barrel stuff then. Pretty much. My military history knowledge from an actual, "I've read tones of books" perspective only encompasses WW2(surprise). My cold war "knowledge" really is pop culture and two modern history courses which pretty much skimmed basic stuff. Oh and I read a book called WW3(I cant remember the title or author, but it had a weird tag line like" The book president Kennedy kept on his desk") which tried to present a "plausible" WW3 scenario which started with the USSR going through Fulda and ended with them nuking Birmingham England or something, but I ended up writing most of it off as wishful thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Koesj posted:That'd be either Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985, or its rewrite/sequel, The Third World War: The Untold Story. Both books could have hardly been lying around on Kennedy's desk, well, maybe Ted's, but they aren't particularly stupid either. Yep that's the book I read it a few years back. I'll see if I can find it on my book shelf if you think its worth a read through.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:These guys are lucky that got to hang around for so long...and won't even face the punishment they deserve...like these guys. What's the story here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Presumably they're being executed. I dunno, what's the current thought on the Nuremberg defense?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
So with the advent of ICBMs are nuclear bombers still in use? Also did nuclear armed weapons change how tanks, ships, and infantry move and deploy? I assume if you go to war with a country who'll use tactical nuclear weapons the name of the game is stealth, high speed, and dispersed forces.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
So say you had to/wanted to start a war with a nuclear armed country do you attempt to neutralize their nuclear weapons first (send in special forces to air bases, bomb the ever loving hell out of missile silos, find their boomers?) Or do you start a fight and hope they don't resort to tactical use of weapons?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
So nuclear weapons have bought a sort of pax atom or something? When you can only use proxies to fight your wars it seems the ability to get much of anything accomplished via non-economics is limited.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Question: what do you do with the ones you don't hire, who are now a) armed, b) together and c) pissed off at you? Death match for contract in the first place is the correct answer. The winners are obviously better candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:There's apparently a perception in Japan that they lost because of tech deficiency to America, which is some psuedo-science that someone proposed to explain why Japan loves giant robots so much. If playing hearts of iron has told me anything its that Japan doesn't have the Industrial Capacity to screw with america on a war footing, but did they lag that far behind in tech? From what I've seen/read they really only lagged in small arms? I know they lagged in tanks, but how great are tanks in a war based around controlling the pacific which is mostly small islands or areas where tanks get bogged down? Id assume in that sort of scenario what you'd want is a kick rear end navy/air arm and an infantry which isn't too incompetent to seize islands and hold them if you had to make a cut it'd be in the small arms departments. Edit: the more I think about it the conquest of Australia/China is the only place tanks could be undoubtedly useful? Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
What's the closest that the cold war came to a full on land war between NATO and the USSR? Has a proxy war ever gone hot between sponsoring countries? Say in Vietnam. If the US just said gently caress it and attacked the Chinese directly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:IIRC, This is from a mid-late eighties FEMA brochure. Glad to know that in case of nuclear exchanged, I'm not gonna have even a slight survival chance past the opening shots[In Atlanta]. Whats that giant cluster in North Dakota for? Missile silos? Why does the Mexican border get pasted in Texas?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
On the subject of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Difficulty in cleaning up the resulting mess aside. Do they have differing "battlefield" uses? Is one better for defensive use? Offensive use? Is one strictly better for area denial? I know chemical weapons are really the only one to have seen any tactical use, but maybe there may have been experiments done that could have given the military some idea?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:There's a gay bomb? How gay was it? Referring to this I believe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb Short answer: Theoretically, pretty gay. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Those schools must be really lovely. Got schooled in Georgia, and was told the opposite. That it was about Slavery with states rights as a side effect. So I don't know where the hell these schools are if they're not in the stomach of the [former] Confederacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I got schooled in Massachusetts (and one of the most progressive parts of it at that, in a good school district for America) and the first time I was taught about the civil war it was the lost cause version. I'm pretty sure that was mostly 'cause of the particular teacher though. I think we had a thread on this at one point, but this is literally all you'd have learned about the civil war over two years[You'd have seen it in Georgia History 8th grade, and again in US History 10th grade]. Slavery is a thing, Lincoln Elected, States think Lincoln is gonna "TAKE ARE SALVS!", Fort Sumter happened, ANACONDA PLAN!, Gettysburg Address[LINCOLN TOOK ARE SLAVS!], Sherman Marches to the Sea, War Ends, COCA COLA!!!! The war as a lost cause isn't presented, because battles and stuff like that aren't discussed in any depth besides the highlight reel. You wouldn't really know people died in war if it wasn't painfully obvious that that's what happens in war. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:
The big thing I don't think non-US citizens understand is that the United States are a bunch of united states, so states with generally low tax incomes with have generally poorer services, at a statewide level not to mention at the county level. I mean look at the education metrics of say Massachusetts vs West Virginia and you'll see a big divide. Defenestrategy fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
On one hand, Georgia burned down. On the other kickin rad new capital for Georgia.Tevery Best posted:Out of curiosity, what are American standardized tests used for? Over here it's essentially a base for admission to a better school at the next level (including universities), which I think is better than having uneven standards across the board, with different institutions admitting based on different criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act TLDR: if your school does well in testing, it is a good school and should have funding. If your school does poorly in testing it is a bad school and should not have funding. The other one is the SAT/ACT which is used for college admissions and grants.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:
Really cool stuff. Cannot wait.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
IS this because the US Army tends not to fight people with Air support?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
As far as drones goes, what's the problem with infantry just trying to shoot them with an M16 or an m240 or something?Frostwerks posted:I imagine there's just a revolving door and representatives from various agencies are just constantly showing up depending on who did what now. DEA for TCC, ATF for TFR, FBI for ADTRW/TVIV (star trek) I remember reading something out of GIP, where some nuke guy started blabbering about nuke sub stuff and there was a huge spike of foreign IPs hitting something awful before the thread got taken down or something. If I had to guess there may be like ten dudes who are paid to read the aggregate of posts that get dinged due to sensitive words being said. Something Awful is gonna cause the downfall of the American Military and all goons will have seen it coming. [Hi guys.]
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I got in poo poo with the Russian government for writing how old tanks were built, sounds pretty dangerous to me. There a neat story behind this?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
So what made castles and large forts an attractive thing in war pre long range accurate artillery? Wouldn't it just be easier to pillage the land around the fort and then leave? It's not like the emplacement can hold enough troops to affect a large army?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
How do you put an AT mine on a roadway? I mean it seems pretty obvious where the mines would be right, just look for the dug up pieces of asphalt?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Apply southern accent like you can only open your mouth a little bit and you get your answers. I got family in texas, and some of the great grand parents talk like this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 16:09
|
|