|
When did modern military recruit training start. As in full metal jacket, boot camp style?
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
I will rephrase my question from earlier. When did mass boot camp begin. As in dedicated facilities instead, and a uniform curriculum.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Regarding montys slowness if you see the pursuit after alamein he pursues with the 8th army in a rapid advance. But the germans get their rearguard on, but they started running and didnt stop til they reached tunisia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:This stands in direct contrast with the Brits, who have the Churchill (40t, 25km/h) and the Crusader (20t, gofast) in their armoured divisions. The british did not have churchills in there armoured division. Well not late war anyway. The brits had to type of formations. Armoured brigades and tank brigades. Armoured brigades would have either cromwells or shermans, and would be a component of the armoured division, or independent formations, while the tank brigades would be churchills and in some uses sherman tanks. The tank brigades would normally be supporting infantry divisions, so in that regard operational mobility wouldnt be as important as armour.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
A nuclear submarine is basicly instead of a combustion engine charging batteries, providing power, you have a nuke reactor providing power. If you can build a working nuclear power plant, it would just be a matter of time and effort to build i t small enough for a sub.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
I remember reading a lessons learned type document, where the primary complaint against the sherman was the weak gun. The tankers wanted a gun that could penetrate reliably.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
It also has a flechette round which makes it into a gigantic shotgun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Cadre system. You take personnel from an already existing unit and have them as your core personnel, (Sergeants, Officers and specialists.) an fill out the rest of the personnel with recruits. That would give you something like 8-10 months for an infantry battalion, 10-12 for a tank battalion, to get your units into accectable fighting shape. You could probably crash it down to 2 months for an infantry battalion, and 3 for a tank battalion. No idea about fighter units or ships.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Are there any mil historians doing research into the current war on terror?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I've read Battle Cry of Freedom as a pre-amble to reading Shelby Foote and it was decent enough, although it omits quite a considerable amount of detail, which is to be expected for such a relatively small book. It's easy to get into, so much so that I've given it to a friend of mine that doesn't read much ACW as a primer into the war. I remember reading about that and the analysis is of wounds treated, in hospitals. A bayonet would probably dead you right there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
If you look at the nelsons contemporaries, the dunkerque and richelieu class you will see they have two forward turrets with 4 barrels each. So not really a running away ship if thats what youre implying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's the difference between the topographical peak and the military peak of a ridge? The topo ridge is the highest point. The military ridge is the highest point where you still have eyes on the bottom of the ridge line. So no one can sneak up on you
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Psst, amateurs. Just drive around in a desert and cook off your tank's hull. I think that was made up for propaganda. But i remeber heating my mres on the engine block in iraq.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Aren't some SOF-esque helmets ballistic? There's a bunch of low-profile ballistic helmets on the market now. From time to time, I see photos of SOF guys in Afghanistan wearing them. I think the gwot made a lot of innovations in regards to mil gear and equipment. And Mogadishu was just after the end of the cold war and subsequent drawdown.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
How where the different armys in ww1 organized? Especially the germans. How was conscription and recruiting handled. I know a bit about the brits with their regimental system and pals battalions and so on, but what about the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
And you can bet your dollar's that the Chinese and ussr are researching ways to jam the gently caress out of drones.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But then one needs to keep in mind that tank warfare, as warfare in general, mostly does not consist of mano a mano duels. When you have tank battalions at play a lot of other things play a much bigger role: numbers, command & control, experience, doctrine etc. Example: many early war tanks had no radios, making platoon level communication nigh impossible during combat. Worse, few early tanks had three man turrets where commanders could focus on their job, or cupolas that gave them a 360º view while buttoned up. Not that such things deliver well onto silver screen, just like movie soldiers really detest wearing helmets and proper uniforms in general because it's against the rules for all heroes to wear the identical costumes and even similar haircuts. All that are things that helps you mantain situational awareness, that helps you spot the other guys first, and Rhymenoserous posted:From my understanding the general rule of Tank Warfare was whoever sees the other guy first generally wins.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Also, planes beat tanks as the Germans found out a lot. Technically empty fuel tanks beats tanks, cause planes have interdicted your supply lines. Planes really didnt hit tanks that much.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. The wound instead of kill gets thrown around a lot especially in regards to 7.62 vs 5.56. The idea that if you wound an enemy soldier instead of killing him, you take five men out of the fight, be cause you need four to carry him back to medical attention. Here is why it doesnt really work like that. 1. Nobody in a firefight is going to treat you while the firefight is ongoing anyway. All modern doctrine dictates that you first begin treating casualties after the firefight is won. There are 4 kinds of casualties in combat, the dead right now, the dead in 10 minutes anyway, the dead in one hour, and the never gonna be dead. The two first are not gonna be saved no matter what you do, the third and fourth category can wait. 2. All military has dedicated personnel two treat the wounded, that are exempt from combat. Medic are not allowed two contribute in the firefight, so if they have to treat a dude, they would not be taking any firepower away from the main fight. 3. People who are wounded get better. If you how many soldier that are wounded get back to the line, that is a not insignificant amount in a long war. At some point during ww2 it was estimated that 1/4 of all german troops had been wounded one or more times. If they had been dead instead that is a direct reduction in available manpower. TLDR: Killing is always better. The main point for the 5.56 is weight. You can have a lot more ammunition. And in a combat dead or wounded doesnt really matter, a wounded soldier is probably not effective for long anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Medics are armed and they will participate in a firefight. Even our poo poo military has them armed. So was i when i was a medic. But technically i was only supposed to use my weapon to defend myself, my patient and my medical equipment/installation. That in recent low intensity conflict with lots of ambushes, yeah the medic are going to use their weapons in defense, but nobody is going to plan to use your medics to kick in the door, or use the medevac chopper to move forward a squad. The assets are allready there and not tasked with other poo poo. TLDR medics are armed for selfdefense, but not armed to assault a trench.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
German panzer divisions ca 44 had one panzer regiment of two panzer battalions. Some had three panzer battalions. The two panzer regiment division was scrapped in 41
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:Where can I read this? I think it is corto maltese in siberia. But im not sure if its supposed to be the real baron he meets or someone based on/inspired by the real baron.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Xotl posted:The colonials are nowhere near as impressive in the Second World War as they were in the First, oddly enough - something worth a study, I think. Montgomery did pursue the germans, but they where falling back on interior lines of communication, where as montgomery was advancing forward, and didnt want to be without his logistics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
1. Modern torpedos are guided and will detonate under your keel. This will gently caress you up in a majorly bad way.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Pretty sure Bornholm got the rape-steal-smash treatment and the people were treated as if they were Germans. Not really. The soviet troops where confined to quarters the most of the time. There was some disturbances but it was just drunk ivans. Fun fact, there was never any nato troops stationed on Bornholm and the bornholms værn which was responsible for the defense of Bornholm was not under the NATO chain of command.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
It was invaded by the soviets on may the 9th 45. The germans put up a short fight but nothing serious. The war was over and the soviets where probably allready concerned about the optics of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
The point of air defense is not to kill enemy aircraft but to make it much harder for them to operate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Regarding air defense and gw1. What where the comparitive force ratios to a fuld gap situation. The coalition in desert storm where what ca 24 ground divisions supported by ca 2400 planes vs ca the same number of iraqi divisions supported by 500 planes. And the air campaign in desert storm was 6 months. How would that compare to a fulda gap scenario? The warpac had at least parity if not more planes than NATO. And the Warsaw pact would not sit there to be pounded on for months, they would start the ground war asap
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Seconded, Armouredillo owns. One of the danish company commanders in helmand had the armadillo as his personal symbol. He was commander of an armoured infantry company mounted in m113. In danish the word for armadillo is bæltedyr which means belt animal, and the word for tracked vehicle is bælte køretøj. So when he got killed in the upper helmand valley they named the local fob after him. FOB Armadillo http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640680/ vuk83 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:At the start of WWI it was, but after the entire British army died in Flanders, they caught on quick to the power of automatic weapons. The Lewis gun was the archetypal LMG, and it was adopted in 1916. Rifle marksmanship (musketry) in the British army was more than just shooting and hitting. After the boer war they emphasised long range area fire. So they were very good at massing a units rifle fire at a specific location. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/tcattermole/british-musketry-training-1900-to-1918 See slides 12 to 15 especially for examples of what they were training This is in contrast to us practice which was purely bullseye target shooting. Arquinsiel posted:Wait. It has as an infantry vehicle and as a cavalry vehicle. But not for the million other uses of the M113. Ambulance, mortar carrier, command post vehicle, and so on. There were plans to use the Bradley as a basis for those roles, but they never did cause of expense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So when did they stop getting used by NATO and the soviets? Mid-50's? The soviets held on to theres a lot longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut_anti-tank_gun Nato replaced there antitank guns with recoilless in the 50s.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:That's kind of my point. We were previously more tied to supply and industrial capacity than we are now. Unless I read your original post wrong you were arguing the opposite. I am not really sure that's right. A standard non guided mlrs rocket is not really that complex. And when you begin looking at guided solutions it's actually easier to do in a rocket because of the lower muzzle velocity in a rocket vs a howitzer. And regarding bang on target. The rocket launcher is better for a lot of bang right now vs a howitzers bang over time. One mlrs can put 12 rockets on a target equivalent to a battalion of 8 inch guns.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
RE:linechat. The british manual of arms gave a three man deep formation as the official doctrine. But most of the time british battalions in the peninsula where understrength and they prioritized width. Re: waterloo the battlefield was not very wide, and the french had more heavy cavalry, so the british deployed four deep so the could form square faster. One of the major reasons to use a line formation is command and control is a lot easier in a line formation. One of the things a lot of nations did was use the 3rd line as a tactical reserve. Some armies basicly used the 3rd line as skirmishers, two be put forward in favorable circumstances vuk83 fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The whole "French fight in Column, British fight in Line" thing is a myth. There is no evidence that it was ever the intention of French commanders to engage enemy formations while still in column, and the French manual of arms dictated that column would be used to move up to the enemy at which point the infantry would deploy into line. A lot of the reason for the myth is that famous encounters where column met line, such as the Imperial Guard vs the British at Waterloo, happened by accident where the French got surprised before they could deploy properly. Also wellington was master of the reverse slope defense, so attacking french columns always saw the british lines to late to deploy into line.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 19:11
|
|