PittTheElder posted:I would hesitate to say the machine gun was dominant on the western front, since most of the actual killing was done with heavy artillery. The big guns are the dominant weapon. Machine guns certainly do contribute, but massed riflery could have achieved the same effect. Artillery barrages are what all the generals planned their attacks around, and the inability to retrain the guns on new targets (due to lovely communications) was perhaps the biggest reason why the front was so static. I don't think this is correct. The death toll inflicted by artillery didn't force a stalemate on the Western Front. You said yourself, poor communications made it difficult to receive responsive artillery fires. Responsive artillery fires would be necessary to provide the suppression necessary to force men to seek cover or dig trenches. This problem wasn't resolved until after the war. Instead, the increased firepower that an infantry unit gained with the advent of machineguns restricted the mobility of a rifle unit in the assault. The purpose of a machine gun is supression, whether they realized it in 1914 or not. I suppose you could say that artillery, modern bolt action rifles and machineguns had a synergistic effect that led to WWI as we know it. But, I don't think it would be accurate to say that breech loading recoil dampened artillery was the sole cause. vains fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 13:11 |
|
Bacarruda posted:Congratulations on the coming constipation. Unless you ate the gum, in which case you're going to get a monster case of the shits. MRE gum is as much a laxative as Trident gum.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 06:38
|
|
Kaal posted:Actually it's rather funny, because that myth has been around for a long, long time (the gum was actually there to help maintain healthy teeth), but recent MRE gum development over the last decade has actually led to that old yarn becoming somewhat true. They're incorporating cinnamon-flavored caffeinated gum into many of the new kits - and the caffeine will act as a mild laxative (in the same way that cigarettes and coffee will). But the sad reality is that IBS seems to hit most soldiers eventually (mostly due to stress and travel exposure) regardless of whether or not they finish off their accessory packets. The cinnamon caffeine gum comes in First Strikes. It is legit as gently caress at keeping you awake but tastes terrible. More people will poo poo their pants in Iraq/Afghanistan from workout supplements and a steady diet of protein shakes than anything else.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 08:47
|
|
JcDent posted:Oh Soviet Union! Modern tanks have a variety of sights available, but I don't understand your question. One's natural inclination when being shot at is to hide behind stuff. People are usually pretty averse to bullets.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's the basic difference between cover and concealment. A dude with an LMG hunkered under a bush on a treeline 100 yards away can plink at the viewports and generally annoy a WW2 era tank all day long because the visibility for the tank is poo poo and he's pretty hard to see under his bush. That said, if someone figures out where he is he's kinda hosed because bushes don't stop bullets. Same for the guy blasting away from a slit in a wall in an urban setting. He's in more-or-less true cover (at least relative to small arms) and it's going to take a small miracle for the tank to find him, but boy is he in trouble if they get annoyed enough and get a good enough fix to lob an HE round his way. I understand that. I didn't understand his question. Machine guns force the tc to button up which degrades his situation awareness. Modern optics, while amazing and powerful, do not offer much more than a pinhole view of the world. A lot of target identification is done by the vehicle commander.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 08:39
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What I'm interested to know is the difference between commercial and military sensors. Bewbies described his experience - the only combat relevant one itt - as being able to read the lettering on individual soldiers' uniforms. Thomamelas said that on commercial surveillance you can basically tell that something is happening in a general area. Though presumably both the scope and capabilities of these systems are radically different? You can read the nametapes on someones uniform at like 100m. But to see the nametapes, you have to be looking at the right spot. Fangz posted:I don't think being able to read individual lettering solves the tactical problem here. Yes you can zoom right in and do that, but if you do so you narrow your FOV and miss what is going on off screen - so that stuff is only useful if you know where to look. This is it. The time it takes to acquire a target increases dramatically when the commander's vision is reduced(low/no light, buttoned up). Which is what led to this whole string of posts: I didn't understand his point. You could have the best sights in the world, but they only cover a very limited field. To get decent resolution, they cover an even tinier window. Once the commander is supressed, you lose a tremendous amount of situational awareness. Gunning on a turreted vehicle is like being a half blind, totally deaf, parapalegic. You barely have any idea whats going outside of your sights. Half the time you can't even tell which way you're looking without using reference points inside the vehicle(when I'm looking at that panel, I'm facing 3 oclock. When my toes hit that electrical conduit...etc) Yes, you have periscopes and a radio but they are a very poor aproximation of standing up and using your own senses to see.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 04:59
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I also strongly question the actual battlefield utility of firing a machinegun for 24 hours straight. The sheer effort involved in supplying ammunition would be a pretty good argument as to why this is Silly. The boon of being able to fire a machinegun for 24hrs straight isn't the actual ability to fire it for 24hours straight. Its that the barrel wouldn't overheat and/or the gun is reliable enough to do so.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 16:52
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:But in order to do that you have to have a water cooled MG which is also not the most useful thing in the world. It's a tradeoff between heat dissipation/reliability and utility. I'm not debating that. Modern air cooled guns are heavy, as is the ammo. I'm simply pointing out the actual utility in theoretically being able to fire for 24hours at a sustained rate and it isn't the ability to fire for 24hrs straight.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 19:00
|
|
Murgos posted:e: VVVV That's not how machine guns work irl. It's how they work in movies and video games but not the real world. Machine guns, with their long, heavy barrels, sturdy bases and large caliber, heavy rounds are extremely precise and accurate out to very long ranges. And they fire quickly. The way he described machine guns is fairly accurate. The sights aren't set up to make extremely accurate shots and the longer that a burst is fired the wider the beaten zone becomes. Beyond that, the method in which they are often employed precludes 'sniping' dudes. Machine guns in coax mounts(tanks/afvs/etc) are able to more precisely employed because they have a 30-80ton base and the advantage of optics(often computer assisted).
|
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
Murgos posted:Ok dude. I'll just go with you instead of my personal experience carring an M240 (effective on point targets to 800m) across Africa and manning M2s (effective range of 1850 meters, about where the eye can no longer discern individual objects). Cool. I'll keep speaking from my experience, too. The FM on machine guns/my own experience seems to agree. quote:Most engagements are within 300 meters. However, the gunner must still engage targets out to
|
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 01:43
|
|
Hummer Driving human being posted:I'm not sure if this makes sense because during WWII radio nets were sometimes at the company level, two echelons below the regiment. Although going through my original post it sounds like they were using colors to identify the platoons instead of the modern day methods which would be "Easy 1-6" for the platoon leader of first platoon, Easy company. I thought colors were more commonly used. Red, white, blue for line platoons. Green/brown for weapons. Black for hq. On the company/platoon nets, black 6 actual is the co. On the BN net, *company callsign* 6 is the company co. etc.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 23:46
|
|
Taerkar posted:More specifically the extra charges are slotted discs that fit around the shaft with the propellant inside. slotted discs=increments
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
Phobophilia posted:For instance, when the Soviets invaded Japanese-controlled Manchuria, they didn't truck the entire drat tank and crew east across the Siberian Railway. No, they had skeleton logistics crews pre-concentrate tanks near Manchuria, and as soon as Berlin was taken, all those veteran tankers were packed into railway cars and sent east. You could only get away with something like that if your tanks aren't special snowflakes that need to be babied. This doesn't make any sense. What does the 'quality' of ones tank have to do with pre-staging equipment?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 02:45
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:It's a civil war, both sides are Ukrainians. lol
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 02:48
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:For Dien Bien Phu I'd recommend Bernard Fall's Hell in a Very Small Place. Both of his books about the French-Indochina War are good
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 04:14
|
|
Groda posted:Was this done in practice? Yes. You move through the positions in the armored vehicle as you advance in rank and experience. Nobody jumps right from vehicle school to being a tank gunner. (at least in the modern era)
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
yes US TO&E even specify this http://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/17377F000.htm
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 17:04
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Did the americans ever get a chance to debrief and interrogate Iraqi soldiers? Did they realise that Bradleys were thin-skinned and vulnerable to relatively low caliber arms, or were they treating them as full-on tanks and disengaging without a fight? The battle of 73 Easting wasn't the rout that most of the rest of the war was. An Iraqi Republican Guard division and a elements from a few other armored/infantry divisions in prepared defensive positions fought a sustained defensive action against 2 ACR(Bradleys and Abrams).
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 05:51
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If we're sharing odd communication using mutual third languages my best one is flirting with a Japanese woman in a bar in Seoul, S. Korea, speaking German. not strictly the same thing but the only way i was able to keep up with 'lock, stock and two smoking barrels' was by reading the spanish subtitles on the version i watched.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:23
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The entire purpose for the war was political. South Vietnam was a really lovely and oppressive government that was really unpopular, but it was a republic facing a communist invasion and thus the United States was automatically on its side. It wasn't even an American war at first, just advisers and special forces operations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident provided an excuse to start actively bombing Vietnam, then the attacks on American air bases was the excuse needed to send thousands of troops in. There was a brief period, 20 days in 1945, where the Vietnam War likely could have been avoided by simply preventing the French from retaking the colony. Now, that would have proved disastrous to maintaining the relationships that led to NATO. In either case, the US was involved in Vietnam well before 1961 and advisors/sf operations. Look at the amount of material aide and expertise offered to the French during the mid 50s.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Koesj is hitting on a point that a lot of people seem to miss. mines are part of countermobility, just as cratering charges, berms, barbed wire, bridge destruction, etc are also part of countermobility, but only part. the other piece of countermobility is emplacing men and weapons in positions to make clearing the obstacle difficult and expensive. one could certainly place mines, crater roadways and blow bridges all across the country. however, you will get better bang for your buck, both for your troops in the defense and slowing/halting the enemies advance, if obstacles are integrated into how/where/what you intend to defend. an undefended obstacle is usually not much of an obstacle.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 00:00
|
|
hogmartin posted:A bit, but the part where they included human models was a little short and I'm more trying to understand how 3-4 guys actually live in these things for weeks and still operate them as weapons. Thanks though! A- its uncomfortable. B-gunner and driver or driver and dismount will sometimes rotate duties. C- you don't spend 24/7 inside the thing. the driver gets down and does maintenance in the morning and evening. the commander is off to meet with platoon leader/platoon sergeant. the gunner supervises/assists the driver. everyone eats and bullshits at night and most people sleep outside. If you watch Generation Kill, you can see the daily cycle. there is also series of videos from OIF 2.0 where a 'reporter' is embedded with a platoon from 2nd LAR but i cant remember who the guy was.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 23:15
|
|
the JJ posted:... a reporter? https://www.google.com/search?q=reporter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=define+reporter maybe filmmaker more accurately describes the guy. Pat Dollard 'young americans' which is a way shittier than i remembered 'documentary' about the meu he embedded on. most of the videos are gone because he never actually finished it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 00:35
|
|
shallowj posted:anyone have an idea how many Americans fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam? veterans of all 3 wars, I mean. Googling various versions of the question, it seems like it wasn't totally impossible. Critiquing a short story for class where a character claimed to be a veteran of all 3 and it made me curious how realistic it would be. The character was black, as well, which made me curious what post-WW2 was like for black soldiers. Did many choose to stay enlisted? I read a little about "blue discharges" so it seems like many wouldn't have gotten a choice? A veteran of all 3 would likely have achieved a pretty respectable career, right? only 20 years separate the end of WWII and 1965 when the marines land at da nang. the ground war kicks off later that year in earnest for the americans, scaling up dramatically from the advisory role the us had assumed since the mid 50s.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Did they also understand the use of alcohol for cleaning wounds? you kind of need germ theory for the idea of antiseptics to be in widespread use.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 01:43
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Infantry called tankers "double salary, triple death", so at least the general opinion wasn't so. there were probably still guys who baked bread in tank units
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
spectralent posted:
american mortars are, at least, going to have a gps capable of a 10 digit grid. likewise, the fo is going to have a gps capable of a 10 digit grid. when shooting indirect weapons: knowing your position accurately and the fo knowing his position accurately is half the battle. the mortar team is probably going to have a mortar computer that does all the math for them and the fo might have an integrated gps/lazer rangerfinder/azimuth indicator that spits out a 10 digit grid with elevation for the target. everyone still trains to do it old school style with a plotting board, compass, 6 digit grids, firing tables and binos. plotting boards are like some magic from the 19th century that i never really understood.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
Trast posted:Can someone well versed in post American Civil War Indian battles explain how the Wounded Knee massacre produced twenty medals of honor? I was looking it up and I find that fact shocking. The whole of the battle for Iwo Jima only produced twenty-seven medals of honor. because the criteria changed significantly in the interim.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
it seems to be a fools errand for precisely the reason noted in the article: "One basic difference between insurgency and counterinsurgency is that the insurgent starts out with nothing but a cause and grows to strength, while counterinsurgent often starts with everything but a cause and gradually declines in strength to the point of weakness" successful tactics/ideas seem to only apply narrowly(protected villages in malaya, which didn't work in kenya) or scale poorly(combined action patrols in vietnam, seluous scouts in rhodesia(a bit of a stretch)). its interesting that the author notes how barbarity(torture, mass/indiscriminate killings) crept into the counter-insurgents toolbox. its kind of the one hallmark of a *counterinsurgency: they tend to end up doing terrible things to the people of the country in question. edit: the rational actor thing is interesting as well. im not as well versed in this but americans tend to like to break the world down in classes or stratifications or rankings etc. each individual within that class or rank is interchangeable with another but has distinct characteristics from those in other classes or groups. its, supposedly, how we like to view the world. vains fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 1, 2016 |
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 20:49
|
|
MrYenko posted:HEAT is also still great against fortifications, and basically any vehicle on the battlefield that isn't a Main Battle Tank. I'd imagine that even a WWII era 85mm HEAT around from a T-34 would royally gently caress a Bradley's day up. the t34 would have to be able to see the bradley before it got spotted itself.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
what impact did the washington naval treaty have on wwii naval combat? obviously, it impacted ship designs and limited total tonnage. but: -would surface combatants played a much larger role in the war without it(because there would have been more of them)? or, did the great depression create a 'ceiling'(in the sense that the participants couldn't have built many more ships than they were limited to)? -did the washington naval treaty hasten the emergence of naval air power as being the dominant form of combat afloat? the grand fleet went to sea with 36 battleships at jutland. the high seas fleet went with 16. i dont think there were 52 battleships between all wwii participants. did the relative lack of surface combatants create an ideal situation for air power to thrive(for want of other options)? -had wwii started with much more substantial surface fleets, would this have delayed the emergence of air power? it seems that a not insignificant portion of early wwii aircraft carriers started out life as battleships/battlecruisers and were re-ordered or rebuilt as aircraft carriers once the 1st washington naval treaty was signed. not only that, but the us/uk/germany were all still laying down bb/bc hulls well into the mid 40s. there was obviously still an old guard that hadn't fully bought into naval air power when you consider that the united states was contemplating ships like the montana and building ships like the alaska/iowa. i suppose you'd have to be familiar with the doctrinal usage of aircraft carriers in the inter-war years and the impact of billy mitchell's tests on naval thought, which i am not. i guess, my central question would be: did the washington naval treaty indirectly force naval aviation upon the various wwii combatants as a result of limited surface tonnage?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 20:00
|
|