NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Dostanuot Loj]

Parth, I'm about 95% sure Kyiv's comment about being wrong was directed at Gallia for the Patton shot.

Also I make some of my money off military history in an academic sense.

[The Kievan People]

Now this is awkward.

I wasn't talking to you

[Pharthan]

Now this is awkward.

I wasn't talking to you

Of course you were, everything is centered around me.

*crickets*

Okay, yeah, totally awkward.
It thought you were essentially making an "oh snap" comment" after Gallan Systems said, "no you're wrong."

[Allanea]

Beyond that, the training included extremely thorough study of things like ballistics theory and fieldcraft, and German soldiers were able to sustain favorable loss exchange ratios the entire war, even with the cut down program they were using by the end. If Germany had the industry of the Americans, we'd all be saluting Hitler and the Jews would be a footnote in history.

Favorable to whom?

Western Front German casualties were greater than Allied casualties.

[Arthurista]

Iirc Max Hastings analysed the problem of western allied infantry in 44-45 and 50. The US Army's problem in that period was inherent in that of a liberal democracy with a tech fetish and a conscription-based citizen army. The best human material, both officers and other ranks, were placed in technical and/or niche arms - paras, signals, arty, engineer, intel/ staff etc. Only those who didn't display any special competence in any area are roled as infantry, and inevitably they got the dregs. Coupled with sketchy training and a very firepower-based doctrine and you had an army that couldn't get anything done with massive prep fires.

I doubt this remained a problem following post-Vietnam professionalisation, but I have no further info on that.

The British Army of the period had similar issues, except that manpower shortages were even more acute. On the other hand, the traditional prestige of certain guards and old infantry regiments meant that certain 'line' infantry units could continue to attract quality personnel.

Unrelated question - does anyone know whether British Army HVM batteries have any sort of early-warning radar?

[Laritaia]

Unrelated question - does anyone know whether British Army HVM batteries have any sort of early-warning radar?

Stormer HVM itself has no radar but the British army has a battery of GIRAFFE AMB radars that can provide cuing information to both HVM and Rapier, and eventually CAMM(L) (I seriously hope they don't fucking call it Land Ceptor)

[Arthurista]

Unrelated question - does anyone know whether British Army HVM batteries have any sort of early-warning radar?

Stormer HVM itself has no radar but the British army has a battery of GIRAFFE AMB radars that can provide cuing information to both HVM and Rapier, and eventually CAMM(L) (I seriously hope they don't fucking call it Land Ceptor)

Well, back in the 70s-80s I expect my army's primary area defence weapon would've been box-launched 'Land Dart', coupled with battery/regiment level GWS-30 on a towed platform.

[Western Pacific Territories]

yeah you can have the bestest most awesomeest aryan child army maneuvers ever however some d-bag from the bronx with his map-grid artillery system will be able to call for fire on karl and his band of plucky, quirky youth of kiddies within minutes of them stepping on the field of battle

its all fun and games until 36 105mm M101A1s shell your position with WP and HE and you watch your best friend jager von smithenhem get blown to bits

M101A1 uber alles

Sigged.

[Western Pacific Territories]

3. Instructing officers that unsheathing your sword and shouting Banzai had the firepower equivalent of a dozen men with rifles.

B-B-B BUT MUH GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL KATANA FOLDED TEN THOUSAND TIMES

Not to mention banzai charges look cool. Sadly, they are defeated by machine-gun fire ;-;

2. Literally refusing to teach officers about Japan's defeats.

B-B-B-B BUT JAPAN ISH GLORISHU AND CANNOT LOSE

W-WE DID PEARL HARBOR

1. Literally stabbing soldiers with sharp sticks to teach them to injure pain and injury in the name of the Emperor.

No come-back I can think of for this one.

[Arthurista]

Another major factor was of course basic infantry fighting doctrine. The German Army centred their squads around the GPMG. The functions of the riflemen were to be the gunner's ammo bearers, flank security and meat shield. Near the end roughly half the troops had an automatic weapon of some sort. This was lethal in defence.

The allies were the other way round - small units were rifle-centric and the DP/Bren/BAR was used to support them, so they were at a disadvantage when it came to dismounted close combat.

Of course, in the end, arty trumps everything. The Chassepot couldn't beat the Krupp and the MG42 was more than offset by 25-pounders and M101.

[Gallan Systems]

It must be hard to go through life being so wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SZZjQ3bbvE

rip m8y

get
anally annihilated
fanny flustered
bum bothered
muff miffed

etc. etc.

[Arthurista]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Perhaps I ought to transition to this 80s-Bundeswehr style division (http://i.imgur.com/YbmmB5o.png).

[The Kievan People]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Attach an artillery regiment. Whoever uses DPICMs first in greater number will win.

They eat medium vehicles.

[Gallan Systems]

I doubt this remained a problem following post-Vietnam professionalisation, but I have no further info on that.

the nadir of the us army was the Army of the United States

it got gradually better towards the end of the 1960s but it only really picked up after vietnam when AUS was destroyed

Army of Excellence was the greatest army the world has ever seen before or since tbh

[Western Weyard]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Perhaps I ought to transition to this 80s-Bundeswehr style division (http://i.imgur.com/YbmmB5o.png).

Heeresstruktur IV or bust! That's the way to go.

[Kazarogkai]

Another major factor was of course basic infantry fighting doctrine. The German Army centred their squads around the GPMG. The functions of the riflemen were to be the gunner's ammo bearers, flank security and meat shield. Near the end roughly half the troops had an automatic weapon of some sort. This was lethal in defence.

The allies were the other way round - small units were rifle-centric and the DP/Bren/BAR was used to support them, so they were at a disadvantage when it came to dismounted close combat.

Of course, in the end, arty trumps everything. The Chassepot couldn't beat the Krupp and the MG42 was more than offset by 25-pounders and M101.

Probably by far Japan's greatest deficiency in the face of US forces. Their artillery, atleast in terms of their infantry divisions, kinda sucked.

[Arthurista]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Perhaps I ought to transition to this 80s-Bundeswehr style division (http://i.imgur.com/YbmmB5o.png).

Heeresstruktur IV or bust! That's the way to go.

Thanks! I did make some alterations. I ditched the weird pre-mixed Panzer/PzG battalions - I intend to cross-attach with wild abandon to create customised battlegroups anyway. There's a bit more recce and logistics in particular is a bit more robust. Independent tank destroyers are concentrated at the division-level as a sort of emergency reserve, or to be parcelled out in parts to support battlegroups in the long range overwatch role (think Exactor).

[Southern Sovereignties]

So I wanted to re-ask my question from a few days ago. Does anybody have any information, or could you point me in the direction of, how polygonal forts functioned, both day to day, and during battle? An additional question, what eventually replaced them?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

how do ambushes work in a modern context? e.g. how and what would they be used for, are they a high risk tactic, how are they set-up etc?

[Immoren]

platoon level something like this,
I guess.

[Arthurista]

I'm giving up trying to think of a way to make a Stryker/FCS-type all-mechanised infantry formation survive five minutes with a motor rifle brigade.

Attach an artillery regiment. Whoever uses DPICMs first in greater number will win.

They eat medium vehicles.

Everyone battery should have some DPICM. Bonus 155/227mm cluster rockets/ATACMS with BAT for the Schwerpunkt.

how do ambushes work in a modern context? e.g. how and what would they be used for, are they a high risk tactic, how are they set-up etc?

The key is to make sure that you squads aren't deployed in each other's field of fire and end up blue-on-blueing each other. A classic L-shaped formation works, as illustrated by Immoren's pic above.

[Imperializt Russia]

how do ambushes work in a modern context? e.g. how and what would they be used for, are they a high risk tactic, how are they set-up etc?

An ambush, by definition, catches an unaware unit.

Ambushes will be easiest laid where the line may be penetrated - special forces, guerrillas, partisans or paratroops. Troops on road march in what they think is their territory will probably be least on guard.
This is why recently we've seen ambush commonly as a tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they were laid by underequipped guerrillas behind the lines. Even a combat patrol can easily be caught unawares.

One could probably lay special defensive positions with the specific goal of "ambushing" enemy reconnaissance units, though I'm not immediately convinced of the worth of it.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Another major factor was of course basic infantry fighting doctrine. The German Army centred their squads around the GPMG. The functions of the riflemen were to be the gunner's ammo bearers, flank security and meat shield. Near the end roughly half the troops had an automatic weapon of some sort. This was lethal in defence.

The allies were the other way round - small units were rifle-centric and the DP/Bren/BAR was used to support them, so they were at a disadvantage when it came to dismounted close combat.

Of course, in the end, arty trumps everything. The Chassepot couldn't beat the Krupp and the MG42 was more than offset by 25-pounders and M101.

This is a gross oversimplification that has no basis in reality.

The German squad revolved around the GPMG as a base of fire to maneuver from. Part of the squad carried ammo for this gun specifically (But more ammo is always good so everyone can bring some too!), but half of the squad's rifles were actually meant to attack a position that was being suppressed by that very GPMG.

And they did this with grenades and bayonets.

The Germans determined the bayonet was not as useful as an automatic weapon, and started bringing those into the mix. Then it became attacking with MP44s and grenades.

Saying they were defensive in nature, and focused entirely on the GPMG ignores the fact that the Germans simply perfected late-WW1 offensive tactics. The goal was pin with the GPMG, assault with the grenade.

And they used lots of grenades.

[Gallia-]

galla has grenade bags made from nylon dyed olive drab

god bless the grenade

[Dostanuot Loj]

So I wanted to re-ask my question from a few days ago. Does anybody have any information, or could you point me in the direction of, how polygonal forts functioned, both day to day, and during battle? An additional question, what eventually replaced them?

1: This would vary by country, situation, time period, and between forts. Different forts in roughly the same area would operate differently, and would do so at different times.

2: Trenches.