NATION

PASSWORD

Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2504
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:11 pm

A mongolian horse would more or less be ideal for the military, and it was used by the Mongolians to conquer like 1/4 of the world. They don't need to eat or drink very much, living in the harsh conditions of the desert, and frequently lose up to 30% of their weight in the winter, every year, suggesting their tolerance to extreme environments. A 250 kilogram mongolian horse can carry an additional 300 kilograms on it's back, essentially the weight of a horse on it's back, more than it's own body weight, and can carry up to 2000 kilograms in a cart behind it. They are quite small in comparison to many western race horses, around 400-800 pounds, vs. 2000+ pounds, and don't need to eat nearly as much, making them more ideal for transport and to reduce constraints on logistics. They have been bread for battle over the many centuries, and thus are not as easily scared out of battle then many horses. They are ideal for endurance, and long distance travel, and can go very long periods of time without food and water if cut off from supplies, and can forage for most of their food. They do well in both the freezing cold of the Mongolian deserts and the extreme heat, making them viable in nearly all environments. Their smaller size is also useful when traveling over rougher terrain, as they sink in to the ground less. They would be useful for specific purposes, like crossing the desert or other areas vehicles have a tougher time traveling, but not as a complete replacement for vehicles. One big use is in mountain warfare, where it's extremely difficult to use vehicles. To this day donkeys are still used by the Americans in mountain warfare, and horses like this would be a good replacement.

As for a modern use of horses xD "At the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operational Detachment Alpha 595 teams were covertly inserted into Afghanistan on October 19, 2001.[207] Horses were the only suitable transportation for the difficult mountainous terrain of Northern Afghanistan.[208] They were the first U.S. soldiers to ride horses into battle since January 16, 1942, when the U.S. Army’s 26th Cavalry Regiment charged an advanced guard of the 14th Japanese Army as it advanced from Manila". For very specific infiltration purposes, horses do a good job. They are typically quiter and lighter weight than a vehicle with comparative range and terrain coverage, capable of leaping over obstacles that even a tank would have trouble clearing. Air transported horses, in small aircraft, would make a lot of sense, especially since you could find most of the feed you needed from the environment. However that being said, it's not really ideal for, most purposes. One thing you do see horses used a lot for is police work in heavily urbanized areas, as they more easily move around traffic in congested areas. So for urban patrols, they might actually be useful.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:[quote="Triplebaconation";p="35969749"

If you don't like wikipedia, you can check the source's sources, where are pretty easy to find....

Anyways, if you're interested in more information on the Toyota wars, Arabs at war, particularly starting at page 386, or Technicals are decent sources, but most of it is not available online.


Thank you for the recommendation. I actually already own both books!

It's somewhat surprising you recommend the Osprey book.

Image

I've also seen contemporary French newscasts of FANT practicing with Milan.

Just as a small aside of my own, here's the battlefield at Fada.

Image

You are correct that light anti-tank weapons would be useless and suicidal if used on featureless planes (not plains).

By the way, Pollack is my source about FANT's inaccuracy with Milan and other weaknesses.
Last edited by Triplebaconation on Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2504
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:07 am

Austrasien wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:Actually for what I'm envisioning it might be fine, as long as it was remote controlled and could be angled at, really high angles. The whole point is not a complete replacement for all artillery or mortars, only a quick reacting mortar that could be easily mounted for relatively low weight to an armored vehicle that normally has some other purpose. You could do something like, type in GPS coordinates and have the round fire in the direction you chose, or you could relay the command to someone in the vehicle to do it for you. The idea is not to replicate every single function of a mortar, hence the idea of making it smaller, but to have something that can fire quickly with a high explosive shell, or shell filled with something else like smoke, on demand. The idea is just to fire a mortar like round at the enemy. Firing it at a different angle to compensate for the higher static velocity would probably be fine. Worst case scenario, there are other ways to effect velocity, such as electrically activated propellants (such as found in the metal storm guns), that allow only certain propellants to be set off at a given time, or a way to adjust barrel length (such as an extendable tubular sleeve), but honestly I think it's just silly. Angling it slightly different would be fine. In many cases direct fire would be better, such as for close range support, and you could use air-bursting rounds to achieve the effect of a high angle.

Perhaps the easiest way to adjust mortar velocity is to adjust the power of the round itself, like with liquid propellants, hydrogen-gas guns, or something like a railgun. There is a DARPA designed coil-gun assisted 120mm mortar that can augment the power of existing mortar rounds, using electricity to vary the level of power instead of altering the propellant, by up to 30%. This has already been proposed to allow for alternating the level of power with the gun without having to change propellants, and has performed well in experiments. This could be powered by a hybrid electric engine of a vehicle, so you wouldn't even need a separate generator or pack of batteries, or they wouldn't be very large, and would be good to replace actual vehicle mortars especially if it was autoloaded. But honestly, I just don't think you need to replicate every single little feature of a mortar in to something meant to be slapped on to armored vehicles at a whim. The goal is big splodey thing to shoot the enemy with really fast. It just doesn't need to be this complicated. Adding an air-bursting feature to a giant oversized grenade launching chaingun and calling it a day seems fine to me.


Well I am glad you have taken the recommendation of myself, Triplebaconation and others to heart and realized an automatic grenade launcher is a much better idea than a mortar stapled to an RWS you would save yourself a lot of time if you just admitted this and didn't pretend there was deep ontological confusion about "what is a mortar, really?". You didn't mean automatic grenade launcher when you were saying mortar all along, you meant mortar, were informed quite a while ago at length that was a rather bad idea and AGLs are much better for that, and now are trying to pretend you really meant automatic grenade launcher all along.

The posts where we told you to use an automatic grenade launcher, not a mortar, are still available for all to see. So what is the point of this absurd deception? Mortar and automatic grenade launcher are clearly distinct in usage. You can find as many obscure exceptions as you want. I'll help you. But it doesn't change anything, no one else fails to distinguish this and this or finds it particularly challenging to do so - and neither do you.

The problem with grenade launchers is that they are too small. I want something which automatically loads and fire mortar rounds. That is the objective. To call this a grenade launcher is just kind of silly. If you, by some bizarre definition where you think a mortar has to be muzzle loaded or whatever (despite breach loading mortars), has to have adjustable propellants and whatnot, then it's kind of your issue. I mean a PIAT launcher was called a mortar, by the military. For you to say it has to fit your specific definition or be a grenade launcher is kind of silly. I honestly don't really care what you call it as long as it achieves the same effect. The main difference from a grenade launcher is that for mortars to get out to long range, they usually need to be fin stabilized. Also the rate of fire can afford to be really slow.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:37 am

Let me slice the Gordian knot for you. It's a gun-mortar. Is a gun-mortar a gun, a mortar, a gun that has some of the characteristics of a mortar, or a mortar that has some of the characteristics of a gun? It doesn't matter, because it describes what you're talking about perfectly!

Anyway, I had a very unpleasant experience tonight and got stapled up at the ER. I'll likely be in gradually decreasing pain for the next two weeks. To avoid spending any of that time debating what sources I've read and you've only seen through a glass darkly actually say about some obscure detail about an obscure war, I'm placing you on ignore. Very likely permanently.

For what it's worth, I actually think you're probably of above average intelligence. However, I suspect you're a narcissist of such incredible magnitude that it completely prevents critical thinking. Your ego has such impenetrable defenses that whatever half-formed suspect idea first pops into your head is completely immutable, no matter how absurd. As you encounter new information it has to be twisted into conformity or discarded so you don't have to admit being slightly incorrect, even to yourself.

This also explains your blatant dishonesty, your constant projection about semantic arguments, your disproportionate hostility to criticism, and your preoccupation with armor.

Ideally these threads should be about exchanging information that may not be useful but is at least interesting to the participants. Instead they've turned into nothing but everyone engaging you in these arguments that are really just excuses to see how convoluted your thousand-word responses can get. Most of the actual discussion moved to Discord not long after you showed up.

We're also indulging you, though. It seems unlikely you're a troll due to the massive amounts of effort you've put into all this, but I have absolutely no doubt you thrive on the same responses an actual troll would, perhaps without even realizing it.

Goodbye and good luck!
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
The Chuck
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Chuck » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:48 am

Triplebaconation wrote:Let me slice the Gordian knot for you. It's a gun-mortar. Is a gun-mortar a gun, a mortar, a gun that has some of the characteristics of a mortar, or a mortar that has some of the characteristics of a gun? It doesn't matter, because it describes what you're talking about perfectly!

Anyway, I had a very unpleasant experience tonight and got stapled up at the ER. I'll likely be in gradually decreasing pain for the next two weeks. To avoid spending any of that time debating what sources I've read and you've only seen through a glass darkly actually say about some obscure detail about an obscure war, I'm placing you on ignore. Very likely permanently.

For what it's worth, I actually think you're probably of above average intelligence. However, I suspect you're a narcissist of such incredible magnitude that it completely prevents critical thinking. Your ego has such impenetrable defenses that whatever half-formed suspect idea first pops into your head is completely immutable, no matter how absurd. As you encounter new information it has to be twisted into conformity or discarded so you don't have to admit being slightly incorrect, even to yourself.

This also explains your blatant dishonesty, your constant projection about semantic arguments, your disproportionate hostility to criticism, and your preoccupation with armor.

Ideally these threads should be about exchanging information that may not be useful but is at least interesting to the participants. Instead they've turned into nothing but everyone engaging you in these arguments that are really just excuses to see how convoluted your thousand-word responses can get. Most of the actual discussion moved to Discord not long after you showed up.

We're also indulging you, though. It seems unlikely you're a troll due to the massive amounts of effort you've put into all this, but I have absolutely no doubt you thrive on the same responses an actual troll would, perhaps without even realizing it.

Goodbye and good luck!


First off, sorry to hear that you go injured. I hope you have a speedy recovery. Secondly, if there is a discord for this thread, would you mind TGing me an invite? I'd be interested to ghost a bit over there :)
Last edited by The Chuck on Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
I advocate for violence every single day. I work in the arms industry.
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.

"Keep your guns... and buy more guns!" - Kitty Werthmann, Austrian Nazi Regime Survivor
Roof Korea, Best Korea. Hippity Hoppity, 내 재산에서 꺼져.
Pro: Liberty/Freedoms of the Individual, Unrestricted firearms ownership
-Slava-
Ukraini

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2504
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:54 am

Triplebaconation wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:[quote="Triplebaconation";p="35969749"

If you don't like wikipedia, you can check the source's sources, where are pretty easy to find....

Anyways, if you're interested in more information on the Toyota wars, Arabs at war, particularly starting at page 386, or Technicals are decent sources, but most of it is not available online.


Thank you for the recommendation. I actually already own both books!

It's somewhat surprising you recommend the Osprey book.

Image

I've also seen contemporary French newscasts of FANT practicing with Milan.

Just as an aside, here's the battlefield at Fada.

Image

I just figured it would be a book that you liked, and I was right xD It also does provide the greatest support for your argument, hence worth mentioning.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the French trained them to dismount and fire Milan missiles, which were shipped on their Toyotas mounted to the vehicles. They certainly didn't use RPG's and LAW's to flank enemy tanks. The term "dismount" here may be misleading, though, or incorrectly portrayed by him. The missiles themselves were not dismounted from the vehicles, however soldiers may have gotten out of the vehicles to help spot for the missile system at times. Actual pictures and videos of them in use show them being launched on the back of trucks, even when standing still or soldiers are outside of the vehicle. The missiles are too big to realistically carry, and require a separate guidance system to be used, so infantry did not dismount with the missiles in hand, which is kind of my point, not that soldiers never got out of the trucks. They likely stopped to aim and fire in many cases. Aside from that single source, there doesn't seem to be any others that claim soldier's dismounted, let alone with the weapon's, to fire. The French training actually involved training them to fire from the vehicle, and virtually all pictures and videos from the conflict show them firing missiles from their vehicles, as opposed to removing the weapons. If look at the deployment of the weapon's from other sources, such as the French, British and Germans, in nearly every case it's mounted on a vehicle. It does't seem like it would be their doctrine to train the Chadian forces to dismount the weapon and it's guidance system first. The rockets would be carried in the back of the truck, so it would need to stay nearby to drop off missiles. It's just way faster to fire on the back of a vehicle and reload with rounds already in the vehicle, speed off etc. rather than dismount. There's also the fact literally every other weapon mounted on every other vehicle was used this way, as in they didn't dismount their machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, recoil-less rifles, or when they used any other missile, it's hard to believe that in the specific case of the MILAN they would, if only to keep up with the rest of their vehicles. So aside from one potential source, everything else indicates otherwise.

But nonetheless, pedantry aside, it's a good example of light vehicles being used to fight other tanks, and other examples of IFV's such as the Bradley or BMD all have the missiles mounted on the vehicles. Using much the same strategies, this is more or less how a MGS would be used.


Image
Image
Image


French
Image


German
Image

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2504
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:02 am

Triplebaconation wrote:Let me slice the Gordian knot for you. It's a gun-mortar. Is a gun-mortar a gun, a mortar, a gun that has some of the characteristics of a mortar, or a mortar that has some of the characteristics of a gun? It doesn't matter, because it describes what you're talking about perfectly!

That's my point entirely.

Anyway, I had a very unpleasant experience tonight and got stapled up at the ER. I'll likely be in gradually decreasing pain for the next two weeks. To avoid spending any of that time debating what sources I've read and you've only seen through a glass darkly actually say about some obscure detail about an obscure war, I'm placing you on ignore. Very likely permanently.

For what it's worth, I actually think you're probably of above average intelligence. However, I suspect you're a narcissist of such incredible magnitude that it completely prevents critical thinking. Your ego has such impenetrable defenses that whatever half-formed suspect idea first pops into your head is completely immutable, no matter how absurd. As you encounter new information it has to be twisted into conformity or discarded so you don't have to admit being slightly incorrect, even to yourself.

This also explains your blatant dishonesty, your constant projection about semantic arguments, your disproportionate hostility to criticism, and your preoccupation with armor.

Ideally these threads should be about exchanging information that may not be useful but is at least interesting to the participants. Instead they've turned into nothing but everyone engaging you in these arguments that are really just excuses to see how convoluted your thousand-word responses can get. Most of the actual discussion moved to Discord not long after you showed up.

We're also indulging you, though. It seems unlikely you're a troll due to the massive amounts of effort you've put into all this, but I have absolutely no doubt you thrive on the same responses an actual troll would, perhaps without even realizing it.

Goodbye and good luck!

I have been willing to put up with nearly relentless hostile treatment and abuse, piles of shit over the most pedantic shit possible, subjecting myself to the most hostile nonsensical crap possible, arguing over the most irrelevant minutia, like if people jumped off a truck to fire their rounds or what the exact definition of a grenade or mortar launcher is. Meanwhile I'm called an idiot, a moron, stupid if I get one detail wrong, or even if I don't get the detail wrong, and have been willing to engage in debate, for years on a forum where I face nothing but hostile disdain for no obvious or apparent reason other than I disagree with a few forum regulars. No matter how many times I'm correct, no matter how little an error I might have made, if I made one at all, people respond with nothing more than hostility over *every*, *tiny*, *little*, thing. And yet despite all of that, I've come back, to try and actually have a real discussion, in hopes something productive might still happen.

And yet you think this means I'm narcissistic? I subject myself to this abuse in hopes that I might actually have a decent debate, over narcissism, to make myself feel good? I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what my motivation is. The thing is, I won't admit I'm wrong when I know I'm not just to please some random person on the internet who doesn't even care to begin with. No matter how many times you are wrong, such as suggesting they used RPG's or LAW's to take on takes which would be almost impossible, you assume I am always wrong for no obvious reason. No, it's not narcissism, or trolling, or anything like that. I just am not trying to one-up anybody, I just actually want to learn and talk about things. And maybe that's what confuses people so much. That's why people will insist on overly specific definitions of what a mortar is and then, also insist, I am the one making this about semantics. It's kind of unbelievable. If you are admitting that the definition of a mortar is not what Austrasien has said, and that gun mortars are a thing and not automatically grenade launchers, then you are admitting I was right, but also telling me I'm wrong and a narcissist. It just makes absolutely no sense. I'm not the one who turned the argument about percentages or mortars and the like in to a semantic debate. You could have instead chose to focus on the idea, like perforated armor or an autoloading mortar, instead of questioning if it would be a mortar anymore for, or if the percentages match a particular form of interpretation of how percentages are portrayed. I'm not the one who brought up the definitions and usage to begin with. I tried to avoid the whole conversation, and you can go back and re-read it if you aren't convinced.

I don't come here to stroke my ego, that's the last thing that happens. And I did not, pretend, to be in Vietnam, in multiple bars across America, to be treated like this. >:( I am here, simply to have a discussion. Also I don't understand how an obsession with armor is narcissism. "This also explains your blatant dishonesty, your constant projection about semantic arguments, your disproportionate hostility to criticism, and your preoccupation with armor." Um... wat? This is the kind of stuff that continuously throws me for a curveball on this forum.
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:11 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 3183
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Austrasien » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:53 am

Manokan Republic wrote:The problem with grenade launchers is that they are too small. I want something which automatically loads and fire mortar rounds. That is the objective. To call this a grenade launcher is just kind of silly.


An old 70 mm automatic grenade launcher has been shown to you multiple times. There is nothing about a grenade which implies a certain size. It does, however, imply spin stabilization and a fixed propellant case, which are immensely desirable for the kind of weapon you want. Namely, one which fires at low angles and is loaded from the breech.

Manokan Republic wrote:For you to say it has to fit your specific definition or be a grenade launcher is kind of silly. I honestly don't really care what you call it as long as it achieves the same effect. The main difference from a grenade launcher is that for mortars to get out to long range, they usually need to be fin stabilized. Also the rate of fire can afford to be really slow.


No matter what you call it a breech loaded, low angle 81 or 60 mm mortar bomb launcher will be trashy. Fin stabilization is inferior to spin stabilization at low velocities. Combustible propellant charges are not readily compatible with the kind of simple automatic breech block you want, it will not be well-sealed and gas will escape through the breech as it did in the Vasilek. Both of these things are detrimental to accuracy, but the poor obturation is especially problematic because the resulting muzzle velocity variation will produce a very large vertical error component when firing directly (and even rifle mortar bombs do not solve this) which is a big part of why gun-mortars have never been a popular class of weapon in reality.

The only really accurate breech-loading "mortar" is the Nona and its relatives, they have an interrupted screw breech which is what is necessary to properly seal without a case. But it is not compatible with high ROF automatic loading.

If you compare the AGS-57 automatic grenade launcher with your hypothetical 60 mm automatic-gun-mortar-launcher the former is simply a better weapon than the latter because it does everything your concept purports to but might actually hit things it is shooting at.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Sevvania
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6893
Founded: Nov 12, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sevvania » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:18 am

Manokan Republic wrote:If you don't like wikipedia, you can check the source's sources, where are pretty easy to find.


Manokan Republic wrote:
Battle of Fada: "This powerful force attacked Fada, the capital of the Ennedi and a Libyan stronghold, on 2 January 1987. Hassan Djamous took the 1,000 Libyan soldiers and the 300–400 members of the Democratic Revolutionary Council (CDR) militia by surprise. In a short but brutal engagement the FANT almost annihilated the Libyan armoured brigade that defended Fada: 784 Libyans and CDR militiamen died, 92 T-55 tanks and 33 BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles were destroyed, and 13 T-55s and 18 BMP-1s captured, together with 81 Libyan soldiers. Chadian losses were minimal: only 18 soldiers died and three Toyotas were destroyed. This was one of the first major combat victories employing the tactic of using light trucks armed with machine guns or rockets, later known as "technicals." This tactic mirrored the actions of the raids conducted by the Long Range Desert Group of World War II, but on a slightly smaller scale theater, against slightly less numerous enemies, but with more modern weaponry and equipment. Although the Chadian commander's tactical ability played an important role in the victory, the anti-tank missiles were decisive. When combined with the superior maneuverability of the Toyotas, they proved their efficacy against the Libyan tanks."

Note that there are no in-text citations to corresponding sources at any point in this passage.
"Humble thyself and hold thy tongue."

Current Era: 1945
NationStates Stat Card - Sevvania
OFFICIAL FACTBOOK - Sevvania
4/1/13 - Never Forget

User avatar
Dothrakia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 109
Founded: Aug 13, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Dothrakia » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:50 pm

Austrasien wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:The problem with grenade launchers is that they are too small. I want something which automatically loads and fire mortar rounds. That is the objective. To call this a grenade launcher is just kind of silly.


An old 70 mm automatic grenade launcher has been shown to you multiple times. There is nothing about a grenade which implies a certain size. It does, however, imply spin stabilization and a fixed propellant case, which are immensely desirable for the kind of weapon you want. Namely, one which fires at low angles and is loaded from the breech.

Manokan Republic wrote:For you to say it has to fit your specific definition or be a grenade launcher is kind of silly. I honestly don't really care what you call it as long as it achieves the same effect. The main difference from a grenade launcher is that for mortars to get out to long range, they usually need to be fin stabilized. Also the rate of fire can afford to be really slow.


No matter what you call it a breech loaded, low angle 81 or 60 mm mortar bomb launcher will be trashy. Fin stabilization is inferior to spin stabilization at low velocities. Combustible propellant charges are not readily compatible with the kind of simple automatic breech block you want, it will not be well-sealed and gas will escape through the breech as it did in the Vasilek. Both of these things are detrimental to accuracy, but the poor obturation is especially problematic because the resulting muzzle velocity variation will produce a very large vertical error component when firing directly (and even rifle mortar bombs do not solve this) which is a big part of why gun-mortars have never been a popular class of weapon in reality.

The only really accurate breech-loading "mortar" is the Nona and its relatives, they have an interrupted screw breech which is what is necessary to properly seal without a case. But it is not compatible with high ROF automatic loading.

If you compare the AGS-57 automatic grenade launcher with your hypothetical 60 mm automatic-gun-mortar-launcher the former is simply a better weapon than the latter because it does everything your concept purports to but might actually hit things it is shooting at.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek
Interestingly enough there is an automatic mortar but it's probably a little to big to easily mount on any vehicle

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 3183
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Austrasien » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:53 pm

You didn't even read the post :roll:
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:59 pm

Sevvania wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:If you don't like wikipedia, you can check the source's sources, where are pretty easy to find.


Manokan Republic wrote:
Battle of Fada: "This powerful force attacked Fada, the capital of the Ennedi and a Libyan stronghold, on 2 January 1987. Hassan Djamous took the 1,000 Libyan soldiers and the 300–400 members of the Democratic Revolutionary Council (CDR) militia by surprise. In a short but brutal engagement the FANT almost annihilated the Libyan armoured brigade that defended Fada: 784 Libyans and CDR militiamen died, 92 T-55 tanks and 33 BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles were destroyed, and 13 T-55s and 18 BMP-1s captured, together with 81 Libyan soldiers. Chadian losses were minimal: only 18 soldiers died and three Toyotas were destroyed. This was one of the first major combat victories employing the tactic of using light trucks armed with machine guns or rockets, later known as "technicals." This tactic mirrored the actions of the raids conducted by the Long Range Desert Group of World War II, but on a slightly smaller scale theater, against slightly less numerous enemies, but with more modern weaponry and equipment. Although the Chadian commander's tactical ability played an important role in the victory, the anti-tank missiles were decisive. When combined with the superior maneuverability of the Toyotas, they proved their efficacy against the Libyan tanks."

Note that there are no in-text citations to corresponding sources at any point in this passage.


It's taken almost entirely from Pollack. Arabs at War is a very good book.

As to fighting mounted/dismounted, Pollack makes it clear that one of the shortcomings of the Libyan army was their failure to use infantry to screen and scout for their forces. They adhered almost entirely to Soviet doctrine designed around nuclear war, with their infantry fighting ineffectively from vehicles. This also contributed to their massive casualty rates - at Wadi Doum at least 54 BMPs were burned out with their full infantry squads inside.

The key is was that the Toyotas and Milans were necessary to fight the Libyans on equal terms, but the astonishing victories were due mostly to Libyan incompetence. They were outmaneuvered tactically and strategically because they were almost incapable of maneuver.

The Gulf War is another example of this. The Iraqis were possibly more competent than the Libyans, but their ability to maneuver was almost completely eliminated by air and artillery supremacy.
Last edited by Triplebaconation on Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Slavakino
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Sep 25, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Slavakino » Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:51 pm

Norcourt wrote:Givingzs feedback plOx

(Image)

4kg for a battle rifle is quite light
Military Titoist Republic of Slavakino
A great nation built on socialism, science & unity. Come visit us for a holiday
Australian-Serb attempting to finish in Chemical Engineering. Fanatic about weapons, science and history from 1720-2000.
Pro: Titosim, Firearms, WMD, Science, Industrialisation, Militarism, Nuclear, Federalism, Authoritarianism, Assad, Hololive Vtubers

Neutral: Unitary State, Religion, Conservativism, Abortion Laws, Renewable Energy, Democracy, Trump, Juche

Anti: LGBT, Green Politics, Fascism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Islam, ANTIFA, Totalitarianism, Libertarianism, Biden
Sakura Miko (Elite)
Inugami Korone (Yubi! Yubi!)
Kiryu Coco (Shitposting dragon)
Akai Haato (HAACHAMA)

User avatar
Taihei Tengoku
Senator
 
Posts: 4851
Founded: Dec 15, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Taihei Tengoku » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:38 pm

Slavakino wrote:
Norcourt wrote:Givingzs feedback plOx

(Image)

4kg for a battle rifle is quite light

The actual M14 weighed 9 pounds empty.
REST IN POWER
Franberry - HMS Barham - North Point - Questers - Tyrandis - Rosbaningrad - Sharfghotten
UNJUSTLY DELETED
OUR DAY WILL COME


User avatar
Slavakino
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1457
Founded: Sep 25, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Slavakino » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:48 pm

Taihei Tengoku wrote:
Slavakino wrote:4kg for a battle rifle is quite light

The actual M14 weighed 9 pounds empty.

I assumed this guys battle rifle is 4kg loaded
Military Titoist Republic of Slavakino
A great nation built on socialism, science & unity. Come visit us for a holiday
Australian-Serb attempting to finish in Chemical Engineering. Fanatic about weapons, science and history from 1720-2000.
Pro: Titosim, Firearms, WMD, Science, Industrialisation, Militarism, Nuclear, Federalism, Authoritarianism, Assad, Hololive Vtubers

Neutral: Unitary State, Religion, Conservativism, Abortion Laws, Renewable Energy, Democracy, Trump, Juche

Anti: LGBT, Green Politics, Fascism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Islam, ANTIFA, Totalitarianism, Libertarianism, Biden
Sakura Miko (Elite)
Inugami Korone (Yubi! Yubi!)
Kiryu Coco (Shitposting dragon)
Akai Haato (HAACHAMA)

User avatar
Taihei Tengoku
Senator
 
Posts: 4851
Founded: Dec 15, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Taihei Tengoku » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:40 pm

A lightening cut here, fiberglass there, bing bang boom its nine pounds loaded
Last edited by Taihei Tengoku on Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
REST IN POWER
Franberry - HMS Barham - North Point - Questers - Tyrandis - Rosbaningrad - Sharfghotten
UNJUSTLY DELETED
OUR DAY WILL COME

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:33 am

Thinking about weird and obscure units. Anybody have any examples from their military?

Entomological Detachments
Entomological Detachments (until recently Malaria Survey & Control Detachments) are Medical Corps units tasked with assessing and controlling the threat of arthropod-borne diseases and nuisances caused by pest species.

A typical ED is comprised of two to three commissioned entomologists and parasitologists supported by perhaps a dozen enlisted personnel. EDs are mobile, travelling in light vehicles to conduct entomological reconnaissance. As their duties often carry them into the field, ED members are armed for self defense.

After assessing the threat, ED personnel will develop a plan to control local disease vectors and supervise its implementation. They continue to monitor pest populations and the health of military personnel throughout a deployment.

Army EDs are typically attached to a brigade or divisional headquarters. They also find themselves attached to peacekeeping, disaster relief, and foreign assistance missions.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Puzikas
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10941
Founded: Nov 24, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Puzikas » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:37 pm

>an honest to God malaria unit

Get out of my brain tbn that's where I'm safe
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;

Goodbye.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:37 am

I just wanted to use the phrase entomological reconnaissance, which I'm almost certain involves butterfly nets.

The distribution is screwed up and more likely there'd be a few of these roaming around at the theater level.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Kassaran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10872
Founded: Jun 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kassaran » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:59 am

Triplebaconation wrote:I just wanted to use the phrase entomological reconnaissance, which I'm almost certain involves butterfly nets.

The distribution is screwed up and more likely there'd be a few of these roaming around at the theater level.

I'd see it being a Organic Threats Platoon attached to the Biological Hazards Company in my Medical Battalions, probably focused around highly contagious or infectious pathogens spread by fungus or mold or something given my highly urbanized environments. Insects don't do too well due to large scale pollution and metrosphere microclimates (localized rain at ten stories or below due to high amounts of organic movement in the upper layers.

I'd figure I'd go with a Doctrine focusing more on breaking up infantry units into smaller teams with attached civil patrol drones for added situational awareness and manueverability. If a threat moves into their sector, the drone is to make contact first to establish composition of the threat, and then infantry move in to suppress the threat. If the threat is too great, the drone controller calls in backup from Quick Reaction Forces elsewhere in the sector and vectors additional force multipliers as required.
Beware: Walls of Text Generally appear Above this Sig.
Zarkenis Ultima wrote:Tristan noticed footsteps behind him and looked there, only to see Eric approaching and then pointing his sword at the girl. He just blinked a few times at this before speaking.

"Put that down, Mr. Eric." He said. "She's obviously not a chicken."
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
The United Remnants of America wrote:You keep that cheap Chinese knock-off away from the real OG...

bloody hell, mate.
that's a real deal. We just don't buy the license rights.

User avatar
Mostrov
Minister
 
Posts: 2701
Founded: Aug 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mostrov » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:56 am

After reading a portion of Kenneth Pollack's Arabs at War I have some preliminary questions, even if broader than the scope of this thread:

  1. What contributes to the "hyper-competence" of the Israeli's in comparison to the Arabs? Repeatedly, they were able to overcome 'superior' forces through their adaptation, even in the span of a few hours. Is due to societal or racial factors or mere élan?

  2. There is much made of the rigidity of the Arab class system. Yet, Europe possessed such a system but was able to turn out fine military minds. Is this a facet of modern warfare, which requires a meritocracy to utilize the specialization mechanization brings, or otherwise? Would commanders from the middle-ages operate in a equivalent fashion were they to command modern forces?

  3. The Soviet-style centralization was a boon, as claimed, to middle-eastern mores—which proved readily amenable to rote instruction instead of officer initiative—but did the Soviets themselves exhibit enough flexibility that they would have operated without creating gaps between their lines that could be exploited by a cunning foe? Or was it the greater operational capability that would have enabled them to push through Fulda to the Atlantic which the Arabs lacked? If it is a matter of the ability of the non-staff officers, then would a auftragstaktik-esque system have given equivalent results for the Soviets?

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25562
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:59 am

Field Apiary.

The Gallan Army maintains a small contingent of apiarists in-house within the Army Medical Corps' Entomological Warfare Division, with about a dozen or two trained, full-time beekeepers at any one time, and roughly a thousand hives per beekeeper, who predominantly spend their time tending to military beehives in training grounds. The bees are used for experimental military purposes primarily, with field use being limited to searching for land mines in support of international demining and peacekeeping missions, supplementing the use of trained Alarian Lynx and trained military minesweepers. A military apiarist typically deploys with a small convoy of motor vehicles, carrying hives, the laser radar which tracks the bees. Backup tracking methods are carried in the High Mobility Vehicle and comprise folding field chairs, notepads, binoculars, and a large wine cooler.

Historic uses of military apiarists were more varied, including use of poison laden bees in the 15th through 18th centuries, the Crown funding of a "wall of bees" on the Gallo-Hunnic border to deter invaders in the 17th century., the attempted (and failed) domestication of the Far East Giant Honeybee as part of the Honey Scheme and its subsequent use as anti-guerrilla/barrier weapon by the then much larger Entomological Warfare Department during the Gallo-Celestial War of the 1930s and '40s, and the use of air dropped Giant Honeybee hives as a form of anti-guerrilla weapon during the Kampalan Crisis in the 1960s.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Triplebaconation » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:51 am

Kassaran wrote:
Triplebaconation wrote:I just wanted to use the phrase entomological reconnaissance, which I'm almost certain involves butterfly nets.

The distribution is screwed up and more likely there'd be a few of these roaming around at the theater level.

I'd see it being a Organic Threats Platoon attached to the Biological Hazards Company in my Medical Battalions, probably focused around highly contagious or infectious pathogens spread by fungus or mold or something given my highly urbanized environments. Insects don't do too well due to large scale pollution and metrosphere microclimates (localized rain at ten stories or below due to high amounts of organic movement in the upper layers.


Well, they also handle bedbugs. As military scientists their parent "unit" would be a military research hospital or something. The research and education work they'd do is as important as their work in the field.

Mostrov wrote:After reading a portion of Kenneth Pollack's Arabs at War I have some preliminary questions, even if broader than the scope of this thread:

  1. What contributes to the "hyper-competence" of the Israeli's in comparison to the Arabs? Repeatedly, they were able to overcome 'superior' forces through their adaptation, even in the span of a few hours. Is due to societal or racial factors or mere élan?

  2. There is much made of the rigidity of the Arab class system. Yet, Europe possessed such a system but was able to turn out fine military minds. Is this a facet of modern warfare, which requires a meritocracy to utilize the specialization mechanization brings, or otherwise? Would commanders from the middle-ages operate in a equivalent fashion were they to command modern forces?

  3. The Soviet-style centralization was a boon, as claimed, to middle-eastern mores—which proved readily amenable to rote instruction instead of officer initiative—but did the Soviets themselves exhibit enough flexibility that they would have operated without creating gaps between their lines that could be exploited by a cunning foe? Or was it the greater operational capability that would have enabled them to push through Fulda to the Atlantic which the Arabs lacked? If it is a matter of the ability of the non-staff officers, then would a auftragstaktik-esque system have given equivalent results for the Soviets?


Arabs at War is a good book, but it has some flaws and it doesn't really deal with culture much at all. Personally I believe Arab performance in large-scale combat is because of the illegitimacy of the regimes in question, not any "Arab" culture which varies quite a lot through the area. Combat effectiveness isn't military effectiveness, and sometimes a competent and flexible army isn't what you want at all!

North Korea is another good example. They'd probably be terrible in modern combat, but they have one of the most successful militaries in the world.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Taihei Tengoku
Senator
 
Posts: 4851
Founded: Dec 15, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Taihei Tengoku » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:08 am

their distinctly un-providential skull measurements don't help
REST IN POWER
Franberry - HMS Barham - North Point - Questers - Tyrandis - Rosbaningrad - Sharfghotten
UNJUSTLY DELETED
OUR DAY WILL COME

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Zekeinistan

Advertisement

Remove ads