NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[Tergnitz]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d23/RRoan/AWESOMETANKCUTAWAY.png

I see your supertank and raise you a Landship o/

[Allanea]

It Came From Imeriata?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Good luck hitting anything with a prussian needle gun that's further away than 50 metres. If infantry fired before 50-70 metres, they'd be wasting their shots. They might get one volley off before the cavalry reaches them. Three rounds in ten seconds? Unlikey. Maybe 2 at absolute best. Pretty hard to reload or do anything without fumbling under the pressure of 101 horses charging at you.

Even if they get a volley off, it isn't going to stop the charge. The cavalry will easily carry most of their strength through to the infantry lines and the initial force of the charge will kill, injure or disable most of the infantry. Being up high in a sword fight is also a nice advantage.

Bayonets, square formation. Calvary by the 1800 were really no longer carrying out frontal charges, they were more regulated to scouting and flanking maneuvers. Bayonets gave every soldier an instant spear, and with the ability to continue firing even with said bayonet attached. Square formation did't allow calvary to punch through the line, and allowed infantry to pile up and be ranked deeper.

First off, this scenario isn't using an infantry square, but I'll play along.

Stabbing a horse with a bayonet won't stop it. A horse moving at 50km/h carrying a fully equipped soldier is carrying a lot of momemtum which it will easily transfer to the infantry square whether or not it and it's rider is still alive. This is going to break the square very easily, just one horse. Once there is a gap in the square, that's pretty much it. The numbers of each side in this scenario suggest that the infantry cannot afford to resist charge after charge from the cavalry. 2:1 in favour of infantry are still pretty good odds for cavalry here.

[Purpelia]

IIRC the reason why infantry squares worked was that horses, even trained war horses have a serious mental issue with charging a thick square of knifes pointing at them. So horses would refuse to charge squares or something.

[Vitaphone Racing]

IIRC the reason why infantry squares worked was that horses, even trained war horses have a serious mental issue with charging a thick square of knifes pointing at them. So horses would refuse to charge squares or something.

A dead or wounded horse tumbling into the line is (historically) far more likely and just as effective.

[Inutoland]

It Came From Imeriata?

No, it's not stylish enough. Imeriatan landships have gold figureheads, organ pipes and large VLS batteries, IIRC.

[The UK in Exile]

IIRC the reason why infantry squares worked was that horses, even trained war horses have a serious mental issue with charging a thick square of knifes pointing at them. So horses would refuse to charge squares or something.

A dead or wounded horse tumbling into the line is (historically) far more likely and just as effective.

errr. no.

squares were occasionally broken when a horse crashed into the side but it was a chance occurence.

a square of infantry with bayonets out who got off a volley would stop a charge.

whats far more likely is a dead or wounded horse fouling the horse around him and stalling the entire charge.

[Spirit of Hope]

On my iPhone, please excuse problems that arise because of it. As has been noted hourses have a hard time charging spears, and by extension bayonet equipped rifles, to the point where they will shy away and break off the charge. Second a charging horse wouldn't be stopped by one man with a bayonet, however with square formation half a dozen men might spear the horse, and they would be supported by others who locked them into formation.

Next calvalry must maintain a tight formation to be effective in a charge, this tight formation would be ripped apart by the infantry rifle fire, meaning a less effective charge. As I said by the 1850s calvalry were regulated to scouting, flanking and dragoons, not direct charges.

[Vitaphone Racing]

A dead or wounded horse tumbling into the line is (historically) far more likely and just as effective.

errr. no.

squares were occasionally broken when a horse crashed into the side but it was a chance occurence.

a square of infantry with bayonets out who got off a volley would stop a charge.

whats far more likely is a dead or wounded horse fouling the horse around him and stalling the entire charge.

Laws of physics dictate that an object containing 1000kgm/s will have a profound effect on any other objects it crashes into. When you shoot a horse, it isn't going to just drop and lie still instantaneously obviously nor will any other but a few horses be impeded by a dead one on the ground.

IF the infantry were more numerous in number, you would have a point but they aren't for this situation so you don't. There simply aren't enough soldiers to constantly fill gaps and reform posistions to prevent from being seperated and overwhelmed by the cavalry.

[Vitaphone Racing]

On my iPhone, please excuse problems that arise because of it. As has been noted hourses have a hard time charging spears, and by extension bayonet equipped rifles, to the point where they will shy away and break off the charge. Second a charging horse wouldn't be stopped by one man with a bayonet, however with square formation half a dozen men might spear the horse, and they would be supported by others who locked them into formation.

Next calvalry must maintain a tight formation to be effective in a charge, this tight formation would be ripped apart by the infantry rifle fire, meaning a less effective charge. As I said by the 1850s calvalry were regulated to scouting, flanking and dragoons, not direct charges.

You're stating points that I've already addressed. I know perfectly well that an infantry square has the potential to stop a cavalry charge and that cavalry charges were not commonplace in this era however the sitation at hand gives clear advantage to the cavalry force. There is not enough infantry, not enough mass if you will, to resist dead, wounded or plain crazed horses jumping into the formation.

Whether or not horses are frightened by bayonets and other prickly things depends entirely on situation. Some will attempt to stop before an obstacle, many will attempt to leap it especially when travelling in a formation.

[Spirit of Hope]

Laws of physics dictate that an object containing 1000kgm/s will have a profound effect on any other objects it crashes into. When you shoot a horse, it isn't going to just drop and lie still instantaneously obviously nor will any other but a few horses be impeded by a dead one on the ground.

IF the infantry were more numerous in number, you would have a point but they aren't for this situation so you don't. There simply aren't enough soldiers to constantly fill gaps and reform posistions to prevent from being seperated and overwhelmed by the cavalry.

What the dead horse will do is fall and tumble, likely right as it is shot. This dead horse will then block other horses who will attempt to leap it, or move around it. This breaks up the formation, reducing its power and slowing it down, also the horses that leap might break their legs when they land at which point they just add to the pile up. Remember the infantry have rifles, getting off a couple of shots as the calvary charge. Plus rifle range extends to, and beyond, calvary charge distance (300 yards) meaning as the cavalry form up they will be under at least harassing fire.

An injured/crazy/whatever horse will attempt to flee away from the infantry formation because of the sound of firing, which again will brake up the calvary formation.

[FreeOlesia]

Modified EM-2 bullpup firing 6.5×55mm. Y/N?

[Bajireyn]

Modified EM-2 bullpup firing 6.5×55mm. Y/N?

Y

[Crookfur]

Modified EM-2 bullpup firing 6.5×55mm. Y/N?

No

stick to .280 or 6.25x43mm as is right and proper

[Crookfur]

Square formation did't allow calvary to punch through the line, and allowed infantry to pile up and be ranked deeper.

Just going to have to point out that using organised formations with the Dreyse defeats the point of having such a weapon in the first place. By the time the Prussians were using it, other nations had rifled muskets with much longer ranges (which actually allowed infantry to engage cavalry without squares, as the Thin Red Line showed); the reason the Prussians were able to use such a short ranged weapon so effectively was pretty much because they abandoned close order formations (like squares) and adopted open-order Auftragstaktik.

pretty much this, particulalry if the wood is truely forrested and thus has plentiful scrub and under growth. No cavalry would ever charge into that if they knew enemy infantry was lurking amoungst the woods in skirmish order

[Ularn]

Someone mentioned a few pages back that there were a lot of things in modern militaries which don't make immediate sense any more and are generally just hangovers from historical organisation. If an army was being designed from the ground up, a lot of the organisation would be different.

I'm wondering if one of those things would be the difference between officers and enlisted. Historically, this emerged as part of the class structure existing during such times, where the wealthy bought themselves commissions and the poor just made up the rank and file. If an army were being designed today, how likely would it be that the gulf between the two would be much closer, with promotion from enlisted to officer occurring more often? I ask because it seems like there's so much overlap between the duties of a senior enlisted (e.g. Warrant Officers) and junior commissioned (e.g. Lieutenants) that the roles could probably be merged?

You see such a layout in a lot of Sci-Fi. In Starship Troopers (the book; not the film blasphemy) everyone starts out as enlisted and commissions only come after proving strategic ability in the battlefield. I was thinking about taking the same approach; eliminating many senior enlisted ranks and just having sufficiently capable soldiers packed off to Officer Training Academy. This would have the advantage that more junior officers would have combat experience, although it would also be possible to go straight to Officer Training after completing basic if the individual was considered sufficiently qualified.

Thoughts?

[Spirit of Hope]

My main thought on your idea Ularn is what about during times of peace or limited warfare? There wouldn't be enough soldiers gaining combat experience to shine and thus be chosen for OCS, which leads to a bunch of older officers with to much time in grade. Second officers are supposed to have a different way of thinking. Enlisted carry out actions, or at higher enlisted ranks think how to carry out actions. Officers think what has to be done next, and while a transition can be made from one school of thought to the other it can be hard. Yes the lines blur at the lower levels (lieutenant vs. warrant) however the Warrant will likely have years of experience and be older, while the lieutenant will be new and young. This means the lieutenant has many more years left for advancing and learning, which the warrant doesn't have, he has already learned and advanced.

[Asneira3]

Antimatter broette.

Consensia is a broette?

dunno tbh

[Immoren]

I wonder if this "(reserve) officer students are chosen from best of the (reserve) NCO course" thing Finland has would work in context of professional military or if only reason to use it is conscript/reservist based force we have. Of course officers haven't gone through NCO ranks, but all NCOs and commissioned officers have gone through same "(reserve) non-commissioned officer course I".
Would something like these work?
OR possible officer candidates go though same basic as enlisted are chosen to officer school at end of Basic.
OR prospecting officer candidates join enlisted and are chosen to officer school by time they are corporals and/or sergeants
I have heard that here divide between "enlisted" and officers are much shallower here than in anglo-saxon world, but whether that is good or bad thing is another question.

[Ularn]

My main thought on your idea Ularn is what about during times of peace or limited warfare? There wouldn't be enough soldiers gaining combat experience to shine and thus be chosen for OCS, which leads to a bunch of older officers with to much time in grade. Second officers are supposed to have a different way of thinking. Enlisted carry out actions, or at higher enlisted ranks think how to carry out actions. Officers think what has to be done next, and while a transition can be made from one school of thought to the other it can be hard. Yes the lines blur at the lower levels (lieutenant vs. warrant) however the Warrant will likely have years of experience and be older, while the lieutenant will be new and young. This means the lieutenant has many more years left for advancing and learning, which the warrant doesn't have, he has already learned and advanced.

Good point. I guess it works in Starship Troopers because in the Mobile Infantry, "everybody drops and everybody fights" - including the Cook, the Chaplain, senior enlisted and command staff. Promoting those who would otherwise be Warrant Officers to a commissioned rank doesn't deprive the newer recruits of the benefit of their experience because they're fighting like everybody else. I'm not planning to adopt this approach to the same degree, although even Field Commanders (highest rank in the USN Marines) will be expected to put on their armour while on deployment, so perhaps it wouldn't be so appropriate.

Still, it seems like the modern situation has some problems. A recruit might have strong innate leadership and strategic abilities that would make them ideal officer material but, because they did badly at school or didn't get a University/College degree before enlisting, they aren't considered for officer training, thereby depriving the military of the benefit they'd provide if given a commission. It seems to me that there should be some sort of solution to this problem.

And it also seems to me that, if Warrant Officers and Second Lieutenants do more or less the same job (which we both seem to agree on) then it seems rather pointless to have the overlap in the Table of Organisation, even if there is a difference in experience between the two roles. I'm not sure how best to deal with that issue without depriving the enlisted ranks of the direct benefit of the Warrant Officer's experience though.

I wonder if this "(reserve) officer students are chosen from best of the (reserve) NCO course" thing Finland has would work in context of professional military or if only reason to use it is conscript/reservist based force we have. Of course officers haven't gone through NCO ranks, but all NCOs and commissioned officers have gone through same "(reserve) non-commissioned officer course I".
Would something like these work?
OR possible officer candidates go though same basic as enlisted are chosen to officer school at end of Basic.
OR prospecting officer candidates join enlisted and are chosen to officer school by time they are corporals and/or sergeants
I have heard that here divide between "enlisted" and officers are much shallower here than in anglo-saxon world, but whether that is good or bad thing is another question.

This is sort of like what I was thinking about, especially the latter two options.

[The Akasha Colony]

Someone mentioned a few pages back that there were a lot of things in modern militaries which don't make immediate sense any more and are generally just hangovers from historical organisation. If an army was being designed from the ground up, a lot of the organisation would be different.

I'm wondering if one of those things would be the difference between officers and enlisted. Historically, this emerged as part of the class structure existing during such times, where the wealthy bought themselves commissions and the poor just made up the rank and file. If an army were being designed today, how likely would it be that the gulf between the two would be much closer, with promotion from enlisted to officer occurring more often? I ask because it seems like there's so much overlap between the duties of a senior enlisted (e.g. Warrant Officers) and junior commissioned (e.g. Lieutenants) that the roles could probably be merged?

You see such a layout in a lot of Sci-Fi. In Starship Troopers (the book; not the film blasphemy) everyone starts out as enlisted and commissions only come after proving strategic ability in the battlefield. I was thinking about taking the same approach; eliminating many senior enlisted ranks and just having sufficiently capable soldiers packed off to Officer Training Academy. This would have the advantage that more junior officers would have combat experience, although it would also be possible to go straight to Officer Training after completing basic if the individual was considered sufficiently qualified.

Thoughts?

You probably wouldn't have the near-segregation of officers and enlisted personnel that you currently have, which is much a factor of tradition as anything else. But officers can be best thought of as command-trained soldiers, whereas enlisted personnel tend to be focused on their actual field specialty. At the higher ranks, things get a bit muddled, with senior NCOs having as much if not more leadership experience as junior officers, but the difference is one of several decades of service.

I think it's logical to have a separate officer level for those who choose to go directly into command, and those who pass the aptitude tests to enter the service academies or make it through ROTC at a major university. Perhaps the transition from enlisted to officer could be made easier, but a lot of militaries are already attempting to streamline this process, such as the US Navy's 'Seaman to Admiral' program.

Having all troops start at enlisted level before moving to officer requires either a system where people blast through the enlisted ranks such that they can make it to officer with a decent amount of service time left, or just barely make it to officer by the time they're mustering out under normal promotion rates. A 40 year-old lieutenant who's worked his way up the ranks from enlisted has no serious chance of making it to the higher ranks by the time he hits retirement age.

In a combat environment, where brevet ranks abound and opportunities for promotion due to valor are everywhere, it can be done, but otherwise you're either going to have to fast-track everyone, slow-track everyone, or create a system of selective fast-tracking that may cause some friction in the ranks when some end up getting bumped up to officer in a few years while others never make it past Sergeant.

[Asneira3]

My main thought on your idea Ularn is what about during times of peace or limited warfare? There wouldn't be enough soldiers gaining combat experience to shine and thus be chosen for OCS, which leads to a bunch of older officers with to much time in grade. Second officers are supposed to have a different way of thinking. Enlisted carry out actions, or at higher enlisted ranks think how to carry out actions. Officers think what has to be done next, and while a transition can be made from one school of thought to the other it can be hard. Yes the lines blur at the lower levels (lieutenant vs. warrant) however the Warrant will likely have years of experience and be older, while the lieutenant will be new and young. This means the lieutenant has many more years left for advancing and learning, which the warrant doesn't have, he has already learned and advanced.

Good point. I guess it works in Starship Troopers because in the Mobile Infantry, "everybody drops and everybody fights" - including the Cook, the Chaplain, senior enlisted and command staff. Promoting those who would otherwise be Warrant Officers to a commissioned rank doesn't deprive the newer recruits of the benefit of their experience because they're fighting like everybody else. I'm not planning to adopt this approach to the same degree, although even Field Commanders (highest rank in the USN Marines) will be expected to put on their armour while on deployment, so perhaps it wouldn't be so appropriate.

Still, it seems like the modern situation has some problems. A recruit might have strong innate leadership and strategic abilities that would make them ideal officer material but, because they did badly at school or didn't get a University/College degree before enlisting, they aren't considered for officer training, thereby depriving the military of the benefit they'd provide if given a commission. It seems to me that there should be some sort of solution to this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_promotion

From World War I to the Vietnam War, over 31,200 soldiers, Marines, and airmen had been awarded battlefield commissions. Such a commission is usually advancement from a position of non-commissioned officer to a commissioned officer, generally O-1, also known as Second Lieutenant, or Ensign in the Navy or Coast Guard.

[The UK in Exile]

Still, it seems like the modern situation has some problems. A recruit might have strong innate leadership and strategic abilities that would make them ideal officer material but, because they did badly at school or didn't get a University/College degree before enlisting, they aren't considered for officer training, thereby depriving the military of the benefit they'd provide if given a commission. It seems to me that there should be some sort of solution to this problem.

this isn't actually a problem for the military. its just unfair on the individual. if the recruiting standards and process deliver enough officer the army is fine. it doesn't matter if theres a good candidate soldiering away in the ranks. if it doesn't they'll simply throw away the requirement for a degree (though in the british army their is no such requirement.)

regarding the overlap between WO2 and 2nd LT. its quite deliberate. one may well have to do the others job on the battlefield.

[Krumbia]

After buying a book today, I have taken a sudden interest in swords and other bladed weapons. Planning on keeping this up, atleast for a few months. If anyone has any questions about swords, I'll try my best to answer them. Just sayin'.

[Free Missouri]

what would be a logical kit for a specialized Naval Infantryman with specializations in boarding actions.