NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

Hm... truly a shame.

Also... that's an HK.

[Imperializt Russia]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

Was that on that page? It says it was last updated twenty minutes before you made this post.

[Purpelia]

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

Was that on that page? It says it was last updated twenty minutes before you made this post.

His browser cache on the other hand might have remembered the unmodified version.

[Fordorsia]

Jesus Christ, I already see a thread dedicated to what is, essentially, just another death. Let's not turn this into a thing. Don't spam the thread with pointless "RIP in peace" comments.

[Registug]

Registugian police and militia forces dealing with a violent protest or riot are trained to contain, calm and subdue the protest and try to limit personal and property damage in all areas possible.
However, riots are known covers for the anarcho-terrorist group the Anti-Government Alliance, and in such a situation that terrorist activity is confirmed in the riot, police and militia forces are to immediately and quickly disperse the crowd by firing over their heads with their firearms, and are to quickly engage any hostile terrorist personnel. Military back-up is to be requisitioned as soon as possible when dealing with terrorist threats. Non-hostile civilians caught in an AGA attack are to be rescued; otherwise property damage is a secondary concern when attempting to capture or kill an AGA terrorist. All means possible are to be used to eradicate an AGA threat. All AGA must be eradicated.

Yes, the subtext was intentional

[Vareiln]

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

Was that on that page? It says it was last updated twenty minutes before you made this post.

Oh damn, they updated it!
It was on the page, but now it seems they've removed it and replaced it.

[Sevvania]

Jesus Christ, I already see a thread dedicated to what is, essentially, just another death. Let's not turn this into a thing. Don't spam the thread with pointless "RIP in peace" comments.

Except this is a death related to infantry weapons, because this is the father of the AK.

[Fordorsia]

Jesus Christ, I already see a thread dedicated to what is, essentially, just another death. Let's not turn this into a thing. Don't spam the thread with pointless "RIP in peace" comments.

Except this is a death related to infantry weapons, because this is the father of the AK.

Except no. Discussion about the AK is relevant. "RIP" comments about some dying isn't.

[Coltarin]

Except this is a death related to infantry weapons, because this is the father of the AK.

Except no. Discussion about the AK is relevant. "RIP" comments about some dying isn't.

Fords jsut angry because it isn't FAL related.

[Kouralia]

Except no. Discussion about the AK is relevant. "RIP" comments about some dying isn't.

Fords jsut angry because it isn't FAL related.

^

[Fordorsia]

Except no. Discussion about the AK is relevant. "RIP" comments about some dying isn't.

Fords jsut angry because it isn't FAL related.

Yeah, it's not like I hate people "mourning" or anything.

[Black Hand]

10x55 as intermediate y/n?

[New Tsavon]

Also, apparently the father of the AK just died. As in today.

Yeah, I read the BBC article.
Apparently, the BBC thinks this is an AK.

May he rest in peace.

10x55 as intermediate y/n?

Don't be biop.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

10x55 as intermediate y/n?

How's about no.

Unless, of course, it's intended for PA troops, or some other group of sufficiently hulked up infantrymen.

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I think 7.92x43mm Arch might be a better option. All the performance of the 7.92mm Mauser in a cartridge the size of the 7.62mm NATO! Buy now!

[Alfegos]

Since this infantry, a few little queries, regards to what your policies are:

> Infantry issued cooker & cooking kit - what fuel, what type?
I'm inclined to go with solid fuel cookers, in the style of a combined metal cooker/large mug system as opposed to cooker and mess tins. You can transport more energy in solid form, regards to volume transport, and solid fuel will work in adverse conditions more reliably. The whole apparatus can fit into a single webbing pouch quite happily.
> Issue waterproof & warm kit - what does that entail? Climates?
Issued goretex shell jacket and trousers in most climates. Make sure the arctic coveralls are goretex for the polar climates. Warm kit, would be looking at a standard issue of thermal top/bottom and a softie-style fleece. Gloves of course are essential. An optional soft hat for cold climates, where wearing a helmet is not needed.
> Issued shelters & sleeping systems - again, what is entailed?
I'll be going for shelter sheet and hammock, with sleeping bag and mat for colder climates. Mosquito net built into hammock, ofc.
> Issued water carriage - how much, and in what container?
I'd be looking at 5 litres - 3 in a bladder, and 2 in seperate 1 litre water bottles.
> Individual Issued CBRN kit - what would that contain in your army?
CBRN Oversuit, boot covers, gloves (inner and outer), gas mask and 2x spare filters sealed. On top of that, I'd likely be inclined to include one of the CBRN medpacks I have on sale somewhere on NS - detector paper, PB Prophylactics, atropine/pralidoxime autoinjectors, and contamination markers. Definately decontamination wipes and fuller's earth as well.
> Average weight carriage in: Fighting Order (putting the lead downrange); Patrol Order (going out on a day trip to put the lead down); Marching Order (sorry lads, the transport's not turned up)
mmm... Prolly 15kg in FO, 25kg in PO, and up to 50kg in MO... would break it down if I could be arrsed, but we'll see.
> Boots/Footwear - what are you inclined to go for there?
Boots as standard - probably two pairs included for marching order, in case one gets fucked. Likely looking at (for my chaps), arctic, temperate, desert and tropical boots, as per the standard styles. Might even go for different sets for infantry and mounted, to better support the legs as necessary. And of course, sandals for when out of boots.
> Consider the above in temperate, tropical, arid and arctic scenarios.

That should get some real interesting talk going down.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ham and portyanki.

All the modern Russian infantryman needs.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Since this infantry, a few little queries, regards to what your policies are:

> Infantry issued cooker & cooking kit - what fuel, what type?
I'm inclined to go with solid fuel cookers, in the style of a combined metal cooker/large mug system as opposed to cooker and mess tins. You can transport more energy in solid form, regards to volume transport, and solid fuel will work in adverse conditions more reliably. The whole apparatus can fit into a single webbing pouch quite happily.
> Issue waterproof & warm kit - what does that entail? Climates?
Issued goretex shell jacket and trousers in most climates. Make sure the arctic coveralls are goretex for the polar climates. Warm kit, would be looking at a standard issue of thermal top/bottom and a softie-style fleece. Gloves of course are essential. An optional soft hat for cold climates, where wearing a helmet is not needed.
> Issued shelters & sleeping systems - again, what is entailed?
I'll be going for shelter sheet and hammock, with sleeping bag and mat for colder climates. Mosquito net built into hammock, ofc.
> Issued water carriage - how much, and in what container?
I'd be looking at 5 litres - 3 in a bladder, and 2 in seperate 1 litre water bottles.
> Individual Issued CBRN kit - what would that contain in your army?
CBRN Oversuit, boot covers, gloves (inner and outer), gas mask and 2x spare filters sealed. On top of that, I'd likely be inclined to include one of the CBRN medpacks I have on sale somewhere on NS - detector paper, PB Prophylactics, atropine/pralidoxime autoinjectors, and contamination markers. Definately decontamination wipes and fuller's earth as well.
> Average weight carriage in: Fighting Order (putting the lead downrange); Patrol Order (going out on a day trip to put the lead down); Marching Order (sorry lads, the transport's not turned up)
mmm... Prolly 15kg in FO, 25kg in PO, and up to 50kg in MO... would break it down if I could be arrsed, but we'll see.
> Boots/Footwear - what are you inclined to go for there?
Boots as standard - probably two pairs included for marching order, in case one gets fucked. Likely looking at (for my chaps), arctic, temperate, desert and tropical boots, as per the standard styles. Might even go for different sets for infantry and mounted, to better support the legs as necessary. And of course, sandals for when out of boots.
> Consider the above in temperate, tropical, arid and arctic scenarios.

That should get some real interesting talk going down.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146849
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146845

[Kouralia]

Since this infantry, a few little queries, regards to what your policies are:
...
That should get some real interesting talk going down.

This seems to be similar to the British Army, and is therefore similar to the Royal Kouralian Army.

[Blackledge]

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146849
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146845

Self-designed IMP/MRE menus? That is true dedication. Even if they don't sound too appetizing...

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146849
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=nirv ... /id=146845

Self-designed IMP/MRE menus? That is true dedication. Even if they don't sound too appetizing...

Wat? Have you had half the things on that menu? They're amazeballs.

[Yes Im Biop]

10x55 as intermediate y/n?

I already one upped you. 12.7x55 Carbines, I'll sell em to ya XD

[Blackledge]

Self-designed IMP/MRE menus? That is true dedication. Even if they don't sound too appetizing...

Wat? Have you had half the things on that menu? They're amazeballs.

Oh I've had half the things. It's the other halves that I nitpick. I like pulled pork, but not in a turnover. And chicken and dumplings, but the word "dessicated" won't help the digestion process. Are you Hungarian by any chance? Halušky and goulash, and all.

[Bezombia]

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I think 7.92x43mm Arch might be a better option. All the performance of the 7.92mm Mauser in a cartridge the size of the 7.62mm NATO! Buy now!

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I doubt you'd get 7.92x57 performance form a 43mm case.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Wat? Have you had half the things on that menu? They're amazeballs.

Oh I've had half the things. It's the other halves that I nitpick. I like pulled pork, but not in a turnover. And chicken and dumplings, but the word "dessicated" won't help the digestion process. Are you Hungarian by any chance? Halušky and goulash, and all.

Dessicated just means you need to add water. And no, I'm not Hungarian. It's kind of funny, I actually modeled a good part of this nation after Romania (culture and cuisine), and most of the other bits take inspiration from Scandinavia (econoic and sociopolitical landscape). However we're getting a little off track at this point.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Do you really want to go into this? From my point of view in the striking majority of protests turned violent the police are to be blamed for the escalation. Call me a tinfoil hat wearer but there is enough evidence to prove to me that police provocateurs are a real thing and are regularly used. Undercover police officers also blend in the crowd and perform more "peaceful" missions such as collecting evidence or infiltrating certain groups of protesters. The latter practice can be justified more or less but the former is done simply to discredit the protesters and justify use of force that could not be justified otherwise.

I do not disagree with you that this happens. I just disagree that it is a bad thing.

The first thing, or the second? Or both? If we're talking about the second then may I ask why? It's to a certain degree similar to planting drugs on someone. Sure, being part of a "violent" protest may generally have less repercussions than being "caught" with drugs (assuming your country doesn't like drugs), but you get the point. It's morally wrong.

Furthermore I was under the impression that we were talking about stuff that is already violent by default like say football hooligans or political protests rather than people assembling peacefully and than suddenly becoming violent for no good reason.

??? you're saying it as if football fans and political protesters are exclusively violent people that engage in violent protests. People hardly ever "become violent for no good reason" . Shitloads of protests turned violent were actually peaceful before masses of police arrived for whatever reason. I can see why a few observers should be present to collect evidence and obviously policemen that would be there anyways (e.g. patrols) have every reason to be there, but there is no reason to bring masses of riot police to an otherwise peaceful protest. If you're really that worried shit will go down then have them on standby available for call out. If not even the response time most probably in the minutes range won't do it then hell, put them in vans and park them up a few blocks from the protest. People are acting like the whole city would burn down at the hands of the enraged masses in a matter of minutes, faster than the police could arrive. A delay of X minutes is IMO preferable to such an ostentatious, intimidating, uncalled for show of force as is common practice with many otherwise peaceful protests, which so often causes the protest to escalate instead of making it safer. All warranted by a perceived "need" of immediate, milisecond-range response. Good job creating a tense unpleasant atmosphere for everybody, gee I wonder why so often there's a spark and SHTF.

I am not quite sure where you got this tangent from. I know it's not from me thou so I would like to ask who else is partaking in this discussion since I seem to have genuinely missed something.

And yes I do realize I strawman'd . Did it to preemptively address issues that might come up.

Honestly I would prefer some paperwork and at least a cursory background check to make sure the "society of peaceful friendly people protesting for the rights of plants"

This could be abused. You can fuck around with interpretations all you want, time *cannot* be interpreted differently.

a major gang of neonazi football hooligans in disguise who sent their leaders grandmother to sign in a protest for them.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I understand that you don't allow neonazis to protest in your country? Does police show up at your protests with a guest list and check everyone's ID individually? If not, doing a background check on the person that registered the protest would be futile. I can give a guy on the street 20$ to go and do it for me. Assuming he has a clean background, then it's authorized, and at the protest I show up with whomever I want.

That is debatable. I for one do not support the use of violence against individuals not resisting arrest. But anyone from the crowd that actively strikes out against the police has nothing to complain about when they strike back.

Even the justification of use of force on non-compliant but non-violent individuals is debatable. You sound like the type of person that would not resist police actions such as arrests, searches, etc. even though they don't have the necessary evidence to justify it, because, you know, "there's nothing to be afraid of if you didn't do anything" . This type of mentality won't get us anywhere. If anything, it allows and even encourages police to be more arrogant, power-hungry and unprofessional. Same applies for everything else actually, not just police. With this thinking I shouldn't be worried about internet privacy "because I have nothing to hide" . Et cetera .

If someone hits a policeman then he has nothing to complain about getting arrested. That's the correct approach, not the revengeful "I'll put you in hospital now because I'm a power-hungry piece of shit that used to be abused as a child and I think I can get away with it cause I'm a cop. It's not like I felt much through all the layers of armor that I'm wearing but I'll fuck you up anyways. I am superior, it's not like the power to hit you is given to me by the fact that I have dedicated weapons and armor and you don't."

This is where we disagree. If it is indeed only a small subgroup of protesters that is causing the problem than why do the protesters not act like good, honest citizens and aid the police in subduing them?

At the very worst I might be morally contempt with having people bound by law to report emergencies and stuff such as illegal acts or people in distress. But legally obligating regular citizens to actually get involved is not only morally reprehensible but even downright stupid. If a guy with a gun is holding a person hostage and this dude charges at him because he was legally obligated to intervene and the dude or the hostage dies then you have their blood on your hands. Another example: a person witnessing someone break their neck or back in whatever manner being legally obligated to intervene and doing so may cause permanent paralysis to the victim. The examples can go on and on. It's a dumb idea. These things are best left to the people that know what they're doing, aka emergency services (police, EMTs, firefighters, etc.) . In certain situations the help of bystanders can be useful or even critical. But legally obligating them to always intervene is a recipe for disaster. Firstly you're making untrained and inexperienced people do stuff better left to professionals and secondly you're making people risk their own health or even life to do it.

If you're really, really fond of the idea I guess you could try and make your citizens have to help emergency personnel when and if their help is requested by said emergency personnel.

Furthermore and much more importantly it should be the duty of any organization, be it political or social that wants to gain the privilege of having their voice heard to ostracize and eliminate such violent elements from their ranks long before they apply for permission to march on the streets. And to cooperate fully with the police in keeping those individuals away.

This sounds all fine and dandy but how would this be enforced? Maybe if all of the protesters are a uniform, very well organized body of individuals where everyone knows everyone, it would work, but otherwise it wouldn't. This is rarely the case, and when it does happen the participants co-operate with the police as it is. In your run-off-the-mill general protests, many different types of individuals are packed together, often times even lobbying for more or less different goals. There are a lot of people that don't personally know each other. A wrongdoer won't stand out until he actually does something illegal, and after he does it if the peaceful protesters in the immediate vicinity do not report the deed he will just as easily blend into the crowd again. Another peaceful protester 50 or 100m down the road would have no way of recognizing that he's a wrongdoer. And even if they do report it to the police, even with a pretty accurate description, how will he be caught in that huge mass of people?

Expecting peaceful protesters to apprehend violent ones might seem like a good idea that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside and looks like the right thing to expect, but let's be realistic. You go after one, how will the other violent protesters react? Are they buddies? Are they armed? You're basically obligating regular people to risk their physical integrity, maybe even life in extreme cases if they want to protest. I don't know how you feel about that but you probably figured out my stance by now. Is a person legally required to risk their life and intervene if their house is being burglared in order to be allowed to own a house? No, they aren't, and they shouldn't be. It's a choice best left to the citizen. It is the police's duty to protect the citizens the best they can. They are the ones required to go in harm's way, not the citizens.

So no, denying people the right (or "privilege" as you like to call it) to protest based on failure to police said protest is not a smart move in my book.

If they refuse to censor them self, than the police will have to do it for them. And any collateral damage is on their heads.

It isn't refusal as much as it is incapability. Even if they wanted to, they'd make a mediocre job at best and very bad things could happen at worst. What you're doing is gross generalization. You're acting as if the protesters are a hivemind. Damage should be paid for by the individuals who caused it if it can be proven in court. The government should pay for the rest of the damage to public assets. This shouldn't be a problem since they probably issued enough fines during and after the protest to cover up for 10 similar protests' worth of damage. Also, they should pay compensations to the private individuals or businesses whose property got damaged (and the perpetrator either couldn't be identified or his guilt couldn't be proven in court) since the government failed x2 : firstly, the police failed its' job to prevent the damage and secondly, the police and attorneys failed their job to identify the perpetrator, bring him to court and get a conviction. Individual citizens and businesses pay taxes to the government for a number of goods and services, and those 2 are included. If the government failed to deliver it ought to pay compensations.

"Collateral damage" as you call it, which I suppose refers to the consequences of police brutality, ought to be paid for by the ones who caused it, i.e. the policemen who failed to hold their horses. Police brutality is failing your duty to the citizens.

A policeman's duty is to protect and to serve the citizens. To that end, he is paid, trained and equipped. You cannot justify police brutality. As a policeman you have all your odds in your favor compared to a (violent) protester:

- You are equipped with specialized armor and weaponry.
- You have received certain training, specialized or not.
- Unless you're operating lone wolf style for whatever reason, all around you you have similarly well trained and equipped individuals that have the duty to intervene if something were to happen to you.

As such, there are very few circumstances I can think of in which you, as a police officer, could reasonably expect to justify the use of an overzealous amount of force on a protester.

Remember. Freedom is not a right to be taken for granted. It is a privilege that has to be worked for and maintained through effort and sacrifice. And if you don't do this than you do not deserve to have said privilege in the first place.

^^^
above

Do you have any idea how unrealistic this is? Say a bunch of people are robbing a store during a peaceful protest. Is the police supposed to ask the crowd politely to move aside so that they can arrest them?

Detain =/= arrest. The best course of action would be first to detain everyone, round them up and sit them down nicely and have a chat with them. ID everyone. Idk laws that well but if I'm not mistaken, if you are detained and you fail to produce a form of ID or refuse to ID yourself then idk if that's an arrest but that's enough to earn you a trip to the station. Pat down everybody. By now you should have a glimpse into who participated in the robbery. Ask a couple of questions around. Once a single perpetrator has been discovered, there are good chances more will follow. Innocent people may say who did it voluntarily or because they're afraid of being taken in themselves. Even the perpetrators may give each other up sometimes, especially if they're strangers. Invite anyone willing to give extra info or come in for questioning to the station. If you're pretty certain a number of people didn't do it, release them. You know who to look for anyways. Arrest everyone else. Voila.

Do you expect the police to walk through a raging crowd collecting evidence and only arresting whom ever they can prove threw a rock at them? That sort of thinking can only vaguely work if you have indestructible cameras everywhere and can just afford to round the people up from their homes at some later date.

But assuming a non-compliant suspect, a reasonable amount of force still has to be used to make the arrest, ideally but not necessarily the minimum it would take. Assuming there is reasonable suspicion that some of the other protesters not included in the above group might attempt to obstruct the arrest of the above group then a limited (lesser) amount of force should be legally allowed to disperse these other protesters in order to facilitate the arrest and limit the risk to the policemen making the arrest.

You're really making it look harder than it is. If you can articulate a hunch you can detain someone. If you can articulate a hunch more you can arrest someone. The basic point is, don't act randomly, and when you act, act proportional to the amount of evidence (or more realistically suspicion) you have. That's all I'm asking for, and it's common sense really.

Furthermore, it ignores the major issue of actual organizational responsibility. If someone organizes a mass gathering than he or they should be held responsible for the actions of the people they have gathered. Otherwise it becomes trivially easy for all sorts of extremist organizations to wash their hands and say: "These people whom we invited to gather and spurred on just decided to burn the city down on their own. It's not our fault."

If a group of people have gathered to publicly state their voice about something than they should be treated as a group. And both the organizers and members of this group need to be held accountable for it's behavior. If a part of that group turns violent they can't and should not be allowed to just turn a blind eye and expect the police to carefully pick these violent individuals out of the crowd.

I addressed this above . . .

It's not only utterly impractical but also dangerous. When a violent riot occurs the first and most important duty of the police should be to break it up and restore order and safety to the streets as quickly and painlessly as is possible. You don't just let people burn cars all day until you eventually arrest the one you have on film lighting a match.

You're exaggerating.

I am not a proponent of dispersal at all. I find that it serves no purpose leading at best to the guilty getting away and at worst to a stampede and mass violence. I am a proponent of containment, arrest and processing for everyone involved. Arrest them all and let the courts sort them out.

The police does not like masses, and as such they disperse them. It's more of a precaution than a solution I think. And again, we are disagreeing.