Infantry Discussion Thread, Mk. 8 Mod. 0 [No Kaiju]

[Palmyrion]

Define intermediate.

Smaller than an GPC, larger than a PDW round. You know, just like the rounds Puz suggested.

Choose your poison:

95gr .277"

vs

75gr .240"

---

Is this squad layout feasible:

Palmyrian Squad (w/o vehicles)
-Squad Leader
-Fireteam Alpha

-Designated Marksman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

-Fireteam Bravo

-SAW gunner
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

-Fireteam Charlie

-Grenadier
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

[Fordorsia]

Serious question.

Would chainswords be better than regular swords in the long ago time of before guns? By this I mean it's regular history just with chainswords existing. The existence of whatever they're powered by doesn't effect the world and therefore the combat.

[Gallia-]

no

not now

not then

not ever

[Fordorsia]

no

not now

not then

not ever

Soft squishy peasants tho

[Vortukia]

So to answer your question you can't build your structure asymmetrically, you can build your military to fight a asymmetric war, which would involve making them suited to fighting a nation much bigger and stronger, or much smaller.

In my advice, go with all three. Make a balanced force to fight conventionally on a equal power, a ranger-esq variety to fight away from supplies, communication and against a larger threat, and a counter-insurgency to fight the guerrilla.

Best of luck, and if you need help writing, shoot me a telgram.

Speaking of, how would one build a military suited for such a strategy using a balanced force?

Well you need to balance what you make.

First off your ratio should be more or less lopsided in the fact of your general main body, as they can do basic asymmetric warfare, but wont be designed purely for it.

Build your basic force first, then your strategy around it, although it's better in the long term if you can handle it to build the strategy, and doctrine first then design your military after it. Then build your 'wings' to deal with both sides of the asymmetric scale. Building a military for a balanced war should be a majority of your conventional forces, while a minority designed for one end, and the other end of the spectrum.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Speaking of, how would one build a military suited for such a strategy using a balanced force?

Well you need to balance what you make.

First off your ratio should be more or less lopsided in the fact of your general main body, as they can do basic asymmetric warfare, but wont be designed purely for it.

Build your basic force first, then your strategy around it, although it's better in the long term if you can handle it to build the strategy, and doctrine first then design your military after it. Then build your 'wings' to deal with both sides of the asymmetric scale. Building a military for a balanced war should be a majority of your conventional forces, while a minority designed for one end, and the other end of the spectrum.

These words don't make much sense in combination. Shouldn't requirements drive composition and not the other way around?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Notional HK section.

Section Leader: HK33
- Gunner: HK23/21E
- Assistant Gunner: HK33

Team Leader: HK33
- Grenadier: HK33TGS
- Auto Rifleman: HK13
- Rifleman: HK33

Team Leader: HK33
- Grenadier: HK33TGS
- Auto Rifleman: HK13
- Rifleman: HK33

11 men. The section has four magnified optics and seven unmagnified optics issued. Both HK33TGS have the underslung HK79 40mm (That's what TGS means). Gunner's HK23 has the kit at platoon level to convert to 7.62mm, otherwise all section weapons are 5.56mm. Platoon weapons squad has two more HK21E teams, and a 60mm mortar team. Charlie G's available at company level to the platoons.





Saturdays: I work them. :Sadface:

Where is the driver? Unless you delegate your transport from some designated motor pool assigned up above then never mind.

Transport is an asset attached at higher levels, including their crews.

[Vortukia]

Well you need to balance what you make.

First off your ratio should be more or less lopsided in the fact of your general main body, as they can do basic asymmetric warfare, but wont be designed purely for it.

Build your basic force first, then your strategy around it, although it's better in the long term if you can handle it to build the strategy, and doctrine first then design your military after it. Then build your 'wings' to deal with both sides of the asymmetric scale. Building a military for a balanced war should be a majority of your conventional forces, while a minority designed for one end, and the other end of the spectrum.

These words don't make much sense in combination. Shouldn't requirements drive composition and not the other way around?

If you build your force, and your strategy around it then your strategy is dictated by what you have as a inventory of assets.

If you do it the other way around however, your forces compliment your strategy and use it to full effectiveness, while it's good to have assets that don't RELY on the strategy, if you can use what strategy you have designed to peak efficiency you will find yourself winning a lot more.

Example; If part of your core economic-military relation strategy is cheap affordable armor, so you can mass produce it like McDonalds does fries. You don't want to build your armor before hand, because it may come up to being incredibly expensive and counter productive. If you do the strategy first then plan your armor tank with that in mind you can make a reasonably efficient asset, that compliments your strategy and fits your basic needs.

That's NOT to say you can't have that super fancy M1 Abraham sitting in the depo too, it just means your not mass producing them.

[Sevvania]

If everyone is done, I tacticooled 1906

*inhales deeply*

Yes.

---

Also Sev is not a Sed. :L

[Eclixia]

Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)

[Spirit of Hope]

Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)

On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.

[Vortukia]

Are flamethrowers actually helpful on the battlefield or just there for awesomeness? (Modern Tech)

On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.

Well not SO MUCH the case, yes with modern weapons the idea of a man portable fire projectable device more or less got phased out but still has SOME uses. Using a grenade may not always be the case to clear out say a room, or shooting a explosive. Maybe thick walling, and a grenade net. Those are just two possibilities.

Urban warfare while although a flamethrower may not be your preferred choice still has it's niche, not to mention setting aflame flammable buildings a enemy may be hiding in, or also a fear factor.

[Spirit of Hope]

On the modern battlefeild they have basically no uses, they were a very niche weapon to begin with. The development of of reconciles rifles, man portable rockets, and missiles really got rid of their remaining utility. Especially with the development of thermobaric warheads.

Well not SO MUCH the case, yes with modern weapons the idea of a man portable fire projectable device more or less got phased out but still has SOME uses. Using a grenade may not always be the case to clear out say a room, or shooting a explosive. Maybe thick walling, and a grenade net. Those are just two possibilities.

Urban warfare while although a flamethrower may not be your preferred choice still has it's niche, not to mention setting aflame flammable buildings a enemy may be hiding in, or also a fear factor.

Grenades aren't what did the flame thrower in, rockets are. Rockets are harder to defend against and have a much further range than a flamethrower. Worried about the potential of bunkers? Issue a LAW to every man in the squad. With thermobaric warheads the ability to destroy bunkers, or other prime flame thrower targets, at range has become easier.

At the same time the rocket has more versatility, change out the warhead and it can take out light armored vehicles. Change the warhead again and it can be firing pure HE against enemy infantry.

Even in urban ops you are rarely at such ranges that the flamethrower is going to be in range for your average engagement. Give him an RPG-7 and he can chew through any targets worthy of a flamethrower.

Sure setting someone on fire is scary, but good troops aren't going to get scared enough to get pushed out of their position just by that, especially if they know how to defend against the flamethrower.

[Aqizithiuda]

Smaller than an GPC, larger than a PDW round. You know, just like the rounds Puz suggested.

Choose your poison:

95gr .277"

vs

75gr .240"

---

Is this squad layout feasible:

Palmyrian Squad (w/o vehicles)
-Squad Leader
-Fireteam Alpha

-Designated Marksman
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

-Fireteam Bravo

-SAW gunner
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

-Fireteam Charlie

-Grenadier
-Rifleman
-Rifleman

75gr .240"

[Padnak]

Is there any reason why I can't have some colonel or such carry around a lolzy non-issue revolver just for kicks?

[Vortukia]

Well not SO MUCH the case, yes with modern weapons the idea of a man portable fire projectable device more or less got phased out but still has SOME uses. Using a grenade may not always be the case to clear out say a room, or shooting a explosive. Maybe thick walling, and a grenade net. Those are just two possibilities.

Urban warfare while although a flamethrower may not be your preferred choice still has it's niche, not to mention setting aflame flammable buildings a enemy may be hiding in, or also a fear factor.

Grenades aren't what did the flame thrower in, rockets are. Rockets are harder to defend against and have a much further range than a flamethrower. Worried about the potential of bunkers? Issue a LAW to every man in the squad. With thermobaric warheads the ability to destroy bunkers, or other prime flame thrower targets, at range has become easier.

At the same time the rocket has more versatility, change out the warhead and it can take out light armored vehicles. Change the warhead again and it can be firing pure HE against enemy infantry.

Even in urban ops you are rarely at such ranges that the flamethrower is going to be in range for your average engagement. Give him an RPG-7 and he can chew through any targets worthy of a flamethrower.

Sure setting someone on fire is scary, but good troops aren't going to get scared enough to get pushed out of their position just by that, especially if they know how to defend against the flamethrower.

Civilians would, and many troops would very much get scared of seeing their buddy on fire. Know what one of the worst ways to die?

It's fire, it's slow, and painful burning away your flesh and boiling your blood until you're a husk of scab loosely attached to remnants of tendons and dried out bone. Unfortunately soldiers aren't just statues, they are affected by what they see, they get scared and they loose composure. It's a human element that can't be rooted out, hell it's a species element. Self-Preservation, seeing people get burned is a part of that.

Issuing a LAW may be more expensive in the long run, then giving a flamethrower to a designated unit, or even attached to a weapon. It's fast, and it's easy, plus it can be used in places a law can't. A LAW can't go around walls, but you can shoot a flamethrower in a vent, and smoke, or even if the vent is short enough burn out your opponent.

Flamethrowers have uses, maybe not as much as they used to. But their heyday isn't going away any time soon.

[Padnak]

The only reason to use flamethrowers in MT is for aesthetic reasons; Some of my combat engineers are equipped with RPO-50s because I love idea of crazed government forces burning down villages with flamethrowers and general flamethrower usage to clear traps and caves in the jungle, not because flamethrowers are remotely practical

[Vortukia]

The only reason to use flamethrowers in MT is for aesthetic reasons; Some of my combat engineers are equipped with RPO-50s because I love idea of crazed government forces burning down villages with flamethrowers and general flamethrower usage to clear traps and caves in the jungle, not because flamethrowers are remotely practical

See above posts, they're still useful.

[Rhodesialund]

Example; If part of your core economic-military relation strategy is cheap affordable armor, so you can mass produce it like McDonalds does fries. You don't want to build your armor before hand, because it may come up to being incredibly expensive and counter productive. If you do the strategy first then plan your armor tank with that in mind you can make a reasonably efficient asset, that compliments your strategy and fits your basic needs.

That's NOT to say you can't have that super fancy M1 Abraham sitting in the depo too, it just means your not mass producing them.

So....

I have a mainly mechanized fighting force comprised of Stryker Brigades, each with it's complimentary Mobile Gun System. Supported by AH-1Zs and AV-8B Harriers for CAS. Nearby are Mortar Strykers to provide mortar support to fighting units. I also utilize UH-1Ys for air assault. That would be for the Marines.

For the Army, I utilize a more motorized fighting force, with towed artillery. Basically the idea of the Army, obviously, is to serve as an occupational force and to provide support to the Marines who are fighting at the front lines.

(Forgive me, because I don't know shit about tactics or strategy.)

My nation only has about 45 operational M1A1 Abrams, 60 originally were mothballed in 2002 over the ideas of the "Main Battle Tank" being obsolete. It's duties taken up by the Stryker MGS/Assault Gun to promote a better logistical system for the armed forces since the Stryker platform is the most proliferate armored vehicle in service. Over a previous RP on a different forum, TEP, now military planners are seeing the value of the Main Battle Tank. Fortunate to have only faced T-55s and T-64s while invading a smaller nation. As a result, a program was enacted to bring back the Abrams into active duty, and seek either a replacement, or restart production.

[Spirit of Hope]

Grenades aren't what did the flame thrower in, rockets are. Rockets are harder to defend against and have a much further range than a flamethrower. Worried about the potential of bunkers? Issue a LAW to every man in the squad. With thermobaric warheads the ability to destroy bunkers, or other prime flame thrower targets, at range has become easier.

At the same time the rocket has more versatility, change out the warhead and it can take out light armored vehicles. Change the warhead again and it can be firing pure HE against enemy infantry.

Even in urban ops you are rarely at such ranges that the flamethrower is going to be in range for your average engagement. Give him an RPG-7 and he can chew through any targets worthy of a flamethrower.

Sure setting someone on fire is scary, but good troops aren't going to get scared enough to get pushed out of their position just by that, especially if they know how to defend against the flamethrower.

Civilians would, and many troops would very much get scared of seeing their buddy on fire. Know what one of the worst ways to die?

It's fire, it's slow, and painful burning away your flesh and boiling your blood until you're a husk of scab loosely attached to remnants of tendons and dried out bone. Unfortunately soldiers aren't just statues, they are affected by what they see, they get scared and they loose composure. It's a human element that can't be rooted out, hell it's a species element. Self-Preservation, seeing people get burned is a part of that.

Issuing a LAW may be more expensive in the long run, then giving a flamethrower to a designated unit, or even attached to a weapon. It's fast, and it's easy, plus it can be used in places a law can't. A LAW can't go around walls, but you can shoot a flamethrower in a vent, and smoke, or even if the vent is short enough burn out your opponent.

Flamethrowers have uses, maybe not as much as they used to. But their heyday isn't going away any time soon.

Flame throwers hayday is in the past.

Yes flamethrowers are scary, but not enough that well trained troops are going to just run away from them. To get close enough to use a flamethrower you have to be well within the enemies rifles and machineguns, and good troops will use that range advantage to make mincemeat of any flamethrowers. To use the flamethrower you must outmaneuver your opponents forces, and if you are doing that you would be able to push them back without it, it only makes your job a little easier.

Want to know what makes your job even easier? A LAW, or other rocket weapon. Trooper sees a bunker, pulls out his LAW and fires. Or calls for the platoon/company rocket/AT team who hit the bunker with their weapons.

Are LAW's potentially more expensive than a flamethrower? Only minimally, a flamethrower soldier requires completely different training from a regular rifleman, while the use of a LAW can be taught to every rifleman. Plus again, versatility. You probably want to issuing LAW's anyways because they can be used against armored vehicles, and helicopters. Where as a flamethrower can't really engage either of those.

You basically need to have the rocket weapons (LAW, AT-4, RPG-7) around anyways, and they will take out the bunker, or other fortified structure, more easily than the flamethrower. So why issue the flamethrower?

There are very few situations where a flamethrower is going to be able to provide capability some other weapons system you already have can't replace it.

[Vortukia]

Civilians would, and many troops would very much get scared of seeing their buddy on fire. Know what one of the worst ways to die?

It's fire, it's slow, and painful burning away your flesh and boiling your blood until you're a husk of scab loosely attached to remnants of tendons and dried out bone. Unfortunately soldiers aren't just statues, they are affected by what they see, they get scared and they loose composure. It's a human element that can't be rooted out, hell it's a species element. Self-Preservation, seeing people get burned is a part of that.

Issuing a LAW may be more expensive in the long run, then giving a flamethrower to a designated unit, or even attached to a weapon. It's fast, and it's easy, plus it can be used in places a law can't. A LAW can't go around walls, but you can shoot a flamethrower in a vent, and smoke, or even if the vent is short enough burn out your opponent.

Flamethrowers have uses, maybe not as much as they used to. But their heyday isn't going away any time soon.

Flame throwers hayday is in the past.

Yes flamethrowers are scary, but not enough that well trained troops are going to just run away from them. To get close enough to use a flamethrower you have to be well within the enemies rifles and machineguns, and good troops will use that range advantage to make mincemeat of any flamethrowers. To use the flamethrower you must outmaneuver your opponents forces, and if you are doing that you would be able to push them back without it, it only makes your job a little easier.

Want to know what makes your job even easier? A LAW, or other rocket weapon. Trooper sees a bunker, pulls out his LAW and fires. Or calls for the platoon/company rocket/AT team who hit the bunker with their weapons.

Are LAW's potentially more expensive than a flamethrower? Only minimally, a flamethrower soldier requires completely different training from a regular rifleman, while the use of a LAW can be taught to every rifleman. Plus again, versatility. You probably want to issuing LAW's anyways because they can be used against armored vehicles, and helicopters. Where as a flamethrower can't really engage either of those.

You basically need to have the rocket weapons (LAW, AT-4, RPG-7) around anyways, and they will take out the bunker, or other fortified structure, more easily than the flamethrower. So why issue the flamethrower?

There are very few situations where a flamethrower is going to be able to provide capability some other weapons system you already have can't replace it.

Plenty, in a close quarters urban setting, a explosive device isn't always going to cut it. However a flamethrower not only solves it, but it's directional, to the point where you can comfortably roast a unit of soldiers through a window, where a LAW might propose damaging yourself.

Not to mention that a well trained soldier is taught to avoid perilous circumstances where the risk-strategic reward is against their interest or the mission interest. A flamethrower certainly would fall a HUMAN BEING back on fight of flight tactics. Soldiers again, as well trained as they are. They're still human, the inescapable truth is that we are weak willed in cases, a species is engraved to avoid fire. It's bad, you don't just walk towards a bonfire and stand in it, why? Because you die.

Seeing your buddy burned to a crisp in seconds, slowly dying and begging for mercy. That buddy that you have shared many battles with. Yeah, that'd take some PTSD on people, not to mention immediate emotional repercussions.

How about people hiding in shrubbery, or flora? You think a LAW is going to help get them out? Well sir I'd like to introduce you to the Japanese in WW2, and Viet-cong, it spreads, and does what fire does. It burns things, and it does it very well. Any good strategic thinker would pick a LAW, or a Flamethrower dependent on CIRCUMSTANCES, and recognize every tool has it's uses.

[EsToVnIa]

pls stop

[Vortukia]

pls stop

This is a fair, and calm willed debate. Nothing more.

[EsToVnIa]

no you're just spreading false, misguided information so pls stop

[Vortukia]

no you're just spreading false, misguided information so pls stop

False misguided information? Sorry to say kiddo, but if you really want to call something misguided and false, actually put the effort to look into it first.