NationStates

Hi, I'm planning a VBSS raid on a defended cargo ship on the high seas, and I want to do a stealthy approach if possible. Is it possible for me to approach with a SDV, or should I stick to helicopters or surface boats?

If the latter, can Very Slender Vessels survive in rough sea conditions?

If I approach from below, rather than by helicopter, what's the fastest way for the team to board? I imagine some kind of grappling hook system is the normal way to do it?

The normal way to do it is by helicopter.

Arthurista wrote:Hi, I'm planning a VBSS raid on a defended cargo ship on the high seas, and I want to do a stealthy approach if possible. Is it possible for me to approach with a SDV, or should I stick to helicopters or surface boats?

If the latter, can Very Slender Vessels survive in rough sea conditions?

If I approach from below, rather than by helicopter, what's the fastest way for the team to board? I imagine some kind of grappling hook system is the normal way to do it?

An SDV would find it nearly impossible to catch or even keep up with a cargo ship, especially on the high seas. It might be possible if it were at anchor, but if the ship is under way then helicopters and fast boats are really the only way, and helicopters are a bit safer.

How good was the Centurion tank in the post-war world? How did it compare to some of its contemporaries?

I'm thinking about fluffing out my 1950s military for a RP I've contemplating and the Centurion sure looks good, but I was wondering if this thread might have some thoughts on using the Centurion?

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:How good was the Centurion tank in the post-war world? How did it compare to some of its contemplaries?

I'm thinking about fluffing out my 1950s military for a RP I've contemplating and the Centurion sure looks good.

Probably one of/the best in the world until 1960 or so, but a lot of its reputation came from the great crews in them rather than its cardinal qualities

Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:How good was the Centurion tank in the post-war world? How did it compare to some of its contemporaries?

I'm thinking about fluffing out my 1950s military for a RP I've contemplating and the Centurion sure looks good, but I was wondering if this thread might have some thoughts on using the Centurion?

Other NATO armies were using Leo 1s, AMX-30s and M-60A3s until the early-90s. 105mm Centurions with decent upgrades could probably have remained competitive until then. In the 50s it was the western MBT par excellence.

How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

on a wider strategic level?

not much

citizen soldiers

memes

etc etc

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

If the words of actual Marines are to go by: Alot. I read a book awhile ago by a Marine Lt. who served in Anbar, who mentioned that despite all the training his platoon performed, it was worth nothing compared to having combat experience.

Western Pacific Territories wrote:

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

If the words of actual Marines are to go by: Alot. I read a book awhile ago by a Marine Lt. who served in Anbar, who mentioned that despite all the training his platoon performed, it was worth nothing compared to having combat experience.

Tbh, I have to doubt that; there are plenty of cases of "battle-hardened" militias getting the ever-loving shit kicked out of them by trained armies with less combat-experience.

Granted, a lot of that probably comes down to equipment superiority, but there are still lots of cases of inferior forces of trained soldiers either defeating or inflicting disproportionate damage against superior forces of combat-experienced (but not necessarily well-trained) militaries, paramilitaries, and militias.

Experience is a good thing in a narrow sense that it makes you better at something, but it doesn't make you better at all things always.

How you learn to do the task and the experience you have with the task is good so long as you're doing the task well. If you learn and practice in a wrong, or suboptimal way, that can be to your disadvantaged.

The parallels should be obvious.

Questers wrote:Experience is a good thing in a narrow sense that it makes you better at something, but it doesn't make you better at all things always.

How you learn to do the task and the experience you have with the task is good so long as you're doing the task well. If you learn and practice in a wrong, or suboptimal way, that can be to your disadvantaged.

The parallels should be obvious.

^ From the grave

Also:

In the wake of anti-CSA stuff in the US this week or whatever, some revisionist anti-RE Lee articles comnig out. Lots of it lies. Sad!

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

Well is possible to achieve a high-level of professionalism in armies without much or any combat experience it is very difficult for these forces to innovate and they tend to lag behind more experienced force in tactics and technology. Canadian-Ukrainian military cooperation has from what I hear been quite informative for both sides; the Ukrainian army is experienced with contemporary Russian tactics but unprofessional, the Canadian army is highly professional but has no shooting war experience at all.

Austrasien wrote:

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

Well is possible to achieve a high-level of professionalism in armies without much or any combat experience it is very difficult for these forces to innovate and they tend to lag behind more experienced force in tactics and technology. Canadian-Ukrainian military cooperation has from what I hear been quite informative for both sides; the Ukrainian army is experienced with contemporary Russian tactics but unprofessional, the Canadian army is highly professional but has no shooting war experience at all.

So I imagine what combat experience the Canadians gained in Afghanistan isn't all that applicable in an environment with opposing tanks and arty?

Arthurista wrote:

Austrasien wrote:
Well is possible to achieve a high-level of professionalism in armies without much or any combat experience it is very difficult for these forces to innovate and they tend to lag behind more experienced force in tactics and technology. Canadian-Ukrainian military cooperation has from what I hear been quite informative for both sides; the Ukrainian army is experienced with contemporary Russian tactics but unprofessional, the Canadian army is highly professional but has no shooting war experience at all.

So I imagine what combat experience the Canadians gained in Afghanistan isn't all that applicable in an environment with opposing tanks and arty?

COIN and infantry experience. Plus IED/MRAP experience too. About the basic gist of it no?

Does anyone know much about the development of British armoured reconnaissance late-60s to 80s? What was the point of having the Scorpion, Scimitar, Sabre and Fox all tasked with roughly the same roles?

Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:How much does actual combat experience matter in modern, first-world armies?

It's the difference between reading about engineering in a textbook and then actually doing engineering in real life. You can be a competent mathematician in both cases, but you're going to still make a lot of bad mistakes when it comes to bending metal if you don't have much practical understanding of machining.

Like Viky said, it drives innovation. Sure it's easy enough to say "oh look at UAVs", but until you know how they're used in combat, it's hard to verify if your memes are valuable.

Arthurista wrote:

Austrasien wrote:
Well is possible to achieve a high-level of professionalism in armies without much or any combat experience it is very difficult for these forces to innovate and they tend to lag behind more experienced force in tactics and technology. Canadian-Ukrainian military cooperation has from what I hear been quite informative for both sides; the Ukrainian army is experienced with contemporary Russian tactics but unprofessional, the Canadian army is highly professional but has no shooting war experience at all.

So I imagine what combat experience the Canadians gained in Afghanistan isn't all that applicable in an environment with opposing tanks and arty?

It's applicable if you only ever intend to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Trenches still viable yes/no?

Kekonistan wrote:Trenches still viable yes/no?

A hasty slit trench is always viable. The effort on a full on system may not be.

SHOVELS.
https://youtu.be/fzs_dYE6MjA

Arthurista wrote:Does anyone know much about the development of British armoured reconnaissance late-60s to 80s? What was the point of having the Scorpion, Scimitar, Sabre and Fox all tasked with roughly the same roles?

If you can find George fourty's scorpion book it pretty much lays out the entire CRV story.

Scorpion and similar were to work together shooting tanks and APCs respectively whilst Spartan carried dismount recce teams and surveillance radar, striker provided heavy AT overwatch and sultan coordinated everything.

Fox and given were for longer ranged stuff when roads were available, be a bit lighter and mote deployable and to provide recce for mechanized rather than armoured inf formations (IIRC but I'll double check).

Sabre came out of the retirement of fox and the realisation that the 76mm gun was now pretty useless so they stuck the better fix turrets on some of the better condition scorpion hulls. It was pretty much required due to the endless story of generally fuckery that was all the follow on recce programs that finally ended in Ajax SV. Fox got replaced with WMIKs and eventually jackel.

Prior to CRV recce was Saracens and saladins

Would WP be capable of setting residential housing on fire? Especially if delivered via artillery.

Also, how long would the smoke last in a common arty round?

Kekonistan wrote:Trenches still viable yes/no?

that is to say

trenches are very useful for protecting yourself from shrapnel, bullets and other unpleasant things like that, and they are probably going to be dug if your troops have the time to do so, so yes they're viable

North Arkana wrote:

Kekonistan wrote:Trenches still viable yes/no?

A hasty slit trench is always viable. The effort on a full on system may not be.

SHOVELS.
https://youtu.be/fzs_dYE6MjA

That was the video that actually made me ask this question

Taviana SSR wrote:Would WP be capable of setting residential housing on fire? Especially if delivered via artillery.

Very unlikely. Most houses do not have inflammable roofs.

WP particles have zero penetration so they cannot burn anything which is not directly exposed and there is very little combustion energy in the individual chunks that fall to the ground.